ALI’S QUEST FOR JUSTICE
We quote from an essay of a prominent scholar. Makkan society before Islam was governed not by a religious and moral value system, but by time-honoured customs and civic virtues which allowed it to achieve a good measure of social and economic stability. These customs, moreover, embodied moral values of kindness, patience, hospitality and reliability. Islam transformed these values into principles of faith and social responsibility and endowed them with deep religious meaning. It enjoined kindness not only to one’s next-of-kin but to the orphan, the needy and the wayfarer. It called for patience and steadfastness not only in times of adversity, but also in resisting oppression and wrongdoing whatever it may be.
Through the obligatory alms (zakat) Islam made social responsibility a religious duty and an act of worship and purification. In its narrow application, the zakat is an act of worship (ibadah). But in its broad sense of unspecified charitable giving (sadaqah), it is an act of devotion and drawing near to God. The Quran and the tradition (sunnah) of the Prophet and the Imams together offer a well-constructed, well-balanced and just economic system.
The rapid spread of Islam which began during the Prophet’s life greatly accelerated after his death but with a big difference: while Islam gained its initial followers because of the great character of Mohammad and the sheer force of the message regarding Unity of God, a lot many of the later day followers accepted Islam when they saw the power that it was becoming. As long as the Prophet of Islam was alive, such people neither had the say nor could disrupt the teachings but immediately after the departure of Prophet, the reins of governance came to those people who knew nothing of the spiritual loftiness that Mohammad and some of his key followers were symbolic of. For such people, material power, booty be it in form of slaves or wealth, all mattered. The path shown by Mohammad was altogether diverted, thus leading to deep economic and political conflicts.
......................................................................................
The crisis of succession and its economic consequences
Muslim historians and traditionists have differed sharply over the question of succession to the Prophet. They also disagreed as to the extent of the authority of the would-be successor to Mohammad whose prophetic authority represented God’s authority in His earth. The first manifestation of this deep crisis of authority in the Muslim ummah was the conflict between the Ansar, or Helpers of Medina, and the Quraish aristocracy of Makkah.
As the Prophet lay dying, with Ali alone at his bedside, the Ansar met to choose an Amir, or leader, for them. Abu Bakr, Omar b. al-Khattab and Abu Ubaydah b. al-Jarrah hastened to the meeting and succeeded in securing the allegiance of most of the assembled men to Abu Bakr, as the first successor (khalifah) to the Messenger of God. In this, both they and the Ansar went against the Prophet’s designation of Ali as the Imam of the Muslims after him.
Historians have generally presented the conflict between the Quraish and the Ansar as one of political authority and economic power. This point is clearly brought out in an argument ascribed by Hubab b. al-Mundhi of the Aus tribe. Seeing the division of the Ansar along tribal lines, Hubab exclaimed, “So you have done it, O men of the Ansar! By God, I can see your sons standing at their doors begging with outstretched hands – but they are not even given water to drink”! Hubab’s prediction soon came true, and the Helpers (Ansar) of the Prophet of Islam and his protectors were humiliated and killed by Muawiya’s mercenaries as we shall see later.
One of the problems which Abu Bakr and his successors had to face was the management of the treasury (Bayt-ul-Maal) and distribution of its contents. Abu Bakr was able to avoid economic problems by observing equality in the distribution of wealth and booty on the same pattern that continued during the Prophet’s time.
After his death, there arose a distinct Muslim aristocracy, made richer by lucrative posts in an ever-expanding state. The spiritual teachings gradually were less talked about as booty started arriving from the capture of new grounds. Just as most beneficial thing can become the most dangerous when in wrong hands, similarly the devout followers, when led by worldly rulers who had no capacity to understand the spiritual nature of teachings, valued death in a mortal-combat (Jehad) to life, and were ready to sacrifice their lives for the Caliphate, which itself under worldly rulers was oblivious of humane and social teachings presented by Prophet.
Abu Bakr’s brief rule was occupied with internal problems, which left him little time for state affairs. Therefore, the real founder of the Muslim state was Omar b. al-Khattab, who ruled for ten years, (13-23 A.H./634-44 A.D.). Omar’s first significant administrative achievement was to fix the Islamic calendar for the purpose of dating state records and important events and documents.
As state revenues increased due to conquests, Omar turned his attention to the thorny problem of allotment (ata) of this vast wealth. He is reported to have consulted two of the Companions on this matter, Ali and Usman. Ali proposed that whatever wealth is accumulated be equally divided among all the Muslims, without keeping anything in the treasury. Usman counselled that records be kept of what everyone was to receive, and that the treasury be not left empty, there being enough wealth for all. Omar accepted Usman’s advice, and established financial state registers (diwans) and recruited a professional army of paid soldiers. In this he followed the pattern of state administration which he observed in Syria.
Omar did not distribute the wealth of the Muslims equally among them. This fact was to have far-reaching consequences as it set a precedent for later and far more flagrant violations of the Quranic principle of strict equality among Muslims regardless of ethnic or genealogical considerations. Omar generally followed a graded approach of preference in the allotment of wealth. He preferred those who had priority in accepting Islam over other Muslims, the Muhajirun of the Quraish over other immigrants, all the Muhajirun over all the Ansar, and the Aus of the Ansar over the Khazraj. He also preferred the Mudar of the Arabs over those of Rabiah and Yemen, Arabs over non-Arabs and freemen over their slaves or clients (mawali). Among the Prophet’s wives, Omar likewise preferred the daughters of the men of Quraish over others. Omar’s general principle was to begin with the nearest blood or marriage relatives to the Prophet in the allotment of wealth. This is the first proof that the Prophet’s way had been altered and despite Ali advising him to the contrary, Omar decided to listen to the advice of Usman.
In the end Omar realized the inequity which this principle of social stratification entailed. He thus declared:
I had sought to placate people by preferring some of them over others. But if I live this year, I will observe equality among all people, and will not prefer any person over another. I will follow the example of the Messengers of God and Abu Bakr.
