The Gist of Your Second Question
What was the true nature of the wars that started in the time of ‘Ali (May Allah be pleased with him)? What should we call those who took part in them, and those who died and those who killed?
The Answer: The war between ‘Ali and Talha, and Zubayr and ‘A’isha the Veracious (May Allah be pleased with all of them), called the Event of the Camel, was a struggle between pure justice and relative justice. It was as follows:
‘Ali took pure justice as his guiding principle and in his judgement of the Law proceeded on that basis, as was the case in the time of the Caliphs Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. Those who opposed him said that previously the purity of Islam had permitted pure justice, but since with the passage of time various peoples whose Islam was weak had joined Islamic society, to apply pure justice was extremely difficult. For this reason, their judgement of the Law was based on relative justice, known as the lesser of two evils. Dispute over interpretation of the Law led to war.
Since the interpretations had been purely for Allah the Most High’s sake and for the benefit of Islam, and war had broken out because of interpretation of the Law, we may surely say that both those who killed and those who were killed won Paradise, and both acted rightfully. ‘Ali’s interpretation was accurate, just as those who opposed him were in error, but they still did not deserve punishment. For if a person makes a correct interpretation, he gains two rewards, but if he fails to do this he still earns one reward, the reward for making an interpretation, which is a form of worship. He is forgiven his error.
A learned person who was widely known amongst us and whose pronouncements were authoritative wrote in Kurdish:
Don’t gossip about the war between the Companions, for both killer and killed were destined for Paradise.
Pure justice and relative justice may be explained as follows: according to the allusive meaning of the verse, If any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people,
The rights of an innocent man cannot be cancelled for the sake of all the people. An individual may not be sacrificed for the good of all. In the view of Allah the Most High’s compassion, right is right, there is no difference between great and small. The small may not be annulled for the great. Without his consent, the life and rights of an individual may not be sacrificed for the good of the community. If he consents to sacrifice them in the name of patriotism, that is a different matter.
As for Relative Justice, a particular is sacrificed for the good of the universal; the rights of an individual are disregarded in the face of the community. The attempt is made to apply a sort of relative justice as the lesser of two evils. But if it is possible to apply pure justice, to apply relative justice is wrong and may not be undertaken.
Thus, Imam ‘Ali (May Allah be pleased with him) judged it possible to apply pure justice as in the time of the Caliphs Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, and he set up the Islamic Caliphate on that basis. Those who opposed him and objected to him said that it was impossible because of the great difficulties, and judged according to the Law that they should proceed with relative justice. The other historical reasons are not true reasons, they are pretexts.
If You Ask: What was the reason for Imam ‘Ali’s lack of success in regard to the Islamic Caliphate relatively to his predecessors, despite his extraordinary capabilities, unusual intelligence, and great deservedness?
The Answer: That blessed person was deserving of weighty duties other than politics and rule. If he had been completely successful in politics and government, he would have been unable to acquire fully the meaningful title of King of Sainthood. Whereas he won a spiritual rule far surpassing the external, political Caliphate, and became a universal master; in fact, his spiritual rule will continue even until the end of the world.
As for his war with Mu‘awiya at Siffin, it was a war over the Caliphate and rule. That is to say, Imam ‘Ali gave priority to the injunctions of religion, the truths of Islam, and the hereafter, and sacrificed some of the laws of government and pitiless demands of politics. Whereas Mu‘awiya and his supporters, in order to strengthen Islamic society with their governmental policies, left aside resoluteness and favoured permissiveness; they supposed they were obliged to in the political realm; choosing permissiveness, they fell into error.
As for Hasan and Husain’s struggle against the Umayyads, it was a war between religion and nationalism. That is, the Umayyads founded the Islamic state on Arab nationalism and put the bonds of nationalism before those of Islam, causing harm in two respects:
The First Respect: They offended the other nations and frightened them off.
The Other: The principles of racialism and nationalism are not based on justice and right, so are unjust and wrongful. They do not proceed on justice. For a ruler of racialist leanings gives preference to people of the same race and cannot act justly. According to the clear decree of, Islam abrogated the tribalism of Ignorance. There is no difference between an Abyssinian slave and a leader of the Quraish, once they have accepted Islam, the bonds of nationalism may not be set up in place of the bonds of religion. If they are, there will be no justice; right will disappear.
Thus, Husain accepted the bonds of religion as fundamental and struggled against those others as someone executing justice, until he attained the rank of martyrdom.
If It Is Asked: If he was so right and just, why wasn’t he successful? Also, why did divine determining and divine mercy permit them to meet with the tragic end they did?
The Answer: It was not Husain’s close supporters that harboured feelings of revenge towards the Arab nation, but members of other nations who had joined his community, out of their wounded national pride. They caused harm to the pure, shining creeds of Husain and his supporters, and were the cause of their defeat.
The wisdom in their tragic end from the point of view of divine determining was this: Hasan and Husain and their family and descendants were destined to hold spiritual rule. It is extremely difficult to bring together worldly rule and spiritual rule. Therefore, divine determining made them feel disgust at the world; it showed them its ugly face so that they should cease to feel any attachment to it in their hearts. They lost a temporary, superficial rule, but were appointed to a splendid, permanent spiritual rule. They became the authorities of the spiritual poles among the saints instead of commonplace governors.