Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?

[Mythbuster1]

"Meaning the first imam had His own internal problems, He bypassed nabuwwah to be promoted straight to imamah yet His role was full of internal turmoil tha Allah swt left it to the people......"

No he didn't have his own internal problems. The Prophet s.a.w was from Bani Hashim so certain Muhajir didn't want Caliphate to go to Bani Hashiim as well. This is what all of a sudden the secrecy of Saqifa was all about. No one at Saqifa mourned the Prophet s.a.w otherwise they wouldn’t have been there.

There should have been a period of mourning and then all concerned should have assembled and participated to select a leader and successor to Muhammad s.a.w

If it was organised and conducted do you think the two Shaykhs would have got their way. To the First Imam the worldly position of Caliphate wasn't so important that blood should be spilled over it.

Told you saqifa is giving you nightmares 😂😂😂😂👍

Praise be to Allaah.
One of the most hateful characteristics that a person may have is that of lying. Hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said concerning it: “Beware of lying, for lying leads to wickedness and wickedness leads to Hell. A man may continue to tell lies and endeavour to tell lies, until he is recorded with Allaah as a liar.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (6134) and Muslim (2607). 

Nice story maybe it will work on your kind, we just deal with facts Alhamdulillah.

The shaykhs were there at the funeral and were told of the gathering at saqifa while they were at the funeral, so they went saqifa and came back, we have plenty of info and facts on this website just use the SEARCH.

[iceman]

Told you saqifa is giving you nightmares 😂😂😂😂👍

Praise be to Allaah.
One of the most hateful characteristics that a person may have is that of lying. Hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said concerning it: “Beware of lying, for lying leads to wickedness and wickedness leads to Hell. A man may continue to tell lies and endeavour to tell lies, until he is recorded with Allaah as a liar.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (6134) and Muslim (2607). 

Nice story maybe it will work on your kind, we just deal with facts Alhamdulillah.

The shaykhs were there at the funeral and were told of the gathering at saqifa while they were at the funeral, so they went saqifa and came back, we have plenty of info and facts on this website just use the SEARCH.

Dare to address each and every point that I've made 😊

"we just deal with facts Alhamdulillah."

What a wonderful joke. You've certainly got me laughing 😂

[Mythbuster1]

"He Hassan ra United two great armies.
He didn’t however believe or think that He was giving it to a cold blooded killer who was killing just for power or like some of your kind think even worse of Him ra, it was simple the Shiites were cowards, the Shiites wouldn’t fight so Hassan fulfilled the prophecy Alhamdulillah."

No one said he was a cold blooded killer and was out there on a killing spree. He just didn't recognise the legitimate Islamic Caliphate and went to extreme measures just to have and get his way.

There is no harm in demanding that the killers of Usman be brought to justice. In fact I think it was a right and just demand. But using means of violence and threatening behaviour, using your influence and connections and raising arms and turning towards bloodshed  just to have your demands met was very wrong especially against the legitimate Islamic Caliphate. This is exactly what was wrong and where we differ with you.

Our Imams had their priorities and their priority was the welfare of Islam and the benefit of the Muslims. If you are right
then you must use might wasn't the policy of our Imams. And to use might to such a stage and length that who cares what ever the hell happens.

"Alhamdulillah.
It has NOTHING to do with divine Imamate in any sense or form because a prophet wouldn’t give up His authority to no man......yet a person higher than a prophet can?!??"

This is where you are wrong. No one gave up their divine authority. He was willing to resign from Caliphate and let Muawiya take office but why? Because the Ummah was divided over this. And it was done conditionally. Blame the Ummah like yourself for not having a clear objective and stance. Hassan did it but condionally to unite the Ummah and to save further bloodshed.

You know the reason and circumstances so stop trying to exploit the situation. The position of Caliphate has got nothing to do with Imamah. First go and learn and get to know about what Imamah is all about then  you won't need to jump up and down.

You are all over the place here lol

Ameer Muawiya ra didn’t want power he already had it in shaam, he only wanted revenge for his cousin and the killers were hiding within the Muslims even Ali earth acknowledged that it has nothing to do with leadership but he wanted revenge for Uthman ra.