Omar died before he could implement this important measure of social and economic reform. Thus his principle of preference, which implied the superiority of some men of the Quraish over others, of the Quraish over all the Arabs and of Arabs over non-Arabs, took precedence over the Quranic principle of the equality of all the people of faith, a principle which the Prophet had used to distinguish between the Jahiliyah, or time of folly and wrongdoing, and Islam.
This transformation became more manifest during Usman’s rule. Usman saw himself as a king rather than a Caliph. He, however, rapidly lost his grip on power and thus was manipulated by his scheming relatives. During his reign, we are told, many Companions became exceedingly wealthy. They built large and luxurious mansions, owned numerous slaves and livestock and amassed great wealth. Masudi contrasts this new state of affairs with the austere and harsh rule of Usman’s precessor: “This was not the case during the time of Omar b. Khattab. Rather it was then a clear and straight way.” By way of illustrating this point, Masudi reports that Omar and his son Abd Allah spent sixteen dinars on their Haj pilgrimage. Omar reproachfully observed, “We were extravagant on this journey.”
Perhaps to compensate for the gradual loss of the moral and religious character of the caliphal office, Usman increasingly stressed the power, rather than the moral persuasion, of the Caliph, and the duty of the people to render him absolute obedience. Seeking to justify some of his serious departures from the conduct of the first two Caliphs, Usman asserted:
Abu Bakr and Omar decided with regard to this public wealth to observe frugality towards themselves and their families. But I have decided to be generous towards my next-of-kin.
In his effort to forestall any criticism of this policy, Usman reminded a disaffected assembly of the men of Medina of their duty to obey “those who are in authority” over them (quoting Quran, 4:59). He continued:
Fear God your Lord, therefore, and know that the prerogative of the caliphate is a grave matter, far greater than you think.
Historians present a long list of grievances which the people held against Usman, and which indicate a serious break with the moral and social tradition of the Prophet’s Companions. Usman was faulted for rehabilitating his uncle al-Hakam b. Abi al-As who was banished by the Prophet from Medina, and whom neither Abu Bakr nor Omar would pardon. Usman also granted al-Hakam’s son - Marwan - the fifth of all the revenues of the province of Africa. This act was criticized on the ground that the Quran clearly stipulates that the fifth of any kind of booty belongs to:
... God, His Messenger, the next-of-kin, the orphans and the destitute.
(Quran, 8:48)
The elders of the Immigrants and Helpers also objected to Usman’s lavish mansions of which he built seven for his wives and daughters, as well as the palaces which Marwan built with his ill-gained African wealth. Moreover, Usman ordered his collector of the alms of the merchants of the market of Medina to turn over the accumulated wealth to al-Hakam, but the man refused. Usman reprimanded him saying:
You are only our treasurer. If, therefore, we favour you with anything, then accept it gratefully, but if we leave you alone, then keep silent.
The man objected: “I am not your or your family’s treasurer; I am the treasurer of the Muslims.” He then angrily threw the keys of the treasury to the assembled Muslims while Usman was delivering the Friday prayer sermon.
Among the most vocal critics of Usman’s economic policies was Abuzar Ghaffari, a man well known for his insistence on social and economic justice, as well as his unwavering support for Imam Ali’s right to the Caliphate. Abuzar is reported to have accused Usman and his Umayyad kinsmen of usurping God’s wealth and authority. This imprudent behaviour, Abuzar asserted, was predicted and denounced by the Prophet.
Usman made large monitory gifts to his Umayyad relatives, gifts which he justified on their being surplus wealth. He argued:
Do you not have his rightful share of the wealth? Why then can I not do with the surplus whatever I wish? Otherwise, why am I the leader (Imam)?
Usman’s threat was reinforced by Muawiya’s warning to the Companions to beware the might of his Syrian armies. He said: “I commend my elder (shaykh) to you that you treat him well. By God, if he is killed among you, I would fill the city with horses and men against you.” [And proclaim myself as Caliph and rule over you, something that Muawiya obviously meant but didn’t say.]
Muawiya as well as Usman’s other kinsmen regarded themselves not as functionaries of a state, representing the moral, political and economic interests of the Muslim community, but as feudal landlords and rulers in their own right. This attitude is well typified in a provocative remark which Saad b. Al-As, Usman’s governor of Kufa, made in the presence of some of Imam Ali’s supporters:
Certainly this Sawad (that is the rich agricultural lands of the two Rivers) is a garden for the people of the Quraish.
Incensed by this remark, Malik Ashtar, a Yemenite resident of Kufa and close confident of Ali, challenged him saying:
You mean that this Sawad which God has granted us through our own swords is a garden for you and your people? By God, no share that any of you shall have of it will ever exceed that of any of us.
Following the sharp encounter between the men of Kufa and Saad b. Al-As over the Sawad, the people rebelled and Usman was forced to dismiss him and appoint instead Abu Musa al-Ashari, a well-known Companion of the tribe of Qays of the Yemen. Abu Musa was a respected man, but of weak and indecisive personality. Like many other Companions, he feared sedition and was willing to sacrifice anything, including the principles of justice and moral integrity for unity and order. Usman’s inequitable and nepotistic policies were widely discussed and calls for his deposition were openly voiced. This was in fact the sentiment of the Kufans whom Abu Musa attempted to mollify, but with little success. He addressed the angry mob saying:
O men, hold your peace! I heard the messenger of God say: ‘Anyone who rises up in rebellion when the people have an imam’ – and by God, he did not say a just imam – ‘seeking thereby to create sedition and disunity, you must kill him’.
[See how anybody who occupied the Caliphate had begun to be called Imam, in clear contrast to Prophet’s words, who was even trying to identify who that Imam would be.]
In spite of the efforts of Imam Ali and other Companions to defend Usman who was besieged in his house by an angry mob, he was in the end murdered by unknown men, whose identity remains a matter of debate among historians. An important factor in the sedition (fitnah) which led to the death of Usman and the civil strife which ensued was his nepotistic and unjust economic policies.
