Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?

[Ijtaba]

....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).

Yes. I also agree that Imam Ali (a.s) and his army (consisting of people who took part in the murder of 'Uthman) were Right whereas Muawiya and his army (consisting of people demanding Qisas of 'Uthman) were Wrong.

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. 

Two things worth mentioning:

- Ahlul Sunnah authentic reports mention that Imam Ali (a.s) publicly gave bayah to Abu Bakr after six months whereas Muawiya never gave bayah to Imam Ali (a.s)

- There is not even one authentic report of Ahlul Sunnah which mentions that Imam Ali (a.s) rebelled against Abu Bakr whereas Muawiya rebelled against Imam Ali (a.s)

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?

And Muawiya wanted to enforce his son Yazid upon those Hundreds of Thousands brought into the fold of Islam by ending the Shura system and introducing Monarchy in Islam. I can't imagine how delighted those Hundreds of Thousands brought into the fold of Islam would be when they got to know that Yazid was going to be their new King.

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.

Poor innocent Muawiya. He was unaware of the fact that Prophet (s.a.w.w) called him twice but because of ibn Abbas who was torn between executing the Prophet's (saw) command of summoning Muawiya and interrupting Muawiya's meal he (i.e. Muawiya) got cursed by the Prophet (s.a.w.w).

Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj al-Naysaburi has narrated this hadith under the chapter: Whomever Is Cursed, Reviled Or Prayed Against By The Prophet (SAW) When He Does Not Deserve That, It Will Be Purification, Reward And Mercy For Him.

In this narration Prophet (s.a.w.w) is seen cursing Muawiya but I have yet to see how did this curse become source of purification, reward and mercy for Muawiya.

[Ijtaba]

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.

I made typing mistake. I intended to write Battle of Jamal had taken place before Battle of Siffin. I was unable to edit the post so I am mentioning it here.

[muslim720]

Yes. I also agree that Imam Ali (a.s) and his army (consisting of people who took part in the murder of 'Uthman) were Right whereas Muawiya and his army (consisting of people demanding Qisas of 'Uthman) were Wrong.

....whereas I look at Imam Ali (ra) and Muawiya independently of those who claimed to be part of their army, cause and struggle.

Two things worth mentioning:

- Ahlul Sunnah authentic reports mention that Imam Ali (a.s) publicly gave bayah to Abu Bakr after six months whereas Muawiya never gave bayah to Imam Ali (a.s)

- There is not even one authentic report of Ahlul Sunnah which mentions that Imam Ali (a.s) rebelled against Abu Bakr whereas Muawiya rebelled against Imam Ali (a.s)

Two points to refute your non-worthy points:

- The point is that Imam Ali (ra) set the precedence of withholding bayah.  Since Conman accuses us of inconsistency, I wonder what prevents you from defending Muawiya's right to withhold bayah.  After all, he was following in the footsteps of your infallible 1st Imam (ra).

- Well, according to you, Imam Ali (ra) was too helpless, perhaps scared, to rebel.  And let us not forget, as someone already pointed out, it was Imam Ali (ra) that brought an army against Muawiya.

And Muawiya wanted to enforce his son Yazid upon those Hundreds of Thousands brought into the fold of Islam by ending the Shura system and introducing Monarchy in Islam. I can't imagine how delighted those Hundreds of Thousands brought into the fold of Islam would be when they got to know that Yazid was going to be their new King.

Like every Shi'i, you just cannot seem to keep things in their place.  You have to throw everything in the mix.  I bet onions go very well with milkshake for you.  Did you ever pause to even think that perhaps the newly-converted had no concern for "shura" or "monarchy"?  They were not indoctrinated like your lot are!

Poor innocent Muawiya. He was unaware of the fact that Prophet (s.a.w.w) called him twice but because of ibn Abbas who was torn between executing the Prophet's (saw) command of summoning Muawiya and interrupting Muawiya's meal he (i.e. Muawiya) got cursed by the Prophet (s.a.w.w).

Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj al-Naysaburi has narrated this hadith under the chapter: Whomever Is Cursed, Reviled Or Prayed Against By The Prophet (SAW) When He Does Not Deserve That, It Will Be Purification, Reward And Mercy For Him.

In this narration Prophet (s.a.w.w) is seen cursing Muawiya but I have yet to see how did this curse become source of purification, reward and mercy for Muawiya.

Thus far, you have not been able to prove that Muawiya gave preference to food over the wish of the Prophet (saw) to want to see him.  There is not even a single mention of Ibn Abbas (ra) saying anything to Muawiya. 

Moving on, I wonder if your scholars do not know Arabic or lie to you all intentionally.  Maybe they do not care but they leave you to look stupid out in the real world.  "May Allah not fill his belly" is an Arabic saying which actually is the equivalent of saying, "may your sustenance be without end (endless sustenance)".  Unless you prove me wrong, I see that as a du'a, not curse!

[GreatChineseFall]

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.

Of course.

Because according to Muawiya such commandments were not judged to be applicable because Allah(swt) gave them permission to fight others if they transgressed upon them:

وَإِن طَائِفَتَانِ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ اقْتَتَلُوا فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَهُمَا ۖ فَإِن بَغَتْ إِحْدَاهُمَا عَلَى الْأُخْرَىٰ فَقَاتِلُوا الَّتِي تَبْغِي حَتَّىٰ تَفِيءَ إِلَىٰ أَمْرِ اللَّهِ ۚ فَإِن فَاءَتْ فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَهُمَا بِالْعَدْلِ وَأَقْسِطُوا ۖ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ
Sahih International
And if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah . And if it returns, then make settlement between them in justice and act justly. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.

Since Ali and Muawiya didn't fight yet and were still negotiating, being attacked by Ali's army, Muawiya understood Ali's army to be the transgressors and that Allah permitted him to fight back.

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.

Sorry, which narration are you talking about?

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 before 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.

Muawiya obviously saw himself as a decision maker because he was a governor under Uthman and held sway over a large part of the population. The decision makers were not only Muhajirun and Ansar, I haven't seen anything explicit about this. The decision makers are those who have enough influence and power over others so that they can cause people to unite and prevent them from descending into anarchy.

Of course, Muawiyah should have never made that condition in the first place, but again we are not talking about what should have happened. Why didn't he, do you ask? First of all, the battle of Jamal occurred because the opponents of Ali moved towards Ali's army. Muawiya never did that and he didn't intend to attack Ali, he only didn't want to pledge allegiance to him. Secondly, some of the opponents of Ali were actually those who pledged allegiance to him, so people who pledged allegiance to Ali were fighting each other and Muawiya may have seen this as another confirmation of Ali, not being able to assert his authority and that this matter had to be dealt with.

