Exposing Al-Tijani’s Lies in His Book:
“Then I was Guided”

I say:

1. It seems that Al-Tijani, in his representations, cannot forsake some of his prominent characteristics that he enjoys; ignorance is one of these characteristics! Al-Tijani claims that Abu Bakr gave the governship of Al-Sham to Mu’awiyah and Omar confirmed it all of his life! It is widely known for anyone who read the biography of the four caliphs that Abu Bakr gave the governship of Al-Sham to Yazeed bin Abi Sufyan, and at the caliphate of Omar, Yazeed was still the governor of Al-Sham and Omar confirmed him. When Yazeed died, Omar gave Mu’awiyah bin Abi Sufyan, Yazeed’s brother, the governship of Al-Sham.

2. What does prove that Omar was lenient with Mu’awiyah, and never put Mu’awiyah accountable for anything? And from where does Al-Tijani get his allegations? Are not there any references he can guide us to? Otherwise, I would tell him as the poet said: If you did not prove your claims, then the owner of these claims is a claimant! But the fact is contrary to that. Ibn Al-Katheer says in Al-Bidayah: (Once, Mu’awiyah entered upon Omar and Mu’awiyah was wearing a green garment. The Companions looked at this garment. When Omar saw that, he jumped to Mu’awiyah with a stick beating him. It made Mu’awiyah saying: “O’ Commander of the faithful! Fear Allah for my sake!” Then Omar returned to his sitting. The people asked Omar: “Why did you beat him O’ Commander of the Faithful? And there is no one like him among your people?” He answered: “By Allah, I saw nothing but goodness from him, and I was told nothing about him but goodness. If I was told something other than that, then you would see something different to you (Mu’awiyah), but I saw him – he pointed by his hand – and wanted to put down what has gone up in himself.”) [Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah, vol.8 p.128]

3. Al-Tijani says: (Despite the fact that many people complained about Mu’awiyah and reported him for wearing silk and gold, which was prohibited to men by the Messenger of Allah. Umar used to answer these complaints by saying, "Let him be, he is the Kisra (king) of the Arabs.”) I say:

4. Reality and history belie Tijani’s saying that many people complained about Mu’awiyah. Mu’awiyah ruled Al-Sham for forty years, and his relationship with Al-Sham’s people was a relationship of love and loyalty to a degree that the people of Al-Sham agreed strongly with him when Mu’awiyah wanted to avenge Uthman’s murder.

5. I please the author to direct us to the reference he got the lie that Omar said that Mu’awiyah was the Kisra of the Arabs when Omar knew that Mu’awiyah wore gold and silk! It is so strange that Omar beats Mu’awiyah just because he wore a lawful green garment, but says nothing when Mu’awiyah wears the forbidden gold and silk?

6. The story about Omar is the one that is narrated by Ibn Abi al-Dunya from Abi Abdulrahman Al-Madani who says: (If Omar bin Al-Khattab sees Mu’awiyah he used to say: “This is the Kisra of the Arabs.”) [Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah vol.8 p.128]

7. Then Al-Tijani says: “Mu’awiyah continued in the governship for more than twenty years without being touched or criticized, and when Uthman succeeded to the caliphate of the Muslims, he added to his authority further districts and regions, which enabled him to a mass great wealth from the Islamic nation,” I answer:

8. Giving the governship of Al-Sham to Mu’awiyah is not considered a slander against Omar or Uthman. It is proven that the Prophet peace be upon him gave the governship of Najran to his father, Abu Sufyan until the prophet died. Even more, a lot of the prophet’s governors were from the Ummayads: “The prophet gave the governship of Makkah to Attab bin Asyad bin Abi Al-A’as bin Ummayyah, gave the governship of San’a’a of Yemen to Khalid bin Sa’eed bin Al-A’as in addition to take care of Mudh’haj charities, and Khalid was the governor until the prophet peace be upon him passed away. The prophet gave the governship of Tayma’a, Khaybar, and Qura Areenah to Omro bin Al-A’as, and gave the governship of Al-Bahrain, land and sea, to Aban bin Sa’eed bin Al-A’as when the prophet dismissed Al-Ala’a bin al-Hadrami. Aban ruled Al-Bahrain until the Prophet peace be upon him passed away, and before that the Prophet sent him as a commander on some detachments, including a detachment to Najd” [Minhaj Al-Sunnah, vol.4 p.460]

9. When Mu’awiyah took the governship of Al-Sham, his policy with his people was one of the best policies. His people loved him, and he loved them too: (Qubaysah bin Jabber said: “I never saw a person greater in clemency, more intelligent, far in patience, good in easy sayings, more known to do good deeds than Mu’awiyah. Some said: “A man said to Mu’awiyah very bad words, then it was said to Mu’awiyah to punish him. Mu’awiyah answered: “I am ashamed from Allah that my patience would not include the bad deeds of my people.” In another version, a man said to him: “O’ Commander of the faithful! What a patience you have!” Mu’awiyah answered: “I am ashamed to see the crime of any one of you greater than my patience.”) [Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah, vol.8 p.138] Therefore, his people supported him when Mu’awiyah wanted to take Uthman’s revenge. They gave him allegiance on that and promised him that they will spend their lives and money for the cause of Uthman, take Uthman’s revenge, or Allah take their souls before that. [Ibid. p.131]

10. It is one of the biggest lies Al-Tijani’s claim that Mu’awiyah stole the Islamic nation, raised armies to rebel against the Imam (Leader) of the nation and subsequently took the full power by force and intimidation. Mu’awiyah did not want to rule, nor refused the leadership of Ali bin Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased at him, but Mu’awiyah requested from Ali was to give in Uthman’s murderers, and only after that he would obey him Ali. Al-Thahabi narrated in “Sayr A’alam Al-Nubala’a” from Ya’ali bin Ubayd from his father who says: (Abu Muslim Al-Khulani and some others went to Mu’awiyah and asked him: “Do you dispute Ali or are you equal to him? Mu’awiyah answered: “By Allah no. I know he is better than I am, and he has the right to rule, but do not you know that Uthman was killed as an innocent? And I am his cousin and the seeker of his revenge? Therefore go to Ali and tell him to send me Uthman’s murderers then I will obey him.” They went to Ali and talked to him, but Ali refused to hand in Uthman’s murderers to Mu’awiyah.) [ Sayr A’alam Al-Nubala’a, vol.3, p.140, the examiner of the book said that its narrators are trustworthy] Many times Mu’awiyah emphasized that by saying: “I did not fight Ali but in the matter of Uthman.” Ali also confirms this even from the Shia sources. Al-Shareef Al-Ridi narrated in Nahjul Balagha a speech delivered by Ali where Ali says: “In the beginning of our matter, the people of Sham and us met. It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one. We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do. Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.” [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648] Hence, Ali is confirming that the conflict between him and Mu’awiyah is about the murder of Uthman, not for the sake of leadership or to take control of the Muslims as Al-Tijani claims.

