Exposing Al-Tijani’s Lies in His Book: “Then I was Guided”
By Abu Sulaiman
Answering Al-Tijani's allegations against Mu'awiyah bin Abi Sufyan
It is taken for granted that Mu’awiyah bin Abu Sufyan, may Allah be pleased
at him, was among the most prominent who fought Ali bin Abi Talib, may
Allah be pleased at him, about the murder of Uthman. Mu’awiyah represented
the leadership of the opposing party against Ali at the battle of Saffeen.
Therefore, Al-Tijani had nothing more than pouring his anger on Mu’awiyah and
accusing him of oppression and aberration. I will represent Al-Tijani’s libels
against this companion and I will refute these allegations against Mu’awiyah
to defend the writer of the revelation whom the Prophet peace be upon him
said about: “O’ Allah, make him guided, a guider, and guide people through
him.” [Sunan Al-Turmidhi, Book
of “Virtues,” Chapter of “Virtues of Mu’awiyah,” #3842, see also
Saheeh Al-Turmidhi #3018]
Al-Tijani says: “Umar bin al-Khattab, who was well known for his strictness
towards his governors whom used to dismiss them on mere suspicions, was quite
gentle towards Mu’awiyah bin Abi Sufyan and never disciplined him. Mu’awiyah
was appointed by Abu Bakr and confirmed by Umar throughout his life, who never
even rebuked him or blamed him, despite the fact that many people complained
about Mu’awiyah and reported him for wearing silk and gold, which was
prohibited to men by the Messenger of Allah. Umar used to answer these
complaints by saying, "Let him be, he is the Kisra (king) of the
Arabs." Mu’awiyah continued in the governship for more than twenty years
without being touched or criticized, and when Uthman succeeded to the caliphate
of the Muslims, he added to his authority further districts and regions, which
enabled him to a mass great wealth from the Islamic nation and to raise armies
to rebel against the Imam (Leader) of the nation and subsequently take the full
power by force and intimidation. Thus he became the sole ruler of all Muslims,
and later forced them to vote for his corrupt and alcohol drinking son Yazeed,
as his heir and successor. This is a long story so I will not go into its
details in this book.” [“Then
I was Guided” p.93-94]
I say:
2) What does prove that Omar was lenient with Mu’awiyah, and never put
Mu’awiyah accountable for anything? And from where does Al-Tijani get his
allegations? Are not there any references he can guide us to? Otherwise, I would
tell him as the poet said: If you did not prove your claims, then the owner of
these claims is a claimant! But the fact is contrary to that. Ibn Al-Katheer
says in Al-Bidayah: (Once, Mu’awiyah entered upon Omar and Mu’awiyah was
wearing a green garment. The Companions looked at this garment. When Omar saw
that, he jumped to Mu’awiyah with a stick beating him. It made Mu’awiyah
saying: “O’ Commander of the faithful! Fear Allah for my sake!” Then Omar
returned to his sitting. The people asked Omar: “Why did you beat him O’
Commander of the Faithful? And there is no one like him among your people?” He
answered: “By Allah, I saw nothing but goodness from him, and I was told
nothing about him but goodness. If I was told something other than that, then
you would see something different to you (Mu’awiyah), but I saw him – he
pointed by his hand – and wanted to put down what has gone up in himself.”) [Al-Bidayah
wa Al-Nihayah, vol.8 p.128]
Second:
Al-Tijani’s claim that Mu’awiyah ordered to insult Ali, and that Mu’awiyah is not a writer of the revelation and the answer to these claims:
Al-Tijani says: “I looked for the reasons which led those Companions to change
the Sunnah [the tradition] of the Messenger of Allah (saw), and found that the
Umayyads (and most of them were Companions of the Prophet) and Mu’awiyah ibn
Abi Sufyan (writer of the revelation, as he was called) in particular used to
force people to swear at Ali ibn Abi Talib and curse him from the pulpits of the
mosques, as most of the historians have mentioned in their books. Muslim, in his
Sahih, wrote in a chapter entitled, "The virtues of Ali ibn Abi
Talib", the following: Mu’awiyah ordered his governors everywhere to take
the curse [of Ali ibn Abi Talib] as tradition, and that all the speakers must
include it in their speeches.” [Then I was Guided,
p106-107] He also says: “How could they judge him as a man who had
worked hard to promote Islam and to reward him, after he forced the people to
curse Ali and Ahl al- Bayt, the Family of the chosen Prophet.” [Then
I was Guided, p.121] And: “He was the one who forced people to
curse Ali and Ahl al-Bayt, the offspring of the Prophet, in every mosque, so
that it became a followed tradition for sixty years.” [Then
I was Guided, p.169] And: “And how could they call him "The
writer of the Revelations" since the revelation came upon the Messenger of
Allah (saw) for twenty-three years, and Mu’awiyah was a polytheist for the
first eleven years of them, and later, when he was converted to Islam, did not
