Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?

[iceman]

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.

Things were absolutely clear during the fitna of the first, second and third but went shady during the 4th? 😊 Which were the ones who didn't give allegiance to Ali? Surely they were the ones who were the cause of fitna by abstaining. The matter is crystal clear, Ali was the 4th Caliph of the Ahle Sunnah and the Ulul Amre of the time,  those who refused to give allegiance were the cause of division and fitna and those who opposed were rebels. Should be just as simple as that for the Ahle Sunnah just as it is for the first three.

[Abu Muhammad]

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.

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

What you wrote is what is called as "hindsight 20/20". It is easy for people who live after an event to say compared to those who live during that event itself.

If that was as crytal clear as you think, you would find majority of sahabas, who lived during that turbulent period, would have been siding with either Ali or Muawiyya, which by historical facts, not the case as stated by the article. They abstained themselves.

Interestingly enough, the criteria used by people of later times to conclude that Ali's ijtihad is right got nothing to do with analysing the arguments presented by both Ali and Muawiyya like what you were trying to do. Rather the criteria is the killing of someone in a battle (i.e. Ammar)!

[iceman]

The matter was and is crystal clear. Confusion is deliberately created just to protect certain personalities rather than holding them responsible and accountable for using their influence and turning towards violence and threatening behaviour against the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims and the Ulul Amre of the time. Just as simple as that whether you are of this time or that time or anywhere in between. 😊

It's your choice either to be straight, open and honest about Caliphate and rightly guided Caliphs just as you are concerning the first three or continue with your double standards regarding the 4th. 😊 No need for twists and turns and sweating over it.

[Abu Muhammad]

The matter was and is crystal clear. Confusion is deliberately created just to protect certain personalities rather than holding them responsible and accountable for using their influence and turning towards violence and threatening behaviour against the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims and the Ulul Amre of the time. Just as simple as that whether you are of this time or that time or anywhere in between. 😊

It's your choice either to be straight, open and honest about Caliphate and rightly guided Caliphs just as you are concerning the first three or continue with your double standards regarding the 4th. 😊 No need for twists and turns and sweating over it.

Prove it from historical account that the matter is crytal clear and confusion was created to protect certain personalities.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

Iceman

Be consistent with your logic.
If you are then it means you SHOULD believe abu lulu was a kafir & so were those who rose againsy the 3rd caliph. Oh & malik & those who rebelled during the first caliph’s rule as well.

[Ijtaba]

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.

So you mean to say the group which consisted of haters and assassins of Uthman was more nearer to the truth than the group which consisted of lovers and avengers of Uthman's blood?

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.

It is very valid question. Even if Muawiya didn't pledge allegiance to the ruler elected by Muhajirun and Ansar... Muawiya as per the commandment of Prophet (s.a.w.w) could not wage war against the legitimate Ruler of Muslims. Muawiya had only two options:

1. Either to pledge allegiance to the Ruler elected by Muhajirun and Ansar; or

2. Strike his sword against the rock (or use wooden sword) and let himself be killed - see the hadiths 1 & 2 given by you where Muhammad ibn Muslimah says Prophet (s) gave him the 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.”

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.

Then why did Sahabi Abdullah b. 'Amr b. al-'As not say to Tabi that he was wrong in his assumption and then corrected him by saying that Muawiya did what seemed to be right to him and there is nothing wrong in Muawiya making ijtihad to fight back legitimate Ruler of Muslims?

[Ijtaba]

What you wrote is what is called as "hindsight 20/20". It is easy for people who live after an event to say compared to those who live during that event itself.

If that was as crytal clear as you think, you would find majority of sahabas, who lived during that turbulent period, would have been siding with either Ali or Muawiyya, which by historical facts, not the case as stated by the article. They abstained themselves.

