TwelverShia.net Forum

Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ijtaba

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #40 on: October 01, 2018, 06:29:23 PM »
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?

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.

According to Ahlul Sunnah Islam was complete when Prophet (s.a.w.w) left this world. This means Prophet (s.a.w.w) foretold his people how to conduct their actions at time of peace as well as during the time of Fitna.

There are clear hadiths where Prophet (s.a.w.w) said to Muslims how to conduct their affairs during time of peace as well as during time of Fitna:

01. Muslims should pledge allegiance to legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah during the time of peace as well as during the time of Fitna.

02. Muslims should not fight any Muslim as fighting Muslim is Kufr during the time of peace as well as during the time of Fitna.

03. Muslims should not fight Muslim Ruler (even if he be a bad ruler) even if they (i.e. Muslims) are killed... both during the time of peace as well as during the time of Fitna.


If you believe otherwise then provide your evidence with authentic narrations instead of your opinions.

Ijtaba

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #41 on: October 01, 2018, 06:49:29 PM »
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.

Imam Hassan (a.s) gave up his ruler-ship to Muawiya for the sake of uniting of Muslim Ummah whereas Muawiya divided Muslim Ummah on the pretext of avenging Uthman's blood.

Ahlul Sunnah believes that Imam Hassan (a.s) was more rightful than Muawiya of being Ruler of Muslim Ummah but Imam Hassan (a.s) gave up his ruler-ship for the sake of uniting Muslim Ummah as Muawiya's greed for ruler-ship had divided Muslim Ummah. Such an act of Imam Hassan (a.s) loved by GOD and praised by Prophet (s.a.w.w) saved the Muslim Ummah from terrible fate. Imam Hassan (a.s) knew that Muawiya would not stop the division of Muslim Ummah unless Muawiya's desire for ruler-ship was fulfilled and thus Imam Hassan (a.s) being more worthy of Ruler-ship gave up his ruler-ship.

As for your example... ALLAH (SWT) and HIS Prophet's (s.a.w.w) are to be obeyed. As per the example, Imam Hassan (a.s) would be legitimate governor under Imam Ali (a.s) rule. When Umar becomes Ruler then Imam Hassan (a.s) should obey Umar's order and hand over his seat of governorship. If Imam Hassan (a.s) does not comply with the legitimate ruler (i.e. Umar) then in the light of Quran, Imam Hassan (a.s) has rebelled against the legitimate Ruler and thus legitimate Ruler has full right and authority to fight the rebel (i.e. in this example Imam Hassan a.s). And there can be no justification in the light of Quran and Hadith for Imam Hassan (a.s) fighting back the legitimate ruler of his time (i.e. Umar) as Imam Hassan (a.s) cannot fight nor kill the legitimate ruler of his time.

GreatChineseFall

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #42 on: October 04, 2018, 10:47:55 PM »
Imam Hassan (a.s) gave up his ruler-ship to Muawiya for the sake of uniting of Muslim Ummah whereas Muawiya divided Muslim Ummah on the pretext of avenging Uthman's blood.

Ahlul Sunnah believes that Imam Hassan (a.s) was more rightful than Muawiya of being Ruler of Muslim Ummah but Imam Hassan (a.s) gave up his ruler-ship for the sake of uniting Muslim Ummah as Muawiya's greed for ruler-ship had divided Muslim Ummah. Such an act of Imam Hassan (a.s) loved by GOD and praised by Prophet (s.a.w.w) saved the Muslim Ummah from terrible fate. Imam Hassan (a.s) knew that Muawiya would not stop the division of Muslim Ummah unless Muawiya's desire for ruler-ship was fulfilled and thus Imam Hassan (a.s) being more worthy of Ruler-ship gave up his ruler-ship.

I don't understand why you are saying this, I was not implying that Imam al Hassan would do such a thing.

As for your example... ALLAH (SWT) and HIS Prophet's (s.a.w.w) are to be obeyed. As per the example, Imam Hassan (a.s) would be legitimate governor under Imam Ali (a.s) rule. When Umar becomes Ruler then Imam Hassan (a.s) should obey Umar's order and hand over his seat of governorship. If Imam Hassan (a.s) does not comply with the legitimate ruler (i.e. Umar) then in the light of Quran, Imam Hassan (a.s) has rebelled against the legitimate Ruler and thus legitimate Ruler has full right and authority to fight the rebel (i.e. in this example Imam Hassan a.s). And there can be no justification in the light of Quran and Hadith for Imam Hassan (a.s) fighting back the legitimate ruler of his time (i.e. Umar) as Imam Hassan (a.s) cannot fight nor kill the legitimate ruler of his time.

I agree that it's hard to find justification for Muawiya's decision, but are you saying that Muawiya had no basis for not pledging allegiance and not recognizing him as a the rightful ruler or he had no basis for fighting Ali back (assuming Ali was not the rightful ruler)?

iceman

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #43 on: October 06, 2018, 08:23:06 PM »
I don't understand why you are saying this, I was not implying that Imam al Hassan would do such a thing.

I agree that it's hard to find justification for Muawiya's decision, but are you saying that Muawiya had no basis for not pledging allegiance and not recognizing him as a the rightful ruler or he had no basis for fighting Ali back (assuming Ali was not the rightful ruler)?

Muawiyah had no basis/no ground for not pledging allegiance and for not recognising Ali as the rightful ruler, if he did then what was it?

He didn't fight Ali back but he used means of violence and threatening behaviour to have his demands met and raised arms against the Ulul Amre of the time, which he had no right to and which is a serious crime itself.

Abu Muhammad

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #44 on: October 07, 2018, 02:48:49 PM »
According to Ahlul Sunnah Islam was complete when Prophet (s.a.w.w) left this world. This means Prophet (s.a.w.w) foretold his people how to conduct their actions at time of peace as well as during the time of Fitna.

There are clear hadiths where Prophet (s.a.w.w) said to Muslims how to conduct their affairs during time of peace as well as during time of Fitna:

01. Muslims should pledge allegiance to legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah during the time of peace as well as during the time of Fitna.

02. Muslims should not fight any Muslim as fighting Muslim is Kufr during the time of peace as well as during the time of Fitna.

03. Muslims should not fight Muslim Ruler (even if he be a bad ruler) even if they (i.e. Muslims) are killed... both during the time of peace as well as during the time of Fitna.


If you believe otherwise then provide your evidence with authentic narrations instead of your opinions.

Sorry for my late reply. Been busy lately.

These are the evidences as requested on how Sahabas should act during the time of fitna:

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 (رضي الله عنه): The Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) 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.”
[Source: Abu Dawood in his Sunan 4/99, al-Albani said Sahih.]

عن أممالك البهزية قالت: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم :” خير الناس في الفتنةرجل معتزل في ماله يعبد ربه ويؤدي حقه ورجل آخذ برأس فرسه في سبيل الله يخيفهم ويخيفونه”.مسند أحمد ج6 ص419،تعليق شعيب الأرنؤوط : صحيح لغيره

Umm Malik Al-Buhziyah (رضي الله عنها): The Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) said: ‘The best of people during the Fitnah is a man who isolates himself and his wealth and prays to his Lord and fulfils his religious obligations, and a Man who holds the rails of his horse (making Jihad) in the cause of Allah and scaring his enemies.’
[Source: Musnad Ahmad 6/419, Al-Arnaout said: Sahih li ghayrihi.]

عن أبي بردة قال دخلت على محمد بن مسلمة فقال إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم قال : (( إنها ستكون فتنة و فرقة و اختلاف ، فإذا كان كذلك فأت بسيفك أُحدا فاضربه حتى ينقطع ، ثم اجلس في بيتك حتى تأتيك يد خاطئة ، أو منية قاضية )) ، ثم قال محمد بن مسلمة -أيام الفتنة- : فقد فعلت ما قاله لي رسول الله -عليه الصلاة و السلام.رواه ابن ماجة ج 2 ص 1310 ،قال الشيخ الألباني:صحيح،ورواه الطبراني في المعجم الأوسط ،و رجاله ثقات . الهيثمي : ج 7 ص: 301 .

