“THERE IS NOTHING BETWEEN US EXCEPT GOODNESS”?
A CRITICAL RESPONSE TO TWELVERSHIA.NET’S MISUSE OF A SUNNI REPORT
https://www.twelvershia.net/2013/06/02/ali-ra-about-uthman-ra-there-is-nothing-between-us-except-goodness/
TwelverShia.net presents the following statement attributed to Imam Ali:
مَا بَيْنَنَا إِلَّا خَيْرٌ، وَلَكِنْ خَيْرُنَا أَتْبَعُنَا لِهَذَا الدِّينِ
“There is nothing between us except goodness, but the better one among us is the one who follows this religion more closely.”
It then claims that this narration:
1. Completely refutes the Shia understanding of the relationship between Imam Ali and Uthman.
2. Proves that Imam Ali considered Uthman a legitimate religious authority.
3. Disproves the doctrine of Imamah.
4. Shows that there were no serious religious disagreements between them.
Almost every one of these conclusions is an addition imposed upon the report. None of them is contained in the actual words of Imam Ali.
FIRST FACT: THIS IS NOT A SHIA NARRATION
Before discussing its meaning, one essential fact must be established:
This is not a narration from al-Kafi.
It is not from Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih.
It is not from Tahdhib al-Ahkam.
It is not from al-Istibsar.
It is not transmitted through the Shia Imams.
It is not an authenticated Shia report.
The versions cited by TwelverShia.net come from Sunni compilations, including:
Al-Matalib al-Aliyah by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, quoting the Musnad of Musaddad.
Al-Nasikh wa al-Mansukh by Abu Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam.
Other Sunni collections discussing the disagreement between Imam Ali and Uthman concerning Hajj al-Tamattu or combining Hajj and Umrah.
Therefore, TwelverShia.net cannot present this as a Shia “admission.”
It is a Sunni historical report being used as an argument against Shia belief.
A Shia is entitled to examine its chain, wording, context and implications according to normal hadith criticism.
SECOND FACT: THE EXACT CHAIN CITED BY THE ARTICLE IS NOT UNDISPUTED
The chain quoted through Abu Ubayd is:
حَجَّاجٌ، عَنْ شُعْبَةَ، عَنْ قَتَادَةَ، عَنْ جُرَيِّ بْنِ كُلَيْبٍ
Hajjaj → Shu‘bah → Qatadah → Juray ibn Kulayb.
The central disputed narrator is Juray ibn Kulayb.
Ali ibn al-Madini said:
جُرَيُّ بْنُ كُلَيْبٍ مَجْهُولٌ، لَا أَعْلَمُ رَوَى عَنْهُ غَيْرُ قَتَادَةَ
“Juray ibn Kulayb is unknown. I do not know anyone other than Qatadah who narrated from him.”
Abu Hatim al-Razi said:
شَيْخٌ لَا يُحْتَجُّ بِحَدِيثِهِ
“He is a shaykh whose hadith is not independently used as proof.”
Reference:
Al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-Kamal, biography of Juray ibn Kulayb.
Ibn Abi Hatim, al-Jarh wa al-Ta‘dil.
Other Sunni critics were more favourable: al-Ijli called him trustworthy, Ibn Hibban included him among reliable narrators, and Ibn Hajar later described him as “maqbul,” meaning acceptable particularly where corroboration exists. His status is therefore disputed, not unanimously strong.
Consequently, TwelverShia.net’s confident statement that the narration is “at least Hasan” requires qualification.
The exact Juray ibn Kulayb route is not beyond criticism.
However, we do not need to reject the wording completely. Similar wording is reported through supporting Sunni routes, and the central incident is firmly established in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.
Therefore, let us grant the statement for the sake of argument.
Even then, it proves nothing resembling TwelverShia.net’s claims.
THIRD FACT: “MUT‘AH” HERE MEANS HAJJ AL-TAMATTU, NOT TEMPORARY MARRIAGE
The discussion was not about Nikah al-Mut‘ah.
It concerned Hajj al-Tamattu or combining Hajj and Umrah.
The narration says:
رَأَيْتُ عُثْمَانَ يَنْهَى عَنِ الْمُتْعَةِ، وَعَلِيٌّ يَأْمُرُ بِهَا
“I saw Uthman prohibiting Tamattu, while Ali was commanding it.”
The complete Sunni material explains that Uthman was prohibiting the combination of Umrah and Hajj, whereas Imam Ali openly insisted upon following the practice of the Prophet.
TwelverShia.net converts a specific disagreement over Hajj practice into a universal statement about Uthman’s entire caliphate, conduct and legitimacy.
That is an obvious expansion beyond the text.
WHAT DID THE QUESTIONER ACTUALLY SAY?