live in Medina (for we could not find any historical reference to support that),
whereas the Messenger of Allah (saw) did not live in Mecca after al-Fath [the
conquer of Mecca by the Muslims]? So how could Mu'awiyah manage to write the
Revelation?” [Then I was
Guided, p.170]
I say:
1) It is a lie that Mu’awiyah ordered to insult Ali from the pulpits. There is
no rightful or clear evidence about that. Mu’awiya’s biography and manners
refuses this accusation. What some of the historians mention about that has no
value because when these historians presents these words about Mu’awiyah, they
do not differentiate between true or false stories. In addition, most of these
historians are Shia. But some of the Historians narrated in their books sound
stories and false stories, but they are excused when they attributed these
stories to their narrators so that we could judge these stories, whether to
accept them or reject them. Among these historians is Al-Tabari, who lived in a
time of Shia’s growing power. Al-Tabari says in the introduction to his
history: “Let the person who reads through our book know that my reliance on
whatever I recorded is on news and history with attribution to their narrators,
without using intellect except in rare occasions. The knowledge of what had
happened before, and what is going to happen at present time, is not reached to
those who did not see and their time did not allow them for it without being
told by people and without the interference of intellect. Therefore, whatever
news you find in my book about history that the reader may deny it, or the
listener may abhor it because he did not find it truthful according to him, then
let him know that we did not present it ourselves, but it came from some of the
people who narrated the story to us. We just presented what we have been
told.” [Tareekh Al-Tabari, Introduction, p.13]
Then, it is a must on Al-Tijani, when he takes the historians as an argument, to
mention the story that shows that Mu’awiyah ordered to insult Ali from the
pulpits. Then let him cry and shout as he wishes.
This hadeeth does not mean that Mu’awiyah ordered Sa’ad to insult Ali. But,
as it is obvious, Mu’awiyah wanted to know the reason that prevented Sa’ad
from insulting Ali. Therefore, Sa’ad gave him the reason, and we do not know
that when Mu’awiyah heard Sa’ad’s answer got angry with him or punished
him. Mu’awiya’s silence is a correction for Sa’ad’s opinion. If
Mu’awiyah was despotic; forcing people to insult Ali as Al-Tijani claims, then
Mu’awiyah would not be quiet and would force Sa’ad to insult Ali, but
nothing of that happened. Hence, it is known that Mu’awiyah did not order to
insult Ali nor was pleased by that. Al-Nawawi says: “Mu’awiyah’s saying
does not declare that he ordered Sa’ad to insult Ali, but asked him for the
reason that prevented him from insulting. As if Mu’awiyah was saying to him:
“Have you refrained from insulting Ali as a result of piety, fear or anything
like that? If it was as a result of piety and veneration to refrain from
insulting, then you are rightful and if it were other than that, then there
would be another answer.” Or it might be that Sa’ad was in a group of people
who insults Ali and he did not insult Ali with them, and could not prevent them
and controverted them so Mu’awiyah asked him this question. They said: “And
it may have another explanation, that what prevented you from making Ali wrong
in his thought and opinion, and to show to people our good opinion and thought
and that Ali was wrong?” [Ibid. p250-252]
3) It is so strange that this Tijani objects on insulting Ali but he does not
abstain from insulting the best of the Companions i.e. Abu Bakr, Omar and
Uthman! Their (the Shias) books are full of that and among them is Al-Tijani’s
book itself. Therefore, I have to say: “These Rafidites, who claim to be
believers, have ignominy and lowness. Ignominy is fixed on them wherever they go
except with a rope from Allah and a rope from the people.” [Minhaj Al-Sunnah,
vol.4, p.498]
5) Al-Tijani says that revelation came down on the prophet peace be upon him for
twenty-three years during which Mu’awiyah was a mushrik (disbeliever)
for eleven years! I already said that Abu Sufyan asked the prophet peace be
upon him to make Mu’awiyah as a writer of the revelation and the prophet peace
be upon him accepted that and Mu’awiyah went on writing the revelation for
the prophet peace be upon him for complete four years, is this something
hard to believe? Then in delirium, Al-Tijani says: “When he (Mu’awiyah) was
converted to Islam, did not live in Medina (for we could not find any historical
reference to support that), whereas the Messenger of Allah (saw) did not live in
Mecca after al-Fath [the conquer of Mecca by the Muslims]?.” I say: Is the
preceding story does not prove that Mu’awiyah lived in Medina? Al-Turmithi
narrated from Abu Majliz who says: (When Mu’awiyah was about to leave,
Abdullah bin Al-Zubair and Ibn Safwan stood for him when they saw him.
