Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

"Why didn't Ali fight for his khilafah?"

Rate this topic


zyzz

Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

Ayatollah Gulpaygani with the best response:

Tuesday, 08 December 2009 11:50 Ayatollah Saafi Gulpaygani

Ayatollah Saafi Gulpaygani

In relation to the issue of the oath of allegiance of the Commander of the Faithful that is said was taken from him – whether this be something that is verified or denied, and also, this noble personality remaining quiet and not participating in any type of activity of rebellion and not picking up arms to go against (those who stole his rights), and the pleasure and approval of this personality in relation to what had occurred: these are all things that are not established (according to the recorded events of history). 

The reluctance of those pure souls (the Companions) and the other great personalities – who in the beginning did not give the oath of allegiance; however, later on (as some people mention) did give the oath of allegiance – and also the large number of people who, in those specific and particular conditions gave the oath of allegiance in a particular way (as has been mentioned in history) is also neither confirmed nor established.

With his sword drawn out of the sheath and with the help and support of his gang, Umar roamed the streets of Medina threatening the people with death and forced them to give their oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr.

Please note the following points:

1. The belief of the Shia, who are of the People of the Text – through the utilization of the logical and related proofs – is this: the Imamate is a position that one is appointed into by Allah, and after the Prophet, that individual whose persona possesses all of the characteristics embodied in Islam except for Nubuwwah (prophethood) and who shares in the continuation of the same divine blessings of that personality (the Prophet) in all ways and forms is the one whose Wilayah (mastership) over all affairs of the society must be designated and appointed by Allah the Most High. The Commander of the Faithful, according to the countless texts (ahadith) and other proofs was the appointed caliph and the true Imam, and deviation from him to anyone else – even if all of the people are in agreement over that other person – is not permissible and is a case of: "Giving preference to one whom Allah has relegated low and leaving behind the one whom Allah has given preference to." 

Just as the Prophet is not permitted to grant the station or position of prophethood to anyone else, so too the Imam is not permitted to grant the station or position of Divinely-appointed leadership to anyone else. Therefore, supposing that after Imam Ali was refused (the station of caliphate) and then later on, the oath of allegiance was taken from him, or this noble personality – due to events that came up later on (which will be mentioned ensuing) – was rendered helpless to pledge the oath of allegiance, then the true meaning and significance of this sort of oath of allegiance was not achieved by this (forced act), and the correctness of the actions of the other party is not accepted.

2. If the caliphate (of Abu Bakr) was based on the truth, then this would imply that the hesitance of Imam Ali and Sayyidah Zahra (peace be upon them) and a large number of people and revered companions was not proper and that they were not on the path of the truth.

It is known that there are definite and decisive narrations from the noble Prophet of Islam which state that Ali is on the Truth, and the Truth is with Ali, and these two will never separate from one another. Therefore, if someone says that Imam Ali was not with the truth in this event or did not speak the truth or did not act upon the truth, then he is belying the Prophet.

Thus it is with no uncertainty that we say that Imam Ali, in this event and all other events and circumstances, was always on the truth, and his refusal to give the oath of allegiance was also not the refusal to be on the truth; rather, his refusal was the denial of falsehood.

3. The refusal of Imam Ali and a group of others to give oath of allegiance to the caliphate from the point of view of history is not something that can be denied, and even one of the contemporary poets from Egypt who was known by the title of "Poet of the Nile" in his poems has also admitted this. The refusal (to give the oath of allegiance) was so commonly accepted and indisputable such that in one of the letters that he wrote to Imam Ali, Muawiyah has mentioned this fact and in reply, Ali did not deny that he had not given the oath of allegiance; rather, the rightfulness and legitimacy of his denial and refusal and the oppression that he faced is mentioned in his own words in this writing (to Muawiyah) when he wrote: "You also want to taunt me by saying that when I refused to accept the caliphate of the First Caliph, I was dragged like a camel with a rope round my neck, and every kind of cruelty and humiliation was leveled against me." (Nahj al-Balagha, letter 28)

To summarize our point, not only is there no room for doubt or skepticism that Imam Ali and the rest of the clan of Bani Hashim and a large number of the companions refused to give their oath of allegiance to the caliph, rather, their refusal was known and evident for all to see.

