Shia Strength: Muslim Unite Sunni and Shia In Praise of Imam Ali

In Praise of Imam Ali – From Qur'an and Hadeeth (14)

(Collected from a number of books and websites, presented by Syed-Mohsin Naquvi)

After discussing Imam Ali's Fazael from Qur'anic verses and Tafseer, and taking notes for Saheeh Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim, we want to reflect on the varied reaction that we have seen in this group of writers. Some have welcomed the series of article, others have actually derided not only the text presented but also have thrown abuse at the writer – a totally irrational act. We will address that general antipathy towards such writings and the writers – the root cause of which is a hatred towards Imam Ali, which has been built into certain Muslim minds over the centuries.

THE FORCES OF HATRED

Let us pick up the events during the time when Imam Ali had been publicly accepted as the legitimate Khaleefa of Muslims in Madina, in the 36^th year of Hijra.

Everyone accepted that open election in the Muslim Empire except Mu^cawiyyah, the governor of Syria at Damascus[1]. The Battle of Siffeen took place two years later and it ended up in a confused stalemate. It was at that point that Mu^cawiyyah began his anti-Ali propaganda in earnest. It then became an official Umayyad policy, which lasted to the last days of that dynasty.

The Umayyad machinery worked two ways. On the one side they put all their efforts in suppressing the FADHA'EL of Imam Ali. On the other hand they fabricated FADHA'EL for his opponents - this was easy; every story which told anything good about Imam Ali was retold officially with Ali's name replaced by others'. Truth was mixed so much with falsehood that later historians were absolutely baffled and many times couldn't decide what to accept and what to reject.

Here is an interesting comment by the Egyptian scholar Muhammad Haykal. This is an extract from the preface to his book on the Life of the Prophet of Islam.

When the Banu Umayya firmly established themselves in power, their protagonists among the hadeeth narrators deprecated the Prophetic traditions reported by the party of Ali bin Abi Talib (the Shi^ca), and the latter defended those traditions and propagated them with all the means at their disposal. Undoubtedly they also deprecated the traditions reported by ^cA'isha, Mother of the Faithful. A humorous piece of reportage was given us by Ibn Asakir who wrote: "Abu S^cad Isma^ceel bin Muthanna al-Istarabadi was giving a sermon one day in Damascus when a man stood up and asked him (as to) what he thought of the hadeeth of the Prophet: 'I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate.' Abu S^cad pondered the question for a while and then replied: 'Indeed! No one knows this hadeeth of the Prophet except those who lived in the first century of Islam. What the Prophet had said, he continued, was rather, 'I am the city of knowledge; Abu Bakr is its foundation; Umar is its walls; Uthman its ceiling; and Ali its gate.' The audience was quite pleased with his reply and asked him to furnish them with its chain of narrators. Abu S^cad could not furnish any chain and was terribly embarrassed[2]."

What Haykal is trying to show is that the question was asked in an open assembly in the city of Damascus -- the hometown of Umayyad power. Abu S^cad either knew the original hadeeth but was afraid to confirm it for fear of retaliation from the crowd, or, he just fabricated a new hadeeth out of the blue to please the crowd. However, he was taken to task by the crowd on the matter of isnad, which he could not produce. Haykal's point is: scholars, or the so-called scholars had become so daring in fabricating hadeeth for political purpose that they did not even think and foresee the consequences of their fabrications. The reason for all this was mainly political pressure and the fear of reprisal from an overwhelming anti-Ali and anti-Ahlul Bayt populace . The stupidity of this fabrication is apparent by the fact that even though one can think of a foundation and walls for a city, there is no ceiling on a city.

We will now present here the story of Imam Nasa'i to elaborate upon that situation.

Imam Nasa'i was born in Khurasan in 215 A.H. His full name is Abu Abdur-Rahman Ahmad bin Shu^cayb. His most famous work is his Sunan, which is a member of the Sahah Sitta (the six correct ones). Towards the end of his life he produced his book titled Khasa'is Ali bin Abi Talib. His contemporaries asked him about it – basically the question was: why did he ignore the two Shaykhs (Abu Bakr and Umar) and go ahead with a book about Imam Ali (who happened to be the fourth Khaleefa of Islam)? He replied that when he went to Damascus, he found an abundance of people who hated Imam Ali and used bad words for him. So he decided to write this book in the hope and expectation that those people would be guided by his writing. Imam Nasa'i is a younger contemporary of both Bukhari and Muslim Nayshapuri. He is considered to be one of the best scholars of hadeeth. His contemporaries had a lot of respect for his knowledge, erudition and most of all, his memory which was essential for learning the science of hadeeth. He lived in Egypt and his knowledge and learning came to be known to the larger Muslim world from Egypt.

