Ibn Taymiyyah on Allegiance to Ali and Ahmad ibn Hanbal on His Caliphate

Ibn Taymiyyah’s Minhaj al- Sunnah, in volume eight. What does it say?

He says, “As for Ali, from the moment he took power,” nearly half the Muslims held back from pledging allegiance to him, including the earliest believers among the Emigrants, the Helpers, and others.

They turned away from pledging allegiance to him.

Some stayed away, neither fighting alongside him nor against him, such as Usama ibn Zayd and Ibn Umar, and Muhammad ibn Maslamah. Others fought against him.

Then many of those who had pledged allegiance to him turned away.

Ibn Taymiyyah says many of those who pledged allegiance to Ali reneged on their pledges.

Some declared him an unbeliever and deemed his blood lawful, while others went over to Muawiya, like his brother Aqil and the like.

This is Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah’s argument in Minhaj al-Sunnah, volume four, by Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah.

This is your claim: “Everyone pledged allegiance to him after Uthman.”

The claim that Ali received everyone’s pledge after Uthman is an obvious lie, for many Muslims—perhaps half, or fewer, or more—did not pledge allegiance to him.

Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas did not pledge allegiance to him, nor did Ibn Umar or others.

So it wasn’t only Muawiya who held back from pledging allegiance to Ali, but most of them. Possibly more than half the Muslims.

Among them were leading Companions, like Abdullah ibn Umar, and Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas.

By saying that, they mean everyone pledged allegiance to Ali except Muawiya.

They want to attack Muawiya, and they say, “Look how Muawiya was the only one who acted arrogantly toward all the other Companions.”

And, God forbid, he was less evil than Satan.

This is one of the responses by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah.

Another is his response to al- Shahrastani, who was a Sunni scholar with pro- Shiite leanings.

Minhaj al-Sunnah, volume six, page 362. Ibn Taymiyyah responds to al-Shahrastani, saying, “One could say that these words either show al- Shahrastani's bias in this book against the Shiites.”

Al-Shahrastani's book is biased against the Shiites.

What did al-Shahrastani say? Look at what al-Shahrastani says here.

“The disagreement arose during Ali's time, after they had agreed on him and pledged allegiance to him.”

Al- Shahrastani says all the Companions agreed on Ali and pledged allegiance to him, then opposed him.

Ibn Taymiyyah responds, saying, “It is well known that many Muslims had not pledged allegiance to him, including many people of Medina and Mecca.”

Those who saw him had not pledged allegiance to him.

Leave aside those who were far away, such as the people of Syria, Egypt, the Maghreb, Iraq, and Khorasan.

Here, Shaykh al- Islam Ibn Taymiyyah presents the circumstances of the pledge of allegiance.

How Ali’s pledge of allegiance took place.

The first part of Minhaj al-Sunnah. On page 535, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah says: As for Ali, he was pledged allegiance after Uthman was killed, may God be pleased with him, while hearts were unsettled and divided, and hearts were unsettled and divided,

and the senior Companions were scattered.

Talha was brought there by force, to the point that some said he had been brought against his will, and that he said, “I pledged allegiance with the sword at my back,” meaning at my neck.

The people of sedition in Medina had gained strength when they killed Uthman, and the circumstances of his killing caused a great upheaval.

Many of the Companions did not pledge allegiance to Ali, such as Abdullah ibn Umar ibn al- Khattab and others like him.

Now, who established the view that Ali ibn Abi Talib was the fourth caliph by consensus?

It was during the time of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal.

Ahmad ibn Hanbal was the one who established this view.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah says in Minhaj al-Sunnah: In the first section, page 537, he says: And a group said: There was no universal imam at that time.

There was no imam after Uthman, rather, it was a time of turmoil.

And whose view is this, held by a group?

By some of the people of hadith in Basra and elsewhere.

That is why, when Imam Ahmad openly declared Ali to be the fourth caliph, he said, “Whoever does not count Ali as the fourth is more misguided than his own donkey.”

A group of these Basran hadith scholars objected to this They objected to Ahmad’s statement and said: Some people rejected his caliphate, yet no one says they were more misguided than their own donkey.

They meant the Companions who held back from pledging allegiance to him.

Al-Maymuni was one of the senior Hanbalis who objected to Ahmad ibn Hanbal when he openly declared the view that Ali was fourth.

This is Kitab al- Sunna by al- Khallal, with an authentic chain of transmission, on page 427.

Look at what he says. “Abd al-Malik ibn Abd al-Hamid al-Maymuni told me— he was one of the senior Hanbalis, one of the senior Hanbalis, and a contemporary of Ahmad ibn Hanbal— Ahmad ibn Hanbal used to give him precedence and seat him beside him.

Abd al-Hamid Abd al-Malik ibn Abd al-Hamid al-Maymuni said to Abu Abd Allah Ahmad ibn Hanbal: For some of my fellow scholars and I are astonished that you included me in the caliphate.

I am—I am astonished. Some of the scholars and I are astonished by you, Ahmad.

How can you include me in the caliphate?

Ahmad said to me, “What should I do?” “And what should I say about Ali’s statement, may God have mercy on him, ‘I am the Commander of the Faithful’?”

He is addressed as “Commander of the Faithful,” he leads the people on the Hajj and in Mosul, and carries out those rulings and leads the people in prayer.

And what he seized, what he killed, and what he left behind.

I said, “So what do you make of fighting Talha and al-Zubayr, may God have mercy on them both, and those bloodshed?”

All right, if you say that Ali was caliph, what is your judgment on Talha and al- Zubayr, who fought the caliph?

Then their judgment would be that they were Kharijites, God forbid.

That is the consequence of this view. If you say Ali was the fourth caliph and the Companions pledged allegiance to him unanimously, then Talha and al- Zubayr fought him.

I seek God’s refuge— Talha and al- Zubayr would be Kharijites.

What did Ahmad reply? As for that bloodshed, he said, “What have we to do with Talha and al- Zubayr?”

And he mentioned that. Then he repeated it more than once: “What have we to do with these people’s fighting and with that bloodshed?”

He also mentioned his argument and his judgment.

Abd al- Malik said, “This is the last thing I parted from him on.”

In the year 227 while we were sitting, with an authentic chain of transmission.

So this is the danger: if you say that Ali ibn Abi Talib was caliph by consensus, and that the Companions pledged allegiance to him unanimously, that means the Companions were Kharijites who rebelled against him God forbid. That is why Abd al- Hamid al- Maymuni came to denounce Ahmad for this.