11. It is a plain lie when Al-Tijani says that Mu’awiyah forced the Muslims to vote for his impious and alcohol drinking son Yazeed. Mu’awiyah did not force people to give allegiance to his son Yazeed, but he intended to make Yazeed as a crown prince, and he succeeded. People gave allegiance to Yazeed as a crown prince, and only Al-Hussain bin Ali and Abdullah bin Al-Zubair refused. Mu’awiyah passed away and he did not force the last two to give the allegiance to Yazeed. It is also a lie that Yazeed was an alcohol drinking person. We will let Muhammad bin Ali bin Abi Talib to answer this claim because Muhammad knew Yazeed the best because he lived with him for a while. Ibn Katheer says in Al-Bidayah: (When the people of Al-Medina returned from Yazeed, Abdullah bin Mutee’a and his companions walked to Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiyah. They wanted Muhammad to agree to dismiss Yazeed, but Muhammad refused. Ibn Mutee’a said: “Yazeed drinks alcohol, does not pray, and ignores the rule of the Book.” Muhammad answered them: “I never saw what you are saying about him. I came to him, and stayed with him for a while and I saw him taking care of his prayers, looking for goodness, asking about jurisprudence, and clinging to the Sunnah.” They said: “He was acting like that!” Muhammad answered: “And what did he scare from me or please so that he shows piety to me? Did he show you what you saying about drinking alcohol? If he did, then you are his partners, but if he did not, then it is not lawful for you to testify what you do not know.” They said: “It is the truth for us even if we did not see it.” Muhammad said: “Allah refused that on the people of witness, Allah says: “Except for those who testified with truth and they know,” and I have nothing to do with you anymore.” They said: “Perhaps you did not like someone to take control rather than yourself, therefore, we give you our leadership.” He said: “I do not make this fight lawful for me, either as a leader or as a follower.” They said: “But you fought with your father!” He answered: “Give me someone like my father to fight the like of what my father fought.” They asked: “Then, order your sons Abu Al-Qassim and Al-Qassim to fight with us.” He answered: “I would have fight if I ordered them.” They said: “At least join us to urge people to fight.” He said: “Praise be the Lord! Do you want me to order the people to do what I do not do and do not accept? I would not then advised Allah’s slaves for the sake of Allah.” They replied: “Hence, we will force you.” He said: “Then I will order the people to fear Allah and do not make a creature happy at the expense of the Creator’s anger.” Then Muhammad left to Makkah.” [Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah for IbnKatheer,vol.8,p.236]
    

Second: Al-Tijani’s claim that Mu’awiyah ordered to insult Ali, and that Mu’awiyah is not a writer of the revelation and the answer to these claims:

Al-Tijani says: “I looked for the reasons which led those Companions to change the Sunnah [the tradition] of the Messenger of Allah (saw), and found that the Umayyads (and most of them were Companions of the Prophet) and Mu’awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan (writer of the revelation, as he was called) in particular used to force people to swear at Ali ibn Abi Talib and curse him from the pulpits of the mosques, as most of the historians have mentioned in their books. Muslim, in his Sahih, wrote in a chapter entitled, "The virtues of Ali ibn Abi Talib", the following: Mu’awiyah ordered his governors everywhere to take the curse [of Ali ibn Abi Talib] as tradition, and that all the speakers must include it in their speeches.” [Then I was Guided, p106-107] He also says: “How could they judge him as a man who had worked hard to promote Islam and to reward him, after he forced the people to curse Ali and Ahl al- Bayt, the Family of the chosen Prophet.” [Then I was Guided, p.121] And: “He was the one who forced people to curse Ali and Ahl al-Bayt, the offspring of the Prophet, in every mosque, so that it became a followed tradition for sixty years.” [Then I was Guided, p.169] And: “And how could they call him "The writer of the Revelations" since the revelation came upon the Messenger of Allah (saw) for twenty-three years, and Mu’awiyah was a polytheist for the first eleven years of them, and later, when he was converted to Islam, did not live in Medina (for we could not find any historical reference to support that), whereas the Messenger of Allah (saw) did not live in Mecca after al-Fath [the conquer of Mecca by the Muslims]? So how could Mu'awiyah manage to write the Revelation?” [Then I was Guided, p.170]

1. It is a lie that Mu’awiyah ordered to insult Ali from the pulpits. There is no rightful or clear evidence about that. Mu’awiya’s biography and manners refuses this accusation. What some of the historians mention about that has no value because when these historians presents these words about Mu’awiyah, they do not differentiate between true or false stories. In addition, most of these historians are Shia. But some of the Historians narrated in their books sound stories and false stories, but they are excused when they attributed these stories to their narrators so that we could judge these stories, whether to accept them or reject them. Among these historians is Al-Tabari, who lived in a time of Shia’s growing power. Al-Tabari says in the introduction to his history: “Let the person who reads through our book know that my reliance on whatever I recorded is on news and history with attribution to their narrators, without using intellect except in rare occasions. The knowledge of what had happened before, and what is going to happen at present time, is not reached to those who did not see and their time did not allow them for it without being told by people and without the interference of intellect. Therefore, whatever news you find in my book about history that the reader may deny it, or the listener may abhor it because he did not find it truthful according to him, then let him know that we did not present it ourselves, but it came from some of the people who narrated the story to us. We just presented what we have been told.” [Tareekh Al-Tabari, Introduction, p.13] Then, it is a must on Al-Tijani, when he takes the historians as an argument, to mention the story that shows that Mu’awiyah ordered to insult Ali from the pulpits. Then let him cry and shout as he wishes.