Abu Bardah (ra) narrated: I entered on Muhammad bin Maslamah so the messenger of Allah (SAWS) said: “There shall be Fitnah and division and conflict, so if this happens then seek the mountain of Uhud with your sword, then hit it with that sword until it’s broken, after this go back to your house and sit until a treacherous hand reaches you or until your life ends.” then  Muhammad bin Maslamah said -in the days of Fitnah-: “I have done what the messenger of Allah (SAWS) ordered me.”
[Sources: Sunan ibn Majah 2/1310, al-Albani said: SAHIH. al-Tabarani narrated it in al-Mu`jam al-Awsat and its narrators are trustworthy. al-Haythami narrated it in his Majma` 7/301.]

أن رسول الله -صلى الله عليه و سلم- أعطى سيفا لمحمد بن مسلمة ، -رضيالله عنه – و قال له : (( جاهد بهذا ، في سبيل الله ، فإذا اختلفت أعناق الناس ، فاضرببه الحجر ، ثم ادخل بيتك ، فكن حلسا ملقى ، حتى تأتيك يد خاطئة ، أو منية قاضية)).رواه الطبراني في المعجم الكبير ، و رجاله ثقات ج 7 ص: 301 .
The Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) gave a sword to Muhammad ibn Muslimah and said: “Make Jihad with this but when the people differ then strike the rocks with it, then enter your house until you are assassinated by an evil hand or until your time has come to die.”
[Source: al-Tabarani in al-Mu’ujam al-Kabir 7/301 and its narrators are trustworthy.]


And the followings were Ali's attitude towards those sahabas who refrained themselves from joining either parties. Never he came up with argument as presented by you:

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), 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.]


حَدَّثَنَا عُمَرُ بْنُ أَيُّوبَ الْمَوْصِلِيُّ، عَنْ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ بُرْقَانَ، عَنْ يَزِيدَ بْنِ الْأَصَمِّ، قَالَ: سُئِلَ عَلِيٌّ عَنْ قَتْلَى يَوْمِ صِفِّينَ، فَقَالَ: " قَتْلَانَا وَقَتَلَاهُمْ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَيَصِيرُ الْأَمْرُ إِلَيَّ وَإِلَى مُعَاوِيَةَ "

Narrated by ‘Umar bin Ayyuub Al-Maushiliy, from Ja’far bin Burqaan, from Yaziid bin Al-Asham, he said: ‘Aliy was asked about those who were killed on the day of Siffin, so he said: “Those who were killed among us and among them will be in Jannah. And this matter is between me and Mu’aawiyyah".
[Source: Ibnu Abi Syaibah, 15/302. Sahih].                                             

During the days of Fitnah, `Ali ibn abi Talib (ra) came to Muhammad bin Maslamah (ra) and told him: “Why did  you not join in this matter?” so he replied: “Your cousin -meaning the prophet (SAWS)- gave me a sword and said: Fight with it as long as the enemy if being fought, so if you see the people killing one another, then go to a big rock and break the sword, then stick to your house until death comes to you or you are killed.” so `Ali told them (his companions): “Leave him be.”
[Source: Musnad Ahmad 4/225.]


Even in a Twelvers' source below:

When the Imam [peace be upon him] was about to get ready to head towards Basra to confront the rebels, Saad Ibn Abi Waqqas, Muhammad Ibn Maslamah, Usamah Ibn Zayd and Abdullah Ibn Omar refused to come with him. The Imam (Ali) asked: ‘Why are you not ready for Jihad’? They replied: ‘We are worried that we might spill the blood of a Muslim’. The Imam replied: ‘Are you loyal in regards to the pledge of allegiance (Bay’ah) you have given to me’? They said: “Yes!” The Imam then told them to go back to their homes and upon that he cited the ‘Hikmah’ number 15 [i.e. Every person who is tempted to go astray, does not deserve punishment.]

Source: Nahj Al-Balagha Farsi translation by Ali Dashti

Abu Muhammad

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #45 on: October 07, 2018, 03:04:15 PM »
It's been put forward to you but I don't think you want to see things beyond your arrogance over the matter.

Do you have any idea how historical account look like? They look like this:

Sorry for my late reply. Been busy lately.

These are the evidences as requested on how Sahabas should act during the time of fitna:

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 (رضي الله عنه): The Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) 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.”
[Source: Abu Dawood in his Sunan 4/99, al-Albani said Sahih.]

عن أممالك البهزية قالت: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم :” خير الناس في الفتنةرجل معتزل في ماله يعبد ربه ويؤدي حقه ورجل آخذ برأس فرسه في سبيل الله يخيفهم ويخيفونه”.مسند أحمد ج6 ص419،تعليق شعيب الأرنؤوط : صحيح لغيره

Umm Malik Al-Buhziyah (رضي الله عنها): The Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) said: ‘The best of people during the Fitnah is a man who isolates himself and his wealth and prays to his Lord and fulfils his religious obligations, and a Man who holds the rails of his horse (making Jihad) in the cause of Allah and scaring his enemies.’
[Source: Musnad Ahmad 6/419, Al-Arnaout said: Sahih li ghayrihi.]

عن أبي بردة قال دخلت على محمد بن مسلمة فقال إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم قال : (( إنها ستكون فتنة و فرقة و اختلاف ، فإذا كان كذلك فأت بسيفك أُحدا فاضربه حتى ينقطع ، ثم اجلس في بيتك حتى تأتيك يد خاطئة ، أو منية قاضية )) ، ثم قال محمد بن مسلمة -أيام الفتنة- : فقد فعلت ما قاله لي رسول الله -عليه الصلاة و السلام.رواه ابن ماجة ج 2 ص 1310 ،قال الشيخ الألباني:صحيح،ورواه الطبراني في المعجم الأوسط ،و رجاله ثقات . الهيثمي : ج 7 ص: 301 .

Abu Bardah (ra) narrated: I entered on Muhammad bin Maslamah so the messenger of Allah (SAWS) said: “There shall be Fitnah and division and conflict, so if this happens then seek the mountain of Uhud with your sword, then hit it with that sword until it’s broken, after this go back to your house and sit until a treacherous hand reaches you or until your life ends.” then  Muhammad bin Maslamah said -in the days of Fitnah-: “I have done what the messenger of Allah (SAWS) ordered me.”
[Sources: Sunan ibn Majah 2/1310, al-Albani said: SAHIH. al-Tabarani narrated it in al-Mu`jam al-Awsat and its narrators are trustworthy. al-Haythami narrated it in his Majma` 7/301.]

أن رسول الله -صلى الله عليه و سلم- أعطى سيفا لمحمد بن مسلمة ، -رضيالله عنه – و قال له : (( جاهد بهذا ، في سبيل الله ، فإذا اختلفت أعناق الناس ، فاضرببه الحجر ، ثم ادخل بيتك ، فكن حلسا ملقى ، حتى تأتيك يد خاطئة ، أو منية قاضية)).رواه الطبراني في المعجم الكبير ، و رجاله ثقات ج 7 ص: 301 .
The Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) gave a sword to Muhammad ibn Muslimah and said: “Make Jihad with this but when the people differ then strike the rocks with it, then enter your house until you are assassinated by an evil hand or until your time has come to die.”
[Source: al-Tabarani in al-Mu’ujam al-Kabir 7/301 and its narrators are trustworthy.]


And the followings were Ali's attitude towards those sahabas who refrained themselves from joining either parties. Never he came up with argument as presented by you:

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), 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.]


