Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?

[Ijtaba]

You don't know what Ijtihad is. Ijtihad by definition means seeking to arrive at a judgment in a matter that is not definitive from the sacred texts of divine revelation. Iblis did not make ijtihad since he disobeyed a direct command of Allah. Since Allah did not directly reveal that sayyidina Ali b. Abi Talib RA is the Caliph or Ruler, it was a matter of ijtihad for Mu'awiya to reject his caliphate.

Great. We both agree ijtihad cannot be done where there is a direct command of ALLAH (SWT). 

Muhajirun & Ansar had chosen Imam Ali (a.s) as Muslim ruler. According to direct command of ALLAH (SWT) as given in Quran and Hadiths, Muawiya had only two choices:

1. Pay allegiance to Imam Ali (a.s),

2. If did not give allegiance to Imam Ali (a.s) then in this case Muawiya could not fight Imam Ali (a.s) even if Imam Ali (a.s) brought his Forces in Shaam to kill Muawiya.

If you believe otherwise then bring your evidences & not opinions.

There are clear hadiths which clearly states fighting Muslim ruler or any other Muslim is forbidden and Kufr.

Imam Ali (a.s) never fought (or killed) any Muslim in his life. He (a.s) only fought & killed Mushriks, Jews, Rebels & Khawarij.

Muawiya on the other hand fought & killed Muslims even during the rule (Khilafat) of Imam Ali (a.s)

[muslim720]

The reason why you're harsh with me is because you're finding me difficult to handle. You get irritated and angry that's why you come up with counter arguments based on tit for tat just to hang in there.

Yes, I find it hard to deal with your stupidity.  I have never encountered anyone with as many idiotic posts as you.  I never thought I'd say this but you have overtaken Link as the single most stupid user on this forum.

Stick to the subject. Who are the rebels that were responsible for the killing of Usman? That's what we're discussing.

The identity of the rebels was not what I was discussing.  I am only proving to you the inconsistency and lack of coherence in your beliefs and the fact that the Imams (ra) - if we apply your beliefs and standards - were consistently overpowered by other Companions (ra). 

Imam Ali (ra) did not have the Caliphate so he had to submit to Abu Bakr (ra).  Then you turn around and say that Imam Hassan (ra), too, submitted to Muawiya (for the well-being of the Ummah).  Abu Bakr (ra), Muawiya, etc, must have had some super powers to nullify the power of those who had control over the atoms.

You believe Ali was on Haq? Finally.

Now you are playing dumb because you do not wish to comment on the dichotomies within your beliefs I have been pressing you on.

WE GAVE BLOOD and still do.

Not my problem that you, in a state of blinded frenzy, hit yourselves with blades, knives and chains.  If you were civilized, you would have not turned into worldwide mockery.

I'm mentioned to you Hassan's position and the circumstances surrounding it. I've also mentioned Ali and Hussein's position and situation. I don't like repeating myself. Refer to my posts.

...and I have repeatedly poked holes in your explanations which you fail to address.

Who was right: Imam Ali (ra) for fighting Muawiya OR Imam Hassan (ra) for making peace with Muawiya?  If you say that Imam Hassan (ra) saved lives by making peace then you are accusing Imam Ali (ra) of contributing to bloodshed by not backing out.

Allah knows and knew everything so why did he create mankind all over again when he said to the angels that I am going to make a Caliph on earth and the angels responded by saying that they will be the cause of bloodshed by fighting each other.

What Allah (swt) Did and Willed is in the Qur'an.  We do not even have the identity, let alone qualities and powers, of your Imams (ra) in the Qur'an. 

First you not only defend but honour Muawiya and now you claim Sunnis believe Ali was on Haq and you honour Muawiya who happens to be on batil.

Now you will know why I call you every name in the book.  If you were smart, you would have noticed I never put "ra" after mentioning Muawiya.  That is my personal opinion.  Secondly, I am highlighting Muawiya's achievements to burn you.  I say he overpowered Imam Hassan (ra) to stick it to you.  Our beliefs, shaped by the Qur'an and Sunnah, can allow for Imam Hassan (ra) to make peace with Muawiya.  Your obscure theology leaves no reason why an infallible Imam, who is also the Caliph of the time, should make peace with Muawiya.  And we see that at every turn, Muawiya outdid your Imam, lol.

Apart from bank and building societies, there are others who lend or give loans. Did you know that some lend money and give loans regardless of your credit history  😊

Okay, dimwit, so we can say Muawiya's credit history was pretty bad, per your claim.  And who knew this better than Imam Hassan (ra), staying with your beliefs.  Then why did Imam Hassan (ra) still give the Caliphate to such a man?  Why?

That is why I say Muawiya blanked your Imams (ra), lol! 

If it was cricket, and co-incidentally you believe in 12 Imams (ra), lol, its like Muawiya got them all out for duck!

[Cherub786]

Great. We both agree ijtihad cannot be done where there is a direct command of ALLAH (SWT). 

