The Killing of Ali

This is a paper that I just finished for my Honors Civilization class over the Killing of Ali, feel free to read it if you are curious about the divisions in Islam and their 7th century roots:

Early in the morning on January 24, 661 Ali ibn Abu Talib, the fourth Caliph of Islam, cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad, was fatally ambushed on his way to the mosque at al-Kufah, Iraq. Ali’s attacker was a Kharajite named Abd-al-Rahman ibn-Muljam.1 The Kharajites were a rebel group of Moslems that had become disenfranchised after an earlier conflict-ending arbitration between Ali and Muawwiyyah ibn Abi Sufyan, governor of Syria, resulted in Muawwiyyah establishing a rival Caliphate.2 The killing of Ali caused a time of great confusion and disarray in Islam, resulting in the establishment of the Umayyad dynasty under Muawwiyyah. The Umayyad Caliphs were selected by birth, rather than ability to lead, or understanding of the teaching of Mohammad. This rule by privilege of birth left the door open for the corruption of the caliphate.3 The killing of Ali was unjust because he was the most committed Moslem. There are several reasons for this. First of all, Ali was the second Moslem, and at the time of his murder was more familiar than any other with the teaching of Islam. Secondly, he had no desire to lead for personal gain, and thus could not be corrupted by the power of the Caliphate; as the Umayyads eventually were. Finally, in attempting to compromise with Muawwiyyah, Ali was attempting to prevent the loss of Moslem lives; having previously seen the horrible result of Moslems fighting other Moslems.

After the death of Muhammad in 632 there existed a great deal of uncertainty about who would take over as the leader of Islam. In bringing a sense of community and commonality to his people, Muhammad had done in one lifetime what no Arab had ever been able to do. That any one could follow him and rule over so many disparate aspects of life in anywhere near the same capacity was in itself an impressive testament to what he had accomplished. Many Moslems felt that Ali should become Caliph, and they found evidence to support their position in the Koran. The Koran mentions special favor given to the families of prophets over a hundred times. Through this information it can be seen that among some Moslems of Muhammad’s time the Prophet’s family must have held a position of clear religious superiority over others.4 Among those believing in the sanctity of the Prophet’s family only Ali could properly lead Islam after Muhammad’s death. Other potential leaders included Muhammad’s close friend Abu Bakr al-Siddiq; trusted companion Umar ibn al-Khattab; and early convert Uthman ibn Affan.5 In time all four would lead, and together are known as “The Rightly Guided Caliphs.”6

Directly after the Prophet’s death Umar backed Abu Bakr, and with Umar’s support a council of leaders in Medina selected Abu Bakr to become the first Caliph.7 Indeed it seems that this was likely Muhammad’s intention. As his health deteriorated he sent for Abu Bakr, not Ali, to lead prayer in his stead. When Muhammad was finally well enough to leave his home, with the help of Ali and another man, he sat behind Abu Bakr and let him continue to lead the people in prayer.8 In this it can be seen that Ali was literally and figuratively a shoulder to lean on, but Abu Bakr was being trained to succeed. Umar was picked by Abu Bakr to become the second Caliph; Uthman was third. Dunlop theorizes that Ali was set aside from the Caliphate for so long because privilege had become irrelevant amongst Moslems during Muhammad’s life, and that rank had to be considered more than birth.9

The followers of Ali, the ‘Shiat Ali’, argued that only Muhammad’s blood line could receive divine guidance and disapproved of the first three Caliphs.10 Ali’s followers particularly disapproved of Uthman, who they charged with nepotism and corruption.11 After becoming Caliph Uthman had appointed his fellow Umayyads to various powerful positions around the Islamic world and had allowed them to abuse their power to the benefit of other Umayyads.12 In 656 a group of Shia rebels, led by Abu Bakr’s son, attacked and killed Uthman as he read the Koran.13 A struggle for power ensued. Ali was ashamed of what his followers had done; after all he had kept them from rising up against the first two Caliphs.14 On the other hand he had disagreed with some of the policies of all of the first three Caliphs, and only kept his nose out to preserve order in the Islamic world. In the end Ali was proclaimed Caliph at the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina on June 24, 656.15

