The Reality of Tahkim: Peace Treaty & True Relationship Between ʿAlī and Muʿāwiyah
Question: What is the reality of the event of Tahkim (Arbitration) after the Battle of Siffin? What were the results of the Tahkim? What was the mutual relationship like between Hazrat Ali and Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with them)?
Answer:
Alhamdulillah
In today’s series, Insha’Allah (God willing), we will read:
- 🌹 How did the event of Tahkim (Arbitration) occur after the Battle of Siffin and what were its effects?
- 🌹 Which two individuals were made Hakam (Arbitrators) in the Tahkim event?
- 🌹 What was the condition of the rebel party after the Tahkim event?
- 🌹 And what were the mutual personal relations between Hazrat Ali and Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with them)?
The Event of Tahkim (Arbitration)
The event of Tahkim is a very blessed event in the history of the Sahaba, thanks to which the bloodshed among Muslims stopped and they reached a conclusion. However, this event caused severe damage to the rebels. The reason for this was that the emergence of consensus among Muslims was their death. This is why these rebels have tried to present such a distorted picture of the Tahkim event, from which it appears that there was mutual enmity among the Sahaba Karam (RA), and that their character was no different from the worldly politicians of our time. It is strange that, like the Battle of Siffin, all the narrations of the Tahkim event in Tarikh al-Tabari are also narrated by Abu Mikhnaf. It is well-known about this individual that he was a companion of these same rebels.
In the previous series, we read that after the Battle of Siffin, an atmosphere of peace was created among the Muslims on the pledge that one person from each side would be appointed as a Hakam (Arbitrator), so that they both could make a decision according to the Quran and end the fighting.
Who were the decision-makers from both sides and how were they determined?
The two gentlemen upon whose names the Muslims agreed for making the decision were Hazrat Abu Musa Ash’ari and Amr ibn al-Aas (may Allah be pleased with them). The grandeur of these two gentlemen can be gauged from the fact that both of them were given administrative posts by the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) himself. Hazrat Abu Musa Ash’ari was the governor of various regions during the eras of the first three Rightly-Guided Caliphs, and at the time of Hazrat Uthman’s martyrdom, you were the governor of Kufa. You were so sound in opinion that you managed government affairs for a long time. Your understanding of religion and the world can be estimated from the hadiths narrated by you. In contrast, the narrations about Tahkim present him as a foolish person, (May Allah forbid).
On the other hand, Hazrat Amr ibn al-Aas (RA) is a personality whom the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) himself trusted. The Prophet (PBUH) appointed Hazrat Amr as the commander of several armies and appointed him the governor of Oman. Similarly, he appointed Hazrat Abu Musa as the governor of the Aden region in Yemen.
🌹 This statement of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) exists about Hazrat Amr (RA): “O Amr! You are a man of sound opinion and are guided in the matter of Islam.”
(Ibn Asakir. 46/134. Chapter on Amr ibn al-Aas RA)
🌹 And he said:
“Amr ibn al-Aas is among the righteous people of the Quraish.”
(Ibn Asakir. 46/137. Chapter on Amr ibn al-Aas RA)
Abu Mikhnaf and narrators of his ilk have tried to portray Hazrat Amr ibn al-Aas (RA) as worldly. In contrast, his detachment from the world was such that once the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) sent him as the leader of an expedition
🌹 and said:
“Amr! I intend to send you in a direction. Allah the Almighty will keep you safe and will grant you spoils of war, and from that wealth, we will also give you.” He submitted: “O Messenger of Allah! I did not accept Islam for the greed of wealth. I became a Muslim out of a desire for Jihad and to be in your company.” The Prophet (PBUH) said: “O Amr! Righteous wealth is good for a righteous person.”
(Ibn Asakir. 46/143. Chapter on Amr ibn al-Aas RA)
During the Farooqi era, Hazrat Amr emerged as a high-class administrator and general. Palestine and Egypt were conquered at your hands. You were the governor of Egypt during the times of Hazrat Umar and Uthman (RA). During the era of Hazrat Ali (RA), you joined Hazrat Muawiyah, and his strategy made the rebel movement bite the dust.
From Hazrat Ali’s side, the name of Hazrat Abu Musa Ash’ari (RA) was presented as the Hakam (judge), who was a very eminent Sahabi and had remained neutral in the Battle of Siffin. Abu Mikhnaf, in his narrations, has tried hard to prove that Hazrat Ali (RA) was not happy with Abu Musa and wanted to make Malik al-Ashtar the Hakam (decision-maker), but his companions forced him to appoint Abu Musa. It is also said that you were not happy about Hazrat Amr ibn al-Aas (RA) becoming the Hakam either.
The question is, in the narration mentioned above, this condition was set: “You appoint from among you a person for the decision with whom we are satisfied, and we too will appoint a person from among us (with whom you are satisfied).” How could Hazrat Muawiyah (RA) have accepted Malik al-Ashtar when he was the leader of Uthman’s killers? On the other hand, if Hazrat Amr ibn al-Aas (RA) was as he is described in the narrations, then why did Hazrat Ali (RA) accept him? The condition set for the Hakam was that he must be neutral. Hazrat Amr ibn al-Aas (RA) was not neutral but was the leader of Hazrat Muawiyah’s (RA) army. If Hazrat Ali (RA) had no trust in his integrity and honesty, how could he have accepted him as a Hakam? This shows that Hazrat Ali (RA) had no objection to these two eminent Sahaba, but these rebels wanted their leader, Malik al-Ashtar, to become the Hakam so that their interests could be served. When this could not happen, they made a full effort at character assassination of Hazrat Abu Musa Ash’ari and Amr ibn al-Aas (RA). In contrast, it is known from Baladhuri’s narrations that both Hazrat Ali and Muawiyah were pleased with both these gentlemen.
