The Reality of the Battle of Siffin – It Was Never Ali vs Muawiyah
Question: What is the reality of the Battle of Siffin? Between whom and why did this war take place?
Answer:
الحمدللہ::
In this regard, we will study the Battle of Siffin:
Between whom, when, and how did this battle occur?
- Did the war occur between Hazrat Ali and Muawiyah (رضی اللہ عنہم)?
Was Hazrat Muawiyah’s (رض) method of demanding Qisas (retribution) wrong?
Why did Hazrat Ali (رض) join the battle alongside the rebels?
How did the ceasefire happen?
Did external forces benefit from the Battle of Siffin?
Before reading about this battle, it is essential that you first study the preceding events so that you can understand the causes of this war and the reality of the rebels.
After the Battle of the Camel, the second major battle took place at Siffin. It is generally believed that this war was fought between the armies of Hazrat Ali and Hazrat Muawiyah (رضی اللہ عنہما), but the reality is different. A large part of Hazrat Ali’s army was now composed of members of the rebel movement (conspirators), and they had thrown their full force into the battlefield. Hazrat Muawiyah stood as the last obstacle in the path of their ambitions. The rebels wanted to consolidate their power by eliminating his strength. This is why they marched on Sham (Syria). Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ) accompanied them to keep these rebels under control and made every possible effort to stop them from fighting. However, the war did happen, and a large part of the rebels’ strength was destroyed in this battle.
How reliable are the narrations of the Battle of Siffin?
If we examine the narrations related to the Battle of Siffin in Tabari and Baladhuri, it is clear that they are all narrated by Abu Mikhnaf, who held a particular animosity towards the Sahaba (Companions). He was the one who wrote the first book on the Battle of Siffin. His great-grandfather, Mikhnaf bin Sulaym al-Azdi, participated in this battle. The effort of Abu Mikhnaf and other historians of his ilk has been to present an image of the Sahaba in these narrations as being opponents of each other. Similarly, they present an image of Hazrat Ali, Ammar bin Yasir, and Adi bin Hatim (رضی اللہ عنہم) that suggests they held a soft spot for the rebels and animosity in their hearts for other sincere Sahaba. All such sentences are the invention of Abu Mikhnaf, and apart from him, no reliable narrator has reported such things.
Since all narrations related to the Battle of Siffin have reached us through Abu Mikhnaf, it is impossible for us to determine the correct situation. Nevertheless, we will try to answer some questions based on the principles of dirayat (rational analysis/critique).
What significant events occurred between the Battle of the Camel and the Battle of Siffin?
After finishing with the Battle of the Camel, Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ) turned his attention to the country’s administration. He now resided in Kufa. His caliphate was generally accepted, and people began to pledge allegiance (bay’ah) to him. Only the province of Sham (Syria) was one that had not pledged allegiance to Hazrat Ali. A group of Sahaba, including Hazrat Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas, Muhammad bin Maslamah, Abdullah bin Umar, and Usama bin Zaid (رضی اللہ عنہم), remained neutral and resided in Medina. Hazrat Ali initiated correspondence with Hazrat Muawiyah and began efforts for unity, but the rebels thwarted all such attempts. Some ambassadors were also exchanged between them. On every such occasion, the rebels tried to create misunderstandings. They would also alienate the sincere Muslims who came to meet Hazrat Ali.
These rebels were masters of the art of forgery and had previously tried to mislead people by writing fake letters in the names of Hazrat Uthman, Ali, Talha, and Zubair (رضی اللہ عنہم). There is a strong possibility that they wrote these letters themselves in the names of Hazrat Ali and Muawiyah (رضی اللہ عنہما). Abu Mikhnaf and Sayyid Sharif Radi have included some of these letters in their books, but the language used in them suggests that much has been interpolated into these letters. These sentences seemingly imply that these two esteemed Sahaba were suspicious of each other. On one hand, Muawiyah considered Ali to be the killer of Hazrat Uthman, and on the other, Ali accused him of rebellion. These letters are nothing but the machinations of the rebels, which they did to defame both these Sahaba. Since the narrators belonging to the rebel party were running their movement in the name of Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ), they specifically tried to fabricate such narrations that would show Hazrat Ali as being with them, heart and soul. They openly character-assassinated the Sahaba who hindered their movement.
One proof of the forgery of these letters is that their chain of narration (sanad) includes narrators like Abu Mikhnaf, Hisham Kalbi, Sayf bin Umar, and Waqidi, whom the Muhadditheen (scholars of Hadith) have categorized as “Kazzab” (liars). Secondly, if such a degree of suspicion existed between these gentlemen, then why would Hazrat Ali defend Hazrat Muawiyah in his letter sent to different cities; why would Hazrat Muawiyah weep upon hearing the news of Hazrat Ali’s martyrdom and pray for him; and why would Hazrat Hasan make peace with Muawiyah and hand over power to him? (رضی اللہ عنہم). All these details will follow.
Why did Hazrat Ali move his capital to Kufa?
Here a question arises: it was Hazrat Ali’s (رضی اللہ عنہ) compulsion to leave Medina. But why did he not return to Medina after the Battle of the Camel and instead make Kufa his capital? We understand the following reasons for this question:
- Since Kufa was a very large cantonment and the affairs of all eastern countries were controlled from Kufa, it was necessary to bring it under control.
- The center of the rebel movement had also become Kufa, so it was necessary to be present in Kufa to keep an eye on them.
- Medina Munawwarah was in the center of the Islamic world and was an area far from military cantonments. The experience of Hazrat Uthman’s (رضی اللہ عنہ) martyrdom had made it clear that the capital should be in a place where a large number of troops were present.
What was the importance of the province of Sham from the rebels’ perspective?
The province of Sham was ruled by Hazrat Muawiyah (رضی اللہ عنہ). During the last period of Hazrat Uthman (رضی اللہ عنہ), the province of Sham extended from the Euphrates River in the northeast to the Nile River in the west. The entire modern-day countries of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Jordan were part of the province of Sham, while some parts of Iraq and Turkey were also included in this province. We have stated above that Sham was an extraordinary province because its borders met the Roman Empire, whose leader was the Caesar of Rome. Caesar was trying to reclaim his occupied territories. It was necessary to appoint a governor with extraordinary abilities over Sham. So, Hazrat Umar did just that and appointed Hazrat Muawiyah (رضی اللہ عنہما) as its governor in 20/642. He impressed Hazrat Umar and Uthman (رضی اللہ عنہما) with his good governance, and more areas were added to his province.
When Abdullah bin Saba began to organize his rebel movement in different cities, he also came to Sham, but he failed due to Hazrat Muawiyah’s vigilance. After this, these rebels encountered Hazrat Muawiyah (رضی اللہ عنہ) a second time when Malik al-Ashtar and his companions rioted in Kufa. On the orders of Hazrat Uthman (رضی اللہ عنہ), they were sent to Hazrat Muawiyah, where he tried to reform them very gently. You have already read the details of this incident. It seems that Malik al-Ashtar and his companions were quite intimidated by Hazrat Muawiyah’s (رضی اللہ عنہ) strength. It is reported in the narrations that when the rebel Sa’sa’a grabbed Hazrat Muawiyah’s (رضی اللہ عنہ) beard and pulled it, he said: “Stop! If the people of Sham find out what you have done to their ruler, I will not be able to stop them from killing you.”