Thus, began a culture which led to the latter day Omayyad and Abbasid rulers regarding the caliphate as kingship (mulk), God’s wealth as their wealth and God’s servants as their subservient subjects. Thus the office of the representative (khalifa) of the Messenger of God was transformed into an autocratic power. When Imam Ali was made the Caliph of Muslims under unfavourable circumstances, he rejected this process and sacrificed his life in his effort to stop it.
Fact is that deviation had started right after Prophet’s death. Omar did not pay heed to Ali’s advice to distribute all the wealth among Muslims. Ali perhaps had the foresight to note that in future, these very accumulated riches would be turned into personal wealth by a few conniving and corrupt. Also, the concept of professional paid army mitigated the entire concept of Jehad in Islam. This army was utilized by latter successors to the caliphate (read throne) to conquer territories. Fact is that the paid army became an investment whose job was to bring back war booties, as much as possible. Islam was defaced across the world, while the rulers lived a lavish life, all the time taking God’s name but seldom obeying to His commands. Moreover, the army’s services were utilized to kill anybody that was opposed to the rulers, even so they were Prophet’s companions or righteous men who were opposing the rulers over flaunting of principles laid down in Islam. If all this happened to the extent that even Husain and his followers as well as several Companions of the Prophets were killed or tortured at the hands of the oppressors, it was truly because the rights of the one Divinely appointed were usurped right at beginning.
......................................................................................
Imam Ali’s quest for economic justice and its consequences
It should be clear from our discussion thus far that social justice and economic equity were among the first priorities for Imam Ali. It should be observed, however, that the quest for economic justice was not an isolated principle; rather it was an integral part of Imam’s philosophy of leadership. Imam Ali in fact made justice, and particularly economic equity the sole condition for assuming caliphal responsibilities.
Historians are unanimous in reporting that Ali was chosen by public acclamation. He insisted that his bayat take place in the mosque publicly and with the consent of all the men present. Thus Ali was the first and only popularly elected Caliph in Muslim history. A number of the notables of the Quraish, however, left Medina as the rebellion against Usman intensified. Historians have widely differed as to who of the remaining members of Omar’s (shura) council actually witnessed Ali’s bayat. Imam Ali was not simply a political successor (khalifa) to the Prophet, but also his heir (wasiyy) as the spiritual head (Imam) of the community. He considered his caliphal responsibility a divine trust, and was thus determined to be just and equitable in all his dealings. As a pre-condition for accepting the caliphal office he declared:
“I have no desire to rule over you, but you would not have it otherwise. I hold no special authority over you, except that I keep the keys to your public treasury. But I will not take even a small coin (dirham) from it above your share. Do you consent? “Yes,” they replied. Ali said, “O God, bear witness over them!” The chief reason why Ali was not willing to accept the Caliphate after the demise of the third Caliph has been given by him here. The position of Caliphate was a Divine Authority and exercised complete control over men, their lives and dealings. This Divine Caliphate had been reduced to a level where the Caliph’s chief responsibility was that he merely had the keys to the public treasury. The Upanishads have clearly said that the Imam’s chief objective was to lead men on the true path to God. And it is this which they endeavoured for all their lives. It was this reason because of which Ali used to go with Fatima in attempt to convince people to accept his caliphate. It was this reason why Husain accepted the invitation of the Kufans. But when the meaning of the Caliphate itself had been brought to ground till the time of the death of Usman, the entire meaning of the Divine authority had vanished by then. This is the reason why Ali refused to accept the Caliphate until he was compelled by the people.
Ali wanted to abolish the social stratification which Omar had established and which Usman used to the advantage of his own kinsmen. He not only wished to distribute wealth equally, but also to assign government posts not on the basis of noble lineage or social prestige, but on the basis of personal piety and administrative honesty. He thus planned to dismiss Usman’s governors and to reclaim for the central treasury all the wealth which some had illicitly accumulated during Usman’s rule. His motto was:
You are all God’s servants and all wealth is God’s wealth which will be equally divided among you.
With regard to those who saw their lineage or priority in Islam as a source of power and high status, his view was:
Anyone who answers the call of God and the Messenger, and thus accepts our faith, embraces our religion and faces our qiblah (direction of prayer) is entitled to the rights of Islam, and is subject to its religious and legal punishments (hudud).
Few among Ali’s fellow Companions shared his idealism, and fewer still agreed with his seemingly unwise reform policies. The case of Talha and Zubayr is both typical and highly instructive. They are reported to have been among the first Companions to pledge allegiance to Ali. But they also were the first to revoke it. Yaqubi reports that they complained to Ali that they suffered deprivation after the Prophet. They demanded therefore that Ali make them partners in his authority. Ali replied, “You are indeed my partners in strength and uprightness and my helpers in times of weakness and incapacity.” He then wrote an appointment deed for Talha as governor over the Yemen and for Zubayr as governor over the districts of Yamamah and Bahrain. But they demanded rich gifts from the central treasury as an expression of kindness to a near relative. Ali angrily revoked their appointment saying, “But I have shown kindness to you by appointing you trustees over the affairs of the Muslims.”
......................................................................................
The Battle of the Camel
Having failed to achieve their objective by peaceful means, Talha and Zubayr asked permission of Ali to go to Makkah for the lesser pilgrimage (umrah), but in fact they went to organize an insurrection against him. The conflict known as ‘the Battle of the Camel’ which ensued soon after Imam Ali took office demonstrates the sharp deterioration of the moral and religious basis of the Caliphate and marks the beginning of the triumph of real politics over the values on which Prophet Mohammad established the first Islamic commonwealth in Medina. Muslims were then motivated by their faith and the promise of Paradise. But after the vast conquests which these motivations achieved and the rich revenues they brought, the life of this world, which the Quran calls “an ephemeral pleasure”, tempted many away from their faith and turned others away from the world, including the political life of their own society.
The Battle of Camel against Imam Ali was led by Talha, Zubayr and Ayesha, daughter of Abu Bakr and the wife of the Prophet. It was fought outside the city of Basra in the southern Iran around Ayesha’s camel, hence designation ‘Battle of the Camel’. This bloody battle was brief, lasting about four hours, yet it claimed the lives of many pious Muslims.