🌹 Muawiyah said: “I nominate Amr.” Ali said: “I nominate Abu Musa Ash’ari.” They both agreed on their names. An agreement was written on this matter, which was signed by ten individuals from both armies as witnesses. (Baladhuri. 3/107)
What was the Peace Treaty?
🌹 Abu Mikhnaf has also transcribed the peace treaty, and we think he has done this correctly because Baladhuri has given the text of this treaty from other chains of narration.
The words of the treaty were:
🌹 This is the treaty that Ali bin Abi Talib and Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan have mutually made. Ali’s decision will be enforced upon the people of Iraq and those who are among his party, or those from the general believers who are with him. Muawiyah’s decision will be enforced upon the people of Sham (Syria) and those believers who are with Muawiyah. We accept the command of Allah Almighty and His Book, and no decision will be acceptable to us except the Book of Allah. Whatever is present in the Book of Allah Almighty from beginning to end, we will act upon it. What this Book commands to revive, we will establish, and what it commands to end, we will end. Both Hakam, i.e., Abu Musa Ash’ari (Abdullah bin Qais) and Amr ibn al-Aas al-Qurashi, will adhere to the command they find in the Book of Allah. If they do not find any command in this matter in the Book of Allah, they will act upon the Sunnah (Prophetic tradition) which is based on justice and upon which there is consensus, and with which no one disagrees.
Both Hakam will take a covenant and pledge from Ali and Muawiyah and their armies, and similarly, they will take a promise from other reliable people, that the lives and property of both of them (the Hakam) will be safe. Whatever decision they both make, the entire Ummah (community) will be their helper and supporter in it. It will be incumbent upon the Muslims of both parties in the name of Allah that whatever is written in this treaty is acceptable to us, and we have made the decision of these two arbitrators binding on all Muslims. All these people will lay down their arms, and all people will have peace. They may go wherever they wish, their lives, property, and families will be safe. All those people who are present here and those who are absent, all people will have this security. Abdullah bin Qais and Amr ibn al-Aas will have this covenant and pact of Allah upon them that they will decide for this Ummah and will not involve them in war and disagreement again. It is another matter if someone does not accept their decision.
The duration of this treaty will be until Ramadan. If both Hakam wish to extend this period, they can do so with mutual consent. If one of the two Hakam passes away, the leader of his party will appoint another Hakam in his place, and that person will be chosen from among the people of justice and fairness. The place for their decision, where they will decide, will be a place located between the people of Kufa and the people of Sham. These two Hakam can take the testimony of whomever they wish for the decision, and they will write their testimony on that decision. These witnesses will support this decision against those who wish to erase it or oppose it. O Allah! We seek Your help against the person who abandons this decision.
(Tabari. 3/2-248)
According to the narration in the Shia book Akhbar al-Tawal, these words were also present in it:
🌹 Abdullah bin Qais (Abu Musa) and Amr ibn al-Aas have taken a pact from Ali and Muawiyah in the name of Allah that they both will be satisfied with the decision of the arbitrators which is made on the basis of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet. Neither of them (Ali and Muawiyah) will be allowed to break the decision of the arbitrators and incline towards something else by violating it.
(Unknown Author (attributed to Abu Hanifa al-Dinawari). Al-Akhbar al-Tawal. 208. London: Brill Press (1888))
The words of the treaty show how blessed this treaty was, that due to it, the strength of the Muslims was being united. The words of the treaty itself show what degree of sincerity both Hazrat Ali and Muawiyah (RA) had in their hearts for Islam.
At the beginning of the treaty,
هذا ما تقاضى عليه علي بن أبي طالب ومعاوية بن أبي سفيان، قاضى علي على أهل الكوفة ومن معهم من شيعتهم من المؤمنين والمسلمين، وقاضى معاوية على أهل الشأم ومن كان معهم من المؤمنين والمسلمين
The words show that Hazrat Ali and Muawiyah (RA) considered each other’s companions to be believers and Muslims. This is why numerous Sahaba signed it as witnesses, and a wave of happiness spread throughout the Islamic world over this treaty. According to Abu Mikhnaf’s own statement, after the treaty, both parties freed each other’s prisoners of war.
What reaction did the rebels express regarding this peace treaty?
While this Tahkim treaty proved very blessed for the people of Islam, for the rebels, this treaty was synonymous with death. A state of mourning befell them.
🌹 Abu Mikhnaf himself has narrated the condition of the rebel leader Malik al-Ashtar as follows:
When this treaty was written, al-Ashtar was also summoned to witness it. He said: “May Allah make it so that this right hand does not remain with me, nor may I get any benefit from this left hand, if I sign this treaty which has been written in the name of peace. Am I not on guidance from my Lord, and I am certain of the misguidance of my enemy?” Ash’ath bin Qais (who played a fundamental role in the completion of this treaty) said: “By Allah! You have seen no success and no oppression. Come with us, we have no enmity with you.” Ashtar said: “Why not? By Allah! I hate you in the world for the sake of the world and in the Hereafter for the sake of the Hereafter. Allah Almighty has shed the blood of many individuals by means of this sword of mine, and you are no better than them in my view, nor do I consider your blood sacred.” ‘Umarah (the narrator) says that I looked at this person (Ash’ath) and it seemed as if coals had been placed on his nose, meaning, it was that black (with anger).
