Did Imam Ali (as) tell Muawiyah that the Sahaba Were Cowards ?

There are many irrationalities presented by the 12r shia sect on Imam Ali’s (as) actions and decision. Here is list of some irrationalities which 12rs present
1) Unity with hypocrites for the sake of Islam
2) Allowing a command of Allah (ie divine appointment) to be pressured.
3) Imam Ali (as) allowing his wife to be killed
4) Imam Ali (as) and a few companion being the only results for victory of Islamic wars
5) Imam Ali (as) accepting Shura for his own Calipate
6) Imam Ali (as) failing to implement the divinely appointed belief of the shia/12rs during his rule
7) Prophet (pbuh) plus the 11 imams failing to establish justice, but the 12th imam will be able to fulfill it.
8) Rajah
9) Imam Ali (as) failing to convert his supporters from to today form of shiaism/12r Shiaism.
10) Imam Ali (as) not giving any takfiri fatwa against his supporters who opposed him in the arbitration
11) Imam Ali (as) saying that follow the majority ( the majority in his camp accepted him as the 4th calipah instead of the first)
12) Imam Ali (as) calling the companions as cowards in a letter to Muawiyah.

In this topic I will emphasize on point 12. In a letter to Muawiyah, Imam Ali (as) presents his merits and slanders the companions.

From amongst the Quraysh, the condition of those who had embraced Islam, was not as bad as ours. Either they had defensive alliance with the non-believers or some tribes decided to defend them despite their differences in religion. While it was the practice of the Holy Prophet (s) that whenever a battle was raged and his companions behaved cowardly or ran away from the battlefield (as in Badr, Uhud and Hunayn) which was usually the case or started making the Muslims nervous (as in Khandaq), he sent members of his family (Bani Hashim) to fight out the battle to protect his companions. These members of Bani Hashim often fought single handed and some even met martyrdom as for instance, Ubayda bin Haarith was killed in the Battle of Badr, Hamza bin Abdul Muttalib in Uhud and Ja'far bin Abu Taalib in the Battle of Mu'tah. Besides these three, there was another person (here Imam Ali (a) meant himself) who also tried his best to meet martyrdom. I could name him but the date of his death had not yet approached and he passed through these terrible ordeals alive. (Najh al Balagha, Letter 9)

Now compare this to the Sunni Version.

As for those from the Quraysh who embraced Islam afterwards, they were relieved from the trials that we went through. Because from among them were protected tribes and individuals that had protection from their clans so that no one [from the pagan Quraysh] would do to them what they did to us. They were in asylum and were saved from being killed. This was as Allah willed. Then He ordered His Messenger to emigrate and later allowed him to fight against the polytheists. Whenever matters got tough and the battles began, he sent the people of his family to the forefront in order to protect the Companions from the heat of the battle. Thus, Ubayda [bin Harith bin al-Muttalib] was sacrificed at Badr, Hamza at Uhud, and Ja'far and Zayd at Mu'ta. The one whose name I would mention [i.e. Ali himself], more than once, sought martyrdom for the sake of Allah similar to these, yet there time was expedited and his [mine] was prolonged. Allah now grants them provision and rewards them for that which they have done. Consequently, I have not heard of or seen anyone from the people who was more sincere to Allah through obedience to His Messenger or more submissive to the Messenger in obedience to his Lord, more steadfast during hardships and times of distress than those who I have just named! Although, there were good people amongst the Muhajirun as well, may Allah reward them. (al-Baladhuri and the Wa'qat Siffin by al-Minqari.)

So in the 12r Shia version it states that only the Hashimis sided with the Prophet :[S.A.W.W]: in the Islamic wars in opposition to the Kuffar.
From this view a question immediately arises. If the Hashimis are the only Sahabis then what about Pro Ali companions such as Abu Dharr (ra), Salman Farsi (ra) , Ammar Yassir (ra), Miqdad (ra) etc ? Did Imam Ali (as) forget to mention them ? After all they were companions too.
Now the 12rs might want to say the imam is only taking about the 3 calipahs or the Sunni definition of the sahaba. Even if this is the case are 12r Shia trying to say that all wars were won by a small minority which numbered from 5-14 ? If this is the supposed reality of Islam then we have problems. The reason behind that, since Imam Ali (as) insulted the majority of sahaba in front of his greatest enemy then couldn't I conclude the his opponent used this information against him and turned the tables on the Imam ?

