Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?

[Ijtaba]

Salaam,

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

In the above article it is said that tiny minority of Sahabas participated in the Battle of Siffin. Now my question is that Imam Ali (a.s) was Caliph of Muslims during that battle. Weren't all Sahabas obliged to respond to the call of the leader of their time and join his army?

In authentic Ahlul Sunnah hadith I have read that obedience to the ruler is forbidden in matters sinful, but is otherwise obligatory. This means that if Imam Ali (a.s) called Sahabas to join him (a.s) against Muawiya then as being Caliph (Successor) of Rasool-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) it was obligatory on the Sahabas to join Imam Ali's (a.s) army. Those who disobeyed Caliph of Rasool-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) either by fighting him (a.s) or not joining his (i.e. Imam Ali a.s) army on the pretext of avoiding fitnah have indeed disobeyed Rasool-ULLAH (s.a.w.w)

[Rationalist]

Good question. However today most Sunnis do not see Muawiyah to be in red light. So the answers will be based on that.

[Abu Muhammad]

Salaam,

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

In the above article it is said that tiny minority of Sahabas participated in the Battle of Siffin. Now my question is that Imam Ali (a.s) was Caliph of Muslims during that battle. Weren't all Sahabas obliged to respond to the call of the leader of their time and join his army?

The first question need to answer first is whether Ali called other Sahabas to join him in battle against Muawiyya. Was there any?

[Ijtaba]

The first question need to answer first is whether Ali called other Sahabas to join him in battle against Muawiyya. Was there any?

Interesting.

Well I guess Imam Ali (a.s) was too busy in calling assassins of Uthman to join him (a.s) in his (a.s) battle against Muawiya that he (a.s) couldn't get time to call Sahabas to join his (a.s) forces.

However he (a.s) did call Usamah bin Zayd to join him (a.s) but the latter choose to stay aloof from the Fitnah and thus refused to help the ruler of his time.

Now, I like to ask one thing: What was the duty of Sahabas at the time when their Ruler was waging war against people who were refusing to pledge allegiance (due to any reason e.g. condition of punishing assassins of Uthman) to the legitimate ruler and thus causing Fitna in Muslim Ummah?

[Rationalist]

Interesting.

Well I guess Imam Ali (a.s) was too busy in calling assassins of Uthman to join him (a.s) in his (a.s) battle against Muawiya that he (a.s) couldn't get time to call Sahabas to join his (a.s) forces.

One thing to note here is the Imams from Ahlul Bayt when they wanted to fight they shifted their capital away from Madina.  When didn't want the Caliphate they usually returned to Madina.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Salaam,

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

In the above article it is said that tiny minority of Sahabas participated in the Battle of Siffin. Now my question is that Imam Ali (a.s) was Caliph of Muslims during that battle. Weren't all Sahabas obliged to respond to the call of the leader of their time and join his army?

In authentic Ahlul Sunnah hadith I have read that obedience to the ruler is forbidden in matters sinful, but is otherwise obligatory. This means that if Imam Ali (a.s) called Sahabas to join him (a.s) against Muawiya then as being Caliph (Successor) of Rasool-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) it was obligatory on the Sahabas to join Imam Ali's (a.s) army. Those who disobeyed Caliph of Rasool-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) either by fighting him (a.s) or not joining his (i.e. Imam Ali a.s) army on the pretext of avoiding fitnah have indeed disobeyed Rasool-ULLAH (s.a.w.w)

As per Ahlus-sunnah, when there is dispute with the leader then the Prophet(saws) must be referred, even Quran(4:59) says so.

And those Sahaba didn't join Ali(ra) because as per their ijtihaad, they were following the command of Prophet(saws).

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.

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.

[Ijtaba]

As per Ahlus-sunnah, when there is dispute with the leader then the Prophet(saws) must be referred, even Quran(4:59) says so.

And those Sahaba didn't join Ali(ra) because as per their ijtihaad, they were following the command of Prophet(saws).

According to Ahul Sunnah during the wars of Jamal and Siffin Sahabas got divided into three groups due to their ijtihad. So during these wars of Fitnah the decisions/actions taken by Sahabas was based on their Ijtihad.

Now it is important to understand what Ijtihad actually means according to Ahlul Sunnah. Ijtihad (Arabic اجتهاد) is a technical term of Islamic law that describes the process of making a legal decision by independent interpretation of the legal sources, the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

There are two conditions for Ijtihad:

01. Ijtihad can only be made when one can't find answers in the Quran nor Sunnah.

02. Ijtihad cannot go against Quran and Sunnah.

Lets look at the three groups and how did they make their Ijtihad.