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?

According to me? So I try to prevent speculating about what Muawiya was thinking, but seeing that that is actually what you are interested in and in trying to respond to that interest you return the favor by saying that this according to me?

Anyway, Imam Ali (a.s.) obviously didn't think he was held hostage.

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)?

There are a lot of difference's between Ali's Caliphate and al Hassan's

First of all, a lot of them doesn't mean all of them.

Secondly, they themselves may have died but they have created a culture were such rebellious ways were copied by others(who for example killed Ali, robbed and stabbed al Hassan etc.) so they were replaced by people who were equally or more anarchistic. It wasn't just about the murder of Uthman, Muawiya simply distrusted them. The murder of Uthman was a confirmation of that and gave him a legal basis for opposing them. He was generally suspicious of people who could not keep order as he saw them as fitnah makers if given the opportunity. He also saw this as a violation of the Prophet's command to keep the Caliphate to the Quraysh, which according to him probably didn't only mean the Caliph himself but the entire power structure as others would cause fitnah. It was after all his father who wanted to depose Abu Bakr and help Ali. They distrusted lower clans of Quraysh to keep order, let alone bedouins and Egyptians etc. It wasn't as much about Ali or al Hassan as it was about these people.

Thirdly, after Abu Musa al Ashari's blunder, Ali was supposed to have stepped down and therefore Muawiya had a legal basis for being declared Caliph himself. Since Muawiya preceded al Hassan in being declared Caliph, al Hassan's case, according to Muawiya was not so strong.

Fourth, even if Ali was the Caliph, he didn't appoint his son. Shia's may believe so and may even believe that the Prophet (ﷺ) did so, but I don't think there is good evidence from the reports of Sunni's that Ali did.

Fifthly, al Hassan didn't have as much support as Ali (ra). The supporters of Ali in Kufa after Ali's death pledged allegiance to him, but is there evidence that the Muhajirun and Ansar in Medinah did as well? I don't know, I have to double check.

Lastly, by this time, seeing how a part of Ali's army behaved, Muawiya completely lost faith in the competence of Ali to control them and had even less in al Hassan that he could. Remember, al Hassan was wounded by them and robbed him of his possessions. Some accounts go even so far that they took the prayer mat beneath him while he was sitting on it.

[Ijtaba]

....whereas I look at Imam Ali (ra) and Muawiya independently of those who claimed to be part of their army, cause and struggle.

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

Its strange that army more nearer to the truth consists of rebellious people than the army free from rebellious people

Two points to refute your non-worthy points:

That is two irrefutable points 

- The point is that Imam Ali (ra) set the precedence of withholding bayah.  Since Conman accuses us of inconsistency, I wonder what prevents you from defending Muawiya's right to withhold bayah.  After all, he was following in the footsteps of your infallible 1st Imam (ra).

I quote what Hani mentioned in his book KITAB-ul-SAQIFAH regarding the bayah of Imam Ali (a.s) to Abu Bakr

I say: `Ali’s oath of fidelity came very late and most people had left the mosque thinking `Ali boycotted. `Ali would later be preoccupied with the final burial preparations of the Messenger (saw), followed by the problems of prophetic-inheritance that increased tensions between the Caliph and banu Hashim and finally the sickness of Fatimah peace be upon her. All of this caused some people to assume that `Ali did not pledge allegiance or that he disapproves of Abu Bakr’s leadership. However, `Ali’s early pledge of allegiance is authentically reported and widely transmitted in popular history books therefore it cannot be denied.

- Well, according to you, Imam Ali (ra) was too helpless, perhaps scared, to rebel.  And let us not forget, as someone already pointed out, it was Imam Ali (ra) that brought an army against Muawiya.

- Imam Ali (a.s) was too helpless, perhaps scared, to rebel in the same way as Nabi Haroon (a.s) was too helpless, perhaps scared, to rebel against Samiri.

- Imam Ali (a.s) brought an army against Muawiya in accordance with commandments of ALLAH (SWT) i.e. to fight rebels until they submit to the Command of ALLAH (SWT)

Like every Shi'i, you just cannot seem to keep things in their place.  You have to throw everything in the mix.  I bet onions go very well with milkshake for you.  Did you ever pause to even think that perhaps the newly-converted had no concern for "shura" or "monarchy"?  They were not indoctrinated like your lot are!

Did those newly Hundreds of Thousands Muslims think differently from rest of the Muslims? If monarchy was not an issue then what was the reason of avoiding the bayah of Yazid by Imam Hussayn (a.s) and Abdullah ibn Zubayr in Medina?

Thus far, you have not been able to prove that Muawiya gave preference to food over the wish of the Prophet (saw) to want to see him.  There is not even a single mention of Ibn Abbas (ra) saying anything to Muawiya. 

Moving on, I wonder if your scholars do not know Arabic or lie to you all intentionally.  Maybe they do not care but they leave you to look stupid out in the real world.  "May Allah not fill his belly" is an Arabic saying which actually is the equivalent of saying, "may your sustenance be without end (endless sustenance)".  Unless you prove me wrong, I see that as a du'a, not curse!

I quote from the article by TwelverShia.net Response to: Rasool Allah’s Curse upon Muawiyyah
Link: www.twelvershia.net/2014/12/11/response-to-rasool-allahs-curse-upon-muawiyyah/

...Surely, the offense that Mu’awiyah committed is not worthy of eternal damnation.

If Muawiya was unaware (of being called by Prophet s.a.w.w) then how did Muawiya commit the offense? 

...In other words, the simple fact that the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) invoked Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to prevent Mu’awiyah from being full does not mean that Mu’awiyah is a kafir, but rather, that he disobeyed an order.

If Muawiya was unaware (of being called by Prophet s.a.w.w) then how did Muawiya disobey an order? 

[Ijtaba]

Of course.

Because according to Muawiya such commandments were not judged to be applicable because Allah(swt) gave them permission to fight others if they transgressed upon them:Since Ali and Muawiya didn't fight yet and were still negotiating, being attacked by Ali's army, Muawiya understood Ali's army to be the transgressors and that Allah permitted him to fight back.

