 | | Historical Background of Nasabis Innovations in Taqiyyah | | Innovation in Taqiyyah by Ibn Taymiyyah | | Innovations in Taqiyyah by Mufti of Sipaa Sahaba | | Maula Ali[as] Vs. Taqiyyah | | Conclusion |
| |  | | | | You can email the details of this article to a friend. | |  |
| Maula Ali[as] Vs. Taqiyyah
On page 40 (and on many other places), Mufti Sahib criticized Maula Ali (as) for not raising against Sheikhain for his right of Caliphate and Fadak.
 Taqiyyah Na Kijey, Page 40
Since Nasabis have been using this objection since centuries, therefore let us see if it was really in the interests of Islam if Maula Ali (as) would have started the war against Sheikhain at that stage.
Why Maula 'Ali (as) didn't raise "Dhulfiqar" against Sheikhain?
This has been a very common Nasibi argument, and is tactically used by the followers of Mu'awiya to mock the Shi'a. We should point out to these people Nasibi that Imam 'Ali (as)'s decision not to take physical action was not because due to his practising taqiyya (through fear of life) and neither was it because he loved the three khalifas. His decision was based on the following reasons as we have set out:
Reply One - It was Abu Bakr's duty to return what was not his, not Imam Ali to demand it
Simple example. A man has a son and bequeaths his property to him he does openly in the presence of witnesses, (that include his uncle). If when the father dies his uncle seizes the property and claims it as his, places guard to guard the property. In such circumstances the uncle is the usurper the son is the aggrieved party. In such circumstances it is incumbent on the Uncle to RETURN the property to his nephew, not on the nephew to use force to take it back. When the uncle is in the wrong the onus is on him to put things right not the son to fight for his right.
Reply Two - Imam 'Ali did not want to cause open division and bloodshed
These Nasibi need to look at the situation at THAT particular time when Abu Bakr seized power. Allah (swt) declared clearly that Madina and its surrounding locality was FULL of munafiq (Surah Munafiqoon); Rasul (s) has stated that the sign of a munafiq is hatred of Imam 'Ali hence Madina was full of Imam 'Ali 's opponents who were looking for the excuse to harm him. Abu Bakr had full control of the State machinery, he was in power / had the army at his disposal etc had he risen at that time he along with the Shi'a would have been wiped out, on the excuse that it was right to do so to quell sedition.
Don't forget we read in Tabari that Umar was prepared to set alight the house of Sayyida Fatima because men in her home had gathered in opposition to Abu Bakr. If Umar was so ruthless to not even care for the life of Sayyida Fatima[as] then he would have had no hesitation in killing her husband and her supporters.
In this time, Imam 'Ali had to think what was best for his followers, any opposition would have caused loss of life. Any action at this time would have caused major dissension and bloodshed, and Rasul (s) said:
"Your position to me is like the position of Aaron to Moses, except that there shall be no Prophet after me"
1. Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English version, Traditions 5.56 and 5.700
2. Sahih Muslim, Arabic, section of virtues of Ali, v4, pp 1870-71
3. Sunan Ibn Majah, p12
4. Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, p174
5. al-Khas'is, by al-Nisa'i, pp 15-16
6. Mushkil al-Athar, by al-Tahawi, v2, p309
The analogy that Prophet (PBUH) mentioned in the above tradition, seems to be a reality after his demise. Most of companions (except few) became disloyal to Ali (AS) after the death of Prophet (PBUH), turned against him, and preferred some other people to him. The majority of people disobeyed Ali (AS), as their forefathers disobeyed Haroon (AS). They did not take lessons from Quran and the history, and thus the history repeated over and over again. The repetition of the history of the Children of Israel for Muslims is confirmed by Prophet (s).
Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 9.422
Narrated Abu Sa'id al-Khudri:
The Prophet said, "You will follow the ways of those nations who were before you, span by span and cubit by cubit (i.e., inch by inch) so much so that even if they entered a hole of a mastigure (lizard), you would follow them." We said, "O Allah's Apostle! (Do you mean) the Jews and the Christians?" He said, "Whom else?"
Think for a while... Why would the Prophet (PBUH&HF) compare his companions to the Jews and the Christians, knowing full well that the Jews and the Christians have mutilated and perverted the religion of Allah (SWT)?
Because Allah (SWT) had told him (PBUH&HF) that your companions will turn back, except the select few.