Ameer Muawiya ra didn’t raise arms,use or threaten violence and cause bloodshed because he wanted to rule the reigns of power he never did any of what you wrote........even though Ali are came with His forces raised arms and used violence first. This is where your kind get emotional and don’t scrutinise facts instead relying on flimsy unauthentic chainless accounts, that’s the difference between Shiite and Sunni, Shiites use ANYTHING even be it false whilst the Sunni uses AUTHENTIC sources. Simple.

You have to use might if your family is in trouble, not standing up for your rights or family doesn’t benefit a Muslim or Muslims even non Muslims will not benefit from such actions hence you are the minority you are because in your minds imams let atrocities happen and they just watched it all, me myself would NEVER follow weak beings like that and that is for the majority Muslims also, you created a weak divinely appointed being who will not fight for his right........that’s not our problem Alhamdulillah......our imam Ali ra and His offspring were not cowards, forget the 12th he is a fake made up being.

State facts......Hassan ran gave up khilafah because the Shiites wouldn’t fight just like with Hussein ra just like throughout Islamic history the Shiites were cowards what did you expect imam Hassan earth to do? The Shiites abandoned Him ra and the rest of the progeny..........answers are closer to home😉👍

Imamah is a divine station which you attain after passing tests if you are prophet but not the last prophet and the progeny of the last prophet don’t have to be prophets to attain such a station......it’s all bout PROMOTIONS!

Yet you can’t provide any evidence of such in Quran or sunnah without adding your verbal gymnastics to words to stretch out meanings.

So really divine Imamate is a made up status that has nothing to do with Islam.

Alhamdulillah

[Mythbuster1]

Dare to address each and every point that I've made 😊

"we just deal with facts Alhamdulillah."

What a wonderful joke. You've certainly got me laughing 😂

I have it’s not my fault your brain can’t deal with the facts😂😂😂

You are A joker you keep me laughing every time you post nonsense😂😂😂👍👍

[iceman]

I have it’s not my fault your brain can’t deal with the facts😂😂😂

You are A joker you keep me laughing every time you post nonsense😂😂😂👍👍

It takes one to know one I guess 😀 You don't want to discuss but want to entertain and be entertained 😁

[muslim720]

The people of Jamal and Safeen wanted the killers of Usman to be brought to justice and people like you claim that those killers were part of Ali's administration and central command of the army.

Imbecile, I mean Ijtaba, made that positive assertion (that he supports Imam Ali and his army, including those who killed Uthman).

If she couldn’t or didn't recognise them then where do your claims go?😊 How did your kind along with people of Jamal and Safeen recognise them? Get your facts right first.

So because she could not recognize them, the murder of Uthman (ra) should be ignored?  Imagine if in place of Uthman (ra), one of your Imams (ra) was killed in such a way.  I bet you would have danced to a different tune then.

Don't pick and choose and then go by what ever suits you.

...like how you focused on this one point (regarding the wife of Uthman and the identity of his killers)?

Well according to your theory Allah also knew and knows everything but still allowed Iblees to do and have a role in this that and the other and still allows Iblees  to carry on with it. So according to you Allah should also be blamed along with Iblees or should be held accountable rather than Iblees because he allowed and condoned it 😊 Please do elaborate on your theory rather than avoiding it or keeping it reserved on the Imams 😊

Iblees has no power over us except what our nafs affords him and while Iblees wants our destruction, Allah (swt) is in command at all times.  Allah's (swt) Power and Dominance have not shifted hands.  In the case of your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra), however, he was overpowered by Muawiya.  Imam Hassan (ra) gave up his command over the Muslims to a vicious person (according to you).  I don't know how you see any similarity in those two scenarios.  Easy with the head slapping.  You have no brain cells left.

Already addressed it. Check the thread. Latest posts.

You addressed it as much as Imam Hassan (ra) addressed the Caliphate and as much as your 12th Imam is addressing our problems.  You just walked away from that point!  Chicken!

Yes, good for Muawiya but unfortunately not for the Ummah. During the war of Safeen consisting of 72 battles and taking of a year and a half thousands and thousands Muslim lives were lost. So....

...and yet your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) would make peace with such a vile person!  Either you are wrong about Muawiya or your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) made a grave mistake.  Oh wait, he was "infallible".  Therefore, you must be mistaken!  But your ego, blinded by extreme hatred, won't allow you to admit that.