Group 1: Imam Ali (a.s) and his army

Sahabas and Muslims who joined the army of Imam Ali (a.s) during battles of Jamal and Siffin based their ijtihad on following the hadith of Nabi Mohammed (s.a.w.w):

It his been narrated through a different chain of transmitters, on the authority of Hudhaifa b. al-Yaman who said:

Messenger of Allah, no doubt, we had an evil time (i. e. the days of Jahiliyya or ignorance) and God brought us a good time (i. e. Islamic period) through which we are now living Will there be a bad time after this good time? He (the Holy Prophet) said: Yes. I said: Will there be a good time after this bad time? He said: Yes. I said: Will there be a bad time after good time? He said: Yes. I said: How? Whereupon he said: There will be leaders who will not be led by my guidance and who will not adopt my ways? There will be among them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of human beings. I said: What should I do. Messenger of Allah, if I (happen) to live in that time? He replied: You will listen to the Amir and carry out his orders; even if your back is flogged and your wealth is snatched, you should listen and obey.

Reference: Sahih Muslim 1847 b
In-book reference: Book 33, Hadith 82
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 20, Hadith 4554

According to the hadith given above Muslims were instructed by Prophet (s.a.w.w) to stick to the main body of the Muslims in the time of trials.

Group 2: People who did not participate in battles of Jamal & Siffin

This group consisted of majority of Sahabas according to Ahlul Sunnah. They made their ijtihad based on the hadiths given by Noor us Sunnah.

Hadith 1.

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.

Hadith 2:

‘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.

Hadith 3

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.

Group 3: People who fought against Legitimate Caliph (Ruler)

This group consisted of Sahabas and Muslims who fought against legitimate ruler of their time because according to them the legitimate Caliph was not able to avenge the death of third Caliph.

Now the main question: Based on what Quranic injuctions or Sunnah/Hadiths did this group do their ijtihad? Because I have got authentic Ahlul Sunnah hadiths forbidding Muslims to fight legitimate Ruler. This includes both Best and Worst Ruler i.e. Muslims aren't allowed to fight Ruler in any situation.

01. Muslims commanded not to withdraw their obedience from their Ruler

It has been narrated on the authority of 'Auf b. Malik that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:

The best of your rulers are those whom you love and who love you, who invoke God's blessings upon you and you invoke His blessings upon them. And the worst of your rulers are those whom you hate and who hate you and whom you curse and who curse you. It was asked (by those present): Shouldn't we overthrow them with the help of the sword? He said: No, as long as they establish prayer among you. If you then find anything detestable in them. You should hate their administration, but do not withdraw yourselves from their obedience.

Reference: Sahih Muslim 1855 a
In-book reference: Book 33, Hadith 101
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 20, Hadith 4573

02. Imam Ali (a.s) was elected Caliph by Muhajirun (Arabic: المهاجرون The Emigrants) and Ansar (Arabic: الأنصار al-Anṣār, "The Helpers") and Rasul-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) commanded Sahabas and Muslims to kill people who seeks to disrupt unity in Muslim Ummah.

It has been narrated (through a still different chain of transmitters) on the Same authority (i. e. 'Arfaja) who said similarly-but adding:

" Kill all of them." I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) 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.

Reference: Sahih Muslim 1852 c
In-book reference: Book 33, Hadith 95
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 20, Hadith 4567

03. Rasul-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) strongly condemned those people who fight with Legitimate Caliph/Ruler based on any pretext such as fighting for the cause of family honor or to support kith and kin.

It has been narrated (through a different chain of transmitters) on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:

Whoever defects from obedience (to the Amir) and separates from the main body of the Muslim - and dies in that state - dies the death of one belonging to the days of jahiliyya. And he who is killed under the banner of a man who is blind (to the cause for which he is fighting), who gets flared up with family pride and fights for his tribe is not from my Ummah, and whosoever from my followers attacks my followers (indiscriminately) killing the righteous and the wicked of them, sparing not (even) those staunch in faith and fulfilling not his obligation towards them who have been given a pledge (of security), is not from me (i.e. is not my follower).

Reference: Sahih Muslim 1848 c
In-book reference: Book 33, Hadith 85
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 20, Hadith 4557

04. If Sahabas were disheartened of Imam Ali's (a.s) delaying or not being able to punish assassins of Uthman then they (Sahabas) should had exercised patience over Imam Ali (a.s) actions and should not had fought Imam Ali (a.s) as anyone who withdraws from the legitimate government would have died in the state of a person dying in the days of ignorance.

It has been narrated (through a different chain of transmitters) on the authority of Ibn Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upoh him) said:

One who dislikes a thing done by his Amir should be patient over it, for anyone from the people who withdraws (his obedience) from the government, even to the extent of a handspan and died in that conditions, would die the death of one belonging to the days of jahilliyya.