Among the men who lost their lives in this conflict were its two main protagonists, Talha and Zubayr. Talha was killed by an arrow shot by Marwan b. al-Hakam who held him responsible for Usman’s death. Seeing Talha’s fate, Zubayr left the battlefield. He was, however, pursued and killed by a man of the tribe of Tamim at the instigation of al-Ahnaf b. Qays, a notable of the Ansar and one of Ali’s devoted supporters. Al-Ahnaf was angry with Talha and Zubayr for bringing Ayesha out of her seclusion in the Prophet’ house.
As Imam Ali continued to relentlessly pursue his policy of economic and political reforms, tensions between him and the political establishment which he inherited from Usman intensified. Ibn Abbas discerned the dangers inherent in the Imam’s uncompromising idealism and counselled political realism, but to no avail. Before the Battle of the Camel, Ibn Abbas advised the Imam to grant Talha and Zubayr lucrative posts, simply to assuage their love of power and material wealth. But Ali revoked their appointments precisely because of their attachment to them.
The Battle of Camel precipitated a moral and religious crisis for pious Muslims. It put into serious question the integrity, and hence leadership role, of some of the Prophet’s closest and most venerated companions. It raised anew the old issue of religious verses tribal loyalty which bedevilled the caliph office from its inception. It stirred as well the old blood feuds which devastated pre-Islamic Arab society, and which Islam came to eradicate.
......................................................................................
Muawiya’s opposition
The conflict between Ali and Muawiya rested on Ali’s conviction of the unquestionable legitimacy of his caliphal authority and Muawiya’s increasing insistence on his right to be the heir (wali) of Usman in demanding retaliation for his blood. This claim, moreover, became the basis of Muawiya’s bid for the caliphate. Ibn Qutaybah reports that Muawiya received the allegiance of the people of Syria as Usman’s successor soon after Ali had assumed the caliphal office.
These points of contention are clearly set forth in a long letter which Ali wrote to Muawiya, as reported by Nasr b. Muzahim (d. 213 A.H./828 A.D.), one of the earliest historians of the civil war of Siffin. Ali argued:
My bayat (oath of allegiance) from the people of Medina is binding upon you even though you are in Syria. This is because they are the people who gave the same oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr, Omar and Usman. Thus others who were present had no choice in this matter, and those who were far away had no right to object, for the prerogative of consultation (shura) belongs only to the muhajirun and Ansar. Once they had agreed on a man as the imam and declared him by name, their decision must be accepted. If, moreover, anyone deviates from their decision either by denouncing it or coveting (the caliphate for himself), they must bring him back. If he resists, they must fight him, for he would have followed not the way of the people of faith.
Ali then recounted the fate of Talha and Zubayr after they had revoked their bayat. As for the murderers of Usman, the Imam counselled Muawiya to join the Muslims in their pledge of fealty to him and promised to judge among them in accordance with the Book of God. Ali concluded by reminding Muawiya that he was one of those who were pardoned by the Prophet on the day of the conquest of Makkah; hence he had no legitimate claim to the caliphate.
It was observed above that one of the primary causes of the insurrection of Talha and Zubayr, and hence the Battle of the Camel was their desire for wealth and prestige. We also saw that Imam Ali was uncompromising in his refusal to grant any favours either to buy loyalty, or neutralize opposition. His strict egalitarian justice with regard to the distribution of wealth made many of the elders of the Quraish, including some of his own relatives and strong supporters turn against him. Perhaps in anticipation of a direct confrontation with Muawiya, Ali is reported to have written to his governors calling on them for support against him. Ali admonished al-Ashath b. Qays, one of Usman’s governors whom he confirmed in their posts, saying
Your administrative post is not a private source of wealth for you to devour but a trust. You have in your hands some of God’s wealth, and you are one of its treasurers until you surrender it to me. I will not be the worst of your masters if you act uprightly.
Al-Ashath was a pragmatic old man, who was, generally lukewarm in his loyalty to the Imam. He was troubled by Ali’s letter because he feared that he would bring him to account for large sums of the revenues of Azarbaijan, which al-Ashath had illicitly absconded during his tenure as governor of that province under Usman. He thus contemplated going over to Muawiya, but his close associates rebuked him and compelled him to remain loyal to Imam Ali instead.
Far more instructive is the case of Ali’s own brother Aqeel b. Abu Talib who went to him in Kufa requesting financial help to support his large family. Ali offered to give his own stipend (ata) when he receives it, but Aqeel insisted on large sums from the central treasury. The Imam asked his brother to stay with him till the following Friday, and after the prayers he asked, “What would you say about a man who betrays the trust of all these people?” “Evil indeed is such a man,” Aqeel replied. Ali retorted, “But you are asking me to defraud them all by granting you illicit wealth.”
Aqeel angrily left his brother and went to Muawiya. On the day of his arrival, Muawiya made him a generous gift of hundred and seventy thousand dirhams. He then asked, “O Abu Yazid (Aqeel’s kunya) who is better for you, I or Ali?” Aqeel answered, “I found Ali more concerned with his soul than with me, but I found you more concerned with me than with your own soul.”
From the start of caliphal rule we witness a growing clash between economic and political interests and the fundamentals of Islam. This clash during Ali’s caliphate is graphically portrayed in two anecdotes. The first was a brief exchange between him and his nephew Abd Allah b. Jafar b. Abu Talib. Abd Allah asked for financial help from the central treasury, for he was forced to sell the fodder of his animals to feed his children. Ali replied, “No, by God, I have nothing to give you, unless you command your uncle to steal and give you.”
The second was Ali’s reply to the advice of some of his followers to favour the notables of the Arabs, and particularly those of the Quraish over non-Arab clients (mawali) in the allotment of stipends, as Muawiya. In this way, they argued, Ali would secure the loyalty of the Arabs and strengthen his own authority. But Ali answered:
Do you wish me to seek victory through oppression? By God, I will never do that so long as the sun rises and stars appear in the sky. For, by God, had this wealth belonged to me, I would distribute it equally among them. How much more is this imperative when these revenues are theirs by right.