However, if it is claimed that after those harsh and coarse events that took place, Imam Ali and those who supported him gave their oath of allegiance and that their oath of allegiance was by way of their own inward pleasure and their pure heart and intention, then it is not possible to substantiate this (claim), since the hadith (of this event) is a single narration (khabar-e-wahid), and in the terminology of the science of hadith, it is doubtful (mashkuk). In this hadith, many contrasts and irregularities can also be seen, which this point in time is not the place for discussion. Anyway, we are not able to classify their oath of allegiance as an authentic oath of allegiance that would have any basis in the Islamic legislation.

At this point we mention some reasons that IF indeed this oath of allegiance did occur in history, then why it may have taken place.

1. It was seen (by Imam Ali) that to stand up to what had occurred (the events of Saqifah) would not be possible except by resorting to an armed struggle, which was not conceivable, since it would have resulted in an internal war between the Muslims. The condition and situation (that the Muslim Ummah was in) was such that very recently, through the pains and troubles of the Noble Prophet and through the assistance of Imam Ali and others, the seed of true faith and conviction in the Oneness of Allah had just been sown in the hearts of the believers, and an internal war would not have served the cause of Islam. It would be through this act that the very foundations of Islam would be put at in danger and would force the Muslims to stand up in ranks against one another, whose outcome or conclusion would never be reached.

It was Imam Ali who had helped the Prophet in the establishment of this foundation (of Islam). It was through his truthfulness and sincerity and by putting his life in his own hands and through his self-sacrifices at all places and all times from the very first day (that built the religion). His heart throbbed for this religion, and he saw that if the defense of his own self meant the desolation and annihilation of these foundations, then for sure he would choose to save Islam and try to maintain the unity of the Muslims in face of the opposition of the Kuffar and would give this precedence to the adjudication of the truth. This would allow Islam to progress and advance, even though such a progress would be slower and take much longer.

Allah forbid that the religion come to a complete standstill and the movement that the Prophet had brought forth with the help of the people should stop for even one moment (if a war would take place amongst the Muslims) just so the groundwork could be laid down for the advancement of the religion of Islam and in order for the mandate and establishment of the Wilayah and Caliphate of Ali to take root in the future, just as happened later on.

With the passing of time, the truthfulness of the Ahlul Bayt (peace be upon them) and the blunders and mistakes of deviating from the (true) Imam that had been appointed was made apparent, and on their own, the people developed an attraction for the Noble Qur'an and the Ahlul Bayt and the true belief in the Imamate.

The opportunity also arose for the Ahlul Bayt to guide the people to the pure springs of Islam, the teachings of the religion, the exegesis of the Qur'an, and the true religion of Islam with all of its rules and regulations, political teachings, societal and ethical instructions, and guidelines. More important than all of this, the correct divine theological beliefs were conferred to the people.

However, if an internal war had taken place in Medina, then the corruption, deviation, sedition, and revolts that would have stemmed from this act would have put all things in danger of complete annihilation, and it was because of this reason that Imam Ali rejected the advice from Abu Sufyan for him paying oath of allegiance to Imam Ali, and considered this as an act that would initiate sedition and revolt.

2. The second reason for Imam Ali (hypothetically) giving oath of allegiance is that, just as can be deduced from a study of history, this noble personality had fear or concern for the life of himself and that of his family, and this fear or concern was something that Abbas, his uncle, was able to discern. It was his uncle who advocated him to pay the oath of allegiance, since if he was to be killed, then it would be Islam and the Muslims, who at that time were desperately in need of knowledge and enlightenment, who would have been in disadvantage and loss.