Muhajirun & Ansar had chosen Imam Ali (a.s) as Muslim ruler. According to direct command of ALLAH (SWT) as given in Quran and Hadiths, Muawiya had only two choices:

Incorrect. That is not an example of a direct command of Allah. Short of there being an actual verse in the Quran or a definitive Hadith from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم on the caliphate of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه it is a matter of Ijtihad. It is not from the Masa'il al Mansusa. For it to be a Nass it has to be qati ad-dalalah and qati ath-thubut, i.e., definitive in substantiating and the divine text being definitive in being established itself. Otherwise it is not Mansus and therefore a matter of Ijtihad. Furthermore, there was not total agreement of the Ummah upon the caliphate of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه for it to be considered an Ijma. By all counts, this was a matter of Ijtihad, and while Mu'awiya's Ijtihad turned out to be incorrect, he still had the right to make Ijtihad. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said:

إِذَا حَكَمَ الْحَاكِمُ فَاجْتَهَدَ ثُمَّ أَصَابَ فَلَهُ أَجْرَانِ، وَإِذَا حَكَمَ فَاجْتَهَدَ ثُمَّ أَخْطَأَ فَلَهُ أَجْرٌ
"When a judge judges with Ijtihad and is correct for him are two rewards, and when he judges with ijtihad but errs for him is only a single reward."

[iceman]

Yes, I find it hard to deal with your stupidity.  I have never encountered anyone with as many idiotic posts as you.  I never thought I'd say this but you have overtaken Link as the single most stupid user on this forum.

The identity of the rebels was not what I was discussing.  I am only proving to you the inconsistency and lack of coherence in your beliefs and the fact that the Imams (ra) - if we apply your beliefs and standards - were consistently overpowered by other Companions (ra). 

Imam Ali (ra) did not have the Caliphate so he had to submit to Abu Bakr (ra).  Then you turn around and say that Imam Hassan (ra), too, submitted to Muawiya (for the well-being of the Ummah).  Abu Bakr (ra), Muawiya, etc, must have had some super powers to nullify the power of those who had control over the atoms.

Now you are playing dumb because you do not wish to comment on the dichotomies within your beliefs I have been pressing you on.

Not my problem that you, in a state of blinded frenzy, hit yourselves with blades, knives and chains.  If you were civilized, you would have not turned into worldwide mockery.

...and I have repeatedly poked holes in your explanations which you fail to address.

Who was right: Imam Ali (ra) for fighting Muawiya OR Imam Hassan (ra) for making peace with Muawiya?  If you say that Imam Hassan (ra) saved lives by making peace then you are accusing Imam Ali (ra) of contributing to bloodshed by not backing out.

What Allah (swt) Did and Willed is in the Qur'an.  We do not even have the identity, let alone qualities and powers, of your Imams (ra) in the Qur'an. 

Now you will know why I call you every name in the book.  If you were smart, you would have noticed I never put "ra" after mentioning Muawiya.  That is my personal opinion.  Secondly, I am highlighting Muawiya's achievements to burn you.  I say he overpowered Imam Hassan (ra) to stick it to you.  Our beliefs, shaped by the Qur'an and Sunnah, can allow for Imam Hassan (ra) to make peace with Muawiya.  Your obscure theology leaves no reason why an infallible Imam, who is also the Caliph of the time, should make peace with Muawiya.  And we see that at every turn, Muawiya outdid your Imam, lol.

Okay, dimwit, so we can say Muawiya's credit history was pretty bad, per your claim.  And who knew this better than Imam Hassan (ra), staying with your beliefs.  Then why did Imam Hassan (ra) still give the Caliphate to such a man?  Why?

That is why I say Muawiya blanked your Imams (ra), lol! 

If it was cricket, and co-incidentally you believe in 12 Imams (ra), lol, its like Muawiya got them all out for duck!

I absolutely love being entertained by you. Your really make me laugh. You keep avoiding what's being discussed and you bring irrelevant stuff just to make your post lengthy so you can feel good.

Now back to what is being discussed, Usman got killed, who were the killers of Usman? Can you or Muawiya or Aisha along with Talah and Zubayr tell us.

We can only start an investigation if you give us some kind of statement on who you think we're the killers or responsible for the killing and why. Otherwise we have absolutely nothing to move forward on and the case is closed.

Usman's wife didn't give any statement what so ever. You can't give a clear statement. The people of Jamal and Safeen, who were jumping up and down about bringing the killers to justice and the Qisas for Usman's blood, couldn't come up with any names and a motive for the killing.

We and Ali can't help you. 😊

[muslim720]

I absolutely love being entertained by you. Your really make me laugh. You keep avoiding what's being discussed and you bring irrelevant stuff just to make your post lengthy so you can feel good.

The solution for everything you have said - making you laugh, avoiding what is being discussed and bringing irrelevant stuff - is for you to stop projecting.  You seem to project your own flaws onto others when it is you who does those things (avoid the main points and introduce irrelevant elements to a discussion).

Now back to what is being discussed, Usman got killed, who were the killers of Usman? Can you or Muawiya or Aisha along with Talah and Zubayr tell us.

Allow me to prove how you introduce irrelevant points in a discussion.  On page 4, as I was mentioning Muawiya's blessings (and how he was not killed, his wife was never attacked, etc), you brought up his "relative", in other words, Uthman (ra) [see post 74].  In my line of using your own beliefs against you, in the next post, I said that Uthman's (ra) wife was far more braver than the Shi'i version of Imam Ali (ra).  You used that bit to open another front regarding the identity of the killers of Uthman (ra).