Even if I assume what you said is true I want to ask one question:

- At present it is accepted by both Shias and Ahlul Sunnah that Muawiya's qiyās was wrong regarding fighting back Muslim Ruler's Army. My question: would Muawiya's killing of any single Muslim (who was in the Army of Imam Ali a.s) cause ALLAH'S (SWT) Wrath and Curse to descend upon him (i.e. Muawiya) as per the Ayat of Surah an-Nisa?

“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)

Sorry, which narration are you talking about?

Amr ibn al-‘As reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “If a ruler makes a ruling, striving to apply his reasoning (ijtihad) and he is correct, then he will have two rewards. If a ruler makes a ruling, striving to apply his reasoning and he is mistaken, then he will have one reward.”

Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 6919, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1716

Grade: Muttafaqun Alayhi (authenticity agreed upon) according to Al-Bukhari and Muslim

عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْعَاصِ أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ إِذَا حَكَمَ الْحَاكِمُ فَاجْتَهَدَ ثُمَّ أَصَابَ فَلَهُ أَجْرَانِ وَإِذَا حَكَمَ فَاجْتَهَدَ ثُمَّ أَخْطَأَ فَلَهُ أَجْرٌ

6919 صحيح البخاري كتاب الاعتصام بالكتاب والسنة باب أجر الحاكم إذا اجتهد فأصاب أو أخطأ

1716 صحيح مسلم كتاب الأقضية باب بيان أجر الحاكم إذا اجتهد فأصاب أو أخطأ

Muawiya obviously saw himself as a decision maker because he was a governor under Uthman and held sway over a large part of the population. The decision makers were not only Muhajirun and Ansar, I haven't seen anything explicit about this. The decision makers are those who have enough influence and power over others so that they can cause people to unite and prevent them from descending into anarchy.

Of course, Muawiyah should have never made that condition in the first place, but again we are not talking about what should have happened. Why didn't he, do you ask? First of all, the battle of Jamal occurred because the opponents of Ali moved towards Ali's army. Muawiya never did that and he didn't intend to attack Ali, he only didn't want to pledge allegiance to him. Secondly, some of the opponents of Ali were actually those who pledged allegiance to him, so people who pledged allegiance to Ali were fighting each other and Muawiya may have seen this as another confirmation of Ali, not being able to assert his authority and that this matter had to be dealt with.

Muawiya may think whatever he likes but he is not allowed to act against al-Quran and Sunnah.

Quran and Sunnah clearly mentions to obey those in authority and never to fight (or fight back) Muslim Ruler. Muawiya would be held accountable for his actions going against al-Quran and Sunnah.

According to me? So I try to prevent speculating about what Muawiya was thinking, but seeing that that is actually what you are interested in and in trying to respond to that interest you return the favor by saying that this according to me?

Anyway, Imam Ali (a.s.) obviously didn't think he was held hostage.

If Imam Ali (a.s) didn't think he was held hostage by his own (a.s) army then Muawiya thinking otherwise carries no weight. Muawiya should had pledged allegiance to legitimate Muslim Ruler.

There are a lot of difference's between Ali's Caliphate and al Hassan's

First of all, a lot of them doesn't mean all of them.

Secondly, they themselves may have died but they have created a culture were such rebellious ways were copied by others(who for example killed Ali, robbed and stabbed al Hassan etc.) so they were replaced by people who were equally or more anarchistic. It wasn't just about the murder of Uthman, Muawiya simply distrusted them. The murder of Uthman was a confirmation of that and gave him a legal basis for opposing them. He was generally suspicious of people who could not keep order as he saw them as fitnah makers if given the opportunity. He also saw this as a violation of the Prophet's command to keep the Caliphate to the Quraysh, which according to him probably didn't only mean the Caliph himself but the entire power structure as others would cause fitnah. It was after all his father who wanted to depose Abu Bakr and help Ali. They distrusted lower clans of Quraysh to keep order, let alone bedouins and Egyptians etc. It wasn't as much about Ali or al Hassan as it was about these people.

Thirdly, after Abu Musa al Ashari's blunder, Ali was supposed to have stepped down and therefore Muawiya had a legal basis for being declared Caliph himself. Since Muawiya preceded al Hassan in being declared Caliph, al Hassan's case, according to Muawiya was not so strong.

Fourth, even if Ali was the Caliph, he didn't appoint his son. Shia's may believe so and may even believe that the Prophet (ﷺ) did so, but I don't think there is good evidence from the reports of Sunni's that Ali did.

Fifthly, al Hassan didn't have as much support as Ali (ra). The supporters of Ali in Kufa after Ali's death pledged allegiance to him, but is there evidence that the Muhajirun and Ansar in Medinah did as well? I don't know, I have to double check.

Lastly, by this time, seeing how a part of Ali's army behaved, Muawiya completely lost faith in the competence of Ali to control them and had even less in al Hassan that he could. Remember, al Hassan was wounded by them and robbed him of his possessions. Some accounts go even so far that they took the prayer mat beneath him while he was sitting on it.

- Why did Imam Ali (a.s) not step down when Muawiya was declared Caliph. Why did he (a.s) not accept the result of arbitration?

-  Since Muawiya preceded Imam Hassan (a.s) in being declared Caliph, why did Imam Hassan (a.s) accept ruler-ship as according to authentic hadith the person who is selected as Ruler by people first is to kill the person who claims to be caliph during former's rule. How could Imam Hassan (a.s) claim to be Caliph when Muawiya was already declared to be Caliph?

[muslim720]

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

I call it verbal diarrhea when a Shi'i goes on a tirade.  I usually let it go until there is enough to throw it back at their face so here is a taste of your own filth.

You said that you "agree that Imam Ali (a.s) and his army (consisting of people who took part in the murder of 'Uthman)".  Did you know that from the same army the Khawarij came into existence?  Congratulations on siding with the killers of your 1st "infallible" Imam (ra).

I quote what Hani mentioned in his book KITAB-ul-SAQIFAH regarding the bayah of Imam Ali (a.s) to Abu Bakr

If you could ponder over my points rather than being like the Jews that troubled Musa (asws) and then 'Isa (asws) by coming up with question after question (to split hair) then maybe you would get my point.  As far as you are concerned, Imam Ali (ra) never gave Abu Bakr (ra), Umar (ra) or Uthman (ra) the pledge.  Therefore, my point stands!  The precedence - to withhold or never give bayah - was set by your 1st "infallible" Imam (ra).  For following in the footsteps of your 1st "infallible" Imam (ra), you should praise Muawiya.

