At the time of his rule–the less than five-year-old rule of ‘Alī (P.B.U.H.)–three groups were lining up in front of him: deviators from the truth (Qāsiṭīn), pledge-breakers (Nākithīn) and those who have left the faith (Māriqīn). Both the Shī‘ites and the Sunnites have quoted this narration from the Imam (P.B.U.H.) saying, “I am ordered to fight with pledge-breakers (Nākithīn), deviators from the truth (Qāsiṭīn) and those who have left the faith (Māriqīn).”, That honorable Imam (P.B.U.H.) had given these groups such names. Qāsiṭīn means oppressors. When the noun of “qisṭ” is conjugated in single form–“qasaṭa-yaqsiṭu”, that is “jāra-yajūru”, “alama, yalimu”–means oppression. However, when it is conjugated in thulāthī mazīd at bāb-i if‘āl –“aqsaṭa-yaqsiṭu”–means justice and fairness. In this regard, if “qisṭ” is conjugated in bāb-i if‘āl, it means justice, but when it is conjugated as “qasaṭa-yaqsiṭu”, it carries a negative meaning and means oppression and cruelty. Qāsiṭīn is from this family. Qāsiṭīn means the oppressors. The Commander of the Faithful (P.B.U.H.) called them oppressors. But who were they? They were a group of people who apparently had accepted Islam for their own benefits, yet they basically had not accepted the ‘Alawite government. Whatsoever the Commander of the Faithful (P.B.U.H.) did for them were to no avail. Of course, this group had gathered around the Umayyad and Mu‘āwīya bin Abī Ṣufyān–who was the then governor and ruler of the Shām; their most prominent figures were the same Mu‘āwīya, Marwān b. Ḥakam and Walīd b. ‘Uqba. They were in one front and refused to deal and cope with ‘Alī (P.B.U.H.). It is true that on the early days of ‘Alī’s (P.B.U.H.) government, Mughayra b. Shu‘ba and ‘Abdullāh b. ‘Abbās and some others asked the Commander of the Faithful (P.B.U.H.), “O’ ‘Alī! Keep them around for a while” but the Imam (P.B.U.H.) did not accept. They took it as the Imam (P.B.U.H.) had no political insight; however, the subsequent events showed that they were totally wrong. Whatsoever the Commander of the Faithful (P.B.U.H.) did, Mu‘āwīya did not cope with him. This mindset was not one that would approve a government like the ‘Alawite government even though the previous governments had tolerated some.
Since the day Mu‘āwīya converted to Islam until the day when he sought to fight with the Commander of the Faithful (P.B.U.H.), less than thirty years had passed. He and his associates had ruled in Shām for many years, they succeeded in becoming accepted into the society, they had found a position; it was not like those early days of Islam that if they said something, people would have told them as they were newly converted and their opinion was not that much of importance; indeed, they had found a place among people. Therefore, these were a group which mainly did not like the ‘Alawite government and wished to have a totally different government in their own hands; they did so later and the Islamic world tasted their rule as well. In other words, the same Mu‘āwīya, who showed his goodness and was very kind toward some of the companions at the time of competing with the Commander of the Faithful (P.B.U.H.), treated in an abrupt harsh manner and involved in violent confrontations during his reign which extended until the time of Yazīd and the incident of Karbalā and later to the time of Marwān, ‘Abdul Malik, Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf al-Thaqafī and Yūsuf b. ‘Umar al-Thaqafī whom were only one of the fruits of such government. In other words, these governments which one should shudder to mention their unspeakable crimes– just like the government of Ḥajjāj–are the same governments which Mu‘āwīya established and fought for with the Commander of the Faithful (P.B.U.H.). It was clear from the beginning what they were seeking–namely a quite worldly government focused on the selfishness and their relatives; the same issues everyone saw during the Umayyad reign. Of course, I do not intend to enter into any doctrinal and theological discussion. These things I mentioned are all recorded in history–not just in the history of the Shī‘ites but the history of “Ibn al-Athīr”, “Ibn Qutayba” and so on–which I have their texts and are written down and available. These are certain things and have nothing to do with the intellectual differences between the Sunnites and the Shī‘ites.