In reality, my entire purpose in this topic is to use your own beliefs to stick it to you and Ijtaba.  The killers of Uthman (ra) is not my premise but your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra), despite knowing the deceits and ruthlessness of Muawiya - never mind his rebellion against his father (Imam Ali) - handed the Caliphate and the fate of the entire Ummah to Muawiya.

In our worldview, Muawiya is just a pixel.  In your theology, the Imams (ra) are the only picture.

We can only start an investigation if you give us some kind of statement on who you think we're the killers or responsible for the killing and why. Otherwise we have absolutely nothing to move forward on and the case is closed.

You are one strange and unique piece of work.  It is like as though your only aim is to stall discussions.  This case was closed because no one was discussing it.

Now, why would your "infallible" Imam (ra) give his "Divinely Ordained Right" to Muawiya?  Did he want Muawiya to destroy Islam? 

Why is it that your Imams (ra) were constantly out-muscled even when they had the Caliphate?

Why did your Imams (ra) contradict each other (one makes peace, the other wages war)?

How is it that Muawiya lived prosperously whereas your "infallibles" (ra) were chased everywhere so much so that they would have to issue contradictory fatwa thereby introducing misguidance when their only job was to guide?

Usman's wife didn't give any statement what so ever. You can't give a clear statement. The people of Jamal and Safeen, who were jumping up and down about bringing the killers to justice and the Qisas for Usman's blood, couldn't come up with any names and a motive for the killing.

Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra) also did not give any statements and they were present at Uthman's (ra) house.  Time to question them!  Along with Talhah (ra), Zubayr (ra), Aisha (ra) and others, you might also want to interrogate your 2nd and 3rd "infallibles" (ra).  Best of luck!

We and Ali can't help you. 😊

lol, your 12 "infallibles" (ra) could not help themselves even when they were in power.  I was never holding my breath awaiting their help

[iceman]

"Okay, dimwit, so we can say Muawiya's credit history was pretty bad, per your claim.  And who knew this better than Imam Hassan (ra), staying with your beliefs.  Then why did Imam Hassan (ra) still give the Caliphate to such a man?  Why?"

I've already told you and here it is again just to put your mischief to rest. We are talking about INFALLIBILITY here right. Infallible this and infallible that.

Allah knows everything and I mean everything even before it enters your mind and or heart. Never mind about going and saying or doing something be it action or practice. Allah knows who is going to heaven and who to hell and why,

so why didn't he just create and put his creation in to heaven and hell? I mean he has the knowledge and he also is infallible. Why wait or allow to begin with? Do you think mankind got the better of Allah Muslim 720?

What about Satan? Yes, what about Satan. Did he get the better of Allah as well? Not only that Allah gave in to the demands of Satan and not only allowed but also equipped him well to lead mankind astray. Allah is infallible but how did Satan get the  better of him Muslim 720?

The Prophet s.a.w is also infallible and we all know how the Mushriks/Kafirs of Mecca treated him. When finally the Prophet s.a.w took Mecca why didn't he put them in place? Did the Prophet s.a.w not love the martyres such as Hamza and what happened to him. How Hindh got people to mutilate his body.

Why didn’t the Prophet s.a.w punish them for their wicked crimes? Why did the Prophet s.a.w allow them to enter Islam when he knew what the Ummayads are going to do when they get into authority and gain power?

[iceman]

First of all Muslim 720 we are talking about knowledge of the unseen and unknown which is called "Ilm e Ghaib'. Yes we do believe the Aimmah had some knowledge of the unseen and unknown. But what does this mean?

If you have such knowledge are you suppose to use it to your advantage. Or stop nature or the natural process from taking place. Or prevent unfortunate incidents and events from taking place. Ask yourself this, if this is the case then,

Allah has complete and absolute knowledge of the unseen and unknown, why didn't and doesn't he? Instead of Hassan put Allah in the equation and ask yourself the same question.

We also believe that the Prophet s.a.w was informed about the unfortunate events of Karbala and wept over it. Why don't you ask us why he didn't do anything about it.

It's about infallibility and Ilm e Ghaib which you have no knowledge, information and understanding about. I know it doesn't matter what I say, you're just hellbent in disagreeing. You're just going to come up with counter arguments or irrelevant stuff. 😊

[iceman]

The solution for everything you have said - making you laugh, avoiding what is being discussed and bringing irrelevant stuff - is for you to stop projecting.  You seem to project your own flaws onto others when it is you who does those things (avoid the main points and introduce irrelevant elements to a discussion).

Allow me to prove how you introduce irrelevant points in a discussion.  On page 4, as I was mentioning Muawiya's blessings (and how he was not killed, his wife was never attacked, etc), you brought up his "relative", in other words, Uthman (ra) [see post 74].  In my line of using your own beliefs against you, in the next post, I said that Uthman's (ra) wife was far more braver than the Shi'i version of Imam Ali (ra).  You used that bit to open another front regarding the identity of the killers of Uthman (ra).

