[Hasan Ilyas] In the name of Allah, the
most Gracious, the most Merciful!

Assalamu Alaikum. We are coming to you 
directly from Ghamidi Center, Dallas

with this weekly question-answer session 
with Ghamidi Sahab.

Let us begin…
Ghamidi Sahab, thanks a lot for your time.

The chain of our conversation continues 
about your viewpoint of the conflict

between Syedna Ali (ra) and 
Ameer Muawiya (ra).

Today, this is the fifteenth episode 
of the series.

I am presenting to you, one by one, the 
questions regarding certain doubts and

objections that people have raised
about your discourse.

In our last conversation, we comprehended 
certain important points.

And I will start by linking up our today’s
conversation to the last conversation.

While being a governor of a province, 
Syedna Muawiya (ra) demanded retaliation

from Syedna Ali (ra) against the murderers
of Uthman (ra).

Does this not imply that he considered Ali
(ra) to be the ruler of the Muslim nation

and that he considered his government to 
be an established political fact since

he is making the demand of Ali (ra) 
to punish the murderers?

Had Muawiya (ra) not made the demand, 
it could have been said that Ali’s (ra)

government had not been fully established 
and that

it was a chaotic situation all around.

However, the moment Muawiya (ra) put 
forth his demand it becomes obvious that

he accepts Ali (ra) as the ruler and is 
demanding of him to ‘retaliate’ (qisas)

against Uthman’s (ra) murderers which only
the ruler of the Muslims could do?

[Javed Ahmad Ghamidi] Muawiya (ra) is 
making this demand on the basis

of Ali’s (ra) claim that his government 
has become established.

And if it is claimed that the government 
has been (firmly) established,

one of its self-evident proofs would be to
mete out the

just punishment to the criminals.’

‘Otherwise, we have no personal animosity 
against you.’

‘We shall accept your government.’

It is the approach that if a government is
established and

you are hesitant about its establishment 
or you have some objections regarding it.

In that case, how are you manifesting 
your objection?

In other words, do you object to the 
person of the ruler?

If you object to the person of the ruler.

For instance, a number of people object to
many of later rulers as

individual persons as well: it is believed
that a certain person was not fit to rule

because of his personality, or character, 
or his lack of political acumen, etc.

In those cases, it is the opposition to 
the person of the ruler.

I have stated this earlier as well that 
whether it was Muawiya (ra), or

Syeda Aisha (ra) or Syedna Talha (ra), or 
Zubair (ra), none of them argued that

Syedna Ali (ra) was not fit to be 
the Caliph of the Muslims.

Instead, they argue that you are of course
eligible to be the caliph and

we have no objections to your person.

However, from among necessary conditions 
for the establishment of a government,

we are demanding of you that you 
fulfill one important condition.

Why are governments established at all?

They are established to curb the abuse 
of power.

It is the fundamental objective of the 
establishment of government to be

in a position to punish the criminals.

However, if a government is not in a 
position to punish the criminals

although, you can claim that it is in the 
process of establishing itself,

but you cannot say it has been fully 
established as a fiat accompli.

Thus, they put forward their case with 
the same reasoning.

Even today, if a situation of emergency 
erupts and someone takes over

the government, then we too shall demand 
of them to prove their fitness

for legislation, application of the law, 
and for the re-establishment of order.

And only then would the government would 
be accepted – if only in de facto terms.

So, they are basically making this case.

How does it imply that they accepted

Ali’s (ra) government as an established 
political fact?

If indeed Muawiya (ra) had accepted 
Ali’s (ra) government,

then his first task would have 
been to give up his position

as the governor of Syria, as Ali (ra) 
had instructed him to do.

He did no such thing!

Instead, positioning himself as the 
governor of Levant, he asked Ali (ra),

who had assumed the caliphal office, the 
proof that

his power was actually established. 
[Ilyas] Alright…

Let us move the conversation forward, 
Ghamidi Sahab.

It is clear that Muawiya’s (ra) demand did
not begin after

accepting Ali’s (ra) government;

In fact, the demand is the condition for 
the acceptance of government:

'Only after the fulfillment of this 
condition would

the other matters be settled.’

However, the matter was not settled and 
the dispute reached into the battlefield.

As the dispute reached the battlefield, 
and this is also a generally accepted

historical fact, that those demanding 
retaliation against the

murderers of Uthman (ra) and the removal 
from office of people who had surrounded

Syedna Ali, (ra),
they lost in the battlefield.