Now if we analyse the Quran; we read that Prophet Musa (A.S.) became extremely upset when he heard that Bani Israel started worshipping an idol of calf. He came back from "Miqaat" and grabbed Haroon (as) by his hair and pulled his beard. Harun (A.S.) sadly replied:
(20:94) "O son of my mother, do not seize me by my beard or my head. Truly, I feared but you should say that I caused a division among the Bani-Isra'il and did not respect my word"
In the same way that Harun did not intervene at that particular time fearing further fragmentation amongst the Ummah, Imam Ali also did not act since he did not want the Ummah to be at each others throats and munafiqs to exploit the situation and destroy Islam through internal deception.
Reply Three -The wider situation meant it would have been disastrous to act
On a wider scale look at the situation at the time. We had munafiqs in Madina, and worse the threat of attack from the neighbouring Christian Byzantine Empire. This was a very real danger since in 10 Hijri, Rasul (s) led the expedition of Tabuk to counter the Byzantine threat. On top of that in the Arabian Peninsula, Musalimah had risen up and declared himself a Prophet (s) and was making preparations to attack Madina. Had Imam Ali at this stage rose up, the Ummah would have been totally fragmented, Muslims would have been fighting each other and Musalimah the liar. What better time would there have been for the Byzantines to attack than when the Muslims were divided, fighting each other AND fighting Musalimah? At that time the Ummah would have been so weak on account of internal upheaval there would have been a real risk of the Byzantines invading and destroying the Muslim Ummah. In such circumstances Imam Ali had the interests of the Deen as priority, he did not want to trigger any event that might inflict harm to the Deen and its adherents. If anything this shows the greatness of the Imam that he was willing to sacrifice his right, if it meant a guarantee that the Deen and its adherents were protected from harm.
Reply Four - Imam Ali was following the Sunnah of Rasul (s), desisting from actions that might be exploited by non Muslims
We read in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 428: Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
We were in a Ghazwa (Sufyan once said, in an army) and a man from the emigrants kicked an Ansari man (on the buttocks with his foot). The Ansari man said, "O the Ansar! (Help!)" and the emigrant said. "O the emigrants! (Help!) Allah's Apostle heard that and said, "What is this call for, which is characteristic of the period of ignorance?" They said, "O Allah's Apostle! A man from the emigrants kicked one of the Ansar (on the buttocks with his foot)." Allah's Apostle said, "Leave it (that call) as is a detestable thing." 'Abdullah bin Ubai heard that and said, 'Have the (the emigrants) done so? By Allah, if we return Medina, surely, the more honorable will expel therefrom the meaner." When this statement reached the Prophet. 'Umar got up an, said, "O Allah's Apostle! Let me chop off the head of this hypocrite ('Abdullah bin Ubai)!" The Prophet said "Leave him, lest the people say that Muhammad kills his companions." The Ansar were then more in number than the emigrants when the latter came to Medina, but later on the emigrant increased.
The reference makes it clear that a hypocrite was sitting in the midst of the Sahaba, Umar offered to have him killed, but Rasul (s) said "Leave him, lest the people say that Muhammad kills his companions; i.e. he (s) did not want his actions to be exploited / incorrectly interpreted by non Muslims. In the same way that Rasul (s) had spared the life of a hypocrite fearing that outside elements would exploit the situation, Imam Ali acted on the Sunnah of Rasul (s) refraining from lifting his sword as he was aware that outside elements would have picked up on this and painted a damaging image of Islam.
The true Imam thinks about consequences of actions both present and future. Imam Ali did not want to act in a manner that would be exploited by future non Muslim generations in a manner that would be detrimental to the Deen. Had Imam Ali raised his sword at that time then no doubt anti Muslim elements of that time and present would have exploited the situation to the max they would have said 'Look this is Islam, its all about power here we have the closest companions fighting not for religion but the throne of Muhammad (s)'
This portrayal would have created a very bad image of Islam, non-Muslims would have picked up on this and exploited it, and it would have repelled people away from Islam. If Rasul (s) refrained from lifting the sword against a munafiq fearing the perception of outsiders, then Imam Ali was fully within his rights when he refrained from raising his sword against Abu Bakr, to do so was the Sunnah of Rasul (s). |
Taqiyyah (Expedient dissimulation)
Taqiyyah Na Kijey, Page 40