(Tabari. 3/2-249)
This shows what the rebels’ opinion was about this treaty. Since Ash’ath bin Qais (may Allah have mercy on him) played a fundamental role in this peace treaty, he became the target of the wrath of these rebel narrators.
🌹 This same Abu Mikhnaf has narrated from his companions that this same Ash’ath then rebelled against Hazrat Ali (RA) and formed the Khariji group. Obviously, this accusation was leveled against him because he was at the forefront of the peace, and through this peace, he had sunk the rebels’ boat. It is present in Abu Mikhnaf’s own narration that Ash’ath bin Qais was at the forefront in the fight against the Khawarij.
(Tabari. 3/2-281)
Tabari has stated Ash’ath’s rebellion with this chain:
🌹 فحدثني عبد الله بن أحمد، قال: حدثني أبي، قال: حدثني سليمان بن يونس بن يزيد، عن الزهري.
We have stated in many places regarding this chain that this chain is weak. Regarding Yunus bin Yazid al-Ayli, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal’s opinion is that he narrates Munkar (extremely strange/rejected) narrations from al-Zuhri.
(Dhahabi. Narrator 9932. 7/320)
Then, al-Ayli attributes this narration to Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri, who was born in 58 AH / 677 AD, 21 years after this event. If al-Zuhri indeed narrated this, it is quite possible that he heard this narration from someone who was part of the rebel movement.
After the peace treaty, both armies returned. According to Abu Mikhnaf’s narration, a split then occurred among the rebels. Read what happened in their own words:
🌹 Abu Mikhnaf has narrated the statement of ‘Umarah bin Rabi’ah via Abu Khabbab al-Kalbi: When the Shian-e-Ali (partisans of Ali) went with Hazrat Ali (RA) to the field of Siffin, they were mutual friends with each other, and each one loved the other. When they returned from the field of Siffin, they all became enemies of each other. Each one bore malice against the other. As long as they remained in Ali’s (RA) army in the field of Siffin, they were happy, but when the Tahkim event occurred, they all began to block each other’s paths. They would curse each other and whip each other.
(Tabari. 3/2-258)
From this home testimony of Abu Mikhnaf, one can gauge that after the Battle of Siffin, the whip of Allah’s punishment came into motion and rained down hard on the rebels’ backs. Now, this movement split, and mutual enmity among them reached its peak. From the study of these narrations of Abu Mikhnaf (d. 157/774), it seems that this individual’s purpose was to organize the rebel movement of his time on the basis of historical arguments. He wrote books on the events of Siffin, Tahkim, and then Karbala, and in them, he also stated the mistakes of his movement so that his companions could remain safe from these mistakes in the future.
We have stated above that many elements were included in the rebel movement, whose interests differed from one another. Certainly, a conflict of interest must have occurred between them now, due to which they became enemies of each other. The sincere Muslims who were with Hazrat Ali (RA) already hated these rebels. On the other hand, the people who were with Hazrat Muawiyah (RA) were very sincere and united, and there was no internal disagreement of any kind among them. On this occasion, the rebel movement split into two parts, and the group that broke away from them was given the name “Khawarij”. We will detail this further on.
To what extent are the narrations of the Tahkim event correct?
All the narrations of the Tahkim event in Tabari are also narrated by Abu Mikhnaf, and this individual has inserted his hatred for the Sahaba Karam into these narrations, as is his habit. This individual has tried to defame both Hazrat Abu Musa and Amr ibn al-Aas (RA), portraying Hazrat Abu Musa as foolish (May Allah forbid) and Hazrat Amr as cunning and deceitful. The falsehood of this impression is clear from the fact that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) himself appointed both these gentlemen to responsible and sensitive posts.
According to Abu Mikhnaf’s statement, in Ramadan 37 AH / 657 AD, both Hakam gathered at the location of Dumat al-Jandal. There were four hundred companions with each of them.
(Tabari. 3/2-263)
The narrator’s claim is that there was a severe split among the companions of Hazrat Ali (RA) because a large number of them were not sincere to you. Read the details in this individual’s own words:
🌹 Abu Mikhnaf has narrated the statement of Ziyad bin al-Nadr al-Harithi via Mujalid bin Sa’id and al-Sha’bi: Hazrat Ali (RA) sent four hundred individuals and appointed Shurayh bin Hani al-Harithi as their commander. Abdullah bin Abbas (RA) was also with them, who would lead the people in prayer and manage the affairs of these men. Abu Musa Ash’ari (RA) was with them. Muawiyah sent four hundred individuals with Amr ibn al-Aas (RA). These two groups gathered at Azruh in the location of Dumat al-Jandal.
Whenever Muawiyah sent a messenger to Amr ibn al-Aas, he would come and go. No one had any inkling of what message he brought and what message he took back. The people of Sham (Syria) would not ask him any questions. In contrast, when any messenger of Hazrat Ali came to Ibn Abbas, the people of Iraq would immediately ask Ibn Abbas (RA) what the Amir al-Mu’minin (Commander of the Faithful) had written. If Ibn Abbas concealed anything, these people would cast various suspicions on him and say, ‘We think he must have written such-and-such.’ Ibn Abbas was forced to say: “Do you people have no sense at all? Do you not see Muawiyah’s messenger, that he brings a message and no one knows? He takes a message from here and no one knows what message he has taken. Neither do the Syrians shout at him, nor do they utter a word from their mouths. And then there is you, who are always casting new suspicions.”