(Tabari. 3/1-368)
This shows how much the people of Sham loved Hazrat Muawiyah.
Compared to Iraq and Egypt, the rebels received no reception in Sham, and they failed miserably in establishing their branch here because Hazrat Muawiyah’s government was stable in Sham. For these reasons, the rebels considered Hazrat Muawiyah (رضی اللہ عنہ) to be the biggest obstacle to the completion of their plan. This is why, as soon as Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ) became Caliph, these rebels planned an attack on Sham and tried to prepare the people of Medina in the name of Hazrat Ali, but all Muslims showed indifference, and this plan of the rebels failed. After the Battle of the Camel, they planned to remove this obstacle.
The rebel movement was like an iceberg. The people who had come forward so far were like the upper surface of the iceberg, which is visible, but a part ten times larger is hidden in the sea. The same was the case with the rebel movement. The people who had come forward so far were merely the upper part of this iceberg. Since their main strength had been finished first in the battle of Basra and then in the Battle of the Camel, they now decided to make a final move. Malik al-Ashtar and other rebel leaders activated their silent supporters, and now the full force of the rebels emerged, and they decided to strike a decisive blow against the people of Sham.
As we have stated above, it is wrongly famous about the Battle of Siffin that it was fought between the armies of Hazrat Ali and Muawiyah (رضی اللہ عنہما). This was spread by Abu Mikhnaf, one of their rebel supporters, and it is his reported details that fill the histories of Tabari and Baladhuri. This war was actually fought between Hazrat Muawiyah and the leaders of the rebel movement. Hazrat Ali and his sincere companions tried their best to prevent the war, and you (Ali) continuously tried to resolve matters through diplomacy.
Why did Hazrat Muawiyah not pledge allegiance (bay’ah) to Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ)?
The reason for this is that Hazrat Muawiyah knew that the killers of Uthman had surrounded Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہم) and that Hazrat Muawiyah himself was now the last obstacle in their path. If he had also pledged allegiance, these rebels would have had him deposed the very next day, and then their path would have been completely clear. The rebels had done the same with other governors, and their goal was to appoint weak governors and rule themselves under their cover. Due to this danger, Hazrat Muawiyah did not pledge allegiance to Hazrat Ali. But he did not deny his caliphate either, and only made the demand that if Hazrat Ali separated these rebels from himself and punished them, he was ready to pledge allegiance to him.
Abu Mikhnaf, etc., have written about the diplomacy between Hazrat Ali and Muawiyah (رضی اللہ عنہما) and, due to their enmity towards the Sahaba, have included such things that suggest that both these gentlemen had animosity in their hearts for each other. This is contrary to reality. If they had animosity and enmity in their hearts, why would Hazrat Ali and Muawiyah refrain from war and conflict for two months? Narrating one such incident, he (Abu Mikhnaf) has written some sentences attributed to Hazrat Muawiyah (رضی اللہ عنہ), which reveal his real objective:
“Your companion’s (Hazrat Ali’s) view that he did not kill Uthman, we do not deny it. But are you people not aware of the killers of Uthman? Do you not know that the killers of Uthman are the same ones who are your companion’s (Ali’s) associates? Let them hand over those killers to us so that we may kill them in retribution (Qisas) for Uthman. After that, we are ready to obey your Amir and accept the unity of the community.”
(Tabari. 3/2-198)
This shows that Hazrat Muawiyah had no issue with the person of Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہما); rather, his demand was only to separate these rebels and punish them. On the other hand, the entire iceberg of the rebel party had now emerged, and they had gathered in Kufa. When Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ) presented this demand of Hazrat Muawiyah in the grand mosque of Kufa, several thousand men stood up and said that they were the killers of Uthman.
How did Hazrat Amr bin Al-Aas join Hazrat Muawiyah?
Hazrat Amr bin Al-Aas (رضی اللہ عنہ) was an esteemed Sahabi. He conquered Egypt during the time of Hazrat Umar (رضی اللہ عنہ) and then served as its governor. He was a politician of the highest caliber and held the post of ambassador during the pre-Islamic era (Jahiliyyah). Waqidi, Hisham Kalbi, Abu Mikhnaf, etc., have particularly tried to character-assassinate Hazrat Amr bin Al-Aas (رضی اللہ عنہ) in their narrations because he thwarted the rebels’ conspiracies with his superior strategies and then eradicated their Egyptian branch. They leveled the accusation against him that when Hazrat Uthman (رضی اللہ عنہ) dismissed him, he turned against him, divorced his sister who was married to him, and then began inciting people against the Caliph. These are baseless narrations, and the one who fabricated them holds animosity in his heart against him. If this were indeed the case, how could Hazrat Muawiyah and the relatives of Hazrat Uthman make him their close companion and, in fact, commander-in-chief?
When the rebels besieged Medina, Hazrat Amr (رضی اللہ عنہ) left Medina and went to Palestine. When he received the news of Hazrat Uthman’s (رضی اللہ عنہ) martyrdom there, he wept bitterly and went to Damascus in that state. He was not even conscious of his own self. This shows the mutual love between Hazrat Amr and Uthman (رضی اللہ عنہما).
(Tabari. 3/2-179)
Waqidi, etc., have transmitted such false narrations that give the impression that Hazrat Amr joined Hazrat Muawiyah (رضی اللہ عنہ) out of greed for wealth and the governorship of Egypt.
In this regard, they present a story in which he consulted his sons Abdullah and Muhammad. Abdullah bin Amr (رضی اللہ عنہما), who was an early convert to Islam and a very pious and ascetic Sahabi, advised his father to stay at home. Muhammad advised him to take part in national politics. Hearing this, he remarked that the advice Abdullah gave is good for my hereafter, while the advice Muhammad gave is good for my worldly life. This is merely a fabricated, baseless narration, in whose chain of narration there are narrators like Waqidi, whom the Muhadditheen have declared a Kazzab (liar).
(Tabari. 3/2-181)
The truth is that if Hazrat Amr (رضی اللہ عنہ) had not entered the field, Hazrat Muawiyah (رضی اللہ عنہ) would have faced considerable difficulties in confronting the rebels because the rebels were using Hazrat Ali’s (رضی اللہ عنہ) name to incite people against Hazrat Muawiyah. Since Hazrat Amr (رضی اللہ عنہ) turned the rebels’ plans to dust with his unparalleled strategies, their narrators have particularly targeted him.
What was the inclination of the senior Sahaba?