In case you still did not get it, this is not about authentic history.  This is to use your own psychobabble make-believe nonsense against you!

- Imam Ali (a.s) was too helpless, perhaps scared, to rebel in the same way as Nabi Haroon (a.s) was too helpless, perhaps scared, to rebel against Samiri.

Bad analogy!  Haroon's (asws) wife was not attacked nor was he paraded with a rope around his neck.  Furthermore, his wife did not go out crying for a piece of land.  Nor did he go door-to-door - with his two kids tucked under the arms of his wife - begging people for some help.  There is no consistency between the situation of Haroon (asws) and your concocted fairy tale regarding Imam Ali and his family - may Allah's peace and blessings be upon them.

- Imam Ali (a.s) brought an army against Muawiya in accordance with commandments of ALLAH (SWT) i.e. to fight rebels until they submit to the Command of ALLAH (SWT)

...but he saw fit to stay quiet in relation to other rebels who actually killed Uthman (ra)?  Now you see how you are making Imam Ali (ra) to be unjust?

Did those newly Hundreds of Thousands Muslims think differently from rest of the Muslims? If monarchy was not an issue then what was the reason of avoiding the bayah of Yazid by Imam Hussayn (a.s) and Abdullah ibn Zubayr in Medina?

Are you confusing hundreds of thousands of people with machines that by deploying auto-sync they, too, would feel the pulse of the ummah?  And this is the Shi'i foolproof tactic.  Open as many fronts to comment on as possible to get away from the main point.

If Muawiya was unaware (of being called by Prophet s.a.w.w) then how did Muawiya commit the offense? 

Where does it say in the narration that Muawiya committed an offense?  Heck, the narration does not even say that Muawiya (himself) said that he is busy eating.  Both times, it is Ibn Abbas (ra) reporting back to the Prophet (saw) saying that Muawiya was eating.  Not a single mention of Ibn Abbas (ra) saying anything to Muawiya or Muawiya saying anything to Ibn Abbas (ra).

If Muawiya was unaware (of being called by Prophet s.a.w.w) then how did Muawiya disobey an order? 

Where does it say Muawiya disobeyed the Prophet (saw)?  And we can always talk about Imam Ali's (ra) "disobedience" while writing the treaty.

[Ijtaba]

I call it verbal diarrhea when a Shi'i goes on a tirade.  I usually let it go until there is enough to throw it back at their face so here is a taste of your own filth.

You said that you "agree that Imam Ali (a.s) and his army (consisting of people who took part in the murder of 'Uthman)".  Did you know that from the same army the Khawarij came into existence?  Congratulations on siding with the killers of your 1st "infallible" Imam (ra).

If you could ponder over my points rather than being like the Jews that troubled Musa (asws) and then 'Isa (asws) by coming up with question after question (to split hair) then maybe you would get my point.  As far as you are concerned, Imam Ali (ra) never gave Abu Bakr (ra), Umar (ra) or Uthman (ra) the pledge.  Therefore, my point stands!  The precedence - to withhold or never give bayah - was set by your 1st "infallible" Imam (ra).  For following in the footsteps of your 1st "infallible" Imam (ra), you should praise Muawiya.

In case you still did not get it, this is not about authentic history.  This is to use your own psychobabble make-believe nonsense against you!

Bad analogy!  Haroon's (asws) wife was not attacked nor was he paraded with a rope around his neck.  Furthermore, his wife did not go out crying for a piece of land.  Nor did he go door-to-door - with his two kids tucked under the arms of his wife - begging people for some help.  There is no consistency between the situation of Haroon (asws) and your concocted fairy tale regarding Imam Ali and his family - may Allah's peace and blessings be upon them.

...but he saw fit to stay quiet in relation to other rebels who actually killed Uthman (ra)?  Now you see how you are making Imam Ali (ra) to be unjust?

Are you confusing hundreds of thousands of people with machines that by deploying auto-sync they, too, would feel the pulse of the ummah?  And this is the Shi'i foolproof tactic.  Open as many fronts to comment on as possible to get away from the main point.

Where does it say in the narration that Muawiya committed an offense?  Heck, the narration does not even say that Muawiya (himself) said that he is busy eating.  Both times, it is Ibn Abbas (ra) reporting back to the Prophet (saw) saying that Muawiya was eating.  Not a single mention of Ibn Abbas (ra) saying anything to Muawiya or Muawiya saying anything to Ibn Abbas (ra).

Where does it say Muawiya disobeyed the Prophet (saw)?  And we can always talk about Imam Ali's (ra) "disobedience" while writing the treaty.

Disappointing response. You had no strong arguments just trash-talk. It just shows your mindset.

Avoiding all your trash-talk, I will respond to your absurd arguments.

- Imam Ali's (a.s) army who fought Khawarij are highly praised in authentic hadiths. If your absurd and nonsensical argument is to be believed to be true then it would mean that the group nearer to the truth is Muawiya and his army as from the day one it was Muawiya and his army fighting Army of Imam Ali (a.s) which consisted of people who were to become Khawarij.

Now my question to you is: Which group was nearer to the truth?

01. Army of Imam Ali (a.s) which consisted of Khawarij; or

02. Army of Muawiya which was from day one fighting Khawarij as they were in the Army of Imam Ali (a.s)

- Show me one authentic Ahlul Sunnah and Shia hadith which states Imam Ali (a.s) withhold the bayah from Abu Bakr for six months. Hani has extensively researched regarding this topic and it would really be surprising if Hani missed any authentic hadith stating that Imam Ali (a.s) withhold his bayah for six months.

- Nabi Haroon (a.s) task was to guide Bani Israel in the absence of Nabi Musa (a.s) but because Nabi Haroon (a.s) feared for his life he did not rebel against Samiri. Am I right?

I gave the example of Nabi Haroon (a.s) when you said that Imam Ali (a.s) was scared to rebel. Imam Ali (a.s) followed the Sunnah of Nabi Haroon (a.s) in this matter.

- If you had read my posts in another thread I have been asking same question but to my disappoint nobody in this forum has provided any answer. I asked: Why did Imam Ali (a.s) not punish those people involved in rebellion against 'Uthman but included those rebels in his (a.s) army and fought with people seeking Qisas for Uthman.

- Ask Twelvershia.net Team about offense and disobedience of Muawiya as to how did they come to such a conclusion after examining the hadith of Muslim.