(Tabari. 3/2-263)
Abu Mikhnaf and other rebel narrators have written regarding the Tahkim event that a private conversation took place between Hazrat Abu Musa Ash’ari and Amr ibn al-Aas (RA). Then, along with that, they narrate the entire conversation in the form of a dialogue as if they themselves were present with those gentlemen, and either they had a tape recorder or were taking notes in shorthand. In this regard, they narrate their entire dialogue, of which there are two narrations that are contradictory to each other:
🌹 The first narration is:
فحدثني عبد الله بن أحمد، قال: حدثني أبي، قال: حدثني سليمان بن يونس بن يزيد، عن الزهري۔
According to this narration, Hazrat Amr proposed to make Hazrat Muawiyah (RA) the Caliph, so Hazrat Abu Musa refuted it, and then they both came out insulting each other. Hazrat Abu Musa recited this verse about Hazrat Amr: وَاتْلُ عَلَيْهِمْ نَبَأَ الَّذِي آتَيْنَاهُ آيَاتِنَا فَانسَلَخَ مِنْهَا i.e., “Relate to them the story of the one to whom We gave Our signs, but he slipped away from them.” Upon this, Hazrat Amr recited this verse about him: مَثَلُ الَّذِينَ حُمِّلُوا التَّوْرَاةَ ثُمَّ لَمْ يَحْمِلُوهَا كَمَثَلِ الْحِمَارِ يَحْمِلُ أَسْفَاراً i.e., “The example of those who were entrusted with the Torah and then did not uphold it is like that of a donkey who carries volumes.”
(Tabari. 3/2-252)
🌹 The second narration is:
According to the second narration, Hazrat Amr and Abu Musa (RA) agreed on the matter that both Hazrat Ali and Muawiyah (RA) should be deposed, and the decision should be left to the general Muslims, that they may make whomever they wish their Caliph. After this, these gentlemen came out. Hazrat Amr told Hazrat Abu Musa that you are a companion of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) and older than me in age, therefore you make the announcement first. Ibn Abbas even told Hazrat Abu Musa to let him (Amr) announce first, you should not announce first, but he did not listen. The narration continues:
🌹 قال أبو مخنف: حدثني أبو جناب الكلبي: Hazrat Abu Musa Ash’ari (RA) announced first: “O people! We have deliberated on the matter of the Caliphate of this Ummah and have not seen a better solution than that upon which I and Amr have agreed. It is that we depose both Ali and Muawiyah and leave this Caliphate to the Ummah, that they may elect whomever they like as their Caliph. Therefore, I have deposed both Ali and Muawiyah. You people should reflect on this matter yourselves, and whomever you deem worthy of this Caliphate, entrust this Caliphate to him.” After this, you stepped back, and Hazrat Amr (RA) announced:
“You have heard what he (Abu Musa) said. He has deposed his leader, I too depose him whom he has deposed. But I uphold my leader, Muawiyah, because he is the heir of Uthman bin Affan and the seeker of his retribution (Qisas), and among the people, he is the most entitled to this position.”
Upon this, Abu Musa said: “Amr! What is wrong with you? May Allah not grant you Tawfiq (ability) for good deeds, you have broken your promise and deceived. Your example is as Allah Almighty has said: كَمَثَلِ الْكَلْبِ إِنْ تَحْمِلْ عَلَيْهِ يَلْهَثْ أَوْ تَتْرُكْهُ يَلْهَثْ ‘His example is that of the dog: if you chase him, he lolls his tongue out, or if you leave him alone, he (still) lolls his tongue out.’ ” Upon this, Amr replied that your example is that of the donkey upon whom books are loaded.
After this, Shurayh bin Hani attacked Amr with a whip. Upon this, Amr’s son started hitting Shurayh with a whip, and a scuffle broke out. The Syrians looked for Abu Musa, but he had departed for Makkah. When the news of this decision reached Hazrat Ali (RA), he started sending curses upon Hazrat Muawiyah, Amr ibn al-Aas, Abu al-A’war al-Sulami, Habib ibn Maslamah, Abd al-Rahman ibn Khalid, al-Dahhak ibn Qais, and al-Walid ibn Uqbah (RA) during the prayers. When Hazrat Muawiyah received news of this, he started sending curses upon Hazrat Ali, Ibn Abbas, al-Ashtar, Hasan, and Husain (RA) during the prayers.
(Tabari. 3/2-267)
Inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji’un (To Allah we belong and to Him we return)
It is regrettable that later historians began to narrate this second narration without thinking, due to which it became famous. We can neither harbor such suspicion against Hazrat Ali (RA) that he would arrange to send curses during prayer upon those Sahaba whom the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) declared as believers, nor do we hold this suspicion about Hazrat Muawiyah (RA) that he would take such retaliatory action against eminent personalities like Hazrat Ali, Hasan, and Husain (RA).
Now we compare and analyze these two narrations. If you have not yet studied the previous series, you must study the principles of narration analysis and criticism there. If we consider the chain (isnad) and text (matn) of these narrations, these matters come to light:
🌹 1. The chain of the first narration stated by Tabari is this:
فحدثني عبد الله بن أحمد، قال: حدثني أبي، قال: حدثني سليمان بن يونس بن يزيد، عن الزهري۔
The rebels have attributed this chain to Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri (58-124 AH / 677-741 AD), who was born 21 years after the Tahkim event.