It was in such a circumstance in which it was not possible to have recourse in force and also one in which complete submission was also not in the best interest to deal with the situation that Imam Ali was very careful and critical (in how he dealt with the situation).

This noble personality, by choosing the path that he did, fulfilled a very heavy responsibility that was upon him; he exposed the truth, and at the same time, observed what was best for Islam in its entirety. His precious soul, which was ready to sacrifice its self in the path of Islam, was also protected, so that his blood would not have been shed uselessly simply to affirm the power of truth, and so that the fire of revolt, through which all things are scorched, would not be lit, and so that the opportunity (of Imamate and leadership of the community) whose acquisition was expected in the future would not go away.

In summary, Imam Ali acted according to the testament that was left by the Prophet and did not even cringe in carrying out the will by the amount of the head of a needle. The arena or environment that would cause the feelings or emotions of any brave, courageous, powerful person to be stirred or stimulated were all witnessed; however, he did not perform any act that he should not have performed, nor did he utter any words that should not have been issued. He acted with complete knowledge and by observing and weighing all angles of the situation.

However, all of these conditions and situations prove the truthfulness of Imam Ali and his desire for Islam and his acting not for his own sake. It is clear that this noble personality was completely annihilated and drowned in the Truth, and that which was important to him and had any value to him was Islam, the endurance of the code of Islam, and the interests of the Muslims.

In the conditions that he was put in, neither his staying quiet nor giving oath of allegiance by force and through coercion would give any credence to the rightfulness of the state of affairs at that time. Such an oath of allegiance would not absolve anyone of their religious responsibility, nor would it pardon anyone of their code of conduct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My (Saduq's) father: Sa`ad ibn `Abdillah narrated to us, he said: Ahmed ibn Muhammad ibn `Isa narrated to us, from al-`Abbas ibn Ma`roof, from Hammad ibn `Isa, from Hareez, from Burayd ibn Mu`awiyah, from Abu Ja`far عليه السلام: He abandoned calling the people unto himself so that they may be astray, but not leave Islam. That was more beloved to him than calling upon the people so that they reject him so that they may reject him all become kuffar. 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235028507-the-reason-imam-ali-did-not-fight-ahlul-khilaf/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Had Ali (as) fought for khilafah then the throng of munafiqeen would have exclaimed: "See? It was always about power over Arabs, not the will of the Divine." Now, the basirah of the Sunni would not understand many things but ok. He did ask for the consent of the people, had 40 from the companions answered his call he would have done exactly what the Sunnis ask now. But they did not. So the best thing to do was what he did. He kept preserving and spreading true Islam without temporal caliphate.

Imam Hassan (as) gave up khilafah to Muawiya because the big majority of people wanted and deserved that. What would any logical man do in his place when people sleep through your sermons, do not want to wage jihad, your barons undermine and sabotage your efforts, and your followers are such creatures that they pull the prayer rug out from under you and loot your tent before deserting you en mass on the way to battle? Such people are asking for and deserve muawiya because it is the decision of the Quran that a nation is ruled by a ruler of their own likeness.

Edited by Darth Vader
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Counter argumemt then given is

Then why did imam Hussain fight in karbala ? Surely lack of supporters  was a bigger issue on ashura then  at saqifa when a lot if veteran sahaba(including zubair)  were ready to fight abu bakr and co 

And did imam consider abu bakr and umar deviating from the  truth same level as later of uthman and then of talha/aisha and finally of muauwiyah  

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Imam Hussain (as) had no choice but to fight. Yazeed asked the governor of Hijaz to "either get his bayyah or kill him". His supporters did not want to leave him and understandably they saw no point in living on without him.

As for Zubair he was all but unreliable. The Imam once said about him that on one day Zubair is a momin but on the next day he is without eemaan. Anyway, he asked for 40 but got 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

The problem is events around saqifa have been so tainted by polarizing views in hadith on both sides  that a more objective study is needed if indeed possible

One one hand we are told imam had 4 supporters(who are all muhajireen)  and   on other when to comes to proving the invalidity of abu bakrs caliphate opposition of people from differemt tribes  (ansar ummavi yememi etc) is cited.