I totally agree with what you said except siding with Muawiya. Sahabas were commanded by the Prophet (s.a.w.w) during the time of Fitna to:

1. Side with the legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah

2. Not to fight legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah

There are hadiths where Prophet (s.a.w.w) also warned Muslims of becoming rebels by supporting the opponent/rival of Legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah and thus disrupting the Unity of Muslim Ummah. If Muslims were to support (or join) the opponent/rival of Legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah then Muslim Ruler and his supporters were to fight those rebels.

Interestingly enough, the criteria used by people of later times to conclude that Ali's ijtihad is right got nothing to do with analysing the arguments presented by both Ali and Muawiyya like what you were trying to do. Rather the criteria is the killing of someone in a battle (i.e. Ammar)!

According to you who killed Ammar (r.a)? 1. Shias of Ali (a.s) or 2. Muawiya or 3. Khawarij?

While answering this question do provide reliable sources.

[iceman]

Prove it from historical account that the matter is crytal clear and confusion was created to protect certain personalities.

My pleasure! The first question based on Sunni perspective,

1, Was Ali a legitimate ruler or not? He was the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims. He was also the Ulul Amre of the time. He is from Khulafaa e Rashedoon.

The second question based on Sunni perspective,

2, Can you go against a legitimate Muslim ruler? Under which circumstances can you go against a legitimate Muslim ruler? Which situation or condition permits you to go against a legitimate Muslim ruler?

CAN YOU ANSWER THIS?

Third question,

3, What issue did Muawiyah and his group  (Safeen) or Aisha, Talah and Zubayr  (Jamal) have against the legitimate Muslim ruler and the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the time?

Fourth question,

4, What ever the issue or matter was, did both groups (Safeen and Jamal) have the right to use their influence and resort to violence and threatening behaviour just to have their demands met?

Fifth question,

5, Those parties or groups who aren't in government if they use their influence and resort to violence and threatening behaviour just to have their demands met are they not terrorist groups or organisations? If not then what are they and what is the definition and meaning of terrorist/s?

[iceman]

According to the Arabic lexicon, khilāfa (caliphate) literally means taking the position of others in order to perform the legal and religious rights behalf on them. It is also used in the meaning of vicegerency and successor in the Qur’an.

In Islam, the Prophet Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets and no-one can take the place of the Prophet in his position as Messenger of God. However, other Muslims can represent his position as a ruler, for the Qur’an states:

O you who believe! Obey God and obey the Messenger, and those from among you who are invested with authority.
The first ruler for Muslims in Islamic history was the Prophet Muhammad. He became the head of state for a cosmopolite society, which consists of Jews, paganist Arabs and Muslims. However, the Prophet did not state who would be head of state after his death, nor did the Qur’an assign anyone for this job. Choosing a ruler for Muslims is a political issue; therefore it is left to people.

After the death of the Prophet, Muslims of Makkah gathered around Abu Bakr and Muslims of Medina around Sa’d bin Ubada. After long discussions, Abu Bakr was elected as the first ruler of the Muslim population. His title was Khalifatu Rasul al-Allah (Successor of Messenger of God), which can be understood as the ruler who comes after the Prophet.

The first four caliphs, Abu Bakr (632–4), ‘Umar (634–44), 'Uthman (644–56) and 'Ali (656–61) have been called “the rightly guided caliphs” (Khulafa Rashidin) by Sunni Muslims.

The determination of a title for the new leader was difficult, for prophethood would not be used for other Muslims. Therefore, the Muslim community adopted two titles for Muslim rulers after the Prophet: the ruler of believers (amir al-mu’minin) and the deputy of God (Khalifah Allah). From the second term (Khalifah), the English term caliph is derived.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

So you mean to say the group which consisted of haters and assassins of Uthman was more nearer to the truth than the group which consisted of lovers and avengers of Uthman's blood?

At that time the killers and haters of Uthman(ra) had deserted and abandoned the group which was nearer to the truth due to their extremism. And some of them were infact killed by the group which was nearer to the truth.   