Imam Nasa'i came to Damascus and saw that the place was overflowing with the enemies of Imam Ali. One Friday he mounted the pulpit and began reading the text of his book. The crowd sat there quietly and listened to his discourse. When he had finished, some from the crowd asked him: 'That was all right, but what do you say about the glory of Mu^cawiyyah?' Imam Nasa'i replied: 'I do not know anything about that except that the Prophet (peace be unto him) had said – 'May Allah never satiate his hunger.' Obviously, this was the heart of the Umayyad country where hatred of Imam Ali and the love and respect for Mu^cawiyya were fed to the population day and night and generations were raised on those two ingredients. People could not take that kind of truth. They grabbed the Imam by his legs, pulled him down from the pulpit and beat him to a pulp. He was left for dead. When the crowd had left, some of his sympathisers came in and took him home and tried to nurse his injuries. He was eventually taken to Makkah where he died of those wounds in 303 A.H. He was buried between the mounts of Safa and Marwa[3].

Imam Darqutni has considered this a trial for Imam Nasa'i and has treated his death at the hands of the Damascene mob as martyrdom.

It is very clear that during the period of the 3^rd and 4^th centuries, narrating the Fadha'el of Imam Ali was a crime. A person like Imam Nasa'i, whose book is a member of the Sahah Sitta, was killed for that crime. One can imagine the life the devotees of Imam Ali had to endure in that time. This phenomenon, as we stated earlier, had begun with Mu^cawiyyah. Not even members of his own family were spared from that kind of hateful behaviour and persecution if they displayed any sympathy for Imam Ali bin Abi Talib. The prime example of that is how Yazeed's son, also known as Mu^cawiyyah, came to the throne at Damascus. Mu^cawiyyah bin Abu Sufyan died in 60 A.H., after which Yazeed took over. The tragedy of Karbala happened soon after. Yazeed was also responsible for the massacre of the inhabitants of Madinah at Harra. He commanded Muslim bin ^CUqba to attack Makkah. While Makkah was under siege, Yazeed died at the age of 39 in 64 A.H. Then his son Mu^cawiyyah was placed on the throne by the Umayyad oligarchy. Allama Dimyari writes in his Hayat-ul-Haywaan as follows[4]:

People of knowledge have written that Mu^cawiyyah bin Yazeed stayed in power for forty days, some have said five months. He then decided to abdicate. When he made that decision he went up to the pulpit and sat there (quietly) for a long time. He then praised Allah and sent salawat unto the Prophet and then said as follows.

"O people, I do not covet power and control (over people), because this is an important responsibility and you people are not happy with me. We have tried each other many times, but what is destined must happen. My grandfather, Mu^cawiyyah, transgressed in this matter of Khilafat and he created trouble asking as to who was most deserving of this position. And with whom did he quarrel? The one who was the closest to the Prophet of Islam, who was the earliest in Islam, the most honoured among the great Muhajiroon, the most chivalrous and courageous, a man of knowledge and great fadheelat, first cousin of the Prophet and his son-in-law. The Prophet had chosen him for his younger daughter, Fatima. He was the best among the young men of this Ummah and he was the father of Hasan and Husayn, the two leaders of the youth of paradise.

As you all know very well, my grandfather, Mu^cawiyyah, fought with that kind of person and you people supported him in that, until he took over everything. However, when his time came, death overtook him and he ended up as a pawn to his own deeds. He went to his grave alone and he received the reward for what he had been doing in his life. Khilafat, then, came to my father, Yazeed. His own debauchery, wasteful behaviour and his temptations overwhelmed him. (This was) All that, which was not befitting the position of Khilafat. He indulged (openly) in sinful living. He became daring in disobedience to Allah. Anyone who showed respect and love for the Ahlul-Bayt was persecuted by him. Finally his time too came. He lived a short life. His influence vanished with him. He went to the other world with his own deeds and ended up in his own grave. He was surrounded by misdeeds and was buried under the weight of his own actions. He too received the reward for all that he had done. He then became remorseful. But alas, the time of repentance was already past by then – we too became part of his remorse, sorrow and grief. O what a loss! Whatever he did and he said, is still talk of the town. I don't know whether he was rewarded or punished for what he did – all this is my imagination, it is my assumption. Finally his own remorse suffocated him."

Mu^cawiyya then wept and the audience wept with him. He then continued:

"Now I am your third ruler – a majority (of you) are angry with me. I cannot carry your load (the responsibility). Nor does Allah consider me deserving of your Khilafat. The trust of your Khilafat is important – protect it, and give it to anyone you consider more deserving. I have taken this necklace off my neck – I am abdicating. All praise is for Allah alone."

Mu^cawiyyah bin Yazeed came down from the pulpit. He was still weeping. People surrounded him and they turned to his teacher named Umar al-Maqsoos. They said to him that it was his teachings, which had taken the young prince to that state of mind and it was his teachings that brought the love of Ali and his family to his heart. The teacher protested and claimed his complete innocence from the accusation. But the people were overwhelmed with frustration and anger. They grabbed the teacher, beat him and then buried him alive against all his protestations. After a few days, Mu^cawiyyah the son of Yazeed too died.

Allama Dimyari has not elaborated upon it but other historians have claimed that the prince was actually poisoned to death by his own people, which is very likely.

These two stories related above are sufficient evidence to show how the hatred of Imam Ali had become the norm in the Umayyad society of Damascus and how it was being forced on people. At the same time, the love of Ali and his family was a crime and how brutally people suspected of it were punished, be they Muhaddith, a royal teacher or even an Umayyad prince himself.

