Was Muʿawiyah Considered a Rebel? The Difference Between His Position, al-Husayn, and the People of al-Jamal

Question: Did Muʿawiyah rebel? Is he considered to have been from the rebellious party? What is the difference between his position (Khurooj) and that of al-Ḥusayn? Also, what is the difference between his position (Khurooj) and that of the participants in the Battle of al-Jamal?

Summary:

The strongest view according to Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamaʿah is that Muʿawiyah ibn Abi Sufyān did not rebel against an established ruler who had already received a settled and general pledge of allegiance and then seek to seize authority from him. Rather, the dispute between him and ʿAli ibn Abi Talib revolved around the issue of seeking retribution against the killers of ʿUthman (may Allah be pleased with him). Nevertheless, Ahl al-Sunnah hold that the truth was with ʿAli (may Allah be pleased with him), and that Muʿawiyah and those with him did not arrive at the correct position. However, they are rewarded for their ijtihad, based on the hadith narrated from ʿAmr ibn al-ʿAṣ that the Prophet ﷺ said: “If a judge exercises ijtihad and reaches the correct conclusion, he will have two rewards. If he exercises ijtihad and errs, he will have one reward.” (Reported by al-Bukharī and Muslim) The one who errs receives a single reward, namely the reward for his ijtihad in seeking the truth and exerting his utmost effort, because his ijtihad is itself an act of worship. For this reason, the jurists referred to the group that fought ʿAli as the rebellious party (al-fiʾah al-bāghiyah), due to the authentic narration concerning ʿAmmar (may Allah be pleased with him). However, they do not describe Muʿawiyah as sinful or deliberately unjust. Rather, they say that he was a mujtahid who erred. As for the departure of al-Ḥusayn (may Allah be pleased with him), it was not like the position of Muʿawiyah, nor was it like the incident of al-Jamal, because each event had its own distinct circumstances and causes.

Answer:

In the name of Allah, all praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.

First: Was Mu'awiyah From the Rebellious Party?

From the Sunnah:

Sahih al-Bukhari 2812It is authentically established that the Prophet ﷺ said to ʿAmmar ibn Yasir (may Allah be pleased with him):
“You will be killed by the rebellious party.”
Ammar was killed on the Day of Ṣiffīn while fighting alongside ʿAli (may Allah be pleased with him).

For this reason, the majority of Ahl al-Sunnah stated that the group that fought ʿAlī at Ṣiffīn was the rebellious party.

From the Scholars:

Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
“ʿAli was closer to the truth than Muʿawiyah, and the textual evidences indicate this.”

From the Scholars:

An-Nawawi (May Allah have mercy on him) said:
“This indicates that 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was upon the truth and that the other group were rebels.”
However, rebellion here does not mean disbelief or wickedness. Rather, it means departing from what was correct and erring in ijtihād.

Therefore, Ahl al-Sunnah say: • Ali was correct. • Muʿawiyah erred due to his interpretation and ijtihad. • All of them were upright Companions. Second: Is It Correct to Say That Muʿawiyah Rebelled Against Alī? In terms of the practical outcome, Muʿawiyah refrained from pledging allegiance to ʿAli (may Allah be pleased with him) until justice was carried out against the killers of ʿUthman (may Allah be pleased with him). However, Ahl al-Sunnah do not describe this as rebellion in the same sense as the Khawarij rebelling against Muslim rulers, because the dispute was based upon interpretation, ijtihad, and a perceived obligation regarding retribution for the murder of ʿUthman. Muʿawiyah did not claim prophethood, declare ʿAli a disbeliever, or deny the legitimacy of his caliphate. Rather, he initially demanded retribution against the killers of ʿUthman. For this reason, Ahl al-Sunnah differentiate between: • Rebellion arising from interpretation and ijtihād. • Unlawful rebellion based upon desires or corrupt beliefs. Third: What Is the Difference Between Muʿawiyah and al-Ḥusayn? Al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAli traveled to Iraq after receiving letters from the people of Kufah promising him support and pledging allegiance to him. He believed that he possessed sufficient support and that the Ummah would unite behind him. However, when he arrived, most of those who had promised him support abandoned him. For this reason, Ahl al-Sunnah say: Al-Ḥusayn (may Allah be pleased with him) exercised ijtihad, intending reform and the establishment of truth, but he was not granted success in that particular ijtihad. Muʿawiyah, on the other hand, already possessed authority, influence, an army, and an entire region under his control (Greater Syria). His dispute concerned retribution for the killers of ʿUthmān and the pledge of allegiance to ʿAlī. Therefore, the two situations are fundamentally different. Fourth: What Is the Difference Between Muʿāwiyah and the People of al-Jamal? • At the Battle of al-Jamal, the Mother of the Believers ʿAishah bint Abī Bakr, Ṭalḥah ibn ʿUbaydillah, and al-Zubayr ibn al-ʿAwwam went to Basrah. • Their original objective was not to fight ʿAli (may Allah be pleased with him) or dispute his caliphate. • Rather, their intention was reconciliation and seeking justice against the killers of ʿUthman. • Scholars have mentioned that the fighting occurred due to the fitnah and the actions of those who sought to inflame tensions between the two parties. • Siffin, on the other hand, was an organized military confrontation between the army of ʿAli and the army of Muʿawiyah that continued for a prolonged period. - For this reason, the scholars distinguish between the two incidents. Fifth: What is The Position of Ahl al-Sunnah Regarding All of Them? Ahl al-Sunnah refrain from speaking ill regarding the disputes that occurred between the Companions and believe: • That ʿAlī (may Allah be pleased with him) was closer to the truth and more deserving of it. • That Muʿāwiyah and those with him were mistaken in their interpretation. • That the participants of al-Jamal were acting upon interpretation and intended reconciliation. • That al-Ḥusayn (may Allah be pleased with him) was a guiding Imam and a leader among the people of Paradise, and that he exercised ijtihād and was killed wrongfully as a martyr. • That all of them are mentioned only with praise and supplication for Allah's pleasure upon them.

From the Scholars:

Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
“Part of the Sunnah is to mention the virtues of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and to refrain from discussing the disputes that occurred among them.”

Final Answer: • The strongest view is that the truth was with ʿAli (may Allah be pleased with him) at Siffin. • Muʿawiyah and those with him fall under the description of rebellion mentioned in the hadith of ʿAmmar, but theirs was a rebellion of interpretation and ijtihad, not a rebellion of wickedness nor the rebellion of the Khawarij. • The position of al-Ḥusayn (may Allah be pleased with him) differs from that of Muʿawiyah due to the differing objectives, circumstances, and political realities. • The participants of al-Jamal did not initially set out to fight ʿAli or challenge his caliphate. Rather, they sought reconciliation and justice against the killers of ʿUthman. • The methodology of Ahl al-Sunnah is to be pleased with all of them, refrain from delving into their disputes, while believing that ʿAli (may Allah be pleased with him) was closer to the truth and more deserving of it.

And Allah knows best.

← Back to Questions

Was Muʿawiyah Considered a Rebel? The Difference Between His Position, al-Husayn, and the People of al-Jamal

Summary:

From the Sunnah:

From the Scholars:

From the Scholars:

From the Scholars:

Related Answers