|The callous killing of Hujr bin Adi (ra)|
Abu Sulaiman immediately begins this defence by seeking to deny that Hujr was a Sahabi (companion of the prophet), he states: Ansar.org states:"People disagreed on the companionship of Hijr bin Uday (the famous!). Al-Bukhari and others counted him as a follower (Tabe'ei), and some others as a companion".
Even if for arguments sake Abu Sulaiman is correct and Mu'awiya killed a Tabii, the fact of the matter is that he killed a MUSLIM, unless of course Abu Sulaiman is now also going to suggest that he had converted to Judaism at the time of his death!
The punishment for killing a Momin is Hell
The killing of a mu'min is a clear violation of the Sharia, and Allah (swt) sets out the punishment for such an individual:
"And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense shall be hell, he shall abide therein and God's wrath (Ghazibullaho) shall be on him and his curse (lanato), and is prepared for him a great torment" (Surah Nisa, v 93)
Was Hujr a troublemaker?
Abu Sulaiman then seeks to tactically select and water down the events behind Hujr's killing so as to prevent Hujr as a troublemaker.
Ansar.org states:"Mu'awiyah did not kill Hijr because he refrained from insulting Ali, and this is calumniation. What the historians mentioned about the reason behind killing Hijr bin Uday was that Ziyad, the ruler of Al-Kufah appointed by Mu'awiyah, once gave a prolonged speech. So Hijr bin Uday called for the prayer, but Ziyad went along with his speech.
So, Hijr and his group threw stones at Ziyad. Ziyad wrote Mu'awiyah telling him what Hijr did and Ziyad reckoned that as corruption on earth. Hijr used to do this with the governor of Al-Kufah who preceded Ziyad. Mu'awiyah ordered that Hijr be sent to him. When Hijr reached there, Mu'awiyah ordered to kill Hijr.
It is worthy to note that Abu Sulaiman fails to cite even a SINGLE reference to support this watered down event. He of course does so intentionally for he knows that his version of events does NOT tally up with his self-defined version of history.
Maulana Sayyid Abul A'la Maudoodi in his book "Khilafat wa Mulukiyyat" cites several classical sources providing the reason behind the murder of Hujr bin Adi. Under the chapter 4 "the elimination of freedom of speech", he states:
"Hujr bin Adi was a pious companion of the Prophet (saws) and played a vital role in the correction of the Ummah. During Mu'awiya's reign when the custom of cursing Ali from the pulpit's of Mosques began, hearts of the Muslims were being bled dry but people bit their tongues fearing death. In Kufa Hujr bin Adi could not remain silent and he began to praise Ali (ra) and condemn Mu'awiya.
Until Mughira remained the Governor of Kufa, he adopted a lenient attitude towards this, but when Ziyad's Governorship of Basra was extended to include Kufa, serious altercations arose. He would curse Ali (ra) during the khutba and Hujr would refute him. On one occasion he (Hujr) warned Ziyad for being late for Jumma prayers.
Ziyad then arrested him along with twelve of his companions on false accusations of forming an opposition group to overthrow the Khalifa and was cursing the Khalifa.
He also gathered witnesses to testify against them alleging that they claimed that khilafath was the exclusive right of the lineage of Ali ibne Abi Talib and further accused them of creating an uproar, throwing out the commander and of supporting Abu Turab Ali, of sending blessings upon him and hating his enemies. From amongst these witnesses, Qadi Shudhri's testimony was used.
He later wrote to Mu'awiya that the blood and property of people who said they offered Salat, paid zakat, and performed Hajj and Umrah, preached right and declared that evil was haram, however if you want to kill them so be it, otherwise forgive them. The accused were sent to Mu'awiya and he sentenced them to death. A condition was placed that if they cursed Ali (ra) and showed their hatred to him they would be pardoned.