The senior Sahaba who were present at that time had three types of inclinations:
- A small group of senior Sahaba was with Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ). The rebels’ effort was that whenever a sincere companion joined Hazrat Ali, they would try to alienate him by any means necessary. This is why there was a very small number of early Muslim Sahaba (Qadeem-ul-Islam) present with Hazrat Ali. They included Sahaba like Hazrat Ammar bin Yasir, Qais bin Sa’d bin Ubadah, and Abdullah bin Abbas (رضی اللہ عنہم).
- A group of Sahaba was with Hazrat Muawiyah (رضی اللہ عنہ), which included people like Hazrat Nu’man bin Bashir, Amr bin Al-Aas, and Muawiyah bin Khadij (رضی اللہ عنہم).
- A group was neutral, which included senior Sahaba like Hazrat Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas, Sa’id bin Zaid, Muhammad bin Maslamah, Abdullah bin Umar, Abu Musa Ash’ari, and Usama bin Zaid (رضی اللہ عنہم).
Very few of the Badri Sahaba (Companions who fought in Badr) participated in the Battle of Siffin.
The famous Tabi’i Muhammad bin Sirin states:
عبد الرزاق عن معمر عن أيوب عن ابن سيرين:
When the fire of fitna (sedition) erupted, the number of companions of the Messenger of Allah (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) was 10,000. Out of them, only 40 went out for the battle. Ma’mar says: Meaning, they did not go out with Hazrat Ali. At that time, more than 240 Sahaba from Ahl al-Badr (Companions of Badr) were alive, among whom only Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, Sahl bin Hunaif, and Ammar bin Yasir were with Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہم).
(Abd al-Razzaq. Al-Musannaf. Hadith No. 20735. p. 11/357. Beirut: Manshurat Majlis al-Ilmi. www.waqfeya.com)
عبد الرزاق عن معمر عن أيوب عن ابن سيرين:
Ibn Sirin says that Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas was asked: “Why do you not fight, since you are one of the Ahl al-Shura (council) and are more entitled to this matter than all the rest?” He replied: “I will not fight until you bring me a sword that has two eyes, a tongue, and two lips, and that can differentiate between a disbeliever and a believer.
I have done Jihad, and I understand Jihad. If someone is better than me, I am not one to hold back my life.”
(Abd al-Razzaq. Al-Musannaf. Hadith No. 20736. p. 11/357. Beirut: Manshurat Majlis al-Ilmi.)
What was the rebels’ plan against the people of Sham?
The rebels’ plan against the people of Sham was now this:
- To surround Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ) and isolate his sincere companions from him so that he could not implement his policies freely.
- To gather their full strength and strike a decisive blow against the people of Sham so that there would be no threat to their power.
In contrast, Hazrat Ali wanted to settle the matter with Hazrat Muawiyah (رضی اللہ عنہم) through diplomacy, just as the matter had been settled with Hazrat Talha and Zubair. Thus, he wrote letters to Hazrat Muawiyah, and he wrote back. Unfortunately, the Ghali (extremist) narrators have interpolated a lot into these letters.
After the Battle of the Camel, the rebels also brought their full force out of the woodwork and surrounded Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ). Their effort was to prevent him from making independent decisions in any way, otherwise, he would end their movement with his wisdom and insight. Thus, these rebels started efforts to drive away sincere companions from Hazrat Ali by some means or another. Their effort can be gauged from the incident of Hazrat Jarir bin Abdullah (رضی اللہ عنہ). He was the governor of Hamdan on behalf of Hazrat Uthman (رضی اللہ عنہ). When he received the invitation for bay’ah (allegiance) from Hazrat Ali, he came to him and pledged allegiance.
After this, the following conversation took place between them:
Jarir: Send me as an envoy to Muawiyah, as I have a friendship with him. I will convince him to obey you.
Malik al-Ashtar: Do not send him to Muawiyah at all, because in my opinion, he is with Muawiyah in his heart.
Ali: Let him go so that we may know what news he brings from there.
Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ) also sent a letter with Hazrat Jarir bin Abdullah (رضی اللہ عنہ) in which Hazrat Ali invited Hazrat Muawiyah to pledge allegiance to him and wrote that the Muhajireen and Ansar had pledged allegiance to him. When Jarir reached Sham, he saw that the people of Sham were weeping over the martyrdom of Hazrat Uthman (رضی اللہ عنہ) and had sworn that they would not have relations with their wives until they had killed the murderers of Uthman. Jarir returned and narrated the whole story to Hazrat Ali, upon which Ashtar said:
Ashtar: I had forbidden you earlier not to send Jarir as an envoy. I used to say even before that his heart is filled with enmity and malice towards you. It would have been better to send me as an envoy instead of sending him. He stayed comfortably with Muawiyah and must have opened the door he wanted for himself and closed the one he wanted.
Jarir: If you had gone to Sham, they would have certainly killed you because they say that you are among the killers of Hazrat Uthman.
Ashtar: By Allah, Jarir! If I had gone, I would not have waited for their answer and would have attacked Muawiyah in such a way that I would have relieved them of all worries. If the Amir al-Mu’minin (Ali) accepts my word, I will lock you and men like you in such a prison from which you will not be able to get out until these matters are settled.
Hazrat Jarir (رضی اللہ عنہ) was angered by this and, dissociating himself from the affairs, went to Qarqisiya.
(Tabari. 3/2-183)
With Jarir, Hazrat Hanzala and Hazrat Adi bin Hatim (رضی اللہ عنہم) were also included. Their stance was that we will not live in a city where Hazrat Uthman is abused.
(Ibn Asakir. 39/510)
This also negates the rebels’ accusation according to which they claimed Hazrat Adi bin Hatim was their companion.
A similar incident happened with Abu Muslim al-Khawlani:
During the dispute between Hazrat Ali and Muawiyah, Abu Muslim al-Khawlani came to Hazrat Muawiyah with a group of people to persuade him to pledge allegiance to Hazrat Ali and said to Hazrat Muawiyah: “You are disputing with Ali. Do you think you are like him in knowledge and virtue?” He replied: “By Allah! I do not think so. I know that Ali is better and more virtuous than me and is also more deserving of the caliphate than me. But do you people not acknowledge that Uthman was martyred unjustly? I am his cousin, so I have more right to take retribution for his blood. Go and tell Ali to hand over the killers of Uthman to me, and I will hand over the caliphate to him.”
These gentlemen then came to Hazrat Ali and spoke to him about this matter. But he did not hand over a single killer to them (because he was not in a position to do so). When the people of Sham learned of this, they prepared for war alongside Hazrat Muawiyah.
(Ibn Kathir. 11/425. Nasr bin Muzahim. Waq’at Siffin. 101. Beirut: Dar al-Jeel)
The rebels now began preparations for a decisive attack on Sham. Hazrat Muawiyah had not challenged the caliphate of Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہما) at all, nor was he a claimant to the caliphate in opposition to him. His demand was only that these rebels be arrested and given due punishment, then he would pledge allegiance.
Hazrat Ali was also not averse to accepting this demand, but he was not in a position to arrest the rebels.
The entire iceberg of the rebel movement had now emerged, and these people were not letting sincere individuals get near Hazrat Ali.