If I had an enemy and that he insulted his own side then, can I not use that information against him to advance my agenda?


In the end look at the results of history. What happened in aftermath the arbitration between Imam Ali (as) and Muawiyah ? On contrary we find a sermon where Imam Ali 9as) praises the sahaba which contradicts his statement in Letter 9.

I have seen the companions of the Prophet but I do not find anyone resembling them. They began the day with dust on the hair and face (in hardship of life) and passed the night in prostration and standing in prayers. Sometimes they put down their foreheads and sometimes their cheeks. With the recollection of their resurrection it seemed as though they stood on live coal. It seemed that in between their eyes there were signs like knees of goats, resulting from long prostrations. When Allah was mentioned their eyes flowed freely till their shirt collars were drenched. They trembled for fear of punishment and hope of reward as the tree trembles on the day of stormy wind. ( Najh Al Balaghah, Sermon 97)

It was these sahaba who fought under the 3 calipahs and gained them victory in the Islamic conquest.


On the contrary, Imam Ali (as) praises the opposite side military commitment and becomes disappointed with his own side.

I called you for war but you did not come. I warned you but you did not listen. I called you secretly as well as openly, but you did not respond. I gave you sincere counsel, but you did not accept it. Are you present like the absent, and slaves like masters? I recite before you points of wisdom but you turn away from them, and I advise you with far reaching advice but you disperse away from it. I rouse you for jihad against the people of revolt but before I come to the end of my speech, I see you disperse like the sons of Saba.[2] You return to your places and deceive one another by your counsel. I straighten you in the morning but you are back to me in the evening as curved as the back of a bow. The straightener has become weary while those to be straightened have become incorrigible.
O' those whose bodies are present but wits are absent, and whose wishes are scattered. Their rulers are on trial. Your leader obeys Allah but you disobeyed him while the leader of the people of Syria (ash-Sham) disobeys Allah but they obey him. By Allah, I wish Mu`awiyah exchanges with me like Dinars with Dirhams, so that he takes from me ten of you and gives me one from them. ( Najh Al Balaghah, Sermon 97)

Now earlier in the 12r Shia view he was slandering the companions.
If the sahaba were so bad did the Prophet :[S.A.W.W]: ever wish to trade his companions for Abu Sufyan's supporters ?

Also, the question comes back to the 12rs. If is only a minority which caused victory in the Islamic wars where was this minority's power in the Battle of Siffin & Karbala ? Why did the 9 imams remaining have to go into taqiyyah ? Why does Hisham ibn Hakam claim the 6th imam suspended Jihad until the reappearance of the Mahdi ? Why did Shaykh Al Mufid compare 313 companions of Badr with the 313 shias of the Mahdi ?

In history, the 12 imams were under the radar of the Ummavi and Abbasid rulers. On the contrary 12rs Shia were pacifist. The Ummavis and Abbasids never harmed them since they restricted their activities to their culture centers. Unless of course the 12r Shia decided to challenge the ruler of the time. Then again many Sunni Scholars go in trouble when they questioned the rulers of their time.

Now when we go deeper into history even during the Mongal invasion the 12rs chose to work with an aggressive enemy instead of declaring jihad.



Imam Musa Al Kazim's (as) janazah had restriction due to the pressure. Refer to 40 second mark in the clip below.




Yet the 12rs still did noting when the Mongols destroyed Imam Al Kazim's (as) shrine.


Whereas the Muslims who support and love Muawiyah such as Shaykh ibn Taymiyah declared a war on the Mongols and prevented them from advancing into Egypt. Is it not ironic ?