Aisha, generally regarded to be Muhammad’s favorite wife in his later life, had held a great deal of animosity toward Ali since an incident in which he questioned her fidelity.16 Her account of the incident was recorded by Sahih Bukhari:

Whenever Allah's Apostle intended to go on a journey, he would draw lots amongst his wives and would take with him the one upon whom the lot fell. During a Ghazwa of his, he drew lots amongst us and the lot fell upon me, and I proceeded with him after Allah had decreed the use of the veil by women. I was carried in a Howdah (on the camel) and dismounted while still in it. When Allah's Apostle was through with his Ghazwa and returned home, and we approached the city of Medina, Allah's Apostle ordered us to proceed at night. When the order of setting off was given, I walked till I was past the army to answer the call of nature. After finishing I returned (to the camp) to depart (with the others) and suddenly realized that my necklace over my chest was missing. So, I returned to look for it and was delayed because of that. The people who used to carry me on the camel, came to my Howdah and put it on the back of the camel, thinking that I was in it, as, at that time, women were light in weight, and thin and lean, and did not use to eat much. So, those people did not feel the difference in the heaviness of the Howdah while lifting it, and they put it over the camel. At that time I was a young lady. They set the camel moving and proceeded on. I found my necklace after the army had gone, and came to their camp to find nobody. So, I went to the place where I used to stay, thinking that they would discover my absence and come back in my search. While in that state, I felt sleepy and slept.17

The next morning she awoke and was returned to Muhammad’s caravan by a man on a camel. At some point Ali had suggested that she may have been away committing adultery. Muhammad took this very seriously and considered divorcing Aisha. In the end Muhammad received a divine revelation that cleared her of any wrongdoing and admonished him for listening to lies. In reference to the matter the Koran states: “Why did not the believers - men and women - when ye heard of the affair,- put the best construction on it in their own minds and say, "This (charge) is an obvious lie"?”18 After the divine revelation exonerated Aisha, she never forgave Ali for his accusation. After Ali became Caliph two of his rivals for the office, Talhah and al-Zubayr, joined forces with Aisha to remove Ali. The insurrection culminated with the “battle of the camel” outside Basra, Iraq on December 9, 656.19 By the end of the battle, so named because Aisha sat on a camel in the middle of the fighting, up to 20,000 Moslems, including Talhah and al-Zubayr, lay dead.20 Ali honored all of the fallen as fellow Moslems and had them properly buried. Aisha was treated with dignity and allowed to live out the rest of her life in Medina.21

Ali then turned his attention to removing most of Uthman’s appointments, including Muawwiyyah. In response Muawwiyyah announced that he was going to avenge Uthman’s murder by raising an army and deposing Ali. On June 28, 657, after days of small skirmishes, Ali’s army of 50,000 Iraqis stood face-to-face with Muawwiyyah’s smaller Syrian army. Realizing that defeat was inevitable, Muawwiyyah’s commander had copies of the Koran attached to lances and thrust into the air. To avoid a major battle, and preserve thousands of Moslem lives, Ali consented to arbitration in order to resolve the conflict. Each side selected a representative who met in January 659. What exactly happened at this meeting is difficult to determine. Apparently Muawwiyyah’s representative convinced Ali’s representative to depose Ali as Caliph. In the end Muawwiyyah declared himself Caliph.22

The very fact that Ali had consented to the arbitration cost him dearly. Thousands of Ali’s supporters took up the mantra “arbitration belongs to Allah alone,” and became the Kharajites. Ali reacted by attacking the Kharajite camp on the bank of the Nahrawan canal and nearly annihilating them. Two years later, in retribution for those slain at Nahrawan, Abd-al-Rahman ibn-Muljam struck Ali with a poisoned saber, cutting through his forehead and into his brain.23

