[Aryan_]

I've been reading about the history of Islamic warfare in my spare time (out of curiosity), and this was the first war fought between Muslims. It was described as a very violent and bloody battle. Arab battles tended to be low casualty affairs as armies would break easily, but this one

To summarise, it was caused by the disputed succession of leadership from Uthman to Ali. Ali was nominated to be Caliph but it was disputed by Aisha. Sunnis venerate both, Ali as one of the "Rightly Guided Caliphs" and Aisha as the "Mother of the Faith".

I can see the modern Shia interpretation of the battle, Aisha was acting maliciously and trying to unsurp the rightful contender but what do Sunnis think of the battle...do they acknowledge the course of events? I can't see how two people can wage such a bloody war on one another and both be held in religious reverence. Or am I missing something?

[IbnMardhiyah]

Yeah, you're missing lots.

A'aishah [ra] was brought out against her will - she didn't want to go to war. And the Shias will never acknowledge the activities of Abdullah Ibn Saba and his group of clowns, who were chief instigators of many hostilities at that time.

[Aryan_]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

Yeah, you're missing lots.

A'aishah [ra] was brought out against her will - she didn't want to go to war. And the Shias will never acknowledge the activities of Abdullah Ibn Saba and his group of clowns, who were chief instigators of many hostilities at that time.

Against her will, how and by whom? Also do you know of any books giving wholly sunni accounts of the battle?

[LEGALEAGLE]

I read a neutral account of it a while ago. Inshallah I'll see if I can find the book.

It wasn't to do with the disputed succession except in a roundabout way.

Hadrat Uthman had appointed some of his relatives to senior positions and he had first appointed a sahabi to the governership of Egypt then sacked him.When the people of Egypt wanted this sahabi back reappointed him and AGAIN sacked him. This Sahabi would then be crucial in the campaign against first Hadrat Uthman and then in the war between Hadrat Ali and Amir Muawiya.

Also Hadrat Uthman permitted the Sahabi to leave Mecca and Medina, These sahabi would wherever they went set up centres of power around themselves through no fault of their own. Once the Sahabi died their followers on the outer edges of the Khilaafa felt able to judge the Sahabi and hold them to account but they had none of the patience and forbearance of the Sahabi.

Anyway Hadrat Uthman ra was killed and Hadrat Ali appointed the new Khaleef. Amir Muawiya was furious because he blamed Hadrat Ali for not protecting Hadrat Uthman ra
The situation was not helped by people in Hadrat Ali's camp openly proclaiming that they had killed Hadrat Uthman.

http://www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/history/jamal

it was caused by the disputed succession of leadership from Uthman to Ali.

No, it was not about disputed succession, but rather about Qisas.

Ali was nominated to be Caliph but it was disputed by Aisha.

No, her demand was not that Ali [ra] abdicate but rather that he get the Qisas.

Sunnis venerate both, Ali as one of the "Rightly Guided Caliphs" and Aisha as the "Mother of the Faith".

It is the Quran that refers to her as the Mother of the Believers.

I can see the modern Shia interpretation of the battle, Aisha was acting maliciously and trying to unsurp the rightful contender

It's easy to see it because it does not take two brain cells to see a cartoon-like description of autobots verse deceptacons, power-rangers vs the bad guys, etc. Its very simple, and stupid.

but what do Sunnis think of the battle...do they acknowledge the course of events? I can't see how two people can wage such a bloody war on one another and both be held in religious reverence. Or am I missing something?

Please read this link for the Sunni side: http://www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/history/jamal

Let me give you a cliffs notes summary.

Uthman [ra] was from Banu Umayya, whereas Ali [ra] was from Banu Hashim. The two clans had by this time developed into a big rivalry. It was the natural result of the fact that Banu Umayya used to be in power before Islam came, and then when Islam came, then Banu Hashim was raised over Banu Umayya. Whenever you have one power replacing another, you will have upheaval.

Uthman [ra] was killed by a bunch of Shia extremists in the ranks of Hadrat Ali's soldiers. Ali [ra] did not approve of the murder, but his soldiers demanded that he become the 4th Caliph. At first, Ali [ra] said no because he was suspicious of his own people thinking some of them may have killed Uthman [ra]...but the people pushed him, so finally Ali [ra] declared himself the 4th Caliph.