Who is mistaken: Shias or Imam Hassan (ra)?

Muawiyah = 10/10 And the Ummah= minus many thousands of lives lost. Fortunately Imamah had nothing to do with it.

Imam Hassan (ra), and therefore Imamah, had everything to do with it.  It was Imam Hassan (ra) who handed the entire Ummah to Muawiya.  Maybe Imam Hassan (ra) secretly wished for Muawiya to destroy the entire Ummah and therefore Islam which is why he placed Muawiya to be the commander-in-chief. 

[iceman]

Imbecile, I mean Ijtaba, made that positive assertion (that he supports Imam Ali and his army, including those who killed Uthman).

So because she could not recognize them, the murder of Uthman (ra) should be ignored?  Imagine if in place of Uthman (ra), one of your Imams (ra) was killed in such a way.  I bet you would have danced to a different tune then.

...like how you focused on this one point (regarding the wife of Uthman and the identity of his killers)?

Iblees has no power over us except what our nafs affords him and while Iblees wants our destruction, Allah (swt) is in command at all times.  Allah's (swt) Power and Dominance have not shifted hands.  In the case of your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra), however, he was overpowered by Muawiya.  Imam Hassan (ra) gave up his command over the Muslims to a vicious person (according to you).  I don't know how you see any similarity in those two scenarios.  Easy with the head slapping.  You have no brain cells left.

You addressed it as much as Imam Hassan (ra) addressed the Caliphate and as much as your 12th Imam is addressing our problems.  You just walked away from that point!  Chicken!

...and yet your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) would make peace with such a vile person!  Either you are wrong about Muawiya or your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) made a grave mistake.  Oh wait, he was "infallible".  Therefore, you must be mistaken!  But your ego, blinded by extreme hatred, won't allow you to admit that.

Who is mistaken: Shias or Imam Hassan (ra)?

Imam Hassan (ra), and therefore Imamah, had everything to do with it.  It was Imam Hassan (ra) who handed the entire Ummah to Muawiya.  Maybe Imam Hassan (ra) secretly wished for Muawiya to destroy the entire Ummah and therefore Islam which is why he placed Muawiya to be the commander-in-chief.

"Imbecile, I mean Ijtaba, made that positive assertion (that he supports Imam Ali and his army, including those who killed Uthman)"

You're not an imbecile so please don't call yourself that. OK, so who exactly were those who killed Usman? You claimed his wife didn't have a clue because they kept their identies hidden by wearing balaclavas. She didn't have the faintest by being present when the killing took place and even got injured trying to protect him. And you along with those who instigated Jamal and Safeen knew. OK, enough. Would you mind telling me who exactly they were. Lets hear it.

"So because she could not recognize them, the murder of Uthman (ra) should be ignored?"

Who the hell said and meant that. Come on man, have you completely lost it. There is a procedure on how to deal with a murder case. There are ways and methods to go by. And violence and threatening behaviour most certainly isn't one of them. All the evidence needs to be gathered and put together. Lack of evidence and witnesses has a big effect on each and every case.

[muslim720]

You're not an imbecile so please don't call yourself that. OK, so who exactly were those who killed Usman? You claimed his wife didn't have a clue because they kept their identies hidden by wearing balaclavas. She didn't have the faintest by being present when the killing took place and even got injured trying to protect him.

You require of Uthman's (ra) wife to have named the killers when your own two Imams (ra) - 2nd and 3rd - present outside the house of Uthman (ra) could not identify them.  Not to mention, the "Divinely Appointed" second and third Imams (ra) were overpowered, again.  SURPRISE, SURPRISE!

Imams, scoreless!

And you along with those who instigated Jamal and Safeen knew. OK, enough. Would you mind telling me who exactly they were. Lets hear it.

I never made that assertion.  I only wished to lay it into Imbecile who, as a matter of fact, confirmed the inclusion of these rebels in the army of Imam Ali (ra) and also praised them.

All the evidence needs to be gathered and put together. Lack of evidence and witnesses has a big effect on each and every case.

Your point is that Uthman's (ra) wife should have been able to recognize them since she was present inside the house.  And because she was unable to do so, the matter can be disregarded or set aside.  However, Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra) also could not identify those who killed Uthman (ra).  So the killers of Uthman (ra) not only overpowered your "infallible" Imams (ra) but also evaded their all-encompassing knowledge and succeeded in carrying the murder incognito.

