Response to al-Imamiyyah: Truth Over Transgression

Part One: A thorough rebuttal of al-Imamiyyah's efforts to discredit the distinguished disciple and Commander of the Faithful, Mu`awiya ibn Abi Sufyan (Radiya-llahu-`an-hu).

Al-Imamiyyah initiated their argument by positing that Muawiya (Radiya-llahu-`an-hu) was a misguided transgressor. They asserted:

"List of things Muawiyah has done: Rose against Imam Ali (as), who was the rightful caliph, in battle of Siffin, which led to the death of companions of the Prophet (sawa) and one of the greatest companions Ammar Ibn Yasir (ra)."

Response: Upon an impartial assessment of the traditions surrounding the Battle of Siffin, a discerning reader can draw two conclusions. Firstly, Mu`awiya (Radiya-llahu-`an-hu) and his adherents were neither misguided, nor were they transgressors in any sense bar the linguistic one. In reality, the Prophet (salla-llahu-`alayhi-wa-sallam) foretold that during this period of discord among the Muslims, both conflicting factions would be pursuing the truth, with neither side being led astray. The Prophet (salla-llahu-`alayhi-wa-sallam) stated:

Translation: "A group (the Khawarij) will secede itself (from the umma) when there would be dissension amongst the Muslims. Out of the two groups, those who would be 'awla' (closer) to the truth, would kill them."

In this context, the comparative degree 'awla' is utilised to convey the proximity of each group to the truth. In the Arabic language, a comparative degree, or ism al-tafdil, serves to establish a comparison between subjects possessing a common characteristic, with one typically exhibiting a greater degree of that attribute than the other. In essence, this hadith implies that both factions strove for the truth, sharing a unified goal of seeking justice for Uthman (Radiya-llahu-`an-hu). The Prophet (salla-llahu-`alayhi-wa-sallam) described their call as being one and the same:

Translation: "Allah's Messenger said: The Hour will not arise until two big groups fight each other whereupon there will be a great number of casualties on either side. Their call will be one and the same."

Nevertheless, they diverged in their perspectives on the appropriate timing and method for delivering this retributive justice. Consequently, the Prophet (salla-llahu-`alayhi-wa-sallam) characterised those who fought against the renegade Kharijites, namely `Ali (Radiya-llahu-`an-hu), as being 'awla', or closer, to the truth in comparison to his counterpart(s). Shaikh al-Islam ibn Taimiyya stated:

Translation: "[...] This authentic hadith indicates that both of the groups who engaged in fighting, `Ali, and his companions, and Mu`awiya, and his companions, were following the truth, and that `Ali and his companions, were closer to the truth than Mu`awiya and his companions."

The dispute between these two companions had indeed emanated from a difference in independent legal reasoning. When `Ali (Radiya-llahu-`an-hu) was asked by his own subjects concerning what had ensued between them and Mu`awiya (Radiya-llahu-`an-hu), he maintained:

Translation: "I asked `Ali: Tell me about this march of yours. Is this an order the Messenger of Allah had given you, or is this an opinion that you hold? He replied: The Messenger of Allah did not give me any such order; but this is an opinion that I hold."

On a separate instance, `Ali (Radiya-llahu-`an-hu) maintained:

Translation: "[...] Our slain and their slain are in Paradise and the judgement will be passed between Mu`awiya and I (on the Day of Reckoning)." [It was declared 'Sahih' by Shaikh Irshad al-Haq al-Athari]

Subsequent to the conflict, it can be inferred from the following tradition that `Ali and Mu`awiya (Radiya-llahu-`an-hum) maintained a somewhat cordial relationship. Mu`awiya (Radiya-llahu-`an-hu) continued to serve as a religiously observant governor, and `Ali (Radiya-llahu-`an-hu) provided counsel on issues related to governance:

Translation: "A Syrian man called ibn Khaybari found a man with his wife and killed him, or killed them both. Mu`awiya ibn Abi Sufyan found it difficult to make a decision and he wrote to Abu Musa al-Ash`ari to ask `Ali ibn Abi Talib about that. So, Abu Musa asked `Ali ibn Abi Talib and `AIi said to him, 'Is this thing in my land? I adjure you, you must tell me.' Abu Musa explained to him that Mu`awiya ibn Abi Sufyan had written to him to ask `Ali about it. Ali replied, 'I am Abu al-Hassan. If he does not bring four witnesses, then let him be completely handed over, (to the relatives of the murdered man)'." [It was declared 'Sahih' by Shaikh Zubair `Alizai]

Al-Imamiyyah said:

"During his time people forsake the Sunnah of the Prophet (sawa) out of hatred for Imam Ali (as) https://sunnah.com/nasai/24/389"

Response:The Mother of the Believers, `A`isha, Mu`awiya, and a select few other companions (Radiya-llahu-`an-hum) held the view that the talbiya is recited during the Hajj rather than exclusively at `Arafat. Given that these companions were fuqaha, they possessed the prerogative to exercise independent judgement in interpreting the Prophetic tradition. In the case of Mu`awiya (Radiya-llahu-`an-hu), it was `Abdullah ibn `Abbas (Radiya-llahu-`an-hu) who initially defended him and reminded others of his status as a jurist when they began to question his adherence to another sunna:

Translation: "Somebody said to ibn `Abbas: Can you speak to the Chief of the Believers Mu`awiya, as he does not pray except one rak`a as witr? ibn `Abbas replied: He is a faqih."

However, the chain of transmission for the report al-Imamiyyah invoked is questionably attributed to `Abdullah ibn `Abbas (Radiya-llahu-`an-hu). Khalid bin Makhlad al-Qatwani is considered a reliable transmitter, but only when he conveys from his teachers in Madina. Khalid narrates the aforementioned tradition from a Kufan source, `Ali ibn Saleh, and as a result, Hafiz Abu Yahya has classified this as a weak tradition.

Al-Imamiyyah said:

"Killed Hajr Ibn Udai (A known companion of the Prophet) for refusing to disassociate from Imam Ali (as), as well as five others. (Al Istiaab Fe Ma’refat Al Ashaab by Ibn Abd Al Bar page 174)"

Response: The claim that Hujr ibn `Adi was 'a known companion of the Prophet' lacks substantiation from biographical sources. The most credible perspective among biographical evaluators is that he was a tabi`i, leading the likes of Imam al-Bukhari, ibn Abi Hatim, ibn Hibban, and Khalifa bin Khayyat to categorise Hujr ibn `Adi among the second generation of Muslims.

Furthermore, the report cited by al-Imamiyyah lacks a discernible chain of transmission. From the limited reliable narrations mentioning Hujr ibn `Adi, it can be deduced that he was apprehended and subsequently sentenced to death for inciting discord among Muslims. In al-Mustadrak `ala al-Sahihain, it has been authentically conveyed from Muhammad ibn Sirin, who stated:

Translation: "Ziyad gave a lengthy sermon, so Hujr ibn `Adi shouted, 'The prayer!' He kept repeating it. He said, 'The prayer!' and grabbed some stones in his hand, and his companions grabbed some stones in their hands (ready to throw them). He (Ziyad) then came down (from the pulpit) and prayed. He then wrote to Mu`awiya about him. Mu`awiya wrote back, 'Send him to me', and he was sent. When he came, he said, 'Peace be onto you, `O Commander of the Believers.' He (Mu`awiya) replied, '`O! now I am the Commander of the Believers? I will not dismiss you!' He then ordered that he is to be put to death. When he was taken, he asked permission, then prayed two prostrations. He then said, 'Do not remove the steel from within me and do not wash me, for I am going to dispute this'." [It was declared 'Hasan' by Hafiz Abu Yahya Noorpuri]

Hujr ibn `Adi's actions jeopardised the community's stability during a period of significant internal turmoil. The Prophet (salla-llahu-`alayhi-wa-sallam) consistently emphasised the importance of maintaining stability among Muslims, as exemplified in his statement (salla-llahu-`alayhi-wa-sallam):

Translation: "When you are holding to one single man as your leader, you should kill the one who seeks to undermine your solidarity or disrupt your unity."

Al-Imamiyyah said:

"As well as ordered his wife to poison him (Siyar Aa’lam Al Nubala V3 P274), and prostrating when news of Imam al-Hassan's death reached him (al-Aqd al-Fareed V5 P119)"

Response: This is transmitted via the route of Muhammad ibn `Umar al-Waqidi. Although historians and hadith critics consult and depend on al-Waqidi's works, they generally refrain from citing his narrations as evidence, especially when more reliable historical accounts exist. Imam al-Dhahabi has stated:

Translation: "[...] It has already been mentioned that al-Waqidi is weak, but he is needed in the case of incidents of battles and history. We mention his works without taking evidence from them [...]"

Al-Imamiyyah attempted to counter argue by saying:

"He is applying the science of hadith to tarikh. Waqidi is obviously reliable when it comes to other fields beside hadith."

Response: The critique directed towards al-Waqidi by hadith critics suggests that his unreliability is also apparent in the field of tarikh. The `ilal master, Ali ibn al-Madini, stated:

Translation: "al-Haytham bin `Adi is more reliable than al-Waqidi, and I do not take hadith, ansab, or anything from him."