Regardless of the motivation, the killing of Ali was an unjust act. The first reason for this was that from his childhood conversion by Muhammad at the beginning of Islam to his time in the Caliphate, Ali had always been the most committed Moslem. The incident at Ghadir Khumm recorded in the Hadith illustrates this point. During an attempted pilgrimage to Mecca, Muhammad declared, “Whoever has me for master, has Ali for master.”24 Ali was often the first person to hear the Prophet’s new revelations, and was the one who compiled the texts of the Koran after Muhammad’s death.25 Ali accomplished this task after he had been passed over for the Caliphate. In addition, he selflessly assisted the Caliphs preceding him whenever they asked. Ali understood that the only way to preserve the solidarity, and thus security, of the united community of Arabs that Muhammad created was to maintain their level of co-operation among themselves.26 This was not to say that Ali respected the right of the Caliphs before him to rule; on the contrary, in a speech delivered during his Caliphate he said, “there was a mote rankling in my eye and a bone sticking in my throat on seeing my heritage being plundered, till the first one (Abu Bakr) died and handed over the reins of the caliphate to another person.” 27 Ali knew that if he was patient the Caliphate would become his eventually and he would be able to correct what the earlier Caliphs had done wrong. The injustice is that he never got the chance to set everything right.

Ali had no desire to lead for personal gain, and did not let the Caliphate corrupt him as it did those before and after him. The early Caliphs believed that if they were successful in their task they would be rewarded by Allah, but that if they failed forgiveness would be shown to them.28 Abu Bakr and Umar did well to not become as corrupt as the others, but still did not lead in the same way as the Prophet. It seems that the worst Umar was guilty of was allowing the public treasury to be divided unequally, causing unnecessary conflict between Moslems.29 Uthman, on the other hand, had appointed his family to the highest posts and some of these relatives were very lax in applying moral principles in government or openly broke Islamic law.30 The reason that Ali wished to be Caliph was to continue instituting the lifestyle advocated and demonstrated by the Prophet. As Caliph, Ali did not favor his own friends and family over others; lived in simplicity above petty worldly concerns; and left behind many proverbs about how to live a just life.31 On Ali’s first day as Caliph he said, “O People, be aware that the difficulties which you faced during the apostolic period of the Prophet of God have come upon you once again and seized you. Your ranks must be turned completely around so that the people of virtue who have fallen behind should come forward and those who had come to the fore without being worthy should fall behind.”32 In this way Ali got rid of Uthman’s corrupt appointments and brought forth the most devoted leaders he could find. Unfortunately Ali’s Caliphate was prematurely ended and he was unable to complete his goals. After Ali’s death Muawwiyyah had many of Ali’s top followers put to death and preceded to found a dynasty that would unjustly rule Islam for several generations.33

The events leading up to the killing of Ali center on Ali’s decision to allow arbitration with Muawwiyyah. In doing this Ali did make a critical miscalculation, but in so doing he had just intentions. He was attempting to preserve Moslem lives after seeing the needless slaughter that resulted from the “battle of the camel.” The potential casualties on Iraqi side alone in a war against Syria could have been double that of the entire loss on both sides at Basra. When Muawwiyyah’s commander appealed to the Koran to mediate the conflict it is reasonable to think that Ali would have seen this as a sign of Allah’s will at work. This is why he responded with the command that the arbitration be done, “according to the word of Allah.”34 Ali actually expected that both sides would study the Koran and find a peaceful way to subdue Muawwiyyah’s ambition. Unfortunately it seems that he did not realize that it would make many of his supporters secede and result eventually in his own murder. In this it can be seen that just intentions can have unjust results, but that does not mean that the justice in a person’s intentions should be neglected when evaluating history.

The Kharajites would argue that although Ali may have been the most pious Moslem in the past, he no longer was after becoming Caliph. To them piety meant defending Islam against anyone who goes against the teachings of Allah in the Koran. This can be seen in their mantra, “arbitration belongs to Allah alone.”35 When Ali consented to arbitration they saw it as negotiating with the very corrupt elements that Ali had pledged to eliminate.