In reality, my entire purpose in this topic is to use your own beliefs to stick it to you and Ijtaba.  The killers of Uthman (ra) is not my premise but your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra), despite knowing the deceits and ruthlessness of Muawiya - never mind his rebellion against his father (Imam Ali) - handed the Caliphate and the fate of the entire Ummah to Muawiya.

In our worldview, Muawiya is just a pixel.  In your theology, the Imams (ra) are the only picture.

You are one strange and unique piece of work.  It is like as though your only aim is to stall discussions.  This case was closed because no one was discussing it.

Now, why would your "infallible" Imam (ra) give his "Divinely Ordained Right" to Muawiya?  Did he want Muawiya to destroy Islam? 

Why is it that your Imams (ra) were constantly out-muscled even when they had the Caliphate?

Why did your Imams (ra) contradict each other (one makes peace, the other wages war)?

How is it that Muawiya lived prosperously whereas your "infallibles" (ra) were chased everywhere so much so that they would have to issue contradictory fatwa thereby introducing misguidance when their only job was to guide?

Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra) also did not give any statements and they were present at Uthman's (ra) house.  Time to question them!  Along with Talhah (ra), Zubayr (ra), Aisha (ra) and others, you might also want to interrogate your 2nd and 3rd "infallibles" (ra).  Best of luck!

lol, your 12 "infallibles" (ra) could not help themselves even when they were in power.  I was never holding my breath awaiting their help

"In reality, my entire purpose in this topic is to use your own beliefs to stick it to you and Ijtaba."

Now that is absolutely irrelevant to the thread and its title.😀

The case of bringing Usman's killers to justice should be closed. The people of Jamal and Safeen just used it to trump up their grudge about Ali getting into power. I know it was hard for them to digest it. One needs an excuse.

How on earth do you think they were demanding Ali to bring the killers to justice when no one had a flaming clue who they were to begin with.

[muslim720]

I've already told you and here it is again just to put your mischief to rest. We are talking about INFALLIBILITY here right. Infallible this and infallible that.

Yes, infallibility coupled with knowledge of the unseen or having the ability to know anything they desire.

so why didn't he just create and put his creation in to heaven and hell? I mean he has the knowledge and he also is infallible. Why wait or allow to begin with? Do you think mankind got the better of Allah Muslim 720?

If I could have had a dollar for every time a Shi'i acts dumb and disrespects the Qur'an when their made-up beliefs come under scrutiny.  Of the many ways I can tackle your question, I will start by saying that we do not have the capacity to know Allah's (swt) Plan.  What we do is obey what He has revealed in the Qur'an.  And the reason for creation, free will and predestination, and everything else is in the Qur'an and authentic Hadith.  If you really do not know these basics, I suggest you spend some time in Sunni circles.  Clearly your seniors and scholars have busied you with frivolous things.

However, there is no comparison because Allah (swt) states the reason for all the things you have brought up in the Qur'an.  The concept of Imamah, in contrast, let alone the identity and qualities of the Imams, are absent from the Qur'an.  You cannot use an established concept to give weight to a fairytale!

What about Satan? Yes, what about Satan. Did he get the better of Allah as well? Not only that Allah gave in to the demands of Satan and not only allowed but also equipped him well to lead mankind astray. Allah is infallible but how did Satan get the  better of him Muslim 720?

Again, false equivalence, not to mention that Allah (swt) is always in control whereas your Imams (ra) were always controlled.

The Prophet s.a.w is also infallible and we all know how the Mushriks/Kafirs of Mecca treated him. When finally the Prophet s.a.w took Mecca why didn't he put them in place?

As per your admission, that the Prophet (saw) triumphed over the mushriks of Mecca, the polytheists were overpowered and have been eradicated.  Till date, they have not assumed any dominance in the Holy Land.  In contrast, when did your Imams (ra) ever establish dominance?  The Companions (ra) struck such fear in their hearts that the last one is still in hiding, lol!

Allah has complete and absolute knowledge of the unseen and unknown, why didn't and doesn't he? Instead of Hassan put Allah in the equation and ask yourself the same question.

SubhanAllah!  And you all foam at the mouth that we limit Allah (swt).  I wonder if you think before you type.

We also believe that the Prophet s.a.w was informed about the unfortunate events of Karbala and wept over it. Why don't you ask us why he didn't do anything about it.

The authentic report only says that the Prophet (saw) was informed that his Ummah, not polytheists but his Ummah, will kill Imam Hussain (ra).  No dates or whereabouts were revealed!  How long will you play dumb?

It's about infallibility and Ilm e Ghaib which you have no knowledge, information and understanding about.

No, trust me, I understand.  It is simple logic.  Imam Hassan (ra) knew what was in Muawiya's heart, especially after his rebellion against Imam Ali (ra), and in spite of being in power, Imam Hassan (ra) gave the Caliphate to Muawiya as though saying, "here, kill all the Muslims and eradicate Islam".  How do you justify that?  How can there be such stark contradiction between the actions of two infallibles, father and son?

How on earth do you think they were demanding Ali to bring the killers to justice when no one had a flaming clue who they were to begin with.

All along, I have been conceding in feet to gain miles.  Your position is so airtight that you cannot even concede a millimeter, lol! 