2. It is a lie also what al-Tijani says that Muslim narrated in his Saheeh a similar incident in “Ali’s Virtues” Chapter. The story that Al-Tijani is meaning is the story which is narrated by A’amir bin Sa’ad bin Abi Waqqas who narrated from his father who says: (Mu’awiyah bin Abi Sufyan ordered Sa’ad and asked him: “What prevented you from insulting Abu Turab (Ali bin Abi Talib)?” Sa’ad answered: “The prophet peace be upon him said three things to him (Ali bin Abi Talib), so I would not insult him because to have one of these three things is more beloved to me than Humr Al-Nni’am (a kind of best camels). I heard the prophet peace be upon him saying to appoint Ali as a leader when the prophet used to go to Jihad (Holy War). Ali then would say to him: “O’ Messenger of Allah, you left me with the women and children?” The prophet peace be upon him answered him: “Would not you be pleased if you were for me as Haroon was for Mousa? Except there is no prophecy after me.” And I heard the prophet saying at the day of Khaybar: “I would give this banner to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger and who Allah and His Messenger love him too.” He said: “Then we were looking for this honor.” Then the Prophet said: “Call Ali.” Ali was brought and he had sore eyes. So the prophet peace be upon him spitted in his eyes and gave him the banner. Then Allah granted victory to the Muslims by the hands of Ali. And when this verse revealed: “Come, let us gather together, our sons and your sons,” the messenger of Allah called Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Hussain and said: “O’ Allah, they are my family.”) [Saheeh Muslim with Explanation, Book of “The Companions,” Chapter of “Virtues of Ali,” #2404]

3. This hadeeth does not mean that Mu’awiyah ordered Sa’ad to insult Ali. But, as it is obvious, Mu’awiyah wanted to know the reason that prevented Sa’ad from insulting Ali. Therefore, Sa’ad gave him the reason, and we do not know that when Mu’awiyah heard Sa’ad’s answer got angry with him or punished him. Mu’awiya’s silence is a correction for Sa’ad’s opinion. If Mu’awiyah was despotic; forcing people to insult Ali as Al-Tijani claims, then Mu’awiyah would not be quiet and would force Sa’ad to insult Ali, but nothing of that happened. Hence, it is known that Mu’awiyah did not order to insult Ali nor was pleased by that. Al-Nawawi says: “Mu’awiyah’s saying does not declare that he ordered Sa’ad to insult Ali, but asked him for the reason that prevented him from insulting. As if Mu’awiyah was saying to him: “Have you refrained from insulting Ali as a result of piety, fear or anything like that? If it was as a result of piety and veneration to refrain from insulting, then you are rightful and if it were other than that, then there would be another answer.” Or it might be that Sa’ad was in a group of people who insults Ali and he did not insult Ali with them, and could not prevent them and controverted them so Mu’awiyah asked him this question. They said: “And it may have another explanation, that what prevented you from making Ali wrong in his thought and opinion, and to show to people our good opinion and thought and that Ali was wrong?” [Ibid. p250-252]
   

4. It is so strange that this Tijani objects on insulting Ali but he does not abstain from insulting the best of the Companions i.e. Abu Bakr, Omar and Uthman! Their (the Shias) books are full of that and among them is Al-Tijani’s book itself. Therefore, I have to say: “These Rafidites, who claim to be believers, have ignominy and lowness. Ignominy is fixed on them wherever they go except with a rope from Allah and a rope from the people.” [Minhaj Al-Sunnah, vol.4, p.498]

5. It is a firm thing that Mu’awiyah was among the writers of the revelation. Muslim narrated in his Saheeh from Ibn Abbas that Abu Sufyan asked the prophet peace be upon him for three things: (He (Abu Sufyan) said to the prophet: “O’ Prophet of Allah, give me three things.” The prophet said: “yes.” ... Abu Sufyan said: “Mu’awiyah, make him a writer (of the revelation) under your hands.” The prophet answered: “Alright.”) [Muslim with explanation. Book of “Virtues of the Companions,” Chapter of “Virtues of Abu Sufyan,” vol.17, p.2501] Ahmad narrated in his Musnad, and Muslim from Ibn Abbas who says: (Once I was a kid playing with other boys when I looked behind and I saw the prophet peace be upon him coming towards us. So I said: “The prophet did not come to anyone but to me.” So I went behind the door to hide. I did not feel until the prophet found me, grasped my neck, and pressed my shoulders gently. The prophet said: “Go and call Mu’awiyah for me.” And Mu’awiyah was his writer (of the revelation). So I went looking for Mu’awiyah and told him: “Go and answer the prophet of Allah peace be upon him because he needs you.”) [Musnad Ahmed, vol.1, Musnad Ibn Abbas #2651, and Muslim with explanation, Book of “Al-Birr wa Al-Silah,” #2604] These two hadeeths prove that Mu’awiyah was one of the writers of the revelation.

6. Al-Tijani says that revelation came down on the prophet peace be upon him for twenty-three years during which Mu’awiyah was a mushrik (disbeliever) for eleven years! I already said that Abu Sufyan asked the prophet peace be upon him to make Mu’awiyah as a writer of the revelation and the prophet peace be upon him accepted that and Mu’awiyah went on writing the revelation for the prophet peace be upon him for complete four years, is this something hard to believe? Then in delirium, Al-Tijani says: “When he (Mu’awiyah) was converted to Islam, did not live in Medina (for we could not find any historical reference to support that), whereas the Messenger of Allah (saw) did not live in Mecca after al-Fath [the conquer of Mecca by the Muslims]?.” I say: Is the preceding story does not prove that Mu’awiyah lived in Medina? Al-Turmithi narrated from Abu Majliz who says: (When Mu’awiyah was about to leave, Abdullah bin Al-Zubair and Ibn Safwan stood for him when they saw him. Mu’awiyah said to them: “Set down, I heard the messenger of Allah peace be upon him saying: “Whoever is pleased that men stand for him in respect, then let him take his seat in hell.”) [Al-Turmithi, Book of “Taking Permission,” #3755, see also Saheeh Al-Turmithi #2212] Does not this hadeeth prove it too? But it seems that the prophet peace be upon him ordered Ibn Abbas to call Mu’awiyah from Mecca!! I will not rebuke Al-Tijani for saying, “We could not find any historical reference to support that,” because if he sought it, he would have found it, but we ask Allah for a cure for his fairness complex!