حَدَّثَنَا عُمَرُ بْنُ أَيُّوبَ الْمَوْصِلِيُّ، عَنْ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ بُرْقَانَ، عَنْ يَزِيدَ بْنِ الْأَصَمِّ، قَالَ: سُئِلَ عَلِيٌّ عَنْ قَتْلَى يَوْمِ صِفِّينَ، فَقَالَ: " قَتْلَانَا وَقَتَلَاهُمْ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَيَصِيرُ الْأَمْرُ إِلَيَّ وَإِلَى مُعَاوِيَةَ "

Narrated by ‘Umar bin Ayyuub Al-Maushiliy, from Ja’far bin Burqaan, from Yaziid bin Al-Asham, he said: ‘Aliy was asked about those who were killed on the day of Siffin, so he said: “Those who were killed among us and among them will be in Jannah. And this matter is between me and Mu’aawiyyah".
[Source: Ibnu Abi Syaibah, 15/302. Sahih].                                             

During the days of Fitnah, `Ali ibn abi Talib (ra) came to Muhammad bin Maslamah (ra) and told him: “Why did  you not join in this matter?” so he replied: “Your cousin -meaning the prophet (SAWS)- gave me a sword and said: Fight with it as long as the enemy if being fought, so if you see the people killing one another, then go to a big rock and break the sword, then stick to your house until death comes to you or you are killed.” so `Ali told them (his companions): “Leave him be.”
[Source: Musnad Ahmad 4/225.]


Even in a Twelvers' source below:

When the Imam [peace be upon him] was about to get ready to head towards Basra to confront the rebels, Saad Ibn Abi Waqqas, Muhammad Ibn Maslamah, Usamah Ibn Zayd and Abdullah Ibn Omar refused to come with him. The Imam (Ali) asked: ‘Why are you not ready for Jihad’? They replied: ‘We are worried that we might spill the blood of a Muslim’. The Imam replied: ‘Are you loyal in regards to the pledge of allegiance (Bay’ah) you have given to me’? They said: “Yes!” The Imam then told them to go back to their homes and upon that he cited the ‘Hikmah’ number 15 [i.e. Every person who is tempted to go astray, does not deserve punishment.]

Source: Nahj Al-Balagha Farsi translation by Ali Dashti


Again, I'm still waiting for historical account as proof that the matter between Ali and Muawiyya is clear as you claim.

Go...

iceman

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #46 on: October 07, 2018, 10:57:45 PM »
Do you have any idea how historical account look like? They look like this:

Again, I'm still waiting for historical account as proof that the matter between Ali and Muawiyya is clear as you claim.

Go...

HERE WE GO......

ALI and MUAWIYYA...No, Caliphatul Muslimeen, Ameerul Momineen, Legitimate ruler and Ulul Amre of the time and Muawiyya. We don't have two parties or groups here, but infact we the Islamic Caliphate v the rebellious group. Simple and end of the story. Don't try to cover it up and make it look grey, shady, muddy and confusing by HISTORICAL FACTS and this, that and the other. Stick to the principles.

Abu Muhammad

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #47 on: October 08, 2018, 03:28:26 AM »
HERE WE GO......

ALI and MUAWIYYA...No, Caliphatul Muslimeen, Ameerul Momineen, Legitimate ruler and Ulul Amre of the time and Muawiyya. We don't have two parties or groups here, but infact we the Islamic Caliphate v the rebellious group. Simple and end of the story. Don't try to cover it up and make it look grey, shady, muddy and confusing by HISTORICAL FACTS and this, that and the other. Stick to the principles.


Don't try to make up your own conclusion without any evidences from historical account. Who are we to talk about this subject if the information is not based on historical account of previous people.

Still, you failed to provide any historical evidence as proof your claim. In contrast, the previous post and the following show that the matter between Ali and Muawiyya was NOT AS CLEAR TO THE SAHABAS WHO LIVED DURING THAT TIME as you think:

Quote
عن أيوبالسختياني ، عن محمد بن سيرين أنه قال : لما حدثت الفتنة كان عدد الصحابة عشرة آلاف، لم يخف منهم أربعون رجلا. معمر بن راشد : الجامع ، ج 11ص: 357 واسنادها صحيح

From Ayyub al-Sakhtiyani from Muhammad ibn Sireen: :When the Fitnah broke out the number of companions was ten thousand, those who participated never reached forty.
[Source: Mu’ammar ibn Rashid: al-Jami’i 11/357. Grading: SAHIH.]

عن عبدالله بن أحمد بن حنبل ، عن أبيه ، عن اسماعيل-ابن علية- عن أيوب- السختياني- عن محمدبن سيرين ، أن قال : (( هاجت الفتنة و أصحاب رسول الله -صلى الله عليه و سلم- عشرةآلاف ، فما حضر فيها مائة ، بل لم يبلغوا ثلاثين )).الخلال : السنة ، ج2 ص: 466 .واحمد بن حنبل : العلل و معرفة الرجال ، ج3 ص: 182 .والاسناد صحيح

‘Abdullah ibn  Ahmad ibn Hanbal from his father from Ismael from Ayyub from Muhammad: The Fitnah raged and the companions were ten thousand but not even a hundred participated, not even thirty.
[Source: al-Sunnah by al-Khallal 2/466 and Ahmad ibn Hanbal in al-‘Ilal wa Ma’arifat al-Rijal 3/182. Grading: SAHIH.]

من طريق ابن لهيعة عن يسار بن عند الرحمن قال : قال لي بكير بن الأشج : ما فعل خالك . قال : قلت : لزم البيت منذ كذا وكذا . فقال : إلا أن رجالاً من أهل بدر لزموا بيوتهم بعد قتل عثمان فلم يخرجوا إلا إلى قبورهم
Bukayr bin al-Ashij that he said: “Men from the people of Badr remained in their houses after the death of `Uthman, and they did not come out except to their graves.”
[Source: al-Tamheed 17/442 by ibn `Abdul-Barr and al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah 7/179 by Ibn Katheer.]

عن الشعبي أنه قال : (( بالله الذي لا إله إلا هو ، ما نهض في ذلك الأمر إلا ستة بدريين، ما لهم من سابع )).تاريخ الطبري ج3 ص: 6

From Al Sha’aby that he Said: by Allah the one and only, in that affair only six of the Ahlu Badr took part with no seventh.
[Source: Tareekh al tabari 3/6.]

و من مظاهر الاعتزال الجماعي للفتنة ، أن علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه عندما ندب أهل المدينة للخروج معه للقتال لم يوافقوه ،و أبوا الخروج معه ، فكلّم عبد الله بن عمر شخصيا للخروج معه ، فقال له : أنا رجل من المدينة . ثم كرر عليهم دعوته للسير معه عندما سمع بخروج أهل مكة إلى البصرة ، فتثاقل عنه أكثرهم ،و استجاب له ما بين : 4 الى7 من البدريين.ابن كثير : البداية و النهاية ج 7 ص: 231 .

When Ali bin Abi Talib (رضي الله عنه) asked the people of Madinah to go out with him in battle they disagreed and refused, So he talked to Ibn Omar (رضي الله عنه) personally regarding this but Ibn Omar (RA) replied: I am (but) a man of Madinah. Then he repeated this invitation when he heard that The people of Mecca left for Basarah but most refused this and only around 4 to 7 from ahlu Badr accepted.
[Ibn Katheer: al bidayah wal nihayah 7/231.]

قال بُكَيْرُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ الأَشَجِّ :”إِنَّ رِجَالا مِنْ أَهْلِ بَدْرٍ لَزِمُوا بُيُوتَهُمْ بَعْدَ قَتْلِ عُثْمَانَ نَضَّرَ اللَّهُ وَجْهَهُ ، فَلَمْ يَخْرُجُوا إِلا إِلَى قُبُورِهِمْ “”. العزلة والانفراد لابن أبي الدنيا [ص 18رقم9] ومنهاج السنة النبوية[ج6 ص145] وعنه تلميذه ابن كثير في البداية والنهاية[ج7 ص281]

Ibn bin Abdullah bin Al-Ashja’a said: Men from Ahlu Badr remained in their homes after the assassination of Othman, may Allah brighten his face, and they did not come out except to their graves.
[Al-Ulah wa Al-Infirad ibn abi al Duniyah 18 #9, minhaj al Sunnah 6/145, Student of ibn Katheer al bidayah wal nihayah 7/281.]