They refused and Hujr said I will not say that thing that will displease Allah'. Finally he and his seven companions were murdered. From amongst them Abdur Rahman bin Hassan was sent back to return with a written instruction that he be murdered in the worst possible manner, Ziyad buried him alive (Tarikh al Tabari, Volume 4 page 190 - 208, al Istiab by Ibn Abdul Barr Vol I page 135, Tarikh by Ibn Athir Volume 3 page 234 - 242, al Bidayah al Nihaya by Ibn Kathir, Volume 8 page 50 -55j, Ibn Khaldoon Volume 3 page 13).
Abu Sulaiman then seeks to defend the method of killing:
Ansar.org states:"Muawiya's severity in killing Hijr was because Hijr tried to transgress against the Islamic nation and to break the bond of the Muslims and Mu'awiyah considered it as an endeavor to corrupt the earth especially in Kufah where some groups of the affliction first appeared against Uthman.
If Uthman were lenient in this matter, which ultimately lead to his death and lead the Islamic nation to the greatest affliction and caused blood to run like rivers, then Mu'awiyah wanted to cut this affliction from its roots by killing Hijr" If Mu'awiya wanted to kill Hujr in this way to quell sedition, how is it that he was in effect willing to provide immunity to Hujr and his supporters if they cursed Ali.
This 'transgression' and attempt to corrupt the earth would have been eliminated by the act of cursing Ali (as)? This is the bond of the Muslims that Abu Sulaiman claims that Mu'awiya was trying to protect, a bond that could only be maintained through the cursing of Ali (as)!
Now let us turn to the 'method of punishment' that of burying the associate of Hujr - Abdur Rahman bin Hassan alive. Since Islamic Sharia prescribes clear methods of penal punishment, could Abu Sulaiman cite a single verse of the Qur'an or hadith that states the punishment for sedition is live burial?
If Hujr was indeed a troublemaker as Abu Sulaiman suggests then one assumes that this action would have received widespread support by the Sahaba and tabieen, and yet we find no such evidence. On the contrary, we find clear condemnation. Maudoodi in "Khilfath wa Mulukiyyat" page 160, states:
"This incident shook the heart of the Ummah. Upon hearing the news Hadhrath Ibn Umar and Hadhrath Ayesha were aggrieved. Hadhrath Ayesha had previously written a letter admonishing Mu'awiya. Later on when she met Mu'awiya she said Mu'awiya did you not fear Allah even slightly when killing Hujr?'. When Hadhrath Mu'awiya's Governor of Khurusan Rabiya bin Ziyad heard this news he shouted O Allah if in your knowledge there is anything good left on my part, take me from this world'.
[Khilafat wa Mulukiyaat, chapter 5, page, 165 citing Tabari vol 4, page 19 to 207, Ibn Athir, vol 3, page 234-242, Al bidaya wan Nihaya, vol 8, pages 50-55, Al-isti'aab, vol 1, page 135]
You can see the clear contradiction in the way Abu Sulaiman writes. If the Sahaba like Ayesha, Talha, Zubayr rebel against Khalifa Ali (as) it is on account of ijtihad for which they will be rewarded, the same approach is NOT applied to Hujr. If he opposed Mu'awiya. Why is Abu Sulaiman condemning him? Can it also not be deemed that he exercised ijtihad for which he will be rewarded?
If not, why not? Is there one rule for those that oppose Ali (as) and another for those who oppose Mu'awiya? Or are those who oppose Mu'awiya more abominable in his eyes than those who oppose Ali (as)? Clearly Abu Sulaiman's Nasibi beliefs have been exposed.
Fortunately 'true' Sunnis have a love for Imam 'Ali (as) and his adherents in their hearts and hence have been particularly critical of the killing of Hujr bin Adi [r] and his supporters.
Mufti Ghulam Rasul a modern day Hanafi scholar in his biography of Imam Jafar Sadiq "Subeh al Sadiq" discusses a number of topics including the slaughter of Hujr bin Adi. On pages 93-94 he makes these comments that one hopes will convince actual Sunnis that Hujr's only 'crime' was his love for 'Ali and that only Nasibis (who are pretending to be Sunnis) would have the audacity to conclude otherwise:
"Hujr and his associates were killed in 51 Hijri and I pray that Allah (swt) showers his mercy upon them. Verily they sacrificed their to protect the honour and dignity of the Lion of Allah, 'Ali. Their murderers told them that they would be saved if they cursed 'Ali - they refused saying 'We shall not do that which shall cause the wrath of Allah (swt).