Juray ibn Kulayb allegedly said to Imam Ali:
إِنَّ بَيْنَكُمَا لَشَرًّا، أَنْتَ تَأْمُرُ بِهَا وَعُثْمَانُ يَنْهَى عَنْهَا
“There must certainly be personal evil or hostility between you two: you command it while Uthman prohibits it.”
Imam Ali reportedly answered:
مَا بَيْنَنَا إِلَّا خَيْرٌ
“There is nothing between us except goodness.”
The question was not:
“Is Uthman the divinely appointed Imam?”
The question was not:
“Were all Uthman’s policies correct?”
The question was not:
“Did Uthman usurp the political right of Ahl al-Bayt?”
The question was not:
“Did Ali recognise Uthman as superior to himself?”
The question was:
“Is this disagreement caused by personal hostility between you?”
Imam Ali denied that his position arose from personal hatred or a private quarrel.
That is fully compatible with the Shia position.
Shia belief does not require Imam Ali to be driven by jealousy, revenge or personal spite.
Imam Ali opposed incorrect policies because of principle, justice and adherence to the Prophet—not because of personal malice.
THE WORD “BUT” DESTROYS TWELVERSHIA.NET’S INTERPRETATION
Imam Ali did not stop at:
مَا بَيْنَنَا إِلَّا خَيْرٌ
“There is nothing between us except goodness.”
He immediately added:
وَلَكِنْ خَيْرُنَا أَتْبَعُنَا لِهَذَا الدِّينِ
“But the better one among us is the one who follows this religion more closely.”
The Arabic word:
وَلَكِنْ
“But”
introduces a qualification and contrast.
Imam Ali was saying:
“Our disagreement is not motivated by personal evil. Nevertheless, religious superiority is determined by who follows the religion more accurately.”
This is not unconditional praise for Uthman.
It places both men’s positions under a religious criterion:
Who is following the Prophet more closely?
The rest of the Sunni narrations provide the answer.
SAHIH AL-BUKHARI EXPLAINS IMAM ALI’S POSITION
Sahih al-Bukhari records:
شَهِدْتُ عُثْمَانَ وَعَلِيًّا، وَعُثْمَانُ يَنْهَى عَنِ الْمُتْعَةِ وَأَنْ يُجْمَعَ بَيْنَهُمَا، فَلَمَّا رَأَى عَلِيٌّ أَهَلَّ بِهِمَا:
لَبَّيْكَ بِعُمْرَةٍ وَحَجَّةٍ
قَالَ:
مَا كُنْتُ لِأَدَعَ سُنَّةَ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لِقَوْلِ أَحَدٍ
Translation:
“I witnessed Uthman and Ali while Uthman was prohibiting Tamattu and the combining of Hajj and Umrah. When Ali saw that, he entered ihram for both and said: ‘Here I am for Umrah and Hajj.’
He then said:
‘I would never abandon the Sunnah of the Prophet because of the statement of anyone.’”
Reference:
Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of Hajj, chapter concerning Tamattu, Qiran and Ifrad.
This is the authentic Sunni context.
Imam Ali deliberately contrasted:
سُنَّةَ النَّبِيِّ
“The Sunnah of the Prophet”
with:
قَوْلِ أَحَدٍ
“The statement of anyone.”
Uthman’s political position did not make his prohibition binding upon Imam Ali.
Imam Ali openly refused to abandon the Prophet’s practice for Uthman’s command.
How can this be converted into proof that Imam Ali regarded Uthman as a divinely binding religious authority?
It proves the opposite.
IMAM ALI PUBLICLY CHALLENGED UTHMAN’S PROHIBITION
Another authentic version says:
اخْتَلَفَ عَلِيٌّ وَعُثْمَانُ وَهُمَا بِعُسْفَانَ فِي الْمُتْعَةِ
“Ali and Uthman disagreed at Usfan concerning Tamattu.”
Imam Ali said:
مَا تُرِيدُ إِلَى أَمْرٍ فَعَلَهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ تَنْهَى عَنْهُ؟
“Why do you intend to prohibit something which the Messenger of Allah performed?”
This is not Imam Ali treating Uthman’s view as equally valid.
Imam Ali identified the Prophetic practice and directly challenged Uthman for prohibiting it.
SAHIH MUSLIM CONTAINS AN EVEN STRONGER EXCHANGE
Sahih Muslim reports that Imam Ali asked Uthman:
مَا تُرِيدُ إِلَى أَمْرٍ فَعَلَهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ تَنْهَى عَنْهُ؟
“Why do you prohibit something which the Messenger of Allah performed?”
Uthman answered:
دَعْنَا مِنْكَ
“Leave us alone.”
