Volume 4, Book 52, Number 67 :
Narrated by ‘Ikrima
That Ibn ‘Abbas (radiallaahu `anhu) told him and ‘Ali bin ‘Abdullah to go to Abu Said (radiallaahu `anhu) and listen to some of his narrations; So they both went (and saw) Abu Said (radiallaahu `anhu) and his brother irrigating a garden belonging to them. When he saw them, he came up to them and sat down with his legs drawn up and wrapped in his garment and said, “(During the construction of the mosque of the Prophet (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam)) we carried the adobe of the mosque, one brick at a time while ‘Ammar (radiallaahu `anhu) used to carry two at a time. The Prophet (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam) passed by ‘Ammar (radiallaahu `anhu) and removed the dust off his head and said, “May Allah be merciful to ‘Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious aggressive group. ‘Ammar will invite them to (obey) Allah and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire.”
This post will focus on the story of the death of `Ammar (radiallaahu `anhu) instead of his life. Here’s a brief account of the Battle of Siffin (657 CE):
Muʿāwiyah, governor of Syria, refused to recognize ʿAlī as the new caliph before justice for the murder of his kinsman, the third caliph, ʿUthmān, was done; for his part, ʿAlī relied on the support of individuals who had been implicated in ʿUthmān’s murder and was therefore reluctant to prosecute them. ʿAlī gathered support in Kūfah, where he had established his centre, and invaded Syria. The two armies met along the Euphrates River at Ṣiffīn (near the Syrian-Iraqi border), where they engaged in an indecisive succession of skirmishes, truces, and battles, culminating in the legendary appearance of Muʿāwiyah’s troops with copies of the Qurʾān impaled on their lances—supposedly a sign to let God’s word decide the conflict. ʿAlī agreed to bring the matter to arbitration on the basis of the Qurʾān and delegated Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī as his representative, while Muʿāwiyah sent ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ. By agreeing to arbitration, ʿAlī conceded to deal with Muʿāwiyah on equal terms, thus permitting him to challenge ʿAlī’s claim as leader of the Muslim community. This concession aroused the anger of a large group of ʿAlī’s followers, who protested that “judgment belongs to God alone” (Qurʾān 6:57) and believed that arbitration would be a repudiation of the Qurʾānic dictum “If one party rebels against the other, fight against that which rebels” (49:9). A small number of these pietists withdrew (kharajū) to the village of Ḥarūrāʾ and so became known as Khārijites (Arabic: Khawārij).
Accounts of what precisely transpired at the arbitration vary. [Britannica]
It was in this battle that `Ammar (radiallaahu `anhu) was martyred. He was in the army of `Ali (radiallaahu `anhu) so it’s obvious which side killed him.
Coming to the hadith narrated above which says in the end: “May Allah be merciful to ‘Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious aggressive group. ‘Ammar will invite them to (obey) Allah and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire.”
It’s important to know that there are other versions of this hadith available as well, having words less direct than these. For example:
- Abu Huraira narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: “Rejoice Ammar, the transgressing party shall kill you.”
(Sunan Thirmidhi : Hadith Number 3800)
- Allah’s messenger (PBUH) said to Ammar: “A group of rebels would kill you.”
(Sahih Muslim, English version, v4, chapter MCCV, Tradition #6968)
- Umm Salama narrated that Allah’s messenger (may peace be upon him) said: “A band of rebels would kill Ammar.”
(Sahih Muslim, English version, v4, chapter MCCV, Tradition #6970)
It’s safe to say that according to the hadith mentioned above, `Ammar (radiallaahu `anhu) made the right choice siding with `Ali (radiallaahu `anhu) since he was the caliph at that time and his obedience was waajib on all Muslims. But the question arises, what about those who sided with Mu`awiyah (radiallaahu `anhu)? He himself was a companion of the Prophet (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam) and many of the companions were on his side too. So what do we say about them? Were they calling `Ammar (radiallaahu `anhu) towards Hellfire?
The answer to that according to scholars is that they were doing the right thing in their opinion. It was a complex matter and everyone had their own views. They were mujtahids (those who do Ijtihad) so there’s no blame upon them because:
Amr ibn Al-As reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “If a judge makes a ruling, striving to apply his reasoning (ijtihad) and he is correct, then he will have two rewards. If a judge makes a ruling, striving to apply his reasoning and he is mistaken, then he will have one reward.” [Sahih Bukhari 6919, Sahih Muslim 1716]
And Allah has elevated the status of Sahabah in the Quran by saying He’s pleased with them and promising them Paradise. Who then are we to talk bad about any one of them?
“And the foremost to embrace Islam of the Muhaajiroon and the Ansaar and also those who followed them exactly (in Faith). Allaah is well-pleased with them as they are well-pleased with Him. He has prepared for them Gardens under which rivers flow (Paradise), to dwell therein forever. That is the supreme success.” [al-Tawbah 9:100]
I’d like to end with these words of ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Mas’ood (may Allaah be pleased with him):
“Whoever among you wishes to follow (someone), let him follow one who has died, for the one who is still alive is not safe from fitnah. The companions of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) were the best of this ummah, the most righteous of heart and the deepest in knowledge and the most straightforward, people whom Allaah chose to accompany His Prophet and establish His religion. So acknowledge their virtue and follow in their footsteps, and adhere as much as you can to their morals and religion, for they were following right guidance.