As for Imam Ali (a.s) disobedience. I say Worst Analogy. Prophet (s.a.w.w) cursed Muawiya for his disobedience whereas Prophet (s.a.w.w) never cursed Imam Ali (a.s) for his (a.s) so-called disobedience.

[muslim720]

Disappointing response. You had no strong arguments just trash-talk. It just shows your mindset.

I treat trash like trash.  You should not know any better because I am certain you have not been treated any better (given the quantity of nonsense you churn out per day).

- Imam Ali's (a.s) army who fought Khawarij are highly praised in authentic hadiths.

Again, this is about refuting you using your own nonsense; has nothing to do with authentic reports.  You made a blanket statement in favor of the army of Imam Ali (ra) and included those who took part in the killing of Uthman (ra).  From the same army, when later Imam Ali (ra) accepted Muawiya's arbitration, a group of men rebelled against Imam Ali (ra) and came to be known as the Khawarij.  If fighting Khawarij is praiseworthy, I wonder what should we call you for praising the same army which produced the Khawarij.  I can come up with a few terms to describe you but I will leave that for another time.

If your absurd and nonsensical argument is to be believed to be true then it would mean that the group nearer to the truth is Muawiya and his army as from the day one it was Muawiya and his army fighting Army of Imam Ali (a.s) which consisted of people who were to become Khawarij.

Shut up already!  You praised the same army from which the Khawarij came forth. 

Now my question to you is: Which group was nearer to the truth?

Can we first talk about your fate?  Those who died more than 13 centuries ago cannot but you can answer for yourself (since you are present in our midst).  Why would you praise an army from which the Khawarij came into existence?  And if fighting the Khawarij is "highly praiseworthy", I am sure treating their supporter (like yourself) like trash is also a noble deed.  Indeed I am executing a noble act.

- Show me one authentic Ahlul Sunnah and Shia hadith which states Imam Ali (a.s) withhold the bayah from Abu Bakr for six months. Hani has extensively researched regarding this topic and it would really be surprising if Hani missed any authentic hadith stating that Imam Ali (a.s) withhold his bayah for six months.

What does it matter to you?  In your oft-slapped brain, it has been established that Imam Ali (ra) never gave bayah.  You also pointed out that Muawiya also never gave bayah to Imam Ali (ra).  Hence, Muawiya was following in the footsteps of your 1st "infallible" Imam (ra).  Shouldn't you praise Muawiya for it?  And if you find not giving bayah to be an act of rebellion, shouldn't you call your own 1st "infallible" Imam (ra) a rebel?

- Nabi Haroon (a.s) task was to guide Bani Israel in the absence of Nabi Musa (a.s) but because Nabi Haroon (a.s) feared for his life he did not rebel against Samiri. Am I right?

I gave the example of Nabi Haroon (a.s) when you said that Imam Ali (a.s) was scared to rebel. Imam Ali (a.s) followed the Sunnah of Nabi Haroon (a.s) in this matter.

We call that a cop out!  For all the reasons I pointed in my earlier post, plus the fact that Imam Ali (ra) was NEVER assigned the task to guide the ummah, the situation of Haroon (asws) is not the same as the fairy tale your lot has made up for Imam Ali (ra) and therefore, it does not serve as your escape route.  No emergency exit here; only the trash chute and I'll see to it that I slide you down the same trash chute!

- If you had read my posts in another thread I have been asking same question but to my disappoint nobody in this forum has provided any answer. I asked: Why did Imam Ali (a.s) not punish those people involved in rebellion against 'Uthman but included those rebels in his (a.s) army and fought with people seeking Qisas for Uthman.

Shias have many disappointments.  I don't have time for your endless nonsense and sobbing.  Maybe you can ask your hiding guide if he ever dares come out!

- Ask Twelvershia.net Team about offense and disobedience of Muawiya as to how did they come to such a conclusion after examining the hadith of Muslim.

They were playing with your conclusion, not putting forth their own!  In other words, they were refuting the conclusion of your seniors!

As for Imam Ali (a.s) disobedience. I say Worst Analogy. Prophet (s.a.w.w) cursed Muawiya for his disobedience whereas Prophet (s.a.w.w) never cursed Imam Ali (a.s) for his (a.s) so-called disobedience.

You have not proved disobedience and you can never prove that "May Allah not fill his belly" is cursing someone.  On the contrary, it is to wish for someone's sustenance to never come to an end.  And history tells us that Muawiya was rich.  Or you could say he was loaded!  He did not have to go door-to-door begging for a piece of land or crying for his (never ordained) "rights".

[muslim720]

Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj al-Naysaburi has narrated this hadith under the chapter: Whomever Is Cursed, Reviled Or Prayed Against By The Prophet (SAW) When He Does Not Deserve That, It Will Be Purification, Reward And Mercy For Him.

In this narration Prophet (s.a.w.w) is seen cursing Muawiya but I have yet to see how did this curse become source of purification, reward and mercy for Muawiya.

Allow me to address this point in a way that will hurt you the most.  This is not my belief but allow me to point out all the rewards and mercy for Muawiya (to lay it into you).

- Muawiya ruled gloriously, plentifully and for a long time.  Imam Ali's (ra) rule was tumultuous and short.  Imam Hassan's (ra) rule did not even last a year.

- Muawiya brought new lands under Islamic rule.  Imam Ali (ra)....not so much!

- Muawiya was not killed; he died a natural, peaceful death.  Imam Ali (ra) was killed.  Even from among his offspring and later generations, there were those that were slaughtered.

- Muawiya was loaded (rich).  Imam Ali (ra) was not rich.  According to you (Shias), his wife had to beg for a piece of land.

- Muawiya did not have to give up his daughter by force.  Imam Ali (ra), according to you, was forced to give Umm Kulthoom (ra) in marriage to Umar (ra).

- Muawiya maintained his power and never lost control of his own leadership.  Imam Ali (ra) and your remaining 11 Imams (ra) could not even maintain control over what was "Divinely Ordained" for them (as per your belief).

[GreatChineseFall]

Even if I assume what you said is true I want to ask one question:

- At present it is accepted by both Shias and Ahlul Sunnah that Muawiya's qiyās was wrong regarding fighting back Muslim Ruler's Army. My question: would Muawiya's killing of any single Muslim (who was in the Army of Imam Ali a.s) cause ALLAH'S (SWT) Wrath and Curse to descend upon him (i.e. Muawiya) as per the Ayat of Surah an-Nisa?

“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)

Qiyas? What has qiyas got to do with it?