I am willing to concede that Muawiya did not know the killers of Uthman (ra) or anything about the group.  He used that as an excuse to dethrone Imam Ali (ra).  It still does not change the fact, nor does it explain why, Imam Hassan (ra) handed the future of Muslims and Islam to him!  Keep running from this point, lol!

[iceman]

Yes, infallibility coupled with knowledge of the unseen or having the ability to know anything they desire.

If I could have had a dollar for every time a Shi'i acts dumb and disrespects the Qur'an when their made-up beliefs come under scrutiny.  Of the many ways I can tackle your question, I will start by saying that we do not have the capacity to know Allah's (swt) Plan.  What we do is obey what He has revealed in the Qur'an.  And the reason for creation, free will and predestination, and everything else is in the Qur'an and authentic Hadith.  If you really do not know these basics, I suggest you spend some time in Sunni circles.  Clearly your seniors and scholars have busied you with frivolous things.

However, there is no comparison because Allah (swt) states the reason for all the things you have brought up in the Qur'an.  The concept of Imamah, in contrast, let alone the identity and qualities of the Imams, are absent from the Qur'an.  You cannot use an established concept to give weight to a fairytale!

Again, false equivalence, not to mention that Allah (swt) is always in control whereas your Imams (ra) were always controlled.

As per your admission, that the Prophet (saw) triumphed over the mushriks of Mecca, the polytheists were overpowered and have been eradicated.  Till date, they have not assumed any dominance in the Holy Land.  In contrast, when did your Imams (ra) ever establish dominance?  The Companions (ra) struck such fear in their hearts that the last one is still in hiding, lol!

SubhanAllah!  And you all foam at the mouth that we limit Allah (swt).  I wonder if you think before you type.

The authentic report only says that the Prophet (saw) was informed that his Ummah, not polytheists but his Ummah, will kill Imam Hussain (ra).  No dates or whereabouts were revealed!  How long will you play dumb?

No, trust me, I understand.  It is simple logic.  Imam Hassan (ra) knew what was in Muawiya's heart, especially after his rebellion against Imam Ali (ra), and in spite of being in power, Imam Hassan (ra) gave the Caliphate to Muawiya as though saying, "here, kill all the Muslims and eradicate Islam".  How do you justify that?  How can there be such stark contradiction between the actions of two infallibles, father and son?

All along, I have been conceding in feet to gain miles.  Your position is so airtight that you cannot even concede a millimeter, lol! 

I am willing to concede that Muawiya did not know the killers of Uthman (ra) or anything about the group.  He used that as an excuse to dethrone Imam Ali (ra).  It still does not change the fact, nor does it explain why, Imam Hassan (ra) handed the future of Muslims and Islam to him!  Keep running from this point, lol!

Shias don't act dumb and neither do we disrespect the Qur'an. We've seen plenty of baseless accusations thrown at us for sometime now. Nothing new here. The only one acting dumb here is you.

"I will start by saying that we do not have the capacity to know Allah's plan"

And that exactly slams your theory about losing control. I wonder what took you. Here you don't know Allah's plan and there you don't know the motive, reason and plan of the infallible either. So stop making judgements from yourself and trying to believe and make bbelieve.

I've answered the situation of Ali, Hassan and Hussein many times completely and thoroughly. Refer to my previous posts.

"If you really do not know these basics, I suggest you spend some time in Sunni circles"

I've spent a lot of time in Sunni circles and sources of information but they're not as arrogant and stubborn as you. They don't keep coming by twisting and turning and with the same stuff over and over again.

All I've found in Sunni circles is double standards, elements of hypocrisy, twisting of Principles, having a mindset and sticking to it and being against Shias 100% no matter what.

[Mythbuster1]

"If you really do not know these basics, I suggest you spend some time in Sunni circles"

I've spent a lot of time in Sunni circles and sources of information but they're not as arrogant and stubborn as you. They don't keep coming by twisting and turning and with the same stuff over and over again.

All I've found in Sunni circles is double standards, elements of hypocrisy, twisting of Principles, having a mindset and sticking to it and being against Shias 100% no matter what.

Lol what a contradiction 😂

“Sunni circles are not arrogant and stubborn they don’t twist stuff!”

“I have sat in Sunni circles they twist principles having a set mindset against shiites”

What planet is this guy on??😂

[Ijtaba]

Incorrect. That is not an example of a direct command of Allah. Short of there being an actual verse in the Quran or a definitive Hadith from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم on the caliphate of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه it is a matter of Ijtihad. It is not from the Masa'il al Mansusa. For it to be a Nass it has to be qati ad-dalalah and qati ath-thubut, i.e., definitive in substantiating and the divine text being definitive in being established itself. Otherwise it is not Mansus and therefore a matter of Ijtihad. Furthermore, there was not total agreement of the Ummah upon the caliphate of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه for it to be considered an Ijma...

Same could be said for preceding Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar and 'Uthman) as no actual verse in the Quran or a definitive Hadith from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم on the caliphates of Abu Bakr, Umar and 'Uthman. Therefore their caliphate was matter of ijtihad. People may or may not give them bayah.

Imam Ali (a.s) in one of his letter to Muawiya recorded in Shi'ite Nahjul Balagha states that Imam Ali (a.s) was made Khalifa on the same principles (i.e. Shura of Muhajirun and Ansar) as his predecessors were made Khalifa.