You had described the principle in detail 
that whenever something like this happens.

And it proves that Ali’s (ra) government 
had become established.

In other words, it existed as a de facto 
reality and that is how he won the war.

After all this, the matter should have 
moved toward settlement…

The results of the battlefield went in 
favor of Ali (ra).

Thus, once the battlefield decided the 
matter in Ali’s (ra) favor,

what excuse was left for Muawiya (ra) to
still not accept the government

as a de facto reality? 
[Ghamidi] What was the verdict exactly?

The verdict was this: Ali (ra) himself 
accepted to appoint arbiters to decide

the legality or illegality of his 
government.

It was after the Battle of Siffin that 
the arbiters were appointed.

What exactly do you accept when you 
accept arbitration?

Have you ever reflected on this point?

It means that you have accepted that 
you no longer insist on taking

your government as a de facto reality.

Instead, the verdict of whether or not to 
accept the government

shall be entrusted to certain arbiters.

Therefore, two people were nominated to 
be the arbiters in the dispute.

The clauses of arbitration were drawn up.

Abu Musa Ashari (ra) was nominated from 
Ali’s (ra) side

and Amr bin al ‘As (ra)
was nominated from Muawiya’s (ra) side.

Both were allowed a fixed time period 
which spanned across many months.

And, then, it was specified that they 
would proclaim their verdict in front

of four hundred people and in that 
assembly they would give their verdict

about the rights and wrongs of the dispute
and how it should be resolved!

Therefore, the moment you accept 
arbitration,

the legitimacy of your government becomes
debatable as a result of your admission.

If, however, a different scenario would 
have emerged:

Muawiya’s (ra) side lost on the 
battlefield, his men ran away,

Ali’s (ra) forces captured his territory, 
and he was able to establish

the writ of his government throughout 
the empire.

In that case, the matter would have 
been decisively settled.

So, what was the upshot of the 
Battle of Siffin?

And it should also be kept in mind, in the
Battle of Siffin,

the opposing side was not fighting to 
overtake Ali’s (ra) government.

Instead, it was Ali’s (ra) position – and 
he was absolutely sincere in his position

that his government had been legitimately 
established and he wanted to enforce

the writ of his government.

For this reason, he changed the governors 
of the provinces too and when Muawiya (ra)

refused to comply with his order, it was 
Ali (ra)

who initiated the hostilities in Siffin.

And because of this attack, at one point, 
the opposing side proposed this:

people, including the Companions, are 
being martyred in large numbers

and it would only perpetuate the civil 
war; instead, is it not better to settle

this dispute by making the Quran the 
final arbiter?

When this proposal was put forward from 
the opposing side,

Ali (ra), himself, accepted it.

People neglect this point that when a 
ruler accepts arbitration upon whether

or not his government is a de facto 
political fact and whether the steps

he took were legitimate or not, and now
arbitrators will make a ruling on it,

you can imagine the situation.

So, the matter is not as simple 
as it seems.

[Ilyas] Alright. 
Let us move ahead, Ghamidi Sahab!

A new point of view has emerged in 
the last few days…

It has been stated that the way you 
portray the matter that it pertains

to real historical events, wherein the 
partisans had their principled positions

and both were sincerely taking certain 
practical measures based

on those principled positions.

Instead, why can’t we say that the large 
group of the companions

who supported Muawiya, along with the 
suggestions he might have gotten

from the earlier caliphs, combined to 
deliberately keep the Hashemites,

i.e., the family of the Prophet (pbuh), 
away from power?

It is because once they had gained 
political power, then,

because of their status in the eyes of 
the people due to their descent

from the Prophet (pbuh), it would have 
been difficult to wrest it back.

Therefore, these factors were at work 
in Muawiya’s (ra) actions and

in the struggle to seek tribal supremacy
among the Umayyads.

How do you see this line of thinking?

[Ghamidi] First, you have to tell me 
when did this “conspiracy”

to keep the Hashemites out of power begin?

Did it begin with Abu Bakr’s (ra) 
election as the Caliph?

Abu Bakr (ra) was the most exalted 
companion in the whole umma.

No person could have the temerity to 
claim that in Abu Bakr (ra)

such a man was elected as the Caliph 
who was not eligible for it.

Not only did all the companions assent 
to the election,

a person like Omar (ra) stated that he 
proposed the same of such a personality

that tukta’ul aana qi’lay (people’s necks 
would bow in front of him).

In fact, people, subsequently, accepted 
him in the same station.