Al-Tijani says: “When some of the Companions protested very strongly against such a rule, Muawiah ordered their killing and burning. Among the famous Companions who were killed at the order of Muawiah were Hijr ibn Adi al-Kindi and his followers, because they protested and refused to curse Ali, and some of them were buried alive.” [Then I was Guided, p.107] He also says in another place: “How could they judge him as a promoter of Islam when he killed Hijr Ibn Adi and his companions and buried them in Marj Adhra in the Syrian desert because they refused to curse Ali ibn Abi Talib?” [Then I was Guided, p.121]

So I say:

1. People disagreed on the companionship of Hijr bin Uday (the famous!). Al-Bukhari and others counted him as a follower (Tabe’ei), and some others as a companion.

2. Mu’awiyah did not kill Hijr because he refrained from insulting Ali, and this is calumniation. What the historians mentioned about the reason behind killing Hijr bin Uday was that Ziyad, the ruler of Al-Kufah appointed by Mu’awiyah, once gave a prolonged speech. So Hijr bin Uday called for the prayer, but Ziyad went along with his speech. So, Hijr and his group threw stones at Ziyad. Ziyad wrote Mu’awiyah telling him what Hijr did and Ziyad reckoned that as corruption on earth. Hijr used to do this with the governor of Al-Kufah who preceded Ziyad. Mu’awiyah ordered that Hijr be sent to him. When Hijr reached there, Mu’awiyah ordered to kill Hijr. Mu’awiyah’s severity in killing Hijr was because Hijr tried to transgress against the Islamic nation and to break the bond of the Muslims and Mu’awiyah considered it as an endeavor to corrupt the earth especially in Kufah where some groups of the affliction first appeared against Uthman. If Uthman were lenient in this matter, which ultimately lead to his death and lead the Islamic nation to the greatest affliction and caused blood to run like rivers, then Mu’awiyah wanted to cut this affliction from its roots by killing Hijr. Strange is this Al-Tijani when he cries and mourns for the death of Hijr and at the same time does not object on Ali when Ali fought the rebels against his caliphate at the battle of The Camel and Saffeen, which caused the death of the best Companions and in addition, the death of thousands of Muslims, although the reason was one i.e. rebelling against the ruling of the caliph!
   

Al-Tijani says: “Abu al-Aala al-Mawdudi wrote in his book "Caliphate and Kingdom": Abu al-Hasan al-Basri said: Muawiah had four features, and if he had only one of them, it would have been considered a great sin:

1.Making decisions without consulting the Companions, who were the light of virtues.
2.Designating his son as his successor. His son was a drunkard, corrupt and wore silk.
3.He claimed Ziyad [as his son], and the Messenger of Allah said, "There is offspring for the honorable woman, but there is nothing for the whore."
4.His killing of Hijr and his followers. Woe unto him from Hijr and the followers of Hijr.” [Then I was Guided, p.107]

I answer:

1. Abu Makhnaf narrates this story. Abu Makhnaf’s full name is Loot bin Yahaya Al-Azday Al-Koufay [Tareekh Al-Tabari, vol.3, p.232, and year of 51H]. Al-Thahabi and Ibn Hajar said about him: “Ekhbaray Talif” (This is a phrase for the Scholars of hadeeth. Ekhbaray is the person who narrates stories, and talif is the one who lies when he narrates stories) [ Meezan Al-E’tidal by Al-Thahabi, vol.3, p.419 #6992 and Lisan Al-Meezan by Ibn Hajar, vol.4, p.492] Abu Hatim and others did not take him, and Al-Darqutnay said: “He is weak,” Ibn Mu’een said: “Not a trustworthy,” Marrah said: “He is nothing,” and Ibn Uday said: “A burned Shia!”) [Meezan Al-E’tidal, vol.3, p.419-420] and Al-Aqeelay accounted him as a weak [Al-Du’afa by Al-Aqeelay, vol.4, p.18-19 #1572]. Therefore, this story is false and hence is not an argument.

2. Even if we supposed that Al-Hasan really said that, then it would have no slander against Mu’awiyah. To claim that Mu’awiyah became the leader without consultant (Shoura) is false because Al-Hasan bin Ali abandoned the caliphate for Mu’awiyah and all the people gave the allegiance to Mu’awiyah and none of the companions refrained in giving him the allegiance! Making Yazeed as the successor to him was done by people’s allegiance and among them was Abdullah bin Omar and only Al-Hussain bin Ali and Abdullah bin Al-Zubair refrained. To refuse giving the allegiance does not cancel the allegiance itself and does not represent a slander against Mu’awiyah. Muhammad Al-Hanafiyah, the son of Ali, who adjourned at Yazeed, belied that Yazeed was a drunkard who wears gold and silk. Muhammad Al-Hanafiyah found Yazeed as the opposite of what they claim.

Al-Tijani says: “When we ask some of our scholars about Muawiah's war against Ali, who had been acknowledged by al-Muhajireen and al-Ansar, a war which led to the division of Islam into Sunnis and Shiites and left it scarred to this very day, they simply answer by saying, "Ali and Muawiah were both good Companions, and both of them interpreted Islam in his own way. However, Ali was right, therefore he deserves two rewards, but Muawiah got it wrong, therefore, he deserves one reward. It is not within our right to judge for them or against them, Allah- the Most High - said: "This is a people that have passed away, they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did" (Holy Qur'an 2:134).

Regrettably, we provide such weak answers that neither a sensible mind nor a religion, nor indeed a law would accept. O Allah, I am innocent of idle talk and of deviant whims. I beg You to protect me from the devil's touch.

How could a sensible mind accept that Muawiah had worked hard to interpret Islam and give him one reward for his war against the leader of all Muslims, and for his killing of thousands of innocent believers, in addition to all the crimes that he committed? He was known among the historians for killing his opponents through feeding them poisoned honey, and he used to say, "Allah has soldiers made of honey."

How could these people judge him as a man who worked hard to promote Islam and give him a reward for that, when he was the leader of a wrong faction? There is a well known Hadith of the Prophet, and most of the scholars agree its authenticity, "Woe unto Ammar .. he will be killed by the wrong faction." And he was killed by Muawiah and his followers.