It is very valid question. Even if Muawiya didn't pledge allegiance to the ruler elected by Muhajirun and Ansar... Muawiya as per the commandment of Prophet (s.a.w.w) could not wage war against the legitimate Ruler of Muslims.

Muawiya(ra) defended himself. And inorder to save ones life people can do things which are haram too, as I said before.

 

Then why did Sahabi Abdullah b. 'Amr b. al-'As not say to Tabi that he was wrong in his assumption and then corrected him by saying that Muawiya did what seemed to be right to him and there is nothing wrong in Muawiya making ijtihad to fight back legitimate Ruler of Muslims?

If you have experience with the ahadeeth and the way they are present, then you will find that in some cases not every hadeeth has details, the other info is scattered in other reports. Which means that one cannot use a hadeeth and ask why this and this was not said, because it is possible that it might have been said but it wasn't transmitted in that hadeeth or wasn't transmitted at all. But you cannot use it as a certain fact.

Secondly, as I said, that a person could even be wrong in his ijtihad. And Abdullah ibn Amr(ra) didn't want to be judgemental in this case. He gave a general advice to the Taba'ee to OBEY Muawiya(ra) in what he is obedient to Allah; and disobey him in matters involving disobedience to Allah.

Notice that the Sahabi didn't say Muawiya(ra) isnt worth obedience in anything.

[Ijtaba]

At that time the killers and haters of Uthman(ra) had deserted and abandoned the group which was nearer to the truth due to their extremism. And some of them were infact killed by the group which was nearer to the truth.   

Great! If killers and haters of Uthman had deserted and abandoned Imam Ali (a.s) and some of them were in fact killed by Imam Ali (a.s) and his army then it means there was now no disagreement between Imam Ali (a.s) and Muawiya as the condition put forward by Muawiya for pledging allegiance to Legitimate Ruler was fulfilled.

After the separation and killing of some haters & assassins of Uthman did Muawiya pledge allegiance to Imam Ali (a.s)? If not, may I know the reason for Muawiya not pledging allegiance to the Legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah?

Muawiya(ra) defended himself. And inorder to save ones life people can do things which are haram too, as I said before.

1. Does a person elected as a Ruler by Muhajirun and Ansar through legitimate process of Shura not make him a Ruler of Muslim Ummah irrespective of Muawiya and Sahabas not pledging that person allegiance? If according to you a person cannot become a Ruler of Muslim Ummah even if that person was elected as Ruler by Muhajirun and Ansar through legitimate process of Shura until all Sahabas pledged him allegiance, then can you provide me evidence of this from authentic reports?

2. Can you give me a single authentic hadith which states that it is permissible to fight the Ruler of Muslim Ummah when one's life is in danger?

3. Can you provide a single hadith which states that if a person does haram act (i.e. fight Legitimate Muslim Ruler) in order to save one's life then that person would still be going to Paradise?

Below I provide hadith regarding fighting Muslim Ruler:

Narrated 'Ubada bin As-Samit:

We gave the oath of allegiance to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) that we would listen to and obey him both at the time when we were active and at the time when we were tired and that we would not fight against the ruler or disobey him, and would stand firm for the truth or say the truth wherever we might be, and in the Way of Allah we would not be afraid of the blame of the blamers. (See Hadith No. 178 and 320)

Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 7199, 7200
In-book reference: Book 93, Hadith 60
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Vol. 9, Book 89, Hadith 307

If you have experience with the ahadeeth and the way they are present, then you will find that in some cases not every hadeeth has details, the other info is scattered in other reports. Which means that one cannot use a hadeeth and ask why this and this was not said, because it is possible that it might have been said but it wasn't transmitted in that hadeeth or wasn't transmitted at all. But you cannot use it as a certain fact.

Secondly, as I said, that a person could even be wrong in his ijtihad. And Abdullah ibn Amr(ra) didn't want to be judgemental in this case. He gave a general advice to the Taba'ee to OBEY Muawiya(ra) in what he is obedient to Allah; and disobey him in matters involving disobedience to Allah.