Now, please answer me:
- Either you are wrong about Muawiya or your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) made a grave mistake.  Oh wait, he was "infallible".  Therefore, you must be mistaken!  But your ego, blinded by extreme hatred, won't allow you to admit that.

Who is mistaken: Shias or Imam Hassan (ra)?

[iceman]

You require of Uthman's (ra) wife to have named the killers when your own two Imams (ra) - 2nd and 3rd - present outside the house of Uthman (ra) could not identify them.  Not to mention, the "Divinely Appointed" second and third Imams (ra) were overpowered, again.  SURPRISE, SURPRISE!

Imams, scoreless!

I never made that assertion.  I only wished to lay it into Imbecile who, as a matter of fact, confirmed the inclusion of these rebels in the army of Imam Ali (ra) and also praised them.

Your point is that Uthman's (ra) wife should have been able to recognize them since she was present inside the house.  And because she was unable to do so, the matter can be disregarded or set aside.  However, Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra) also could not identify those who killed Uthman (ra).  So the killers of Uthman (ra) not only overpowered your "infallible" Imams (ra) but also evaded their all-encompassing knowledge and succeeded in carrying the murder incognito.

Now, please answer me:
- Either you are wrong about Muawiya or your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) made a grave mistake.  Oh wait, he was "infallible".  Therefore, you must be mistaken!  But your ego, blinded by extreme hatred, won't allow you to admit that.

Who is mistaken: Shias or Imam Hassan (ra)?

What you're doing is trying to twist and turn things around just to avoid reality and facts because you are blinded by the enmity you have regarding Shias.

The claim of certain Sunnis are that the killers of Usman were part of Ali's administration and central command of the army. Either correct me on this or accept it. The reason, no actually the excuse for Jamal and Safeen was to bring the killers of Usman to justice. Muawiyah asked Ali, no infact demanded that Ali hand over the killers of Usman to him.

My question is that it clearly seems that they knew who exactly the killers were. Or at least that's what it sounds like. If they knew who the killers were then it is absolutely obvious that Usman's wife must have also known who the killers were because she was a witness to the murder by being present at the crime scene. This makes her a witness as well as a suspect. But I'm not going to touch that.

You claimed that she wasn't aware of the killers for reasons a and b. I'm saying, well ok if she wasn't aware despite being a witness and present at the crime scene, it was difficult for her to recognize and identify them then how the hell did the people of Jamal and Safeen get to know who exactly they were?

All you need to do is stop dancing around and twisting and turning things and look and deal with the case in a reasonable and  constructive manner. That is all. You guys are trying your best to create and cause confusion with all the whoo haaa. Either you know who exactly the killers were or you don't.

Now tell me, do you know who the killers were? YES or NO? Answer me.

[iceman]

I am 100% right about Muawiya that he used means of violence and threatening behaviour just to have his demands met when he didn't even know about the facts. He fought 72 battles, and what, just to bring the killers to justice which no one knew or recognised? The history between the group of Muawiyah and the rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims and the legitimate Islamic government was already there. Muawiyah's stance was clear and he surely wasn't going to give in now.

I'm 100% right about Hassan as well. He was a very wise man who knew this and took history into account. His priority was the welfare of Islam and the benefit of the Muslims. He absolutely did the right thing by ending the fitna that Muawiya was a reason and cause of. The treaty was conditional and based on circumstances which Muawiya broke all. Muawiyah did eventually show himself.

[iceman]

Volume 1, Book 8, Number 438 :
Narrated by 'Ikrima
Ibn 'Abbas said to me and to his son 'Ali, "Go to Abu Sa'id and listen to what he narrates." So we went and found him in a garden looking after it. He picked up his Rida', wore it and sat down and started narrating till the topic of the construction of the mosque reached. He said, "We were carrying one adobe at a time while 'Ammar was carrying two. The Prophet saw him and started removing the dust from his body and said, "May Allah be Merciful to 'Ammar. He will be inviting them (i.e. his murderers, the rebellious group) to Paradise and they will invite him to Hell-fire." 'Ammar said, "I seek refuge with Allah from affliction."