Was there Ijma of Sahabas on the Caliphate of Imam Ali (a.s)? If no then provide me authentic references of this claim because I have no knowledge* of those Sahabas (besides Muawiya & Syrians) who did not pledge allegiance to Imam Ali (a.s).

*My saying no knowledge does mean I have researched in detail the issue of Ijma of Sahabas on Caliphate of Imam Ali (a.s) but it means I lack knowledge regarding this issue because I have yet got no information which discuss this issue in detail. Your providing me references would increase my knowledge and make me well-informed about the issue (of Ijma of Sahabas on the Caliphate of Imam Ali a.s)

...By all counts, this was a matter of Ijtihad, and while Mu'awiya's Ijtihad turned out to be incorrect, he still had the right to make Ijtihad. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said:

إِذَا حَكَمَ الْحَاكِمُ فَاجْتَهَدَ ثُمَّ أَصَابَ فَلَهُ أَجْرَانِ، وَإِذَا حَكَمَ فَاجْتَهَدَ ثُمَّ أَخْطَأَ فَلَهُ أَجْرٌ
"When a judge judges with Ijtihad and is correct for him are two rewards, and when he judges with ijtihad but errs for him is only a single reward."

Incorrect. Muawiya was not in a position to make ijtihad as he was not Hakam of Shaam but on the contrary it was Imam Ali (a.s) who was the Hakam of Muslim Ummah (including Shaam)

If you disagree with my statement then provide evidence for your claim that Khalifa elected by Muhajirun and Ansar cannot be Hakam of all Muslim lands but only of those lands whose people gave bayah to Khalifa elected by Muhajirun and Ansar.

[Cherub786]

Same could be said for preceding Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar and 'Uthman) as no actual verse in the Quran or a definitive Hadith from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم on the caliphates of Abu Bakr, Umar and 'Uthman. Therefore their caliphate was matter of ijtihad. People may or may not give them bayah.

It's an arguable point. However, if I concede to you, for the sake of argument, that those who disputed the caliphate of sayyidina Abi Bakr al-Siddiq رضى الله عنه like sayyidina Saad bin Ubada رضى الله عنه, the fact still remains that sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه gave bay'ah to and acknowledged the caliphate of sayyidina Abi Bakr al-Siddiq رضى الله عنه. Therefore, at least from your point of view, his caliphate was not Ijtihad since someone you consider an infallible Imam pledged his allegiance to him and acknowledged his caliphate.
Critical question: If the caliphates of Abi Bakr, Umar and Uthman رضى الله عنهم were invalid, why didn't Amir ul Mu'minin رضى الله عنه rise up against them or at the very least boycott them absolutely, rather than remaining within their inner circles, advising them, and obeying their orders?

Imam Ali (a.s) in one of his letter to Muawiya recorded in Shi'ite Nahjul Balagha states that Imam Ali (a.s) was made Khalifa on the same principles (i.e. Shura of Muhajirun and Ansar) as his predecessors were made Khalifa.

Exactly, and this proves that Imam Ali عليه السلام والرضوان considered the caliphate to be established by consultation and not divinely appointed. I've written on this on my blog http://islamsalvationfromhell.blogspot.com/2018/08/doctrine-of-imamate-refuted-in-nahj-ul.html

Was there Ijma of Sahabas on the Caliphate of Imam Ali (a.s)? If no then provide me authentic references of this claim because I have no knowledge* of those Sahabas (besides Muawiya & Syrians) who did not pledge allegiance to Imam Ali (a.s).

The disagreement of Muawiya and the Syrians is itself proof there was not an Ijma. Ijma means total agreement or at least virtual agreement of the Ummah. And you should know that in the wars of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه like Jamal and Siffin, there was a third party of Sahaba who refused to acknowledge either side. This included sayyidina Saad bin Abi Waqqas, Abi Musa al-Ashari رضى الله عنهما and some other prominent names. They were absolutely neutral in those conflicts, so that is another proof there was no established Ijmaa on the caliphate of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه such that one who rejects it is astray or a disbeliever.

[muslim720]

Shias don't act dumb and neither do we disrespect the Qur'an. We've seen plenty of baseless accusations thrown at us for sometime now. Nothing new here. The only one acting dumb here is you.

You literally disrespected the Qur'an.  Read your previous post!  The decrease in your verbal diarrhea shows you have exhausted all fallacies that now you have to resort to making statements.

And that exactly slams your theory about losing control. I wonder what took you. Here you don't know Allah's plan and there you don't know the motive, reason and plan of the infallible either. So stop making judgements from yourself and trying to believe and make bbelieve.

Allah (swt) has a Plan and the Qur'an clearly highlights it.  The same is not true regarding the Imams (ra) whose Imamah, let alone power and then plan, is not established except it is a figment of Shi'i imagination.

I've answered the situation of Ali, Hassan and Hussein many times completely and thoroughly. Refer to my previous posts.

No you have not!  You have only stated your position and while I'm poking holes in your defense, you have been unable to offer any satisfactory answer.

They don't keep coming by twisting and turning and with the same stuff over and over again.

