-
Muawiyah, Quraysh Neutrality, Political Legitimacy
1.
As I understand it, after the death of Uthman, Muawiyah was not considering himself as a contender for the caliphate. The reason he did not give bayah to Ali was because he wanted Ali to take action against the killers of Uthman, who were apparently among the group that gave bayah to Ali.
Isn’t this a strange demand by Muawiyah? On one hand, he is not giving bayah to Ali (i.e. not accepting Ali as caliph), and on the other hand, he is making a demand on Ali which can only be implemented by a caliph (i.e., someone in power).
2.
As I understand it, Quraysh did not give bayah to Ali, while other groups did.
Those Quraysh who did not give bayah to Ali, did they cite any rational reason? Were they in favour of any other person for this position? As far as I know, there was no major person or companion competing with Ali for the position of caliph at that time.
In that scenario, wouldn’t it have been better for Quraysh to give bayah to Ali? After all, Ali was one of the senior companion and fully eligible to lead at that time. Just because some of the killers had given bayah to Ali, this alone should not affect Ali’s eligibility for caliphate.
I see this silent stance of Quraysh i.e. neither giving bayah to Ali nor putting forward a competitor, as a major reason why a proper stable system (nazm) could not be established at that time.
If a person A is eligible and suitable for a position, he should be favored, regardless of whether some undesirable people are also supporting that person.
3.
Also, if Quraysh are not giving bayah to Ali, nor putting forward a competitor, I do not think this should be taken as a vote against Ali. This would only be a vote against Ali if they were supporting another person for the position. This is not even a neutral position, because they didn’t put forward a competitor. In this case, it is more like being “absent from the vote”.
In my view, in such a situation, the system should be considered as established based on whoever has already given bayah. The fact that Ali received bayah from other groups, establishes his caliphate, even if Quraysh choose to remain neutral. I think Ali considered himself established caliph based on this reason.
And if someone believes caliphate as unestablished in those years, then I see the stance of Quraysh as a major reason for the lack of a stable system (nazm). The issue is that they neither gave bayah to a eligible person for the position nor presented a better alternative.
4.
As for a khabar wahid attributed to the Prophet suggesting withdrawal during times of fitna, I do not think this hadith applies to Quraysh in this scenario. The hadith does not mean that one should withdraw even if one is in a position to resolve the problem.
The Quraysh were in a position to help resolve the situation by either by giving bayah to Ali or, if they believed there was a better contender, by supporting that person.
I think withdrawal is meant only for those who are not in a position to resolve the issue. In such cases, avoiding involvement is safer. However, for those (such as Quraysh) who have the ability to influence the outcome and restore order, they should have worked with Ali to resolve the problem.
-
This discussion was modified 1 hour, 11 minutes ago by
Mohammad Ahsan.
-
This discussion was modified 1 hour, 11 minutes ago by
-
0 Replies
-
Muawiyah, Quraysh Neutrality, Political Legitimacy
updated 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
1 Member
·
0
Reply
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
Sorry, there were no replies found.
