The story of arbitration between Ali and Mu’awiyah is often cited as one of cunning and scheming on one side and sheer naivety on the other. We quoted last week Justice Ibn Al-Arabi’s refutation of this story which he describes as blatant lies and false fabrication. In fact, the story does not stand to any careful examination. To sum it up, Amr ibn Al-Aas, the arbiter from Mu’awiyah’s side, is said to have tricked his counterpart Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari to announce the removal from office of both Ali and Mu’awiyah. When he did, and it was Amr’s turn to speak, he confirmed the removal of Ali but declared that Mu’awiyah remains firmly in office.
Before speaking about this, we need to know the type of people the two arbiters were. Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari was a companion of the Prophet (peace be upon him) who came from Yemen. He stayed with the Muslim immigrants in Abyssinia until year 7, when he returned with them to join the Prophet. He was close to the Prophet and learned the Qur’an well. Indeed, he was one of the best reciters of the Qur’an and the eminent scholars among the Prophet’s companions. The Prophet sent him as a judge to Yemen. His last appointment was that of governor of Kufa in southern Iraq. Some of Ali’s supporters arrived in Kufa to raise support for Ali and to persuade its people to join his army in the Battle of the Camel first and then against the Syrians supporting Mu’awiyah. Abu Musa was keenly opposed to fighting between Muslims. He reminded the people of Kufa of what the Prophet had said about internal strife, urging them to stay away from joining the fighting. Al-Ashtar, who was among the leaders of the rebellion against Uthman and subsequently joined Ali, left Abu Musa talking to the people in the mosque and occupied the government building in the city. When Abu Musa later arrived there, Al-Ashtar barred his entry and told him to leave. He relinquished his post and chose to live in a village called Urd, making sure not to be involved in any fighting. When people had enough bloodshed and realized that it would have been better for them to follow Abu Musa’s advice, they nominated him as their representative in the arbitration, in recognition of his wise counsel.
Amr ibn Al-Aas, on the other hand, came to Islam late in the Prophet’s life, but he joined the Prophet in Madinah before the conquest of Makkah. The Prophet sent him on missions to Al-Hasa and Oman, and valued his advice. During the time of Abu Bakr and Umar, he was one of the Muslim commanders who carried the message of Islam to other areas. His successes saw him liberating Palestine and Egypt from the Byzantine rule. Umar appointed him governor of Egypt and he stayed in that position well into Uthman’s reign, but was subsequently replaced. When the trouble between Ali and Mu’awiyah started, he joined the latter, feeling that the rebellion against Uthman should be dealt with and his assassins should be brought to justice. The Prophet stated that he was solid in his faith. He needs no further testimony. While Amr was certainly very intelligent, Ibn Al-Arabi says that it suited his opponents to exaggerate this quality, giving it a strong element of cunning, while he was indeed God-fearing.
When the arbitration took place, it was a very serious affair between two very pious companions of the Prophet who were keen to achieve peace. They were also joined by a number of the Prophet’s companions who wanted to see an end to all internal strife among Muslims. To suggest that the arbiters should agree to remove both Ali and Mu’awiyah from the top office is obviously wrong, because at the time, Mu’awiyah had made no claim to be the caliph. None of his supporters advocated that. The conflict was over a totally different issue, which was the need to establish justice with regard to Uthman’s assassination. Indeed, the post of the caliph was not in question. Mu’awiyah did not make a claim to it until after Ali’s death, and he was established as caliph when Al-Hasan ibn Ali pledged his loyalty to him.
The arbiters must have considered the situation as it had developed, realizing that the Muslim state was divided into two camps, and that there was need to re-establish unity. To do this, they thought that they needed to put the matter for further discussion by the Prophet’s companions with whom he was pleased at the point of his death. The arbiters did not speak about removing their respective leaders, Ali and Mu’awiyah. This did not come into it at all. And why would they consider such an option which was likely to plunge the Muslim community into further trouble. Besides, no one suggested any mechanism for the purpose. The arbiters did not have the authority to make a suggestion to remove anyone from office, let alone suggest a method of running the Muslim state when such a step is taken.
What they rightly decided was that both Ali and Mu’awiyah would continue to hold the areas under their control for the time being, but the overall question of how to re-establish the unity of the Muslim state would be referred to the Prophet’s companions. With such an agreement, there was no possibility of the trick people accuse Amr of playing against Abu Musa. Indeed, both were dedicated companions of the Prophet and to play a trick in such a momentous matter would incur God’s displeasure. Neither of them was of the type who would sacrifice their bond with God in order to serve their worldly ambition.
We mentioned last week Ibn Al-Arabi’s refutation of the whole episode of Amr’s trickery, which included a report by Hudayn ibn Al-Mundhir who questioned Amr on what he did with Abu Musa. It is useful to quote again the important part of that report. Amr told Al-Hudayn: “I asked Abu Musa what he thought about it, and he said that he preferred that it should be left to the Prophet’s companions who enjoyed his pleasure before his death. I asked him what would be my and Mu’awiyah’s positions, and he said: ‘If you are asked to help, both of you could certainly contribute, and if your services are dispensed with, then long has been the time when neither of you was needed.’”
This is the sort of discussion between those two figures. Abu Musa told Amr that he would be very useful if his help was needed, but he could be sidelined if that was deemed better. For Amr to report this in such words is a sign of his honesty and magnanimity.