Reference: Sahih Muslim 1849 b
In-book reference: Book 33, Hadith 88
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 20, Hadith 4560

[Abu Muhammad]

According to Ahul Sunnah during the wars of Jamal and Siffin Sahabas got divided into three groups due to their ijtihad. So during these wars of Fitnah the decisions/actions taken by Sahabas was based on their Ijtihad.

Now it is important to understand what Ijtihad actually means according to Ahlul Sunnah. Ijtihad (Arabic اجتهاد) is a technical term of Islamic law that describes the process of making a legal decision by independent interpretation of the legal sources, the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

There are two conditions for Ijtihad:

01. Ijtihad can only be made when one can't find answers in the Quran nor Sunnah.

02. Ijtihad cannot go against Quran and Sunnah.

Lets look at the three groups and how did they make their Ijtihad.

Group 1: Imam Ali (a.s) and his army

Sahabas and Muslims who joined the army of Imam Ali (a.s) during battles of Jamal and Siffin based their ijtihad on following the hadith of Nabi Mohammed (s.a.w.w):

It his been narrated through a different chain of transmitters, on the authority of Hudhaifa b. al-Yaman who said:

Messenger of Allah, no doubt, we had an evil time (i. e. the days of Jahiliyya or ignorance) and God brought us a good time (i. e. Islamic period) through which we are now living Will there be a bad time after this good time? He (the Holy Prophet) said: Yes. I said: Will there be a good time after this bad time? He said: Yes. I said: Will there be a bad time after good time? He said: Yes. I said: How? Whereupon he said: There will be leaders who will not be led by my guidance and who will not adopt my ways? There will be among them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of human beings. I said: What should I do. Messenger of Allah, if I (happen) to live in that time? He replied: You will listen to the Amir and carry out his orders; even if your back is flogged and your wealth is snatched, you should listen and obey.

Reference: Sahih Muslim 1847 b
In-book reference: Book 33, Hadith 82
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 20, Hadith 4554

According to the hadith given above Muslims were instructed by Prophet (s.a.w.w) to stick to the main body of the Muslims in the time of trials.

Group 2: People who did not participate in battles of Jamal & Siffin

This group consisted of majority of Sahabas according to Ahlul Sunnah. They made their ijtihad based on the hadiths given by Noor us Sunnah.

Group 3: People who fought against Legitimate Caliph (Ruler)

This group consisted of Sahabas and Muslims who fought against legitimate ruler of their time because according to them the legitimate Caliph was not able to avenge the death of third Caliph.

Now the main question: Based on what Quranic injuctions or Sunnah/Hadiths did this group do their ijtihad? Because I have got authentic Ahlul Sunnah hadiths forbidding Muslims to fight legitimate Ruler. This includes both Best and Worst Ruler i.e. Muslims aren't allowed to fight Ruler in any situation.

01. Muslims commanded not to withdraw their obedience from their Ruler

It has been narrated on the authority of 'Auf b. Malik that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:

The best of your rulers are those whom you love and who love you, who invoke God's blessings upon you and you invoke His blessings upon them. And the worst of your rulers are those whom you hate and who hate you and whom you curse and who curse you. It was asked (by those present): Shouldn't we overthrow them with the help of the sword? He said: No, as long as they establish prayer among you. If you then find anything detestable in them. You should hate their administration, but do not withdraw yourselves from their obedience.

Reference: Sahih Muslim 1855 a
In-book reference: Book 33, Hadith 101
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 20, Hadith 4573

02. Imam Ali (a.s) was elected Caliph by Muhajirun (Arabic: المهاجرون The Emigrants) and Ansar (Arabic: الأنصار al-Anṣār, "The Helpers") and Rasul-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) commanded Sahabas and Muslims to kill people who seeks to disrupt unity in Muslim Ummah.

It has been narrated (through a still different chain of transmitters) on the Same authority (i. e. 'Arfaja) who said similarly-but adding:

" Kill all of them." I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) 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.

Reference: Sahih Muslim 1852 c
In-book reference: Book 33, Hadith 95
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 20, Hadith 4567

03. Rasul-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) strongly condemned those people who fight with Legitimate Caliph/Ruler based on any pretext such as fighting for the cause of family honor or to support kith and kin.

It has been narrated (through a different chain of transmitters) on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:

Whoever defects from obedience (to the Amir) and separates from the main body of the Muslim - and dies in that state - dies the death of one belonging to the days of jahiliyya. And he who is killed under the banner of a man who is blind (to the cause for which he is fighting), who gets flared up with family pride and fights for his tribe is not from my Ummah, and whosoever from my followers attacks my followers (indiscriminately) killing the righteous and the wicked of them, sparing not (even) those staunch in faith and fulfilling not his obligation towards them who have been given a pledge (of security), is not from me (i.e. is not my follower).