The rebels now planned an attack on Sham, which forced Hazrat Muawiyah to defend himself. Malik al-Ashtar was at the forefront of this matter and was gathering people from here and there. A man from the Banu Fazarah said to Ashtar: “Do you want us to go for the killing of our Syrian brothers, just as you took us for the killing of our Basran brothers?
By Allah! We will never do this.”
Hearing this, Ashtar said, “Seize him.”
At this, the people fell upon him and beat him with kicks and punches.
(Ibn Abi al-Hadid. Sharh Nahj al-Balagha. 3/174. www.shiaonlinelibrary.com)
It should also be clear here that Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ) had no intention of attacking Sham; rather, it was the rebel leaders, Malik al-Ashtar, etc., who planned the attack on Sham. If viewed from Hazrat Ali’s (رضی اللہ عنہ) perspective, attacking Sham was not such an urgent task that the suppression of the rebel party should be postponed for it. He had not sought retribution (Qisas) from the rebels for Hazrat Uthman (رضی اللہ عنہ) precisely because if retribution was taken from them at that time, their tribes would rise up in revolt, which would be very difficult to control. The question is, if this danger existed regarding the rebel party, then the same danger regarding the people of Sham was much greater. If attacking the rebels carried the risk of their supporters revolting, then attacking the people of Sham carried a much greater risk of their supporters revolting. The rebels were only a few thousand, whereas the people of Sham, in comparison, must have been in the millions. Can it be expected of Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ) that he would invite a greater danger to avoid a smaller one? It is just like spending a thousand rupees to save ten rupees. Obviously, the attack on Sham was actually the rebels’ scheme, and they were the ones at the forefront of it. For this purpose, they certainly used the name of Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ).
Why did Hazrat Ali not take action against the rebels now?
Here the question arises that in the case of Hazrat Uthman, we read that it was the Hajj season, and the majority of Muslims were not present in Medina, which gave the rebels the opportunity to act. But now, a considerable time has passed since Hajj, and Muslims have gathered. What is preventing Hazrat Ali from taking action against the rebels now? Why did it not happen that he, along with Hazrat Muawiyah and other sincere Muslims, crushed these rebels?
To answer this question, we have to consider the period between the Battle of the Camel and the Battle of Siffin.
The situation was now as follows:
· After the Battle of the Camel, the entire iceberg of the rebel movement had come out into the open and had made Kufa their center.
· Rebel leaders like Malik al-Ashtar, Muhammad bin Abi Bakr, etc., had tightened the circle around Hazrat Ali and his sincere companions and were constantly monitoring them.
· A large number of sincere Sahaba and Tabi’in had either joined Hazrat Muawiyah or had become detached and confined to their homes. The reason for this was that they saw these same rebels around Hazrat Ali.
· If any sincere Muslim tried to come close, these rebels would try to drive him away on some pretext. The example of Hazrat Jarir bin Abdullah (رضی اللہ عنہ) is before us.
In these circumstances, it was not possible for Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ) to take action against these rebels.
Why did Hazrat Ali accompany the rebels in their attack?
Now the question arises that if the rebels were to attack, why did Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ) go with them? The reason was that he did not want to leave these rebels completely unleashed (lit: like a camel without a tether), because he feared that if these people were left alone, they would continue to oppress Muslim populations along the way. This can be gauged from the incident at Raqqa, which was a town on the banks of the Euphrates River.
This incident has been narrated by the supporters of these rebels themselves, Abu Mikhnaf and Hisham Kalbi. When the army of Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ) reached Raqqa, he requested the people of Raqqa to build a boat bridge over the Euphrates River so that he could cross. The people of Raqqa refused because they did not consider marching on the people of Sham to be permissible. Hazrat Ali did not force them and left that place, heading towards another place, Manbij. Ashtar stayed behind with his companions and said to the people of Raqqa:
“O people of the fortress! I swear by Allah Almighty that if the Amir al-Mu’minin passes over the Manbij bridge with his contingent and you do not build a bridge for us here, I will attack you, kill your men, and lay waste to this land of yours. I will snatch all the wealth in your possession.”
(Tabari. 3/2-186)
The people of Raqqa were forced to build the bridge. This shows what these people would have done to the populations along the way if Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ) had not been with this army. This was the reason why Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ) accompanied these rebels.
Ultimately, at the location of Siffin, the Iraqi and Syrian armies came face to face. All the narrations of the Battle of Siffin in Tabari are narrated by Abu Mikhnaf, and one can imagine how he twisted and presented the events according to his own wishes. He tried to prove that there was a personal enmity between Hazrat Ali and Muawiyah (رضی اللہ عنہما), although the reality is far from this. The hearts of these two Sahaba were clear towards each other. It was the rebels who were at the forefront of attacking the people of Sham, and Malik al-Ashtar was the leader of this campaign. The narration that the Syrian army had cut off water to the Iraqis is also an invention of Abu Mikhnaf.
It is known from the narrations that both armies remained in front of each other for the entire month of Dhul-Hijjah 36 AH, and apart from minor skirmishes, no war took place between them. This clearly shows that the sincere people on both sides did not want to fight.
(Tabari. 3/2-196)
A year had now passed since the martyrdom of Uthman. When Muharram began, both sides sent peace messages to each other to resolve the matter through negotiations. During this time, Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ) did not neglect the duty of Hajj and sent Abdullah bin Abbas (رضی اللہ عنہما) as the Amir-ul-Hajj (leader of the pilgrimage).
Was Hazrat Muawiyah’s method of seeking Qisas (retribution) for Uthman correct?
A question has been raised against Hazrat Muawiyah (رضی اللہ عنہ) that the method he adopted to obtain Qisas for Hazrat Uthman (رضی اللہ عنہ) was not correct. First, he was not the direct heir of Hazrat Uthman. Second, if he had to demand Qisas, he should have given unconditional obedience to the new Caliph, Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ), and then brought his case to his court. Instead, he chose the path of military action. Is this act correct?
This question arises because the martyrdom of Hazrat Uthman (رضی اللہ عنہ) is considered an ordinary incident of murder, just as when a common murder occurs, the heirs of the victim should turn to the government to get the killer punished. The case of Hazrat Uthman’s martyrdom was completely different from this. Here, a small party, consisting of only a few thousand individuals compared to millions of Muslims, rebelled, took the Caliph of the time hostage, and then martyred him. This was not just a case of murder but a case of “Fasad fil-Ardh” (corruption in the land). The punishment for this crime is mentioned in Surah Al-Ma’idah, that such criminals can be given one of the punishments of crucifixion, cutting off of hands and feet, or exile, in proportion to their crime. At this point, not only Hazrat Muawiyah but every Muslim had the right to stand up and demand Qisas for them.
The accusation that Hazrat Muawiyah (رضی اللہ عنہ) initiated military action is also incorrect.