Who were the THEM and THEY? Anybody shed light on this?

Also can someone shed light on the following;

Sunni scholar Ahmad ibn Hanbal writes in his famous collection of Hadtih: "Musnad"

"Abdullah bin Buraida said: 'I entered on Muawiya with my father, then he (Mu'awiya) made us sit on a mattress then he brought food to us and we ate, then he brought a drink to us, Muawiya drank it and then he offered that to my father, thus (my father) said: 'I never drank it since the messenger of Allah made it [that drink] Haram'...."

[muslim720]

The claim of certain Sunnis are that the killers of Usman were part of Ali's administration and central command of the army. Either correct me on this or accept it.

The claim was made by Ijtaba or Imbecile.  You are welcome, now that I have corrected you.

My question is that it clearly seems that they knew who exactly the killers were. Or at least that's what it sounds like.

As a group, yes!  As individuals who actually brought down their swords upon Uthman (ra), no!

If they knew who the killers were then it is absolutely obvious that Usman's wife must have also known who the killers were because she was a witness to the murder by being present at the crime scene. This makes her a witness as well as a suspect. But I'm not going to touch that.

If everyone present was a witness and a suspect, Sherlock Holmes, then you have two suspects from the "infallibles": Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra).

It is high time you, and others like you, wake up and realize that every assertion you make is an allegation that can also be leveled (on a much worse basis) against your own "infallibles" (ra).

I am 100% right about Muawiya that he used means of violence and threatening behaviour just to have his demands met when he didn't even know about the facts.

Thank you for admitting that Imam Hassan (ra), your 2nd "infallible" Imam, was wrong!

More than 1400 years later, you know Muawiya more than those present in his time, some allegedly with knowledge of the unseen (as you attribute to your "infallibles").

I am 100% right about Muawiya

I'm 100% right about Hassan as well

Paradox!  I am not surprised.  In the minds of Shias, even a paradox is a logical statement.

He was a very wise man who knew this and took history into account. His priority was the welfare of Islam and the benefit of the Muslims.

In other words, according to Imam Hassan (ra), Muawiya was more beneficial to the Ummah than his own self.  Thank you, once again, for shooting yourself in the foot.

I wonder if Imam Hassan (ra), for giving up the Caliphate, acted out of his own free will or infallibility (a question your entire creed will never be able to answer and account for)!

The treaty was conditional and based on circumstances which Muawiya broke all. Muawiyah did eventually show himself.

For having knowledge of the unseen, as per your beliefs, surely Imam Hassan (ra) must have known that Muawiya would violate the treaty.  Yet he handed Muawiya the Caliphate.  Therefore, you should blame Imam Hassan (ra) for Karbala (among many other crimes) as much as you blame Muawiya and Yazeed.

[iceman]

The claim was made by Ijtaba or Imbecile.  You are welcome, now that I have corrected you.

As a group, yes!  As individuals who actually brought down their swords upon Uthman (ra), no!

If everyone present was a witness and a suspect, Sherlock Holmes, then you have two suspects from the "infallibles": Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra).

It is high time you, and others like you, wake up and realize that every assertion you make is an allegation that can also be leveled (on a much worse basis) against your own "infallibles" (ra).

Thank you for admitting that Imam Hassan (ra), your 2nd "infallible" Imam, was wrong!

More than 1400 years later, you know Muawiya more than those present in his time, some allegedly with knowledge of the unseen (as you attribute to your "infallibles").

Paradox!  I am not surprised.  In the minds of Shias, even a paradox is a logical statement.

In other words, according to Imam Hassan (ra), Muawiya was more beneficial to the Ummah than his own self.  Thank you, once again, for shooting yourself in the foot.

I wonder if Imam Hassan (ra), for giving up the Caliphate, acted out of his own free will or infallibility (a question your entire creed will never be able to answer and account for)!

For having knowledge of the unseen, as per your beliefs, surely Imam Hassan (ra) must have known that Muawiya would violate the treaty.  Yet he handed Muawiya the Caliphate.  Therefore, you should blame Imam Hassan (ra) for Karbala (among many other crimes) as much as you blame Muawiya and Yazeed.

😊 I knew you'd come up with more twist and turns but people of your nature need to be challenged all the way through.

