Shaykh Muhammad Khizri has written this as a book of history, but has not
followed the method of writing history. On the contrary, he has left everyone
behind in enmity to Ahle Bayt (a.s.) and praises of Bani Umayyah. It would have
been better if we had left this book alone, without paying attention to it. But there
is no option, except to inform the reader about some of his mistakes.
1. Objection one
He says:1 It is highly regretful that the Battle of Siffeen neither had a
religious aim nor a legal justification; nor was it fought to remove oppression and
injustice from Muslims. On the contrary, it was fought for personal aims and
individual enmities. Shia of Ali supported him from the aspect that he was the
cousin of Prophet and most worthy for Caliphate; and followers of Muawiyah supported him, because he was successor of Uthman and most rightful for taking
revenge for his blood. They believed that his blood was shed unjustly and they
did not regard as lawful giving refuge to the killers of Uthman.
Reply to objection one
Alas, if he had only informed us about his religious motives, so that we
might have seen whether they are compatible with the Battle of Siffeen? Since he
did not do this, we say:
Which motive is more important than obeying the command of Prophet,
what religious motive is higher than that fighting and supporting each other for
applying commands of Prophet? Did the Prophet not order Imam Ali (a.s.) to
fight the rebels (Qasiteen), that is Muawiyah and his supporters and commanded
his companions to support Ali in that?2
And the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) made Jihad with his enemies obligatory and
said: “Soon, some people would fight against Ali. Their Jihad is upon God. One,
who cannot fight with hands, should fight with his tongue; and if he cannot do
this, he should do so with his heart; there is nothing above that.”3
Which religious motive is more important for his supporters than that they
should regard him as worthy of Caliphate as Khizri has himself clarified?
Which motive is higher for supporting him than the statement of the
Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) regarding him and his family: “Fighting you is
same as fighting me.”4
And he said: “O Ali, soon unjust people would fight against you and you
would be on the right. On that day, one, who does not support you, would not be
from me.”5
Would a Muslim refrain from helping Ali (a.s.) after hearing the statement
of the Prophet?
Also, what religious motive is higher than that of fighting against the
rebellious group? The Prophet himself labeled those people as such, when he told
Ammaar:
“A group of rebels would martyr you.”6
Also, the day when he said: “May God forgive Ammaar, as a group of rebels
would slay him, while he would be calling them to Paradise, but they would call
him to Hell fire.”7
Which legal justification is stronger than fighting under the banner of the
Caliph of the time? A Caliph, who was given allegiance of important people of
the community and who fulfilled all conditions of Caliphate; and numerous
traditional reports about his Caliphate were recorded for those, who regard
Caliphate to be by appointment.
It is natural that in this condition, one, who stages an uprising against him,
has rebelled against the Imam of his time and he is regarded as a traitor and on
the basis of the clear command of Holy Quran:
ۚوَإِن طَآئِفَتَانِ مِنَ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ ٱقْتَتَلُوا۟ فَأَصْلِحُوا۟ بَيْنَهُمَا ۖ فَإِنۢ بَغَتْ إِحْدَىٰهُمَا عَلَى ٱلْأُخْرَىٰ فَقَـٰتِلُوا۟ ٱلَّتِى تَبْغِى حَتَّىٰ تَفِىٓءَ إِلَىٰٓ أَمْرِ ٱللَّهِ
“And if two parties of the believers quarrel, make peace
between them; but if one of them acts wrongfully towards the
other, fight that which acts wrongfully until it returns to Allah’s
command.”8
Jihad becomes obligatory against such a person.
I don’t know which injustice and oppression can be worse than the conduct
of Muawiyah in seizing rulership of Islamic dominions without any legal and
religious justification? Which was neither through consensus, nor through
consultation committee or on the basis of will. Neither was he the legal heir of
Uthman that he should stage an uprising to revenge his blood, because though he
himself, due to restraining the Syrian forces from assisting Uthman and being
deficient towards him, was not a partner in killing him, but it is definite that he
cannot have the right to demand retaliation for him.
In addition to that he neither had precedence in Islam as a result of which he
should be more eligible for Caliphate; nor did he possess knowledge and
intelligence, which may stop him from errors; nor he had any piety, which would
restrain him from committing sinful acts.
On the contrary, in his view, Caliphate was only rulership, which he targeted
in order to gain dominance over people. He established his throne through
intrigue, all sorts of deceits, unlawful maneuverings, trampling upon sanctities
and ignoring all rules of conduct.
Through injustice and oppression, he was able to impose his son, Yazid for
rulership over Muslims. If Muawiyah had not committed any other sin than
appointing Yazid as his heir, it would alone have sufficed to make it obligatory
on Muslims to fight against him and purify Islam from this filth.