And the way Abu Bakr (ra) ruled also 
proved his illustriousness.

Therefore, nobody can be bold enough to 
claim any of this about Abu Bakr (ra).

I have already described the election of 
Omar (ra) that how Abu Bakr (ra)

invited the entire leadership of the 
Quraish, put forth his proposal to them,

listened to the opinions and suggestions 
of every single one of them,

and replied to the objections that were 
raised.

Only then the final decision was made.

In this case as well, no such thing was 
under discussion from which

one could conclude a deliberate attempt 
to exclude the Hashemites from power.

At the most, you could say, at the time 
of Uthman’s (ra) election,

when Abdul Rahman bin Awf (ra) was 
given the authority to choose,

he might have kept these things in view.

However, it does not make any difference 
because whenever you form an opinion

about anyone at all, you take dozens 
of factors into consideration.

So, all these hypotheses can be discussed 
only with reference to the election

of the first three caliphs.

And they would be assessed in accordance 
with the evidence pertaining

to the three occasions.

In Muawiya’s (ra) case, what right do 
we have to speculate about

a different opinion than his stated 
position that is in front of us?

Did he ever claim that they have decided 
to keep the Hashemites out of power?

A power struggle was going on.
There is no doubt about it.

In this backdrop, the establishment of 
Ali’s (ra) government was announced.

And a lot of people accepted the new 
government.

On the back of a large force, Ali (ra) 
managed to consolidate his power

over a large territorial span. 
Muawiya (ra) put forward a demand.

And the Mother of the Believers, Syeda 
Aisha (ra) too pressed the same demand.

She is not an ordinary woman.

It was an extraordinary decision on part 
of Aisha (ra),

keeping in view her juristic mind, her
judgments,

and her insight in politics and strategy.

And two of the most prominent people 
from the council that elected Ali (ra),

i.e., Talha (ra) and Zubair (ra), also 
joined her in her opposition to Ali (ra).

So, did all these people come together to 
conspire

to keep the Hashemites out of power?

However, whenever it comes to the 
point of election and

when we vote in somebody’s favor, we 
take dozens of factors into consideration.

Let me give you a fresh example of this 
phenomenon.

Say, elections are going on in our 
country.

A number of political parties operate 
in the country.

In this backdrop, there is a person who 
maintains,

irrespective of his other preferences, 
he won’t vote for certain parties because,

according to him, they have become 
hereditary parties.

Thus, it can be one important factor 
determining one’s political preference.

So, it is possible that some people would 
have considered

this factor back then as well.

However, to consider that it was the 
only determining factor and

the sole basis of everything that 
happened; that everyone came together

and decided to keep the Hashemites 
out; and that it was a planned conspiracy

from the very beginning; etc.

In my opinion, to make such a far-reaching
claim,

one needs a rather staggering amount 
of evidence than is generally cited.

[Ilyas] Alright. 
Moving forward, Ghamidi Sahab.

The most important point of our entire 
conversation,

the point around which all our explanation
and

all the positions of the partisans revolve
and the point that affords

all sides some benefit of doubt and that is
the storm that manifested itself

in the shape of Uthman’s (ra) murder.

The question arises in everyone’s mind, 
whoever has heard your position

in these fifteen episodes, is this:

One party is demanding retaliation against
the murderers of Uthman (ra).

However, when the party making the 
demand comes to power…

Muawiya (ra) ruled for nineteen years 
and the reason for his coming to power

was the dispute around Uthman’s (ra) 
murder.

So, if it was not the desire for power and
become the ruler of the empire,

then what became of the real reason 
for coming to power?

In other words, what became of Uthman’s
(ra) murderers in Muawiya’s (ra) reign?

Muawiya (ra) reigned for 19 years 
without sharing power with anyone.

What did he do about the event that led 
to everything:

the Battle of the Camel, the Battle of 
Siffin, and the endless bloodshed

within the Muslim community?

[Ghamidi] There were two types of 
people among Uthman’s (ra) murderers.

You are familiar, of course, that the 
incident took the shape of a riot.

A mob fell upon the city.

And it was not a couple of men who broke 
into Uthman’s (ra) house; it was a mob.

There are two salient names when 
it comes to who, from the mob,

laid their hands upon and murdered 
Uthman (ra).

One is Muhammad bin Abi Bakr.

He was the Abu Bakr’s (ra) son and 
was brought up by Syedna Ali (ra) himself.

After Abu Bakr’s (ra) death, Ali (ra) 
had married his widow.