Notice that the Sahabi didn't say Muawiya(ra) isnt worth obedience in anything.

Obey Muawiya? Muawiya wasn't the Ruler of Muslim Ummah at that time so people of Shaam weren't bound to obey him nor was Muawiya governor of Shaam under the legitimate government of that time. Muawiya in fact rebelled against the legitimate Muslim government and thus had divided Muslim Ummah into two parts.

It was ALLAH'S (SWT) Blessing and prophecy of Prophet (s.a.w.w) that Sayyid Imam Hassan (a.s) united the Muslim Ummah which was divided by Muawiya. If ALLAH (SWT) hadn't united the Muslim Ummah through HIS Messenger's (s.a.w.w) blessed grandson then this Ummah would had remained divided due to Muawiya.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Great! If killers and haters of Uthman had deserted and abandoned Imam Ali (a.s) and some of them were in fact killed by Imam Ali (a.s) and his army then it means there was now no disagreement between Imam Ali (a.s) and Muawiya as the condition put forward by Muawiya for pledging allegiance to Legitimate Ruler was fulfilled.

Some doesn't mean all. Care to improve your IQ, otherwise you will never end making silly arguments.

1. Does a person elected as a Ruler by Muhajirun and Ansar through legitimate process of Shura not make him a Ruler of Muslim Ummah irrespective of Muawiya and Sahabas not pledging that person allegiance? If according to you a person cannot become a Ruler of Muslim Ummah even if that person was elected as Ruler by Muhajirun and Ansar through legitimate process of Shura until all Sahabas pledged him allegiance, then can you provide me evidence of this from authentic reports?

He'll become the ruler.

2. Can you give me a single authentic hadith which states that it is permissible to fight the Ruler of Muslim Ummah when one's life is in danger?

There isn't any specific ruling in this regards, but based on the general ruling I said that thing. And we can see the example of Hussain(ra) and other Sahaba who threatened to fight the ruler in a case when they thought he was treated unjustly.

Yazid b. `Abdullah b. Usama b. al-Hadi al-Laythi told me that Muhammad b. Ibrahim b. al-Harith al-Taymi told him that there was a dispute between al-Husayn b. `Ali b. Abu Talib and al-Walid b. `Utba b. Abu Sufyan about some property they held in Dhu’l-Marwa. At that time al-Walid was governor of Medina, his uncle, Mu`awiya b. Abu Sufyan having given him the appointment. Al-Walid had defrauded al-Husayn of his rights, for as governor he had the power to do so. Husayn said to him: `By Allah you shall do me justice or I will take my sword and stand in the apostle’s mosque and invoke the confederacy of the Fudul!’ `Abdullah b. al-Zubayr who was with al-Walid at the time said: `And I swear by Allah that if he invokes it I will take my sword and stand with him until he gets justice, or we will die together.‘ When the news reached al-Miswar b.Makhrama b. Naufal al-Zuhri and `Abdu’l-Rahman b. `Uthman b.`Ubaydullah al-Taymi they said the same. As soon as he realized what was happening al-Walid gave al-Husayn satisfaction.(Seerah ibn Hisham, page 47).

3. Can you provide a single hadith which states that if a person does haram act (i.e. fight Legitimate Muslim Ruler) in order to save one's life then that person would still be going to Paradise?

Allah says that the only sin he won't forgive is shirk. The rest are those which he may forgive. And there are several acts of worship which wipes out all the sins of a believer. And the sin that is committed forcefully is more entitled to fall under this category. 

Can you quote any hadeeth which says that if a person does haram act (i.e. fight Legitimate Muslim Ruler) in order to save one's life then that person cannot enter Paradise?

It was ALLAH'S (SWT) Blessing and prophecy of Prophet (s.a.w.w) that Sayyid Imam Hassan (a.s) united the Muslim Ummah which was divided by Muawiya. If ALLAH (SWT) hadn't united the Muslim Ummah through HIS Messenger's (s.a.w.w) blessed grandson then this Ummah would had remained divided due to Muawiya.