[muslim720]

😊 I knew you'd come up with more twist and turns but people of your nature need to be challenged all the way through.

You can say that but I am glad that you have established that you believe in paradoxes.  I also feel accomplished to have had you admit that you know better than Imam Hassan (ra).  Now please blame Imam Hassan (ra) for all the wrongdoings of Muawiya and Yazeed, including Karbala.

[iceman]

The claim was made by Ijtaba or Imbecile.  You are welcome, now that I have corrected you.

As a group, yes!  As individuals who actually brought down their swords upon Uthman (ra), no!

If everyone present was a witness and a suspect, Sherlock Holmes, then you have two suspects from the "infallibles": Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra).

It is high time you, and others like you, wake up and realize that every assertion you make is an allegation that can also be leveled (on a much worse basis) against your own "infallibles" (ra).

Thank you for admitting that Imam Hassan (ra), your 2nd "infallible" Imam, was wrong!

More than 1400 years later, you know Muawiya more than those present in his time, some allegedly with knowledge of the unseen (as you attribute to your "infallibles").

Paradox!  I am not surprised.  In the minds of Shias, even a paradox is a logical statement.

In other words, according to Imam Hassan (ra), Muawiya was more beneficial to the Ummah than his own self.  Thank you, once again, for shooting yourself in the foot.

I wonder if Imam Hassan (ra), for giving up the Caliphate, acted out of his own free will or infallibility (a question your entire creed will never be able to answer and account for)!

For having knowledge of the unseen, as per your beliefs, surely Imam Hassan (ra) must have known that Muawiya would violate the treaty.  Yet he handed Muawiya the Caliphate.  Therefore, you should blame Imam Hassan (ra) for Karbala (among many other crimes) as much as you blame Muawiya and Yazeed.

"As a group, yes!  As individuals who actually brought down their swords upon Uthman (ra), no!"

Ok, lets move you forward. Who was the group? And how do you know which group it was?

She is the prime witness as well as a suspect because she was present before, during and after the murder. So she is a very important for any investigation and you have no testimony or statement in history from her regarding the murder.

[iceman]

You can say that but I am glad that you have established that you believe in paradoxes.  I also feel accomplished to have had you admit that you know better than Imam Hassan (ra).  Now please blame Imam Hassan (ra) for all the wrongdoings of Muawiya and Yazeed, including Karbala.

Define paradox and what you mean be I believe in paradoxes. And who are you going to blame about Satan's doing?

[iceman]

The claim was made by Ijtaba or Imbecile.  You are welcome, now that I have corrected you.

As a group, yes!  As individuals who actually brought down their swords upon Uthman (ra), no!

If everyone present was a witness and a suspect, Sherlock Holmes, then you have two suspects from the "infallibles": Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra).

It is high time you, and others like you, wake up and realize that every assertion you make is an allegation that can also be leveled (on a much worse basis) against your own "infallibles" (ra).

Thank you for admitting that Imam Hassan (ra), your 2nd "infallible" Imam, was wrong!

More than 1400 years later, you know Muawiya more than those present in his time, some allegedly with knowledge of the unseen (as you attribute to your "infallibles").

Paradox!  I am not surprised.  In the minds of Shias, even a paradox is a logical statement.

In other words, according to Imam Hassan (ra), Muawiya was more beneficial to the Ummah than his own self.  Thank you, once again, for shooting yourself in the foot.

I wonder if Imam Hassan (ra), for giving up the Caliphate, acted out of his own free will or infallibility (a question your entire creed will never be able to answer and account for)!

For having knowledge of the unseen, as per your beliefs, surely Imam Hassan (ra) must have known that Muawiya would violate the treaty.  Yet he handed Muawiya the Caliphate.  Therefore, you should blame Imam Hassan (ra) for Karbala (among many other crimes) as much as you blame Muawiya and Yazeed.

Back from work so lets take a look and comment on all of your points as usual.

"The claim was made by Ijtaba or Imbecile. You are welcome, now that I have corrected you"

It is the Ahle Sunah perspective that Ali couldn't or didn't bring the killers of Usman to justice because they were part of his administration and further up in the military ranks. Or what ever other reason they have and put forward. The Ahle Sunah believe that this was the reason and cause of fitna and what caused Jamal and Safeen.

