By: Maulana Sayyed Saeed Akhtar Rizvi (r.a.)
Introduction:
The foremost books on Islamic history “Al-Maghaazi” of Ibn Is’haaq
and its summary “Seerah al-Nabi (s.a.w.a.)” of Ibn Hisham were written
in the second and third centuries A.H. These were followed by
“Tarikh-e-Tabari” by Muhammad Ibn Jareer (or Jurair) al-Tabari also in 3rd Century A.H.
It should be borne in mind that these original books on Islamic
history were considered a part of Islamic traditions and like the
traditions they even had a chain of narrators for every incident. The
problems faced in the narration of history and traditions are therefore
the same. The subject matter of both is equally important. The first two
Caliphs had banned the writing as well as oral narration of traditions.
Moaviyah, during his reign, established an institution for forging and
popularizing traditions. According to my knowledge, this was the first
governmental propaganda machinery in the world. The main aim of this was
to popularise false traditions in praise of the Caliphs, to project the
Bani Umayyah as the most respected family of Quraish and the real
relatives of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and on the other hand to
ascribe all evils to Ameerul Momeneen Ali Ibn Abi Talib(a.s.) and his
ancestors. All those who would present such forged traditions were
richly rewarded, granted high offices in the government hierarchy and
would be included in the close coterie around the caliph and his
governors. While those who would oppose this would have their lives,
wealth and respect threatened. This brief article cannot delve into the
details of those dark times. Those desirous of details should refer to
“Kitabul Hadith” of Abul Hasan Ali Ibn Madaaeani or the eleventh volume
of “Sharh-o- Nahj al-Balaaghah” of Ibn Abi al-Hadid al-Motazeli (Cairo
Edition).
This process of criticising and humiliating the family of the Holy
Prophet (s.a.w.a.) coupled with honouring and respecting their enemies
went on for more than 90 years. During this period, generations passed
who used to consider the Bani Umayyah as the real family of the Holy
Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and embraced the cursing of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.)
in the sermons of Fridays and days of Eid as a practice of the Holy
Prophet (s.a.w.a.).
Incidentally, it is necessary to clarify that the Bani Umayyah did
not even consider Hazrat Ali (a.s.) as the fourth Caliph. Their view was
that (God Forbid) Hazrat Ali (a.s.) usurped the caliphate for 4-5
years. This belief was prevalent till the time of Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbal
(exp.241 A.H.) who initially subscribed to this notion. Later, however,
he changed his belief and started considering Hazrat Ali (a.s.) as the
fourth rightly guided Caliph. The other scholars of Ahle Tasannun even
criticised him for this.
This propaganda of about 150 years resulted in prevalence of
thousands of forged traditions that wrongly indicated that Ameerul
Momeneen Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) willingly acknowledged the Caliphate
of the other Caliphs and had given the oath of allegiance to them. Also,
the Caliphs used to take the advice of Hazrat Ali (a.s.) in matters of
governance and he (a.s.) like a loyal subject used to follow their
instructions. Even such false traditions were made rife which gave the
impression that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and the Holy Imams (a.s.)
used to commit mistakes (we seek refuge in Allah). Such forged
traditions served dual purposes. On one hand, a doubt was created about
the infallibility of these (holy) personalities and on the other hand,
an excuse was found for the characterless, lustful and sinning lives of
the Caliphs of Bani Umayyah. How could one then question the misdeeds of
the fallible Caliphs when even the infallible Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was
not safe from committing mistakes?
Such was the situation in the initial period of Islamic history.
During this very period, books of traditions and history began to be
written. Naturally, most of the traditions present in these books
reflect the mood of that era. As a result, such an untrue historical
record was created which presented a picture of unity between the family
of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and the Caliphs. They presented that Hazrat
Ali (a.s.) had given his oath of allegiance and was regularly consulted
by the Caliphs. There existed such mutual adoration between these two
groups that Hazrat Ali (a.s.) married off his daughter to Umar Ibn
Khattab and blah, blah, blah.