Mu’awiyah said to them: “Set down, I heard the messenger of Allah peace
be upon him saying: “Whoever is pleased that men stand for him in respect,
then let him take his seat in hell.”) [Al-Turmithi,
Book of “Taking Permission,” #3755, see also Saheeh Al-Turmithi #2212]
Does not this hadeeth prove it too? But it seems that the prophet peace
be upon him ordered Ibn Abbas to call Mu’awiyah from Mecca!! I will not
rebuke Al-Tijani for saying, “We could not find any historical reference to
support that,” because if he sought it, he would have found it, but we ask
Allah for a cure for his fairness complex!
Third:
Al-Tijani’s claim that the reason Mu’awiyah killed Hijr bin Uday was because
Hijr refused to insult Ali and the answer to this claim:
Al-Tijani says: “When some of the Companions protested very strongly against
such a rule, Muawiah ordered their killing and burning. Among the famous
Companions who were killed at the order of Muawiah were Hijr ibn Adi al-Kindi
and his followers, because they protested and refused to curse Ali, and some of
them were buried alive.” [Then I was Guided, p.107]
He also says in another place: “How could they judge him as a promoter of
Islam when he killed Hijr Ibn Adi and his companions and buried them in Marj
Adhra in the Syrian desert because they refused to curse Ali ibn Abi Talib?” [Then
I was Guided, p.121]
So I say:
2) Mu’awiyah did not kill Hijr because he refrained from insulting Ali, and
this is calumniation. What the historians mentioned about the reason behind
killing Hijr bin Uday was that Ziyad, the ruler of Al-Kufah appointed by
Mu’awiyah, once gave a prolonged speech. So Hijr bin Uday called for the
prayer, but Ziyad went along with his speech. So, Hijr and his group threw
stones at Ziyad. Ziyad wrote Mu’awiyah telling him what Hijr did and Ziyad
reckoned that as corruption on earth. Hijr used to do this with the governor of
Al-Kufah who preceded Ziyad. Mu’awiyah ordered that Hijr be sent to him. When
Hijr reached there, Mu’awiyah ordered to kill Hijr. Mu’awiyah’s severity
in killing Hijr was because Hijr tried to transgress against the Islamic nation
and to break the bond of the Muslims and Mu’awiyah considered it as an
endeavor to corrupt the earth especially in Kufah where some groups of the
affliction first appeared against Uthman. If Uthman were lenient in this matter,
which ultimately lead to his death and lead the Islamic nation to the greatest
affliction and caused blood to run like rivers, then Mu’awiyah wanted to cut
this affliction from its roots by killing Hijr. Strange is this Al-Tijani when
he cries and mourns for the death of Hijr and at the same time does not object
on Ali when Ali fought the rebels against his caliphate at the battle of The
Camel and Saffeen, which caused the death of the best Companions and in
addition, the death of thousands of Muslims, although the reason was one i.e.
rebelling against the ruling of the caliph!
Fourth:
Tijani’s claim that Al-Hasan Al-Basri slandered Mu’awiyah and the answer to this claim:
Al-Tijani says: “Abu al-Aala al-Mawdudi wrote in his book "Caliphate and
Kingdom": Abu al-Hasan al-Basri said: Muawiah had four features, and if he
had only one of them, it would have been considered a great sin:
1.Making decisions without consulting the
Companions, who were the light of virtues.
2.Designating his son as his successor. His son was a drunkard, corrupt and wore
silk.
3.He claimed Ziyad [as his son], and the Messenger of Allah said, "There is
offspring for the honorable woman, but there is nothing for the whore."