"As a group, yes!  As individuals who actually brought down their swords upon Uthman (ra), no!"

Ok, so Usman's wife couldn't recognise them because their faces were covered. Possibly they were wearing balaclavas. But which group they were from and belonged to was known, how and why? Can you explain.

"If everyone present was a witness and a suspect, Sherlock Holmes, then you have two suspects from the "infallibles": Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra)."

Usman's wife was present before, during and after the murder. She got caught up trying to protect and defend her husband and even got injured in the process. That makes her a prime and key witness in the case. You can twist it as much as you like just to avoid the investigation.

Yes this is a matter for Sherlock Holmes and is not a matter of Shariah law 😊 As far as Hassan and Hussein is concerned we will come to them as well. Lets deal with the one you've mentioned and brought in first.

"It is high time you, and others like you, wake up and realize that every assertion you make is an allegation that can also be leveled (on a much worse basis) against your own "infallibles" (ra)."

Ok wise guy. Lets give you something to run from. Usman was killed and that is for sure. Was it Murder? Or was it manslaughter? What makes you think it was murder and why? You claim the killers belonged to a specific group, what makes you think this and can you identify the group and why you think that particular group? Either answer and explain or keep running.

"Thank you for admitting that Imam Hassan (ra), your 2nd "infallible" Imam, was wrong!"

Are you daydreaming. Where and when did I admit Imam Hassan was wrong and what reason did I give and why?

"More than 1400 years later, you know Muawiya more than those present in his time, some allegedly with knowledge of the unseen (as you attribute to your "infallibles")"

Reality and facts along with history tells you what kind of a man he was and his character and role is clear. You are blinded by two things which have overcome your senses and ability to think straight. 1, The enmity you have about the Shia. 2, Member of defend the Sahaba campaign.

"Paradox!  I am not surprised.  In the minds of Shias, even a paradox is a logical statement."

Please do explain this. Why and what makes you think as such.

"In other words, according to Imam Hassan (ra), Muawiya was more beneficial to the Ummah than his own self.  Thank you, once again, for shooting yourself in the foot."

Muawiyah was more beneficial to himself and his agenda. That's why his reign is considered Malookiyath rather than Caliphate. And he is not part of Khulafaa e Rashedoon. Do give Shias a break and have a bang with the Ahle Sunah over why this is so.

"I wonder if Imam Hassan (ra), for giving up the Caliphate, acted out of his own free will or infallibility (a question your entire creed will never be able to answer and account for)!"

Caliphate and Imamah are two totally and completely different things. Start a thread on them when ever you feel like it. I have fully explained Hassan's stance and position regarding the treaty with Muawiya.

"Therefore, you should blame Imam Hassan (ra) for Karbala (among many other crimes) as much as you blame Muawiya and Yazeed."

Allah knew and Iblees even told him that he is going to do what ever he can to lead mankind astray or have a hand in it. Still Allah allowed him to get on with it. Not only this but Allah gave him the means and tools to do it. According to your theory who's to blame here? I've mentioned this before but you're running from it, why?

[Ijtaba]

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).

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.

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

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.

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?

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!

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!

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

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".

Personal insults, nonsensical and idiotic comments without addressing the arguments presented in a civilized manner. I won't steep down to your level.

'Abdullah bin 'Amr bin Al-'as (May Allah be pleased with him) reported:

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, "Four are the qualities which, when found in a person, make him a sheer hypocrite, and one who possesses one of them, possesses one characteristic of hypocrisy until he abandons it. These are: When he is entrusted with something, he betrays trust; when he speaks, he lies; when he promises, he acts treacherously; and when he argues, he behaves in a very imprudent, insulting manner."

[Al-Bukhari and Muslim].

Sunnah.com reference: Book 2, Hadith 10
Arabic/English book reference: Book 2, Hadith 690

Book 032, Number 6263:

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying:

When two persons indulge in hurling (abuses) upon one another, it would be the first one who would be the sinner so long as the oppressed does not transgress the limits.

Abdullah ibn Mas’ud reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “The believer does not taunt others, he does not curse others, he does not use profanity, and he does not abuse others.”

