Was Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) a rebel?
Mirza Sahib, in his research paper known as the Hydrogen Bomb “The True Background of the Event of Karbala,” repeatedly tries to prove that Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) and his group of companions (may Allah be pleased with them) were a rebellious group. And he does not stop at just calling them rebels; rather, in the fifth chapter of his booklet titled “How gradually monarchy was imposed on this Ummah after Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) came to power and what was its dreadful consequence?” on page 25, he also quotes this hadith from Sahih Muslim that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “After me, some incompetent people will become successors; whatever they say with their tongues, they will not do, and whoever fights them with his hand is a believer, whoever fights them with his tongue is a believer, and whoever fights them with his heart is a believer, and after that, there will not be even a mustard seed’s worth of faith.”
Now, how these dishonest and treacherous people distort hadiths that are general in meaning and stick them onto Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) and his companions (may Allah be pleased with them)! On one hand, they write “may Allah be pleased with him” and accept them as companions, and on the other hand, they declare fighting them as jihad. Their only demand is that since he is a companion of the Prophet, before beheading him, just say “may Allah be pleased with him” so that the beheading can be done with full decorum and respect, God forbid, and again God forbid. And this is exactly what Mirza Sahib and his followers are doing: after putting all their effort into proving Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) as, God forbid, a drunkard, forbidden eater, usurer, innovator, rebel, and deserving of killing, they only request that before accepting and saying all this, say “may Allah be pleased with him” after his name, فيا للعجب!.
To prove Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) as a rebel, Mirza Sahib uses a narration from Sahih Bukhari in which the Prophet (peace be upon him) said to Hazrat Ammar bin Yasir (may Allah be pleased with him) during the construction of the Prophet’s Mosque:
ويح عمار، تقتله الفئة الباغية، يدعوهم إلى الجنة، ويدعونه إلى النار
“Woe to Ammar! A rebellious group will kill him; Ammar will be calling them towards Paradise, and they will be calling Ammar towards the Fire.”
The correct point about this narration in Sahih Bukhari is that Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) did not include the words تقتله الفئة الباغية “a rebellious group will kill Ammar” in his Sahih Bukhari; this is an addition by the narrators in Sahih Bukhari.
Abu Masood al-Dimashqi (may Allah have mercy on him), who died in 401 AH, said in his book “Ataraf al-Sahihain” that these words “a rebellious group will kill Ammar” were not transmitted by Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him).
Imam Bayhaqi (may Allah have mercy on him), who died in 458 AH, in his book “Dala’il al-Nubuwwah,” says that Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) transmitted this narration without the words تقتله الفئة الباغية.
Imam al-Humaidi (may Allah have mercy on him), who died in 488 AH, said in his book “Al-Jam’ bayn al-Sahihain” that these words were not recorded by Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) in Sahih Bukhari, or if they were, he deleted them.
Ibn al-Athir al-Jazari (may Allah have mercy on him), who died in 606 AH, in his book “Jami’ al-Usul fi Ahadith al-Rasul,” says that he saw these words in one manuscript of Sahih Bukhari, but not in the text, rather in the margins, while other manuscripts do not have these words.
Imam Muzi (may Allah have mercy on him), who died in 742 AH, in his book “Tuhfat al-Ashraf bi Ma’rifat al-Atraf,”
and Imam Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him), who died in 748 AH, in his book “Tarikh al-Islam wa Wafayat al-Mashahir wa al-A’lam,” says that these words are not in the narration of Sahih Bukhari.
So the point is that the narration in Sahih Bukhari is only that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said to Hazrat Ammar bin Yasir (may Allah be pleased with him) during the construction of the Prophet’s Mosque that Ammar was calling them towards Paradise, and they were calling Ammar towards the Fire, referring to the polytheists of Mecca. The original manuscripts of Sahih Bukhari do not have the words تقتله الفئة الباغية “a rebellious group will kill Ammar.” The commentator of Sahih Bukhari, Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (may Allah have mercy on him), states that these words, i.e., تقتله الفئة الباغية, are an addition in Sahih Bukhari, and Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) had included them but later removed them. The reason was that the narrator Abu Sa’id Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) himself said that he did not hear these words from the Prophet (peace be upon him), although he heard the rest of the narration.
Here, Mirza Sahib and his blind followers start issuing fatwas of “deniers of hadith” on others, accusing them of not accepting Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim’s hadiths. This is the same propaganda campaign that plays more on people’s emotions than on evidence. There is consensus on the authenticity of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim’s narrations; we also say the same and have written separately on this topic under the title “Is there consensus on the authenticity of Sahihain?” which can be read by searching on Google. But this does not mean that Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim’s narrations have never been criticized or that whoever criticized them became a denier of hadith. By this logic, the first denier of hadith would be Imam al-Daraqutni (may Allah have mercy on him).