In Iran, I (viz. Maulana Sayyed Saeed Akhtar Rizvi (r.a.)) have
explicitly mentioned this reality in various lectures that a correct
analysis of historical matters has been undertaken by the scholars of
India and Pakistan in the last 100 years. As a result, fact has been
sieved from fiction. It is a matter of remorse that the scholars of
Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, etc blindly narrate from the writings of Tabari and
his ilk in their works as if his is the final word.
Refusal to Pay Allegiance
The only question which I want to clarify in this article is whether
Ameerul Momeneen(a.s.) had paid allegiance to the Caliphs? Traditions
and historical records from the Ahle Tasannun show that till Janabe
Zahra (s.a.) was alive, she did not consent to Hazrat Ali (a.s.) giving
allegiance to Abu Bakr. After six months, when Janabe Zahra (s.a.)
expired and the people stopped honouring Hazrat Ali (a.s.) as before, he
paid allegiance to Abu Bakr. History however gives us three proofs
which contradict this version.
The First Argument
The first instance is when Umar had formed a committee to select a
caliph after him. This has been called “Shura” in history. Hazrat Ali
(a.s.), Usman, Talhah, Zubair, Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqaas and Abdur Rahman Ibn
Auf were members of this committee. The selection of the Caliph was
left unto them. They were to select a Caliph from among themselves. It
was also ordered that if five of them agree on one person and the sixth
opposes them then he should be killed. If four of them agree on one
person and two oppose them then they two should be beheaded. If there
are two groups of three each then that group should be accepted in which
there is Abdur Rahman Ibn Auf and if the other three don’t accept then
all the three should be killed.
Here, it should be mentioned that Abdur Rahman Ibn Auf was the
brother in law of Usman. Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqaas and Abdur Rahman Ibn Auf
were cousins and from the same family of Bani Makhzum. Looking at the
tribal bias present among the Arabs, it is unthinkable that Sa’d would
oppose Abdur Rahman or that Abdur Rahman would ignore Usman. In this
way, three votes were already in Usman’s favour including the deciding
vote of Abdur Rahman. As regards Talhah, he was from the family of Abu
Bakr (Bani Tamim). After the incident of Saqifah e Bani Sadah there was
extreme enmity between Bani Hashim and Bani Tamim. Also in the battle of
Badr, Hazrat Ali (a.s.) had killed the paternal uncle of Talhah, Omair
Ibn Usman and also two brothers of Talhah, Usman and Malik. Hence, it
was not possible that Talhah would support Hazrat Ali (a.s.). After the
formation of this committee, Hazrat Ali (a.s.) had told his uncle Abbas,
“Even this time,, this matter has gone out of our hands”.
Considering this composition of the “Shura” and analysing its
effects, what happened later on is of no surprise. At the very outset,
Talhah withdrew in favour of Usman. Zubair withdrew in favour of Hazrat
Ali(a.s.) and Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqaas withdrew in favour of Abdur Rahman
Ibn Auf. Abdur Rahman Ibn Auf then proposed that if he is given the
authority to select the Caliph, even he will withdraw himself. Now, only
Hazrat Ali (a.s.) and Usman remained. For two days continuously, Hazrat
Ali (a.s.) presented such strong arguments proving his rights that all
were dumb-founded. The actual aim of installing Usman as Caliph seemed
to be getting foiled. In the night, Abdur Rahman Ibn Auf visited
Amr-e-Aas and narrated the delicate situation to him. Amr-e-Aas
suggested to him: “Tomorrow morning, you present the Caliphate to Hazrat
Ali (a.s.) on the condition that he would act according to the book of
Allah, the way of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and the method of the Caliphs.
Ali (a.s.) would not accept the method of the Caliphs. Thereafter, you
put the same conditions before Usman and he will gladly accept.
Instantly, you pay allegiance to him.” At that time Abdur Rahman
expressed his reservations that what if Hazrat Ali (a.s.) accepted these
conditions? Amr e Aas replied that he will never accept the method of
the Caliphs.
As predicted, the same occurred on the third day. Hazrat Ali (a.s.)
flatly refused to accept the method of the previous Caliphs. The same
conditions were put before Usman. He gladly accepted and was installed
as the Caliph.
Why was Amr-e-Aas so sure that Hazrat Ali (a.s.) would not accept the
method of the previous Caliphs? If Hazrat Ali (a.s.) had already given
his allegiance to them, then why was he so dead against accepting their
methods that he even rejected the caliphate which was presented to him?