In the field of `ilm al-ansab, there is generally more leniency compared to tarikh; however, al-Waqidi has still been deemed inadmissible in this discipline. A more significant criticism has been relayed from Imam al-Shafi`i, who articulated:

Translation: "al-Waqidi's books are lies."

Throughout his lifetime, al-Waqidi authored numerous works, none of which were hadith collections; instead, they were all dedicated to the field of tarikh. Additionally, al-Waqidi's account is in conflict with the authentic narration of Umair ibn Ishaq. In this narration, it is understood that al-Hassan (Radiya-llahu-`an-hu) is entirely unaware of the identity of the individual responsible for his poisoning. He remains cautious not to speculate in order to avoid assigning blame and causing bloodshed:

Translation: "[...] al-Husayn came and sat down beside his head and said: '`O my brother, who has poisoned you? al-Hassan asked: 'Do you want to kill him?' al-Husayn replied: 'Yes'. al-Hassan said: 'If I have correctly discerned the culprit, Allah - Himself - will enact revenge, and if he is innocent, then I do not want any innocent (person) to be killed (because of me)'." [It was declared 'Sahih' by Shaikh Ghulam Mustafa Zahir Amanpuri]

Al-Imamiyyah subsequently cited al-`Iqd al-Farid, which, aside from being a work of anthology, is a secondary source. Consequently, the author, ibn `Abd Rabbih, has intentionally omitted the asanid for most of the reports he transmits, making it challenging to determine the accuracy of what al-Imamiyyah have presented. Although a similar tradition can be traced to Sunan Abi Dawud, its chain of transmission is flawed due to the inclusion of Baqiyya bin al-Walid, a mudallis known for tadlis al-taswiya, the most undesirable form of tadlis. Hafiz Abu Yahya has thoroughly examined this tradition and concluded that it cannot be considered reliable.

Al-Imamiyyah said:

"Actually Cursed Imam Ali (as) himself https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah/-1/121"

Response: This tradition seemingly possesses reliability, and Shaikh al-Albani has regarded it as sound. However, several authorities have questioned its attribution to Sad ibn Abi Waqqas (Radiya-llahu-`an-hu) through Abd al-Rahman bin Sabit. Take, for instance, the following inquiry directed at Yahya bin Ma`in:

Translation: "Did `Abd al-Rahman bin Sabit hear from [...] Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas? He replied: No."

In fact, Hafiz Zubair `Alizai later retracted his tas`hih of this report and weakened its isnad in his Anwar al-Sahifa fi al-Ahadith al-Da`ifa. The Hafiz cites the reason being:

Translation: "`Abd al-Rahman bin Sabit did not hear from Sa`d."

Shaikh Muqbil includes this report in Ahadith Mu`illa Zahiruha al-Sihha, a compilation of ahadith with hidden defects, or `ilal. Therein he writes:

Translation: "This hadith, if you look at its chain, it seems it has trustworthy narrators but Yahya bin Ma`in said: `Abd al-Rahman bin Sabit did not hear from Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas, as is mentioned in Jami` al-Tahsil."

Even when disregarding the evident discontinuity in its route of transmission, this report fails to conclusively demonstrate that Mu`awiya habitually cursed Ali (Radiya-llahu-`an-hum). Due to the inherent ambiguity of the term 'sabb', it could be interpreted that the report portrays a form of verbal denunciation, which would not be implausible given the political climate at the time. Both the people of Iraq and the people of Syria frequently denounced each other, as they were engaged in a state of conflict.

Al-Imamiyyah said:

"Sunnah to curse Imam Ali (as)! Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani in Fath Al Bari V7 Page 71-" [...] "Sending La'an on Imam Ali (as) after the end of a Khutba Tarikh Al Madhaib Al Islamiyah by Abu Zahra Volume 1 Page 35:"

Response: It seems that al-Imamiyyah have resorted to citing answers found on 'quora.com', which starkly contrasts with the intellectual persona they strive to uphold. Regardless, neither ibn Hajar nor 'Abu Zahra' have provided any evidence to support their respective observations, and ibn Hajar's statement does not even mention Muawiya (Radiya-llahu-`an-hu), let alone implicate him as the originator of the vilification against Ali (Radiya-llahu-`an-hu). The mere opinion of an authority without any corroborating evidence does not constitute a hujja against one's opponent, as the scientific rule states:

أقوال العلماء يحتج لها لا بها

Translation: "The statements of scholars are evidence with proof, not without (proof)."

End.