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

Ridda --> Jamal --> Siffin --> Karbala

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

This is purely an academic discussion and not meant to offend anyone.

I am trying to draw parallels between 4 different islamic civil wars (battles).

  • Ridda Wars - Apostasy Wars under the reign of Caliph Abu Bakr against those either stopped being Muslims or refused to acknowledge the leadership of Abu Bakr.
  • Battle of Jamal: Caliph Ali (عليه السلام) against Aisha, Talha, Zubayr and others
  • Battle of Siffin: Caliph Ali (عليه السلام) against Muawiya
  • Battle of Karbala: Yazid against Imam Hussain (عليه السلام)

@Cherub786 stated:

On 9/16/2020 at 4:55 PM, Cherub786 said:

As for not paying Zakat, it is a personal sin. The tribes didn’t deny the obligation of paying Zakat, but they denied the political authority of the Caliphate to collect the Zakat from them and distribute it on their behalf. That is an example of challenging the writ of the State, which is authorized to collect the Zakat. Hence, the State or the Caliphate is justified in waging war against such rebellion.

The justification for Ridda (Apostasy) Wars was the rebels were challenging the writ of the State.

Based on the above, we can all agree that challenging the writ of the State is rebellion and not only is it a rebellion but the rebels can be labelled apostates because that is what the Caliphate chose to call them.

Q1) Based on the agreement above (blue), can we then assume the Aisha, Talha, Zubayr and other prominent 'sahaba' were apostates? Did they not rebel against Caliph Ali and challenged the writ of the State?

Q2) Based on the above agreement (blue), can we assume that Muawiya was an apostate for challenging the writ of the State?

Q3) Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) did not challenge the writ of the State directly but isn't not paying allegiance also an act of challenging the writ of the State? Some of the tribes in Ridda Wars were massacred simply for not paying allegiance to Abu Bakr so Yazid had a precedent set before him. Doesn't that justify that Yazid was right in going after Hussain and crushing the rebellion? Based on the agreement, does challenging the writ of the State make Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) an apostate (istagfirullah)?

Q4) How are the actions of Yazid different from the actions of Caliph Abu Bakr?

Please know that this is a serious academic discussion and not intended to hurt anyone's feelings.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

From my vantage point, we have 2 options here.

Option 1: 

Caliph Abu Bakr was correct in declaring those Muslims that 'challenged' the writ of the State as apostates and going to war against them. Since he is classified as a Caliph-e-Rashid, this would mean his actions were in complete compliance of the Quran and Sunnah. Therefore,

1) All those who opposed Imam Ali (عليه السلام) at Jamal should also be considered apostates.

2) All those who opposed Imam Ali (عليه السلام) at Siffin should be considered apostates.

3) From Yazid's vantage point, Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) also challenged the writ of the State and as such could be deem an apostate and Yazid's actions were justified. Shimr actually called out that Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) was preparing for hellfire when they lit a fire around the camps of the Ahlul Bayt at Karbala.

4) Yazid used the actions of Caliph Abu Bakr to justify his own actions.

Option 2: 

Caliph Abu Bakr was incorrect in declaring those Muslims that 'challenged' the writ of the State as apostates and going to war against them. He did not follow Quran; he did not follow sunnah and so was not a Caliph-e-Rashid. Therefore,

1) All those who opposed Imam Ali (عليه السلام) at Jamal were wrong but should not be considered apostates

2) All those who opposed Imam Ali (عليه السلام) at Siffin were wrong but should not be considered apostates.

3) Yazid was wrong in following the sunnah of Caliph Abu Bakr. Instead he should have followed the sunnah of Imam Ali (عليه السلام). When Abdullah bin Umar refused to pay allegiance to Imam Ali (عليه السلام), the people were hugely upset with him. The people forced Abdullah bin Umar give a promise that he would not work against the State. The people also asked for a guarantor for the said promise. Abdullah bin Umar could not find one so the magnanimity of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was such that he gave the guarantee on behalf of Abdullah bin Umar that Abdullah bin Umar would not work against Imam Ali (عليه السلام). <-- This is a Caliph-e-Rashid.

4) The actions of Yazid were not dissimilar to the actions of Caliph Abu Bakr. Both went on offensive wars against Muslims for non-criminal reasons. Both committed major and unforgivable sins.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...