So, Muhammad bin Abi Bakr was brought 
up in Syedna Ali’s (ra) household.

Second was Malik al-Ashtar.

Both these men could be pointed out 
as Uthman’s murderers!

There would, of course, have been a 
trial first and only then action

could be taken against them. 
These were the two people.

How conspicuous were these two 
people as Uthman’s murderers?

You can get a sense of this from that fact
that our venerated scholar,

Maulana Syed Abul Alaa Maududi, who, 
as compared to mine,

was making a different case altogether.

He too was forced to remark: ‘I can 
explain and justify every action

taken by Ali (ra), except the position 
he bestowed upon the two.’

Muhammad bin Abi Bakr was appointed as 
the governor of Egypt later on.

[Ilyas] It happened after Uthman’s (ra) 
murder?

[Ghamidi] Of course. After Uthman’s (ra) 
murder, when Ali (ra) formed his government.

He would appoint governors after he has 
formed the government, right?

They were so conspicuous.

And both of them were dead when 
Muawiya (ra) became the sole ruler.

Now, we are left with others.

The problem was that there was no 
certainty who among the other people

was involved in the murder. 
It was an open question.

In fact, if you read the history, you would
come to know whenever

it was found out that someone was involved
in the murder, he was brought to justice.

You will find all the details of these 
events in a number of historical tracts.

However, two conspicuous perpetrators 
who should have been apprehended

and who were closest to Ali (ra) at the 
time, both those men were dead

by the time Muawiya came to power.

[Ilyas] Ghamidi Sahab, you give a rational
explanation of every partisan’s position

based on the available evidence.

I am sure the question would be bothering 
people and I want you to discuss it:

If Uthman (ra), the Caliph of the Muslims,
was subjected to the gravest injustice,

and his murderers were known …

Obviously, Syedna Ali (ra) would have 
been aware of these things.

All of us deeply revere Ali (ra).

You, yourself, gave the examples of his 
intellect and knowledge.

So, how this this happen?

What, according to you, is the explanation
for the fact that not only did Ali (ra)

not bring the two to justice after the 
notorious murder of the caliph,

but he appointed them to important 
positions in his government?

Do you think there is a justification and 
explanation for Syedna Ali’s (ra) actions?

[Ghamidi] As I already remarked that 
Maulana Syedna Abul Alaa Maududi

described his entire case. 
He has defended Ali (ra) in every sense.

However, he too could not defend 
him on this point.

Here, he couldn’t defend Ali’s (ra) 
position at all.

Nonetheless, I would argue that Ali’s (ra)
action, according to me,

could have a reason of its own.

In other words, I am claiming that despite
all this, Ali’s (ra) position has a rationale.

Syedna Ali (ra) made a decision.

It was the decision of assuming the 
responsibility

of the government of the Muslim empire.

There could have been two responses 
to the situation.

One response would have been this: when 
he was requested to assume

the responsibility of government, he 
could have refused.

Instead, he could have said that they must
first wait for the leadership of Quraish

and the Muslims to arrive from different 
corners of the empire.

Or, that all the leaders, representatives
of the people should first assemble,

and then, they could freely elect either 
Ali (ra) or

anyone else to be the next caliph.

It could have been the case that on the 
occasion he would not have taken

control of the reins of the government.

This could have been one possible response
or decision to the situation.

However, Ali (ra) did not make this 
decision.

Although, the events that followed have 
made it clear that the first scenario

would possibly have been better 
for everyone.

But, Ali (ra) made a different decision. 
And the decision was this:

the manner in which the rioters had 
occupied Medina and the way

the situation has descended into a 
bloodbath in order to rescue

the Muslim community from the 
catastrophe,

Ali (ra), with utmost sincerity – and all 
signs point toward his utmost sincerity –

resolved to assume the responsibility 
of government.

I have pointed this out earlier as well: 
at the time, Ali (ra) was the most

exalted personality in the 
Muslim community.

In other words, it can also become a 
reason for impelling you to action

when you believe that you are the best 
person upon whom the people could unite.

On such occasions, you form an opinion.

He formed an opinion and took over 
the government.

One of the possible consequences, as he 
assumed the responsibility of government,

would have been the unanimous 
acceptance of this act by the people.

In such a scenario, all the people would 
abide by his edicts and

all the provincial governors would accept 
his command in the same spirit

as had been the norm during the reign 
of earlier Rightly Guided Caliphs.

Similarly, people would not have rallied 
against Ali (ra) under Aisha’s (ra) banner

And Talha (ra) and Zubair (ra) too would 
not have adopted the position they did.