4.His killing of Hijr and his followers. Woe unto him from Hijr and the
followers of Hijr.” [Then I was
Guided, p.107]
I answer:
Fifth:
Answering Tijani’s ill understanding of the happenings of the affliction
between Mu’awiyah and Ali:
Al-Tijani says: “When we ask some of our scholars about Muawiah's war against
Ali, who had been acknowledged by al-Muhajireen and al-Ansar, a war which led to
the division of Islam into Sunnis and Shiites and left it scarred to this very
day, they simply answer by saying, "Ali and Muawiah were both good
Companions, and both of them interpreted Islam in his own way. However, Ali was
right, therefore he deserves two rewards, but Muawiah got it wrong, therefore,
he deserves one reward. It is not within our right to judge for them or against
them, Allah- the Most High - said: "This is a people that have passed away,
they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall
not be called upon to answer for what they did" (Holy Qur'an 2:134).
Regrettably, we provide such weak answers that neither a sensible mind nor a
religion, nor indeed a law would accept. O Allah, I am innocent of idle talk and
of deviant whims. I beg You to protect me from the devil's touch.
How could a sensible mind accept that Muawiah had worked hard to interpret Islam
and give him one reward for his war against the leader of all Muslims, and for
his killing of thousands of innocent believers, in addition to all the crimes
that he committed? He was known among the historians for killing his opponents
through feeding them poisoned honey, and he used to say, "Allah has
soldiers made of honey."
How could these people judge him as a man who worked hard to promote Islam and
give him a reward for that, when he was the leader of a wrong faction? There is
a well known Hadith of the Prophet, and most of the scholars agree its
authenticity, "Woe unto Ammar .. he will be killed by the wrong
faction." And he was killed by Muawiah and his followers.
The question crops up over and over again. Which faction was right, and which
faction was wrong? Either Ali and his followers were wrong, or Muawiah and his
followers were wrong, and the Messenger of Allah (saw) explained everything. In
both cases, the proposition of the righteousness of all the Companions does not
hold ground and is incompatible with logic.” [Then
I was Guided, p.120-121]
I say:
1) I said that Mu’awiyah did not fight Ali except for the matter of Uthman.
Mu’awiyah saw himself as the guardian of Uthman’s blood, and Uthman was one
of his relatives, and Mu’awiyah relied on some prophetic hadeeths that show
and clear that Uthman would be killed as an innocent and describes the rebels as
hypocrites. Al-Turmithi and Ibn Majah narrated from Aysha who says: (The prophet
peace be upon him said: “O’ Uthman! If Allah one day gave you the
leadership of this nation, and the hypocrites wanted you to remove your clothes
which Allah had gave you, then do not do it.” The prophet said that three
times.) [Sunan Ibn Majah, Book of “Virtues of the
Companions of the Prophet peace be upon him,” #112. See also Saheeh Ibn Majah
#90] Ka’ab bin Murrah testified for Uthman’s innocence once in
front of Mu’awiyah’s army, and said: (If it were not for a hadeeth
that I heard from the prophet peace be upon him, then I would not have
taken a stand (did not support Mu’awiyah to punish Uthman’s murderers) and
the prophet mentioned the afflictions and acknowledged them. Then a masked man
passed by so the prophet peace be upon him said: “This guy at these
(affliction) days is on guidance.” So I went to the masked man and he was
Uthman bin Affan. I took Uthman to the prophet and asked him: “This one?”
The prophet answered: “Yes.”) [Al-Turmithi, Book of
“The Virtues,” #3704. See also Saheeh Al-Turmithi #2922] Also,
Abdullah bin Shaqeeq bin Murrah says: (The prophet peace be upon him
said: “Afflictions would agitate on earth as the horns of cows" Then a
masked man passed by and the prophet peace be upon him said: “This guy
and his companions at these (affliction) days would be on the right path.” So
I went to this guy and unmasked him and took him to the messenger of Allah peace
be upon him and I asked: “O’ Messenger of Allah, is he the one?” The
prophet said: “He is.” He was Uthman bin Affan.) [Musnad
Ahmad, Book of “Virtues of the Companions,” vol.1, p.449-450, #720. The
Examiner of the book said that this hadeeth has a true attribution.]
Mu’awiyah and his companions thought they were right according to this and
that they were on guidance especially when we know that the hypocrite rebels
against Uthman were in the army of Ali. Hence, Mu’awiyah and his companions
thought them on astray and therefore they made it lawful for themselves to fight
Ali and his faction.