Circumstantial evidence probably points to a much bigger support for Ali than traditonally  believed e.g its generally accepted except usamah b zayd bamu Hashim withheld bayah along with Ali, if we count the adult members   of this tribe and their allies they are not insignificant and include several badri and other important sahaba.

Additionally if we look at the broad based support Ali enjoyed at time of uthmans fall 20 yrs or so after saqifa (most of which we are told he spent in poltical exile) then the Ali who until very recently been  at the forefront of poltical life in prophets life must have had more support at saqifa esp given that many of those stalwart companions which shia hold in high honor were alive and active unlike 36 AH when many like  salman miqdad abu dharr Sons of Harith were dead

Both sunni and shia tend to see events like saqifa through a sectarian lens and this glosses over  details and ignores nuances which are problematic to their version of events  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can find the answer of this question in history books. Here is the clue, read what Imam Ali (a.s) replied to Abu Sufyan when he suggested him to draw sword for his right of caliphate.

"Abu Sufyan was out of Medina when the Prophet died and as soon as he knew that the Muslims paid homage to Abu-Bakr, he became furious and went, having a proposal, to meet Abbas, the Prophet an ‘Ali’s uncle. He said to him: “The people have entrusted the caliphate to Taym (Abu- Bakr's family) neglectfully and they have deprived the Hashemites (the Prophet's family) of their right and then ‘Umar, this hot-tempered of Adiy (‘Umar’s family) will rule over us. Let us go to ‘Ali and ask him to come out and get his legal right.”
They came to Imam ‘Ali (as). Abu-Sufyan said to him: “Give me your hand to pay homage to you and if anyone disagrees, I will fill all the streets of Medina with cavalrymen.”

I am stopping here, to ask you, what would happen if Imam Ali (a.s) accepted this offer?

 

Edited by Salsabeel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
6 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

The problem is events around saqifa have been so tainted by polarizing views in hadith on both sides  that a more objective study is needed if indeed possible

I think the funeral of the holy Prophet (pbuh) and the event of the army of Osama and the historical fact that only a handful of people attended his funeral (14 in total?) has many eye opening answers. Also why was he buried inside Ayesha's house and not in Jannatul Baqee' like the others? Why Ayesha insisted and why did she regret afterwards? Why did she and abu bakr force feed the prophet some medicine (bukhari)? Medicine of what ailment? One thing is for certain that every detail is not in the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
2 hours ago, Salsabeel said:

You can find the answer of this question in history books. Here is the clue, read what Imam Ali (a.s) replied to Abu Sufyan when he suggested him to draw sword for his right of caliphate.

"Abu Sufyan was out of Medina when the Prophet died and as soon as he knew that the Muslims paid homage to Abu-Bakr, he became furious and went, having a proposal, to meet Abbas, the Prophet an ‘Ali’s uncle. He said to him: “The people have entrusted the caliphate to Taym (Abu- Bakr's family) neglectfully and they have deprived the Hashemites (the Prophet's family) of their right and then ‘Umar, this hot-tempered of Adiy (‘Umar’s family) will rule over us. Let us go to ‘Ali and ask him to come out and get his legal right.”
They came to Imam ‘Ali (as). Abu-Sufyan said to him: “Give me your hand to pay homage to you and if anyone disagrees, I will fill all the streets of Medina with cavalrymen.”

I am stopping here, to ask you, what would happen if Imam Ali (a.s) accepted this offer?

 

I understand but thats not the support im talking about 

The ansar supoort and of other sahaba had nothing  to do abu sufyans claim

Even the couple of ummavis who supported  Ali at that time were the early converts not Tulaqa like abu sufyan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, Darth Vader said:

I think the funeral of the holy Prophet (pbuh) and the event of the army of Osama and the historical fact that only a handful of people attended his funeral (14 in total?) has many eye opening answers. Also why was he buried inside Ayesha's house and not in Jannatul Baqee' like the others? Why Ayesha insisted and why did she regret afterwards? Why did she and abu bakr force feed the prophet some medicine (bukhari)? Medicine of what ailment? One thing is for certain that every detail is not in the books.