This could have been one scenario!

It would have been exactly the same 
scenario that Syedna Omar (ra) described

with reference to Syedna Abu Bakr’s (ra) 
appointment as the caliph:

‘I had made an emergency decision 
and Allah saved us from its harm.’

In Ali’s (ra) case, however, the decision 
he took led, in practical terms, to harm.

In other words, a lot of people did 
not accept the decision.

Gradually, the opposition kept growing.

Obviously, in this backdrop, there was 
just one option left for him:

to run the administration with the help 
of the people who supported him.

In other words, as his opponents did 
not accept it and

he also refused to rescind his decision, 
then he would,

of course, run the government and 
commandeer his army

with the same people because they 
accepted his authority in the first stage.

So for me, such decisions are not barren: 
they have their consequences.

And even the greatest of men just 
have to accept the consequences.

So Ali (ra) seems to have accepted the 
ramifications of his decision.

[Ilyas] Ghamidi Sahab, the explanation 
you just gave illustrates the principle

you have been trying to get across to 
the people

from the beginning of the series:

that is, instead of looking at an 
individual’s political decisions

and practical affairs from the viewpoint
of the notion of truth or falsehood,

if we approach them 
considering the practical realities,

expediencies, and constraints within 
a political context,

then we can explain all actions.

However, if you try to frame it within 
a strictly religious discourse and

start condemning people for their 
perceived moral failures,

then every single individual becomes 
susceptible to the greatest condemnation.

[Ghamidi] If we adopt this approach, 
then we might even have to discuss

certain measures taken by Omar (ra) 
and Abu Bakr (ra) as well.

And political expediencies are kept in 
consideration in political actions.

At times, many things have to be 
kept in consideration…

Look, even the Prophet (pbuh) had to 
take care of certain things:

We know that Abdullah bin Ubay 
adopted a malicious approach

toward the Prophet (pbuh).

During the Expedition of Banu Mustaliq, 
he instigated people

against the Prophet (pbuh).

And we also know that he uttered 
a poisonous sentence –

and the Quran has reproduced the 
sentence –

that could be considered insolence 
and insult of the last degree.

Quran has reproduced the sentence 
he uttered in Surah al-Munafiqun.

However, despite the fact that 
Abdullah bin Ubay’s son offered

to behead his father, the Prophet 
(pbuh) refused.

He declined his offer and replied:

‘People would say that Muhammad 
kills his companions!’

Thus, in political matters, certain things
have to be similarly overlooked.

However, Uthman’s murder pertained to the 
questions of retributive justice (qisas).

The former case pertains to Abdullah 
bin Ubay’s insolence.

It was such a matter in which you 
could not identify a specific crime.

Thus, it was overlooked.

However, qisas has an irreducible 
moral dimension.

So, the matters that pertain to moral 
questions may be delayed…

And in my view, Ali’s (ra) decision was

not to let Uthman’s (ra) murderers 
off the hook.

However, he delayed the delivery 
of justice.

And he repeatedly underscored the 
reasons for the delay:

I can only execute this task if you accept
my decision and come to my assistance!

So, this is the plea Ali (ra) is making…

He did not evade the issue of delivering 
justice to Uthman (ra).

The point I am trying to clarify is this: 
the attitude has developed

in our society to judge and condemn 
one or the other party.

However, in such sensitive matters 
the positions of and the constraints

upon every group must be kept in 
consideration.

And in today’s world, when we form 
opinions and make decisions

about political matters, we take all 
these factors into consideration.

[Ilyas] Ghamidi Sahab, you provided the 
explanation and

justification of Ali’s (ra) steps, which 
according to you, Maulana Maududi,

who stands opposite to you in 
the entire matter, couldn’t offer.

But you have highlighted a new and 
unique dimension for the people

whom you are trying to teach the art 
of assessing the positions

of the opposing sides in an 
unbiased manner.

We shall take the conversation forward.

Inshallah, in the next episode, we shall 
ask you about Muawiya (ra),

whom we give a lot of leeway that there 
was no house of representatives

in that age. However, the empire had 
already expanded when Uthman (ra)

was elected as the caliph, but still a 
scientific approach was adopted

to choose the new ruler.

Why did Muawiya (ra) not adopt the 
same approach and

why did he insist on transferring 
the government to Yazid?

All these topics shall be brought 
under discussion.

We are running out of time. 
We shall take your leave. Allah Hafiz!