A question about Muawiya

[Ijtaba]

Salaam.

I have a question regarding Muawiya. As I had previous discussions on this forum regarding the battles between Imam Ali (a.s) & Muawiya, I was told that at time there was confusion & many Sahabas avoided the battle not knowing who is on the right path. But later, Ahlul Sunnah unanimously agreed that Imam Ali (a.s) was on Haq and Muawiya was on Baatil.

I want to know when & how did Ahlul Sunnah realize that Imam Ali (a.s) was on Haq & that he (a.s) is rightly 4th Caliph (because during that time Muawiya & some Sahabas refused to give bayah to Imam Ali a.s)

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Salaam,

As per Ahlusunnah, Muawiya(ra) was on ijtihadi mistake. And Ali(ra) was Closer to Haq from the other group(of muawiya).

People who were aware of the hadith that the group closer to haq will fight the khawarij , when they realized that it was Ali(ra) they interpreted that Ali(ra) was closer to haq.

[Ijtaba]

Wasalaam.

So you're saying that when Imam Ali (a.s) fought khawarij people realized that Imam Ali (a.s) was closer to Haq? If it is as you say then did those Sahabas who had not pledge allegiance give bayah to Imam Ali (a.s)? And did Muawiya after realizing that Imam Ali (a.s) is on Haq give bayah to Imam Ali(a.s)?

Secondly, what do you mean by closer to the Truth? I thought people were either on Haq or Baatil. By your statement it seems like both Imam Ali (a.s) & Muawiya were on Haq but Imam Ali (a.s) was much closer to Haq than Muawiya. If both were on Haq then why the fighting? I am asking this question because fighting/killing a Muslim makes one kafir & this is a serious matter.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Wasalaam.

So you're saying that when Imam Ali (a.s) fought khawarij people realized that Imam Ali (a.s) was closer to Haq? If it is as you say then did those Sahabas who had not pledge allegiance give bayah to Imam Ali (a.s)? And did Muawiya after realizing that Imam Ali (a.s) is on Haq give bayah to Imam Ali(a.s)?

No, please re-read what I said. I said people who KNEW the hadith and INTERPRETED IT LIKE THAT.

Secondly, what do you mean by closer to the Truth? I thought people were either on Haq or Baatil. By your statement it seems like both Imam Ali (a.s) & Muawiya were on Haq but Imam Ali (a.s) was much closer to Haq than Muawiya. If both were on Haq then why the fighting? I am asking this question because fighting/killing a Muslim makes one kafir & this is a serious matter.

You have poor memory, weren't you the one who said this:

According to the hadith of Prophet (s.a.w.w) the group (i.e. army of Imam Ali a.s) which would fight Khawarij would be more nearer to the truth than another group (i.e. army of Muawiya).

https://forum.twelvershia.net/sahabah-ahlulbayt/did-the-sahabah-all-fight-each-other/60/

As for the argument you are raising them, these have been already answered in the forum, so please try to search those threads, since you have a poor memory.

[Ijtaba]

No, please re-read what I said. I said people who KNEW the hadith and INTERPRETED IT LIKE THAT.

Okay. So when did those who knew the hadith & interpreted like that (Imam Ali (a.s) being more closer to the truth & being rightly 4th Caliph of Ummah) become the viewpoint of Ahlul Sunnah? If assuming Muawiya & Banu Ummayah never knew that hadith or knew but interpreted differently, why did their view of (i.e. Rejection of Imam Ali's Caliphate) not become viewpoint of Ahlul Sunnah considering they were in position of Authority as Caliphs of Ummah?

You have poor memory, weren't you the one who said this:

According to the hadith of Prophet (s.a.w.w) the group (i.e. army of Imam Ali a.s) which would fight Khawarij would be more nearer to the truth than another group (i.e. army of Muawiya).

How would you interpret this hadith?

If both parties were on Haq then making Muawiya made ijtihadi mistake argument seems invalid as according to the hadith Muawiya was on Haq.

Lastly, if both parties were on Haq then why did Muslims suffer huge loss in terms of lives, properties & division of Ummah?

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Okay. So when did those who knew the hadith & interpreted like that (Imam Ali (a.s) being more closer to the truth & being rightly 4th Caliph of Ummah) become the viewpoint of Ahlul Sunnah?

a good portion of Ahlussunnah were from those who gave pledge of allegiance to Ali(ra) and fought by his side. So they considered him Rightly guided caliph from beginning of his Caliphate.

(i). The classical Shia scholar al-Shareef al-Murtada (d.436 AH) says in his book “al-Shafi fil-Imamah” 3/113:

ومعلوم أن جمهور أصحابه وجلهم كانوا ممن يعتقد إمامة من تقدم عليه ع وفيهم من يفضلهم على جميع الأمة

[And it is known that the vast majority of his (`Ali’s) companions used to believe in the Imamah of those who preceded him (meaning the first three), and among them were those who favored them over the entire nation.]

(ii). Esteemed Shia scholar at-Tabarsi in his book “Khatimatul Mustadrak” (5/18) said:

ومن هنا يعلم: ان الذين قتلوا مع امير المؤمنين (عليه السلام) في الحروب الثلاثة كانوا شهداء وفيهم كثير ممن كانوا يتولونهما

Footnote says:

أي ممن كانوا يتولون الخلفيتن: الاول، والثاني
“and from this it is known: that those who fought along with commander of faithful (alaihi salam) in 3 battles (Jamal;Nahravan; Siffin) and became a martyrs, and between them were a lot of (people) who befriended them”.

Footnote:

Mean those who befriended two caliphs: First and Second. (“Khatimatul Mustadrak” 5/18).

(iii). Shia Scholar Muhmmad Taqi Tustari stated:

و يمكن القول بأنّ أكثرهم و إن كانوا غير مستبصرين،إلا أنّهم قاصرين و كانت نيّاتهم حسنة

Majority of Ali’s(ra) army were not Mustabsireen(Shia). [Qamoos al-Rijaal, vol 1, page 33].

If you mean those Sahaba who didn't consider give him pledge of allegiance, then I think you mean party of Mu'awiyah(ra). They withheld their bayah with their demand. Im don't know,  if they were aware of that hadeeth or not, and whether they interpreted it in that manner.

 

If assuming Muawiya & Banu Ummayah never knew that hadith or knew but interpreted differently, why did their view of (i.e. Rejection of Imam Ali's Caliphate) not become viewpoint of Ahlul Sunnah considering they were in position of Authority as Caliphs of Ummah?

