Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?

[Khaled]

"Twelverism is intellectually bankrupt"

Really. If that was the case then why would you spend so much time creating such sites and refuting it. 😊😀😁😂😃😅

For the same reason "we" create websites to refute Christianity and Atheism, doesn't mean we don't think that they aren't intellectually bankrupt.

But I understand, 12ers concentrate all their efforts on "refuting Sunnism", so you don't realize there's a whole world of debates out there between liberals and conservatives, Muslims vs Christians, Theists vs Atheists and so on.  Since your whole world consists of hating Abu Bakr and me, you don't seem to be aware of this.  Have you heard about Muhammad Hijab and Adnan Rashid's latest dismembering of the Christians they debated?  Have you heard about Asrar Rashid debating the Atheist last week (haven't seen it so I can't comment)?  Notice, I chose these names because they also destroy 12er debaters. 

[Cherub786]

Be it the treaty between Muhammad, son of Abdullah, and Suhayl Ibn Amr the envoy of Makkah or be it the treaty between Hassan, son of Ali  and Muawiyya ibn abu Sufyaan the self appointed Amir of Syria, None of the terms of both treaty violate any doctrine or article of Islam.

Yes, that is our [Ahl us-Sunnah] position. However, the Twelver shiites believe that sayyidina Hasan bin Ali رضى الله عنهما was a divinely appointed Imam and hence no one but him had the right to rule over the Muslim Ummah.

We do not hold to this doctrine, thus the treaty with Mu'awiya رضى الله عنه presents no difficulty for us.

Now according to the treaty, sayyidina Hasan resigned from the office of ruling the Muslims.
Furthermore, at least according to our narrations (and perhaps yours as well - we can investigate the issue), sayyidina Hasan رضى الله عنه gave the Bay'a to Mu'awiya رضى الله عنه.

Whether you believe he gave the bay'a or not, it is at least agreed that he resigned from his office which you as a Twelver believe he was divinely appointed to.

Now let me ask you, can a divinely appointed Imam resign from something which he has a divine right to?

Neither did Muhammad s.a.w give up His divine authority nor did Hassan give up His divine authority.

Sayyidina Hasan gave up his divine authority to rule over the Muslims.

Muhammad s.a.w and Hassan both acted in the long term benefit of the Muslims.

How is it in the long term benefit to resign from that which God Himself appointed you to?

But the Muslims turned out more ruthless and savage than the Makkan Pagans by butchering the progeny of the Prophet s.a.w in Karbala and taking the rest as prisoners and severely mistreating them.

How is this relevant to our present discussion? Btw those Muslims were Kufan ex-Shiites as we already discussed elsewhere.

Furthermore, you just contradicted yourself, because you said Imam Hasan رضى الله عنه gave up the rule in favor of Umayyads for the LONG TERM benefit of Muslims. Yet within a decade or thereabouts of having done so the Ahl al-Bayt are massacred by forces loyal to Umayyads. How is that a long term benefit?

Hassan never accepted Muawiya as his ruler or gave allegiance to him. He just stepped aside to stop the innocent blood of Muslims being spilled from both sides over this worldly status of Caliphate.

In your doctrine the "worldly status of Caliphate" is the divine right of the 12 Imams and no one else!!!

How could Imam Hasan "step aside" from his divine right?

[iceman]

What was Umar's intention behind pen and paper incident? I just wonder...

Your focus is on the intention only, why is that? Why continue to disregard everything else and focus on what you desire? 😊 Let me address the other point for you.

There are a group of people around the Prophet s.a.w including me and you. The Prophet s.a.w asks for pen and paper, what would you and I do? I don't know about you but I would absolutely, definitely and most certainly run to find and fetch a pen and paper to serve the Prophet s.a.w. It's just as bloody simple as that. 😊

WHAT WOULD YOU DO ? 😊

What ever you, I or anyone else do tells a lot about our intentions. My intentions are clear by my action, to rush to find a pen and paper and try to be the first and that would be OBEDIENCE and to get to know a very serious and important matter which is about to be written down.

Now WHAT WOULD YOU DO? What ever you do would tell your intention. What ever Umar did and caused and those who sided with him tells about their intentions.