This is because Hujr and his companions knew that the truth was with 'Ali, he was the example of Harun, he was the brother of the Prophet (s) in this world and the next, 300 verses had descended in his praise, 'Ali was with the Qur'an and the Qur'an was with 'Ali, to look at 'Ali's face was an act of worship, to hate 'Ali was an act of Kufr and to have love and faith in 'Ali was a part of Iman.
Rasulullah (s) said that the sign of a momin was love for 'Ali and the sign of a munafiq was hatred of 'Ali. It was in light of these facts that Hujr and his companions refused to disassociate themselves from 'Ali, they happily accepted death and willingly sacrificed their lives doe to their love for 'Ali".
Subeh al-Sadiq pages 93 & 94 We should also point out that Tareekh ibne Wardee Volume 1 page 55 also confirms that Mu'awiya killed Hujr on account of his love of Imam 'Ali (as).
The killer of Hujr shall receive the wrath of Allah (swt)
Abu Sulaiman's admission "Muawiya's severity in killing Hijr" is at least an admission that Mu'awiya had the blood of Hujr bin Adi on his hands. We have already cited the fact that Allah (swt) punishes a believer for the murder of a momin by cursing him and sending him in to the Fire. That is with the regards to the murder of any ordinary momin, Hujr was not an ordinary momin. In Kanz al Ummal Volume 7 page 87 we read that Hadhrath Ayesha narrated that Rasulullah (s) said "Whoever kills Hujr will incur the wrath of Allah".
The peace treaty with Imam Hasan (as)
Ansar.org states:It is taken for granted for anyone who read something about the Imamiyah sect that they attribute kufr to Mu'awiyah because he fought Ali. However, the fact is that Al-Hasan bin Ali - and he is one of the infallible Imams according to the Shia, therefore whatever he says is truth - made peace with Mu'awiyahSo, did the "infallible" Hasan made peace with a kafir and gave him the leadership??
Or he made peace between two parties of Muslims as the Prophet peace be upon him says: "My son is a master, and Allah may use him to make peace between two parties of Muslims." [Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Book of "Afflictions," #6629, vol.6]
We are not calling Mu'awiya kaafir, if for arguments sake he was, then that is no insult on Imam Hasan (as) for our infallible Prophet (s) negotiated peace with the kaafirs at Hudaibiya, contrary to the criticisms of Umar. Is Abu Sulaiman also now going to criticise Rasulullah (s)? Mu'awiya was professing that he was a Muslim, hence the agreement was indeed between two Muslim groups, but his subsequent conduct in breaching the conditions of the agreement bear testimony to the fact that he was a fasiq.
Mu'awiya took the Caliphate by force
Ansar.org states:"Mu'awiyah did not take the caliphate by force, but it was given to him by Al-Hasan bin Ali after peace occurred between them. One needs to look at the historical background to understand why Imam Hasan (as) stood down. The circumstances were such that he had been forced into making a difficult choice peace or bloodshed, Mu'awiya used bribery and intimidation to "win over" Hasan (as)'s army and had posted his army outside Kufa (a clear pressure tactic).
Mu'awiya summoned all the commanders of his forces in Syria, Palestine, and Transjordan to join him. Not long after, the Syrian leader marched against Hasan with an army of sixty thousand men, (Ibn A'tham, IV, p. 153). Clearly marching towards Imam Hasan (as) with a 60,000 force in no way demonstrates Mu'awiya wanted peace - he WAS preparing for battle.
If his interest was just peace why not go alone with a handful of supporters? By bringing such a powerful force Mu'awiya was making his intention clear, that he intended to wrest the khilafth from Imam Hasan (as) willingly or unwillingly. Mu'awiya had used the threat of force as a bargaining chip, Imam Hasan (as) was placed under duress to hand over the caliphate, it was not willingly handed to Mu'awiya on silver platter rather Imam Hasan (as) was pressurised into yielding to Mu'awiya's demands.
