Jung-e-Siffin Hijri 37
After Jung-e-Jamal, Tulaqa Muavia came forward for the revenge of Hazrat Uthman’s death with a claim that “Hazrat Ali AlaihisSalam was in favour of Hazrat Uthman’ killer, not only that but, he also had his hand in it.” But this was a great mistake of Muavia and his grudge toward Banu Hashim. Hazrat Ali AlaihisSalam was always a supporter of truth and one, who follows truth, can never commit such a blunder. It was next to impossible.
Hazrat Uthman’s martyrdom took place in Medina. Tulaqa Muavia, at that time, was in Syria (Sham). How could he know that Hazrat Ali AlahisSalam supported, and was involved in Hazrat Uthman’s assassination? The fact was, Hazrat Ali AlaihisSalam rivals, who were non-believers, after the death of Hazrat Uthman Radiallahu anhoo went to Muavia and because they had selfish interests and were only for the party politics, put allegations on Hazrat Ali AlaihisSalam. Muavia gathered an army and marched fight against Hazrat Ali AlaihisSalam, to
Their rising to fight against the Legitimate Caliph under the excuse of Hazrat Uthman murder’s revenge itself was against the Islamic law. Hence it was a meaningless encounter. Some discussions have already been undertaken above about this. Other matters should be talked of. In order to maintain the continuation, the already discussed matters also have been referred to. There is no shadow of a doubt that Hazrat Uthman Radiallahu anhoo diseassassination was an act of cruelty. Its revenge should be taken. But who should take revenge? Government or public?
And will the killer be proved through Islamic Law? Or may it be decided according to the sweet will of the people? In other words, would the Islamic Law be kept in view? Or would the sentiments of people be regarded as the law?
It was essential to give deep thinking to these matters. And Amir ul Mominin Hazrat Ali AlaihisSalam had done it in the best possible manner as such activities create in difference. Hazrat Ali AlaihisSalam position was much higher than the gluttons. He did not allow any deviation in Islamic jurisprudence which is clearly seen from the following points:
i. Right to punishment for revenge of murder is only with the government. The public does not have power. any such
ii. Now, to instigate the public at large to get together and take Hazrat Uthman Radiallahu anhoo death’s revenge was a very ugly form of peace (if at all, it can be called so.). It was clear disobedience of the tradition of Caliphate. It was absolutely irreligious. Hadith, Holy Quran and Islamic Philosophy clearly mention that to take revenge from the rebels are one of the moral and religious duties. The Islamic Philosophy writes, “For the war with the rebels, legitimate Imam if invite the people, it is obligatory on those people to honour the invitation and be present for the war.”
(Adurr-ul-Mukhtar Ali Ashshami)
The foundation of this legal command was in accordance with the Holy Quran and the Hadith. This explanation has been supported by Allama Shami and others.
Holy Quran says;
Translation: Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority (legitimate Caliph) among you.
According to the Hadiths;
(The Messenger of Allah stated: Listen and obey, even if a Negro-slave has been appointed as your lawful ruler and his head was compressed as a dried raisin. (Bukhari Mishkat)
The above topic had been discussed in various Hadiths.
When to punish for the revenge of death is the duty of the government, why did, the Caliph on the throne, Hazrat Ali AlaihisSalam not punish the killer of Hazrat Uthman Radiallahu anhoo Amir-ul-Mominin, Hazrat Ali AlaihisSalam was appointed a Caliph after three days of Khalifa-e-Mazlum (an innocent caliph) Hazrat Uthman Radiallahu anhoo martyrdom. Immediately after successful acceptance of the Caliphate, the first thing he took up in his hands was, the case of revenge of Hazrat Uthman Radiallahu anhoo murder. But not a single person could be found out who could give information about the killer. Neither, any clue could be had about the killer of Hazrat Uthman Radiallahu anhoo Now, who should be punished for the assassination?
Only on the basis of doubt, if anybody were killed, it would have been a great sin. It was strictly forbidden (Haram) by the Holy Quran. Instead of Islamic Law, it would have established the law of tyrant. Hazrat Ali AlaihisSalam would, not for a moment, allow such an illegal and cruel law in the paradigm of Islam.
Was it that all those rebels should have been killed who had encircled
victimised caliph (Khalifa-e-Mazlum) Hazrat Uthman’s Radiallahu anhoo? This also could not be done. This too was a clear tyranny, because, among the people who encircled the house of Hazrat Uthman Radiallahu anhoo, there was Saha’ab-e-Kiram also. They did so only out of their reluctance. The killing was not their intention at all. Instead, they wished that Marvan should be handed over. Under these circumstances, how could they be killed? Had they been killed, the Islamic Law would have been stained with tyranny and cruelty. Hazrat Ali AlaihisSalam was the protector of the true justice of Islam. He had protected Islamic Law with its true justice and did not allow the Caliphate Regin to deviate even an inch from its real and original position. This was his herculean task. Gossip-based propaganda instigated thousand of people to believe that the people, who encircled the house, were the real killers. They demanded that they should be killed or they should be handed over to the people so that they would kill them. But, he rejected the tidal flow of the misled people on the authority of the Holy Quran and true justice of Islam. Thus, he did not allow the slightest deviation from the Islamic tradition and rescued it under extreme circumstances. True, he had to pay a high price for this. He had to face the bloody battles of Jamal and Siffin. And, alas! Finally, he had to pay with his own life. In spite of this, he did not allow any negative pressure, with strange and stupid arguments, to change the real interpretation and terminology of revenge. He did not allow opening the gate of misinterpretation of the Holy Quran. For this, many armies raised against him. He properly responded to their fight but did not allow any wrong tradition to be established. Islam is proud of him for the great protection he provided for it, which has been described in the Hadiths also. Hazrat Abu Said Khudri Radiallahu anhoo quotes Hazrat Rasulallah ﷺ words in Musnad-eAhmed, Musanaf Abdurrazak, Mustadark Hakim, Musnad-e-Saeed Ibne-Mansoor etc. as under:Translation: “Surely among you, there is a person who would fight with the people who try to interpret Holy Quran in their own ways as I have fought with the people on the advent of Holy Quran. People asked me, may it be Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Umar said, no, he is Hazart Ali AlaihisSalam who is mending my shoes right now.”
One Hadith clarifies it more vividly. It has been given below:
Translation: “I declare on oath of the One in whose grip is my life and soul. Surely among you, there is a person who would fight with the ple who try to interpret the Holy Quran in their own way as I have fought with the unbelievers on the denial of the advent of the Holy Quran. But, these, wrong interpreters, will give a witness to the axiom (juu) Allah is only one-. For this reason, only people will hesitate to kill them. This action will be as bad as Hazrat Musa AlahisSalam felt when Hazrat Khizar AlahisSalam damaged the boat, killed the boy and renovated the wall. Of course, all this was only according to Allah’s will.”
At this juncture, it is necessary to keep in mind the Islamic law of revenge, and it says, only the killer should be killed for the revenge, none else can be killed. It is not at all fair to kill anybody else. This law has been stated in the Quranic verse and Hadith also has explained this in detail. Huzur himself had said to such an extent that:
Translation: “If a person has held a person and another one has killed, as a revenge of ‘eye for an eye,’ the killer only should be killed, while the one who had held, should not be killed, rather, he should be imprisoned.”
The Islamic theosophists have given clarification of this Islamic law. This law will have to be borne in mind. In Hadith, it has been given in the following words:
Translation: “So far as the revenge is concerned, any Muslim’s blood is the same as that of the other Muslim.”
(Tirmizi, Ibn-e-Maja-Mishkat, Reference, Abu Daud)
Jung-e-Siffin Hijri 37