Ahlusunnah as the name are the people who are upon Sunnah of Prophet(saws) - and as per the authentic ahadeeth of Prophet(saws) Ali(ra) was rightly guided caliph as Prophetic Caliphate was for 30 years after Prophet(s). In addition to the point i already mentioned that a good portion of Ahlusunnah from beginning believed in caliphate of Ali(ra). Also since ahadeeth spread, thus it became a standard opinion among Ahlusunnah.

How would you interpret this hadith?

If both parties were on Haq then making Muawiya made ijtihadi mistake argument seems invalid as according to the hadith Muawiya was on Haq.

Ali's(ra) party was closer to haq , the difference here between party of muawiya(ra) and Ali(ra), is regarding  closeness to haq. This can be explained as the demand of muawiya(ra) was correct and his intention wasnt bad, but his decision of not accepting the authority of Ali(ra) due to his demand wasn't correct, hence it was his ijtihadi mistake.

Lastly, if both parties were on Haq then why did Muslims suffer huge loss in terms of lives, properties & division of Ummah?

Already, explained the reason.  Ummah for short time was politically divided, it wasn't religious devision keep this in mind. And this division ended with the prophesy of Prophet(s) , when Hasan(ra) handed over caliphate to muawiya(ra).

Also for your benefit to understand an ijtihadi mistake, take the example of those soldiers who were stationed on the mountain during battle of uhud, they made an ijtihadi mistake, due to which many sahaba got killed and muslims lost a battle which they were going to win.

[Bolani Muslim]

Adding to the aforementioned, I will include the perspective of a respected Imami marja, Ayatullah Murtaza Rizvi. He describes two early Islamic Shia groups, the dominant Wisaayatites and the miniscule Wilaayatites. Only a handful of Companions (Salman, Miqdad, and Abu Dhar) understood the wilaaya as a divine command. Thus, during the fitna between the Uthmanites (Shia of Uthman) versus the Alawites (Shia of Ali), all the Companions, Ahlulbayt, and tabi'een supporting the Alids were Wisaayatites.


In this early period, two mainstream (aka proto-Sunni) Islamic currents existed, Alawism and Uthmanism. The Alawites were predominantly Iraqi and Persian, whereas the Uthmanites were predominantly Syrian. Over time, the two currents coalesced into Sunni Islam.


A prime example of a Wisaayatite is Imam Nisayi, author of one of the six books, Sunan Nasai. He was martyred in Syria by Nasibis as a result of his Shi'ism, defending Imam Ali. A clear-cut Sunni and true Shiite.


The point is, the soliders of Imam Ali in Jamal, Sifeen, Nahrawan, etc were composed entirely of proto-"Sunnis," not Imamis or Rafidis. Their ideology would eventually evolve into mainstream Sunni Islam.



The website of the Ayatullah:
https://binesheno.com/


His book:
https://ebookshia.com/books/view/1110مکتب+در+فرایند+تهاجمات+تاریخی+%28ولایتیان+و+وصایتیان%29+-+بررسی+کتاب+مکتب+در+فرایند+تکامل+نوشته+مدرسی+طباطبایی


The martyrdom of Imam Nasai:
http://www.abuaaliyah.com/2018/08/11/the-assassination-of-imam-an-nasai-and-his-bayyan/

[Bolani Muslim]

I ran out of time to edit, so I'll add my edited comment here:

Adding to the aforementioned, I will include the perspective of a respected Imami marja, Ayatullah Murtaza Rizvi. He describes two early Islamic Shia groups, the dominant Wisaayatites and the miniscule Wilaayatites. Only a handful of Companions - Salman, Miqdad, and Abu Dhar (the Wilaayatites) understood the wilaaya as a divine command. Thus, during the fitna between the Uthmanites (Shia of Uthman) versus the Alawites (Shia of Ali), all the Companions, Ahlulbayt, and tabi'een supporting the Alids were Wisaayatites.


In this early period, two mainstream (aka proto-Sunni) Islamic currents existed, Alawism and Uthmanism. The Alawites were predominantly Iraqi and Persian, whereas the Uthmanites were predominantly Syrian. Over time, the two currents coalesced into Sunni Islam.


A prime example of a Wisaayatite is Imam Nisayi, author of one of the six books, Sunan Nasai. He was martyred in Syria by Nasibis as a result of his Shi'ism, defending Imam Ali. A clear-cut Sunni and true Shiite.

The point is, the soliders of Imam Ali in Jamal, Sifeen, Nahrawan, etc were composed of proto-"Sunnis," not Imamis nor Rafidis. Their ideology would eventually evolve into mainstream Sunni Islam.

If you look at the major scholars, like the authors of the six books, the four Imams, etc, it is obvious that they were closer to Wisaayatism than Uthmanism or Wisaayatism. The descendents of the Ahlulbayt themselves were Wisaayatites (proto-Sunnis), such as Muhammad b. Ja'far Deebaaj and Shaheed Zayd who enjoyed warm relations with Abu Hanifa.

It is unfair to hyperfocus on the Uthmanites as proto-Sunni, when the Wisaayatis were closer to Sunnism and better represent the sect.


The website of the Ayatullah:
https://binesheno.com/


His book:
https://ebookshia.com/books/view/1110مکتب+در+فرایند+تهاجمات+تاریخی+%28ولایتیان+و+وصایتیان%29+-+بررسی+کتاب+مکتب+در+فرایند+تکامل+نوشته+مدرسی+طباطبایی


The martyrdom of Imam Nasai:
http://www.abuaaliyah.com/2018/08/11/the-assassination-of-imam-an-nasai-and-his-bayyan/

[MuslimK]

^ that is a very interesting opinion by a Twelver Shia scholar.

[Ijtaba]

I still haven't got the answer which I am looking for. What I mean was when did Ahlul Sunnah realize or agreed on Imam Ali (a.s) being on Haq and Muawiya being wrong by making ijtihadi mistake. I asked when and how. You answered the "How" part by saying that it was only when Imam Ali (a.s) fought Khawarij that people realized that Imam Ali (a.s) was closer to the truth. About the "When" part it still remains unanswered. During Muawiya's and Banu Ummayah's reign was there ijma of Ahlus Sunnah that Imam Ali (a.s) was on Haq? or did this happen during the reign of Banu Abbas? or did this happen much later? 

a good portion of Ahlussunnah were from those who gave pledge of allegiance to Ali(ra) and fought by his side. So they considered him Rightly guided caliph from beginning of his Caliphate.