Muawiya strengthened his chances of success in his bid for power by enticing Amr b. Aas to be his close collaborator in the fight against Ali. The account of Amr’s acceptance of Muawiya’s invitation may be largely apocryphal. It is, nonetheless, a clear demonstration of the way Muawiya and all his successors used the wealth of the Muslims to buy power, and Imam Ali’s refusal to “seek victory through oppression.” This is because for him the unjust distribution, and unlawful acquisition of wealth is a form of oppression of zulm, which is a great sin. Unable to make up his mind as to whether he should accept Muawiya’s invitation or not, Amr is reported to have asked his two sons for advice. Abd Allah, a pious Companion and respected traditionist, said:
“I see that the Prophet of God died and was still pleased with you, as were the two Caliphs (Abu Bakr and Omar) after him. Furthermore, Usman was killed while you were away from him. Therefore, stay in your house, for you will never be chosen for the caliphate, nor should you yourself choose to be one of Muawiya’s retinue for a meagre portion of this world, which may be the cause of your wretchedness and perdition.” See how Caliphate had become something that all and sundry wanted to acquire. Just like in various countries today, politics, power and wealth had become the means to acquire it. Our view is that even now, if the Muslim world is giving up tyrants like Saddam or Sauds, and if Islam has become a pariah religion in the eyes of few, it is because of errors committed right after Prophet’s death. Had the institution of Muslim’s leadership remained in the hands of the divinely appointed successors to Prophet, the world history would have surely been written differently.
Mohammad, Amr’s younger and worldly-minded son, advised his father to join the people of Syria in demanding vengeance for the blood of Usman, so that he may be “a head rather than a tail” in any effort to resolve this important matter. Amr observed”
“As for you, Abd Allah, you have advised me to do that which is best for me in the hereafter. But you, Mohammad, you advised me to do that which is best for me in this world.”
Still unable to make up his mind, Amr ordered Wardan, a pious and perceptive servant of his, first to set out and then to stop and unload. Perceiving his master’s perplexity, Wardan commented:
“This world and the world to come are fighting over your heart and you stand confused between the two. You say with Ali is the hereafter but not this world, yet the hereafter has much to compensate for the loss of the goods of this world. With Muawiya, on the other hand, is this world, but this world is no substitute for the world to come.”
Wardan advised his master not to go. “For,” he said, “if the people of religion prevail, you would live in the clemency of their faith. But if the people of this world prevail, they will surely seek your advice.”
Amr saw his venture with Muawiya purely as an opportunity to regain authority over Egypt and its fabulous wealth, having himself conquered it during Omar’s caliphate. Thus he asked Muawiya, “What would you give me if I collaborate with you in your fight against Ali?” “I shall give you Egypt, as a tasty morsel for you to devour,” Muawiya answered.
......................................................................................
The Battle of Siffin
The battle of the Camel was a serious but brief encounter largely between Ali’s Kufan supporters and his Basran opponents. The Battle of Siffin, in contrast, involved the populations of Syria and Iraq and was a protracted and bloody conflict which dragged on for weeks. Furthermore, while the two conflicts arose from similar motives and circumstances, that of Siffin had far more reaching consequences and claimed many more lives. In fact, the Siffin civil war irreparably deepened the split of the Muslim community and changed the face of its history.
More blatantly than in the battle of the Camel, power and wealth were the primary motives behind the first civil war in Islam, commonly referred to as the Battle of Siffin. It is beyond the scope and purpose of this study to go into the details of this tragic conflict. It must, however, be observed that Ali engaged in the war of Siffin because he could not shirk his responsibility to preserve the Islamic ideal of justice, as well as Islam’s polity intact, while for Muawiya and Amr b. As, it was a way to gain power and wealth. This contrast in the motives of the Imam and his opponents may be clearly discerned in the conduct of the two parties.
Imam Ali is reported to have written to the leaders of the army which he dispatched ahead of him to Siffin, enjoining them not to transgress against people in their towns and villages. They should not disturb them except when in dire need of food, or to ask for a guide in case they lose their way. He said:
God has made you all equal before the truth, the black and the red of you (that is everyone regardless of ethnicity and lineage). He likewise made your relationship to the ruler (wali) like that of a father to a child, or a child to the father. Your right over him is that he should act justly among you and refrain from usurping your lawfully gained booty (fay). If he does that, then it is incumbent upon you to obey and support him in whatever is consonant with the truth, and that you defend God’s authority. For, you are God’s defenders in the land. Be, therefore, God’s helpers and supporters of His religion.
The Imam concluded with the Quranic injunction:
Do not spread corruption in the earth after it has been set right, for God loves not those who spread corruption.
The Imam’s problems at Siffin did not arise only from Muawiya’s lavish bribes with which he bought the hearts and consciences of men, but also from the radical and often aggressive individualism of the tribesmen in his camp and the obedience of the more urbanized Syrian army to Muawiya’s every command. This radical individualism, which often expressed itself in spontaneous and hasty emotional actions, was an important component of the clash of narrow tribal politics with religious morality in early Islam.
This clash was clearly illustrated by an event which occurred at the banks of the Euphrates prior to the encounter of the two armies at Siffin. Muawiya’s soldiers preceded Ali and his fighters to the water and vowed to block their way to it at all cost. Their determination was expressed by al-Walid b. Uqbah who vowed:
I shall deny them water as they did deny it Usman b. Affan. They besieged him for forty days and denied him the taste of cool water and good food. I shall kill them with thirst, may God kill them.
[Note that the weapon being used by the proponents of evil was still people’s emotional attachment to religion and Islam. They used it to their advantage so much so that even in Karbala, there were some who wanted to kill Husain in the name of Islam. This was the result of the continued propaganda drive against Ali and his family and vigorous attack on their personality, even if it meant falsely implicating Ali of the murder of Usman, by those who themselves were suspicious of being involved in the crime.]