3) Moreover, authentic traditions from the prophet peace be upon him says that
to leave the fight was better for both parties. The fight was neither mandatory
nor preferable. Although Ali was more deserving and closer to right than
Mu’awiyah was, if Ali left the fight, a great goodness would happen and the
shedding of the blood would be spared. Hence, Omran bin Haseen, may Allah be
pleased at him, banned the selling of weapons at the time of afflictions. He
says: “Weapons are not supposed to be sold in the affliction.” The same
saying was shared by Sa’ad bin Abu Waqqas, Muhammad bin Muslimah, Abdullah bin
Omar, Osamah bin Zayd, and many other of the first believers from the muhajireen
and Al-Ansar who isolated themselves from the affliction and did not
partake in the fight. Therefore, many Scholars from Ahl Al-Sunnah say: “It is
not conditioned to start fighting the aggressor party. Allah did not order to
start fighting them. Instead, He ordered that if two parties fought, then peace
should be done between them. Then if one of the two parties transgresses on the
other, then the transgressor should be fought.” [Minhaj
Al-Sunnah, vol.4, p.391] It is plain lie Tijani’s claim that
Mu’awiyah ordered to start the fight against Ali.
4) Even if we supposed that the people who fought Ali were insurgents and not depending on personal interpretation of texts, then it would not be considered as a slander in their belief and their deservance in entering heaven. Almighty Allah says: “If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the Command of Allah; but if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just), The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: so make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers; and fear Allah, that ye may receive Mercy.” [Surat Al-Hujarat, verses 9 and 10] Allah described the two parties by faith and made them brothers despite the fact they fought each other and transgressed on each other. Then what about if one of them transgressed on the other thinking he is right? Does it prevent him from being an interpreter, wrong or right? Therefore, Ahl Al-Sunnah ask Allah for mercy for the two parties, as Allah says: “And those who came after them say: "Our Lord! Forgive us, and our brethren who came before us into the Faith, and leave not, in our hearts, rancor (or sense of injury) against those who have believed. Our Lord! Thou art indeed Full of Kindness, Most Merciful." [Surat Al-Hashr, verse 10]
5) Authentic traditions prove that both parties have
the same claim and seek the truth they believe. These authentic traditions also
declare that the two parties are innocent from looking for caprice and following
falsehood. Al-Bukhari narrated in his Saheeh from Abu Hurayrah who says: (The
Messenger of Allah peace be upon him said: “Judgement Day will not come
until two parties fight with similar claims.”) [Saheeh
Al-Bukhari, Book of “Virtues,” Chapter of “Signs of Prophecy in Islam,”
#3413] This hadeeth, as you see, proves that the two parties have the
same demand and the same religion. Muslim narrated in his Saheeh from Abu Sated
Al-khudaro who says: (The messenger of Allah peace be upon him said:
“Renegades will pass through a group of Muslims. They would be killed by the
more deserving party of truth.”) [Muslim with
Explanation, Book of “Zakkat,” Chapter of “The Kharijites and their
characteristics,” #150] This hadeeth clears that both
parties ask for the truth and fight for it. Meaning that the two parties were
intending the truth and requesting it. This hadeeth also shows that the
truth lies with Ali because he was the one who fought these renegades i.e. the
Kharijites at Al-Nahrawan. Al-Nawawi says: “It is a declaration that both
parties are believers and fighting each other does not cancel their faith and
they should be not called impious.” [Ibid.
vol.7, p.235]
7) About the Hadeeth: “Ammar would be killed by the transgressor
party.” This hadeeth is one of the greatest evidences that the truth
lies with Ali but Mu’awiyah interpreted the meaning of the hadeeth differently
when Ammar’s death shocked Omro Bin Al-A’as and his son. Omro and his son
got astound. Ahmed narrated in his Musnad from Abu Bakr bin Muhammad bin Omro
bin Hazm from his father who says: (When Ammar bin Yaser was killed, Omro bin
Hazm entered upon Omro bin Al-A’as and said: “Ammar was killed and the
Prophet peace be upon him said that Ammar would be killed by the
transgressor party.” Omro bin Al-A’as stood fearing and vomiting until he
entered upon Mu’awiyah. Mu’awiyah asked him: “What is the matter?” Omro
answered: “Ammar was killed.” Mu’awiyah asked again: “So what if Ammar
was killed?” Omro answered: “I heard the messenger of Allah saying that
Ammar would be killed by the transgressor party.” Mu’awiyah told him: “…
were we the ones who killed him? Ali and his comrades killed him. They brought
him (to the war) and threw him into our lances (or swords).”) [Musnad
the people of Syria from Musnad Al-Imam Ahmed, vol.2, Musnad Omro bin Al-A’as,
#957, p.163. The Examiner of the book said the narrators of the story are
trustworthy]. Then the people used to say: “The one who killed
Ammar is the one who brought him.” Therefore, Mu’awiyah returned the
confidence to his army. Mu’awiyah said that because he could not imagine that
Uthman’s murderers were the right people in the light of the hadeeths
which prove that Uthman would be killed as an innocent and that his killers are
the oppressors. No doubt then, as Mu’awiyah was thinking, that the
transgressor party is the one within the army of Ali. But the truth that should
be said is that these thinkings are definitely false and that the truth is with
Ali. But Mu’awiyah’s party are excused in their interpretation because they
wanted the truth but did not get it. This what pushed Omro bin Al-A’as to
suggest to raise the Quran to stop the war because he had some of that hadeeth
in his heart.