Reference: Sahih Muslim 1848 c
In-book reference: Book 33, Hadith 85
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 20, Hadith 4557

04. If Sahabas were disheartened of Imam Ali's (a.s) delaying or not being able to punish assassins of Uthman then they (Sahabas) should had exercised patience over Imam Ali (a.s) actions and should not had fought Imam Ali (a.s) as anyone who withdraws from the legitimate government would have died in the state of a person dying in the days of ignorance.

It has been narrated (through a different chain of transmitters) on the authority of Ibn Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upoh him) said:

One who dislikes a thing done by his Amir should be patient over it, for anyone from the people who withdraws (his obedience) from the government, even to the extent of a handspan and died in that conditions, would die the death of one belonging to the days of jahilliyya.

Reference: Sahih Muslim 1849 b
In-book reference: Book 33, Hadith 88
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 20, Hadith 4560

I just want to put down these 2 points:

1. Muawiyya was yet to pledge allegiance to Ali as the Caliph;

2. It was Ali who brought an army to Syria and not Muawiyya brought an army to Kufa.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Group 3: People who fought against Legitimate Caliph (Ruler)

This group consisted of Sahabas and Muslims who fought against legitimate ruler of their time because according to them the legitimate Caliph was not able to avenge the death of third Caliph.

You a put their stance in the wrong way. Your statements portrays their stance as such that they went to fight with Caliph, which isn't the case, it was Ali(ra) who declared war on people on Shaam, so they were in the defensive in this case.

Now the main question: Based on what Quranic injuctions or Sunnah/Hadiths did this group do their ijtihad? Because I have got authentic Ahlul Sunnah hadiths forbidding Muslims to fight legitimate Ruler. This includes both Best and Worst Ruler i.e. Muslims aren't allowed to fight Ruler in any situation.

If you mean on what basis did they made their claim and were on the defensive against Ali(ra), then the right of Qisas is mentioned in Quran and Hadith.

[Ijtaba]

I just want to put down these 2 points:

1. Muawiyya was yet to pledge allegiance to Ali as the Caliph;

2. It was Ali who brought an army to Syria and not Muawiyya brought an army to Kufa.

So why did Muawiya not pledge allegiance to the Legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah?

Imam Ali (a.s) was elected by Muhajirun and Ansar in a Shura as Ruler of Muslim Ummah and become Fourth Rightly Guided Caliph.

Imam Ali (a.s) brought an army to Syria as per the commandment of Rasul-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) i.e. to kill those people who disrupt unity in Muslim Ummah by not giving bayah to the legitimate Caliph (remember the report in which it is mentioned that when Abu Bakr was being given bayah by Ansar he looked for Imam Ali (a.s) and Zubayr and asked their reason in delaying bayah i.e. Abu Bakr questioned them by asking were they looking to cause disunity in Ummah to which they both responded in negative and gave bayah to Abu Bakr)

You a put their stance in the wrong way. Your statements portrays their stance as such that they went to fight with Caliph, which isn't the case, it was Ali(ra) who declared war on people on Shaam, so they were in the defensive in this case.

Imam Ali (a.s) declared war on people of Shaam as per commandment of Rasul-ULLAH (s.a.w.w)

It has been narrated (through a still different chain of transmitters) on the Same authority (i. e. 'Arfaja) who said similarly-but adding:

" Kill all of them." I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) 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.

Reference: Sahih Muslim 1852 c
In-book reference: Book 33, Hadith 95
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 20, Hadith 4567

Muawiya and people of Shaam were causing disunity in Muslim Ummah by not giving bayah to the Legitimate Ruler elected by Muhajirun and Ansar in a Shura.

If you mean on what basis did they made their claim and were on the defensive against Ali(ra), then the right of Qisas is mentioned in Quran and Hadith.

Qisas is mentioned in Quran and Hadith but fighting against Legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah is nowhere mentioned in the Quran and Hadith.

[Hani]

It's not so simple, only a third of the nation gave `Ali Bay`ah, another third stood on the sidelines and took no sides and the rest actually opposed and even fought him. That's why `Ali's position as 4th Caliph was debated in the early days until the Imams of Ahlul-Sunnah settled it and normalized `Ali's Caliphate.

[Ijtaba]

If Imam Ali (a.s) was made Ruler by Muhajirun and Ansar through the process of Shura then why did rest of the people not give bayah to Imam Ali (a.s)?

After the death of Uthman there was only one Ruler in Muslim Ummah and people who opposed that Ruler were disrupting Muslim unity and thus weakening Muslims.

