Clarification of the Doubt
It i claimed that Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleaed with him) iued order to the governor during hi reign to inult Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleaed with him). Then thi practice continued among the Umayyad official a a tradition, which wa ended by Umar ibn Abdul Aziz during hi reign. The narration and hitorical reference relied upon in upport of thi claim are a follow:
◄ Before the time of Umar ibn Abdul Aziz, the Umayyad governor ued to ‘inult’ Hazrat Ali, but when the era of Umar ibn Abdul Aziz came, he ended it
.
◄ It i narrated about Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleaed with him) that he ued to criticize Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleaed with him)
, and even advied hi governor, Hazrat Mughirah ibn hu’bah (may Allah be pleaed with him), to do o
.
◄ It i reported about Mughirah ibn hu’bah (may Allah be pleaed with him) that during hi governorhip in Kufa, inult were hurled at Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleaed with him) in hi preence, and he did not top it
. In fact, he had appointed preacher who would inult Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleaed with him)
.
◄ Marwan ibn al-Hakam, who wa the governor appointed by Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleaed with him) in Medina, ued to inult ayyidina Ali (may Allah be pleaed with him) every Friday
.
◄ Umm al-Mu’minin ayyida Umm alamah (may Allah be pleaed with her) aid to a man from Kufa, Abu Abdullah al-Judali: I the Prophet of Allah inulted from the pulpit in your place? He aid: No. Then Umm alamah aid: Are Ali and hi lover not inulted? I heard the Meenger of Allah ﷺ ay: Whoever inult Ali ha inulted me
.
Anwer to the Doubt
There are two cae of inulting or curing omeone: the firt i when it i done out of malice, obtinacy, peronal enmity, or intene anger; the econd i when it i done due to interpretation, miundertanding, or an ijtihadi (juridical) error. In the firt cae, doing o i conidered wickedne or a in
, wherea in the econd cae, the one who doe it i conidered excued.
The previou principle i not limited to merely inulting, but any in committed baed on an interpretation i not held accountable by hariah; rather, the peron i conidered excued, and there are many example of thi in hariah
. Therefore, inulting omeone baed on an interpretation i a very minor matter; even if he kill that peron, he will not be killed in retaliation (Qia). For example, ayyiduna Uama bin Zaid (may Allah be pleaed with him) killed a peron who had recited the Kalima, and Uama bin Zaid (may Allah be pleaed with him) thought that he had recited the Kalima out of fear of the word
. Neverthele, no retaliation wa taken from ayyiduna Uama for that killing becaue it wa hi ijtihadi (juridical) error. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah tate: And depite that, the Prophet ﷺ neither killed them nor wa retaliation, blood money, or expiation given to the victim, becaue the killer wa a peron who acted baed on an interpretation.
The unanimou belief of Ahl al-unnah regarding the dipute and battle among the Companion of the Prophet, may Allah be pleaed with them, including the Battle of Jamal and the Battle of iffin, i that they keep ilent about thee matter and avoid interfering in them
. They hold the belief that thee battle and dipute were baed on ijtihad (independent reaoning) and not on peronal enmity and obtinacy
. Even if a peron err in ijtihad, he i not deprived of reward
. Moreover, Allah Almighty ha promied forgivene and Paradie to all the Companion
.
If a peron believe that thee fight were not due to ijtihadi error but were the reult of peronal grudge, even then it lead to a greater in, and the Ahl al-unnah do not conider the Companion to be free from in. However, they alo hold the belief that they were the bet people of thi Ummah, choen by Allah Almighty to be in the company of Hi Prophet ﷺ. Therefore, even if the Companion committed in, the mean of forgivene and pardon were o abundantly available to them, and their good deed were o numerou, that their in are inignificant compared to their ocean of good deed
. Hence, making the mitake of the Companion a ubject of debate i not befitting for any Mulim. All previou anwer are baed on the aumption that all the mentioned narration are accepted a authentic, wherea the reality i that ome of thee narration are authentic and ome are weak or fabricated. Below, in brief, are comment on thee narration in order:
Before the era of Umar ibn Abdul Aziz, the Umayyad governor ued to ‘cure’ Hazrat Ali, but when the time of Umar ibn Abdul Aziz came, he ended thi practice
Reference: Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra by Ibn a’d: 7/382
.
In thi, a narrator, Lut ibn Yahya Abu Mukhnaf, i not reliable
.