Some may argue that if Ali was indeed the most pious Moslem he would have been directly named by Muhammad to be his successor, but rather it seems as though Muhammad favored Abu Bakr to be his direct successor. This may go back to the incident in which Ali accused Aisha of infidelity and what Allah revealed to Muhammad about the situation. Book 24, verse 11 of the Koran states, “Those who brought forward the lie are a body among yourselves: think it not to be an evil to you; On the contrary it is good for you: to every man among them (will come the punishment) of the sin that he earned, and to him who took on himself the lead among them, will be a penalty grievous.”36 Perhaps this miscalculation on Ali’s part demonstrated that he may have been corruptible after all, after all he listened to and believed the falsehood being said about Aisha. In this way it could be argued that Ali deserved to die rather than lead after giving in to arbitration with Muawwiyyah because he was further demonstrating his weakness to the corruption of others.

The Kharajites would also likely argue that if Ali was trying to save Moslem lives by consenting to the arbitration with Muawwiyyah then he should have also made an effort to reach a similar peaceful resolution with them. As Muawwiyyah had gone against the spirit of the arbitration and declared himself Caliph, it seems reasonable that Ali could have admitted his mistake and joined forces with the Kharajites to prevent Muawwiyyah from starting a false Caliphate. Instead it seems as though Ali saw the Kharajites as a direct threat that he had no alternative but to destroy. If indeed another option could have been pursued then Ali would have been unjust in his attack and would have been deserving of death for both his failure to deal effectively with Muawwiyyah and his slaughter of the Kharajites

It is difficult to argue against the piety of Ali, even after he became Caliph. It must be noted that his Caliphate only lasted four years and nine months, but in that time he secured an influence that is still second to Muhammad. He attempted to live as an example to other Moslems of what a proper Islamic life should be and by most accounts succeeded. The Kharajites did not recognize that in attempting to compromise with Muawwiyyah, Ali was continuing to do what he had done since the death of Muhammad; make sacrifices to what he saw as the correct path of Islam in order to keep the Arab community united.

A person listening to falsehoods and being manipulated by others does not make them corrupt. Ali lived a simple life and represented what Muhammad had taught. During his short Caliphate he may have been manipulated by Muawwiyyah, but he did not become corrupt himself. When Ali wrongly suggested that Aisha may have been unfaithful he only did it out of loyalty to Muhammad. After being shown to have been misled, Ali attempted to make amends toward Aisha; as can be seen in his exaltation of her after the Battle of the Camel.37 After this point no evidence can be found of Ali having listened to rumors in his decision-making, which shows that he simply made a mistake in judgment, and was not actually corrupted. Likewise, in his decision to arbitrate with Muawwiyyah, Ali simply made a mistake in judgment that was based on just intentions rather than corruption.

A distinction needs to be drawn between Ali’s unwillingness to allow Moslem lives to be wasted during Muawwiyyah’s insurrection and his willingness to nearly obliterate the Kharajites. Muawwiyyah’s followers had not actually betrayed Islam, as Ali must have seen the Kharajites as having done; they simply had been manipulated by a corrupt man. In addition the Kharajites were a direct threat to Ali and he was not offered another option, as he was in the incident with Muawwiyyah.

Thus it can be seen that the killing of Ali was unjust. Ali may have been the most pious Moslem to have followed Muhammad. It can also be seen that Ali did not want to lead for unjust reasons and attempted to lead justly and in the direct tradition of Muhammad. He truly cared about his fellow Moslems and when he saw an opportunity to save Moslem lives by agreeing to arbitration with Muawwiyyah he took it. This unfortunately set in motion a chain of events that led to his unjust killing.