He did not initiate any military action but merely defended himself against these rebels. He had a highly trained army that was completely loyal to him and loved him. These Syrian forces had gained experience by fighting the highly organized armies of the Caesar of Rome. If Hazrat Muawiyah had wanted to initiate military action, he would have attacked at the time when Hazrat Talha, Zubair, and Aisha (رضی اللہ عنہم) were gathering strength in Basra. At that time, if the rebels had been struck from two sides, they would have been crushed. Instead, Hazrat Muawiyah, through continuous correspondence and diplomacy, repeatedly demanded from Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہما) that he punish these rebels, and if he did not have the power, to separate himself from them. Hazrat Ali certainly would have punished these rebels, but his problem was that the rebels were in complete control of the situation. If any sincere Muslim came near him, the rebels would drive him away with excuses. If Hazrat Ali had withdrawn from the field, who knows what these rebels would have done to the Muslim populations and what chaos and corruption they would have spread.
Whatever happened, the intentions of both Hazrat Ali and Hazrat Muawiyah (رضی اللہ عنہما) were pure and correct. The only difference between them was one of strategy. If Hazrat Ali had not been surrounded by these rebels, the matter would have been settled by the diplomacy of a noble and esteemed Sahabi like Hazrat Jarir bin Abdullah (رضی اللہ عنہ), and the sincere companions of Hazrat Ali and Muawiyah (رضی اللہ عنہما) would have jointly crushed these rebels.
What conditions arose in the Battle of Siffin?
After a two-month ceasefire, the war began in Muharram 37 AH/657 AD, and Malik al-Ashtar and his companions were at the forefront. Hazrat Ali’s (رضی اللہ عنہ) effort was to minimize the loss on both sides because sincere Muslims were present on both sides.
He gave these instructions to his army:
“Do not start the fight until the opposing side initiates it. Thanks to Allah Almighty, you are on the side of truth. Your not initiating the war is additional proof of your being on the right path. When you fight them, defeat them, but do not turn your backs and flee. Do not attack any wounded person, do not strip anyone naked, and do not mutilate the hands, feet, nose, or ears of any slain person. If you reach their saddles, do not tear the curtains of their tents, and do not enter their homes without permission. Do not take anything from their property other than the spoils of war from the battlefield. Do not cause any kind of harm to the women, even if they dishonor you and speak ill of your leaders and righteous people. Because women are weak in limbs and emotions.”
(Tabari. 3/2-204)
In this context, Abu Mikhnaf narrated a strange incident that during the battle, Ubaydullah bin Umar (رضی اللہ عنہما) came from the Syrian army’s side. Muhammad bin Ali (رضی اللہ عنہما) came out to face him. When Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ) saw his son facing the son of Hazrat Umar, he himself went out and stopped his son. Then he said to Ubaydullah: “If you must duel, then duel with me.” At this point, Ubaydullah did what any noble person would do upon suddenly seeing his father’s close friend. He returned, saying, “I have no need to fight you.”
(Tabari. 3/2-205)
This shows what respect these gentlemen had for each other. Hazrat Hasan (رضی اللہ عنہ) stayed away from the fighting and did not enter the fray.
(Tabari. 3/2-213)
How was Hazrat Ammar bin Yasir martyred?
According to Abu Mikhnaf’s narration, Hazrat Ammar was martyred in the Battle of Siffin. As we have stated above, the rebel narrators have tried to prove that Hazrat Ammar bin Yasir (رضی اللہ عنہما) was their companion. Thus, they have leveled the false accusation against him that he was involved with the rebels in the conspiracy against Hazrat Uthman (رضی اللہ عنہ). Sometimes it was said that Hazrat Ammar was, in fact, Ibn Sawda (Abdullah ibn Saba). In this way, they tried to show that Hazrat Ammar was, so to speak, their companion. The question arises: a person accepts Islam at the very beginning, sees his parents martyred before his eyes in its path, then spends his entire life with the Messenger of Allah (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) and Hazrat Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman (رضی اللہ عنہم), and participates in jihad for the sake of religion. Can such a person be expected, in the last part of his life, to join those rebels whose enmity towards Islam was clear? The narrations fabricated by Abu Mikhnaf, etc., in this regard have no purpose other than to improve the reputation of the rebel movement and to prove Hazrat Muawiyah (رضی اللہ عنہ) guilty of rebellion.
The reason for this was that the Messenger of Allah (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم), upon seeing him once, said, “Ammar! A rebellious group (baaghi) will kill you.” This hadith has been reported by Al-Haythami in Majma’ al-Zawa’id and Ahmad bin Hanbal in Musnad, and interestingly, its narrator is Hazrat Amr bin Al-Aas (رضی اللہ عنہ), whom the rebels accuse of Hazrat Ammar’s martyrdom.
Hisham Kalbi and Abu Mikhnaf have tried to put their words into Hazrat Ammar’s mouth and claimed that Hazrat Ammar, Na’udhubillah (we seek refuge in Allah), considered Hazrat Muawiyah and Amr bin Al-Aas (رضی اللہ عنہم) to be enemies of Islam. The question is, if this was the case, then why did his own companion, Hazrat Hasan (رضی اللہ عنہ), hand over power to Hazrat Muawiyah? The effort of these rebel narrators has been to have their words spoken by the Sahaba so that their movement gains strength.
Tabari has reported this with these chains of narration (isnads):
1۔ حدثني محمد، عن خلف، قال: حدثنا منصور بن أبي نويرة، عن أبي محنف. وحدثت عن هشام بن الكلبي، عن أبي محنف، قال: حدثني مالك بن أعين الجهني، عن زيد بن وهb الجهني،
2۔ حدثني موسى بن عبد الرحمن المسروقي، قال: أخبرنا عبيد بن الصباح، عن عطاء بن مسلم، عن الأعمش، عن أبي عبد الرحمن السلمي
The first isnad needs no comment, as Abu Mikhnaf and Hisham Kalbi are present in it, whose enmity towards the Sahaba we have mentioned in many places, and they are considered “Kazzab” (liars) by the Muhadditheen.
In the second isnad, there is Ata bin Muslim (d. 135/753), who was famous for Tadlis (concealing the name of a weak narrator in the isnad).
(Dhahabi, Siyar A’lam al-Nubala. Personality No. 3765)
The second person is A’mash (d. 147/765), who had Shia inclinations and also practiced Tadlis.
(Dhahabi, Siyar A’lam al-Nubala. Personality No. 2383)
It is an established principle of the Muhadditheen that if a narrator who practices Tadlis narrates using ‘an’ (عن – ‘from’), it is not acceptable because it is an ambiguous word.
Tabari has narrated a false narration attributed to these gentlemen regarding the story of Hazrat Ammar’s (رضی اللہ عنہ) martyrdom in the Battle of Siffin. This very Ata bin Muslim and A’mash are present in its isnad. From Ata, this narration is reported by Walid bin Salih, whose circumstances are unknown. It is quite possible that this person was part of the rebel movement.