Yaqubi’s report of this event demonstrates more sharply the point under discussion. Muawiya’s own men pleaded with him not to let the people die of thirst, “for there were among them the (innocent) slave, handmaid and hired-hand.” But he insisted, “May God not allow me and Abu Sufyan to drink from the Spring (Hauz-e-Kausar) of the Messenger of God if they ever drink of this water.”
But when Ali’s fighters quickly drove them away from the riverbank, Muawiya’s men were greatly alarmed. Amr b. Aas, who strongly objected to this unseemly behaviour, reassured Muawiya, saying:
Ali would not deem it lawful to do to you and your men what you and your men did to them.
It is clear that Amr b. Aas, despite being on the Muawiya’s side, knew the true nature of Ali. Yet they opposed Ali because politics demanded that they oppose him, if they wanted to go for their desired benefits in this world. Amr b. Aas even knew Ali to such an extent that when he fell down in an armed conflict with Ali and was about to be killed, he opened up his lower garment and Ali turned away in disgust. Despite this, he did everything in his power to weaken Ali and was even instrumental in killing the governor appointed by Ali to Egypt.
The Siffin civil war did not represent a conflict among the different Arab tribes, but a clash between two religious, social and political ideologies. It was a conflict between the caliphate as an old Arab and Islamic institution, represented by Ali, and an oligarchical rule, represented by Muawiya. The shift towards this new and unfamiliar form of government was initiated by Usman and developed into an autocratic authority by his Umayyad and Abbasid successors. Ali’s caliphate may therefore be regarded as a brief, but violent interlude in this inevitable development.
Tribal affiliations and interests [that had resurfaced during the time of the previous three Caliphs; another great evil that the first three Caliphs could be held accountable for] greatly influenced both the course and outcome of the conflict of Siffin. Many of the fighters on both sides were motivated either by the pre-Islamic zeal (hamiyah) to preserve tribal honour at any cost, or by wealth and boot. Men from both sides would meet between the two lines of battle to recite pre-Islamic panegyrics boasting of the high prestige and noble lineage of their tribal ancestors. Driven by this tribal zeal, Ibn Muzahim observes, “They steadfastly stood their ground, being so ashamed of running away that war nearly consumed them.”
Ibn Muzahim relates that Muawiya gave generous stipends to the men of the Yemenite tribe of Akk for which alone they agreed to fight. The men of Iraq coveted such rich gifts, and therefore greedily turned their gaze towards Muawiya. This is because Ali would not violate his principle of equity in the distribution of wealth, even in times of war. Sensing this, Muawiya vowed to buy Ali’s most trusted men saying:
By God, I will distribute wealth so abundantly among them that my world shall overcome their hereafter.
Note that those fighting for revenge of Usman’s murder in the name of Islam paid no heed or respect to the life after death! All these accounts are also important because they can give an indication how the true teachings of Krishna as well as the sages of post-Vedic period could have been hijacked by those aspiring for this world. If some Sankaracharya’s of today are said to be involved in gross crimes in order to protect their control over wealth and power, isn’t it naïve to think that all the so-called sages of the previous times, including the likes of Bhishma and Drona, were equally God-fearing?
The war of Siffin ended inconclusively through Amr’s clever stratagem by having Muawiya’s soldiers lift copies of the Quran on the tips of their spears and call on the Book of God to judge between the two armies. He resorted to this plot just when Imam Ali’s men were about to win the war. Amr’s scheme succeeded because the fighters on both sides wanted an end to the bloodshed.
Muawiya and his men wanted the war to end because they were losing it. Imam Ali’s fighters were divided into several factions. The majority argued for answering the call to let “the Book of God” judge between the two opposing parties. Others argued for an immediate end to hostilities at any cost, as they were convinced that the war threatened the very existence of the Arabs and their Arabo-Islamic state.
A large number of Ali’s soldiers demanded that he accept the call of Muawiya and his men to let the Book of God judge between them. They threatened “O Ali, answer the call of the people to the Book of God, or we shall kill you as we killed Usman b. Affan. By God, we shall do it if you do not heed their call.” [This was the respect that was left of the Caliph of Allah during the 25 years after the Prophet]
Ali cautioned them not to be deceived by this seemingly pious act. He said:
It is a word of truth (they utter), but intend only falsehood by it.
He begged them to fight on for only another hour, as victory was so near at hand, but they absolutely refused. In desperation he concluded:
… I have indeed been fighting them in order that they abide by the judgment of the Quran… I have informed you that they have deceived you, for it is not abiding by the Quran that they desire.
Note what blind faith can do to one’s reasoning faculties!
These dissenters were pious men who spent their nights in prayers and the recitation of the Quran. Their uncompromising piety, however, was combined with intractable individualism and strict egalitarianism. They were not, moreover, just a few hard-headed men, but thousands of brave and persuasive warriors. They constituted a cohesive opposition not only to Ali, but to the whole caliphal establishment. Hence, they came to be known as khawarij, those who went out, that is of Ali’s camp. But in reality, they seceded from the Muslim ummah altogether.
The khawarij then insisted on the appointment of two arbiters to consider the matter in light of the Quran and judge between Imam Ali and Muawiya. Again the Imam tried in vain to dissuade them, but to no avail. At last Muawiya appointed Amr b. Aas as his representative, but the Imam’s Yemenite men insisted on Abu Musa al-Ashari instead of Ibn Abbas, who was the choice of the Imam. Their argument was that they would not accept two Mudarite men to lord over them.
In contrast with Amr b. Aas, who was unreservedly committed to Muawiya’s cause because of the promise for control of Egypt, Abu Musa was an unwilling arbiter who cared little for either Ali or Muawiya. This, of course, placed the Imam at a definite disadvantage, even before the start of the arbitration process. Ali in fact compromised his position by accepting arbitration in the first place, regardless of its outcome. This is because the arbitration was not between a legitimate Imam of the Muslims and a rebellious governor, but between two contending amirs.
