-
The Rift Between Hazrat Aisha (rta), Hazrat Muawiyah (rta), And Hazrat Ali (rta)
Do you think the rift between Hazrat Aisha (rta), Hazrat Muawiyah (rta), and Hazrat Ali (rta) can be seen as a complex conflict involving differing interpretations of leadership in Islam. Hazrat Aisha (rta), Hazrat Muawiyah (rta)’s opposition to Hazrat Ali (rta) may have been driven by a desire to preserve the institution of Shura, as prescribed by the Quran, and to prevent what they perceived as a move towards a non-Quranic concept of hereditary or divinely ordained leadership. This interpretation highlights the early Islamic community’s struggle to balance religious principles with the practicalities of governance and the prevention of division and sectarianism within the Muslim ummah.
-
11 Replies
-
The Rift Between Hazrat Aisha (rta), Hazrat Muawiyah (rta), And Hazrat Ali (rta)
updated 1 month, 1 week ago
3 Members
·
11
Replies
-
Ghamidi saheb has made a comprehensive series on this topic.
Hazrat Ayesha did not opposed Hazrat Ali. She with Talha and Zubair moving to Basra to attack the stronghold of the rebels who had occupied Madina and the government.
Muawiah too was against the rebels and was ready to accept Ali as caliph.
Ali did not inherit the caliphate from the prophet. The concept of Ali being divinely appointed Imam was not conceived then.
-
Ali’s acceptance of the caliphate after Uthman’s assassination can be seen as a pragmatic move to maintain stability and continuity, rather than an attempt to establish the concept of Imamah.
Ayesha and Muawiyah’s opposition to Ali’s caliphate, in this context, was likely driven by their suspicion that the Kharijites and other supporters of Ali had ulterior motives, namely, to establish the concept of Imamah and ensure the leadership of the Ahl al-Bayt.
Ali’s acceptance of Tahkim (arbitration) can be seen as a rejection of the Imamah concept, as it implied that the caliphate was not a divine right, but rather a matter of human decision-making.
The assassins of Uthman, who may have seen Ali’s caliphate as a means to establish Imamah, would have viewed his acceptance of Tahkim as a betrayal of their goals, leading them to assassinate him as well.
This interpretation highlights the complex interplay of political, ideological, and personal factors that shaped the events of early Islamic history.
-
After Ali’s assassination, the proponents of Imamah may have seen Hasan as the next potential leader to further their goals. They maneuvered him into power, hoping to establish a caliphate that would eventually lead to the solidification of Imamah.
However, Muawiyah’s interventions and political savvy once again thwarted their plans, leading to Hasan’s surrender and abdication of the caliphate.
The subsequent assassination of Hasan can be seen as a continuation of the pattern of eliminating potential leaders who could have furthered the concept of Imamah. This reinforces the notion that the struggles of the time were not just about personal power, but also about competing ideologies and visions for the future of the Muslim community.
The proponents of Imamah, having failed in their previous attempts, saw Husayn as their last hope to establish their desired leadership.
However, when Husayn discovered that the people of Kufa, who had initially urged him to contest the caliphate, were more interested in using him for their own gain than genuinely supporting his leadership, he wisely chose to surrender and back out.
But, as you said, the conspirators saw him as no longer useful and assassinated him, leading to the tragic events of Karbala.
This narrative highlights the darker aspects of human nature, where individuals and groups prioritize their own interests and ideologies over human life and dignity. The events of Karbala remain a poignant reminder of the devastating consequences of such actions.
-
I also heard the series of Ghamidi sahib talk on this subject. One question that needs his response is regarding “what are the reasons and underlying motives for the evolution and subsequent development of the concept of Immamte ie divine right of Ali and his family to rule?”
-
We observe that political intensified movtives lead the followers believe that their leader is divinely chosen. In the political history of the world many instances can be found. The same motive led the followers of the Ali and his sons to establish the doctrine of imamat.
-
So there were two groups. One we know as “Kharijites” who had particular rigid religious beliefs in terms of political matters for the rulers and considered Uthman against those standards they chose as their religious belief and assassinated him. They were joined by the faction later known as ‘shian ali’ who considered the situation conducive for their religious concept of Imamate and tried to ‘mobilize’ Ali to establish their concept of Imamate which was opposed by Ayesha and Muawiyah. Ali never subscribed for this concept of Imamate but he had the opinion to establish his caliphate before going ahead with ‘qisas’ of Uthman and to do away with the faction to curb the concept of Imamate. That is the reason he agreed on Tahkim. This Tahkim was against the political motives of that particular faction later known as ‘shian ali’ and they assassinated him as well. The same was repeated with Hasan and then Husayn. What do you think?
-
The Kharijites were originally supporters of Ali, but they eventually distanced themselves from his followers and revolted against him, much like they had previously rebelled against Uthman.
-
What appears is that there was a group known as ‘shian ali’ who tried to get political power and utilized Ali and his family as a mean. They were in minority and it was not possible for them to be in political power through ‘amruhum shura bainahum’. They coined and propagated the cocnept of divine political authority of Ali and his family – ‘imamate’ and in this way tried to use him for their political gains. This prevails to-date.
-
The concept it Ali and his family divinely designated came much later in their doctrine, it was not there in the lifetime of Ali.
-
I wish all Muslims could understand and respect true preaching of Hazrat Ali rather than using his name to fragment and shatter oneness and solidarity of Muslim ummah.
-
-
The people who assasinated Uthman and subsequently became supportes of Ali infact used Ali’s name to fragment and shatter oneness and solidarity of Muslim ummah. They for their worldly desire in political matters used religion as a mean to gain political power making use of the shoulder of Ali devising the concept of divine political authority of ali and his family thus seeking share in political power…
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