حدثنا أحمد بن محمد، عن وليد بن صالح، عن عطاء بن مسلم، عن الأعمش، عن أبي عبد الرحمن السلمي
Ahmad bin Muhammad narrated to us, from Walid bin Salih, from Ata bin Muslim, from A’mash, from Abu Abdur Rahman al-Sulami. Abu Abdur Rahman al-Sulami says that when night fell, I intended to go among the enemies and find out whether they knew about Ammar’s killing just as we did. When the war stopped, the soldiers from both sides would meet and talk. I mounted my horse and slowly moved towards the Syrian army. When I entered the Syrian army, four individuals were roaming the battlefield. They were Muawiyah, Abu al-A’war Aslami, Amr bin Al-Aas, and Abdullah bin Amr bin Al-Aas (رضی اللہ عنہم). Abdullah was the best of the four. I entered their midst to hear what the opponents were saying about Hazrat Ammar.
Abdullah saw a corpse and said to his father: “O father! Did you also kill this person (Ammar) today, even though the Messenger of Allah (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) had said something about this person.” Amr said: “What did he say?”
Abdullah replied: “Were you not with us when we were building the Prophet’s Mosque? People were bringing one stone and one brick each, and Ammar was bringing two stones and two bricks each. Due to this, he fainted. The Messenger of Allah (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) came to him, wiped the dust from his face, and said: ‘O son of Sumayyah! Alas, people bring one stone and one brick each, while you bring two stones and two bricks each. You are doing this work for reward. Alas! A rebellious group will kill you.'”
Upon hearing this, Amr bin Al-Aas turned his horse around. Muawiyah grabbed him from behind and pulled him.
Amr said: “Did you not hear the hadith that Abdullah is narrating?”
Muawiyah asked: “What hadith is it?” Amr narrated the hadith to him, and Muawiyah replied: “You have gone senile with old age. You keep narrating hadiths and remain covered in your urine all day. Did we kill Ammar? Ammar was killed by the one who dragged him into the battlefield.”
(Tabari. 3/2-234)
We have analyzed the isnad of the narration above. After analyzing the isnad, let’s turn to the analysis of the matn (text).
The question is, is it possible on a battlefield for a person from the opposing army to enter the other army’s camp?
And go straight to that army’s commanders and generals and listen to their conversation?
And no one has any clue?
The interesting thing is that according to the narration, Sulami did this at a time when Hazrat Muawiyah (رضی اللہ عنہ) had only three companions with him, and they were not in an enclosed space but in an open field.
Someone has rightly said that a lie has no legs. The fabricator of the narration was probably unaware of the life history of Hazrat Amr (رضی اللہ عنہ). According to the words of the narration, Hazrat Abdullah bin Amr (رضی اللہ عنہما) was saying to his respected father: “Were you not with us when we were building the Prophet’s Mosque? People were bringing one stone and one brick each, and Ammar was bringing two stones and two bricks each.” It is well-known that Hazrat Amr (رضی اللہ عنہ) embraced Islam in 7 AH, while the Prophet’s Mosque was built in 1 AH. Was it possible for Hazrat Amr to come to Medina six years before embracing Islam and participate in the construction of the Prophet’s Mosque? If not, then what is the meaning of saying, “Were you not with us at that time…”?
The words of the narration seem to suggest that the hearts of the rebel narrators are filled with malice for Hazrat Muawiyah and Amr (رضی اللہ عنہما), so only they could use this kind of abusive language: “You have gone senile with old age. You keep narrating hadiths and remain covered in your urine all day.” They fabricated these words and attributed them to Hazrat Muawiyah (رضی اللہ عنہ), whose forbearance (hilm) and prudence are proverbial, and even his opponents admit that he was an extremely patient and forbearing man. He would never speak so harshly even to a common man, let alone say such a thing to the commander-in-chief of his own army.
As for the question of who killed Hazrat Ammar bin Yasir (رضی اللہ عنہما)?
The statement of the Messenger of Allah (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) about him exists that a rebellious group would kill him. It is quite possible that the people of the rebellious movement of Uthman’s killers martyred him on the battlefield so that the blame could be put on Hazrat Muawiyah (رضی اللہ عنہ) to prove him a rebel. Some people, influenced by the propaganda of Abu Mikhnaf, etc., call Hazrat Muawiyah a rebel. The reality, contrary to this, is that Hazrat Muawiyah never raised the flag of rebellion against Hazrat Ali; rather, he repeatedly said, “We are ready to accept your caliphate, you take Qisas from the killers of Uthman. If you do not have the strength for it, then let us fight them.” He never himself raised a sword against Hazrat Ali. Yes, when the rebels attacked him, he certainly defended himself.
How did the ceasefire happen?
During the battle, the people of Sham raised the Quran on their spears and invited (the other side) to be judged according to it. The vast majority of the Iraqi army accepted this invitation, and thus the war stopped. This was a very blessed step, which ended the bloodshed among Muslims. But along with this, since the rebels’ hopes were dashed, they vented their frustrations in their narrations regarding this matter as well.
Abu Mikhnaf states that when the Iraqi army was about to gain victory in the battle, the people of Sham raised the Quran on their spears. His idea is that they did this merely as a military tactic, and this advice was given by Hazrat Amr bin Al-Aas (رضی اللہ عنہ). Our historians have also transmitted this narration without thinking, not seeing that this narration has only one narrator, and that is Abu Mikhnaf, who is writing the events of the Battle of Siffin a hundred years after it. He has narrated the conversation between Hazrat Muawiyah and Amr bin Al-Aas (رضی اللہ عنہما) directly without any isnad, as if he himself was present in the tent with them with a tape recorder.
If you consider it from the point of dirayat (rational critique), the opposite should be true. It is well-known about the Iraqi army that it included sincere Muslims as well as the party of Uthman’s killers. Their hearts were definitely not united. A large number in this army were sincere Muslims who did not want to fight at all. On the other hand, the Syrian army was united (lit: one-souled). The majority in it were sincere Muslims, and they wanted to eradicate the rebel movement. The question arises: how did a half-hearted army overcome this sincere and committed army?
If you look at the history of wars in the world, the army that is committed to its cause always wins, even if its numbers are small. There is no such example in history where two armies are on equal footing in terms of numbers and weapons, and the half-hearted army has won. Yes, if there is a huge difference in numbers and weapons, that is a different matter.
This shows that the talk of the Iraqi army gaining victory is merely a fiction, whose purpose is nothing other than to declare the peace message from the Syrian army a conspiracy. We also find such narrations in the books of history which show that both Hazrat Ali and Muawiyah did not want war. Hazrat Amr bin Al-Aas (رضی اللہ عنہم) saw the slain on both sides and was so saddened that he wept. Then, with Hazrat Muawiyah’s permission, he invited Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہما) to peace. This was a very sincere step, and Hazrat Ali responded to this sincerity with sincerity.