Indeed Allah(swt) united two group of MUSLIMS through Hasan(ra). Ahlus-sunnah believes in this prophesy whole heartedly. And in a way this prophesy destroys the myth of divinely appointed leader after Prophet Muhammad(saws). Because a group which fights a divinely appointed leader would be deemed disbeliever.

[Abu Muhammad]

I totally agree with what you said except siding with Muawiya. Sahabas were commanded by the Prophet (s.a.w.w) during the time of Fitna to:

1. Side with the legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah

2. Not to fight legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah

There are hadiths where Prophet (s.a.w.w) also warned Muslims of becoming rebels by supporting the opponent/rival of Legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah and thus disrupting the Unity of Muslim Ummah. If Muslims were to support (or join) the opponent/rival of Legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah then Muslim Ruler and his supporters were to fight those rebels.

Sigh... Seems like you still do not understand what "hindsight 20/20" mean. Do you think that when the dispute began between Ali and Muawiyya about the blood of Uthman, straightaway Sahabas recognized that as fitna?

According to you who killed Ammar (r.a)? 1. Shias of Ali (a.s) or 2. Muawiya or 3. Khawarij?

While answering this question do provide reliable sources.

It doesn't matter who killed Ammar. The point I wanted to bring to your attention was that Ammar's death is the determining factor on whose ijtihad was the right one. And that happenned AFTER the battle had broken out, NOT EARLIER than that. Therefore, during the start of the dispute, it wasn't clear whose ijtihad was right and whose was wrong and we see majority of Sahabas abstained themselves as consequense.

[Abu Muhammad]

@iceman,
I wrote this to @Ijtaba but this is the context of my challenge to you:

What you wrote is what is called as "hindsight 20/20". It is easy for people who live after an event to say compared to those who live during that event itself.

If that was as crytal clear as you think, you would find majority of sahabas, who lived during that turbulent period, would have been siding with either Ali or Muawiyya, which by historical facts, not the case as stated by the article. They abstained themselves.

Interestingly enough, the criteria used by people of later times to conclude that Ali's ijtihad is right got nothing to do with analysing the arguments presented by both Ali and Muawiyya like what you were trying to do. Rather the criteria is the killing of someone in a battle (i.e. Ammar)!

Then, I asked you this:

Prove it from historical account that the matter is crytal clear and confusion was created to protect certain personalities.

And you responded with all these questions as your "historical account". And those questions UNRELATED to my challenge too:

My pleasure! The first question based on Sunni perspective,

1, Was Ali a legitimate ruler or not? He was the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims. He was also the Ulul Amre of the time. He is from Khulafaa e Rashedoon.

The second question based on Sunni perspective,

2, Can you go against a legitimate Muslim ruler? Under which circumstances can you go against a legitimate Muslim ruler? Which situation or condition permits you to go against a legitimate Muslim ruler?

CAN YOU ANSWER THIS?

Third question,

3, What issue did Muawiyah and his group  (Safeen) or Aisha, Talah and Zubayr  (Jamal) have against the legitimate Muslim ruler and the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the time?

Fourth question,

4, What ever the issue or matter was, did both groups (Safeen and Jamal) have the right to use their influence and resort to violence and threatening behaviour just to have their demands met?

Fifth question,

5, Those parties or groups who aren't in government if they use their influence and resort to violence and threatening behaviour just to have their demands met are they not terrorist groups or organisations? If not then what are they and what is the definition and meaning of terrorist/s?

Poor you. I agree with Sis Mythbuster. You are a kind of a TROLL...

[iceman]

@iceman,
I wrote this to @Ijtaba but this is the context of my challenge to you:

Then, I asked you this:

And you responded with all these questions as your "historical account". And those questions UNRELATED to my challenge too:

Poor you. I agree with Sis Mythbuster. You are a kind of a TROLL...