In this regard the comments of defender of Mu'awiya Ibn Kathir Volume 8 page 17 are indeed of interest:
"The Sunnah is that there khalifa (Banu Umayya) be referred to as Kings, because Rasulullah (s) said that khilafth would last for thirty years, this would be followed by kingdom. This (khilafth) remained until the Rabi'ul Awwal 31 Hijri when Hasan was left with no other choice but to make peace with Mu'awiya" Ibn Kathir's admission that Imam Hassan (as) was left with no choice but to make peace is clear proof that the khilafath was not happily handed over to Mu'awiya on a silver platter as Abu Sualiman would lead us to believe.
The caliphate was indeed taken by the threat of 'force' - hence Imam Hasan (as)'s decision was to step aside to save further bloodshed, but that was NOT until he obtained Mu'awiya's signature to agree to certain key conditions.
The taking of Caliphate by force has also been acknowledged by late Deobandi Scholar Sayyid Abu'l Ala Maudoodi who writes:
"Kingship's foundation began with this change. Mu'awiya (ra) was not appointed with the consensus of the Muslims at large as was the case with his predecessors, if the Muslims were not happy with them they would have not taken the positions, despite this Mu'awiya wanted to be the Khalifa, he fought for this position, the Muslims were not pleased with his appointment.
The people did not appoint him, he became by force and when he became Khalifa people had no other choice but to give him baya. If the people did not give him baya, they would not only lose their positions / ranks but also would have also lost their lives and would have been catastrophic for the system, people would rather give baya than confront this consequence.
That is why after Imam Hasan (ra) stepped down the other Sahaba joined him so as to avoid the risk of civil War amongst Muslims. Mu'awiya was well aware of this strategy". [khilafat wa mulukiyyat, chapter 5, pages 158-159 citing Al Bidaya wa al Nihaya by Ibn Katheer, vol 8, page 132]
Mu'awiya's own admission that he took the Caliphate by force
Abu Sulaiman may insist that he did not take the caliphate by force, but this defence falls flat on its face when we in fact have the testimony of his master Mu'awiya who set out the means via which he attained power. Al Bidaya Volume 8 page 132 and Iqd al Fareed Volume 2 page 139 both record that:
"In the year of Jamaa, Mu'awiya entered Madina and gave a sermon from the Mosque pulpit stating 'I have become ruler over you. Although I know that you are unhappy with my rule and that your hearts bear enmity towards me, I have attained power via the sword". This negates the defence advanced by Abu Sulaiman as we hear from the mouth of Mu'awiya himself that his coming to power was via the sword i.e. physical force.
The bay'a given to Mu'awiya
Abu Sulaiman writes:
Ansar.org states:"Al-Hasan bin Ali abandoned the caliphate for Mu'awiya and all the people gave the allegiance to Mu'awiya and none of the companions refrained in giving him the allegiance!"
On the issue of Imam Hasan (as) allegedly giving baya we should point out that baya has two meanings "to make a contract" and "to pledge allegiance" see Hans Wehr's Arabic - English Dictionary page 86. The fact that agreement between the two sides was written on a peace of paper clearly alludes to the fact that a contractual agreement had been drawn up.
Imam Hasan (as) was offering his Leadership in return for the conditions that he had placed. With Mu'awiyah's signature the baya was concluded, i.e. the contract was finalised and agreed between the two sides. Baya as in exchange, now if Imam Hasan (as) was giving his baya as in pledge, then why do Ahl'ul Sunnah not regard Mu'awiya as a rightly guided khalifa as well? After all as Clarke in his translation of Suyuti's 'The Khalifas who took the right way' on page 9 admits:
"I have continued beyond the first four khulafa to include Hasan ibn 'Ali because as Suyuti saw him as the fifth of the khulafa".
It is clear that the bayya was an agreement surrounding the peace treaty, nothing more. Thus the pathetic arguments of 'Abu Sulaiman are baseless.