Opposition towards Imam Ali (a.s) was due to Imam Ali (a.s) delaying or being unable to punish assassins of Uthman. However, majority of Sahabas knew that there were only two options in this situation:

1. Either to pledge allegiance to the Ruler elected by Muhajirun and Ansar through the process of Shura; or

2. To break their swords and remain aloof from fighting the Ruler of Muslim Ummah.

During the wars of Jamal & Siffin there was no other ruler in Muslim Ummah besides Imam Ali (a.s). It was due to hadiths (mentioned by me and Noor us Sunnah) that majority of Sahabas chosed one of the two options as they knew there wasn't third option. Majority of Sahabas never fought Ruler of their time even if they had not pledged allegiance to the Ruler of Muslim Ummah.

As for those who fought Ruler elected by Muhajirun and Ansar through the process of Shura did so by going against the commandments of Rasul-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) i.e. do not fight Ruler of Muslim Ummah.

Imam Ali (a.s) fought with those people who did not pledge allegiance to him (a.s) did so by obeying the commandments of Rasul-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) i.e. Kill those people who disrupt Muslim unity.

[Abu Muhammad]

So why did Muawiya not pledge allegiance to the Legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah?

I think you have already knew the answer. He demanded his right on Qisas of Uthman, as mentioned by brother Noor us Sunnah, before giving allegiance to Ali.

Imam Ali (a.s) was elected by Muhajirun and Ansar in a Shura as Ruler of Muslim Ummah and become Fourth Rightly Guided Caliph.

Imam Ali (a.s) brought an army to Syria as per the commandment of Rasul-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) i.e. to kill those people who disrupt unity in Muslim Ummah by not giving bayah to the legitimate Caliph (remember the report in which it is mentioned that when Abu Bakr was being given bayah by Ansar he looked for Imam Ali (a.s) and Zubayr and asked their reason in delaying bayah i.e. Abu Bakr questioned them by asking were they looking to cause disunity in Ummah to which they both responded in negative and gave bayah to Abu Bakr)

Imam Ali (a.s) declared war on people of Shaam as per commandment of Rasul-ULLAH (s.a.w.w)

It has been narrated (through a still different chain of transmitters) on the Same authority (i. e. 'Arfaja) who said similarly-but adding:

" Kill all of them." I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) 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.

Reference: Sahih Muslim 1852 c
In-book reference: Book 33, Hadith 95
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 20, Hadith 4567

Muawiya and people of Shaam were causing disunity in Muslim Ummah by not giving bayah to the Legitimate Ruler elected by Muhajirun and Ansar in a Shura.

Qisas is mentioned in Quran and Hadith but fighting against Legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah is nowhere mentioned in the Quran and Hadith.

Before I proceed futher, one question I would like you to answer. How do you think that Sunnis come to a conclusion that Ali's ijtihad is right and not Muawiyya?

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Qisas is mentioned in Quran and Hadith but fighting against Legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah is nowhere mentioned in the Quran and Hadith.

It seems you didn't get the reason why I reminded to you that it was Ali(ra) who was on the offensive. If Ali(ra) was on the offensive then it doesn't befit you people to keep saying Muawiya(ra) fought Ali(ra), which gives the impression that he was on the offensive, which wasn't the case. Or atleast try using proper words like, Muawiya(ra) fought back Ali(ra), that would be better than just saying Muawiya(ra) fought Ali(ra).

[Hani]

If Imam Ali (a.s) was made Ruler by Muhajirun and Ansar through the process of Shura then why did rest of the people not give bayah to Imam Ali (a.s)?

After the death of Uthman there was only one Ruler in Muslim Ummah and people who opposed that Ruler were disrupting Muslim unity and thus weakening Muslims.

Opposition towards Imam Ali (a.s) was due to Imam Ali (a.s) delaying or being unable to punish assassins of Uthman. However, majority of Sahabas knew that there were only two options in this situation:

1. Either to pledge allegiance to the Ruler elected by Muhajirun and Ansar through the process of Shura; or

2. To break their swords and remain aloof from fighting the Ruler of Muslim Ummah.

During the wars of Jamal & Siffin there was no other ruler in Muslim Ummah besides Imam Ali (a.s). It was due to hadiths (mentioned by me and Noor us Sunnah) that majority of Sahabas chosed one of the two options as they knew there wasn't third option. Majority of Sahabas never fought Ruler of their time even if they had not pledged allegiance to the Ruler of Muslim Ummah.

As for those who fought Ruler elected by Muhajirun and Ansar through the process of Shura did so by going against the commandments of Rasul-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) i.e. do not fight Ruler of Muslim Ummah.

Imam Ali (a.s) fought with those people who did not pledge allegiance to him (a.s) did so by obeying the commandments of Rasul-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) i.e. Kill those people who disrupt Muslim unity.