Even Ali himself said the following:
Quote
وكان بدء أمرنا أنا التقينا والقوم من أهل الشام. والظاهر أن ربنا واحد ونبينا واحد، ودعوتنا في الاسلام واحدة. لا نستزيدهم في الإيمان بالله والتصديق برسوله صلى الله عليه وآله ولا يستزيدوننا. الأمر واحد إلا ما اختلفنا فيه من دم عثمان ونحن منه براء

The whole thing began thus that we and the Syrians met in an encounter although we believe in one and the same Allah and the same Prophet, and our message in Islam is the same. We did not want them to add anything in the belief in Allah or in acknowledging His Messenger (Allah bless him and his descendants) nor did they want us to add any such thing. In fact, there was complete unity except that we differed on the question of `Uthman's blood while we were free of responsibility for it.
[Najhul Balagha Letter 58]

Again, please provide other evidence if you think the above are not accurate.

Ijtaba

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #48 on: October 09, 2018, 05:14:33 PM »
I don't understand why you are saying this, I was not implying that Imam al Hassan would do such a thing.

I was stating the fact. The difference between Imam Hassan ibn Ali (a.s) and Muawiya is clear as daylight. Imam Hassan ibn Ali (a.s) cared for the Muslim Ummah whereas Muawiya was greedy for ruler-ship and only cared for himself. Muawiya the so-called hadi, mahdi and one who guides people had in fact divided the Muslim Ummah. The so-called hadi & mahdi only cared for wealth and worldly things that his obsession for ruler-ship had divided Muslim Ummah and destruction of Muslim Ummah was imminent had Imam Hassan ibn Ali (a.s) not handed the greedy person his desire of ruler-ship.

Ahlul Sunnah often asks us Shi'as when Muawiya's actions are questioned by the latter: If Muawiya was so evil then why did Imam Hassan (a.s) gave up his ruler-ship to Muawiya. If anyone is to be blamed then it should Imam Hassan (a.s) who gave ruler-ship to unworthy person and thus put the fate of Muslim Ummah in the hands of unworthy person!

This sadly is the reasoning of opponents of Shias who in order to save Muawiya's actions start blaming Prophet's (s.a.w.w) Beloved Grandson (a.s).

It was in fact Hikmah of Imam Hassan ibn Ali (a.s) in handing over Ruler-ship to undeserving and unworthy person as by doing so Imam Hassan (a.s) saved Muslim Ummah otherwise Muslim Ummah would had weakened due to division and thus destruction of Muslim Ummah would then had been inevitable.

It was the way of Prophets when situation like this occurred. Understand the Hikmah of Imam Hassan ibn Ali (a.s) from this hadith.

It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that:

The Prophet [SAW] said: "Two women went out with their two children, and the wolf took one of the children from them. They referred their dispute to Prophet Dawud, peace be upon him, and he ruled that (the remaining child) belonged to the older woman. Then they passed by Sulaiman, peace be upon him, and he said: 'How did he judge between you?' She said: 'He ruled that (the child) belongs to the older woman.' Sulaiman said: 'Cut him in half, and give half to one and half to the other.' The older woman said: 'Yes, cut him in half.' The younger woman said: 'Do not cut him, he is her child.' So he ruled that the child belonged to the woman who refused to let him be cut."

Grade: Sahih (Darussalam)   
Reference: Sunan an-Nasa'i 5404
In-book reference: Book 49, Hadith 26
English translation: Vol. 6, Book 49, Hadith 5406


1. The child belonged to the younger woman (the right of ruler-ship belonged to Imam Hassan a.s)

2. Nabi Dawud (a.s) ruled the child to be given to older woman (Imam Hassan a.s gave the ruler-ship to Muawiya)

3. Nabi Sulayman (a.s) said cut the child into half and give one half to older woman and another half to younger woman. On this the older woman says, 'Yes, cut him in half' (Muawiya was the one who divided Muslim Ummah into two halves in order to get one half of Muslim Ummah)

4. Younger woman says to give her child to the older woman as cutting her child in half meant the death of her child (Imam Hassan a.s gave the ruler-ship of Muslim Ummah to Muawiya as Imam Hassan a.s knew the division of Muslim in two halves meant the destruction of Muslim Ummah)

5. Nabi Sulayman (a.s) ruled that the child belongs to the woman who refused the child to be cut (Ruler-ship belongs to Imam Hassan a.s who refused to leave Muslim Ummah in division)


I agree that it's hard to find justification for Muawiya's decision, but are you saying that Muawiya had no basis for not pledging allegiance and not recognizing him as a the rightful ruler or he had no basis for fighting Ali back (assuming Ali was not the rightful ruler)?

Muawiya not pledging Imam Ali (a.s), nor recognizing him (a.s) as rightful ruler and fighting him (a.s) back would not make Imam Ali (a.s) illegitimate ruler but would only make Muawiya a rebel

Ijtaba

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #49 on: October 09, 2018, 06:33:52 PM »
Sorry for my late reply. Been busy lately.

These are the evidences as requested on how Sahabas should act during the time of fitna:

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 (رضي الله عنه): The Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) 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.”
[Source: Abu Dawood in his Sunan 4/99, al-Albani said Sahih.]

Nothing new. You repeated the second point which I gave i.e. Muslims should not fight any Muslim as fighting Muslim is Kufr during the time of peace as well as during the time of Fitna.

Question is: Why did Muawiya not abide by the order of Prophet (s.a.w.w) stated in the hadith given by you?

عن أممالك البهزية قالت: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم :” خير الناس في الفتنةرجل معتزل في ماله يعبد ربه ويؤدي حقه ورجل آخذ برأس فرسه في سبيل الله يخيفهم ويخيفونه”.مسند أحمد ج6 ص419،تعليق شعيب الأرنؤوط : صحيح لغيره

Umm Malik Al-Buhziyah (رضي الله عنها): The Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) said: ‘The best of people during the Fitnah is a man who isolates himself and his wealth and prays to his Lord and fulfils his religious obligations, and a Man who holds the rails of his horse (making Jihad) in the cause of Allah and scaring his enemies.’
[Source: Musnad Ahmad 6/419, Al-Arnaout said: Sahih li ghayrihi.]

عن أبي بردة قال دخلت على محمد بن مسلمة فقال إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم قال : (( إنها ستكون فتنة و فرقة و اختلاف ، فإذا كان كذلك فأت بسيفك أُحدا فاضربه حتى ينقطع ، ثم اجلس في بيتك حتى تأتيك يد خاطئة ، أو منية قاضية )) ، ثم قال محمد بن مسلمة -أيام الفتنة- : فقد فعلت ما قاله لي رسول الله -عليه الصلاة و السلام.رواه ابن ماجة ج 2 ص 1310 ،قال الشيخ الألباني:صحيح،ورواه الطبراني في المعجم الأوسط ،و رجاله ثقات . الهيثمي : ج 7 ص: 301 .

Abu Bardah (ra) narrated: I entered on Muhammad bin Maslamah so the messenger of Allah (SAWS) said: “There shall be Fitnah and division and conflict, so if this happens then seek the mountain of Uhud with your sword, then hit it with that sword until it’s broken, after this go back to your house and sit until a treacherous hand reaches you or until your life ends.” then  Muhammad bin Maslamah said -in the days of Fitnah-: “I have done what the messenger of Allah (SAWS) ordered me.”
[Sources: Sunan ibn Majah 2/1310, al-Albani said: SAHIH. al-Tabarani narrated it in al-Mu`jam al-Awsat and its narrators are trustworthy. al-Haythami narrated it in his Majma` 7/301.]