He was not an eyewitness to the event, and it is not known from whom he heard this narration. Even if he heard this narration at the age of twenty, there is at least one person who is unknown in this chain. It is possible that this unknown person was a worker of the rebel movement. Then, from al-Zuhri, this narration is being narrated by Sulaiman bin Yunus bin Yazid al-Ayli. Sulaiman is not a direct student of al-Zuhri; rather, his father Yunus bin Yazid al-Ayli is a student of al-Zuhri, and we have repeatedly stated his unreliability in this historical series.
🌹 2. The chain of the second narration stated by Tabari is this:
قال أبو مخنف: حدثني أبو جناب الكلبي۔ In this chain, first of all, there is this Abu Mikhnaf (d. 157/774), who holds extreme hatred in his heart for the Sahaba Karam, and the Muhadditheen (scholars of hadith) are unanimous about his fabrication of lies.
The second person is Abu Janab al-Kalbi (d. 150/766),
whose real name is Yahya bin Abi al-Hayyah al-Kalbi al-Kufi. The statements of various experts in Jarh wa Ta’dil (criticism and validation of narrators) about him are:
Yahya al-Qattan says:
I do not consider it permissible to narrate his narrations.
The opinion of Nasa’i and Darqutni is that he is a weak narrator.
Abu Zur’ah and Yahya bin Ma’in say that he is Saduq (truthful) but commits Tadlis (deceptive narration, e.g., hiding the name of a weak narrator in the chain).
Ibn al-Dawraqi from Yahya: There is no harm in Abu Janab as such, but he commits Tadlis. Fallas says he is a Matruk (abandoned) narrator.
(Mizan al-I’tidal, narrator number 9499)
Ibn ‘Adi states that he belongs to the Shia group of Kufa.
(Ibn ‘Adi, Al-Kamil fi al-Du’afa’. p. 2669)
Ibn Abi Hatim says: Do not write anything from him, he is not Qawi (strong).
(Ibn Abi Hatim al-Razi. Al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil. 9/138. Narrator number 587)
No one narrates this narration except Abu Mikhnaf and Abu Janab al-Kalbi, and from Abu Janab up to the eyewitnesses of the Tahkim event, no name is mentioned. Abu Janab al-Kalbi died in 150/766, and he must have narrated this narration about a hundred years after the Tahkim event, but all the narrators in between are missing, and we do not know what kind and what level of people they are.
- There is a severe contradiction between the two narrations. According to the first narration, the disagreement between Hazrat Abu Musa and Amr (RA) occurred in private, and they came out insulting each other, and then after coming out, they eulogized each other. According to the second narration, both came out in a very good manner after reaching a consensus. Then they made their respective announcements, and after that, a bitter exchange occurred between them in which they recited verses. Now, which of these two contradictory narrations should be believed?
- These narrations present contradictory pictures regarding the verse that Hazrat Abu Musa recited. According to the first narration, he recited a part of verse 7:175, while according to the second narration, he recited a part of verse 7:176. If these two eminent gentlemen had used such abusive language against each other, the matter would not have remained limited to this. Four hundred men from each side were present; a war could have broken out between them. Then the matter would not have remained limited to just beating with whips; swords would have been drawn.
- The interesting point is that at the time of the Tahkim event, four hundred individuals from both sides were present there, but no one has narrated these details. Only al-Zuhri and Abu Janab al-Kalbi narrate it, one of whom was born twenty-one years after this event, and the era of the other is also about a hundred years after this event.
- The matter of Hazrat Ali and Muawiyah (RA) sending curses on each other in the state of prayer is something that is not comprehensible. On the one hand, these gentlemen praise each other, and on the other, they send curses on each other. Just look at the letter of Hazrat Ali (RA) mentioned above; what statements are in it regarding Hazrat Muawiyah (RA). Similarly, we will state Hazrat Muawiyah’s opinion regarding Hazrat Ali later. This is merely the hatred of these narrators, which they have unsuccessfully tried to put into the mouth of Hazrat Ali (RA).
- If Hazrat Amr (RA) had committed deception, as is stated in these narrations, then the large number of sincere Muslims, who were still neutral, would have joined Hazrat Ali (RA) in that case. Similarly, the hesitation of those people in your camp who were still hesitant would also have been removed. It is proven from later events that this did not happen.
- While fabricating this narration, Abu Janab al-Kalbi and Abu Mikhnaf did not even consider who was older in age between Hazrat Amr and Abu Musa (RA). Thus, they boldly narrated these words of Hazrat Amr: “You are a companion of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) and older than me in age. Therefore, you announce first, then I will also announce.” In every matter, Amr would put Abu Musa forward in this way, and in this way, he would tell him in every matter, and he wanted to make him announce the end of Ali’s caliphate.
(Tabari. 3/2-266)
🌹 Hazrat Abu Musa Ash’ari died in 50 AH / 673 AD at the age of 63.
(Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr. Al-Isti’ab. Sahabi number 1650. 1/588)
According to this calculation, his date of birth was thirteen years before the start of the Hijri year, in 609 AD.
In contrast, Hazrat Amr died in 43 AH / 664 AD at an age of over 80 years.
(Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr. Al-Isti’ab. Sahabi number 1941. 2/100)
If we assume his age at the time of death to be 81 years, for example, then according to this calculation, his year of birth comes out to 38 years before the start of the Hijri year, in 585 AD. In this way, Hazrat Amr was at least 24-25 years older than Hazrat Abu Musa (RA).
Then what is the meaning of “You are a companion of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) and older than me in age. Therefore, you announce first, then I will also announce.”
Another proof of the long life of Hazrat Amr bin al-Aas is that he went as the ambassador of the Quraish to the court of the Negus (Najashi) on the occasion of the migration to Abyssinia, eight years before the start of the Hijri year, in 614 AD.