If no one in this group asked, why anyone later also did not ask Hazrat
Ali (a.s.) that since he had already given his allegiance to Abu Bakr
and Umar, why he refused to act as per their way? An unbiased reflection
on these questions will amply clarify the fact that Hazrat Ali (a.s.)
had not paid allegiance to them and neither did he like their way.
The Second Argument
After meeting Imam Husain(a.s.), Umar Ibn Sa’d wrote to Ibn Ziyad
that Imam Husain(a.s.) has agreed to return to Madinah or go to any
border state and live like a common man or go to Yazid and after giving
him the oath of allegiance accept his decision. (The third condition was
added by Umar Ibn Sa’d himself and is not supported by any other
historical document). Ibn Ziyad was happy on reading the contents of
this letter. Just as he was about to reply with his acceptance, Shimr
instigated him. He said; “Husain(a.s.) will be further strengthened if
he leaves your area without giving allegiance to you and you will be
weakened”. Consequently, Ibn Ziyad rejected the proposals of Umar Ibn
Sa’d and replied thus: “I have not sent you to make peace with Husain
(a.s.) nor to make recommendations for him. If Husain (a.s.) and his
companions are ready to obey me, send them to me. Otherwise fight them,
kill them and after their deaths trample the corpse of Husain (a.s.)
with horses. If the carrying out of these orders is not acceptable to
you, you may hand over the command of the army to Shimr as I have
authorised him so.”
When Shimr handed over this letter to Umar e Sa’d, he realized that
this is the scheming of Shimr. He retorted angrily “I strongly suspect
that you dissuaded Ibn Ziyad from accepting my conditions. The matter
which I was trying to solve has been spoilt by you. By God! Husain
(a.s.) will never agree to obedience (to Ibn Ziyad) as in his chest
beats the heart of his father.[1]
This clearly indicates that neither Hazrat Ali (a.s.) had paid
allegiance to any one nor is Imam Husain (a.s.) going to do so. Had
Hazrat Ali(a.s.) given allegiance, Shimr would have definitely replied
that since Ali(a.s.) has previously given allegiance, Husain (a.s.) too
would follow suit. This conversation amply demonstrates that till the
Muharrum of 61 A.H., it was clear to friends as well as enemies that
Hazrat Ali (a.s.) had not paid allegiance to anyone.
Also, this statement of Umar e Sa’d also refutes the third option
(which he had added from his side) in his letter to Ibn Ziyad that Imam
Husain (a.s.) is ready to pay allegiance to Yazid (l.a.). Now, in his
argument with Shimr, he mentioned the fact that Imam Husain (a.s.) will
never accept submission.
The Third Argument
Now let us analyse the (Sunni) view in relation to the allegiance.
This view clearly states that neither Janabe Zahra(s.a.) has herself
paid allegiance to Abu Bakr and Umar nor did her husband. The virtues
and merits of Janabe Zahra(s.a.) are an integral belief of all Muslim
sects. She is a part of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and the leader of
all the women as well as of the women of the Paradise. Yet, she has not
given allegiance to Abu Bakr while the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) remarked,
“One who dies without recognising the Imam of his time he dies the death of Jaahiliyyah (disbelief).”
Whether Janabe Zahra (s.a.) knew the Imam of her time or not? If Abu
Bakr was the Imam of the time then by refusing allegiance to him how can
she be the leader of the women of Paradise? There is no excuse except
to accept that in the view of Janabe Zahra (s.a.), Ameer ul Momeneen Ali
Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) was the Imam of the time and she accepted him as
her Imam. That is why she is the leader of the women of Paradise. If
after the death of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), Hazrat Ali (a.s.) was
the Imam, then after the death of Janabe Zahra (s.a.) how can he be
discharged of the same?
It is also worth noting that according to Shia belief, both Hazrat
Ali (a.s.) and Janabe Zahra (s.a.) were infallible. Neither paid
allegiance to Abu Bakr for six months. This proves that near them the
Caliphate of Abu Bakr was baseless and only by refusing allegiance to
him they can remain on the path of truth. If refusal of allegiance was
the correct thing for six months, how can giving the allegiance become
the correct thing after six months? If paying allegiance was the right
thing to do, then why Janabe Zahra (s.a.) opposed it throughout her life
and Hazrat Ali (a.s.) stayed away from it for six months.