8) If Al-Tijani insisted on making Mu’awiyah a despotic, then Al-Nasibah [The
ones who hate the household of the Prophet peace be upon him] would answer
that Ali was despotic too because Ali fought the Muslims for nothing but for the
sultanate. Al-Nasibah would also say that Ali was the one who started fighting
and shedding blood without a benefit for the Muslims. Then Ali retreated – as
Al-Nasibah would say – and made a peace with Mu’awiyah. Then Al-Tijani and
his Shia would not be able to answer this. If Al-Tijani took the hadeeth
of Ammar as an argument, then he would be answered that Allah did not put it a
condition to fight the transgressor party except when the transgressor party
starts to fight. But Ali was the one who started the fight, so what is the
answer of Al-Tijani? Many pages have been written by the Kharijites and
Mu’tazilah slandering Ali. What important to know is that for every argument
Al-Tijani gets against Mu’awiyah, there would be a similar argument from other
parties. Ahl Al-Sunnah are pleased by the two parties, and do not consider them
impious. Ahl Al-Sunnah say that the truth is with Ali may Allah be pleased at
him, and answer all the arguments that are presented from different sects
which defames Ali or Mu’awiyah because Ahl Al-Sunnah’s way is straight, not
like the Shia, and many thanks to Allah.
9) It is taken for granted for anyone who read something about the Imamiyah sect
that they attribute kufr to Mu’awiyah because he fought Ali. However, the fact
is that Al-Hasan bin Ali – and he is one of the infallible Imams according to
the Shia, therefore whatever he says is truth – made peace with Mu’awiyah
– as Al-Tijani admits, refer to “Then I was Guided, p.171” and gave
him allegiance. So, did the “infallible” Hasan made peace with a kafir and
gave him the leadership?? Or he made peace between two parties of Muslims as the
Prophet peace be upon him says: “My son is a master, and Allah may use
him to make peace between two parties of Muslims.” [Saheeh
Al-Bukhari, Book of “Afflictions,” #6629, vol.6] I please
Al-Tijani to give an answer?!
10) It is of great ignorance and lie Tijani’s allegation that Mu’awiyah
committed numberless crimes, and that he was known by historians to kill his
opponents by his famous way; giving them poisoned honey and Mu’awiyah saying:
“Allah has soldiers made of honey.” I want from Al-Tijani to guide us to
these historians so that we could make sure of this obvious allegation,
otherwise talk is easy.
11) The strange is that Al-Tijani dismisses Abu Bakr’s fighting against the
people who did not give Zakkat even though the war happened by the consensus of
the Ummah. And on the other hand, you see Al-Tijani standing with Ali in his
fight against Mu’awiyah which the companions disagreed about, did not give the
hoped results, and caused the death of thousands of Muslims! Perhaps the reason
is his said fairness and his said intelligence!
12) I can give the answer to Al-Tijani’s repeated and insisted question by
saying that the party of Ali was right, and Mu’awiyah was not a despotic, nor
a caller to falsehood, but he searched for the truth and did not find it.
Therefore, Mu’awiyah is rewarded for his religious interpretation. None of the
two was an oppressor or impious. To fall in guilt, does not slander the justice
of the guilty person. Anyway, the justice of the companions, all of them without
exception, is taken for granted through the Quran, Sunnah and consensus, and it
goes smoothly with rightful logic but it does not, of course, goes smoothly with
the false logic which is found in Al-Tijani!