An understanding of the events leading up to the killing of Ali is extremely valuable in today’s world. Ali stands at the middle of the division between the Sunni and Shiite; the largest division in Islam today. The divide can be traced back to Muhammad’s death, but did not become a permanent problem until after the killing of Ali. During the period between Muhammad’s death and the beginning of Ali’s Caliphate, he attempted to preserve a cohesive Islamic state by working with Caliphs that he did not entirely support. If Ali had lived, he would have likely brought his followers back into mainstream Islam. This would have eliminated many of the global conflicts that we face today. If any attempt is going to be made in healing the division between Shiite and Sunni, a complete understanding of Ali is needed. Ali was a man who died because he wanted to avoid the loss of Muslim lives, and maintain a cohesive Arab state. He would not want to see wars waged by his modern followers against fellow Muslims.

















Bibliography

Atkins, Corrine. “The Shrine of Islam's Tragic Divisions.” History Today, 00182753,

Vol. 53, Issue 11 (2003). http://web.ebscohost.com.libproxy.eku.edu/ehost/detail?vid=8&hid=14&sid=36

94988 48cc-4890-a466-f7be87935c23%40sessionmgr2.

Bukhari, Sahih. “Book 11: Call to Prayers (Adhaan).” USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim

Texts, Volume 1, Book 11, Number 655. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/011.sbt.html

001.01 .655.

Bukhari, Sahih. “Book 48: Witnesses.” USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts,

Volume 3, Book 48, Number 829. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/048.sbt.html

#003.04.805.

Dunlop, D.M. Arab Civilization to AD 1500. New York and Washington, Praeger

Publishers, 1971.

Flesher, Paul V. M. Official Islam Glossary http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/religionet/er/islam/IGLOSSRY.HTM#four.

Gerald R. Hawting. The First Dynasty of Islam: The Umayyard Caliphate Ad 661-750.

New York, NY, Routledge, 1986, 2000.

Hitti, Philip K. History of the Arabs. Dublin, Gill and Macmillan, 1970.

Islamicity. The Rightly Guided Caliphs. http://www.islamicity.com/education/ihame/default.asp?Destination=/education/

ihame/3asp.

Jafri, S.H.M. The Origins and Early Development of Shi’a Islam. London and New York, Longman, 1979.

“Qur'an, Chapter 24: Al-Noor (The Light).” USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts.

Koran 024.011-024.020. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/024.qmt.html.

Tabataba’i, Allamah Sayyid Muhammad Husayn. Shi’ite Islam. Translated by Seyyed

Hossein Nasr. Albany, State University of New York Press, 1975.

“The Rightly-Guided Caliphs: The Fourth Caliph, Ali (656-661 A.C.)” USC-MSA

Compendium of Muslim Texts. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/politics/firstfourcaliphs.html#ali.

Iran and Isreal

Here is one of my old Facebook blog entries from 09/28/2006, it sort of ties in with my next post. It did have a list of sources but Facebook seems to have lost them somehow...I will stick them back in once I can get on my old desktop again.

“Esrail ghiyam-e mossalahaane bar zed-e mamaalek-e eslami nemoodeh ast va bar doval va mamaalek-eeslami ghal-o-gham aan lazem ast."1

There is a fair amount of debate about the exact translation of the above text, spoken by the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran over 20 years ago.2 Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad quoted this at the "World Without Zionism" conference held in October 2005. The New York times reporter who covers Iran, Nazila Fathi, translated Ahmadinejad's speech as “Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks.�?3 This set off a firestorm of debate that has led to the current rhetoric of the Bush administration. They would have us believe that Iran is secretly building nuclear weapons to use on Israel; and that this speech is an indication of Iran's intent. The situation has bothered me for some time because the administration's rhetoric reminds me very much of the rhetoric used in the very beginning of the lead up to the current Iraq war. The thing is Iran would never use a nuclear strike against Israel.