(Tabari. 2/1-79)
At that time, Hazrat Abu Musa Ash’ari would have been five years old. If Hazrat Amr was younger than him, then had the Quraish sent a two or three-year-old child as an ambassador?????? They say truly that a lie has no legs.
Although the Muhadditheen had clarified that Abu Mikhnaf was a liar and his narrated narrations have no credibility, it is regrettable that scholarly researchers like Tabari and Baladhuri recorded these narrations of Abu Mikhnaf in their books as they were, and merely by giving his name in the chain, they assumed that people of later generations would check his name and scrutinize these narrations. Certainly, researchers could do this, but common historians did not do so because they could not find narrations from anyone other than Abu Mikhnaf. In this way, these narrations continued to be copied from one book to another, and in a short time, this false propaganda gained the status of “authentic history.” Ibn Kathir, however, has stated the forgery of these narrations.
What are the correct details of the Tahkim event?
From the above details, it has become clear that the narrations of the Tahkim event stated in Tabari have no basis and are lies fabricated by these same rebel narrators. Now the question arises, what picture of this event emerges from the correct narrations? This is a question the answer to which has compelled us to review the entire corpus of hadiths, athar (reports from companions), and history. It is strange that regarding an important event like Tahkim, which had nearly 800 eyewitnesses, very little material is available in the books of history. The narrations that are found are these same ones narrated by Yunus bin Yazid al-Ayli and Abu Mikhnaf. It seems as if the details of this event were either intentionally hidden or were distorted to such a degree that access to the truth is not possible. However, from the events that occurred later, we can draw these conclusions: that Hazrat Abu Musa and Amr bin al-Aas (RA) could not reach a conclusion, and they entrusted the matter to the Muhajireen (Emigrants) and Ansar (Helpers). Yes, they both had agreed on this matter that until consensus is reached, Hazrat Ali would rule over Iraq, and Hazrat Muawiyah (RA) would rule over Sham (Syria), until Allah the Almighty creates a situation of agreement between them.
After the Tahkim event, Hazrat Ali (RA) first had to face the rebellion from the Khawarij and then from the Iranians, due to which no situation of agreement could be reached with the people of Sham. As a result of the war with the Khawarij, Hazrat Ali was martyred, and then Hazrat Hasan (RA) brought this matter to a consensus.
Events after the Tahkim event
As we have stated above, after the Tahkim event, a split occurred in the rebel movement, and a large part of it broke away in the form of the Khawarij. For three years, the situation remained that Hazrat Ali and Muawiyah (RA) ruled over their respective regions. Tabari’s statement is that in 40 AH / 660 AD, a ceasefire treaty occurred between Hazrat Ali and Muawiyah, and it was decided that both would rule over their respective regions:
🌹 In this year, a decision for a ceasefire was made between Hazrat Ali and Muawiyah (RA). There was lengthy mutual correspondence. Fearing the length of the series, we ignore this correspondence. The decision was settled that a mutual ceasefire should be established. Iraq would be counted under Ali’s rule, and Sham under Muawiyah’s rule. Neither party would launch a military campaign on the other’s territory, nor engage in any kind of plunder.
(Tabari. 3/2-346)
This peace treaty certainly must have happened, and this is what can be expected from these two eminent Sahaba. However, Tabari has narrated some such events for this year 40/660, upon which questions can be raised. Their details are:
First Question:
Hazrat Muawiyah (RA) sent an army under the leadership of Busr bin Abi Arta’ah to attack Hijaz and Yemen, and his army committed atrocities there. What was its justification? In response, Hazrat Ali (RA) sent Jariyah bin Qudamah and Wahb bin Mas’ud with an army, who committed atrocities against the people of Najran and Makkah. What was its justification?
Second Question:
Hazrat Abdullah bin Abbas (RA) left the side of Hazrat Ali (RA). What was the reason for this?
Here we will try to find the answers to these two questions.
Review of the First Question
Did Hazrat Muawiyah and Ali launch military campaigns in Hijaz and Yemen?
🌹 It is stated in Tabari’s narration that in 40 AH / 660 AD, Hazrat Muawiyah (RA) sent an army of three thousand fighters to Hijaz under the leadership of Busr bin Abi Arta’ah. This army captured Madinah, and no person from the city came out to confront them. The people of Madinah gave their oath of allegiance to Hazrat Muawiyah. After this, this army advanced towards Makkah and captured it. Abu Musa Ash’ari was the governor there on behalf of Hazrat Ali (RA). Busr treated him well. After this, this army advanced towards Yemen, where Ubaydullah bin Abbas (RA) was the governor. Ubaydullah fled to Kufa out of fear but left his family in Yemen. Busr killed a large group of Shian-e-Ali (partisans of Ali) in Yemen, and along with them, he also killed Ubaydullah’s two children, Abd al-Rahman and Quthm. Upon receiving this news, Hazrat Ali (RA) sent Jariyah bin Qudamah and Wahb bin Mas’ud with an army of two thousand. Jariyah set the city of Najran on fire and burned the entire city to ashes. He killed many supporters of Hazrat Uthman (RA). Busr and his companions fled to Sham (Syria).
(Tabari. 3/2-345)
There are many problems in this narration in terms of chain (isnad) and text (matn). First, we analyze this narration in terms of its chain, and then its text.
The chain stated for this narration in Tabari is this:
فذكر عن زياد بن عبد الله البكائي، عن عوانة۔
Now, read the opinions of the experts in Jarh wa Ta’dil about these two narrators of this narration.