أن رسول الله -صلى الله عليه و سلم- أعطى سيفا لمحمد بن مسلمة ، -رضيالله عنه – و قال له : (( جاهد بهذا ، في سبيل الله ، فإذا اختلفت أعناق الناس ، فاضرببه الحجر ، ثم ادخل بيتك ، فكن حلسا ملقى ، حتى تأتيك يد خاطئة ، أو منية قاضية)).رواه الطبراني في المعجم الكبير ، و رجاله ثقات ج 7 ص: 301 .
The Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) gave a sword to Muhammad ibn Muslimah and said: “Make Jihad with this but when the people differ then strike the rocks with it, then enter your house until you are assassinated by an evil hand or until your time has come to die.”
[Source: al-Tabarani in al-Mu’ujam al-Kabir 7/301 and its narrators are trustworthy.][/i]

Again you repeated the second point which I gave i.e. Muslims should not fight any Muslim as fighting Muslim is Kufr during the time of peace as well as during the time of Fitna.

Question is: Why did Muawiya not abide by the order of Prophet (s.a.w.w) stated in the hadiths given by you?

And the followings were Ali's attitude towards those sahabas who refrained themselves from joining either parties. Never he came up with argument as presented by you:

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), 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.]

My argument was either obey the ruler or refrain from fighting the ruler. Now, can you show me how was my argument different from Imam Ali (a.s) as the hadith presented by you is in agreement with my argument!

حَدَّثَنَا عُمَرُ بْنُ أَيُّوبَ الْمَوْصِلِيُّ، عَنْ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ بُرْقَانَ، عَنْ يَزِيدَ بْنِ الْأَصَمِّ، قَالَ: سُئِلَ عَلِيٌّ عَنْ قَتْلَى يَوْمِ صِفِّينَ، فَقَالَ: " قَتْلَانَا وَقَتَلَاهُمْ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَيَصِيرُ الْأَمْرُ إِلَيَّ وَإِلَى مُعَاوِيَةَ "

Narrated by ‘Umar bin Ayyuub Al-Maushiliy, from Ja’far bin Burqaan, from Yaziid bin Al-Asham, he said: ‘Aliy was asked about those who were killed on the day of Siffin, so he said: “Those who were killed among us and among them will be in Jannah. And this matter is between me and Mu’aawiyyah".
[Source: Ibnu Abi Syaibah, 15/302. Sahih].                                             

You mean to say that both killer and killed will be in Jannah? Besides Yaziid bin Al-Asham has anyone heard Imam Ali (a.s) say such a weird thing? Secondly, besides Ibn Abi Shaibah how did others grade this report?

One group consists of Muslim Ruler and people who are obeying the orders of Muslim Ruler and another group is of Rebel and people obeying the orders of that Rebel. How can both be equal and enter Jannah?

Really weird. Muawiya rebelled against the ruler on the pretext of taking Qisas of Uthman whereas Muawiya had no right to rebel against the ruler of his time even if Muawiya did not accept the ruler-ship of Imam Ali (a.s) as Ruler of Muslim Ummah. The fact is Muawiya rebelled against the Ruler and thus became a Rebel. If you don't believe Muawiya is a rebel then provide evidence for this instead of giving your opinion.

Rebels won't enter Jannah with Muslims but they (i.e. Rebels) will enter in Fire with Khawarij who are dogs of Hell-fire.

During the days of Fitnah, `Ali ibn abi Talib (ra) came to Muhammad bin Maslamah (ra) and told him: “Why did  you not join in this matter?” so he replied: “Your cousin -meaning the prophet (SAWS)- gave me a sword and said: Fight with it as long as the enemy if being fought, so if you see the people killing one another, then go to a big rock and break the sword, then stick to your house until death comes to you or you are killed.” so `Ali told them (his companions): “Leave him be.”
[Source: Musnad Ahmad 4/225.][/i]

Again you repeated the second point which I gave i.e. Muslims should not fight any Muslim as fighting Muslim is Kufr during the time of peace as well as during the time of Fitna.

Question is: Why did Muawiya not abide by the order of Prophet (s.a.w.w) stated in the hadith given by you?

Even in a Twelvers' source below:

When the Imam [peace be upon him] was about to get ready to head towards Basra to confront the rebels, Saad Ibn Abi Waqqas, Muhammad Ibn Maslamah, Usamah Ibn Zayd and Abdullah Ibn Omar refused to come with him. The Imam (Ali) asked: ‘Why are you not ready for Jihad’? They replied: ‘We are worried that we might spill the blood of a Muslim’. The Imam replied: ‘Are you loyal in regards to the pledge of allegiance (Bay’ah) you have given to me’? They said: “Yes!” The Imam then told them to go back to their homes and upon that he cited the ‘Hikmah’ number 15 [i.e. Every person who is tempted to go astray, does not deserve punishment.]

Source: Nahj Al-Balagha Farsi translation by Ali Dashti


Again you repeated the second point which I gave i.e. Muslims should not fight any Muslim as fighting Muslim is Kufr during the time of peace as well as during the time of Fitna.

Question is: Why did Muawiya not refrain from fighting back Muslim army headed by Muslim Ruler?

Abu Muhammad

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #50 on: October 11, 2018, 04:03:27 AM »
Good. We can put other sahabas aside now and conclude that with the words of brother Hani:
Quote
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.

And now, the focus is on Muawiyya.

Question is: Why did Muawiya not abide by the order of Prophet (s.a.w.w) stated in the hadith given by you?

Question is: Why did Muawiya not abide by the order of Prophet (s.a.w.w) stated in the hadiths given by you?

Question is: Why did Muawiya not abide by the order of Prophet (s.a.w.w) stated in the hadith given by you?

Question is: Why did Muawiya not refrain from fighting back Muslim army headed by Muslim Ruler?
Did the ahadith reach Muawiyya? I don't know. If the ahadith reached him, did he think that he is in the time of fitnah? I don't know.

That's why I said a few times previously that "hindsight is 20/20". It is easier for someone who comes after conclusion of an event and asks "why didn't he do this and why didn't he do that". Very easy and seems like you fail to understand that.

But one thing we know coming from the mouth of Muawiyya is this:
Quote
In Siyar A'alam An-Nabula" written by Ad-Dahabi:
قال الجعفي: حدثنا يعلى بن عبيد، عن أبيه، قال: جاء أبو مسلم الخولاني وأناس إلى معاوية، وقالوا: أنت تنازع عليا أم أنت مثله ؟ فقال: لا والله، إني لاعلم أنه أفضل مني وأحق بالامر مني، ولكن ألستم تعلمون أن عثمان قتل مظلوما، وأنا ابن عمه، والطالب بدمه، فائتوه، فقولوا له، فليدفع إلي قتلة عثمان، وأسلم له فأتوا عليا، فكلموه، فلم يدفعهم إليه .
Ya'la bin Ubaid, from his father narrated that Abu Muslim Al-Khawlani and a group of people went to Mauwiya and  asked, "Do you dispute Hadhrat Ali? Are you his equal?" He (Muawiya) replied, "No, I am not, and I know that he is better than me and deserves this (Caliphate) more than me, but don't you know that Uthman was killed unjustly, and that I am his cousin, and that I ask for his blood? So go to him (Ali), and tell him to bring forth the killers of Uthman, and I will submit to him." So, they went to Ali, and spoke to him, but he didn't hand them (the killers). 
[Al-Ju'fi (Yahya bin Sulaiman, from his book "Siffeen"]
If you are not satisfied with that, why don't you go and dig the grave of Muawiyya, bring him back to life and ask that question to him directly!