The question crops up over and over again. Which faction was right, and which faction was wrong? Either Ali and his followers were wrong, or Muawiah and his followers were wrong, and the Messenger of Allah (saw) explained everything. In both cases, the proposition of the righteousness of all the Companions does not hold ground and is incompatible with logic.” [Then I was Guided, p.120-121]

I say:

1. I said that Mu’awiyah did not fight Ali except for the matter of Uthman. Mu’awiyah saw himself as the guardian of Uthman’s blood, and Uthman was one of his relatives, and Mu’awiyah relied on some prophetic hadeeths that show and clear that Uthman would be killed as an innocent and describes the rebels as hypocrites. Al-Turmithi and Ibn Majah narrated from Aysha who says: (The prophet peace be upon him said: “O’ Uthman! If Allah one day gave you the leadership of this nation, and the hypocrites wanted you to remove your clothes which Allah had gave you, then do not do it.” The prophet said that three times.) [Sunan Ibn Majah, Book of “Virtues of the Companions of the Prophet peace be upon him,” #112. See also Saheeh Ibn Majah #90] Ka’ab bin Murrah testified for Uthman’s innocence once in front of Mu’awiyah’s army, and said: (If it were not for a hadeeth that I heard from the prophet peace be upon him, then I would not have taken a stand (did not support Mu’awiyah to punish Uthman’s murderers) and the prophet mentioned the afflictions and acknowledged them. Then a masked man passed by so the prophet peace be upon him said: “This guy at these (affliction) days is on guidance.” So I went to the masked man and he was Uthman bin Affan. I took Uthman to the prophet and asked him: “This one?” The prophet answered: “Yes.”) [Al-Turmithi, Book of “The Virtues,” #3704. See also Saheeh Al-Turmithi #2922] Also, Abdullah bin Shaqeeq bin Murrah says: (The prophet peace be upon him said: “Afflictions would agitate on earth as the horns of cows" Then a masked man passed by and the prophet peace be upon him said: “This guy and his companions at these (affliction) days would be on the right path.” So I went to this guy and unmasked him and took him to the messenger of Allah peace be upon him and I asked: “O’ Messenger of Allah, is he the one?” The prophet said: “He is.” He was Uthman bin Affan.) [Musnad Ahmad, Book of “Virtues of the Companions,” vol.1, p.449-450, #720. The Examiner of the book said that this hadeeth has a true attribution.] Mu’awiyah and his companions thought they were right according to this and that they were on guidance especially when we know that the hypocrite rebels against Uthman were in the army of Ali. Hence, Mu’awiyah and his companions thought them on astray and therefore they made it lawful for themselves to fight Ali and his faction.

2. In addition, Mu’awiyah’s supporters would say: “We cannot give allegiance to anyone except the one who would act with justice and does not oppress us. If we gave allegiance to Ali, then we would act unjustly with his party as Uthman was oppressed. Besides, Ali is unable to act justly and we do not have to give allegiance to such a person. Uthman’s murders are in the army of Ali, and these murders are unjust. Uthman’s murders want to kill us as they killed Uthman, so we will fight them to defend ourselves. Therefore, it is lawful to fight them, and we did not start the fight, they did.”

3. Moreover, authentic traditions from the prophet peace be upon him says that to leave the fight was better for both parties. The fight was neither mandatory nor preferable. Although Ali was more deserving and closer to right than Mu’awiyah was, if Ali left the fight, a great goodness would happen and the shedding of the blood would be spared. Hence, Omran bin Haseen, may Allah be pleased at him, banned the selling of weapons at the time of afflictions. He says: “Weapons are not supposed to be sold in the affliction.” The same saying was shared by Sa’ad bin Abu Waqqas, Muhammad bin Muslimah, Abdullah bin Omar, Osamah bin Zayd, and many other of the first believers from the muhajireen and Al-Ansar who isolated themselves from the affliction and did not partake in the fight. Therefore, many Scholars from Ahl Al-Sunnah say: “It is not conditioned to start fighting the aggressor party. Allah did not order to start fighting them. Instead, He ordered that if two parties fought, then peace should be done between them. Then if one of the two parties transgresses on the other, then the transgressor should be fought.” [Minhaj Al-Sunnah, vol.4, p.391] It is plain lie Tijani’s claim that Mu’awiyah ordered to start the fight against Ali.

4. Even if we supposed that the people who fought Ali were insurgents and not depending on personal interpretation of texts, then it would not be considered as a slander in their belief and their deservance in entering heaven. Almighty Allah says: “If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the Command of Allah; but if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just), The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: so make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers; and fear Allah, that ye may receive Mercy.” [Surat Al-Hujarat, verses 9 and 10] Allah described the two parties by faith and made them brothers despite the fact they fought each other and transgressed on each other. Then what about if one of them transgressed on the other thinking he is right? Does it prevent him from being an interpreter, wrong or right? Therefore, Ahl Al-Sunnah ask Allah for mercy for the two parties, as Allah says: “And those who came after them say: "Our Lord! Forgive us, and our brethren who came before us into the Faith, and leave not, in our hearts, rancor (or sense of injury) against those who have believed. Our Lord! Thou art indeed Full of Kindness, Most Merciful." [Surat Al-Hashr, verse 10]

5. Authentic traditions prove that both parties have the same claim and seek the truth they believe. These authentic traditions also declare that the two parties are innocent from looking for caprice and following falsehood. Al-Bukhari narrated in his Saheeh from Abu Hurayrah who says: (The Messenger of Allah peace be upon him said: “Judgement Day will not come until two parties fight with similar claims.”) [Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Book of “Virtues,” Chapter of “Signs of Prophecy in Islam,” #3413] This hadeeth, as you see, proves that the two parties have the same demand and the same religion. Muslim narrated in his Saheeh from Abu Sated Al-khudaro who says: (The messenger of Allah peace be upon him said: “Renegades will pass through a group of Muslims. They would be killed by the more deserving party of truth.”) [Muslim with Explanation, Book of “Zakkat,” Chapter of “The Kharijites and their characteristics,” #150] This hadeeth clears that both parties ask for the truth and fight for it. Meaning that the two parties were intending the truth and requesting it. This hadeeth also shows that the truth lies with Ali because he was the one who fought these renegades i.e. the Kharijites at Al-Nahrawan. Al-Nawawi says: “It is a declaration that both parties are believers and fighting each other does not cancel their faith and they should be not called impious.” [Ibid. vol.7, p.235]