The opinions of experts about Ziyad bin Abdullah al-Bakka’i (d. 183/799) are:
Abu Hatim says: It is not correct to narrate from al-Bakka’i.
According to Ibn al-Madini, he is a weak narrator; I have both written narrations from him and abandoned them.
According to Ibn Ma’in, there is no harm in his narrations regarding the history of battles, but his narrations in other matters should not be accepted.
In the view of Nasa’i, this person is weak. # Ibn Sa’d’s opinion is that he was weak in the view of Muhadditheen, but his narrations were transmitted.
Ahmad bin Hanbal, however, says that his hadith is the hadith of truthful people. (Dhahabi. Mizan al-I’tidal, narrator number 2952)
The summary of these opinions is that except for Ahmad bin Hanbal, in the view of most experts, Ziyad al-Bakka’i is weak.
The second narrator is ‘Awanah,
who is likely ‘Awanah bin al-Hakam al-Kalbi. We could not find many details about this individual in the books of Rijal (biographies of narrators).
Only this much is written:
‘Awanah bin al-Hakam bin ‘Iyad bin Wazar al-Kalbi, whose kunya (nickname) was Abu al-Hakam al-Kufi, was a great Akhbari (historian) and was one of the eloquent people. His books include “Al-Tarikh” (History) and “Sirat Muawiyah wa Bani Umayyah” (Biography of Muawiyah and the Umayyads) and other books. Hisham al-Kalbi and others narrate from him. He was “Saduq” (truthful) in the matter of transmission (meaning, whatever truth or lie was stated before him, he would narrate it exactly). Muhammad bin Ishaq al-Nadim’s opinion is that he died in 147/764. (http://www.islamweb.net/newlibrary/showalam.php?id=1080 (ac. 29 Mar 2012))
It is clear that when ‘Awanah died in 147/764, he must have narrated this narration approximately one hundred years after this event. ‘Awanah could absolutely not have been an eyewitness to this event. Who knows how many links are missing in between, and we do not know what kind of people these unknown narrators are, whether they are reliable or not. The incomplete chain that exists for this narration is not reliable. It is also possible that ‘Awanah’s student, Hisham al-Kalbi, who is from his same tribe, attributed these things to him.
In terms of dirayah (textual analysis), the basis of this narration is not understandable. These questions arise from it:
- Can an army of three thousand be so large that seeing it, the people of Madinah, Makkah, and Yemen do not offer the slightest resistance, and Ubaydullah bin Abbas flees to Kufa out of fear of it? Yemen is still before us today, where fighting and quarrels show no sign of ending. Were the people of Yemen in that era wearing bangles, that upon seeing an army of three thousand, they bowed their necks, saying, ‘Come and kill us’?
- When a person leaves his homeland due to some danger, he first gets his wife and children out of there. Ubaydullah bin Abbas saved his own life but left his children there. How is this possible?
- Can this be expected from Hazrat Ali (RA) that he would send such unreasonable people who would burn the entire city of Najran to ashes?
- Abdullah and Ubaydullah bin Abbas (RA) are both cousins of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). Both these gentlemen were present during the era of Hazrat Muawiyah (RA) and remained loyal to him. They never even complained about the killing of these children. Can a person remain loyal to the killer of his children?
The interesting point is that Ubaydullah bin Abbas’s daughter, Lubabah, was married to Hazrat Muawiyah’s nephew, Walid bin ‘Utbah bin Abi Sufyan.
(Mus’ab al-Zubayri (156-236 AH / 773-851 AD). Nasab Quraish. 133. www.waqfeya.com (ac. 14 Aug 2012))
If Hazrat Muawiyah had gotten his children killed, how would this relationship have been established?
This shows that this narration was fabricated by some unknown person so that, with its help, Hazrat Muawiyah and Ali (RA) could be defamed. It has no reality.
Review of the Second Question
Did Hazrat Abdullah bin Abbas leave the side of Ali?
Narrators have leveled this accusation against Hazrat Abdullah bin Abbas (RA) that he left the side of Hazrat Ali (RA). This narration is present in Tarikh al-Tabari, but Tabari himself has stated in this regard that two different narrations have reached him on this matter. He writes:
🌹 General historians say that in this year, i.e., 40/660, Abdullah bin Abbas (RA) left Basra and went to Makkah. But some historians have denied this. They say that Abdullah bin Abbas continuously remained the governor of Basra until, after the martyrdom of Hazrat Ali, Hazrat Hasan made peace with Hazrat Muawiyah (RA). After this (peace), Abdullah bin Abbas left Basra and went to Makkah.
(Tabari. 3/2-347)
🌹 After this, Tabari has stated that narration of Abu Mikhnaf, according to which a rebel, Abu al-Aswad al-Wa’ili, wrote a complaint letter to Hazrat Ali about Ibn Abbas, in which he accused him of corruption in wealth. He was a companion of the rebel party and had become the Qadi (judge) of Basra to control power. In response to the letter, Hazrat Ali (RA) issued him a certificate of praise and demanded an account of the wealth from Ibn Abbas (RA). Ibn Abbas became angry at this and left Basra and took all the wealth of the Bayt al-Mal (treasury) from here. On this occasion, a scuffle also broke out among the people.
(Tabari. 3/2-348)
🌹 The chain of the event stated in Tabari is this: حدثني عمر بن شبة، قال: حدثني جماعة عن أبي مخنف، عن سليمان ابن أبي راشد، عن عبد الرحمن بن عبيد أبي الكنود۔
Regarding the falsehood of this narration, it is sufficient that Abu Mikhnaf is present in its chain. Then, even from Abu Mikhnaf, a jama’ah (group) has heard this narration, about whom it is not known who these people were and to what degree they were reliable.