So, the criticism of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim by the group of muhaddithin and the responses by another group of muhaddithin have identified some specific places in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim where there are some defects or doubts. Later scholars can transmit this criticism, but opening the door to new criticism is not the correct methodology. We have only transmitted the muhaddithin; we have not said anything that the predecessors did not say. Secondly, this criticism does not make any complete narration in Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim weak; rather, according to Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), some phrases in these narrations do not reach the level of proof due to defects and doubts, but the rest of the narration is authentic.
These words, i.e., تقتله الفئة الباغية, are also transmitted in other hadith books besides Sahih Bukhari, so what is our opinion about them? Our view is that when we collect the various chains of this narration, we find contradictions in their texts, which the muhaddithin call “idtirab” (discrepancy). A narration with idtirab is not considered authentic until the discrepancy is resolved. Such a narration is called “mudtarib,” and efforts are made to resolve the discrepancy in four ways, which will be mentioned later.
When this narration was transmitted from Abu Sa’id Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) in Sahih Bukhari, the text states that this event, i.e., the Prophet (peace be upon him) dusting off the clothes of Hazrat Ammar bin Yasir (may Allah be pleased with him) and telling him that a rebellious group will kill him, is the event of the construction of the Prophet’s Mosque, which is known to have occurred in 1 AH. But when the same narration is transmitted in Sahih Muslim from Abu Qatada al-Ansari (may Allah be pleased with him), it appears that this is the event of the Battle of the Trench (Ghazwat al-Khandaq), which occurred in 5 AH. Both narrations, in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, contain the words that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was dusting the clothes of Hazrat Ammar bin Yasir (may Allah be pleased with him), so it is evident that both narrations refer to the same event, not two separate events. So the question arises: does Sahih Bukhari’s narration correctly state that this is the event of the construction of the Prophet’s Mosque, or is Sahih Muslim’s narration correct that it is the event of the Battle of the Trench? This is called idtirab (discrepancy). It is not correct to reconcile this by saying that it happened twice. It is impossible for the exact same event with the same scene to have occurred twice.
Another narration, which is only in Sahih Muslim, is from Hazrat Umm Salamah (may Allah be pleased with her). But this narration also raises questions: if it is the event of the construction of the Prophet’s Mosque as in Sahih Bukhari, then Umm Salamah (may Allah be pleased with her) married the Prophet (peace be upon him) in 4 AH, so how could she have heard words from 1 AH? If it is said that she could narrate from the Prophet (peace be upon him) as a companion, the answer is that Umm Salamah (may Allah be pleased with her) migrated to Medina after the construction of the Prophet’s Mosque because her family prevented her from migrating for a year. If it is said that this is the event of the Battle of the Trench, then the wives of the Prophet and other female companions did not participate in digging the trench but were kept in the fortress-like house of Hazrat Hassan bin Thabit (may Allah be pleased with him) in Medina, as narrated in the Sirah of Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham.
Another narration in Sunan al-Tirmidhi is from Hazrat Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him). The difference is that in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, the Prophet (peace be upon him) expressed sorrow while saying these words to Hazrat Ammar bin Yasir (may Allah be pleased with him), as if it was a tragedy, whereas in Sunan al-Tirmidhi, the Prophet (peace be upon him) told him to be happy and considered it a glad tidings. There is a big difference between expressing sorrow and giving glad tidings.
Also, Hazrat Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) embraced Islam in 7 AH, while according to Sahih Bukhari, this event is from 1 AH (construction of the Prophet’s Mosque), and according to Sahih Muslim, it is from 5 AH (Battle of the Trench).
Another narration in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah is narrated by Amr bin al-As (may Allah be pleased with him).
Amr bin al-As (may Allah be pleased with him) embraced Islam in 8 AH, so how could he have heard the narration about the construction of the Prophet’s Mosque or the Battle of the Trench directly from the Prophet (peace be upon him)? Another narration in Musnad Ahmad is from Abdullah bin Amr bin al-As (may Allah be pleased with him).
Although he embraced Islam before his father, his migration to Medina was after 7 AH. There are also narrations from other companions, such as from Anas bin Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) in Al-Mu’jam al-Awsat and from Hazrat Hudhayfah (may Allah be pleased with him) in Mustadrak Hakim, but their narrators have issues.
This is why great muhaddithin like Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal and Yahya bin Ma’in (may Allah have mercy on them) say that about 28 narrations are transmitted on this matter, but none of them is authentic.