Conclusion
It is clear that refusing allegiance is a completely separate matter
from that of giving correct advice when asked for. Avoiding bloodshed
in-spite of opposition is again a separate issue altogether.
It is now beyond doubt that Hazrat Ali (a.s.) hadn’t paid allegiance.
Why did he then give correct advice when asked for on various
occasions? Among the many reasons for this is the saying of the Holy
Prophet (s.a.w.a.) that, “When advice is sought from a person then he should be true”.
Thus, correct advice should be given. Also, these advices used to be
given for the benefit of the Islamic Ummah. As the true Imam, it was the
duty of Hazrat Ali (a.s.) that he protects the interest of the Ummah.
As for avoiding bloodshed, Zaid Ibn Khalid referred to Imam Jafar
Sadiq(a.s.) the objection of some people that why Hazrat Ali (a.s.)
avoided fighting if was on the truth? He (a.s.) replied that to fight in
absence of reliable supporters is the responsibility given only to one
person and that is the Holy Prophet of Islam (s.a.w.a.). He is supposed
to wage a war all alone even in the absence of supporters as is
mentioned in the Holy Quran:
فَقَاتِل�’ فِي سَبِيلِ الل�’هِ لاَ تُكَلَ�’فُ إِلاَ�’ نَف�’سَكَ
“Fight then in Allah’s way; this is not imposed on you except in relation to yourself”[2]
For other people Allah mentions that:
وَ�…َن يُوَلِ�’هِ�…�’ يَو�’�…َئِذٍ دُبُرَهُ إِلاَ�’
�…ُتَحَرِ�’فاً لِ�’قِتَالٍ أَو�’ �…ُتَحَيِ�’زاً إِلَى فِئَةٍ فَقَد�’
بَاء بِغَضَبٍ �…ِ�’نَ الل�’هِ وَ�…َأ�’وَاهُ جَهَنَ�’�…ُ وَبِئ�’سَ
ال�’�…َصِيرُ
“And whoever shall turn his back to them on that day– unless
he turn aside for the sake of fighting or withdraws to a company– then
he, indeed, becomes deserving of Allah’s wrath, and his abode is hell;
and an evil destination shall it be.”[3]
Finally, Imam Sadeq (a.s.) said, “Ali (a.s.) did not have a group
which would help him in this. Hence waging a war was not his
responsibility. If he had a group of supporters he would definitely have
done so.”[4]
[1] Al Balaazari, Ansaab al-Ashraaf; Shaikh al-Mufid (r.a.), Kitabul Irshad(Al Mutamir ul Aalami lil fatitul Ash Shaikh al Mufid, 1413 A.H.); Baqir Sharif al Qarashi, Hayatul Imamul Husain(a.s.), V.3, First Edition, p.133
[2] Surah Nisaa (4): Verse 84
[3] Surah Anfaal (8): Verse 16
[4] Tafseer e Ayyashi, Tehran edition,V.2,p.5; Tafseer Al Mizan, V.5,p.25.
Categories:
English
0 comments:
Post a Comment
براہ مہربانی شائستہ زبان کا استعمال کریں۔ تقریبا ہر موضوع پر 'گمنام' لوگوں کے بہت سے تبصرے موجود ہیں. اس لئےتاریخ 20-3-2015 سے ہم گمنام کمینٹنگ کو بند کر رہے ہیں. اس تاریخ سے درست ای میل اکاؤنٹس کے ضریعے آپ تبصرہ کر سکتے ہیں.جن تبصروں میں لنکس ہونگے انہیں فوراً ہٹا دیا جائے گا. اس لئے آپنے تبصروں میں لنکس شامل نہ کریں.
Please use Polite Language.
As there are many comments from 'anonymous' people on every subject. So from 20-3-2015 we are disabling 'Anonymous Commenting' option. From this date only users with valid E-mail accounts can comment. All the comments with LINKs will be removed. So please don't add links to your comments.