Imam Ali replied:
إِنِّي لَا أَسْتَطِيعُ أَنْ أَدَعَكَ
“I cannot leave you alone.”
Imam Ali then openly entered ihram for Hajj and Umrah together.
Ibn Hajar cites this wording while explaining the Bukhari narration.
Read the conversation carefully:
Uthman prohibited a practice.
Imam Ali reminded him that the Prophet performed it.
Uthman told Imam Ali to leave him alone.
Imam Ali refused to remain silent.
Imam Ali then publicly practised what Uthman was prohibiting.
This is not proof of Imam Ali’s submission to Uthman’s religious judgement.
It is evidence of Imam Ali correcting him.
SUNNI COMMENTARY DOES NOT DERIVE “IMAMAH IS DISPROVED”
Even Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, a major Sunni commentator, does not extract TwelverShia.net’s sensational conclusion from the report.
Ibn Hajar explains that Imam Ali feared that people might understand Uthman’s prohibition as an actual declaration that Tamattu was unlawful. Imam Ali therefore publicly demonstrated its permissibility through both speech and action.
Ibn Hajar writes that the incident demonstrates:
إِشَاعَةُ الْعَالِمِ مَا عِنْدَهُ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ وَإِظْهَارُهُ
“A scholar publicly spreading and manifesting the knowledge he possesses.”
He also describes:
مُنَاظَرَةُ وُلَاةِ الْأُمُورِ وَغَيْرِهِمْ فِي تَحْقِيقِهِ لِمَنْ قَوِيَ عَلَى ذَلِكَ لِقَصْدِ مُنَاصَحَةِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ
“Debating rulers and others in order to establish the truth, for one who is capable of doing so, with the intention of sincerely advising the Muslims.”
He further concludes:
أَنَّ الْمُجْتَهِدَ لَا يَلْزَمُ مُجْتَهِدًا آخَرَ بِتَقْلِيدِهِ
“One mujtahid is not obligated to imitate another mujtahid.”
Even according to this Sunni interpretation, the report proves that Imam Ali was not religiously bound to follow Uthman’s ruling.
Ibn Hajar does not say:
“This destroys Shia Imamah.”
He does not say:
“This proves that Ali considered Uthman divinely appointed.”
He does not say:
“This shows that Ali approved all of Uthman’s policies.”
Those are TwelverShia.net’s sectarian additions, not conclusions of the Sunni commentator.
WHAT DOES “GOODNESS” ACTUALLY PROVE?
At most, the statement proves that Imam Ali did not allow a religious disagreement to become personal hatred.
This is entirely consistent with Imam Ali’s character.
A person can:
Reject another man’s political legitimacy;
disagree with his decisions;
consider his ruling contrary to the Prophetic Sunnah;
publicly correct him;
refuse to obey his prohibition;
advise him sincerely;
and still avoid personal malice.
Islamic ethics do not teach that every disagreement must become personal hatred.
The Shia position is not:
“Imam Ali opposed every action of Uthman merely because he hated Uthman personally.”
The Shia position is that Imam Ali possessed the greater religious authority and corrected policies that contradicted the Qur’an, Prophetic Sunnah or justice.
This narration fits that position perfectly:
مَا بَيْنَنَا إِلَّا خَيْرٌ
“There is no personal evil between us.”
وَلَكِنْ خَيْرُنَا أَتْبَعُنَا لِهَذَا الدِّينِ
“But the better one among us is the one who follows this religion more closely.”
And Imam Ali identified the correct standard:
سُنَّةَ النَّبِيِّ
“The Sunnah of the Prophet.”
DOES KINDNESS PROVE POLITICAL LEGITIMACY?
Suppose Imam Ali treated Uthman honourably.
How would that disprove Imamah?
The Prophet Musa advised Pharaoh.
Prophet Ibrahim debated his people respectfully.
Imam Hussain advised members of Yazid’s army.
A religious authority may act with justice and goodness toward a political opponent without recognising that opponent as divinely appointed.
Good treatment is an ethical question.
Imamah is a question of divine and Prophetic appointment.
TwelverShia.net provides no logical bridge between them.
Its argument is:
“Ali did not personally hate Uthman; therefore, Uthman was the rightful divinely approved caliph.”
That conclusion simply does not follow.
THE REPORT DOES NOT SAY WHAT TWELVERSHIA.NET CLAIMS
The report does not say:
عُثْمَانُ إِمَامٌ مَفْرُوضُ الطَّاعَةِ
“Uthman is a divinely appointed Imam whose obedience is obligatory.”
It does not say:
عُثْمَانُ أَحَقُّ بِالْخِلَافَةِ مِنِّي
“Uthman has more right to the caliphate than I do.”