But TS article states otherwise:

The majority of the Sahabah, as demonstrated, refrained from participating in the conflict between Ali and Mu’awiyah...

https://www.twelvershia.net/2018/09/10/did-the-sahabah-all-fight-each-other/

  Ahlusunnah as the name are the people who are upon Sunnah of Prophet(saws) - and as per the authentic ahadeeth of Prophet(saws) Ali(ra) was rightly guided caliph as Prophetic Caliphate was for 30 years after Prophet(s). In addition to the point i already mentioned that a good portion of Ahlusunnah from beginning believed in caliphate of Ali(ra). Also since ahadeeth spread, thus it became a standard opinion among Ahlusunnah.

Talking about the term 'Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah', can you tell me how this term originated? I heard that it was Muawiya who coined this name but I think it is rejected because someone told me that it was ibn Abbas (r.a) who was the first person to give this name.

Ali's(ra) party was closer to haq , the difference here between party of muawiya(ra) and Ali(ra), is regarding  closeness to haq. This can be explained as the demand of muawiya(ra) was correct and his intention wasnt bad, but his decision of not accepting the authority of Ali(ra) due to his demand wasn't correct, hence it was his ijtihadi mistake.
Already, explained the reason.  Ummah for short time was politically divided, it wasn't religious devision keep this in mind. And this division ended with the prophesy of Prophet(s) , when Hasan(ra) handed over caliphate to muawiya(ra).

I know that the division was not based on religion but it was based on the assasination of Uthman. But the division caused a lot of damage to Ummah in terms of lives, property and hatred.

Also for your benefit to understand an ijtihadi mistake, take the example of those soldiers who were stationed on the mountain during battle of uhud, they made an ijtihadi mistake, due to which many sahaba got killed and muslims lost a battle which they were going to win.

I think this is a bad example because those Sahabas disobeyed Prophet's (s.a.w.w) orders. Ijtihad can only be done when there is no clear cut evidence in Quran or Sunnah (Hadiths). There can be no ijtihad in disobeying Prophet (s.a.w.w) commandments and orders.

[Ijtaba]

I ran out of time to edit, so I'll add my edited comment here:

Adding to the aforementioned, I will include the perspective of a respected Imami marja, Ayatullah Murtaza Rizvi. He describes two early Islamic Shia groups, the dominant Wisaayatites and the miniscule Wilaayatites. Only a handful of Companions - Salman, Miqdad, and Abu Dhar (the Wilaayatites) understood the wilaaya as a divine command. Thus, during the fitna between the Uthmanites (Shia of Uthman) versus the Alawites (Shia of Ali), all the Companions, Ahlulbayt, and tabi'een supporting the Alids were Wisaayatites.


In this early period, two mainstream (aka proto-Sunni) Islamic currents existed, Alawism and Uthmanism. The Alawites were predominantly Iraqi and Persian, whereas the Uthmanites were predominantly Syrian. Over time, the two currents coalesced into Sunni Islam.


A prime example of a Wisaayatite is Imam Nisayi, author of one of the six books, Sunan Nasai. He was martyred in Syria by Nasibis as a result of his Shi'ism, defending Imam Ali. A clear-cut Sunni and true Shiite.

The point is, the soliders of Imam Ali in Jamal, Sifeen, Nahrawan, etc were composed of proto-"Sunnis," not Imamis nor Rafidis. Their ideology would eventually evolve into mainstream Sunni Islam.

If you look at the major scholars, like the authors of the six books, the four Imams, etc, it is obvious that they were closer to Wisaayatism than Uthmanism or Wisaayatism. The descendents of the Ahlulbayt themselves were Wisaayatites (proto-Sunnis), such as Muhammad b. Ja'far Deebaaj and Shaheed Zayd who enjoyed warm relations with Abu Hanifa.

It is unfair to hyperfocus on the Uthmanites as proto-Sunni, when the Wisaayatis were closer to Sunnism and better represent the sect.


The website of the Ayatullah:
https://binesheno.com/


His book:
https://ebookshia.com/books/view/1110مکتب+در+فرایند+تهاجمات+تاریخی+%28ولایتیان+و+وصایتیان%29+-+بررسی+کتاب+مکتب+در+فرایند+تکامل+نوشته+مدرسی+طباطبایی


The martyrdom of Imam Nasai:
http://www.abuaaliyah.com/2018/08/11/the-assassination-of-imam-an-nasai-and-his-bayyan/

All I am asking is when did Imam Ali (a.s) being on Haq become predominant view of Ahlus Sunnah because as you said there were two groups in Ahlus Sunnah:

- First group which loved Muawiya & Banu Ummayah and hated Imam Ali (a.s) - the example of Nasai & Syrians.

- Second group which believed that Imam Ali (a.s) was on Haq and Muawiya made ijtihadi mistake - present day Ahlus Sunnah.

[Bolani Muslim]

I believe Nasibism fizzled out in Syria and Egypt in the 4th century, though I have not read about its details. It is important to keep in mind that ideology and self-identity were interconnected and convoluted, such as a Syria layman preferring Muawiya over Ali due to his  Syrian identity, not theology.

If by Sunnism you mean the theology, then I think it is safe to say that, predominantly, proto-Sunni scholars since the beginning preferred Ali and were not Nasibi. However, if by Sunnism you mean all Sunnis, including laymen, than the ~4th century AH.

I think what is key about this point is that, since the inception of proto-Sunni Islam, Ahlulbaytism existed. Outside forces did not create this love for the family of the Prophet (p). It is true, some proto-Sunnis were Nasibis, but it was not due to theology, it was due to politics and regional identity.

This is in contrast to early Imamism wherein many, if not majority of the early Imamites, believed that Allah looks like a handsome 30 year old man and is unaware of the future. Both the scholars and laymen believed in this purely due to theology.