So now you had Banu Hashim replacing Banu Umayya in power. Banu Ummaya got might ticked off, because their own man was killed by one from Ali's own party and then Ali [ra] declared himself Caliph. Some people even accused Ali [ra] of orchestrating the murder. Because of this, Banu Umayya demanded that the Qisas be obtained. Qisas refers to bringing the murderers to justice by killing them.

Ali [ra] however was in a bit of a predicament. People were accusing him of murder and against him. So to appease these from Banu Umayya what he had to do was get the Qisas by killing the murderers. But the problem was that the murderers were within his own ranks. Not only this, but they practiced Taqiyyah, which is the art of dissimulation. Because of this Taqiyyah, it became hard for Ali [ra] to quickly identify the killers. To find them would require a lengthy interrogation of his own soldiers. Such a move would make him lose support amongst his own soldiers....

Now because of Banu Umayya being angry at him on the one side, he didn't want to alienate his own followers right now either. So he chose to postpone obtaining the Qisas until he was firmly in control. Of course this only made Banu Umayya angrier. And a lot of people were now ticked and planning on finding the killers amongst Ali's men and just killing them vigilante style. Some people were even planning on killing Ali [ra].

In this atmosphere, some of the more saner people approached Aisha [ra]. They asked her to use her position as the Prophet's wife to appeal to Ali [ra] asking him to quickly apprehend the killers, i.e. get the Qisas as opposed to delay it. She felt that this would prevent bloodshed and warfare. Aisha [ra] therefore set out from her home to go meet Ali [ra] and urge him by wise counsel to get the Qisas immediately.

When this news reached Ali's soldiers, the killers of Uthman [ra] panicked. They knew that Aisha [ra] would be successful. Ali [ra] could not possibly say no to the Prophet's wife. So before Aisha [ra] could reach Ali [ra], just as she was nearing, the killers of Uthman [ra] attacked and thereby began the Battle of the Camel. The killers of Uthman [ra] orchestrated it because they did not want Aisha [ra] to convince Ali [ra] of anything but rather they wanted Ali [ra] to postpone the Qisas and to fight those who wished to get the Qisas.

In conclusion, Aisha [ra] did not set out for war, but rather she set out for negotiation and reconciliation.

If her intention was fitnah, then only can we blame Aisha [ra].

But her intention was islah [reformation], and so how can we blame her?

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by JayshAllah

It's easy to see it because it does not take two brain cells to see a cartoon-like description of autobots verse deceptacons, power-rangers vs the bad guys, etc. Its very simple, and stupid.

the opposite view of these events is no less simplistic. i'm not saying that its right or wrong, because i dont feel qualified enough to judge, but on both sides there is a story of good guys vs bad guys, or autobots and decepticons as you put it.

ws

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by Aryan_

To summarise, it was caused by the disputed succession of leadership from Uthman to Ali. Ali was nominated to be Caliph but it was disputed by Aisha. Sunnis venerate both, Ali as one of the "Rightly Guided Caliphs" and Aisha as the "Mother of the Faith".

It was more a case of the brutal murder of the previous leader of the Muslims, Uthman, not being dealt with in a satisfactory way, which caused a lot of instability and immense ill-feeling.

It's more complex than person X was a goodie, person Y was a baddie, etc.

The people who murdered Uthman, managed to infiltrate the party which surrounded Ali. Although Ali had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder, he was surrounded by "supporters" who also contained the murderers of Uthman, which created all kinds of complications, as one can well imagine.

Aisha wasn't looking to usurp Ali, rather she was looking for justice for the murder of Uthman, and it got very much out of hand. She ended up being used as a figurehead for opposition to the government of Ali. After the battle, she realised she had been used, and felt very remorseful for all the blood that had been shed. She and Ali managed to smooth things out pretty soon afterwards, but she retreated out of public life after that period, and remained so until she died.

The irony of the whole thing is that the group of people who murdered Uthman, and then claimed to be Ali's supporters, were the ones who later murdered Ali. In short, it could be argued, that he was surrounded by snakes.