Indeed there is a lot of scattered information in tarikh and hadith and whenever it is collected its usually done for a sectarian agenda on either side but less for historical accuracy

E.g funeral you mentioned also reports family of abbas esp his son fadl in active role of support of Ali yet they dont get the same admiration of shias as for example bilal or abu dharr do ...? Similar is the lack of mention of other banu Hashim sahaba who were  are told stood with Ali in that initial period.

There are similar inconsistencies in the Sunday school version of sunnis 

The biographies and history of expeditions immediately after demise of prophet are are generally untapped source esp for english speaking audiences     

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
On 2017-5-16 at 7:08 AM, zyzz said:

I have heard many Sunnis say things like:

If you ever see this question ask why the Prophet (s) didn't fight the Mushrikeen for the first 13 years of his prophethood? Ask why the Prophet (s) only fought when he had the support of hundreds of Muslims?

Subhanallah, they may realise how much Imam Ali's (as) life reflected the Prophet's (s).

Because at that time he was commanded by Allah through revelation that he must give Dawah to them. 

if Allah wanted him to fight with the Quraysh from day one then he could have easily supported the Prophet (peace be upon him) with an army of Angels would could`ve easily obliterated the Quraysh right away but Allah had a different plan. 

The comparison is wrong because the Prophet (Peace be upon him) never allowed the Kuffar to become the Imam of Muslims. 

 

On 2017-5-16 at 7:08 AM, zyzz said:

Similarly, if you see a Sunni asking:

Reply with:

Why did the Prophet (s) give up Mecca to the Mushrikeen at the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah if he knew that Mecca was the right of the Muslims AND he knew the Muslims were more powerful than the Mushrikeen?

I don`t know where you got that from but I don`t think the Muslims of Medinah were more powerful than the Quraysh and their allies at the time of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. Even if they were stronger than it doesn`t makes any difference because the Prophet (Peace be upon him) was a Prophet of Mercy. He wanted to peacefully spread the message of Islam and eventually by the grace of Allah have the entire Arabian peninsula and beyond voluntarily/willing embrace the message of Islam. 

 

But the case of Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra) is different. Shi`as claim that Naudhubillah Hypocrites forcefully seized the Caliphate from him and forced the Muslim masses to give allegiance to them and in the process 99% of the Muslim Ummah became Murtads Naudhubillah. Do you realize there is a different of heaven and hell between the two cases ? 

 

On 2017-5-16 at 7:08 AM, zyzz said:

Hopefully any Sunnis reading this will devote some time thinking about these questions and researching these issues. May Allah guide us all.

Aameen.

I have discussed this issue in great detail with the members of this forum in an old threat but unfortunately i`m unable to find it right now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
On 5/16/2017 at 2:17 PM, Darth Vader said:

Had Ali (as) fought for khilafah then the throng of munafiqeen would have exclaimed: "See? It was always about power over Arabs, not the will of the Divine." Now, the basirah of the Sunni would not understand many things but ok. He did ask for the consent of the people, had 40 from the companions answered his call he would have done exactly what the Sunnis ask now. But they did not. So the best thing to do was what he did. He kept preserving and spreading true Islam without temporal caliphate.

Imam Hassan (as) gave up khilafah to Muawiya because the big majority of people wanted and deserved that. What would any logical man do in his place when people sleep through your sermons, do not want to wage jihad, your barons undermine and sabotage your efforts, and your followers are such creatures that they pull the prayer rug out from under you and loot your tent before deserting you en mass on the way to battle? Such people are asking for and deserve muawiya because it is the decision of the Quran that a nation is ruled by a ruler of their own likeness.

Marvelous words

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...