When analyzing history, we must account for identity, politics, theology, education level, region, local history, etc. For example, not all Nasibis nor Wisayatites were equal. A Syrian Christian Uthmanite-influenced peasant who dislikes Imam Ali because he is proud of his heritage is unequal to a Kharijite who curses Ali due to warped theology. Similarly, a Persian Zoroastrianism Wisayatite-influenced layman in Herat who likes Ali due to his heritage is unequal to Imam Nasai who sacrificed his life for his love of Imam Ali.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

I still haven't got the answer which I am looking for. What I mean was when did Ahlul Sunnah realize or agreed on Imam Ali (a.s) being on Haq and Muawiya being wrong by making ijtihadi mistake. I asked when and how. You answered the "How" part by saying that it was only when Imam Ali (a.s) fought Khawarij that people realized that Imam Ali (a.s) was closer to the truth. About the "When" part it still remains unanswered. During Muawiya's and Banu Ummayah's reign was there ijma of Ahlus Sunnah that Imam Ali (a.s) was on Haq? or did this happen during the reign of Banu Abbas? or did this happen much later?

Tell me what do you mean by Ahlus-Sunnah. Because i have already answered this question. For example those from Ahlus-Sunnah who were with Ali(ra) and fought along his side, for them he was closer to haq from beginning. The prophesy just added to it. Similar to the Prophethood of Prophet(s), people believed in him before they saw his prophesies coming true, that would just add to their belief. That doesn't mean they didn't believe in his Prophethood prior to that. Same goes with believing Ali was closer to haq for Ahlusunnah who were with him. As for those from Ahlusunnah who weren't sure that who was closer to haq, some of them found out that when Ali(ra) fought khawarij. Some others from Ahlusunnah didn't   interpret this in this fashion, due to their ijtihad. However, the Scholars who came later made this a consensual issue, basing their view on ahadeeth, that party of Ali(ra) was closer to haq. And I'm sure which scholar was first to state this.

But TS article states otherwise:

You don't remember what you yourself quoted in the past, and keep asking questions which were already answered. And now you can't even differentiate between Sahaba and Ahlusunnah? Eventhough Ahlusunnah includes Sahaba, but not everyone from Ahlsunnah is Sahabi. Sahaba is a specific term, Ahlusunnah is general one, which includes Taba'een too.

Talking about the term 'Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah', can you tell me how this term originated? I heard that it was Muawiya who coined this name but I think it is rejected because someone told me that it was ibn Abbas (r.a) who was the first person to give this name.

even i heard and read Ibn Abbas(ra) used this term.

[Ijtaba]

I believe Nasibism fizzled out in Syria and Egypt in the 4th century, though I have not read about its details. It is important to keep in mind that ideology and self-identity were interconnected and convoluted, such as a Syria layman preferring Muawiya over Ali due to his  Syrian identity, not theology.

Why did Syrians prefer Muawiya above Imam Ali (a.s) whereas Muawiya clearly said:

"By the oath of Allah, (I do not regard myself to be an equal to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu) I fully understand that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is superior to me and more rightful of the matter (caliphate) than me." (Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah vol. 8 pg. 169)

Was it because of the battle which took place at Siffin? If it was due to that reason, didn't Syrians know that Prophet (s.a.w.w) promised Imam Ali (a.s) that none but a believer would love Ali (as) & none but a hypocrite would hate Ali (a.s)?

If by Sunnism you mean the theology, then I think it is safe to say that, predominantly, proto-Sunni scholars since the beginning preferred Ali and were not Nasibi. However, if by Sunnism you mean all Sunnis, including laymen, than the ~4th century AH.

Okay. May I know what happened in 4th century that led to this i.e all Ahlus Sunnah accepting Imam Ali (a.s) as 4th Caliph as opposed to Banu Ummayah & Syrians?

I think what is key about this point is that, since the inception of proto-Sunni Islam, Ahlulbaytism existed. Outside forces did not create this love for the family of the Prophet (p). It is true, some proto-Sunnis were Nasibis, but it was not due to theology, it was due to politics and regional identity.

But shouldn't Islam be preferred over political and regional identity? I would prefer my religion (Islam) over my country, tribe & family.

This is in contrast to early Imamism wherein many, if not majority of the early Imamites, believed that Allah looks like a handsome 30 year old man and is unaware of the future. Both the scholars and laymen believed in this purely due to theology.

Any evidence (or references) of your above statements?

When analyzing history, we must account for identity, politics, theology, education level, region, local history, etc. For example, not all Nasibis nor Wisayatites were equal. A Syrian Christian Uthmanite-influenced peasant who dislikes Imam Ali because he is proud of his heritage is unequal to a Kharijite who curses Ali due to warped theology. Similarly, a Persian Zoroastrianism Wisayatite-influenced layman in Herat who likes Ali due to his heritage is unequal to Imam Nasai who sacrificed his life for his love of Imam Ali.

I believe Islam to be above all identity, politics, theology, education level, region, local history, etc. Pakistani Muslim, Indian Muslim and Afghani Muslim should not hate one another based on their country but love one another as brothers due to their believing in same religion. If anyone prefers their country over Islam then I disassociate myself from him.

At-Tirmidhi relates from Allah's Messenger sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam that he said:

"Let people stop boasting about their forefathers who have died, who are merely fire for the Hellfire; or they will certainly be more insignificant with Allah than the beetle which roles dung with its nose. Allah has removed from you the party-spirit of the days of jahiliyyah and the boasting about one's forefathers. Indeed a person is either a pious Believer or a wretched sinner. All of mankind are the children of Adam, and Adam was created from clay."

Hasan: Related by Abu Dawud (no. 5116) and At-Tirmidhi (no. 4233) from Abu Hurayrah radhiallahu 'anhu. It was authenticated by Ibn Taymiyyah in Kitabu'l-Iqtida (p. 35)

The Prophet sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam also said:

"Indeed there is no excellence for an arab over a non-arab, nor a non-arab over an arab, nor a white person over a black one, nor a black person over a white one, except through taqwa (piety and obedience to Allah)."

Sahih: Related by Ahmad (5/411) and it was authenticated by Ibn Taymiyyah in Kitabu'l-Iqtida (p. 69)

[Ijtaba]

Tell me what do you mean by Ahlus-Sunnah. Because i have already answered this question. For example those from Ahlus-Sunnah who were with Ali(ra) and fought along his side, for them he was closer to haq from beginning. The prophesy just added to it. Similar to the Prophethood of Prophet(s), people believed in him before they saw his prophesies coming true, that would just add to their belief. That doesn't mean they didn't believe in his Prophethood prior to that. Same goes with believing Ali was closer to haq for Ahlusunnah who were with him. As for those from Ahlusunnah who weren't sure that who was closer to haq, some of them found out that when Ali(ra) fought khawarij. Some others from Ahlusunnah didn't   interpret this in this fashion, due to their ijtihad. However, the Scholars who came later made this a consensual issue, basing their view on ahadeeth, that party of Ali(ra) was closer to haq. And I'm sure which scholar was first to state this.