As the two arbiters could reach no mutually acceptable verdict, Amr again resorted to clever subterfuge. He first tried to convince Abu Musa to nominate Muawiya for the caliphate on the grounds of his honoured status in the Quraish, his companionship (suhabah) with the Prophet and the fact that he was the brother of Umm Habibah, the Prophet’s wife. But Abu Musa argued that the caliphal office should be conferred on the basis not of honour but of righteous conduct and moral probity. He continued, “Were I to confer the caliphate on the most highly honoured man in the Quraish, I would grant it to Ali Ibn Abu Talib.”
Amr then promised Abu Musa that if he were to side with Muawiya, the latter would reward him with the governorship of any province he wished, but Abu Musa refused. He suggested instead that they depose both Ali and Muawiya and appoint as caliph called Abd Allah b. Omar, because he stayed out of the conflict altogether. But Amr objected, “This office requires a man with a strong tooth who knows how to eat himself and how to feed others, and Abd Allah is not such a man.” Finally the two men agreed to depose Ali and Muawiya and call for the election of a new caliph through general consultation.
The two men then came before a large gathering who anxiously awaited their verdict. Abu Musa announced that he and Amr have come to a decision which, they hoped would bring peace and concord to the Ummah. Amr assented and called on him to speak. But Ibn Abbas warned Abu Musa that Amr means to trick him. If they have actually come to an agreement, Ibn Abbas cautioned, let Amr speak first. Abu Musa, however, stepped forward and said:
“My companion and I have agreed to remove both Ali and Muawiya and face anew this matter through general consultation among the Muslims, so that they appoint anyone they choose to manage their affairs. I therefore depose both Ali and Muawiya. Take charge of this matter yourselves and bestow the caliphate on whomever you deem worthy of it.”
Amr then arose and said:
“You have all heard what this man has said, and that he had deposed his companion. I too depose him as he did and confirm my companion Muawiya in the caliphate. This is because he is Usman’s heir and requiter of his blood, and therefore most worthy of his station.”
Abu Musa retorted angrily. “What is the matter with you, may God not aid you! You have acted wickedly and treacherously; you are ‘like a dog, if you scold him he pants and if you leave him he pants’ (Quran, 7:176).” Amr sarcastically retorted, “You are like a donkey loaded with scrolls (Quran, 62:5).” After a brief outbreak of general chaos, the men on both sides dispersed and the war of Siffin, which Imam Ali was about to win, ended in Muawiya’s favour.
Following the war of Siffin, the Imam’s authority was challenged first by the disaffection of many of his supporters and then by the loss of a number of important regions to Muawiya’s marauding armies and political deceptions. The loss of the important province of Egypt along with two of his closest supporters left the Imam virtually alone.
Muawiya succeeded in turning Ali against his faithful governor of Egypt, Qays b. Sad through a mixture of threats, promises of lucrative posts and large bribes, as well as false rumours. The Imam dismissed Qays and sent Mohammad b. Abu Bakr as governor of Egypt. In the meantime, Muawiya had sent Amr b. As as the head of a large army, including fighters of his own private police force to secure that province for him. Amr defeated Mohammad b. Abu Bakr and took charge of Egypt. He then had the son of the first Caliph Abu Bakr and half-brother of Ayesha killed and burnt in the skin of a dead donkey.
After considering restoring Qays to his old post, the Imam decided to send Malik Ashtar to deal with Egypt’s thorny problem. But Muawiya sent one of his men who befriended al-Ashtar, as he was on his way to Egypt and provided him with food and fodder for his animals. The man then treacherously offered al-Ashtar a poisoned honey drink which killed him. The death of al-Ashtar was a great loss to the Imam, for it deprived him of a faithful friend and a brave warrior.
Muawiya likewise sent military contingents to different regions to intimidate the people and coerce them into pledging allegiance to him. To this end, he dispatched his trusted commander Busr b. Abi Artah al-Amiri at the head of a considerable force to the region of Yemen by way of the Hijaz. Busr threatened and insulted the Ansar of the Prophet’s City saying:
You company of Jews and sons of slaves, by God, I shall inflict upon you such a reprisal as would comfort the hearts of the people of faith and of the family of Usman. By God, I shall make of you tales like those of bygone nations.
Busr then forced the people of the holy City including its venerable governor Abu Ayyub al-Ansari to choose between death or giving bayat to Muawiya. He then dismissed Abu Ayyub and installed the well-known Hadees transmitter Abu Hurayrah as Muawiya’s governor in his place. [It is unfortunate that a section of Muslims consider the narrations coming from sources like Abu Hurayrah as true, when his lineation towards this world as against the God’s world is evident. Under Umayyad rule, several narrators like Abu Hurayrah emerged, who were patronized by Muawiya or his successors, and who chiefly coined narrations to denigrate the Ahlulbayt, household of the Prophet.] Thus the prediction of Hubab’s of the humiliation of the Ansar at the hands of Abu Bakr’s successors came true. The city of Makkah also suffered a similar humiliation.
Needless to say, these and other problems impeded the Imam’s efforts to re-establish the just economic framework which the Prophet had legislated for any Islamic state, regardless of its size and complexity. Another source of trouble for the Imam was the Kharijite uprising, which involved him in yet another bloody battle.
The Kharijites based their opposition to Imam Ali on three points. The first was his consent to delete the title of Commander of the Faithful from the truce document with Muawiya. The second was his failure to strike them with the sword when they rebelled against him and demanded arbitration, “until they return to God’s command.” Their third objection was to his refusal to repent as they did and return to God’s judgment. See instead of being led by Ali, majority wanted to lead Ali as per their own view, yet, in truth, they were all blind worshippers.
As for the first objection, Ali argued that he only followed the example of the Prophet in the truce of Hudaibiya. Secondly, he did not strike them with the sword, because, he continued, they were a large multitude, while he and the men of his household were few, and God says, “Cast not yourselves with your own hands into perdition (Quran, 1:195).” With regard to the third objection, namely his refusal to abjure arbitration, Ali argued, that arbitration was necessary, as “God enjoined the arbitration of just men even in the case of a rabbit, worth no more than a quarter dirham.”
The opposition of the Kharijites appears to have been primarily not to the way the Imam dealt with arbitration, but again to his quest for economic justice in Muslim society. This is demonstrated by the following exchange between them and the Imam, just before the battle of Nahrwan.