13) If Al-Tijani haven’t had enough of this, then I would be compelled to give
him something from his guides, the Imamiyah, what proves that Ali and
Mu’awiyah are both rightful in their interpretation. Al-Kulayni mentioned in
his book, Al-Rawdah min Al-Kafi – which represents the basis and branches of
the Imamiyah sect – from Muhammad Bin Yahya who says: (I heard Abu Abdullah peace
be upon him saying: “Disagreement of Bani Al-Abbas is unavoidable, the
calling is unavoidable, and the coming of the twelfth Imam is unavoidable.” I
said: “And how is the calling?” He answered: ‘Someone will call from the
heaven in the beginning of the day: “Ali and his party are the winners.”’
He also said: “And someone will call in the end of the day: “Uthman and his
party are the winners!”’) [Al-Rawdah min Al-Kafi,
p.177, vol.8] And here is Ali bin Abi Talib makes a resolution that
Uthman and his party are people of Islam and faith, but the case is a matter of
interpretation, every person seeing himself on the right path in the matter of
Uthman. Al-Shareef Al-Ridi mentions in your book “Nahjul Balagha” that Ali
said: “In the beginning of our matter, the people of Sham and us met. It is
obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one.
We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His
messenger than them, nor they do. Our matter is one, except for our disagreement
in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.” [Nahjul
Balagha, vol.3, p.648]
Sixth:
Al-Tijani’s allegation that Mu’awiyah poisoned Al-Hasan, and the answer to
this claim:
Al-Tijani says: “How could they judge him a just Companion when he killed
al-Hasan, leader of the Heaven's youth, by poisoning him?” [Then
I was Guided, p.121] And he also says: “How could they judge him
like that when he was the one who poisoned al-Hasan ibn Ali, leader of Heaven's
youth? Perhaps they say, "This was an aspect of his ijtihad
[interpretation], but he got it wrong!"” [Then I
was Guided, p.169]
I say: This claim is false for several
reasons:
Seventh:
Al-Tijani’s claim that Mu’awiyah changed the caliphate from Shoura to a hereditary one, and the answer to this claim:
Al-Tijani says: “How could they judge him as being
correct after he had forced the nation to acknowledge him as a caliph and to
accept his corrupt son Yazid as his successor, and to change the Shurah
[consultative] system to a hereditary one?” [Then I
Was Guided, p.121]
Also: “After Ali, Muawiya took over the caliphate and changed it to a hereditary system within Bani Umayya, and after them came Bani al- Abbas where the caliphs succeeded one after the other either by personal nomination [from the previous caliph] or by means of force and seizure of power. From the beginning of the Islamic era until Kamal Ataturk - who abolished the Islamic caliphate - there has been no correct acclamation except that for the Commander of the Believers Ali ibn Abi Talib.” [Then I Was Guided, p.145]
And: “How could they judge his Ijtihad, when he was the one who took the nation's acclamation for himself by force, then gave it to his son Yazid after him, and changed the Shura system to a hereditary one.” [Then I Was Guided, p.169]
I say:
1) Mu’awiyah did not take the caliphate by force, but it was given to him by
Al-Hasan bin Ali after peace occurred between them. Al-Bukhari narrated in his
Saheeh that Al-Hasan Al-Basri says: “Narrated Al-Hasan Al-Basri: (By Allah,
Al-Hasan bin Ali led large battalions like mountains against Mu’awiyah. Amr
bin Al-As said (to Mu’awiyah), "I surely see battalions which will not
turn back before killing their opponents." Mu’awiyah who was really the
best of the two men said to him, "O 'Amr! If these killed those and those
killed these, who would be left with me for the jobs of the public, who would be
left with me for their women, who would be left with me for their
children?" Then Mu’awiyah sent two Quraishi men from the tribe of
'Abd-i-Shams called 'Abdur Rahman bin Sumura and Abdullah bin 'Amir bin Kuraiz
to Al-Hasan saying to them, "Go to this man (i.e. Al-Hasan) and negotiate
peace with him and talk and appeal to him." So, they went to Al-Hasan and
talked and appealed to him to accept peace. Al-Hasan said, "We, the
offspring of 'Abdul Muttalib, have got wealth and people have indulged in
killing and corruption (and money only will appease them)." They said to
Al-Hasan, "Mu’awiyah offers you so and so, and appeals to you and
entreats you to accept peace." Al-Hasan said to them, "But who will be
responsible for what you have said?" They said, "We will be
responsible for it." So, whatever Al-Hasan asked they said, "We will
be responsible for it for you." So, Al-Hasan concluded a peace treaty with
Mu’awiyah. Al-Hasan (Al-Basri) said: I heard Abu Bakr saying, "I saw
Allah's Apostle on the pulpit and Al-Hasan bin 'Ali was by his side. The Prophet
was looking once at the people and once at Al-Hasan bin 'Ali saying, 'This son
of mine is a Saiyid (i.e. a noble) and may Allah make peace between two big
groups of Muslims through him." [Saheeh
Al-Bukhari, Book of “Peacemaking,” vol.2, #2557]
2) Mu’awiyah was eager for people’s agreement to give allegiance to his son
Yazeed. He resolved to take allegiance to Yazeed as a crown prince. So he
consulted the grandest companions, the masters of the people and the
district’s governors. They all accepted. Delegations from the districts came
with acceptance to give allegiance to Yazeed. Many Companions gave him the
allegiance as well. Al-Hafedh Abdulghani Al-Maqdisay says: “His (Yazeed’s)
caliphate is rightful, sixty of the companions of the prophet peace be upon
him gave him the allegiance. Ibn Omar was one of them.”