 You don't remember what you yourself quoted in the past, and keep asking questions which were already answered. And now you can't even differentiate between Sahaba and Ahlusunnah? Eventhough Ahlusunnah includes Sahaba, but not everyone from Ahlsunnah is Sahabi. Sahaba is a specific term, Ahlusunnah is general one, which includes Taba'een too...

I thought Ahlus Sunnah preferred Sahabah over Taba'een. If two opposite reports/opinions (1 from Sahaba & 1 from Taba'i) come to Ahlus Sunnah then they would prefer the report/opinion of Sahaba over Taba'i. Ahlus Sunnah took their religion from Sahabas as they believe Sahabas were closest to the Prophet (s.a.w.w) and took their religion directly from Prophet (s.a.w.w).

My question is if many Sahabas had pledged allegiance to Imam Ali (a.s) so why didn't they obey their Ameer (a.s) by joining his (a.s) army? Obeying Ulul Amr is compulsory even in al-Quran. In case of differences with the Ulul Amr, one must look for Quran and Sunnah. If one looks in Sunnah then Prophet (s.a.w.w) commanded Believers to obey the Ruler in all circumstances unless the Ruler commands to do shirk in which case there is no obedience to the Ruler.

Sahabas gave excuse for not joining the army because they did not want to fight their brethren Muslims (Syrians). Then one may ask why did Imam Ali (a.s) fight Muawiya and Syrians as Imam Ali (a.s) was fully aware of the hadith where Prophet (s.a.w.w) stated that fighting/killing Muslim is Kufr.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

I thought Ahlus Sunnah preferred Sahabah over Taba'een. If two opposite reports/opinions (1 from Sahaba & 1 from Taba'i) come to Ahlus Sunnah then they would prefer the report/opinion of Sahaba over Taba'i.

True.

My question is if many Sahabas had pledged allegiance to Imam Ali (a.s) so why didn't they obey their Ameer (a.s) by joining his (a.s) army? Obeying Ulul Amr is compulsory even in al-Quran. In case of differences with the Ulul Amr, one must look for Quran and Sunnah. If one looks in Sunnah then Prophet (s.a.w.w) commanded Believers to obey the Ruler in all circumstances unless the Ruler commands to do shirk in which case there is no obedience to the Ruler.

This has been explained to you when you used to raise these arguments, seems you have a habbit of repeating the same shubuhaat which were already answered. If you continue doing the same, I would prefer to link those old threads instead of wasting my time answering the same thing.

Obeying Ulil Amr is obligatory but its conditional, same as obeying parents is obligatory, and when there appears to be a difference with Ameer, then what needs to be referred is Allah and his Prophet(S). See Quran 4:59.  Sahaba were aware of the hadith of Prophet(S) that during the time of fitan.

h:

قالالحسن: ان عليا بعث إلى محمد بن مسلمة فجيء به فقال ما خلفك عن هذا الأمر قال دفع اليبن عمك يعني النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم سيفا فقال:” قاتل به ما قوتل العدو فإذارأيت الناس يقتل بعضهم بعضا فاعمد به إلى صخرة فاضربه بها ثم الزم بيتك حتى تأتيك منيةقاضية أو يد خاطئة”، قال خلوا عنه” . مسند أحمد بن حنبل : ج 4 ص: 225 ،وقالالشيخ شعيب الأرنؤوط:حسن بمجموع طرقه
al-Hassan ibn ‘Ali (ra) said: ‘Ali called for Muhammad ibn Muslimah so he was brought to him and he asked: “Why not participate in this?” Ibn Muslimah said: Your cousin (Prophet) gave me this sword and said: “Fight with it as long as you are fighting the enemy but when you see the people kill each other then seek a rock and strike it then retire to your home until you are dead or killed by a hand.” ‘Ali then told his men: “Leave him be.”
Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 4/225, Shu’ayb al-Arnaout said: all its chains are Hasan.
قالتعديسة بنت أهبان : لما جاء علي بن أبي طالب ههنا البصرة دخل على أبي . فقال يا أبامسلمألا تعينني على هؤلاء القوم ؟ قال بلى . قال فدعا جارية له . فقال ياجارية أخرجي سيفي. قال فأخرجته . فسل منه قدر شبر فإذا هوخشب . فقال:” إن خليلي وابن عمك صلى اللهعليه و سلم عهد إلي إذا كانت الفتنة بين المسلمين . فأتخذ سيفا من خشب” . فإنشئت خرجت معك . قال لاحاجة لي فيك ولا في سيفك .سنن ابن ماجة كتاب الفتن ج 2 ص:1309،قال الشيخ الألباني:حسن صحيح،ومسند أحمد ج 5ص: 69، و ج6 ص: 393 وقال شعيب الأرنؤوط: حديث حسن
‘Udaysah bint Ahban (ra) said: when ‘Ali ibn abi Talib came to us in al-Basarah he entered on my father and said: “O Abu Muslim will you not aid me?” He said: yes, then he told his female servant: “bring me the sword” and she did and when he took it out of its sheath it turned out to be a wooden sword, so he told ‘Ali: “Khalili(my beloved companion) who is your cousin(means the Prophet SAWS) may peace be upon him made me give him an oath that when the Fitnah happens I use this wooden sword, so if you want I will accompany you.” ‘Ali said: “I need not your help nor your sword.”
Sunan ibn Majah Kitab al-Fitan 2/1309 al-Albani said: Hasan Sahih, Musnad Ahmad 5/69 & 6/393 al-Arnaout said: Hasan.