You wanted a peek inside the head of Muawiya, now you want a peek inside the understanding of how Allah will judge according to Sunni's. I am sorry but I will not do such a thing. All I will say is, killing a believer is not a small thing. You must not forget however that Allah judges according to one's intentions.

Amr ibn al-‘As reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “If a ruler makes a ruling, striving to apply his reasoning (ijtihad) and he is correct, then he will have two rewards. If a ruler makes a ruling, striving to apply his reasoning and he is mistaken, then he will have one reward.”

Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 6919, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1716

Grade: Muttafaqun Alayhi (authenticity agreed upon) according to Al-Bukhari and Muslim

عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْعَاصِ أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ إِذَا حَكَمَ الْحَاكِمُ فَاجْتَهَدَ ثُمَّ أَصَابَ فَلَهُ أَجْرَانِ وَإِذَا حَكَمَ فَاجْتَهَدَ ثُمَّ أَخْطَأَ فَلَهُ أَجْرٌ

6919 صحيح البخاري كتاب الاعتصام بالكتاب والسنة باب أجر الحاكم إذا اجتهد فأصاب أو أخطأ

1716 صحيح مسلم كتاب الأقضية باب بيان أجر الحاكم إذا اجتهد فأصاب أو أخطأ

I don't think that is a valid conclusion, but even if, Muawiya was still the ruler of Syria, that is part of the whole problem.

Muawiya may think whatever he likes but he is not allowed to act against al-Quran and Sunnah.

Quran and Sunnah clearly mentions to obey those in authority and never to fight (or fight back) Muslim Ruler. Muawiya would be held accountable for his actions going against al-Quran and Sunnah.

I don't think that the prohibitions regarding fighting back are so clear that there is no ijtihad possible regarding it.

If Imam Ali (a.s) didn't think he was held hostage by his own (a.s) army then Muawiya thinking otherwise carries no weight. Muawiya should had pledged allegiance to legitimate Muslim Ruler.

Again, we are not talking about what Muawiya should have done. And if Muawiya thought Ali was held hostage, it would not be his justification for any of his decisions anyway, it was simply how he read the situation. His justification was Qisas for Uthman. And Muawiya or any one else are free to read a situation as they see it.

- Why did Imam Ali (a.s) not step down when Muawiya was declared Caliph. Why did he (a.s) not accept the result of arbitration?

-  Since Muawiya preceded Imam Hassan (a.s) in being declared Caliph, why did Imam Hassan (a.s) accept ruler-ship as according to authentic hadith the person who is selected as Ruler by people first is to kill the person who claims to be caliph during former's rule. How could Imam Hassan (a.s) claim to be Caliph when Muawiya was already declared to be Caliph?

For similar reasons as Muawiya not stepping down as ruler of Syria and pledging allegiance to Ali. They both saw the process as even though technically correct, but based on and directly benefiting from an injustice(in the case of Muawiya this was the murder of Uthman and in the case of Ali this was the deception of Abu Musa al Ashari) and therefore unacceptable.

Al Hassan accepting the rulership obviously was the wisest thing to do. From the beginning he wanted to end this and he basically saw three options. Fighting Muawiya, unite by convincing Muawiya to pledge allegiance to him or unite by pledging allegiance to Muawiya. The first was not really an option for him because he wanted to end this peacefully and he saw no quick way to end this violently. In both remaining cases, it would not make sense to not accept the rulership. It would not make sense to convince Muawiya to give him the Caliphate if he didn't claim the Caliphate in the first place. Likewise, pledging allegiance to Muawiya without the Iraqi's pledging allegiance to al Hassan would have little to no effect as they would just find someone else to pledge allegiance to and rally behind. This is something that al Hassan obviously tried to prevent.

[iceman]

"Muawiya ruled gloriously, plentifully and for a long time.  Imam Ali's (ra) rule was tumultuous and short.  Imam Hassan's (ra) rule did not even last a year.

- Muawiya brought new lands under Islamic rule.  Imam Ali (ra)....not so much!

- Muawiya was not killed; he died a natural, peaceful death.  Imam Ali (ra) was killed.  Even from among his offspring and later generations, there were those that were slaughtered.

- Muawiya was loaded (rich).  Imam Ali (ra) was not rich.  According to you (Shias), his wife had to beg for a piece of land.

- Muawiya did not have to give up his daughter by force.  Imam Ali (ra), according to you, was forced to give Umm Kulthoom (ra) in marriage to Umar (ra).

- Muawiya maintained his power and never lost control of his own leadership.  Imam Ali (ra) and your remaining 11 Imams (ra) could not even maintain control over what was "Divinely Ordained" for them (as per your belief)."

Muawiyah this, that and the other, OK. So was Muawiyah better than Usman? Because Usman lost control as well. Why didn't you mention this? Or may be it wasn't Usman's fault. Was Muawiyah better than Abu Bakr and Umar? Would you like to clear this that if Muawiyah was do good then why don't you honour him, he's not part of Khulafaa e Rashedoon 😊

[muslim720]

Muawiyah this, that and the other, OK. So was Muawiyah better than Usman? Because Usman lost control as well.

I should have known that dimwits cannot distinguish between rewards and mercy and actually being better (than someone else).  However, since you have turned this into a "who is better" discussion, allow me to kick you and Ijtaba in your nether regions, as was and will be the purpose of my posts, in case there is something there.

It was your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) who saw Muawiya to be better than him, a better fit for Caliphate, and therefore, he decided to forego his "Divinely Ordained Right" in favor of Muawiya.  So maybe not better than Usman (ra) but definitely better than your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra).

His wife was not attacked; his wife did not suffer a miscarriage; his wife did not have to beg for a piece of land while forgetting that she just had a miscarriage; there was no rope around his neck; he was not dragged out like an animal.....certainly received "rewards and mercy" in abundance compared to what you say happened to your "infallibles" (ra).

Would you like to clear this that if Muawiyah was do good then why don't you honour him

I honor him.  If honoring Muawiya causes you to lose sleep, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon Muawiya.  May his haters have week-long diarrhea!  Wait, his haters do have verbal diarrhea that dates back to 14 centuries ago, lol!

[Abu Muhammad]

Conclusion:

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

Going against Quran and Sunnah? His ijtihad also has basis in the Quran. Another case of  "hindsight is 20/20" here. Why don't you google what "hindsight is 20/20" mean.

By the way, nothing surprise at all. You have to say what you are supposed to say about him. Your imaan "feeds" on that.