6. About Mu’awiyah’s transgression, it is either Mu’awiyah thought that the truth lies with him or that he was deliberate in his transgression. In both cases, Mu’awiyah is not infallible from mistakes. Ahl Al-Sunnah do not refrain him from falling in sins, but they say that sins have reasons, and these sins could be removed by asking for forgiveness and repenting, or other than that. Ibn Katheer mentioned in Al-Bidayah from Al-Musawir bin Makhramah when Musawir entered upon Mu’awiyah: (I entered upon him and Mu’awiyah asked me: “Why do you slander against the leaders O’Musawir?” I answered: “Save us from his leader, and give us a leader that we want.” Mu’awiyah said: “Tell me what is in your heart.” So, I told him every single bad thing about him. Mu’awiyah said: “You are not exempted from guilt either. Did you commit any guilt that you are afraid to be doomed if you were not forgiven?” I answered: “Yes, I did commit guilts that may cause my doom if I am not forgiven.” Then Mu’awiyah said: “Then what makes you more deserving for Allan’s forgiveness than I? By Allah, I have done good deeds for my people, established Islamic Law, went to Jihad for the sake of Allah, and a lot of great things I did that only Allah can count, but we do no count them more than our mistakes. And I am a believer in a religion where deeds are accepted, either rewarded by good, or rewarded by a guilt that Allah may forgives us. By Allah, if I were to choose between two matters, between Allah and anything else, I would chose Allah.” I thought of what he said, and I knew he defeated me.”) Then Musawir after that, always used to supplicate good things for Mu’awiyah. [Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah, vol.8, p.136-137]

7. About the Hadeeth: “Ammar would be killed by the transgressor party.” This hadeeth is one of the greatest evidences that the truth lies with Ali but Mu’awiyah interpreted the meaning of the hadeeth differently when Ammar’s death shocked Omro Bin Al-A’as and his son. Omro and his son got astound. Ahmed narrated in his Musnad from Abu Bakr bin Muhammad bin Omro bin Hazm from his father who says: (When Ammar bin Yaser was killed, Omro bin Hazm entered upon Omro bin Al-A’as and said: “Ammar was killed and the Prophet peace be upon him said that Ammar would be killed by the transgressor party.” Omro bin Al-A’as stood fearing and vomiting until he entered upon Mu’awiyah. Mu’awiyah asked him: “What is the matter?” Omro answered: “Ammar was killed.” Mu’awiyah asked again: “So what if Ammar was killed?” Omro answered: “I heard the messenger of Allah saying that Ammar would be killed by the transgressor party.” Mu’awiyah told him: “… were we the ones who killed him? Ali and his comrades killed him. They brought him (to the war) and threw him into our lances (or swords).”) [Musnad the people of Syria from Musnad Al-Imam Ahmed, vol.2, Musnad Omro bin Al-A’as, #957, p.163. The Examiner of the book said the narrators of the story are trustworthy]. Then the people used to say: “The one who killed Ammar is the one who brought him.” Therefore, Mu’awiyah returned the confidence to his army. Mu’awiyah said that because he could not imagine that Uthman’s murderers were the right people in the light of the hadeeths which prove that Uthman would be killed as an innocent and that his killers are the oppressors. No doubt then, as Mu’awiyah was thinking, that the transgressor party is the one within the army of Ali. But the truth that should be said is that these thinkings are definitely false and that the truth is with Ali. But Mu’awiyah’s party are excused in their interpretation because they wanted the truth but did not get it. This what pushed Omro bin Al-A’as to suggest to raise the Quran to stop the war because he had some of that hadeeth in his heart.

8. If Al-Tijani insisted on making Mu’awiyah a despotic, then Al-Nasibah [The ones who hate the household of the Prophet peace be upon him] would answer that Ali was despotic too because Ali fought the Muslims for nothing but for the sultanate. Al-Nasibah would also say that Ali was the one who started fighting and shedding blood without a benefit for the Muslims. Then Ali retreated – as Al-Nasibah would say – and made a peace with Mu’awiyah. Then Al-Tijani and his Shia would not be able to answer this. If Al-Tijani took the hadeeth of Ammar as an argument, then he would be answered that Allah did not put it a condition to fight the transgressor party except when the transgressor party starts to fight. But Ali was the one who started the fight, so what is the answer of Al-Tijani? Many pages have been written by the Kharijites and Mu’tazilah slandering Ali. What important to know is that for every argument Al-Tijani gets against Mu’awiyah, there would be a similar argument from other parties. Ahl Al-Sunnah are pleased by the two parties, and do not consider them impious. Ahl Al-Sunnah say that the truth is with Ali may Allah be pleased at him, and answer all the arguments that are presented from different sects which defames Ali or Mu’awiyah because Ahl Al-Sunnah’s way is straight, not like the Shia, and many thanks to Allah.

9. It is taken for granted for anyone who read something about the Imamiyah sect that they attribute kufr to Mu’awiyah because he fought Ali. However, the fact is that Al-Hasan bin Ali – and he is one of the infallible Imams according to the Shia, therefore whatever he says is truth – made peace with Mu’awiyah – as Al-Tijani admits, refer to “Then I was Guided, p.171” and gave him allegiance. So, did the “infallible” Hasan made peace with a kafir and gave him the leadership?? Or he made peace between two parties of Muslims as the Prophet peace be upon him says: “My son is a master, and Allah may use him to make peace between two parties of Muslims.” [Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Book of “Afflictions,” #6629, vol.6] I please Al-Tijani to give an answer?!

10. It is of great ignorance and lie Tijani’s allegation that Mu’awiyah committed numberless crimes, and that he was known by historians to kill his opponents by his famous way; giving them poisoned honey and Mu’awiyah saying: “Allah has soldiers made of honey.” I want from Al-Tijani to guide us to these historians so that we could make sure of this obvious allegation, otherwise talk is easy.

11. The strange is that Al-Tijani dismisses Abu Bakr’s fighting against the people who did not give Zakkat even though the war happened by the consensus of the Ummah. And on the other hand, you see Al-Tijani standing with Ali in his fight against Mu’awiyah which the companions disagreed about, did not give the hoped results, and caused the death of thousands of Muslims! Perhaps the reason is his said fairness and his said intelligence!