Source: Sunan al-Tirmidhī 1977

Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Albani

عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَيْسَ الْمُؤْمِنُ بِالطَّعَّانِ وَلَا اللَّعَّانِ وَلَا الْفَاحِشِ وَلَا الْبَذِيءِ

1977 سنن الترمذي كتاب البر والصلة باب ما جاء في اللعنة

1977 المحدث الألباني خلاصة حكم المحدث صحيح في صحيح الترمذي

[muslim720]

It is the Ahle Sunah perspective that Ali couldn't or didn't bring the killers of Usman to justice because they were part of his administration and further up in the military ranks.

Says you?

Ok, so Usman's wife couldn't recognise them because their faces were covered. Possibly they were wearing balaclavas. But which group they were from and belonged to was known, how and why? Can you explain.

Why are you asking me?  lol, the sad part is that you brought up Uthman's (ra) wife and I proved to you how she was more brave than your version of Imam Ali (ra).  Don't run away from that point!

Usman's wife was present before, during and after the murder. She got caught up trying to protect and defend her husband and even got injured in the process. That makes her a prime and key witness in the case. You can twist it as much as you like just to avoid the investigation.

Your second and third Imams (ra) were also present.  Do you wish to drag them to court?

Yes this is a matter for Sherlock Holmes and is not a matter of Shariah law 😊 As far as Hassan and Hussein is concerned we will come to them as well. Lets deal with the one you've mentioned and brought in first.

It is overdue so get to them now before you keep working down the rabbit hole.

Ok wise guy. Lets give you something to run from. Usman was killed and that is for sure. Was it Murder? Or was it manslaughter? What makes you think it was murder and why? You claim the killers belonged to a specific group, what makes you think this and can you identify the group and why you think that particular group? Either answer and explain or keep running.

Imam Hussain (ra) was killed and that is for sure.  Was it Murder?  Or was it manslaughter?  What makes you think it was murder and why?  Either answer and explain or keep running.

That is how easy it is to refute you, you spineless idiot, lol!  Replace names in your psychobabble diarrhea and let you see how idiotic your comments are.  However, it requires an ounce of shame and some brain, both of which you lack, to detect the idiocy.

Are you daydreaming. Where and when did I admit Imam Hassan was wrong and what reason did I give and why?

If you assert, and you did, that you know Muawiya (better than your second Imam), you are therefore elevating your own intelligence above your 2nd "infallible" Imam's (ra)!

Reality and facts along with history tells you what kind of a man he was and his character and role is clear.

And your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra), possessing knowledge of the unseen, did not know this?  You do but not him?  Therefore, Imam Hassan (ra) was wrong (for making peace with Muawiya), if you say you are right.

Please do explain this. Why and what makes you think as such.

It is not what I think, it is what you believe.  You cannot claim to know Imam Hassan (ra) and then paint an image of Muawiya any differently than known to Imam Hassan (ra).  If you do that, you are insinuating your Imam (ra) was an accomplice in all the crimes (actual and imaginary) committed by Muawiya, Yazeed, etc, all the while maintaining that the Imam (ra) is infallible and sinless.

Muawiyah was more beneficial to himself and his agenda. That's why his reign is considered Malookiyath rather than Caliphate. And he is not part of Khulafaa e Rashedoon. Do give Shias a break and have a bang with the Ahle Sunah over why this is so.

I have no issues to take up with anyone.  It is you to explain how a mere mortal and vile individual, as per you, was able to overpower your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra), lol!

Caliphate and Imamah are two totally and completely different things. Start a thread on them when ever you feel like it.

Oh, right!  If they were different, why was Imam Ali (ra) going door-to-door begging for his "right", according to you?

I have fully explained Hassan's stance and position regarding the treaty with Muawiya.

I read your nonsense!  Imam Hassan (ra) willingly stepped aside and handed the entire Ummah to a vicious person.  And you want me to believe that he was "Divinely Selected" to guide the Ummah?  How can such a man be my guide?  He sold the Ummah to Muawiya.  OR, you are completely mistaken.  It is the latter!

[muslim720]

Personal insults, nonsensical and idiotic comments without addressing the arguments presented in a civilized manner. I won't steep down to your level.

Coming from someone who reviles and curses the Sahaba (ra)?  Laughable!  Stoop to my level?  You wish you could elevate yourself halfway up to my level!