[jinnzaman]

With regards to the Sahabah (radhi allahu anhum), Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) has promised them paradise and has forgiven them of their sins. Moreover, the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) has mentioned some of them by name as being granted the honor of paradise.

Before we discuss their faults, it might be prudent to first discuss their status and the status of the ahl ul bayt in Islam:
http://jinnzaman.hadithuna.com/the-s...e-ahl-ul-bayt/

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by JayshAllah

http://www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/history/jamal

May Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) reward you for your efforts. Ameen.



Btw, if you need a guest writer to tackle some of the issues, lemme know.

[LEGALEAGLE]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

May Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) reward you for your efforts. Ameen.



Btw, if you need a guest writer to tackle some of the issues, lemme know.

The rest of it i know.

The story about the start of the battle of the camel is new to me

[kellyjaz]

Ayesha, the widow of the Holy Prophet (S), was in Makka for pilgrimage when Uthman was killed.

Aisha went to war to avenge the murdered caliph uthaman in 656.

[kellyjaz]

Originally Posted by JayshAllah

Ahlel Bayt » Articles » Battle of the Camel

* Qisas

There was a public outcry for Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to enact Qisas [i.e. find and prosecute Uthman’s killers], and no doubt Uthman’s family and tribe were anxious to see the murderers brought to justice. However, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) decided to delay enacting Qisas for the reason that he was too preoccupied facing a civil war from people who were accusing him of murder, and this was not the time to be searching his own ranks for murderers. It was a time when people were ready to rebel against Ali (رضّى الله عنه), so the last thing Ali (رضّى الله عنه) could afford to do was lose more supporters by interrogating his own Shia’t Ali. Because of this, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) decided to delay enacting Qisas, but it should be noted that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) had the sincere intention of eventually finding and prosecuting Uthman’s killers even though they were from his own camp. Such was the noble nature of Ali (رضّى الله عنه).

As a consequence of Ali’s decision (رضّى الله عنه) to delay justice [i.e. delay enacting Qisas], hundreds of people were taking to the streets in protest. Many of these were from the same tribe of Uthman (رضّى الله عنه); for example, the governor of Syria–Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه)–was Uthman’s cousin (رضّى الله عنه) and he was one of the people demanding Qisas. The Prophet’s widow, Aisha (رضّى الله عنها), realized that the situation was getting out of hand and that things might get ugly soon between those demanding Qisas and those delaying Qisas. She decided to act as an arbiter on behalf of Uthman’s family and friends; she herself was related by marriage to Uthman (رضّى الله عنه), who married two of Aisha’s half-daughters. Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) feared that if she did not intercede on behalf of the malcontents by convincing Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to quickly prosecute the murderers, they would rebel against Caliph Ali (رضّى الله عنه). This point cannot be emphacized enough: Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) left her house with the intention of reconciling Muslims, not to make them fight.

Ayesha's demands for Qisas i.e. that the killers of Uthman be handed over, was also contrary to the Sharia since Islamic penalties are implemented by the Head of State not the public, as and when they feel like it. Moreover Ayesha was not the Waris of Uthman to demand Qisas, he was survived by sons who were baligh. It was their right to demand, but even if they did, that is all that they could do, they could NOT incite and rebel against Imam 'Ali (as). if they did not get their way as Ayesha did.



In Muttalib al Saul page 116 we read that when Ayesha reached Basra, Hadhrath 'Ali wrote a letter to her, part of it stated here:

"Tell me Ayesha what role do women have in leading armies and reforming the Ummah? You claim that you want to avenge Uthman's blood, Uthman was a man from Banu Ummaya whilst you are a woman from Banu Taym Ibn Murra".

This letter is clear proof that that Hadhrath Ayesha had no basis under the Sharia to seek Qisas for Uthman, hence Ayesha's claim was false. When Imam 'Ali (as) had rejected her claim, then it was her duty under Sharia to accept his decision. The demand for Qisas could ONLY come from his next of kin, which Ayesha was not. Despite this fact, Ayesha chose to ignore the comments of Imam 'Ali (as).


The Imam can only implement Qisas


Hadhrath Ayesha's very demand that the killers of Uthman are handed over to her, contradicts the Shari`a since the Head of State can ONLY enforce the Law of Qisas.