قال عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْعَاصِ : بَيْنَمَا نَحْنُ حَوْلَرَسُولِ اللَّهِ ، صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، إِذَا ذَكَرَ الْفِتْنَةَ أَوْذُكِرَتْ عِنْدَهُ ، فَقُلْتُ : كَيْفَ أَفْعَلُ ، جَعَلَنِي اللَّهُ فِدَاكَ ؟ قَالَ: ” الْزَمْ بَيْتَكَ ، وَامْلِكْ عَلَيْكَ لِسَانَكَ”.
حديث حسن :أخرجه أبو داود (4343) ، والنسائي في ” عمل اليوم” (205) ، وابن المبارك في ” مسنده ” (257) ، وابن أبي شيبة (15/9ـ10) ، وأحمد (2/212) ، والطحاوي في ” بيان مشكل حديث النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم- ” (2/67 ـ 68) ، وابن السني في ” عمل اليوم (439) ، والحاكم (4/282 ـ238) ، وأبو عمرو الداني في ” الفتن ” (117) ، والطبراني في ” كبيره” (ج 13 رقم 4/قطعة من الجزء الثالث عشر) ، والخطابي في ” العزلة “(ص 63 ـ 64)
‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amro ibn al-‘Aas (ra): While we were sitting around the Prophet SAWS they mentioned the Fitnah so I asked him: “May Allah make me a sacrifice for you, what am I to do?” he SAWS said: “remain in your house and guard your tongue.”
Hadith is Hasan from Abu Dawood #4343, Ahmad in his Musnad 2/212, Ibn al-Mubarak in his Musnad p257 and others.

الرسول-عليه الصلاة و السلام – قال : (( ستكون فتنة يكون المضطجع فيها خيرا من الجالس ،والجالس خيرا من القائم ،و القائم خيرا من الماشي ،و الماشي خيرا من الساعي ، )) فقالله أبو بكرة : يا رسول الله ما تأمرني ؟ قال : (( من كانت له إبل فليلتحق بإبله ،ومن كانت له غنم فليلتحق بغنمه ،و من كانت له أرض فليلتحق بأرضه ،)) فقال له أبو بكرة: فمن لم يكن له شيء من ذلك ؟ قال : (( فليعمد إلي سيفه فليضربه بحده على حرة ، ثملينجوا ما استطاع النجاء )) .رواه أبو داود في سننه ج4 ص 99 و صححه الشيخ الألباني
Abu Bakrah ibn al-Harith (ra): The Prophet SAWS said: “There will be a Fitnah in which the man who sleeps on his side is better than the man who sits down, and the one who sits is better than the one who stands, and the one who stands is better than the one who walks, and the one who walks is better than the one who marches to war.” So Abu Bakrah said: “O Prophet of Allah, what do you order me?” He replied: “He who has camels let him go take care of them and he who has sheep then let him go take care of them and he who has a land then let him go and take care of it.” Abu Bakrah said: “What about the one who has none of this?” He replied: “Then let him draw his sword and strike its tip against a rock, then keep away and save himself as much as he could.”
Abu Dawood in his Sunan 4/99, al-Albani said Sahih.

Then one may ask why did Imam Ali (a.s) fight Muawiya and Syrians as Imam Ali (a.s) was fully aware of the hadith where Prophet (s.a.w.w) stated that fighting/killing Muslim is Kufr.

Because he knew the proper understanding of Hadith, unlike the interpretation of Khawarij.
See this response:
https://forum.twelvershia.net/sahabah-ahlulbayt/imam-ali-(a-s)-fighting-muawiya/msg26114/#msg26114

[Ijtaba]

...This has been explained to you when you used to raise these arguments, seems you have a habbit of repeating the same shubuhaat which were already answered. If you continue doing the same, I would prefer to link those old threads instead of wasting my time answering the same thing.

Obeying Ulil Amr is obligatory but its conditional, same as obeying parents is obligatory, and when there appears to be a difference with Ameer, then what needs to be referred is Allah and his Prophet(S). See Quran 4:59.  Sahaba were aware of the hadith of Prophet(S) that during the time of fitan.

h:

قالالحسن: ان عليا بعث إلى محمد بن مسلمة فجيء به فقال ما خلفك عن هذا الأمر قال دفع اليبن عمك يعني النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم سيفا فقال:” قاتل به ما قوتل العدو فإذارأيت الناس يقتل بعضهم بعضا فاعمد به إلى صخرة فاضربه بها ثم الزم بيتك حتى تأتيك منيةقاضية أو يد خاطئة”، قال خلوا عنه” . مسند أحمد بن حنبل : ج 4 ص: 225 ،وقالالشيخ شعيب الأرنؤوط:حسن بمجموع طرقه
al-Hassan ibn ‘Ali (ra) said: ‘Ali called for Muhammad ibn Muslimah so he was brought to him and he asked: “Why not participate in this?” Ibn Muslimah said: Your cousin (Prophet) gave me this sword and said: “Fight with it as long as you are fighting the enemy but when you see the people kill each other then seek a rock and strike it then retire to your home until you are dead or killed by a hand.” ‘Ali then told his men: “Leave him be.”
Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 4/225, Shu’ayb al-Arnaout said: all its chains are Hasan.
قالتعديسة بنت أهبان : لما جاء علي بن أبي طالب ههنا البصرة دخل على أبي . فقال يا أبامسلمألا تعينني على هؤلاء القوم ؟ قال بلى . قال فدعا جارية له . فقال ياجارية أخرجي سيفي. قال فأخرجته . فسل منه قدر شبر فإذا هوخشب . فقال:” إن خليلي وابن عمك صلى اللهعليه و سلم عهد إلي إذا كانت الفتنة بين المسلمين . فأتخذ سيفا من خشب” . فإنشئت خرجت معك . قال لاحاجة لي فيك ولا في سيفك .سنن ابن ماجة كتاب الفتن ج 2 ص:1309،قال الشيخ الألباني:حسن صحيح،ومسند أحمد ج 5ص: 69، و ج6 ص: 393 وقال شعيب الأرنؤوط: حديث حسن
‘Udaysah bint Ahban (ra) said: when ‘Ali ibn abi Talib came to us in al-Basarah he entered on my father and said: “O Abu Muslim will you not aid me?” He said: yes, then he told his female servant: “bring me the sword” and she did and when he took it out of its sheath it turned out to be a wooden sword, so he told ‘Ali: “Khalili(my beloved companion) who is your cousin(means the Prophet SAWS) may peace be upon him made me give him an oath that when the Fitnah happens I use this wooden sword, so if you want I will accompany you.” ‘Ali said: “I need not your help nor your sword.”
Sunan ibn Majah Kitab al-Fitan 2/1309 al-Albani said: Hasan Sahih, Musnad Ahmad 5/69 & 6/393 al-Arnaout said: Hasan.