As for us, we don't dwell on him and those events nor we say anything bad about him too (Al-Baqarah: 134 &141 and Al-Hashr: 10).

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

Rebelled? I don't think your imam was in agreement with you:

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]

By the way, nothing surprise at all. You have to say what you are supposed to say about him. Your imaan "feeds" on that.

As for us, we don't dwell on him and those events nor we say anything bad about him too (Al-Baqarah: 134 &141 and Al-Hashr: 10).

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

Killing muslims? How could he kill muslims if the other party was the one who brought those muslims into his terratory?

By the way, nothing surprise at all. You have to say what you are supposed to say about him. Your imaan "feeds" on that.

As for us, we don't dwell on him and those events nor we say anything bad about him too (Al-Baqarah: 134 &141 and Al-Hashr: 10).

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.

Nope. Nothing mystery nor unknown nor unclear. Even your imam admitted to that in the narration I posted above.

By the way, nothing surprise at all. You have to say what you are supposed to say about him. Your imaan "feeds" on that.

Again, as for us, we don't dwell on him and those events nor we say anything bad about him too (Al-Baqarah: 134 &141 and Al-Hashr: 10).

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".

Wow! That's sound very much unlike you. Such a desperate response. As pointed out by brother Muslim720, the hadith you quoted might be a plus to Muawiyya rather than minus.

But yeah, no surprise at all since you need to find whatever "perceived fault" to defend your belief in imamah. As I said before, your imaan "feeds" on those "perceived faults".

Again, as for us, we don't dwell on him and those events nor we say anything bad about him too (Al-Baqarah: 134 &141 and Al-Hashr: 10).

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)

Did he killed believers INTENTIONALLY? Hmm...

Sorry to say. Just to go by your deduction, If you applied that to Muawiyya, in fairness, the same should go to Ali too. The battle would have not happened should Ali did not bring his army to Syria (astaghfirullah).

By the way, nothing surprise at all. You have to say what you are supposed to say about him. Your imaan "feeds" on that.

Again, as for us, we don't dwell on him and those events nor we say anything bad about him too (Al-Baqarah: 134 &141 and Al-Hashr: 10).

IN CONCLUSION:

In another thread, you said you wanted to know Sunnis view of the event. However, in here, it is a kind of Tabarra' "fest". Yeah, you can go on with your Tabarra' "fest". Understandbly, you have to say what you are supposed to say about him. Your imaan "feeds" on those.

Again, as for us, we don't dwell on him and those events nor we say anything bad about him too (Al-Baqarah: 134 & 141 & Al-Hashr: 10). In fact, there isn't any need for us to defend whatever happened at that times in the first place. Our fundamental of belief doesn't depend on those events, unlike you.

[iceman]

I should have known that dimwits cannot distinguish between rewards and mercy and actually being better (than someone else).  However, since you have turned this into a "who is better" discussion, allow me to kick you and Ijtaba in your nether regions, as was and will be the purpose of my posts, in case there is something there.

It was your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) who saw Muawiya to be better than him, a better fit for Caliphate, and therefore, he decided to forego his "Divinely Ordained Right" in favor of Muawiya.  So maybe not better than Usman (ra) but definitely better than your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra).

His wife was not attacked; his wife did not suffer a miscarriage; his wife did not have to beg for a piece of land while forgetting that she just had a miscarriage; there was no rope around his neck; he was not dragged out like an animal.....certainly received "rewards and mercy" in abundance compared to what you say happened to your "infallibles" (ra).

I honor him.  If honoring Muawiya causes you to lose sleep, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon Muawiya.  May his haters have week-long diarrhea!  Wait, his haters do have verbal diarrhea that dates back to 14 centuries ago, lol!

😊 Before you do anything you need to seek treatment concerning your extremely bitter, wreched and twisted personality. You sound like one very sick person.

According to the Ahle Sunnah Muawiyah's reign is not considered Caliphate but Malookiyath. He is not part of Khulafaa e Rashedoon. So you personally and individually can jump up and down as much as you like but facts are facts and will remain facts.

You really need to sort yourself out by getting your facts right. Imam Hassan knew what he was like and went into peace treaty with him for the sake of the Ummah.

Because Muawiyah didn't care how many more Muslim lives are lost as long as he is getting his way. That's all Muawiyah cared about. Muawiyah stood his ground regardless because the man didn't care.

Rather than answering and addressing you retaliate as though your in a battle or match. You talk about Muawiyah having and being in control then what about Usman 😊

Yes Muawiyah's wife wasn't attacked and if she was then God save the world. Never mind about his wife being attacked his relative (Usman) got killed and he waged war on this kicking the living daylights out of the Muslim Ummah. He didn't care how many lives were lost and how much harm would come to Islam regarding his stance.😊

What causes me loss of sleep is your extremely bitter and twisted personality which is preventing you from thinking straight. By all means honour him by challenging the Ahle Sunah and adding him to Khulafaa e Rashedoon and considering his reign as Caliphate and not Malookiyath. 😊

[muslim720]

😊 Before you do anything you need to seek treatment concerning your extremely bitter, wreched and twisted personality. You sound like one very sick person.

Wretched is the right word!  Realizing that you (e-Shias) will never be satisfied with what we do or say, I have decided to answer your wretchedness with the most reprehensible of responses. 

According to the Ahle Sunnah Muawiyah's reign is not considered Caliphate but Malookiyath. He is not part of Khulafaa e Rashedoon.

Right!  And according to authentic history, Muawiya overpowered your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) and had him surrender his "Divinely Ordained Right".

You really need to sort yourself out by getting your facts right. Imam Hassan knew what he was like and went into peace treaty with him for the sake of the Ummah.

...and as I press your wretchedness, you start trumpeting your imbecile seniors.  According to you, Imam Hassan (ra) knew what was in Muawiya's heart and yet he handed over his "Divinely Ordained Right" to him.  Along the same lines, Imam Hassan (ra) must have also known that Muawiya would appoint Yazeed and introduce chaos in the Ummah.  So how did Imam Hassan (ra) help the Ummah for making peace with Muawiya?  In fact, if we go by your utterly stupid reasoning, I would blame Imam Hassan (ra) for the killing of Imam Hussain (ra).  After all, Imam Hassan (ra) handed Muawiya the Caliphate knowing full well that Muawiya would appoint his son as his successor who would then kill his (Imam Hassan's) brother.

In short, Imam Hassan (ra) actually did a disservice to the Ummah and paved the way for the murder of his own brother (if we go by your idiotic excuse).