Abu Bakr al-Khallal writes:
أخبرني إسماعيل بن الفضل، قال: سمعت أبا أمية محمد بن إبراهيم يقول: سمعت فى حلقة أحمد بن حنبل ويحيى بن معين وأبا خيثمة والمعيطي ذكروا: (يقتل عمارا الفئة الباغية) فقالوا: ما فيه حديث صحيح.
“Isma’il bin Fadl informed us that he heard from Muhammad bin Ibrahim that he heard in the circle of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Imam Yahya bin Ma’in, Abu Khaythamah, and Mu’ayti (may Allah have mercy on them) that none of the narrations about Ammar being killed by a rebellious group is authentic.”
Abu Bakr al-Khallal also narrates another statement:
سمعت محمد بن عبد الله بن إبراهيم، قال: سمعت أبى يقول: سمعت أحمد بن حنبل، يقول: روي في: تقتل عمارا الفئة الباغية ثمانية وعشرون حديثا، ليس فيها حديث صحيح.
“I heard Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (may Allah have mercy on him) say that about 28 narrations are transmitted about Ammar being killed by a rebellious group, but none of them is authentic.”
Although Abu Bakr al-Khallal also narrates from Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (may Allah have mercy on him) that some narrations on this matter are authentic, this statement is attributed by Abu Bakr al-Khallal to Ibn al-Farra’, who says that Ya’qub bin Shaybah wrote this in the first volume of Musnad Ammar
, and this book is lost.
In our view, this narration is “mutaqif fiha” (suspended). A narration is called mutaqif when neither authenticity nor weakness is declared. The rule of muhaddithin is that when narrations conflict, they first collect them to resolve the conflict. Some have tried to reconcile these narrations by saying that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said these words on more than one occasion, but this is not possible. First, it would mean that the Prophet (peace be upon him) repeated the same sentence many times, which is not his style. Second, the time difference between the events mentioned in the narrations is too great. Others have reconciled by saying it could be “mursal sahabi,” meaning a companion who embraced Islam later may not have heard it directly from the Prophet (peace be upon him) but from another companion, and there is no harm in that since all companions are just. We tried this as well; Abu Sa’id Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) said he heard from Abu Qatada al-Ansari (may Allah be pleased with him), who clarified, but the contradiction in the text remained. So making it mursal sahabi does not solve the problem because contradictions in the texts remain, though contradictions in the chains can be resolved this way.
However, a third form of reconciliation is possible: the words تقتله الفئة الباغية are not authentic as a marfu’ (attributed to the Prophet) but are authentic as mawquf (attributed to a companion), meaning these words are established but not from the Prophet (peace be upon him) but from a companion. It is not unlikely that a companion among those who were supporters of Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said that a rebellious group will kill Ammar (may Allah be pleased with him). This proves that in the eyes of those companions, the other group was rebellious, but it does not prove that in the eyes of the Prophet (peace be upon him) the other group was rebellious. In simple words, according to our proposed reconciliation, these words of the narration are established as a mawquf narration, not as a marfu’ narration. The most probable is that this opinion of the companion emerged after the disputes between Hazrat Ali and Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with them) and then spread among the companions who were supporters of Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), as most narrators of this narration are from among Hazrat Ali’s supporters.
If reconciliation is not possible, then the narrations are examined for abrogation (naskh) to resolve contradictions, where one narration abrogates the other. But abrogation applies to rulings, and this narration is about fitnah (tribulation), so abrogation is unlikely. The third option is preference (tarjih), which we consider possible by preferring Sahih Bukhari’s narration over others and accepting that this event is the construction of the Prophet’s Mosque, and the words تقتله الفئة الباغية are not authentic but are the words of a companion, i.e., a mawquf narration.
The fourth option is suspension (tawaqquf), which seems to be the meaning of Imam Ahmad’s statement because great imams do not easily declare a hadith weak. When they say a hadith is not authentic, there is a difference between that and saying it is weak. We also write in our writings that a narration is not established, meaning it is not authentic. A narration that is not authentic may or may not be weak. If we do not declare it weak, it is called mutaqif fiha, meaning a narration on which no ruling is made until the contradiction is resolved.
There is no doubt that a large group of scholars have accepted the words تقتله الفئة الباغية as from the Prophet (peace be upon him), although our opinion differs. Even if we accept these words as from the Prophet (peace be upon him), Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) is not proven to be a rebel. The reason is that the original meaning of “baghi” (rebel) is “desiring,” as in the Quranic verses ﴿ابْتِغَاءَ مَرْضَاتِ اللَّهِ﴾, meaning “seeking Allah’s pleasure,” and the hadith phrase يا باغي الخير, meaning “O you who desire good,” has the same meaning. Mirza Sahib takes this Arabic word in the Urdu meaning of “rebel,” whereas in Arabic, “baghi” primarily means “one who desires.”