12. I can give the answer to Al-Tijani’s repeated and insisted question by saying that the party of Ali was right, and Mu’awiyah was not a despotic, nor a caller to falsehood, but he searched for the truth and did not find it. Therefore, Mu’awiyah is rewarded for his religious interpretation. None of the two was an oppressor or impious. To fall in guilt, does not slander the justice of the guilty person. Anyway, the justice of the companions, all of them without exception, is taken for granted through the Quran, Sunnah and consensus, and it goes smoothly with rightful logic but it does not, of course, goes smoothly with the false logic which is found in Al-Tijani!

    If Al-Tijani haven’t had enough of this, then I would be compelled to give him something from his guides, the Imamiyah, what proves that Ali and Mu’awiyah are both rightful in their interpretation. Al-Kulayni mentioned in his book, Al-Rawdah min Al-Kafi – which represents the basis and branches of the Imamiyah sect – from Muhammad Bin Yahya who says: (I heard Abu Abdullah peace be upon him saying: “Disagreement of Bani Al-Abbas is unavoidable, the calling is unavoidable, and the coming of the twelfth Imam is unavoidable.” I said: “And how is the calling?” He answered: ‘Someone will call from the heaven in the beginning of the day: “Ali and his party are the winners.”’ He also said: “And someone will call in the end of the day: “Uthman and his party are the winners!”’) [Al-Rawdah min Al-Kafi, p.177, vol.8] And here is Ali bin Abi Talib makes a resolution that Uthman and his party are people of Islam and faith, but the case is a matter of interpretation, every person seeing himself on the right path in the matter of Uthman. Al-Shareef Al-Ridi mentions in your book “Nahjul Balagha” that Ali said: “In the beginning of our matter, the people of Sham and us met. It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one. We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do. Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.” [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648]

Al-Tijani says: “How could they judge him a just Companion when he killed al-Hasan, leader of the Heaven's youth, by poisoning him?” [Then I was Guided, p.121] And he also says: “How could they judge him like that when he was the one who poisoned al-Hasan ibn Ali, leader of Heaven's youth? Perhaps they say, "This was an aspect of his ijtihad [interpretation], but he got it wrong!"” [Then I was Guided, p.169]

I say: This claim is false for several reasons:

1. It is not proven, nor there is a clear evidence that Mu’awiyah poisoned Al-Hasan. If Al-Tijani has an authentic narration narrated by just people, then let him guide us to it, otherwise he should not charge a Companion without giving a prove for his claim.

2. At those days, people were in an affliction, and their desires leading their instincts, each sect attributing bad things to other sects. If a story was told about that, then we ought not to accept it unless just and trustworthy people narrated it.

3. It is said that the person who poisoned Al-Hasan was not Mu’awiyah but Al-Hasan’s wife. It is also said her father, Al-Ash’ath bin Qays ordered her to do that. It is also said that it was Mu’awiyah who ordered her and some say it was Yazeed. These contradictory stories about who poisoned Al-Hasan weaken these stories because they lack the trustworthy narrators. Al-Tijani did not like anyone of them except Mu’awiyah although he was the furthermost of the rest from this charge!

4. Intellect would accept Al-Tijani’s arguments in a situation where Al-Hasan refuses to make peace with Mu’awiyah and wanted to fight Mu’awiyah for the leadership. But the truth is that Al-Hasan made peace with Mu’awiyah, and gave him the leadership and the allegiance. Therefore, for what reason would Mu’awiyah poison Al-Hasan? For these reasons I say that Al-Tijani’s argument has no basis for truth.

Al-Tijani says: “How could they judge him as being correct after he had forced the nation to acknowledge him as a caliph and to accept his corrupt son Yazid as his successor, and to change the Shurah [consultative] system to a hereditary one?” [Then I Was Guided, p.121]

 Also: “After Ali, Muawiya took over the caliphate and changed it to a hereditary system within Bani Umayya, and after them came Bani al- Abbas where the caliphs succeeded one after the other either by personal nomination [from the previous caliph] or by means of force and seizure of power. From the beginning of the Islamic era until Kamal Ataturk - who abolished the Islamic caliphate - there has been no correct acclamation except that for the Commander of the Believers Ali ibn Abi Talib.” [Then I Was Guided, p.145]

And: “How could they judge his Ijtihad, when he was the one who took the nation's acclamation for himself by force, then gave it to his son Yazid after him, and changed the Shura system to a hereditary one.” [Then I Was Guided, p.169]

I say:

1) Mu’awiyah did not take the caliphate by force, but it was given to him by Al-Hasan bin Ali after peace occurred between them. Al-Bukhari narrated in his Saheeh that Al-Hasan Al-Basri says: “Narrated Al-Hasan Al-Basri: (By Allah, Al-Hasan bin Ali led large battalions like mountains against Mu’awiyah. Amr bin Al-As said (to Mu’awiyah), "I surely see battalions which will not turn back before killing their opponents." Mu’awiyah who was really the best of the two men said to him, "O 'Amr! If these killed those and those killed these, who would be left with me for the jobs of the public, who would be left with me for their women, who would be left with me for their children?" Then Mu’awiyah sent two Quraishi men from the tribe of 'Abd-i-Shams called 'Abdur Rahman bin Sumura and Abdullah bin 'Amir bin Kuraiz to Al-Hasan saying to them, "Go to this man (i.e. Al-Hasan) and negotiate peace with him and talk and appeal to him." So, they went to Al-Hasan and talked and appealed to him to accept peace. Al-Hasan said, "We, the offspring of 'Abdul Muttalib, have got wealth and people have indulged in killing and corruption (and money only will appease them)." They said to Al-Hasan, "Mu’awiyah offers you so and so, and appeals to you and entreats you to accept peace." Al-Hasan said to them, "But who will be responsible for what you have said?" They said, "We will be responsible for it." So, whatever Al-Hasan asked they said, "We will be responsible for it for you." So, Al-Hasan concluded a peace treaty with Mu’awiyah. Al-Hasan (Al-Basri) said: I heard Abu Bakr saying, "I saw Allah's Apostle on the pulpit and Al-Hasan bin 'Ali was by his side. The Prophet was looking once at the people and once at Al-Hasan bin 'Ali saying, 'This son of mine is a Saiyid (i.e. a noble) and may Allah make peace between two big groups of Muslims through him." [Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Book of “Peacemaking,” vol.2, #2557]