All I've found in Sunni circles is double standards, elements of hypocrisy, twisting of Principles, having a mindset and sticking to it and being against Shias 100% no matter what.

While the brother beat me to it, do you now see why I call you an idiot?  Usually, you contradict yourself in a discussion.  Here, you have one-upped yourself by contradicting yourself in two consecutive statements.

[Ijtaba]

It's an arguable point. However, if I concede to you, for the sake of argument, that those who disputed the caliphate of sayyidina Abi Bakr al-Siddiq رضى الله عنه like sayyidina Saad bin Ubada رضى الله عنه, the fact still remains that sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه gave bay'ah to and acknowledged the caliphate of sayyidina Abi Bakr al-Siddiq رضى الله عنه. Therefore, at least from your point of view, his caliphate was not Ijtihad since someone you consider an infallible Imam pledged his allegiance to him and acknowledged his caliphate.

According to me, I believe the seats of authorities such as Nubuwwat, Risalat, Imamat, Khilafat & Malookiat are all decided and chosen only by ALLAH (SWT). There can be no Shura in deciding and/or choosing who is to become Prophet, Messenger, Leader, Caliph or King.

Coming to the point that you have given I believe that after the people (including Imam Ali a.s) had given bayah to Abu Bakr the latter had become legitimate ruler of Muslim Ummah. Similar was the case with Umar and Uthman. After Imam Ali (a.s) and people had given them (i.e. Umar and 'Uthman) bayah then both of them had become legitimate Rulers of Muslim Ummah.

Critical question: If the caliphates of Abi Bakr, Umar and Uthman رضى الله عنهم were invalid, why didn't Amir ul Mu'minin رضى الله عنه rise up against them or at the very least boycott them absolutely, rather than remaining within their inner circles, advising them, and obeying their orders?

According to us (Shias) Imam Ali (a.s) did go to Muhajirun and Ansar door to door asking them to support him (a.s) by reminding them of his (a.s) rights and nearness to the Prophet (s.a.w.w) but only four people (Salman, Abu Dharr, Miqdad and Zubayr) came to his (a.s) support. It was because of this reason Imam Ali (a.s) did not rise against Abu Bakr.

After giving bayah to Abu Bakr publicly by Imam Ali (a.s) it would be wrong for him (a.s) to rise against (and fight) Abu Bakr as the latter (Abu Bakr) was now the Ruler of Muslim Ummah.

Exactly, and this proves that Imam Ali عليه السلام والرضوان considered the caliphate to be established by consultation and not divinely appointed. I've written on this on my blog http://islamsalvationfromhell.blogspot.com/2018/08/doctrine-of-imamate-refuted-in-nahj-ul.html


The disagreement of Muawiya and the Syrians is itself proof there was not an Ijma. Ijma means total agreement or at least virtual agreement of the Ummah. And you should know that in the wars of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه like Jamal and Siffin, there was a third party of Sahaba who refused to acknowledge either side. This included sayyidina Saad bin Abi Waqqas, Abi Musa al-Ashari رضى الله عنهما and some other prominent names. They were absolutely neutral in those conflicts, so that is another proof there was no established Ijmaa on the caliphate of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه such that one who rejects it is astray or a disbeliever.

In the same letter Imam Ali (a.s) mentioned that Shura was limited to Muhajirun and Ansar whereas Muawiya and Syrians weren't Muhajir nor Ansar. So Muawiya and Syrians had to respect the decision made by Muhajirun and Ansar by Shura (regarding the person they elected as Ruler of Muslim Ummah)

About bayah and not participating in Civil Wars, both are different things. I heard that there were Sahabas who had given bayah to Imam Ali (a.s) but avoided taking part in Civil Wars as they feared fighting Muslims (as they considered Muawiya and Syrians to be Muslims). Imam Ali (a.s) did not force them (Sahabas) to participate in those wars.

I heard about Saad bin abi Waqqas and Abdullah ibn Umar not giving bayah to Imam Ali (a.s) as well as agreeing not to fight against Imam Ali (a.s). Do you know besides following four Sahabas (Saad, Abu Musa, ibn Umar, Muawiya) which other prominent Sahabas did not give bayah to Imam Ali (a.s)?

[muslim720]

According to us (Shias) Imam Ali (a.s) did go to Muhajirun and Ansar door to door asking them to support him (a.s) by reminding them of his (a.s) rights and nearness to the Prophet (s.a.w.w) but only four people (Salman, Abu Dharr, Miqdad and Zubayr) came to his (a.s) support. It was because of this reason Imam Ali (a.s) did not rise against Abu Bakr.

In your pretense of taking the high road, you will not respond to my post but I would comment on this because my objective is the decimation of your core concepts.

The Imams (ra), and their entire rulership, was doomed from the start.  They could not bring things about due to lack of support and when they actually were the Caliphs, they failed to do much anyways (save one who deferred his "Divinely Ordained Right" to Muawiya).

So what did these "infallible" Imams (ra), having control over the atoms, need to see their mission to completion?  They failed with or without support and/or Caliphate.  Why is it an usool for me to believe in such people who could not manage their own affairs, let alone shoulder the responsibility of the Ummah?