قال عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْعَاصِ : بَيْنَمَا نَحْنُ حَوْلَرَسُولِ اللَّهِ ، صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، إِذَا ذَكَرَ الْفِتْنَةَ أَوْذُكِرَتْ عِنْدَهُ ، فَقُلْتُ : كَيْفَ أَفْعَلُ ، جَعَلَنِي اللَّهُ فِدَاكَ ؟ قَالَ: ” الْزَمْ بَيْتَكَ ، وَامْلِكْ عَلَيْكَ لِسَانَكَ”.
حديث حسن :أخرجه أبو داود (4343) ، والنسائي في ” عمل اليوم” (205) ، وابن المبارك في ” مسنده ” (257) ، وابن أبي شيبة (15/9ـ10) ، وأحمد (2/212) ، والطحاوي في ” بيان مشكل حديث النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم- ” (2/67 ـ 68) ، وابن السني في ” عمل اليوم (439) ، والحاكم (4/282 ـ238) ، وأبو عمرو الداني في ” الفتن ” (117) ، والطبراني في ” كبيره” (ج 13 رقم 4/قطعة من الجزء الثالث عشر) ، والخطابي في ” العزلة “(ص 63 ـ 64)
‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amro ibn al-‘Aas (ra): While we were sitting around the Prophet SAWS they mentioned the Fitnah so I asked him: “May Allah make me a sacrifice for you, what am I to do?” he SAWS said: “remain in your house and guard your tongue.”
Hadith is Hasan from Abu Dawood #4343, Ahmad in his Musnad 2/212, Ibn al-Mubarak in his Musnad p257 and others.

الرسول-عليه الصلاة و السلام – قال : (( ستكون فتنة يكون المضطجع فيها خيرا من الجالس ،والجالس خيرا من القائم ،و القائم خيرا من الماشي ،و الماشي خيرا من الساعي ، )) فقالله أبو بكرة : يا رسول الله ما تأمرني ؟ قال : (( من كانت له إبل فليلتحق بإبله ،ومن كانت له غنم فليلتحق بغنمه ،و من كانت له أرض فليلتحق بأرضه ،)) فقال له أبو بكرة: فمن لم يكن له شيء من ذلك ؟ قال : (( فليعمد إلي سيفه فليضربه بحده على حرة ، ثملينجوا ما استطاع النجاء )) .رواه أبو داود في سننه ج4 ص 99 و صححه الشيخ الألباني
Abu Bakrah ibn al-Harith (ra): The Prophet SAWS said: “There will be a Fitnah in which the man who sleeps on his side is better than the man who sits down, and the one who sits is better than the one who stands, and the one who stands is better than the one who walks, and the one who walks is better than the one who marches to war.” So Abu Bakrah said: “O Prophet of Allah, what do you order me?” He replied: “He who has camels let him go take care of them and he who has sheep then let him go take care of them and he who has a land then let him go and take care of it.” Abu Bakrah said: “What about the one who has none of this?” He replied: “Then let him draw his sword and strike its tip against a rock, then keep away and save himself as much as he could.”
Abu Dawood in his Sunan 4/99, al-Albani said Sahih.

The above hadiths only show that four Sahabas were given direct orders from Prophet (s.a.w.w) to avoid Fitnah, what about rest of Sahabas? Were they also directly ordered by the Prophet (s.a.w.w) to avoid fighting during Fitnah? If yes, then were Imam Ali (a.s), Imam Hassan (a.s) ibn Ali (a.s), Imam Hussain (a.s) ibn Ali (a.s), Ammar (r.a) bin Yasir (r.a), etc also commanded by the Prophet (s.a.w.w) to avoid fighting during Fitnah? If no, then why the differentiation i.e. commanding Sahabas to avoid fighting during Fitnah and not forbidding Imam Ali (a.s) & those who participated with him (a.s) to fight during Fitnah?

Because he knew the proper understanding of Hadith, unlike the interpretation of Khawarij.
See this response:
https://forum.twelvershia.net/sahabah-ahlulbayt/imam-ali-(a-s)-fighting-muawiya/msg26114/#msg26114

Still did not answer my question as to why Imam Ali (a.s) fought Muslims (Muawiya & Syrians)?

01. Hadith supporting Abu Musa's ijtihad of not participating with anyone during Fitnah:

Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 6899:

Ahnaf b. Qais reported on the authority of Abu Bakra that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: When two Muslims confront each other with their swords, both the slayer and the slain are doomed to Hell-Fire.

02. Hadith supporting Muawiya's ijtihad of fighting against one who comes to fight him:

Abu Huraira reported: A person came to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and said: Messenger of Allah, what do you think if a man comes to me in order to appropriate my possession? He (the Holy Prophet) said: Don't surrender your possession to him. He (the inquirer) said: If he fights me? He (the Holy Prophet) remarked: Then fight (with him). He (the inquirer) again said: What do you think if I am killed? He (the Holy Prophet) observed: You would be a martyr. He (the inquirer) said: What do you think of him (Messenger of Allah) If I kill him. He (the Holy Prophet) said: he would be in the Fire. [Sahih Muslim #140]

*Muawiya did not give bayah to Imam Ali (a.s) and thus did not consider him (a.s) as his Ameer & so his ijtihad of fighting Imam Ali (a.s) was valid in his (Muawiya) own eyes. If Muawiya had given bayah to Imam Ali (a.s) then he could not had fought his Ameer as Prophet (s.a.w.w) had clearly forbidden such an act.

03. I did not find any hadith in Ahlus Sunnah sources supporting the ijtihad of Imam Ali (a.s) fighting/killing Muslims (Muawiya and Syrians). If there is any such hadith which you aware then please provide me. If not then tell me why do Ahlus Sunnah consider Imam Ali (a.s) ijtihad as correct & valid when no commandment in Quran or Hadith support Imam Ali (a.s) ijtihad of fighting and killing Muslims (Muawiya and Syrians)

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

The above hadiths only show that four Sahabas were given direct orders from Prophet (s.a.w.w) to avoid Fitnah, what about rest of Sahabas? Were they also directly ordered by the Prophet (s.a.w.w) to avoid fighting during Fitnah? If yes, then were Imam Ali (a.s), Imam Hassan (a.s) ibn Ali (a.s), Imam Hussain (a.s) ibn Ali (a.s), Ammar (r.a) bin Yasir (r.a), etc also commanded by the Prophet (s.a.w.w) to avoid fighting during Fitnah? If no, then why the differentiation i.e. commanding Sahabas to avoid fighting during Fitnah and not forbidding Imam Ali (a.s) & those who participated with him (a.s) to fight during Fitnah?

The last Hadith was general, you failed to understand it properly. Difference of opinion occurs due to difference in interpretation.