For us Ahlus Sunnah, in the words of brother Husayn in another thread:
Quote
"the fitnah is a specific event that occurred at a specific time and with a specific context, which is the killing of 'Uthman (ra) and what to do about it".
It was done and dusted and becoming a piece of history now and nobody will hold responsible except those involved. That's why some of the imams of Ahlus Sunnah said the followings:
Quote
One
A man asked Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (rahimahullaah) about what happened between ‘Ali and Mu‘aawiyah (May Allaah be pleased with them), and he turned away from him. It was said to him: O Abu ‘Abdullah, he is a man from Banu Haashim. He turned to him and said: Recite: “That was a nation who has passed away. They shall receive the reward of what they earned and you of what you earn. And you will not be asked of what they used to do” [al-Baqarah 2:134].
[Source: Manaaqib al-Imam Ahmad by Ibn al-Jawzi, p. 126]

Two
Imam Ahmad also said, after it was said to him: What do you say about what happened between ‘Ali and Mu‘aawiyah (May Allaah be pleased with them)? He said: I do not say anything about them except what is best.
[Source: Manaaqib al-Imam Ahmad by Ibn al-Jawzi, p. 164]

Easily to understand the stand of Ahmad ibn Hanbal above as Allah (Exalted be He) says: 
"And those who came after them say: “Our Lord! Forgive us and our brethren who have preceded us in Faith, and put not in our hearts any hatred against those who have believed. Our Lord! You are indeed full of kindness, Most Merciful.”
[Qur’an 59:10]

Three
‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azeez (rahimahullaah) was asked about ‘Ali and ‘Uthmaan (May Allaah be pleased with them), and the battles of the Camel and Siffeen, and what happened among them. He said: That is blood that Allah caused me to have no hand in shedding, and I do not want to dip my tongue in it (by talking about it).

[Source: at-Tabaqaat al-Kubra, 5/394]

And to you Twelvers, the fitnah is an issue of 'aqeedah or the fundamentals of the faith. You have to adamantly say what you are supposed to say about Muawiyya in order to defend your belief in the imamah.

GreatChineseFall

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #51 on: October 11, 2018, 03:18:10 PM »
I was stating the fact.

Yes, but it gave me the impression as if you responded to something from me as if I stated the opposite or implied the opposite, that is why I didn't understand your comment. In any case, I certainly do not agree with everything you stated but my hypothetical example has created more confusion so just forget about it.

Quote
Muawiya not pledging Imam Ali (a.s), nor recognizing him (a.s) as rightful ruler and fighting him (a.s) back would not make Imam Ali (a.s) illegitimate ruler but would only make Muawiya a rebel

You are not responding to my comment. What Muawiya's decision would make him or not make him according to the principles of Sunni's him is another issue.

You have to be more specific with your questions because the question you state is already answered, I think. Your question if I'm not mistaken is first: Was Muawiya wrong in his decisions and did he disobey the Prophet (ﷺ) according to the principles of Sunni's? The answer you already have is yes.

Then your second question seemed to be, along the lines of 'If Muwaiya's decisions were wrong according to the principles of Sunni's, why did he decide what he decided?' The answer you already have is because Sunni's believe he made wrong ijtihad and according to his own understanding he was not disobeying the Prophet (ﷺ).

Then the question seemed to be 'How can it be wrong ijtihad?' The answer you already have is because the matter was not so clear at that time.

From here it starts to get fuzzy, because it seems you want to argue for something instead of asking a question. Apparently you disagree with the belief of Sunni's and not only do you disagree, apparently you want to argue that Sunni's should not believe the matter was not clear if they follow their own principles, but you have to be more specific. Do you want to argue or do you have a question? If you want to question, which specific question do you have because it does not help this thread to repeat previous questions.
Is it 'what were the reasons for the matter not being clear according to the principles of Sunni's?'
Is it 'what was Muawiya's understanding and reasoning?' more specifically 'why did Muawiya consider the right of Qisas to be a reason for not pledging allegiance?'
Is it 'what is the basis for Muawiya's ijtihad?'
Is it something else?

Generally though I will say that Sunni's do not have all the answers to the questions you may have, but they do believe in the proper intentions of the Companions of the Prophet (ﷺ). To give you an example that might be better is not hypothetical, Abdullah ibn Abbas believed in the permissibility of mutah. There is evidence of him being reminded of the Prophet's prohibition yet he remained on this stance. If you would ask Sunni's about this, they will tell you that it is wrong. If you ask why did he disobey the Prophet (ﷺ), they will say he made wrong ijtihad. If you would ask, how did he come to this stance despite the clear Prophetic order, most will say they don't know. However, they will not assume he was just stubborn and he didn't want to change his stance. They will not assume he had a lust for women and deliberately disobeyed the Prophet (ﷺ). It is similar for Muawiya according to Sunni's

iceman

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #52 on: October 11, 2018, 09:10:40 PM »
In Siyar A'alam An-Nabula" written by Ad-Dahabi:
قال الجعفي: حدثنا يعلى بن عبيد، عن أبيه، قال: جاء أبو مسلم الخولاني وأناس إلى معاوية، وقالوا: أنت تنازع عليا أم أنت مثله ؟ فقال: لا والله، إني لاعلم أنه أفضل مني وأحق بالامر مني، ولكن ألستم تعلمون أن عثمان قتل مظلوما، وأنا ابن عمه، والطالب بدمه، فائتوه، فقولوا له، فليدفع إلي قتلة عثمان، وأسلم له فأتوا عليا، فكلموه، فلم يدفعهم إليه .

Ya'la bin Ubaid, from his father narrated that Abu Muslim Al-Khawlani and a group of people went to Mauwiya and  asked, "Do you dispute Hadhrat Ali? Are you his equal?" He (Muawiya) replied, "No, I am not, and I know that he is better than me and deserves this (Caliphate) more than me, but don't you know that Uthman was killed unjustly, and that I am his cousin, and that I ask for his blood? So go to him (Ali), and tell him to bring forth the killers of Uthman, and I will submit to him." So, they went to Ali, and spoke to him, but he didn't hand them (the killers). 
[Al-Ju'fi (Yahya bin Sulaiman, from his book "Siffeen"]

Did Muawiyah or anyone have the right to have their demands met through violence and threatening behaviour? Did the Caliph  (Ali) know who the killers were and if you do then do you hand them over on someone's demand or put them to a fair trial and punish them which is the job of the state and Muawiyya? To offer submission or allegiance do you put demands forward and if they're not fullfilled then do you turn towards violence? Don't you think it's time we woke up!

muslim720

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #53 on: October 12, 2018, 02:48:07 PM »
Salaam alaykum wa rahmatullah,

I think the point here is quite clear for everyone to see.  The Shi'i worldview is contingent upon fitnah.  Taking the dark moments of fitnah out of Islam is like taking the wind out of their (Shias') sails. 

Honestly, what feeds off chaos offers nothing but chaos.  What thrives on gloom is gloomy in of itself!
"Our coward ran from those in authority" - Iceman (admitting the truth regarding his 12th Imam)

iceman

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #54 on: October 13, 2018, 11:50:08 AM »
The problem with the Ahle Sunah is they look at a situation and matter then make principles and decide on that, so every situation and matter will have its own different set of Principles and is looked at differently,

rather than having principles, rules and regulations in place be it governance or faith or belief then looking at and dealing with situations, incidents, matters or problems based on those principles.

Just to make this simple the Ahle Sunah have DOUBLE STANDARDS in all and everything.

Ijtaba

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #55 on: October 15, 2018, 06:19:23 PM »
Conclusion:

- Muawiya being a Sahabi would be forgiven for his act of going against Quran and Sunnah of Rasul-ULLAH (s.a.w.w)

- Muawiya being a Sahabi would be forgiven for his act of rebellion against legitimate Muslim Ruler

- Muawiya being a Sahabi would be forgiven for his act of killing Muslims.

Just because Muawiya is a Sahabi all his actions are forgiven and thus whenever historians & researchers look into the Seerah of Muawiya they should consider the Fitna caused by Muawiya to be mystery, unknown, unclear, etc.

Did the ahadith reach Muawiyya? I don't know. If the ahadith reached him, did he think that he is in the time of fitnah? I don't know.

I also doubt that Muawiya knew about the hadiths as Muawiya was more concerned about the food rather than listening to what Prophet (s.a.w.w) had to say to him.

Sahih Muslim, Book 032, Number 6298:

Ibn Abbas reported: I was playing with children that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) happened to pass by (us). I hid myself behind the door. He (the Holy Prophet) came and he patted upon my shoulders and said: Go and call Mu'awiya. I returned and said: He is busy in taking food. He again asked me to go and call Mu'swiya to him. I went (and came back) and said that he was busy in taking food, whereupon he said: May Allah not fill his belly! Ibn Muthanna, said: I asked Umm Umayya what he meant by the word Hatani. He said: It means" he patted my shoulders".