Even though these forces had become weaker after the Abbasid revolt, their after effects continued for centuries to come. It now becomes crystal clear that Bukhari and others like him were writing in that environment. By the time Bukhari sat down and began collecting his SAHEEH, it was the beginning of the third century of Hijra. Bukhari collected 600,000 hadeeth reports. Out of those, he selected 7,052; which are included in his three volumes. In all these, there are ONLY FOUR REPORTS IN PRAISE OF IMAM ALI.

This distorted reporting of hadeeth about Imam Ali continued for another hundred years. It was not until people like Hakim Nayshapoori emerged (d. 405 A.H.), who tried to correct that situation. Hakim named his book AL-MUSTADRAK or, the CORRECTOR. We will discuss this subject in detail later on in this book.

However, the ill effects of that propaganda are still lasting. To-days' western author is greatly influenced by all that. Two examples will suffice:

1. In 1873 an American author named John William Draper published a book titled: History of the Conflict Between religion and Science. The book was edited and re-published with notes and corrections in 1927 from London. In that book Draper argued that religious learning and teaching had hampered the scientific progress and the intellectual development of the human race. His thesis is basically argued against the Christian religion. He has brought evidence to show that while Christianity had worked against scientific development, the Muslims had worked to develop various sciences and arts. In that process he discusses Islam and the early history of Islam. In his own words:

A clear conception of its (Christianity) incompatibility with science caused it to suppress forcibly the Schools of Alexandria. It was constrained to this by the political necessities of its position. The parties to the conflict thus placed, I next relate the story of their first open struggle; it is the first or Southern Reformation. The point in dispute had respect to the nature of God. It involved the rise of Mohammedanism. Its result was that much of Asia and Africa, with the historic cities Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Carthage, were wrenched from Christendom, and the doctrine of the Unity of God was established in the larger portion of what had been the Roman Empire. This political event was followed by the restoration of science, colleges, schools, libraries, throughout the dominions of the Arabians[5].

Draper has mentioned Imam Ali and his thinking at many places. In fact, he is complimentary in his remarks, as follows:

At first the Koran was an obstacle to literature and science. Mohammad had extolled it as the grandest of all compositions, and had adduced its unapproachable excellence as a proof of his divine mission. But, in little more than twenty years after his death, the experience that had been acquired in Syria, Persia, Asia Minor, Egypt, had produced a striking effect, and Ali, the Khalif reigning at that time, avowedly encouraged all kinds of literary pursuits[6].

However, Imam Ali's name does not appear in the index, even though those of Abu Bakr (spelled as Abubeker), Umar (spelled as Omar) and Mu^cawiyyah (spelled as Moawyah) are listed.

In Draper's opinion: Who would want to look up Ali?

2. The New Encyclopedia of Islam published by Brille, has an article on Imam Ali. The author of the article is Prof. Veccia Vaglieri of the University of Milan. We quote from that article:

"The personality of Ali is difficult to define, since the historian finds no sure guide either in his actions or his discourses, or in the data supplied by the sources....................................... ....................................

.......................................................................................

Neither Lammens nor Caetani has brought out the religiosity of Ali and its reflections in his policies.[7]"

Ali the son of Abu Talib, the grandson of Abdul Muttalib, the great-grandson of Hashim, who was raised by the Prophet of Islam like his own son, who was the first Muslim and never relented in any service to Islam – Ms. Vaglieri finds no evidence in his acts and sayings to decide about his religiosity! Ali, who was born inside the K^caba and was mortally wounded inside a mosque in the middle of a prayer, if he was not religious then who else could be termed religious?

…………………-----------------------------------------------

Sincerely,

Syed-Mohsin Naquvi

=============================================

[1] In fact, there were three major rebellions against Imam Ali, as we will explain in time.

[2] Haykal/Faruqi, Life of Muhammad, American Trust Publications (June 1, 2005), pp.lxxxiii-lxxxiv (first published in 1976)

[3] The story of Imam Nasa'i going to Damascus, reading his book from the pulpit and the mob lynching him, has been described in the introduction to his book, which has been published from Kuwait.

[4] Kamal-ud-Deen Muhammad Abul Baqa bin Moosa bin Eesa Dimyari, was born in Egypt in 750 A.H. He died in 808 A.H. His book titled Hayat-ul-Haywaan is a treatise on animals. However, as he tells stories about various animals he digresses into Islamic history of the early period. In the chapter of ALIF, he lists many things. When he comes to iwazzah, which is the word for duck, he goes into the story of the martyrdom of Imam Ali, how a domestic water-foul tried to stop Imam Ali as he was leaving home in the middle of the night before the fatal attack on him. He then gives a short biography of the Prophet of Islam and goes on to describe the events leading to the Umayyad period. That is where this story is found.

[5] Draper, History of the Conflict, Preface

[6] ibid, p.93

[7] Vaglieri, Veccia, Article:Ali bin Abi Talib, in The New Encyclopedia of Islam, Brill, 1986

__._,_.___

Reply via web post

Reply to sender

Reply to group

Start a New Topic

Messages in this topic (1)

Recent Activity:

Visit Your Group