😀 I'm not a troll, you're just bad loosers. If you feel that you're loosing an argument or can't keep up with a discussion then accuse and abuse becomes your policy and way.

You don't have two parties or groups at a balanced and equal level. This is what you're trying to make it look like for the past 1400 years or so.

You have the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims, Caliphatul Muslimeen, Ameerul Momineen and the Ulul Amre and a legitimate ruler of the time,

those who used their influence, connection and wealth and turned towards violence and threatening behaviour just to have their demands met against the legitimate ruler of the time are not wrong but infact are DEAD WRONG!

It doesn't matter about their popularity, personality or prestige status, this shouldn't be thought of and brought in when it comes to ABSOLUTE JUSTICE!

When it comes to criminality or criminal activity of what ever kind your celebrity status and popular personality shouldn't effect the judgment that's passed on about you and this shouldn't be the case to mitigate matters.

Just as simple as that. If you're involved in any criminal activity of what ever kind then you're a criminal be it terrorism, treason or what ever, be it against an individual, a company or department or the government or state. Just as simple as that. 😊

[Abu Muhammad]

😀 I'm not a troll, you're just bad loosers. If you feel that you're loosing an argument or can't keep up with a discussion then accuse and abuse becomes your policy and way.

You don't have two parties or groups at a balanced and equal level. This is what you're trying to make it look like for the past 1400 years or so.

You have the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims, Caliphatul Muslimeen, Ameerul Momineen and the Ulul Amre and a legitimate ruler of the time,

those who used their influence, connection and wealth and turned towards violence and threatening behaviour just to have their demands met against the legitimate ruler of the time are not wrong but infact are DEAD WRONG!

It doesn't matter about their popularity, personality or prestige status, this shouldn't be thought of and brought in when it comes to ABSOLUTE JUSTICE!

When it comes to criminality or criminal activity of what ever kind your celebrity status and popular personality shouldn't effect the judgment that's passed on about you and this shouldn't be the case to mitigate matters.

Just as simple as that. If you're involved in any criminal activity of what ever kind then you're a criminal be it terrorism, treason or what ever, be it against an individual, a company or department or the government or state. Just as simple as that. 😊

Still waiting for historical account as proof that the matter between Ali and Muawiyya is clear as you claim.

[GreatChineseFall]

Salaam

...

Wa alaykom salam,

I am not sure whether you are trying to understand the position or are trying to argue against it (both attempts are ok of course), but if the latter the following might not be helpful for you. If however you are trying to understand the position, it might help to use a little bit of imagination and change some names and use any emotional bias you might have to your advantage.

Imagine it wasn't Uthman ibn Affan who was killed but Ali ibn Abi Talib. Right after this, his haters and killers rush towards Umar ibn al Khattab to pledge allegiance to him and Umar doesn't take any measures to bring the killers to justice. Imagine al Hassan ibn Ali was installed as the governor of Egypt by his father and right after his death Umar ibn al Khattab demands his allegiance or be deposed from the position. Imagine Umar then assembles an army and moves towards Egypt to forcefully remove al Hassan from his position.

Do you then believe that al Hassan, after his own father installed him as governor and after his father literally got beaten to death and after the very people who did that pledged allegiance to Umar, who doesn't even have close to the full support of everyone and who can't or won't do anything about Ali's killers and who marches with an army to forcefully remove him from this position his father installed him, has NO BASIS WHATSOEVER to defend himself according to Islam? Remember, this isn't about what is the right thing to do here, but your claim that he couldn't even genuinely consider this option as remotely acceptable.

Of course this is just an emotional argument and not a rational argument, but it can in fact help to understand the rational arguments better, if one is open minded about it.

To be honest, if it really was like this, it wouldn't be surprising at all that most Shia would consider Umar complicit in Ali's murder and would curse him day and night for that. If true, it would just go to show that nawasib and rawafid are two sides of the same coin.