But as Katib e Quran Muawiya would had known following Verse:

“And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is Hell; he shall abide in it, and Allah will send His wrath on him and curse him and prepare for him a painful chastisement.” (Surah an-Nisā’ 4:93)

Ijtaba

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #56 on: October 15, 2018, 06:38:03 PM »
Yes, but it gave me the impression as if you responded to something from me as if I stated the opposite or implied the opposite, that is why I didn't understand your comment. In any case, I certainly do not agree with everything you stated but my hypothetical example has created more confusion so just forget about it.
 
You are not responding to my comment. What Muawiya's decision would make him or not make him according to the principles of Sunni's him is another issue.

You have to be more specific with your questions because the question you state is already answered, I think. Your question if I'm not mistaken is first: Was Muawiya wrong in his decisions and did he disobey the Prophet (ﷺ) according to the principles of Sunni's? The answer you already have is yes.

Then your second question seemed to be, along the lines of 'If Muwaiya's decisions were wrong according to the principles of Sunni's, why did he decide what he decided?' The answer you already have is because Sunni's believe he made wrong ijtihad and according to his own understanding he was not disobeying the Prophet (ﷺ).

Then the question seemed to be 'How can it be wrong ijtihad?' The answer you already have is because the matter was not so clear at that time.

From here it starts to get fuzzy, because it seems you want to argue for something instead of asking a question. Apparently you disagree with the belief of Sunni's and not only do you disagree, apparently you want to argue that Sunni's should not believe the matter was not clear if they follow their own principles, but you have to be more specific. Do you want to argue or do you have a question? If you want to question, which specific question do you have because it does not help this thread to repeat previous questions.
Is it 'what were the reasons for the matter not being clear according to the principles of Sunni's?'
Is it 'what was Muawiya's understanding and reasoning?' more specifically 'why did Muawiya consider the right of Qisas to be a reason for not pledging allegiance?'
Is it 'what is the basis for Muawiya's ijtihad?'
Is it something else?

Generally though I will say that Sunni's do not have all the answers to the questions you may have, but they do believe in the proper intentions of the Companions of the Prophet (ﷺ). To give you an example that might be better is not hypothetical, Abdullah ibn Abbas believed in the permissibility of mutah. There is evidence of him being reminded of the Prophet's prohibition yet he remained on this stance. If you would ask Sunni's about this, they will tell you that it is wrong. If you ask why did he disobey the Prophet (ﷺ), they will say he made wrong ijtihad. If you would ask, how did he come to this stance despite the clear Prophetic order, most will say they don't know. However, they will not assume he was just stubborn and he didn't want to change his stance. They will not assume he had a lust for women and deliberately disobeyed the Prophet (ﷺ). It is similar for Muawiya according to Sunni's

Okay. I will ask 3 questions.

1. When should a person do Ijtihad?

2. Which person can be considered Mujtahid besides Hakam?

3. Can a person put a condition in giving bayah to the Ruler? If yes, then is that condition applicable to only one Ruler or all Rulers? i.e. Muawiya put forward the condition of Qisas of Uthman when asked to give bayah to Imam Ali (a.s) but when Muawiya himself became ruler no such condition was put forward by people when asked to give bayah to Muawiya.

People gave bayah to Muawiya without demanding Qisas of Uthman whereas in the case of Imam Ali (a.s) people demanded Qisas of Uthman before giving bayah. Why this inconsistency?

Is there any evidence of people demanding Qisas of Uthman before giving bayah to Muawiya and Muawiya complying with the demands of people and punishing assassins of Uthman?

GreatChineseFall

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #57 on: October 16, 2018, 01:25:15 PM »
Okay. I will ask 3 questions.
1. When should a person do Ijtihad?
This basically answers that:
Quote
It was narrated from Shuraih that:
He wrote to 'Umar, to ask him (a question), and 'Umar wrote back to him telling him: "Judge according to what is in the Book of Allah. If it is not (mentioned) in the Book of Allah, then (judge) according to the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah [SAW]. If it is not (mentioned) in the Book of Allah or the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah [SAW], then pass judgment according to the way the righteous passed judgment. If it is not (mentioned) in the Book of Allah, or the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah [SAW], and the righteous did not pass judgment concerning it, then if you wish, go ahead (and try to work it out by yourself) or if you wish, leave it. And I think that leaving it is better for you. And peace be upon you."

2. Which person can be considered Mujtahid besides Hakam?
Basically anyone who has sufficient knowledge in various branches and can perform ijtihad independently

3. Can a person put a condition in giving bayah to the Ruler? If yes, then is that condition applicable to only one Ruler or all Rulers? i.e. Muawiya put forward the condition of Qisas of Uthman when asked to give bayah to Imam Ali (a.s) but when Muawiya himself became ruler no such condition was put forward by people when asked to give bayah to Muawiya.
As a decision maker you mean? Basically yes, there is no explicit order that forbids you from doing that. However the condition can not be contradictory to the Qur'an and Sunnah and there must be a great interest served by that, that supersedes the interest served by not placing a condition and giving bayah directly if other decision makers have already preceded in given bayah without such a condition. This is what Sunni's later on realized, agreed upon and canonized more or less that such interests rarely exist. But again, this was later on.

As for another ruler, it is at the discretion of the decision makers if you again want to put that condition, so if they feel that such interest does not apply anymore or does not supersede other interests, they may forego placing such a condition.

People gave bayah to Muawiya without demanding Qisas of Uthman whereas in the case of Imam Ali (a.s) people demanded Qisas of Uthman before giving bayah. Why this inconsistency?

It is not inconsistent if they viewed placing such a condition for Muawiya (at a later point in time, don't forget) not serving any interest anymore or not serving it enough to supersede the interests of giving bayah directly.

I have a feeling that you will not be satisfied with such answers until someone gives a detailed explanation of what was going on. The problem is, we can only speculate. One problem during the time that I think you are overlooking and could be one factor is the following:

First of all, the murderer of Uthman was not known specifically. However, many people were responsible for it and they joined Ali's army. One factor in Muawiya's reasoning could be that they should be punished, not necessarily through their death as they were not murderers per se, but not letting them benefit from their actions. One of the greatest benefits of the death of Uthman was their gaining of power and influence under Ali. If you want to couple this to an Islamic principle, Sunni's believe that a murderer can't inherit from the murdered. So Muawiya was basically telling Ali to get rid of these rebels and take away their power and influence. Ali by his own admission could not do this because they were too strong and would led to civil war. This was unacceptable for Muawiya because this basically meant that Ali could not assert his authority. He was basically telling him, how can you demand obedience from me if the very people who pledged allegiance are not even obedient to you. If you can't assert authority then you are not fit to rule in the first place. It's actually one of the conditions of Sunni's as well that a ruler must be sane, must be physically well and must not be a captive. Muawiya was basically telling him that he is held hostage by his own army and therefore as long as that is the case, obedience to him is not obligatory.

And if you look at the popular account of how the Battle of Siffin unfolded, you can see how disobedient they were. The armies of Ali and Muawiya camped at Siffin and Ali was still negotiating. His army attacked and Muawiya fought back. Ali didn't gave orders to do that but saw himself forced to start the battle. When the armies called for arbitration, Ali ordered them to continue, they didn't listen and wanted arbitration. Ali saw himself forced to accept arbitration. Ali wanted to send Abdullah ibn Abbas as arbitrator or someone else, they wanted Abu Musa al Ashari. Ali saw himself forced to listen. Abu Musa al Ashari declared Ali to step down, he couldn't accept. Now his army declared him a kafir for allowing arbitration in the first place! Ali saw himself forced to attack them in Nahrawan. This is exactly what Muawiya didn't want in Shaam, because they were inherently rebellious and anarchistic and their power had to be taken away.