Many people did not pledge and some were major Sahabah, the reason they were aware of the Ahadith of Fitnah and since `Ali was involved in it they abstained. Otherwise, they'd be ordered to fight other Muslims which is a thing they were warned against in many Hadiths.

All I'm saying is, things back then were not clear as you think they were.

[Ijtaba]

I think you have already knew the answer. He demanded his right on Qisas of Uthman, as mentioned by brother Noor us Sunnah, before giving allegiance to Ali.

Okay. So Muawiya preferred Qisas over Unity of Muslim Ummah. Muawiya disrupted Muslim Unity by laying down a condition on giving pledge of allegiance to the Ruler elected by Muhajirun and Ansar through the process of Shura.

Before I proceed futher, one question I would like you to answer. How do you think that Sunnis come to a conclusion that Ali's ijtihad is right and not Muawiyya?

You're asking me how do I think Sunnis came to a conclusion that ijtihad of Imam Ali (whose army consisted of assassins of Uthman) is right and not Muawiya (whose army consisted of lovers of Uthman who wanted to avenge Uthman's blood)? I really do not have knowledge regarding this topic. You may ask Hani as to when and how did Imams of Ahlul-Sunnah settled and normalized `Ali's Caliphate

[Ijtaba]

It seems you didn't get the reason why I reminded to you that it was Ali(ra) who was on the offensive. If Ali(ra) was on the offensive then it doesn't befit you people to keep saying Muawiya(ra) fought Ali(ra), which gives the impression that he was on the offensive, which wasn't the case. Or atleast try using proper words like, Muawiya(ra) fought back Ali(ra), that would be better than just saying Muawiya(ra) fought Ali(ra).

I completely agree that Muawiya fought back Imam Ali (a.s) as it was Imam Ali (a.s) who started offensive war with Muawiya. Are you now satisfied?

- Can you provide me a single hadith where Prophet (s.a.w.w) instructed Muslims to fight back the Ruler of Muslim Ummah when the latter (i.e. Ruler) has waged offensive war against the former (i.e. Muslims)?

- Why did Muawiya during the time of Fitna not adhere to a group of Muslims having a Leader as per instructions of the Prophet (s.a.w.w)?

Narrated Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman:

The people used to ask Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) about good, but I used to ask him about evil for fear that it might overtake me. Once I said, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! We were in ignorance and in evil and Allah has bestowed upon us the present good; will there by any evil after this good?" He said, "Yes." I asked, "Will there be good after that evil?" He said, "Yes, but it would be tained with Dakhan (i.e. Little evil)." I asked, "What will its Dakhan be?" He said, "There will be some people who will lead (people) according to principles other than my tradition. You will see their actions and disapprove of them." I said, "Will there by any evil after that good?" He said, "Yes, there will be some people who will invite others to the doors of Hell, and whoever accepts their invitation to it will be thrown in it (by them)." I said, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! Describe those people to us." He said, "They will belong to us and speak our language" I asked, "What do you order me to do if such a thing should take place in my life?" He said, "Adhere to the group of Muslims and their Chief." I asked, "If there is neither a group (of Muslims) nor a chief (what shall I do)?" He said, "Keep away from all those different sects, even if you had to bite (i.e. eat) the root of a tree, till you meet Allah while you are still in that state."

Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 3606
In-book reference: Book 61, Hadith 113
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Vol. 4, Book 56, Hadith 803

- Why did Muawiya and his army during the time of Fitna not strike their swords against the rocks as per instruction of the Prophet (s.a.w.w)?

Hadith 3

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.

- You said that Muawiya fought back Imam Ali (a.s) but Tābi  'Abd al-Rahman b. Abd Rabb al-Ka'ba said that Muawiya, "orders us to unjustly consume our wealth among ourselves and to kill one another" and Sahabi Abdullah b. 'Amr b. al-'As instead of refuting 'Abd al-Rahman said to the latter, "Obey him (i.e. Muawiya) in so far as he is obedient to God; and disobey him in matters involving disobedience to God."?

It has been narrated on the authority of 'Abd al-Rahman b. Abd Rabb al-Ka'ba who said:

I entered the mosque when 'Abdullah b. 'Amr b. al-'As was sitting in the shade of the Ka'ba and the people had gathered around him. I betook myself to them and sat near him. (Now) Abdullah said: I accompanied the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) on a journey. We halted at a place. Some of us began to set right their tents, others began to compete with one another in shooting, and others began to graze their beasts, when an announcer of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) announced that the people should gather together for prayer, so we gathered around the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). He said: It was the duty of every Prophet that has gone before me to guide his followers to what he knew was good for them and warn them against what he knew was bad for them; but this Umma of yours has its days of peace and (security) in the beginning of its career, and in the last phase of its existence it will be afflicted with trials and with things disagreeable to you. (In this phase of the Umma), there will be tremendous trials one after the other, each making the previous one dwindle into insignificance. When they would be afflicted with a trial, the believer would say: This is going to bring about my destruction. When at (the trial) is over, they would be afflicted with another trial, and the believer would say: This surely is going to be my end. Whoever wishes to be delivered from the fire and enter the garden should die with faith in Allah and the Last Day and should treat the people as he wishes to be treated by them. He who swears allegiance to a Caliph should give him the piedge of his hand and the sincerity of his heart (i. e. submit to him both outwardly as well as inwardly). He should obey him to the best of his capacity. It another man comes forward (as a claimant to Caliphate), disputing his authority, they (the Muslims) should behead the latter. The narrator says: I came close to him ('Abdullah b. 'Amr b. al-'As) and said to him: Can you say on oath that you heard it from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)? He pointed with his hands to his ears and his heart and said: My ears heard it and my mind retained it. I said to him: This cousin of yours, Mu'awiya, orders us to unjustly consume our wealth among ourselves and to kill one another, while Allah says:" O ye who believe, do not consume your wealth among yourselves unjustly, unless it be trade based on mutual agreement, and do not kill yourselves. Verily, God is Merciful to you" (iv. 29). The narrator says that (hearing this) Abdullah b. 'Amr b. al-As kept quiet for a while and then said: Obey him in so far as he is obedient to God; and disobey him in matters involving disobedience to God.

Reference: Sahih Muslim 1844 a
In-book reference: Book 33, Hadith 74
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 20, Hadith 4546

[Ijtaba]

Many people did not pledge and some were major Sahabah, the reason they were aware of the Ahadith of Fitnah and since `Ali was involved in it they abstained. Otherwise, they'd be ordered to fight other Muslims which is a thing they were warned against in many Hadiths.

All I'm saying is, things back then were not clear as you think they were.

But weren't they (i.e. Sahabas) aware of the Ahadith of Fitnah where Prophet (s.a.w.w) instructed Muslims to adhere to the group of Muslims having a Leader?

Narrated Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman:

The people used to ask Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) about good, but I used to ask him about evil for fear that it might overtake me. Once I said, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! We were in ignorance and in evil and Allah has bestowed upon us the present good; will there by any evil after this good?" He said, "Yes." I asked, "Will there be good after that evil?" He said, "Yes, but it would be tained with Dakhan (i.e. Little evil)." I asked, "What will its Dakhan be?" He said, "There will be some people who will lead (people) according to principles other than my tradition. You will see their actions and disapprove of them." I said, "Will there by any evil after that good?" He said, "Yes, there will be some people who will invite others to the doors of Hell, and whoever accepts their invitation to it will be thrown in it (by them)." I said, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! Describe those people to us." He said, "They will belong to us and speak our language"  I asked, "What do you order me to do if such a thing should take place in my life?" He said, "Adhere to the group of Muslims and their Chief." I asked, "If there is neither a group (of Muslims) nor a chief (what shall I do)?" He said, "Keep away from all those different sects, even if you had to bite (i.e. eat) the root of a tree, till you meet Allah while you are still in that state."

Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 3606
In-book reference: Book 61, Hadith 113
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Vol. 4, Book 56, Hadith 803

During battle of Siffin there existed only one group of Muslims having a Leader i.e. Imam Ali (a.s) who was elected as Legitimate Leader of Muslim Ummah by Muhajirun and Ansar through the process of Shura. Besides Imam Ali (a.s) there was no other Leader in Muslim Ummah at that time.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

 Why did Muawiya during the time of Fitna not adhere to a group of Muslims having a Leader as per instructions of the Prophet (s.a.w.w)?

But weren't they (i.e. Sahabas) aware of the Ahadith of Fitnah where Prophet (s.a.w.w) instructed Muslims to adhere to the group of Muslims having a Leader?

Things weren't as simple as you think, this is the reason in a Prophesy of Prophet(saws), he said that, the group that will kill khawarij will be NEAR to truth. Pay attention to the eloquence of Prophet(saws) and his choice of words. He didn't say, the party which kills khawarij would be ON the truth. He used the words "Near the truth", which shows that the other party to had a share of truth, lesser than the other but yet had a share of truth.

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) that a group (Khawarij) would emerge from the different parties (the party of Hadrat 'Ali and the party of Amir Mu'awiya), the group nearer the truth between the two would kill them. [Sahih Muslim 1065 e]

The situation that time was such that Uthman(ra) was martyred and those who martyred him infiltrated into the ranks of Shia of Ali(ra). So Muawiya(ra) asked for Qisas, and made this right as a condition, after which he agreed to  give allegiance to Ali(ra). On the top of that, there were rumors spreading around that Ali(ra) had a hand in martyrdom of Uthman(ra). And then Ali(ra) kept delaying punishing the killers of Uthman(ra), which made things complicated and Muawiya(ra) considered him to be right in defending himself  from the offensive attack in such chaotic situation. He made wrong ijtihad, as Sunnis believe, but he had a portion of truth.