حدثني أحمد بن إبراهيم الدورقي، حدثنا وهب بن جرير، عن جويرية، عن يحيى بن سعيد، عن عتبة، قال:
Utbah says: We encamped on the field of Siffin and fought here for several days. The number of slain between us became very large, and the horses were also wounded. Ali sent a message to Amr bin Al-Aas: “The slain have become too many. Stop the war so that we may bury all these slain.” He accepted this invitation. After that, the people (from both sides) mingled with each other. (The narrator, saying this, intertwined his fingers.) A man from Ali’s army who was showing aggression was killed in his (Muawiyah’s) camp, and his body was removed from here. Amr was sitting at the gate of that trench (where the slain were being buried), and the number of slain from both sides was not hidden from him. The body of a man from Ali’s companions was brought, who was killed in Muawiyah’s camp. Amr wept upon seeing this and said: “This person was a mujtahid (one capable of independent reasoning). How many people there are who were strictly abiding by the command of Allah but were killed. He (Allah) is seeing that both Ali and Muawiyah are innocent of his blood.”
(Baladhuri. Ansab al-Ashraf. 3/104)
حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي حدثنا يعلى بن عبيد عن عبد العزيز بن سياه عن حبيب بن أبي ثابت عن أبي وائل:
Abu Wa’il says: We were at Siffin when the battle with the people of Sham intensified. The Syrians climbed a hill. Amr bin Al-Aas said to Muawiyah: “Send the Quran to Ali and invite him to the Book of Allah. I hope he will not refuse it.” A man from Muawiyah’s side came to Ali and said: “Between us and you is the Book of Allah.” Ali accepted it and said: “I have more right to invite people to it. Very well, the Book of Allah will decide between us and you.”
(Ahmad bin Hanbal. Al-Musnad. Bab Sahl bin Hunaif. Hadith 15975)
[After the battle, Hazrat Ali sent a circular to different cities, in which it was written:] Everyone saw that the war had begun to bite both sides with its teeth and had dug its claws into both parties. Then they became ready to listen to my word, and I also accepted their word and quickly accepted their demand for peace. This continued until the proof was clear to them, and every kind of excuse was exhausted.
(Sayyid Sharif Radi. Nahj al-Balaghah. Letter No. 58)
After the peace, an agreement was written, the details of which will follow. The people who had been taken as prisoners of war during the battle were freed by both sides.
(Tabari. 3/2-250)
Contrary to these narrations, Abu Mikhnaf has recorded narrations according to which Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ) wanted to continue this war, while a group of rebels, who later became the Kharijites, forced him to stop this war, and then, using the arbitration as a basis, these people separated from his army.
Now the question arises that if the Kharijites wanted to stop the war and Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ) also accepted their demand, then what justification did they have to separate from him? Secondly, peace and ceasefire among Muslims was the death of all rebel groups. Had they lost their minds that they would make peace among Muslims and undo everything they had done? The fire of war which they had ignited with so much effort, would they extinguish it themselves and strike their own feet with an axe? Had they become foolish to the extent that they would force Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ) for this “suicidal peace”?
Unfortunately, we do not have narrations from impartial sources other than Abu Mikhnaf that describe the details of the ceasefire. However, this narration of Abu Mikhnaf himself seems reasonable:
Ash’ath bin Qais came to Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ) and said: “I think all the people are content and happy to accept the invitation given to them to follow the command of the Quran. If you wish, I can go to Muawiyah and find out their intention so that you can consider their questions.” Hazrat Ali said: “If this is what you think, then go and ask them.” Ash’ath came to Hazrat Muawiyah (رضی اللہ عنہ) and asked: “Muawiyah! Why have you raised these Qurans?” He replied: “So that we and you may act upon the commands that Allah Almighty has given in His Book. You appoint a person from among you for the decision, with whom we are satisfied, and we will also appoint a person from among us (with whom you are satisfied). It will be incumbent upon both of us to adhere to what we find in the Book of Allah Almighty and not deviate from it in the slightest. Whatever these two agree upon, we will follow it.”
Ash’ath bin Qais replied: “This is the word of truth.” After this, he returned to Hazrat Ali and informed him of what Hazrat Muawiyah (رضی اللہ عنہما) had said. Ali’s companions replied: “We have accepted this, and we are satisfied with it.”
(Tabari. 3/2-244)
From the narration of Musnad Ahmad stated above, the reality seems to be that those who stopped this war were sincere Muslims who did not want to fight among themselves and had already been postponing this war for two months. The proposal for the ceasefire came from Hazrat Amr bin Al-Aas, and Hazrat Ali gave it an enthusiastic welcome. It cannot be expected from an esteemed Sahabi like Hazrat Ali that he would want to shed the blood of Muslims. The sermon of his which we have quoted above shows the extent to which he wanted to avoid bloodshed. His feelings about the Battle of Siffin, which are coming up, also show the same thing.
What were Hazrat Ali’s feelings about the Battle of Siffin?
In this regard, numerous narrations are found in the books of Hadith and history, which show that Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ) deeply regretted this war and wanted to stop the war even by giving his own life. A few narrations are:
Amr stayed behind from the Battle of Siffin. When he met Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ), he reproached him for it. He (Amr) says: I met Hasan bin Ali (رضی اللہ عنہما), and he said: “Do not worry. By Allah, I heard him (Hazrat Ali) saying on the day of Siffin (or on such-and-such day):
‘I wish my mother had never given birth to me. I wish I had died before this day.'”
(Bukhari. Tarikh al-Kabir. Chapter “Amr”. Narrator No. 2717)
Sulayman bin Mihran (Al-A’mash) says: I heard from an eyewitness (of the Battle of Siffin) that on the day of Siffin, Hazrat Ali was biting his lip and saying: “If I had known that the matter would reach this point, I would not have come out (of Kufa).
O Abu Musa! You make the decision, even if it is to strike off my neck.”
(Baladhuri. 3/107. Ibn Abi Shaybah. Al-Musannaf. Kitab al-Jamal, Bab Siffin. Vol. 14. Hadith 38848)
On this same occasion, Hazrat Ali (رض) tried to convince the people of Hazrat Muawiyah’s leadership (amarat), saying:
Harith says: When Ali returned from Siffin, he knew that his authority would never be stable. He began to talk about things he had not talked about before and narrate hadiths he had not narrated before. Among these things was this statement of his: “O people! Do not dislike the governorship of Muawiyah. By Allah! If you lose him, you will surely see heads falling from shoulders just as the colocynth (handhal) fruit falls from its plant.”
(Baladhuri. 3/107. Ibn Abi Shaybah. Al-Musannaf. Kitab al-Jamal, Bab Siffin. Vol. 14. Hadith. 38850.
(Ibn Abi al-Hadid. Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah. 12/40)
Later history proved how correct Hazrat Ali’s opinion about Hazrat Muawiyah (رضی اللہ عنہما) was. As long as Hazrat Muawiyah was alive, the Ummah remained safe from fitna and fasad (sedition and corruption), and as soon as he passed away, a long series of civil wars began.
Hazrat Ali declared the slain from his side and the side of the people of Sham to be in Jannah (Paradise)
Yazid bin Asamm says: When peace was made between Ali and Muawiyah, Ali went to his slain and said: “These people are in Jannah.” Then he went to Muawiyah’s slain and said: “These people are also in Jannah. (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 (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم), informed me thus.”
