3. Objection three
He says: In my view, the determination Muawiyah in selecting a successor
and Caliph was justified, because when the rules for selection of Caliph were not
yet framed, it was better for him to select his successor as heir apparent before his
death, as it assured that there would be no dispute after him.1
Another objection
Among the objections leveled against Muawiyah is that he appointed his son
for Caliphate and with this action, he laid the foundation of dynastic rule in
Islam, whereas before that the selection of Caliph was through consultation
committee and caliph was selected from Quraish. They also say that this practice
of Muawiyah created turmoil, because he appointed a man, who was unfit and
ineligible; he was mired in wantonness and profligacy.
But we say: Such selection of caliph was necessary and no other option was
available; because as much broad is the circle of selection of caliph, list of
nomination prolongs and to this we add the absence of selection of caliph; in any
case we are unable to select a caliph.
And in the past turmoils, we see that in spite of superiority of Bani Abde
Manaf in all Quraish and their acceptance by all people, only some of them were
Quraish in this way, how they will fight as leaders of people destroy men. So, if
people give approval to members of a clan and obey them and their capability of
caliphate is accepted by them, this would be the best way to maintain unity of
Muslims.
Most objection against Muawiyah for selecting his son for Caliphate are
leveled from Shia; whereas they themselves believe that Caliphate is restricted to
progeny of Ali and it is to be transferred from one descendant to another through
heredity; same is the method followed by Bani Abbas.2
Reply to objection three
We should know that critics of Muawiyah do not only condemn him for his
selection, on the contrary he is condemned from two aspects:
First aspect
Absence of Muawiyah’s eligibility to alone select a Caliph after him,
because from one side, Muawiyah did not have a good precedence. As Ameerul
Momineen (a.s.) clarified in statement:
“Allah, the Mighty and Sublime did not give any precedence to him in
religion and past seniority. He is a freed slave, son of freed slave and a party from
these parties. In the past, he and his father were always inimical to Allah, His
Prophet and Muslims till both of them entered the fold of Islam unwillingly.”
On the other hand, there existed in the society persons, having influence,
who had selected Abu Bakr as Caliph and through his will, selected Umar as
Caliph, and after him the Caliphate of Uthman was established; then with general
consensus Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) was chosen as Caliph.
Through this process, the Caliphate of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) was
established and his obedience became obligatory. Muawiyah should also have
paid allegiance to His Eminence. And all these persons or companions were present (in their presence Muawiyah was not alone eligible to choose a Caliph),
as well as those, who vehemently opposed the act of Muawiyah.
Second aspect
Absence of eligibility in the person he had selected; because he was a
transgressor and a profligate, even if we don’t call him a disbeliever and an
apostate.
As for non-specification of selectors: In his view, they were not specified;
which itself is a great allegation, because most of those, who had been at the early
period of Islam in the capital of Islam – Medina Munawwara – were present and
they had the responsibility to appoint a Caliph. They were alive till that time. If
his implication is that they did not select a Caliph after Muawiyah, we should say
that the selection of Caliph takes place after the death of the present Caliph and
not before that. Yes, sometimes it is possible that a short while before selection,
they might have someone in mind to be worthy of Caliphate.
The question is from where Muawiyah knew that in future or when he dies,
they would leave the people to their devices? That he should take it upon himself
to make a selection and that too without their consent? Why he compelled some
of them to consent through fear? And some through greed? And how was his
selection effective in removing disputes from Ummah? Were there not different
religious groups in the society which expressed their malice and enmities? And
some of them even condemned him? Even some fearing the abrupt anger of
Muawiyah, concealed their fury and disappointment.
If this was a guaranteed method of removing all disputes from Ummah, why
did the Prophet not specify it at the time of his passing away, so that there should
be no strife till Judgment Day?
These are complex questions, which Khizri cannot reply. But he claims that
Muawiyah was more concerned about the welfare of people than the Prophet!
Another question is: How appointment of Yazid removed differences? Did
that tragedy of Kerbala not take place during his time? After that was there no
attack on Medina? And after that was Mecca not attacked and Ibne Zubair killed?
Yes, all these were due to the illegal selection of Yazid.
Among the opponents, the grandson of Prophet, Imam Husain (a.s.) and also
other Bani Abde Manaf, Muhajireen and Ansar in Medina were present.
Moreover, if we accept that Muawiyah had no option but to appoint a caliph, then
why he did not appoint a righteous and deserving person from companions, at the
head of them being Imam Husain (a.s.), who had most experience, knowledge,
piety and nobility and no one was his equal.
How Khizri thinks that evil selection was good for Ummah? How he did not
regard it to be a crime against Ummah and dishonesty towards Prophet, Quran
and Sunnah?
The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) said: “The first one to distort my Sunnah is a man from Bani Umayyah.”
Also, “Religion would be based on justice till the time a man from Bani
Umayyah, named Yazid creates a split and defames it.”3
Did the Prophet not issue these warnings?
As for his viewpoint regarding restriction of Caliphate in a family
From this aspect, we have no argument against him; our dispute is only with
regard to the ineligibility of clans, whose Caliphate Khizri supports with all his
heart. Yes, if Caliphate is restricted to a pure and noble family, which is eligible
due to its precedence in religion, there is no problem, but in case of absence of
eligibility, we will not accept the above mentioned limitation, because in that
case it would not suffice for uprooting mischief and would be a source of discord,
because people whenever they see prejudice and injustice in their caliph, they
would stage an uprising against him and dismiss him from his post.
And it is natural that in that case one, who sees himself to be worthier than
him would vie for caliphate. In spite of this restriction of caliphate ,which
corruption would be eradicated from the society?
Belief of Shia in restriction of Caliphate to the progeny of Ali (a.s.) is not
there, except after accepting infallibility of this family on the basis of widely
narrated traditions of Prophet.4