➊ Imam Ibn Ma’in, may Allah have mercy on him (233 AH), ay: “Abu Mukhnaf ha no tatu”
.
➋ Imam Ibn ‘Adi, may Allah have mercy on him (365 AH), ay: “He i an extreme hia and their reporter”
.
➌ Hafiz al-Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him (748 AH), ay: “Abu Mukhnaf Lut ibn Yahya i a Kufi Rafidhi hitorian”
.
It i narrated about Hazrat Muawiyah, may Allah be pleaed with him, that he ued to criticize Hazrat Ali, may Allah be pleaed with him
Reference: unan Ibn Majah: 121
, and even advied hi governor, Janab Mughirah ibn hu’bah, may Allah be pleaed with him, to do o
.
In thi narration, Lut ibn Yahya i a neglected narrator. Wherea in the chain of the narration in unan Ibn Majah
, there i a dicontinuity between Abdur Rahman ibn abit and aad ibn Abi Waqqa
. It original tory i in ahih Mulim
, but it doe not mention that Hazrat Muawiyah رضي الله عنه targeted ayyiduna Ali for criticim. It i mentioned regarding Hazrat Mughirah ibn hu’bah رضي الله عنه that during hi governorhip in Kufa, Hazrat Ali رضي الله عنه wa inulted in hi preence and he did not top it
, rather he had appointed preacher who inulted Hazrat Ali
.
There i a dicontinuity between Hilal bin Yaaf and Abdullah bin Zalim in thi narration
. Wherea the narration in unan Abi Dawood
i authentic, but it doe not prove the claim that ayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه intructed them to do o. However, it wa not right for Mughira bin hu’bah رضي الله عنه to remain ilent on thi wrongful act, for which ayyiduna aeed bin Zaid رضي الله عنه admonihed him.
ayyiduna Marwan bin Hakam, who wa the governor appointed by ayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه in Madinah, ued to inult ayyiduna Ali رضي الله عنه every Friday
Reference: Al-‘Ilal wa Ma’rifat al-Rijal by Imam Ahmad: 3/176
.
The chain of narration regarding Marwan ibn al-Hakam i authentic, but thi wa hi peronal act which wa in no way correct. However, thi doe not prove that ayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه ordered him to do o. Rather, the ame narration mention that when Marwan ibn al-Hakam wa dimied and aeed ibn al-Aa wa appointed a the Amir, he did not inult ayyiduna Ali رضي الله عنه.
Umm al-Mu’mineen ayyida Umm alamah رضي الله عنها aid to a man from Kufa, Abu Abdullah al-Judali: I the Prophet of Allah inulted openly from the pulpit in your place? He aid: No. Upon thi, Umm alamah aid: I Ali and hi upporter not inulted? I heard the Meenger of Allah ﷺ ay: Whoever inult Ali ha inulted me.
Reference: Munad Ahmad: 26748, Munad Abi Ya’la: 7013
.
The narration of ayyida Umm alama (may Allah be pleaed with her) i authentic, but it only mention that ayyidina Ali (may Allah be pleaed with him) wa inulted in Kufa. It doe not mention on whoe command it happened, nor who did it. Therefore, the mentioned claim i not proven from thi.
Fighting and killing omeone i far wore than inulting them. When battle and war have already taken place between two group, what i o unuual or urpriing about them inulting each other? In fact, the people of Banu Umayyah believed that ayyiduna Ali (may Allah be pleaed with him) wa reponible for the martyrdom of ayyiduna Uthman (may Allah be pleaed with him) becaue he did not defend the Commander of the Faithful even though he wa in Medina. Moreover, the killer of Uthman were alo preent in the rank of ayyiduna Ali, and he neither took retribution from them nor handed them over to ayyiduna Muawiyah (may Allah be pleaed with him). Although Banu Umayyah were not in the right in all thee matter, thee were the reaon for thoe fight and inult.
The dipute and fight that occurred among the Companion do not jutify any Mulim in diminihing their repect or making them a target of criticim. Becaue repecting them i a command from Allah, while thee war are Allah’ decree which wa detined to happen. It i known and etablihed that what i written in detiny cannot annul any ruling of the hariah, becaue the One who forbade peaking ill of the Companion wa aware that uch dipute would occur among them. It i imilar to how the hariah forbid aying even “uff” (a mild expreion of dipleaure) to parent, even though the hariah know that parent are not infallible and can make mitake. Therefore, if parent err, which i detiny, the command to repect them i not annulled.