This battle, which took place on 9th Safar, 40 A.H. (17 July, 658), marks the beginning of Kharijite opposition not only to Ali’s rule, but to the Quraishite caliphate altogether. Ali advanced against them with a large army. But before the start of battle, he faced them and cried out, “O people, I am Ali ibn Abu Talib, speak and tell me the reasons for your indignant opposition to me.”
The Kharijites were angry with Ali on three counts. Their first point of contention was that they fought with him the people of Basra in the Battle of the Camel, but when his fighters defeated them, he allowed the fighters only to pillage what the enemies had in their camp and forbade them to take their women and children captive. The Imam answered that the people of Basra started the fighting; thus when he defeated them he divided the booty of those who fought. He did not take the women and children captive because the women did not fight and the children were born in the faith of Islam. He added that since the Prophet pardoned the people of Makkah on the day of conquest, while they were still associators (mushrikun) of other things with God, they should not fault him on showing the same clemency towards Muslims.
The second point was their objection to Ali’s deleting his title from the truce document, as has already been observed. They contended, “If you are not the Commander of the Faithful, then you must be the commander of the rejecters of faith. Since we are people of faith, you cannot be our commander.” However, it is evident that Ali, who was first of all opposed to arbitration itself, accepted for deletion due to preserve the unity in the ranks of Muslims. Moreover, there was a precedence in front of him when the Prophet had removed the title ‘Prophet of God’ from his name at the time of the Peace treaty of Hudaibiya, when the Makkans had objected to it.’ Why did they not object at the prophethood of Mohammad, if he allowed the name to be deleted? Such trifle issues have always been blown up by the misguided and continue to plague the Islamic world till today.
They finally objected to Ali’s instructions to the two arbitrators to search the Book of God and, in accordance with its precepts, confirm him in the caliphate if they deem him more worthy than Muawiya. But if they find Muawiya to be more worthy than him, then they should confirm him instead. “If”, they argued, “you have doubt concerning yourself, and that Muawiya may be more worthy than you. Our doubt in you is even greater.” Ali argued that he did this in order to play fair with Muawiya, for had he simply told the arbitrators to judge in his favour, Muawiya would not consent. Ali then invoked in support of his argument the mubahila encounter between the Prophet and the Christians of Najran, where the Prophet did not say, “Come let us pray and lay God’s curse upon you, but upon the liars.”
Nahrwan’s was Imam Ali’s last battle. In vain he tried to enlist support for an army to stop Muawiya’s excursions into the regions of the Islamic domains, which he carried out with increasing impunity. On his way back from Nahrwan, Ali encamped in Nukhaylah, a suburb of Kufa, and sent his son Imam Hasan to convince the men of the City to join him in a decisive battle against Muawiya, but to no avail. Even the men who were with him, surreptitiously deserted him and stole away to their homes in Kufa.
Ibn Hilal al-Thaqafi reports that most of the notables of Kufa were insincere towards Ali, and were inclined towards Muawiya. This was because Ali did not give any more than their rightful share of the state revenues (fay), while Muawiya allocated an extra sum of two thousand dirhams as preferential gifts to those of noble lineage. Furthermore, Ali used to distribute the contents of the house of the central treasury (Bayt ul-maal) every Friday. Then he would wash its floor with water to purify it and perform two cycles (rakahs) of prayer in it and say, “These will testify for me on the day of Resurrection.” This he did in emulation of the Prophet and Abu Bakr, as he said:
My intimate friend (khalil) the Messenger of God never withheld any wealth for the morrow, and Abu Bakr did likewise. But Omar had a different opinion, in that he established state registers and withheld wealth from one year to the next. As for me, I shall do what the Messenger of God did.
......................................................................................
Conclusion
Imam Ali spent the last months of his life frustrated and virtually deserted. Day after day, he would call upon the men of Kufa to rise up against Muawiya, whose soldiers continued to intimidate the people and coerce them into pledging allegiance to him, but no one would listen. The Imam’s appeals and exhortations have been preserved in moving orations, which remain among the great gems of Arabic literature. Finally, he convinced his long-time devotee Jariyah b. Qudama to restrain Busr’s incursions against the peoples of the Yemen and the Hijaz with a force of over two thousand horsemen.
Imam Ali was martyred as this final effort to oppose wrongdoing and establish justice in Mohammad’s community was going on.
While Omar’s well-intentioned inequity in the distribution of wealth and Usman’s irrational adherence to the principle of kindness to the next-of-kin (silat al-rahim) were the immediate causes of their death, Ali died in the Jehad to undo the mistakes of his two predecessors. He died in the struggle to return to the practice of “his intimate friend the Messenger of God.”
......................................................................................
Is any more proof needed that the political happenings at Saqifa on the day of Prophet’s death distorted the face to Islam, which continued getting distorted till it reached its intensity on the day of Karbala, the manifestations of which can still be seen in the Islamic world in the form of modern day Osamas, Baghdadis and Zawahiris.
After Ali’s death, people recognized Hasan as caliph. But they were the same people who had disenchanted Ali and Hasan was no different than Ali in character. He too had to face the ingratitude of them, as they wanted to be part of worldly gains, and not indulge in sacrifices, particularly the sacrifices of their lives in the battlefield. Therefore, it is evident that Ali lived and died for God even in the midst of those who only had this world to seek. Gita describes such persons perfectly and also the Absolute Man that Ali and Hasan were.
Consequently, as a result of a treaty between Hasan and Muawiya, the latter became the Caliph of the entire Muslim world. The traitor of Islam and the one who had rebelled against the Caliph became the Caliph of Islam. Several historians even showered praises of Muawiya’s conduct and wrote narrations extolling his virtues. So much so that the greater percentage of Muslims accept Muawiya as Caliph right till this day.
There are clear lessons in this for those who regard all the literature that they possess, right from smritis, puranas and Vedas till Gita as equally sacred; it being far older and there is no way to ascertain the facts but through giving it a test of reason.