However, sometimes this word carries an additional meaning with “desire,” as in the verses ﴿تَبْتَغِي مَرْضَاتَ أَزْوَاجِكَ﴾ and ﴿فَإِنْ بَغَتْ إِحْدَاهُمَا عَلَى الْأُخْرَى﴾, where the desire is for more than one’s right, and in ﴿وَالَّذِينَ إِذَا أَصَابَهُمُ الْبَغْيُ﴾ and ﴿وَيَنْهَىٰ عَنِ الْفَحْشَاءِ وَالْمُنكَرِ وَالْبَغْيِ﴾, “baghi” means desiring what is not your right. This is a deep point not easily understood by superficial minds or emotional temperaments. So Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) and his group were called “baghi” in the sense that they desired their right, i.e., the retribution for the killers of Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), but they desired more than what was due to them, i.e., they sought qisas (retribution) in circumstances where it was not possible for Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) to take qisas.
So if “baghi” is interpreted (ta’wil) as “rebel,” it is an error, an ijtihadi (juristic) error. “Baghi” has two types: demanding more than one’s right, which is an ijtihadi error, and demanding what is not one’s right, which is a clear error. Amir Muawiya’s “baghi” was an ijtihadi error, and the evidence is that Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) did not accept the killing of Ammar (may Allah be pleased with him) but denied it, saying “We did nothing; rather, they did what brought them to the battlefield.” So this is an ijtihadi error. Even if Hazrat Ali’s (may Allah be pleased with him) response is correct, Amir Muawiya’s belief and acceptance of Ammar’s killing is not established. So at least it is proven that this is why it was interpreted, even if others consider their interpretation wrong. This is a deep discussion that Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) elaborated.
Another group of companions did not fight on the side of either Hazrat Ali or Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with them), even after knowing this hadith. They considered this issue ijtihadi, like Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas, Muhammad bin Muslimah, Abdullah bin Umar, and Usama bin Zaid (may Allah be pleased with them), and most senior companions did not fight on either side. This was their answer to those who consider تقتله الفئة الباغية as the correct part of the narration.
Thirdly, Sahih Bukhari’s narration states:
لا تقوم الساعة حتى تقتتل فئتان دعواهما واحدة
“The Hour will not be established until two groups fight each other, and both will claim the same.”
Imam Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) says that these two groups refer to the groups of Hazrat Ali and Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with them), and their claim means “Islam,” that both will fight in the name of Islam, or their claim means that both will claim to be right.
Another narration in Sahih Bukhari contains the words دعوتهما واحدة
, which supports the meanings mentioned above.
Similarly, Sahih Muslim’s narration states that Muslims will be divided into three groups, one of which will be the Kharijites, and among the remaining two groups of Muslims, the one closer to the truth will fight the Kharijites. Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) fought the Kharijites, and the hadith says: يقتلها أولى الطائفتين بالحق
, meaning among the two groups of Muslims, the one closer to the truth will fight the Kharijites. It does not say the one who is right but says “ahq” (more rightful), which is Hazrat Ali’s group.
So Amir Muawiya’s group was “baghi,” meaning a group desiring their right, though not the most rightful. Considering all hadiths, the applied meaning is this. If Amir Muawiya’s group is taken as “baghi” in the same sense as the Kharijites were “baghi,” then it would contradict the hadiths of the Prophet (peace be upon him) that both groups will be right or both will claim to be right. So the fight between Hazrat Ali and Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with them) was not a fight between “right” and “wrong” but between “more rightful” and “right.” The first view is that of the Shia, and the second is that of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah. The fundamental difference between Shia and Sunni is:
One is that according to Ahl al-Sunnah, the most excellent person after the Prophet (peace be upon him) in this Ummah is Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him), while according to Shia, it is Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). Whoever prefers Hazrat Ali over Abu Bakr enters Shia, but they are called Tafdhili Shia, like Zaidiyyah, who are close to Ahl al-Sunnah in accepting and respecting the caliphate of the first three caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman) but say that the rightful caliphate was for Hazrat Ali. They are found nowadays in Yemen, and the Houthi tribes belong to this sect. According to them, the imamate (caliphate) of the junior is permissible in the presence of the senior.
The second is that whoever considers the fight between Hazrat Ali and Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with them) as a fight between “right” and “wrong” is a staunch Shia, who also curses and insults the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him), calls them usurpers, denies their faith, and is called Rafidi Shia. This was the Shia in the early period; the sect was formally established much later. Initially, these were the concepts on which muhaddithin would judge someone as Shia, or a Shia, or an extremist Shia, etc. This is one of the fundamental differences in beliefs between Shia and Sunni, not a trivial matter.