[iceman]

Wa alaykom salam,

I am not sure whether you are trying to understand the position or are trying to argue against it (both attempts are ok of course), but if the latter the following might not be helpful for you. If however you are trying to understand the position, it might help to use a little bit of imagination and change some names and use any emotional bias you might have to your advantage.

Imagine it wasn't Uthman ibn Affan who was killed but Ali ibn Abi Talib. Right after this, his haters and killers rush towards Umar ibn al Khattab to pledge allegiance to him and Umar doesn't take any measures to bring the killers to justice. Imagine al Hassan ibn Ali was installed as the governor of Egypt by his father and right after his death Umar ibn al Khattab demands his allegiance or be deposed from the position. Imagine Umar then assembles an army and moves towards Egypt to forcefully remove al Hassan from his position.

Do you then believe that al Hassan, after his own father installed him as governor and after his father literally got beaten to death and after the very people who did that pledged allegiance to Umar, who doesn't even have close to the full support of everyone and who can't or won't do anything about Ali's killers and who marches with an army to forcefully remove him from this position his father installed him, has NO BASIS WHATSOEVER to defend himself according to Islam? Remember, this isn't about what is the right thing to do here, but your claim that he couldn't even genuinely consider this option as remotely acceptable.

Of course this is just an emotional argument and not a rational argument, but it can in fact help to understand the rational arguments better, if one is open minded about it.

To be honest, if it really was like this, it wouldn't be surprising at all that most Shia would consider Umar complicit in Ali's murder and would curse him day and night for that. If true, it would just go to show that nawasib and rawafid are two sides of the same coin.

You've got your facts absolutely and entirely wrong. But ok, lets see some historical evidence. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Lets clear this.

[iceman]

Still waiting for historical account as proof that the matter between Ali and Muawiyya is clear as you claim.

It's been put forward to you but I don't think you want to see things beyond your arrogance over the matter.

[Ijtaba]

Some doesn't mean all. Care to improve your IQ, otherwise you will never end making silly arguments.

According to Ahlul Sunnah, assassins of Uthman and their supporters were unknown and it was very arduous task for Imam Ali (a.s) to punish assassins of Uthman with their supporters at the time Imam Ali (a.s) took the seat of ruler-ship. It was keeping in mind this situation I said that killing some assassins of Uthman would had shown Muawiya the sincerity of Imam Ali (a.s) in willingness to punish murderers and thus avenge Uthman's murder. Muawiya on the basis of this should had pledge allegiance to Imam Ali (a.s) in order to unite Muslim Ummah. That is Unity of Muslim Ummah should had been given preference as divided Muslim Ummah would had weaken Muslims and made them vulnerable from outside (non-Muslims) attacks.

If you still insist that killing all unknown assassins and punishing all unknown supporters of assassins was important prerequisite for giving allegiance to the Imam Ali (a.s) and preferred over Unity of Muslim Ummah then I did like to know whether Muawiya killed all assassins of Uthman and punished their supporters when he took the seat of ruler-ship? If yes then provide evidence for this.

He'll become the ruler.
 There isn't any specific ruling in this regards, but based on the general ruling I said that thing. And we can see the example of Hussain(ra) and other Sahaba who threatened to fight the ruler in a case when they thought he was treated unjustly.

Provide evidence of Imam Hussayn (a.s) threatening to fight the ruler when he thought he was being treated unjustly?