Narrated by Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr in al-Jaami’, no. 1810.
May Allah forgive us our sins, remove doubts and ill feelings from our hearts concerning his slaves, may He make us love those whom He loves, and hate those whom He hates. May He guide us to the truth always, and enter us into Jannat-ul-Firdaws.
Volume 3, Book 49, Number 867 :
Narrated by Al-Hasan Al-Basri
By Allah, Al-Hasan bin Ali (radiallaahu `anhu) led large battalions like mountains against Muawiya. Amr bin Al-As (radiallaahu `anhu) said (to Muawiya), “I surely see battalions which will not turn back before killing their opponents.” Muawiya (radiallaahu `anhu), 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 Muawiya (radiallaahu `anhu) 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 (radiallaahu `anhu) 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 (radiallaahu `anhu) and talked and appealed to him to accept peace. Al-Hasan (radiallaahu `anhu) 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 (radiallaahu `anhu), “Muawiya offers you so and so, and appeals to you and entreats you to accept peace.” Al-Hasan (radiallaahu `anhu) said to them, “But who will be responsible for what you have said?” They said, “We will be responsible for it.” So, what-ever Al-Hasan (radiallaahu `anhu) asked they said, “We will be responsible for it for you.” So, Al-Hasan (radiallaahu `anhu) concluded a peace treaty with Muawiya (radiallaahu `anhu).
Al-Hasan (Al-Basri) said: I heard Abu Bakr (radiallaahu `anhu) saying, “I saw Allah’s Apostle (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam) on the pulpit and Al-Hasan bin ‘Ali (radiallaahu `anhu) was by his side. The Prophet (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam) was looking once at the people and once at Al-Hasan bin ‘Ali (radiallaahu `anhu) 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.”
If a person is known by this title, there is nothing wrong with that, because the word “Sayyid” may be used for the leader of a people, or for a faqeeh or scholar, or for those who are descended from Faatimah through the children of al-Hasan and al-Husayn. All of these are forms of address which are well known among the people. The Arabs used to call tribal leaders and elders “Sayyid” (e.g. Sayyid Bani Foolaan – the leader of such-and-such tribe, etc). The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used this word, when he asked some of the Arabs, “Who is your leader (sayyid), O Banu So-and-so? Who is your leader (sayyid), O Banu So-and-so?”, i.e., who is your chief? And he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said concerning al-Hasan, “This son of mine is a sayyid and perhaps Allaah will reconcile two great groups of Muslims through him.” It is disliked (makrooh) to address a person as Ya sayyidi (O my master) or Yaa sayyidanaa (O our master), because when it was said to the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), “You are our master,” he said, “The Master is Allaah, may He blessed and exalted”; and because this may make him conceited and proud. So we should not do that. Instead we should say, “O So and so” or “So Abu (father of) So and so,” using the names, kunyas (Abu So and so, etc.) and nicknames which are known.
With regard to using the phrases “Yaa Sayyidi” and “Yaa Sayyidanaa” when addressing one another, it is better not to do that.
Saying “Sayyid” to a munaafiq or kaafir is not permissible, because of the hadeeth, “Do not say ‘Sayyidanaa’ to a munaafiq, because if he is really your master then you have angered your Lord.” (Narrated by Ahmad, Abu Dawood and al-Nasaa’i; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami’, no. 7405, p. 1234)
Taken from IslamQA
Allah’s Name: “Al-Sayyid”
Allaah is al-Sayyid (the Master), i.e., the Sovereign of the universe; all of creation is enslaved to Him.
Allaah is the One Who is needed in an absolute sense. No created being is independent of Him. If He did not create them, they would not exist, and if He did not sustain them after creating them, they would not remain. If He did not help them with all that they are faced with, they would have no help besides Him. So it is His right that His created beings should call Him, and none other, al-Sayyid.
Taken from IslamQA
Giving the title “Sayyid” to Prophet (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam)
Giving the title Sayyiduna to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) is right and proper, because he is the master (sayyid) of the sons of Adam, and it is proven that he (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “I am the master (sayyid) of the sons of Adam and no boast.” He is the master of mankind and the Messengers. So if a man says Sayyiduna Muhammad, and: Allahumma salli ‘ala Sayyiduna Muhammad (O Allah, send blessings upon our master Muhammad), there is nothing wrong with that. He is the master (Sayyid) of the sons of Adam and the master of mankind.
He only disliked that from people during his lifetime because he feared that they might exaggerate. So when they said, You are our master (sayyid), he said: “Al-Sayyid is Allah, may He be blessed and exalted,” so as to block the means (that might lead to exaggeration), as he was afraid that they might exaggerate about him (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). But after he died (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), and as he told us that he is the master (sayyid) of the sons of Adam, there is nothing wrong with saying Sayyiduna (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). So he is the best of us, and our master (sayyid), and our leader (imam), and he is a close friend of the Most Merciful (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him).
Taken from IslamQA