Zameer Sayyid Sharred in Sharh Muwaffaq page 530 comments:

"The Imam's duty is to implement the Shari'a, rules on Qisas, nikah jihad, Eid, the rules cannot be implemented without an Imam".

In Sharh al Maqasid page 251 we read:

"The appointment of the Imam is an absolute necessity, he implements the Shari'a and places the required limits upon man".

AA.com

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by kellyjaz

Ayesha's demands for Qisas i.e. that the killers of Uthman be handed over, was also contrary to the Sharia since Islamic penalties are implemented by the Head of State not the public, as and when they feel like it. Moreover Ayesha was not the Waris of Uthman to demand Qisas, he was survived by sons who were baligh. It was their right to demand, but even if they did, that is all that they could do, they could NOT incite and rebel against Imam 'Ali (as). if they did not get their way as Ayesha did.



In Muttalib al Saul page 116 we read that when Ayesha reached Basra, Hadhrath 'Ali wrote a letter to her, part of it stated here:

"Tell me Ayesha what role do women have in leading armies and reforming the Ummah? You claim that you want to avenge Uthman's blood, Uthman was a man from Banu Ummaya whilst you are a woman from Banu Taym Ibn Murra".

This letter is clear proof that that Hadhrath Ayesha had no basis under the Sharia to seek Qisas for Uthman, hence Ayesha's claim was false. When Imam 'Ali (as) had rejected her claim, then it was her duty under Sharia to accept his decision. The demand for Qisas could ONLY come from his next of kin, which Ayesha was not. Despite this fact, Ayesha chose to ignore the comments of Imam 'Ali (as).


The Imam can only implement Qisas


Hadhrath Ayesha's very demand that the killers of Uthman are handed over to her, contradicts the Shari`a since the Head of State can ONLY enforce the Law of Qisas.

Zameer Sayyid Sharred in Sharh Muwaffaq page 530 comments:

"The Imam's duty is to implement the Shari'a, rules on Qisas, nikah jihad, Eid, the rules cannot be implemented without an Imam".

In Sharh al Maqasid page 251 we read:

"The appointment of the Imam is an absolute necessity, he implements the Shari'a and places the required limits upon man".

AA.com

The problem with this is:

1) she was seeking reconciliation between 2 sides, more than she was seeking Qisas

2) she (like everyone else at the time) wanted 'Ali to implement Qisas

Indeed, it is the head of state's duty to implement Qisas. The problem arose when 'Ali, as the head of state, failed to fulfill that duty. That was the underlying issue of the whole conflict, in fact.

[Kadhim]

Originally Posted by JayshAllah

No, it was not about disputed succession, but rather about Qisas.



No, her demand was not that Ali [ra] abdicate but rather that he get the Qisas.



It is the Quran that refers to her as the Mother of the Believers.



It's easy to see it because it does not take two brain cells to see a cartoon-like description of autobots verse deceptacons, power-rangers vs the bad guys, etc. Its very simple, and stupid.



Please read this link for the Sunni side: Ahlel Bayt » Articles » Battle of the Camel

Let me give you a cliffs notes summary.

Uthman [ra] was from Banu Umayya, whereas Ali [ra] was from Banu Hashim. The two clans had by this time developed into a big rivalry. It was the natural result of the fact that Banu Umayya used to be in power before Islam came, and then when Islam came, then Banu Hashim was raised over Banu Umayya. Whenever you have one power replacing another, you will have upheaval.

Uthman [ra] was killed by a bunch of Shia extremists in the ranks of Hadrat Ali's soldiers. Ali [ra] did not approve of the murder, but his soldiers demanded that he become the 4th Caliph. At first, Ali [ra] said no because he was suspicious of his own people thinking some of them may have killed Uthman [ra]...but the people pushed him, so finally Ali [ra] declared himself the 4th Caliph.

So now you had Banu Hashim replacing Banu Umayya in power. Banu Ummaya got might ticked off, because their own man was killed by one from Ali's own party and then Ali [ra] declared himself Caliph. Some people even accused Ali [ra] of orchestrating the murder. Because of this, Banu Umayya demanded that the Qisas be obtained. Qisas refers to bringing the murderers to justice by killing them.

Ali [ra] however was in a bit of a predicament. People were accusing him of murder and against him. So to appease thes