To come back to your question, this also explains why such a condition was not necessary for Muawiya, because they were never part of his army and had influence or power over him, not to mention that a lot of them died in the battles of al Jamal, Siffin and Nahrawan.

muslim720

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #58 on: October 16, 2018, 02:33:10 PM »
- Muawiya being a Sahabi would be forgiven for his act of going against Quran and Sunnah of Rasul-ULLAH (s.a.w.w)

....said no one ever!  What we do say is that Allah (swt) will deal with him justly - as is His Nature - while admitting that Muawiya was wrong (whereas Imam Ali was right).

Quote
- Muawiya being a Sahabi would be forgiven for his act of rebellion against legitimate Muslim Ruler

If Imam Ali (ra) can withhold bayah to Abu Bakr (ra) for not being consulted then Muawiya has every right to withhold bayah to Imam Ali (ra) over qisas of Uthman (ra).  And you, as a Shi'i, should be the first person to defend Muawiya's "right" to make bayah conditional because it was Imam Ali (ra) who set the precedence. 

Quote
- Muawiya being a Sahabi would be forgiven for his act of killing Muslims.

What we say is that because Muawiya is a Sahabi, we will not speak ill of him, like you do.  And while his actions led to the killing of Muslims, would you also - in the same breath - mention the hundreds of square miles of land he conquered thereby bringing hundreds of thousands into the fold of Islam?  Or do you have a one-track mind?

Quote
Sahih Muslim, Book 032, Number 6298:

Ibn Abbas reported: I was playing with children that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) happened to pass by (us). I hid myself behind the door. He (the Holy Prophet) came and he patted upon my shoulders and said: Go and call Mu'awiya. I returned and said: He is busy in taking food. He again asked me to go and call Mu'swiya to him. I went (and came back) and said that he was busy in taking food, whereupon he said: May Allah not fill his belly! Ibn Muthanna, said: I asked Umm Umayya what he meant by the word Hatani. He said: It means" he patted my shoulders".


Where does it say that Ibn Abbas (ra) informed Muawiya that the Prophet (saw) wished to see him?  Unless I'm mistaken, I can see Ibn Abbas (ra) torn between executing the Prophet's (saw) command of summoning Muawiya and interrupting Muawiya's meal.  Does it say anywhere (in this particular narration) that Muawiya refused to come because he was busy eating food?  If you had an ounce of honesty, you would realize that you are programmed to insert your own hatred into every narration regarding certain people and ask for repentance.
"Our coward ran from those in authority" - Iceman (admitting the truth regarding his 12th Imam)

Ijtaba

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #59 on: October 17, 2018, 11:24:43 AM »
This basically answers that:

Okay, so one is to do ijtihad when he does not find judgement regarding the issue/matter he is facing at present in al-Quran and Sunnah. This means that there can be no ijtihad regarding an issue where one can find clear commandments in al-Quran and Sunnah?

If yes, then in al-Quran ALLAH (SWT) has clearly mentioned believers to obey those in authority and if there is disagreement between believers and those in authority then the matter should be referred to ALLAH (SWT) and the Messenger (s.a.w.w). Messenger (s.a.w.w) has clearly commanded believers not to fight Muslim rulers and also not to fight each other both in times of peace and Fitna.

Basically anyone who has sufficient knowledge in various branches and can perform ijtihad independently

Is there any hadith stating this i.e. anyone who has sufficient knowledge in various branches and can perform ijtihad independently.

As of yet I have only seen one hadith where a person can perform ijtihad and that person is Hakam.

As a decision maker you mean? Basically yes, there is no explicit order that forbids you from doing that. However the condition can not be contradictory to the Qur'an and Sunnah and there must be a great interest served by that, that supersedes the interest served by not placing a condition and giving bayah directly if other decision makers have already preceded in given bayah without such a condition. This is what Sunni's later on realized, agreed upon and canonized more or less that such interests rarely exist. But again, this was later on.

As for another ruler, it is at the discretion of the decision makers if you again want to put that condition, so if they feel that such interest does not apply anymore or does not supersede other interests, they may forego placing such a condition.

Muhajirun and Ansar had given bayah to Imam Ali (a.s) without placing any condition. Muawiya was from Ṭulaqāʾ (Arabic: طُلَقاء) and thus not part of group who were considered decision makers i.e. Muhajirun and Ansar.

Secondly, Battle of Jamal had taken place after Battle of Siffin and opponents of Imam Ali (a.s) regretted taking part in the battle of Jamal after they realized that battle had no positive outcome. They considered Qisas of Uthman to be genuine legal right but after the battle (of Jamal) they saw that it was creating more Fitna as Muslims were divided in two groups and fighting one another.

Muawiya after seeing the aftermaths of Battle of Jamal should had abandoned the condition of Qisas and given bayah to Imam Ali (a.s) in the interest of Muslim Ummah.

It is not inconsistent if they viewed placing such a condition for Muawiya (at a later point in time, don't forget) not serving any interest anymore or not serving it enough to supersede the interests of giving bayah directly.

I have a feeling that you will not be satisfied with such answers until someone gives a detailed explanation of what was going on. The problem is, we can only speculate. One problem during the time that I think you are overlooking and could be one factor is the following:

First of all, the murderer of Uthman was not known specifically. However, many people were responsible for it and they joined Ali's army. One factor in Muawiya's reasoning could be that they should be punished, not necessarily through their death as they were not murderers per se, but not letting them benefit from their actions. One of the greatest benefits of the death of Uthman was their gaining of power and influence under Ali. If you want to couple this to an Islamic principle, Sunni's believe that a murderer can't inherit from the murdered. So Muawiya was basically telling Ali to get rid of these rebels and take away their power and influence. Ali by his own admission could not do this because they were too strong and would led to civil war. This was unacceptable for Muawiya because this basically meant that Ali could not assert his authority. He was basically telling him, how can you demand obedience from me if the very people who pledged allegiance are not even obedient to you. If you can't assert authority then you are not fit to rule in the first place. It's actually one of the conditions of Sunni's as well that a ruler must be sane, must be physically well and must not be a captive. Muawiya was basically telling him that he is held hostage by his own army and therefore as long as that is the case, obedience to him is not obligatory.

And if you look at the popular account of how the Battle of Siffin unfolded, you can see how disobedient they were. The armies of Ali and Muawiya camped at Siffin and Ali was still negotiating. His army attacked and Muawiya fought back. Ali didn't gave orders to do that but saw himself forced to start the battle. When the armies called for arbitration, Ali ordered them to continue, they didn't listen and wanted arbitration. Ali saw himself forced to accept arbitration. Ali wanted to send Abdullah ibn Abbas as arbitrator or someone else, they wanted Abu Musa al Ashari. Ali saw himself forced to listen. Abu Musa al Ashari declared Ali to step down, he couldn't accept. Now his army declared him a kafir for allowing arbitration in the first place! Ali saw himself forced to attack them in Nahrawan. This is exactly what Muawiya didn't want in Shaam, because they were inherently rebellious and anarchistic and their power had to be taken away.

If it is as you say so then why did Imam Ali (a.s) not step down from the seat of ruler-ship if he a.s (according to you) was held hostage by his (a.s) own army?

To come back to your question, this also explains why such a condition was not necessary for Muawiya, because they were never part of his army and had influence or power over him, not to mention that a lot of them died in the battles of al Jamal, Siffin and Nahrawan.

If lot of them died in the battles of al Jamal, Siffin and Nahrawan then what was the reason of Muawiya not giving bayah to newly appointed Caliph i.e. Imam Hassan (a.s)? What was the reason of Muawiya fighting with Imam Hassan (a.s)?

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
2331 Views
Last post September 08, 2015, 02:39:11 AM
by Hadrami
24 Replies
5678 Views
Last post August 28, 2016, 03:02:45 AM
by Abu Muhammad
8 Replies
2231 Views
Last post June 15, 2017, 07:53:11 AM
by Noor-us-Sunnah
9 Replies
1945 Views
Last post September 11, 2017, 11:41:16 PM
by Hadrami