[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!