Because Muawiyah didn't care how many more Muslim lives are lost as long as he is getting his way. That's all Muawiyah cared about. Muawiyah stood his ground regardless because the man didn't care.

Knowing Muawiya did not care about how many Muslim lives are lost, Imam Hassan (ra) still left the fate of the Ummah in his hands.  Perhaps you were blaming the wrong person all along.  About time you start prosecuting your own 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) in your laughable gatherings.

Never mind about his wife being attacked his relative (Usman) got killed and he waged war on this kicking the living daylights out of the Muslim Ummah.

If we accept your worldview then Uthman's (ra) wife was far more brave than Imam Ali (ra).  When Uthman (ra) was being attacked, his wife brought her hands between Uthman (ra) and the swords and in the process, she lost some fingers.  Imam Ali (ra), on the other hand, was a mere spectator when his wife was being attacked.

Another one of your spits that just landed on your own despicable face.

What causes me loss of sleep is your extremely bitter and twisted personality which is preventing you from thinking straight.

Alhamdulilah!  Let me know how often you lose sleep over my bitterness and I'll offer extra nawaafil.

[iceman]

Wretched is the right word!  Realizing that you (e-Shias) will never be satisfied with what we do or say, I have decided to answer your wretchedness with the most reprehensible of responses. 

Right!  And according to authentic history, Muawiya overpowered your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) and had him surrender his "Divinely Ordained Right".

...and as I press your wretchedness, you start trumpeting your imbecile seniors.  According to you, Imam Hassan (ra) knew what was in Muawiya's heart and yet he handed over his "Divinely Ordained Right" to him.  Along the same lines, Imam Hassan (ra) must have also known that Muawiya would appoint Yazeed and introduce chaos in the Ummah.  So how did Imam Hassan (ra) help the Ummah for making peace with Muawiya?  In fact, if we go by your utterly stupid reasoning, I would blame Imam Hassan (ra) for the killing of Imam Hussain (ra).  After all, Imam Hassan (ra) handed Muawiya the Caliphate knowing full well that Muawiya would appoint his son as his successor who would then kill his (Imam Hassan's) brother.

In short, Imam Hassan (ra) actually did a disservice to the Ummah and paved the way for the murder of his own brother (if we go by your idiotic excuse).

Knowing Muawiya did not care about how many Muslim lives are lost, Imam Hassan (ra) still left the fate of the Ummah in his hands.  Perhaps you were blaming the wrong person all along.  About time you start prosecuting your own 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) in your laughable gatherings.

If we accept your worldview then Uthman's (ra) wife was far more brave than Imam Ali (ra).  When Uthman (ra) was being attacked, his wife brought her hands between Uthman (ra) and the swords and in the process, she lost some fingers.  Imam Ali (ra), on the other hand, was a mere spectator when his wife was being attacked.

Another one of your spits that just landed on your own despicable face.

Alhamdulilah!  Let me know how often you lose sleep over my bitterness and I'll offer extra nawaafil.

"Realizing that you (e-Shias) will never be satisfied with what we do or say"

Absolutely. You've got that right. And let me tell you exactly why. It's either your double standards or going against reality and facts. Even basic common sense goes straight out of the window in your case. Lets comment on your ridiculous points based on retaliation.

"Right!  And according to authentic history, Muawiya overpowered your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) and had him surrender his "Divinely Ordained Right"

That's how you see it with your narrow mind. Open up your mind and this is how you will see it. Just as Ali, Hassan became the fifth RIGHTLY GUIDED CALIPH OF THE MUSLIMS. Now Hassan could have kept his stance as being recognised as the RIGHTLY GUIDED CALIPH going just as Ali did.

But yes Muawiyah had influence and support and he definitely continued with his confrontational stance. Hassan decided to end the bloodshed but Muawiyah wished to continue it regardless. Hassan being the bigger and better man handed over Caliphate to Muawiya on conditions.

Caliphate which was so dear and beautiful to Muawiya that he would continue with his confrontational stance and keep shedding blood. What Hassan did is exactly what Imamah is all about and that is to protect and defend the message and have the welfare of Islam and the benefit of the Muslims at hand.

Ali did what was right at the time and when Muawiya's stance was open and recognised then Hassan looked at that and brought it into account and did what was right and what needed to be done.

[iceman]

"Right!  And according to authentic history, Muawiya overpowered your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) and had him surrender his "Divinely Ordained Right"

OVERPOWERED? OK, According to your ridiculous understanding then, Astaghfirullah, Iblees overpowered God. When Iblees refused to Bow to Adam on God's orders and God kicked him out then why did Allah alow and give into the demands of Iblees?

I'll comment further on this. Do ponder over it.

[iceman]

"Right!  And according to authentic history, Muawiya overpowered your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) and had him surrender his "Divinely Ordained Right"

OVERPOWERED? OK, According to your ridiculous understanding then, Astaghfirullah, Iblees overpowered God. When Iblees refused to Bow to Adam on God's orders and God kicked him out then why did Allah alow and give into the demands of Iblees?

I'll comment further on this. Do ponder over it.

Satan knew very well he couldn't win from Allah, still he asked for RESPITE till the Day of Judgment. And did Allah grant him? Why? Why didn't Satan simply repent? He'll be on the losing side on the Day of Judgment. You might say it is Satan's kibr (pride) that prevents him from repenting. But no matter how proud or powerful he might be, he is still merely a creation and Allah is the creator. So what is the point, why fight a lost cause? Ego and arrogance is the key cause.

But what would you (Muslim 720) think here? Allah gave into the demands of Satan that he was granted the ability and power to wisper in our hearts and minds to help lead us astray. Why was Satan given such a lengthy and long life? Why didn’t Allah just do away with Satan there and then? Do ask yourself these questions and ponder over your ridiculous theory over OVERPOWER!

Satan has power to incite man with tempting thoughts, to call him toward evil, and to make evil seem beautiful to him. Who granted Satan that power and why Muslim 720?

[iceman]

"When Uthman (ra) was being attacked, his wife brought her hands between Uthman (ra) and the swords and in the process, she lost some fingers"

Ok, so she definitely knew who the killers of Usman were. Why is there no statement and action on her behalf in history of Islam for bringing the killers to justice? Why didn't the people of Jamal and Safeen, who were so eager and hellbent to see the killers brought to justice, chase her? She exactly knew who the killers were  but made no attempt what so ever to raise the matter of Qisas. I wonder why.