In the Event of Karbala according to Ahlul Sunnah Imam Hussayn (a.s) was willing to pay bayah to Yazid and did not rebel against Yazid but the ibn Ziyad and his forces fought with Imam (a.s). Imam Hussayn (a.s) fighting back for defense against ibn Ziyad and his forces had nothing to do with rebelling against Yazid as according to Ahlul Sunnah Yazid himself became angry at ibn Ziyad and cursed him for his actions of fighting and killing Imam Hussayn (a.s)

Yazid b. `Abdullah b. Usama b. al-Hadi al-Laythi told me that Muhammad b. Ibrahim b. al-Harith al-Taymi told him that there was a dispute between al-Husayn b. `Ali b. Abu Talib and al-Walid b. `Utba b. Abu Sufyan about some property they held in Dhu’l-Marwa. At that time al-Walid was governor of Medina, his uncle, Mu`awiya b. Abu Sufyan having given him the appointment. Al-Walid had defrauded al-Husayn of his rights, for as governor he had the power to do so. Husayn said to him: `By Allah you shall do me justice or I will take my sword and stand in the apostle’s mosque and invoke the confederacy of the Fudul!’ `Abdullah b. al-Zubayr who was with al-Walid at the time said: `And I swear by Allah that if he invokes it I will take my sword and stand with him until he gets justice, or we will die together.‘ When the news reached al-Miswar b.Makhrama b. Naufal al-Zuhri and `Abdu’l-Rahman b. `Uthman b.`Ubaydullah al-Taymi they said the same. As soon as he realized what was happening al-Walid gave al-Husayn satisfaction.(Seerah ibn Hisham, page 47).

How is confederacy of the Fudul and rebelling against the ruler related? 

Where there is a dispute between two people (in this scenario between Imam Hussayn a.s and governor Walid) then oppressed person may invoke the confederacy of the Fudul. Nobody thought (including Walid) that Imam Hussayn's (a.s) invoking confederacy of Fudul was equivalent to rebelling against Muawiya. If you believe otherwise then please prove it by providing reliable narrations.

The example most relevant should be Imam Hussayn (a.s) invoking confederacy of Fudul against the ruler (i.e. Muawiya). There are many cases in history where people complained against governors of the legitimate government to the ruler and those governors got punished and/or were removed from their positions of governance by the ruler when the complaints were found to be valid but never did anyone think that valid complain against governors was rebelling against the ruler (unless if ruler himself explicitly says that complaining against his governors' illegal actions is tantamount to rebelling against the former)

Allah says that the only sin he won't forgive is shirk. The rest are those which he may forgive. And there are several acts of worship which wipes out all the sins of a believer. And the sin that is committed forcefully is more entitled to fall under this category. 

- Also Fighting Muslim is Kufr

The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Insulting a Muslim is an evil action and fighting him is disbelief (kufr).”

Narrated by al-Bukhaari and Muslim.

Provide evidence and not your opinion. I want evidence (from Quran or Hadith) of person fighting the ruler of his time is a sin that is committed forcefully and is pardonable.

Can you quote any hadeeth which says that if a person does haram act (i.e. fight Legitimate Muslim Ruler) in order to save one's life then that person cannot enter Paradise?

Sure.

The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Insulting a Muslim is an evil action and fighting him is disbelief (kufr).”

Fighting Muslim is Kufr... so how about fighting Muslim Ruler?

According to the light of this hadith fighting (and fighting back) Muslim Ruler is Kufr. If you believe otherwise then provide evidence for this i.e. there is exception where a person may fight back Muslim/Muslim ruler to save his life. According to this hadith fighting any Muslim is Kufr. Plain and simple.

Indeed Allah(swt) united two group of MUSLIMS through Hasan(ra). Ahlus-sunnah believes in this prophesy whole heartedly. And in a way this prophesy destroys the myth of divinely appointed leader after Prophet Muhammad(saws). Because a group which fights a divinely appointed leader would be deemed disbeliever.

And what do you want to prove by this?

Sahih Muslim
Book 20, Number 4502:

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Malik that Ubaidullah b. Ziyad visited Ma'qil b. Yaser in the latter's illness. Ma'qil said to him: I am narrating to you a tradition. If I were not at death's door, I would not narrate it to you. I heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace he upon him) say: A ruler who, having obtained control over the affairs of the Muslims, does not strive for their betterment and does not serve them sincerely shall not enter Paradise with them.