[Qayd Al-Shareed min Akhbar Yazeed, by Ibn Khaldoun, p.70]
It is proven in Saheeh Bukhari that Ibn Omar gave allegiance to Yazeed and when the rebellion against Yazeed happened in Al-Medina, Ibn Omar gathered his family and warned them from revolting against Yazeed. Narrated Nafi': (When the people of Medina dethroned Yazid bin Muawiya, Ibn 'Umar gathered his special friends and children and said, "I heard the Prophet saying, 'A flag will be fixed for every betrayer on the Day of Resurrection,' and we have given the oath of allegiance to this person (Yazid) in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle and I do not know of anything more faithless than fighting a person who has been given the oath of allegiance in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle , and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone Yazid, by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me.") [Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Book of “Afflictions”, vol.7, #6694]
Ibn Al-Zubair and Al-Hussain disagreed on this allegiance but it does not defame this allegiance because it must have some objectors. From this we know that Mu’awiyah was eager to have the acceptance of the Ummah in giving the allegiance to Yazeed. If Mu’awiyah wanted to oppress and take the allegiance to Yazeed by force and coercion, as Al-Tijani claims, then Mu’awiyah would be sufficed by one allegiance and impose it forcibly on people. This Mu’awiyah did not do. Whoever wanted to refuse objected and Mu’awiyah did not force them to give the allegiance.
Eighth:
Al-Tijani claims that there had never been a correct allegiance in the history
of Islam from the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs until the era of Kamal
Atatork who ended the Islamic Caliphate except the Caliphate of the Commander of
the Faithful Ali Bin Abi Talib:
I say: this saying is only said by the least
person in understanding, the highest person in ignorance, and the most
blindfolded. I would say to this Tijani: What supported your false claim? And
what are the conditions of a correct allegiance? If you said that the consensus
of people is necessary for a correct allegiance, then I would say: Ali bin Abi
Talib was the furthest of the three caliphs from consensus. A lot of people
disagreed on the caliphate of Ali, a lot more than who disagreed on the
caliphate of the early three caliphates. Wars had been risen between Ali and his
opponents and Ali died before achieving Muslim’s unity on allegiance. If you
said that the caliphate of the three caliphs was by force, I would say: this is
of the biggest lies, and history proves you wrong. You by yourself said that the
caliphate was Shoura until Mu’awiyah turned it into a hereditary system. If
the opponents of Ali said that Ali wanted the caliphate by force, then their
argument would be stronger than yours would because Ali fought for his caliphate
until thousand of Muslim bloods were shed. If you claimed that the caliphate of
Ali is correct because it is proven through hadeeths, then I would say:
this is a lie too, all of the evidences you represented do not prove that the
leadership should be given to Ali. If that were true, then Ali would not give
allegiance to the three rightly guided Caliphs. The hadeeths, which prove
Abu Bakr as a caliph, is much stronger and more obvious in making the Abu Bakr
the successor of the prophet. All of Al-Tijani arguments are plain and clear
false. It is strange that Al-Tijani who denies the existence of a correct
caliphate except for Ali, admits the truth in a way he does not know by saying:
“From the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs until Kamal Atatork - who
abolished the Islamic caliphate” Praise be the Lord how the truth appears from
their tongues for the sake of Mu’awiyah. By now, I guess I had answered all of
the allegations that Al-Tijani represented. Thanks are due to Allah, the Lord of
the worlds.