Still did not answer my question as to why Imam Ali (a.s) fought Muslims (Muawiya & Syrians)?

01. Hadith supporting Abu Musa's ijtihad of not participating with anyone during Fitnah:

Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 6899:

Ahnaf b. Qais reported on the authority of Abu Bakra that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: When two Muslims confront each other with their swords, both the slayer and the slain are doomed to Hell-Fire.

02. Hadith supporting Muawiya's ijtihad of fighting against one who comes to fight him:

Abu Huraira reported: A person came to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and said: Messenger of Allah, what do you think if a man comes to me in order to appropriate my possession? He (the Holy Prophet) said: Don't surrender your possession to him. He (the inquirer) said: If he fights me? He (the Holy Prophet) remarked: Then fight (with him). He (the inquirer) again said: What do you think if I am killed? He (the Holy Prophet) observed: You would be a martyr. He (the inquirer) said: What do you think of him (Messenger of Allah) If I kill him. He (the Holy Prophet) said: he would be in the Fire. [Sahih Muslim #140]

*Muawiya did not give bayah to Imam Ali (a.s) and thus did not consider him (a.s) as his Ameer & so his ijtihad of fighting Imam Ali (a.s) was valid in his (Muawiya) own eyes. If Muawiya had given bayah to Imam Ali (a.s) then he could not had fought his Ameer as Prophet (s.a.w.w) had clearly forbidden such an act.

03. I did not find any hadith in Ahlus Sunnah sources supporting the ijtihad of Imam Ali (a.s) fighting/killing Muslims (Muawiya and Syrians). If there is any such hadith which you aware then please provide me. If not then tell me why do Ahlus Sunnah consider Imam Ali (a.s) ijtihad as correct & valid when no commandment in Quran or Hadith support Imam Ali (a.s) ijtihad of fighting and killing Muslims (Muawiya and Syrians)

How can you forget the important hadith of prophesy that the group which will fight Khawarij will be closer to truth from which Ahlus-sunnah derived that Ali(ra) was closer to truth and made correct ijtihad.

As for the ijtihad of Ali(ra) then it could be on this hadith

Narrated Arfaja : I heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: When you are holding to one single man as your leader, you should kill who seeks to undermine your solidarity or disrupt your unity. [Sahih Muslim Book 20, Number 4567]

Similar is what Ali(ra) said as per Nahjul Balagha:
Verily, the people who payed allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have payed allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them. So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah. If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him. (Nahjul-Balaghah, Letter #6)

[Bolani Muslim]

Why did Syrians prefer Muawiya above Imam Ali (a.s) whereas Muawiya clearly said:

"By the oath of Allah, (I do not regard myself to be an equal to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu) I fully understand that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is superior to me and more rightful of the matter (caliphate) than me." (Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah vol. 8 pg. 169)

Was it because of the battle which took place at Siffin? If it was due to that reason, didn't Syrians know that Prophet (s.a.w.w) promised Imam Ali (a.s) that none but a believer would love Ali (as) & none but a hypocrite would hate Ali (a.s)?

The Syrians supported Muawiya because he was pro-Syrian and an effective politician. Muawiya's reign was relatively stable and prosperous. Regarding the hadiths, note a few things:

• Muawiya was one man and Syria is a huge nation. Not everyone would have heard it.
• At this point, the great majority of the Syrians were Christian. Only a minuscule percentage of the population was Muslim. At this point, Islam was seen as an Arab religion and the Ummayads penalized conversion.
• The battle of Siffin increased the Nasibism.
• Ummayad governors cursed Imam Ali's name on the pulpits during and after Muawiya's tenure. Farid discussed it in his Karbala video.

Okay. May I know what happened in 4th century that led to this i.e all Ahlus Sunnah accepting Imam Ali (a.s) as 4th Caliph as opposed to Banu Ummayah & Syrians?

Again, Sunni theology accepted Imam Ali, the Uthmanites did not; there is a difference between the two. Islamic ossification and orthodoxification, Sunni orthodoxy was spreading in this era, Imami theology and practice orthodoxified in the 4th and 5th centuries.

For example in Anadalusia, Nasibism died out as Sunni scholars entered Spain.
https://ballandalus.wordpress.com/2015/05/17/the-expulsion-of-qadi-abu-bakr-ibn-al-arabi-d-1148-from-seville/

But shouldn't Islam be preferred over political and regional identity? I would prefer my religion (Islam) over my country, tribe & family.

That is not how people work, unfortunately. People rarely convert due to logical arguments.
For example, I have heard that in bars located in Baghdad's Shia districts, it is normal to hear Shias say "Curse Sunnis, curse Abu Bakr, they are not real Muslims, etc." I'm sure the same is true vice versa.

Any evidence (or references) of your above statements?

I apologize, I assumed you were a friend due to your name. I sent him the links and he asked me what it was about, haha.
These are the articles:
https://shiismandislamichistory.wordpress.com/2020/06/15/the-theology-of-the-shia-in-the-time-of-imam-sadiq-a/
https://shiismandislamichistory.wordpress.com/2020/06/21/the-transformation-of-bada-from-the-occultation-till-the-school-of-baghdad/
https://shiismandislamichistory.wordpress.com/2020/06/08/early-imami-subgroups-and-beliefs/
https://shiismandislamichistory.wordpress.com/2020/06/12/a-reevaluation-of-hisham-b-hakams-subsect-in-the-earliest-days-of-imamism/

[Bolani Muslim]

Imam Ali (a) fought against Muawiya because he (Ali) was in the right and Muawiya went out of bounds by forming a military against Ali. Jamal was not a preplanned battle, but Siffeen was. As Sunnis, we do not believe that the sahaba are infallible, sahaba err, some more than others. Historically, some Sunni scholars went out of bounds by more than critiquing him, but I don't remember their names.

Did you read about the martyrdom of Imam Nasai?
https://www.abuaaliyah.com/2018/08/11/the-assassination-of-imam-an-nasai-and-his-bayyan/

If you do not read the links provided, there is no point to discussing.

Muawiya was no angel, nor was he of the top Companions. Of the sahaba, he was of the lowest category. However, assuming that you are correct and he was impious (which I am not stating), it does not prove Imamism. Muawiya being evil does not prove that their are twelve infallible impeccable supernatural divinely appointed Imams nor that all Companions but three apostatized. Whether or not Muawiya was an angel nor villain does not prove or disprove Imamism.