This matter can, however, be accepted, that the rebels may have leveled an accusation of corruption against Ibn Abbas (RA) because it had been their habit to distance the sincere companions of Hazrat Ali (RA) from him and to tighten the circle around him. Ibn Abbas was among those sincere ones who were with Hazrat Ali from the beginning until now, and the rebels could not separate them. This cannot be expected from Hazrat Ali, however, that due to such an accusation, he would doubt his paternal cousin, whom he had known since childhood, and issue a certificate of praise to the rebels. It is quite possible that these rebels wrote that letter themselves on his behalf.
Mutual Relations between Hazrat Ali and Muawiyah (RA)
The full effort of the rebel narrators has been to prove Hazrat Ali and Muawiyah (RA) as enemies of each other (May Allah forbid). Sometimes they make them utter curses on each other, sometimes they make them speak ill of each other, and make them doubt their Islam. In reality, these are their own emotions, which they unsuccessfully try to force into the mouths of Hazrat Ali or Muawiyah (RA).
If all such narrations are reviewed, some false narrator like Abu Mikhnaf, Hisham al-Kalbi, Sayf bin Umar, or al-Waqidi will certainly be present in their chain.
Here we are presenting a few narrations and some points, from which one can gauge what opinion these gentlemen had about each other.
🌹 1. Hazrat Ali’s brother, ‘Aqeel, was a close companion of Hazrat Muawiyah (RA) at that time, and on the other hand, Hazrat Muawiyah’s brother, Ziyad bin Abi Sufyan, was a close companion of Hazrat Ali, and you had appointed him governor of Iran and Khurasan. Once ‘Aqeel was sitting with Muawiyah, Muawiyah praised Ali profusely and compared him to a lion in bravery and agility, to the spring season in beauty, and to the Euphrates river in generosity and benevolence, and said: “O Abu Yazid (‘Aqeel)! How can I not say this about Ali bin Abi Talib? Ali is one of the leaders of the Quraish, and he is the spear upon which the Quraish stand. All signs of greatness are present in Ali.” Hearing this, ‘Aqeel said: “Amir al-Mu’minin! You have indeed upheld the ties of kinship.”
(Ibn Asakir. 42/416)
🌹 2. In the letter that Hazrat Ali (RA) sent to the cities after the Battle of Siffin, he said: The beginning of our matter was that a confrontation occurred between us and the people of Sham (Syria). It is obvious that our Lord and their Lord is one, our Prophet and their Prophet is one, our call regarding Islam and their call is one. In this matter, neither were they more than us, nor were we more than them. We only had a disagreement in one matter, and that was the blood of Uthman, while we were innocent of it.
(Sayyid Sharif Radi. Nahj al-Balaghah. Letter number 58)
🌹 3. A person asked Hazrat Muawiyah (RA) a religious question. You said: “Ask Ali bin Abi Talib about this; he is a greater scholar than me.” He said: “Amir al-Mu’minin! Your opinion is more beloved to me than Ali’s opinion.” You said: “You have said a very bad thing, and your opinion is very condemnable. Are you disliking the opinion of the gentleman (Ali) whom the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) honored with knowledge? The Prophet (PBUH) said to him: ‘Ali! You have the same status to me as Harun (Aaron) (peace be upon them) had to Musa (Moses). The difference is that there is no prophet after me.'”
(Ibn Asakir. 42/170)
🌹 4. The Khawarij made a plan to martyr Hazrat Ali, Muawiyah, and Amr (RA) on the same night. When Hazrat Muawiyah captured his attacker, he began to say: “I have news that will make you happy to hear. If I tell it to you, it will benefit you greatly.” You said: “Speak.” He said: “Today, my brother has killed Ali.” You said: “I wish! Your brother was not able to overcome him.”
(Tabari. 3/2-357)
🌹 5. After the Battle of Siffin, Hazrat Ali (RA) said: “O people! Do not dislike the governorship of Muawiyah. If you were to lose him, you would see heads falling from their shoulders like bitter-apples (hanzal) fall from their tree.”
(Ibn Abi Shaybah. Al-Musannaf. 14/38850)
🌹 6. Yazid bin al-Asamm says that when peace was made between Ali and Muawiyah, Ali went towards his slain and said: “These people will be in Paradise.” Then he went towards Muawiyah’s slain and said: “These people will also be in Paradise. (On the Day of Resurrection) this matter will be between me and Muawiyah. The decision will be given in my favor, and Muawiyah will be forgiven. My beloved, the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), told me this.”
(Ibn Asakir. 59/139)
From these details, it is known that there was no personal disagreement between Hazrat Ali and Muawiyah (RA). There was only a disagreement on strategy between them. Hazrat Muawiyah’s (RA) opinion was that the rebels’ power should be thoroughly crushed, whereas Hazrat Ali’s (RA) thought was that if revenge was taken from these rebels at this time, their tribes would rise up, which would create a very large civil war. Since the rebels had seized control of Hazrat Ali’s (RA) governmental affairs, they made a full effort to attack Sham (Syria) and end the power of Hazrat Muawiyah (RA). Due to this, the Battle of Siffin occurred, which sincere Muslims got stopped. In this way, this plan of the rebels could not reach completion.
( And Allah the Almighty knows best what is correct )
Reference: https://alfurqan.info/problems/677