2) Mu’awiyah was eager for people’s agreement to give allegiance to his son Yazeed. He resolved to take allegiance to Yazeed as a crown prince. So he consulted the grandest companions, the masters of the people and the district’s governors. They all accepted. Delegations from the districts came with acceptance to give allegiance to Yazeed. Many Companions gave him the allegiance as well. Al-Hafedh Abdulghani Al-Maqdisay says: “His (Yazeed’s) caliphate is rightful, sixty of the companions of the prophet peace be upon him gave him the allegiance. Ibn Omar was one of them.” [Qayd Al-Shareed min Akhbar Yazeed, by Ibn Khaldoun, p.70]

It is proven in Saheeh Bukhari that Ibn Omar gave allegiance to Yazeed and when the rebellion against Yazeed happened in Al-Medina, Ibn Omar gathered his family and warned them from revolting against Yazeed. Narrated Nafi': (When the people of Medina dethroned Yazid bin Muawiya, Ibn 'Umar gathered his special friends and children and said, "I heard the Prophet saying, 'A flag will be fixed for every betrayer on the Day of Resurrection,' and we have given the oath of allegiance to this person (Yazid) in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle and I do not know of anything more faithless than fighting a person who has been given the oath of allegiance in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle , and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone Yazid, by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me.") [Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Book of “Afflictions”, vol.7, #6694]

Ibn Al-Zubair and Al-Hussain disagreed on this allegiance but it does not defame this allegiance because it must have some objectors. From this we know that Mu’awiyah was eager to have the acceptance of the Ummah in giving the allegiance to Yazeed. If Mu’awiyah wanted to oppress and take the allegiance to Yazeed by force and coercion, as Al-Tijani claims, then Mu’awiyah would be sufficed by one allegiance and impose it forcibly on people. This Mu’awiyah did not do. Whoever wanted to refuse objected and Mu’awiyah did not force them to give the allegiance.

1. Perhaps the reason that pushed Mu’awiyah to take allegiance to Yazeed was to push away the disagreement and to be one in this crucial time at which the Ummah lived and where a lot of people claimed the caliphate. Hence, Mu’awiyah thought that by giving the leadership to Yazeed would be a good thing for the Ummah and it would prevent another affliction of happening by the agreement of Ahl Al-Hil wa Al-A’qd (A group of people with a degree in religion, manners, and knowledge of people’s situations. They are also called the people of Choosing, people of Shoura, People of Decision, and they are responsible for choosing a leader for the Ummah instead of the common people. Islamic Scholars put some certain conditions to be eligible for this position) on Yazeed.

2. Mu’awiyah did not invent a new system for the caliphate by inheriting the leadership to his son Yazeed. Abu Bakr was the first to do it when he gave the leadership to Omar bin Al-Khattab and Omar did the same when he limited the leadership in six Companions. If Al-Tijani disputed that leadership was not to sons at the time of Abu Bakr and Omar i.e. hereditary Kingdome, then I would say that the first person to do it was Ali when he gave the leadership to his son Al-Hasan. Al-Kulayni mentioned in his book “Usool Al-Kafi” from Saleem bin Qays who says: “I eye-witnessed the will of the Commander of the Faithful peace be upon him when he gave the leadership to his son Al-Hasan peace be upon him. As witnesses, Ali took Al-Hussain and Muhammad (Al-Hanafiyah) peace be upon both of them and all of this sons, leaders of his party and his household. Then Ali gave Al-Hasan the Book and the weapon…” [Usool Al-Kafi, vol.1, p.236, bab “Al-Esharah wa Al-Nas ala Al-Hasan bin Ali alayhima Al-salam”]

3. The Imamiyah Shia originally refuses the idea of Shoura, and claim that the leadership should be stated by the prophet peace be upon him with a clear declaration. Al-Tijani himself repudiated the caliphate of Abu Bakr, Omar, and Uthman. Therefore, why is he crying on the system of Al-Shoura which he himself rejects, and disputes what Mu’awiyah did by giving the leadership to son Yazeed? If Mu’awiyah made the leadership a Shoura, would Al-Tijani and his Rafidites brothers accept it? Or it does not matter? The answer is that they will not accept it even if it was a Shoura from all the Muslims. So why this uproar and the fabricated piety from Al-Tijani on the principle of Al-Shoura? The strangest thing in this matter is that Al-Tijani refuses Mu’awiyah giving the leadership as an inheritance to his son Yazeed yet the greatest doctrine of the Imamiyah Rafidites is their belief that the leadership is a hereditary in the sons of Ali bin Abi Talib by the father giving the leadership as an inheritance to his son! Is it allowed for them and forbidden on others?

I say: this saying is only said by the least person in understanding, the highest person in ignorance, and the most blindfolded. I would say to this Tijani: What supported your false claim? And what are the conditions of a correct allegiance? If you said that the consensus of people is necessary for a correct allegiance, then I would say: Ali bin Abi Talib was the furthest of the three caliphs from consensus. A lot of people disagreed on the caliphate of Ali, a lot more than who disagreed on the caliphate of the early three caliphates. Wars had been risen between Ali and his opponents and Ali died before achieving Muslim’s unity on allegiance. If you said that the caliphate of the three caliphs was by force, I would say: this is of the biggest lies, and history proves you wrong. You by yourself said that the caliphate was Shoura until Mu’awiyah turned it into a hereditary system. If the opponents of Ali said that Ali wanted the caliphate by force, then their argument would be stronger than yours would because Ali fought for his caliphate until thousand of Muslim bloods were shed. If you claimed that the caliphate of Ali is correct because it is proven through hadeeths, then I would say: this is a lie too, all of the evidences you represented do not prove that the leadership should be given to Ali. If that were true, then Ali would not give allegiance to the three rightly guided Caliphs. The hadeeths, which prove Abu Bakr as a caliph, is much stronger and more obvious in making the Abu Bakr the successor of the prophet. All of Al-Tijani arguments are plain and clear false. It is strange that Al-Tijani who denies the existence of a correct caliphate except for Ali, admits the truth in a way he does not know by saying: “From the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs until Kamal Atatork - who abolished the Islamic caliphate” Praise be the Lord how the truth appears from their tongues for the sake of Mu’awiyah. By now, I guess I had answered all of the allegations that Al-Tijani represented. Thanks are due to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.