(Ibn Asakir. 59/139)
In the famous Shia book, Nahj al-Balaghah, a letter of Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ) is quoted, which he sent to the cities regarding the Battle of Siffin. It says:
[A letter of Hazrat Ali (alayhis salam), which he wrote to the cities, in it he described the incident that took place between him and the people of Siffin.]
The beginning of our matter was that we gathered with the people of Sham in a field. Obviously, our Lord and their Lord is one, our Prophet and their Prophet is one, our call to Islam and their call to Islam is one. In the matter of belief in Allah and affirmation of His Messenger, neither were we greater than them, nor were they greater than us. We differed on only one matter, and that was the blood of Uthman, while we were innocent of it. We proposed the solution that for the objective that cannot be achieved today, the temporary remedy is to extinguish the fire of war and let people’s emotions calm down. After that, when the government gains stability and the conditions become favorable, we will become strong enough to put the right (i.e., Qisas) in its place. But they said that the only remedy for this is war. The result was that the war spread its legs and stood firm. The flames flared up and became permanent. Everyone saw that the war had begun to bite both sides with its teeth and had dug its claws into both parties. Then they became ready to listen to my word, and I also accepted their word and quickly accepted their demand for peace. This continued until the proof was clear to them, and every kind of excuse was exhausted. Now, after this, whoever remains steadfast on this truth will, as it were, save himself from destruction. Otherwise, if he remains in this misguidance, he will be such a promise-breaker whose heart Allah has sealed. The turn of fortune will hover over his head.
(Sayyid Sharif Radi. Nahj al-Balaghah. Letter No. 58)
This writing is the letter which, according to the compiler of Nahj al-Balaghah, Sharif Radi, was sent to different cities by the order of Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ) to clarify Hazrat Ali’s (رضی اللہ عنہ) point of view regarding this war.
It is clear from these words that he considered the people of Sham to be Muslims and wanted peace in all circumstances. This also refutes those narrations of Abu Mikhnaf according to which Hazrat Ali wanted to continue the war and only reluctantly agreed to a ceasefire after being forced by his companions.
Did external forces benefit from the Battle of Siffin?
Here, the question arises in the mind of the student of history that when disunity arose in the Muslim world at the time of the Battle of Siffin, did the external powers not try to take advantage of this opportunity? And if not, what is the reason for it? It is the psychology of politicians that they are experts at taking advantage of opportunities. Why did they not do so?
The question is interesting, and the answer is that both external enemies of the Muslims tried their best to take advantage of this opportunity. We mean the powers of Iran and Rome. We will provide some details about this.
The Sassanian Empire of Iran had already ended during the time of Hazrat Umar (رضی اللہ عنہ), and its last king, Yazdegerd, was hiding here and there. During the time of Hazrat Uthman (رضی اللہ عنہ), Yazdegerd was also killed by a mill owner. When the Muslims defeated the Iranians, their thousand-year-old monarchy came to an end. The common Iranians benefited greatly from this because the elite of the monarchy era was sucking their blood. Hazrat Umar (رضی اللہ عنہ) reinstated them on their lands, and half of the crop yield was declared their right. The remaining half of the crop was collected as kharaj (land tax) and deposited in the state treasury, which was spent on the welfare of these same people. Iranian professionals, including their soldiers, doctors, engineers, accountants, and experts from other fields, became part of the Islamic army and civil service.
All these benefits reached the common Iranian people, but their elite, which had long controlled the country’s resources and whose interests were tied to the Iranian monarchy, could not digest this. The elite has always had this strategy of using the “nationalism” tactic to consolidate its power. Many examples of this can be seen in our own time. This elite started the Iranian nationalist movement and repeatedly incited rebellions in Iranian regions during the times of Hazrat Umar and Uthman (رضی اللہ عنہما), which failed. Among these, the rebellions of Istakhr and Jur are more famous. Besides these, rebellions also occurred in areas like Balkh, Tabaristan, Kerman, Sijistan, etc., which the governors of those areas easily suppressed.
At the time of the Battle of Siffin, the Iranian nationalist elite tried to take advantage and started a rebellion in Iran during that period. Their problem was that after the death of Yazdegerd (d. 30/651), they had no central king, which is why this nationalist movement could not gain momentum. The common Iranians also stayed away from this rebellion because it was a total loss for them. After the Battle of Siffin, Hazrat Ali sent his close companion and Hazrat Muawiyah’s brother, Ziyad bin Abi Sufyan (رضی اللہ عنہم), to crush this rebellion, and he marched on, crushing the Iranian nationalists. In this way, he re-established peace and order in Iran.
(Tabari. 3/2-326)
On the other hand, in the west, the Caesar of Rome also planned to attack Sham (Syria) to take advantage of the Battle of Siffin.
Ibn Kathir writes:
The Caesar of Rome expressed a desire to ally with Hazrat Muawiyah. Since his (Muawiyah’s) power had become a threat to the Roman Empire, and the Syrian forces had subdued and defeated his armies, when he saw that Muawiyah was busy in a war with Ali (in reality, the rebel movement, not Hazrat Ali), he moved into a nearby region with a large army and tempted Hazrat Muawiyah (to join him).
Hazrat Muawiyah wrote to him:
“By Allah! If you do not stop, O accursed one! and return to your country, then I and my cousin (Ali) will unite and expel you from your country. We will make the earth constrict upon you. If you are determined to fulfill your intention, then I swear that I will make peace with my companion (Ali). Then, in the army that he will send against you, I will join its vanguard and turn Constantinople into burnt charcoal and I will uproot your government like a carrot or radish.” After reading this letter, the Caesar of Rome became frightened and appealed for a ceasefire.
(Ibn Kathir, 11/400. Biography of Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan (Year 60 AH))
This shows Hazrat Muawiyah’s (رضی اللہ عنہ) sincerity for the Ummah. The rebel narrators have slandered Hazrat Muawiyah, accusing him of fighting Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہما) out of greed for power. If his goal was merely to seize power, he would have immediately accepted the Roman Caesar’s offer and, joining forces with his armies, fought Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ). But his only goal was to defend himself from the rebel movement. He did not advance to attack Hazrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ); rather, when the rebels attacked him, he merely defended himself.
Summary of the series
In this series, we learned that this war did not take place between Ali (رض) and Muawiyah (رض). Instead, the rebels attacked Sham to remove the thorn in their path, Hazrat Muawiyah (رض). And Ali (رض) was not happy with this war, nor did he set out for war with the rebels. Rather, the purpose of going with the rebels was to protect the Muslims from the rebels and to prevent the war as much as possible. Finally, through the efforts of the Sahaba, peace was made between the two groups according to the Quran, and a ceasefire occurred. But because of this war, narrators like Abu Mikhnaf and Hisham Kalbi fabricated many false narrations and spoke ill of the Sahaba.
(And Allah, the Exalted, knows best what is correct.)
Reference: https://alfurqan.info/problems/640