First of all, there is the matter of the translation of Ahmadinejad's statement. Juan Cole, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at University of Michigan, and President of the Global Americana Institute, who reads Persian, explains that Ahmadinejad actually stated (quoting the late Ayatollah Khomeini): “The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).�?4 Many people dispute Cole's translation, but he is an expert on the middle east who speaks Arabic (Modern Standard as well as Lebanese and Egyptian dialects), Persian, and Urdu.5 He is also not the only person who disputes the translation.6

Secondly Iran would never conduct a nuclear strike on Israel because Jerusalem is so holy to Islam. Jerusalem is the third holiest city in Islam after Mecca and Medina.7 The Al-Aqsa Mosque, which contains the Dome of the Rock, is located on the former location of the Temple Mount. The rock in the center of the dome is believed by Muslims to be the spot from which Muhammad ascended through the heavens to God accompanied by the angel Gabriel, where he consulted with Moses and was given the (now obligatory) Islamic prayers before returning to earth.8 A nuclear strike on Israel is the only conceivable event that would inspire the Israelis to attempt the destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque and rebuild the Temple. According to Christianity and Islam, the rebuilding of the Temple would cause the forces of many nations to attack Israel, and would signify the beginning of the end of days. This is what Khomeini was discussing when he said what he said.

It is not in Iran's interest to attack Israel politically or religiously. In addition to endangering the stability of Jerusalem; Israel would strike back with their nuclear arsenal. The United States would come to Israel's aid and would also attack Iran. Ahmadinejad may be an anti-Semite but he is not stupid. He realizes the danger to his regime that Israel could represent. The most that he wants to do directly is create a situation of mutually assured destruction that would increase the stability of the current middle east power structure. Iran will never conduct a nuclear strike on Israel.

Where is this all going? What is Bush's over all plan? I do not know personally. I hope that the United States will stick to diplomacy, but Iraq sets a dangerous precedent. Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, said in June that the Neo-Con plan is to nuke Iran.9 Because of Iraq and Afghanistan we cannot conduct a ground campaign in Iran; but the reason that we are having this “crises�? is that Bush intends to attack Iran anyway, just like he did in Iraq, only with nuclear weapons. I pray that Roberts is wrong.

For too long we have put up with abuses of power in this country. As Theodore Draper said, “In the new worship of power, we are squandering our power by using too much too frequently and too maladroitly. All great powers which have overestimated, overindulged, and overextended their power have come to grief. Whatever one may think about the present military imperatives, we cannot go on failing politically and “succeeding�? militarily without ultimately inviting disaster beyond anything yet known to mankind.�? He said that in 1967, in his book “Abuse of Power,�? about the Vietnam war. I love this country with all of my heart, and I do not want it to be brought asunder because our leader thinks that he talks to God. Jesus taught peace, restraint, tolerance, and moderation. Plato tells us that justice is in the interest of the common good; and that creator of the universe resides within the good. God is good. War is never in the interest of the good unless it is in direct self defense. It should be separated from politics and put under the control of the only human capacity that can restrain it's abuse; justice.

- Ray Arnold 09/28/2006

THE PADDY WAGON BURNED DOWN!

BREAKING NEWS: This morning, Wednesday April 12 the Paddy Wagon in Richmond Kentucky caught fire. Currently (9:30 am) the building is still burning. My Mom is on the scene as she ran a greeting card distribution business underneath the Paddy. She said that the fire fighters thought they had the blaze under control around 7 or 8, but then it flamed back up. Now they are unable to enter the building at all, and can only hope to stop the fire from spreading to the neighboring buildings. I repeat: The Paddy Wagon is completely gone. I am sad.

Richmond Icon Big World expresses his dismay over the Paddy Wagon fire.

Jurassic Park Theme

I am listening to "Black Banjo Songsters of North Carolina and Virginia" and noticed that track number 1: "Coo Coo" by John Snipes is very similar to "Theme from Jurassic Park" by John Williams. By very similar I mean the similarity is greater than that between Solomon Linda's "Mbube" and The Tokens' "The Lion Sleeps Tonight." I don't really know what to think of this, but I felt that I should record it.