It does not say:
كُلُّ مَا فَعَلَهُ عُثْمَانُ حَقٌّ
“Everything Uthman did was correct.”
It does not say:
لَا حَقَّ لِي فِي الْإِمَامَةِ
“I have no right to the Imamate.”
It does not say:
يَجِبُ عَلَيَّ اتِّبَاعُ رَأْيِ عُثْمَانَ
“I am obligated to follow Uthman’s opinion.”
In fact, Imam Ali did not follow Uthman’s opinion.
He publicly opposed it.
He declared that he would not abandon the Prophet’s Sunnah for anyone’s statement.
Therefore, the article derives from the report the opposite of what the incident demonstrates.
THE ARTICLE’S SELECTIVE QUOTATION
TwelverShia.net places the phrase:
“There is nothing between us except goodness”
in its title.
But it does not give equal emphasis to:
“But the better one among us is the one who follows this religion more closely.”
Nor does its title mention Imam Ali’s stronger declaration:
مَا كُنْتُ لِأَدَعَ سُنَّةَ النَّبِيِّ لِقَوْلِ أَحَدٍ
“I would not abandon the Sunnah of the Prophet because of the statement of anyone.”
Nor does it highlight:
مَا تُرِيدُ إِلَى أَمْرٍ فَعَلَهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ تَنْهَى عَنْهُ؟
“Why do you prohibit something which the Messenger of Allah performed?”
Nor does it highlight Imam Ali’s refusal:
إِنِّي لَا أَسْتَطِيعُ أَنْ أَدَعَكَ
“I cannot leave you alone.”
The article isolates the polite sentence and suppresses the force of the religious correction surrounding it.
That is selective quotation, not serious analysis.
A SHIA ARABIC RESPONSE
Shia Arabic discussions have correctly pointed out that the same report is actually evidence of Imam Ali’s insistence upon Prophetic Sunnah against Uthman’s prohibition.
One Arabic discussion quotes both versions:
مَا بَيْنَنَا إِلَّا خَيْرٌ، وَلَكِنْ خَيْرُنَا أَتْبَعُنَا لِهَذَا الدِّينِ
“There is no personal evil between us, but the better of us is the one who follows this religion more closely.”
And:
إِنَّ أَفْضَلَنَا فِي هَذَا الْأَمْرِ أَشَدُّنَا اتِّبَاعًا لَهُ
“The most excellent one among us in this matter is the one who follows it most strictly.”
The Shia response does not need to deny the narration. Its complete context establishes that Imam Ali considered adherence to the Prophet—not Uthman’s political command—the decisive authority.
FINAL VERDICT
First:
This is a Sunni report, not a Shia narration or Shia admission.
Second:
The exact chain through Juray ibn Kulayb is disputed. Ali ibn al-Madini called him unknown, and Abu Hatim said his hadith was not independently used as proof. Other Sunni critics accepted him or accepted his reports with support.
Third:
Even granting the exact wording as Hasan, it merely denies personal hostility as the motive behind Imam Ali’s opposition.
Fourth:
The sentence immediately qualifies itself:
وَلَكِنْ خَيْرُنَا أَتْبَعُنَا لِهَذَا الدِّينِ
“But the better one among us is the one who follows this religion more closely.”
Fifth:
Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim explain that Imam Ali considered Uthman’s prohibition contrary to a practice of the Prophet.
Sixth:
Imam Ali openly refused to comply and said:
مَا كُنْتُ لِأَدَعَ سُنَّةَ النَّبِيِّ لِقَوْلِ أَحَدٍ
“I would never abandon the Sunnah of the Prophet because of anyone’s statement.”
Seventh:
When Uthman told him:
دَعْنَا مِنْكَ
“Leave us alone,”
Imam Ali replied:
إِنِّي لَا أَسْتَطِيعُ أَنْ أَدَعَكَ
“I cannot leave you alone.”
Eighth:
Nothing in the narration mentions divine appointment, political succession or the validity of Uthman’s caliphate.
Ninth:
Good personal conduct toward Uthman cannot logically erase Imam Ali’s religious and political disagreements with him.
Tenth:
Even Ibn Hajar explains the event as Imam Ali publicly correcting a ruler and refusing to imitate another mujtahid—not as a refutation of Shia Imamah.
Therefore, the honest conclusion is:
Imam Ali did not oppose Uthman because of a petty personal grudge.
He opposed Uthman’s prohibition because he considered it contrary to the practice of the Messenger of Allah.
He remained ethical in personal conduct while uncompromising in defending the Prophetic Sunnah.
This does not refute Shia Imamah.
It demonstrates why the Ummah needed the religious authority of Imam Ali.
Imam Ali and Uthman: "Nothing Except Goodness"?
Primary Category :
Secondary Category :
Loading comments...