[Cherub786]

According to me, I believe the seats of authorities such as Nubuwwat, Risalat, Imamat, Khilafat & Malookiat are all decided and chosen only by ALLAH (SWT). There can be no Shura in deciding and/or choosing who is to become Prophet, Messenger, Leader, Caliph or King.

In other words, you believe that all government has to be divinely appointed or its illegitimate?
What about in the absence of your Imam, i.e., the greater occultation, do you view all governments as illegitimate with the exception of the Wilayat al Faqih in Iran?

Secondly, do you mind proving that for a King or any other kind of ruler to be valid he has to be appointed by Allah?

Coming to the point that you have given I believe that after the people (including Imam Ali a.s) had given bayah to Abu Bakr the latter had become legitimate ruler of Muslim Ummah. Similar was the case with Umar and Uthman. After Imam Ali (a.s) and people had given them (i.e. Umar and 'Uthman) bayah then both of them had become legitimate Rulers of Muslim Ummah.

That is quite interesting. So you have departed from the orthodox position of the Ithna Ashariyah which views those three caliphates as illegitimate and the three caliphs as usurpers.

Now you say that the caliphate of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman رضى الله عنهم were legitimate, but earlier you wrote that Caliphate has to be divinely appointed, along with 3 other categories (Prophethood, Messengership, and Kingship).

Does that mean the caliphates of the 3 caliphs were divinely appointed by Allah? Please explain.

According to us (Shias) Imam Ali (a.s) did go to Muhajirun and Ansar door to door asking them to support him (a.s) by reminding them of his (a.s) rights and nearness to the Prophet (s.a.w.w) but only four people (Salman, Abu Dharr, Miqdad and Zubayr) came to his (a.s) support. It was because of this reason Imam Ali (a.s) did not rise against Abu Bakr.

In light of your earlier comments that the 3 Caliphs رضى الله عنهم were "legitimate Muslim rulers" it seems you are contradicting yourself here. Please explain in detail what you mean. Amir ul-Mu'minin Ali b. Abi Talib رضى الله عنه not only did not rise against Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman رضى الله عنهم he pledged allegiance to each of them, which you acknowledged. If it was merely an issue of not having enough support to launch an uprising, then you'd think Amir ul-Mu'minin Ali b. Abi Talib رضى الله عنه would at least stay aloof from the 3 caliphs, but he clearly did not, instead professing his allegiance to each of them.

After giving bayah to Abu Bakr publicly by Imam Ali (a.s) it would be wrong for him (a.s) to rise against (and fight) Abu Bakr as the latter (Abu Bakr) was now the Ruler of Muslim Ummah.

Of course. Question is, why would Amir ul Muminin Ali رضى الله عنه give bayah to a Caliph that isn't divinely appointed thus illegitimate? I would love to know your explanation.

[iceman]

You literally disrespected the Qur'an.  Read your previous post!  The decrease in your verbal diarrhea shows you have exhausted all fallacies that now you have to resort to making statements.

Allah (swt) has a Plan and the Qur'an clearly highlights it.  The same is not true regarding the Imams (ra) whose Imamah, let alone power and then plan, is not established except it is a figment of Shi'i imagination.

No you have not!  You have only stated your position and while I'm poking holes in your defense, you have been unable to offer any satisfactory answer.

While the brother beat me to it, do you now see why I call you an idiot?  Usually, you contradict yourself in a discussion.  Here, you have one-upped yourself by contradicting yourself in two consecutive statements.

"You literally disrespected the Qur'an"

Show me were and how?

"The same is not true regarding the Imams (ra) whose Imamah, let alone power and then plan, is not established except it is a figment of Shi'i imagination"

We've had 124,000 Messengers and out of those let me give you an example of just only one. NOAH, he was a Messenger and how many people did he make believe? Did you know how long he preached for and how many came believers? How successful was he? And there shouldn't be any doubt about him.

Go do some research on just only him and that should silence you along with that that foul mouth and dirty tongue of yours. Look at the words and language you use.

"No you have not!  You have only stated your position and while I'm poking holes in your defense, you have been unable to offer any satisfactory answer"

I've given plenty of answers, examples and much explanation. But you are just one stubborn and arrogant..........

"While the brother beat me to it, do you now see why I call you an idiot?"

Yeh I do. Because you're one yourself, that's wife. 😀 It takes one to know one.

"Usually, you contradict yourself in a discussion.  Here, you have one-upped yourself by contradicting yourself in two consecutive statements"

Where and how? All I get from you is baseless accusations. It's not my fault if you get knocked down while sparring here.  😀 What the hell would you do if you were in a Match.

[iceman]

Lol what a contradiction 😂

“Sunni circles are not arrogant and stubborn they don’t twist stuff!”

“I have sat in Sunni circles they twist principles having a set mindset against shiites”

What planet is this guy on??😂

Take time out and away from arrogance and ignorance and look around you. You'll be amazed I'm from the same planet as you........😆😆😆

[Mythbuster1]

Take time out and away from arrogance and ignorance and look around you. You'll be amazed I'm from the same planet as you........😆😆😆

No your not you are an alien believing in an alien idea and comparing divine prophets to normal human beings and giving them promotions on the basis of some alien belief system.Thats the TRUTH!

Na nu na nu✌️😉