Can you provide me a single hadith where Prophet (s.a.w.w) instructed Muslims to fight back the Ruler of Muslim Ummah when the latter (i.e. Ruler) has waged offensive war against the former (i.e. Muslims)?

Its an invalid question. Because Muawiya(ra) didn't give allegiance to Ali(ra) due his Ijtihad. So him being on defensive falls under this category as well, moreover we know that when your life is in danger, what is haram on you becomes halal in order to protect your life. So even if supposedly  being on defensive against the leader was haram, but to protect his life from a leader who is on a wrong stance(as per Muawiya) he committed it considering it becomes legal in such a situation.

You said that Muawiya fought back Imam Ali (a.s) but Tābi  'Abd al-Rahman b. Abd Rabb al-Ka'ba said that Muawiya, "orders us to unjustly consume our wealth among ourselves and to kill one another" and Sahabi Abdullah b. 'Amr b. al-'As instead of refuting 'Abd al-Rahman said to the latter, "Obey him (i.e. Muawiya) in so far as he is obedient to God; and disobey him in matters involving disobedience to God."?

As explained by scholars like Imam Nawawi

المقصود بهذا الكلام أن هذا القائل لما سمع كلام عبد الله بن عمرو بن العاص رضي الله تعالى عنهما، وذكر الحديث في تحريم منازعة الخليفة الأول، وأن الثاني يقتل، فاعتقد هذا القائل هذا الوصف في معاوية؛ لمنازعته عليا رضي الله تعالى عنهما، وكانت قد سبقت بيعة علي، فرأى هذا أن نفقة معاوية علي أجناده، وأتباعه في حرب علي، ومنازعته، ومقاتلته إياه، من أكل المال بالباطل، ومن قتل النفس؛ لأنه قتال بغير حق، فلا يستحق أحد مالا في مقاتلته
(شرح مسلم” 12/ 437. “كتاب الإمارة”.)

And Imam Qurtubi:
واستحلاف عبد الرحمن زيادة في الاستيثاق، لا أنه كذبه، ولا اتهمه. وما ذكره عبد الرحمن عن معاوية رضي الله تعالى عنه إغياء في الكلام على حسب ظنه، وتأويله، وإلا فمعاوية رضي الله تعالى عنه لم يعرف من حاله، ولا من سيرته شيء مما قال له، وإنما هذا كما قالت طائفة من الأعراب: إن ناسا من المصدقين يظلموننا، فسموا أخذ الصدقة ظلما؛ حسب ما وقع لهم
(المفهم 4/53)

The Taba'i narrator when heard the hadeeth from Abdullah bin Amr bin al-aas, about obeying the caliph, who is given caliphate first. He made his own deduction out of it applying to the case of Ali(ra) and Muawiya(ra).  In regards to him saying "Muawiya orders us to unjustly consume our wealth among ourselves and to kill one another", he meant that since Ali(ra) was the rightful Caliph, then the wealth that Muawiya(ra) is spending in the war, is like unjust consumption of wealth and is like killing  to kill one another. Now this was his personal deduction, whether it was correct or not is a different issue, as explained by Imam Qurtubi, since different people view andd judge things in different manner.

[iceman]

Salaam,

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

In the above article it is said that tiny minority of Sahabas participated in the Battle of Siffin. Now my question is that Imam Ali (a.s) was Caliph of Muslims during that battle. Weren't all Sahabas obliged to respond to the call of the leader of their time and join his army?

In authentic Ahlul Sunnah hadith I have read that obedience to the ruler is forbidden in matters sinful, but is otherwise obligatory. This means that if Imam Ali (a.s) called Sahabas to join him (a.s) against Muawiya then as being Caliph (Successor) of Rasool-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) it was obligatory on the Sahabas to join Imam Ali's (a.s) army. Those who disobeyed Caliph of Rasool-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) either by fighting him (a.s) or not joining his (i.e. Imam Ali a.s) army on the pretext of avoiding fitnah have indeed disobeyed Rasool-ULLAH (s.a.w.w)

Very nicely put forward, Jazakallah! When it comes to the Ahle Sunnah you have principles as well as rules and regulations concerning Caliphate which apply to the first, second and then the third only. But then when it comes to the 4th this is where the principles along with rules and regulations fall apart and double standards kick in. When it comes to the 4th Caliph of the Ahle Sunnah, ifs and buts start to fly around. This is where they can't stay honest with Caliphate any longer.  😊