The Biography of Hazrat Ali “May Allah Bless Him” (Part 33)
Incorrect Narrative About the Arbitration (Tahkeem) Incident
The famous narrative often found in most history books is that when the two arbitrators rose to announce the result, Abu Musa first conveyed to the audience what they had agreed upon, declaring that both Ali and Muawiya were deposed. However, when Amr ibn al-As stood in Abu Musa’s place, he said: “O people, as you heard, this man has deposed his appointee, and I too depose him and maintain my own appointee (Muawiya)…” It is also narrated that Abu Musa and Amr spoke harshly to one another and exchanged insults!
However, this narrative, which points the finger of blame at these two great companions and accuses them of treachery, foul language, and foolishness, has in fact misled the minds of readers of Islamic history. It is an audacity against the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him). This narrative was transmitted by Abu Mikhnaf and Abu Janab al-Kalbi, both of whom are accused of being biased against the companions. Therefore, any negative reports transmitted by them are not credible. Moreover, these two narrators and their associates have repackaged the accusations and falsehoods of the Saba’iyyah (a subversive sect) into new forms, blending them with some facts to make it seem as though these fabricated stories were true and aligned with reality.
The enemies of the companions have played a role in the spread of this narrative, despite it being invalid by all research standards, to the extent that it has become the most popular narrative regarding the arbitration incident. It is no surprise that the enemies of the companions would do such a thing. However, it is surprising that Muslim historians have transmitted this story without explaining its falsehood or investigating the narrators. Only Ibn Kathir states that “this is not authentic”; in other words, this narrative is not correct.
The invalidity of this narrative is not only because its narrators are accused of lying or because it contradicts the justice of the companions, but also because it contains obvious fallacies. It states that the two arbitrators agreed to depose both Ali and Muawiya, but when the result was announced, Amr only deposed Ali and refrained from deposing Muawiya.
The fallacy here is that Muawiya was not a caliph at the time, nor did he claim the caliphate. So how could he be deposed from a position he did not hold? This is the point of the fallacy, as fabricating historians have ridiculed all readers of history by presenting the idea that there were two caliphs and that the arbitrators agreed to depose both, and that Abu Musa deposed them according to the agreement, but Amr only deposed one of them, which is pure falsehood.
Even if we assume that this historical fabrication is correct, Amr’s action would still have no value since Muawiya was not the caliph at the time, and if Amr reinstated him, Muawiya would merely remain the governor of Syria, nothing more.
In any case, this slander, which creates the illusion that it was the work of the enemies of the companions, becomes worthless when we consider the justice of the companions. For the companions and Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), after the Battle of Siffin, it became clear that the best course of action was to avoid further war and bloodshed, which was more beneficial than continued conflict, even though Ali was the rightful caliph and closer to the truth than Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him).
The correct narrative in this regard is that neither of the arbitrators announced their decision in a speech at Dumat al-Jandal. Instead, they wrote down their ruling, agreeing to depose both Ali and Muawiya from governing Syria, and that the Muslims should choose whomever they deemed suitable for the caliphate through mutual consent. This decision was presented to the people in writing at Dumat al-Jandal, and the arbitrators had no disagreement between them. The judgment of the arbitrators was written down and witnessed by individuals such as Ash’ath ibn Qays, Sa’id ibn Qays al-Hamdani, Riqad ibn Sam’an al-Jamali, Abdullah ibn Majli al-Bajali, and Hujr ibn Adi.
It is clear that the arbitrators agreed on the content of the document, and it would have been preserved in writing rather than announced in a speech that could be forgotten. The narrative transmitted by Bukhari, albeit briefly, with a reliable chain of narrators, mentions that the arbitrators did not disagree. However, Ibn Asakir narrates a flawed version of the same incident.
By admin2