[iceman]

Yes, that is our [Ahl us-Sunnah] position. However, the Twelver shiites believe that sayyidina Hasan bin Ali رضى الله عنهما was a divinely appointed Imam and hence no one but him had the right to rule over the Muslim Ummah.

We do not hold to this doctrine, thus the treaty with Mu'awiya رضى الله عنه presents no difficulty for us.

Now according to the treaty, sayyidina Hasan resigned from the office of ruling the Muslims.
Furthermore, at least according to our narrations (and perhaps yours as well - we can investigate the issue), sayyidina Hasan رضى الله عنه gave the Bay'a to Mu'awiya رضى الله عنه.

Whether you believe he gave the bay'a or not, it is at least agreed that he resigned from his office which you as a Twelver believe he was divinely appointed to.

Now let me ask you, can a divinely appointed Imam resign from something which he has a divine right to?
 

Sayyidina Hasan gave up his divine authority to rule over the Muslims.

How is it in the long term benefit to resign from that which God Himself appointed you to?

How is this relevant to our present discussion? Btw those Muslims were Kufan ex-Shiites as we already discussed elsewhere.

Furthermore, you just contradicted yourself, because you said Imam Hasan رضى الله عنه gave up the rule in favor of Umayyads for the LONG TERM benefit of Muslims. Yet within a decade or thereabouts of having done so the Ahl al-Bayt are massacred by forces loyal to Umayyads. How is that a long term benefit?

In your doctrine the "worldly status of Caliphate" is the divine right of the 12 Imams and no one else!!!

How could Imam Hasan "step aside" from his divine right?

"Furthermore, at least according to our narrations (and perhaps yours as well - we can investigate the issue), sayyidina Hasan رضى الله عنه gave the Bay'a to Mu'awiya رضى الله عنه."

We do not share this view. We differ with the above that Hassan gave allegiance to Muawiya.

"Whether you believe he gave the bay'a or not, it is at least agreed that he resigned from his office which you as a Twelver believe he was divinely appointed to"

Yes we do share this and believe that Hassan resigned from office and gave up and stepped aside from the position and title of Caliphatul Muslimeen.

"Now let me ask you, can a divinely appointed Imam resign from something which he has a divine right to?"

Simple and straightforward answer, NO.

"Sayyidina Hasan gave up his divine authority to rule over the Muslims."

Again simple and straightforward answer, NO.

"How is it in the long term benefit to resign from that which God Himself appointed you to?"

This is exactly where the misunderstanding is which is causing confusion. Allow me to explain this.

There are two things here which are being mixed or you are seeing it as one and the same thing. Our doctrine is Imamah. We believe that Hassan was the Imam of the people appointed by Allah and introduced by the Prophet s.a.w. That's what we believe in.

We also believe and we believe you also share this with us that Hassan was Caliphatul Muslimeen. He was and became the 5th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims. This position 'Caliphatul Muslimeen' was created and came into existence at and from Saqifa.

And this position of Caliphatul Muslimeen is not and has got nothing to do with divine appointment and authority. This is exactly where the misunderstanding is and is the cause of confusion.

Hassan resigned and stepped aside from the man made authority and accepted title and position of Caliphatul Muslimeen and not the divine appointment and title of Imamah. I will explain this further Inshallah!

[iceman]

Yes, that is our [Ahl us-Sunnah] position. However, the Twelver shiites believe that sayyidina Hasan bin Ali رضى الله عنهما was a divinely appointed Imam and hence no one but him had the right to rule over the Muslim Ummah.

We do not hold to this doctrine, thus the treaty with Mu'awiya رضى الله عنه presents no difficulty for us.

Now according to the treaty, sayyidina Hasan resigned from the office of ruling the Muslims.
Furthermore, at least according to our narrations (and perhaps yours as well - we can investigate the issue), sayyidina Hasan رضى الله عنه gave the Bay'a to Mu'awiya رضى الله عنه.

Whether you believe he gave the bay'a or not, it is at least agreed that he resigned from his office which you as a Twelver believe he was divinely appointed to.

Now let me ask you, can a divinely appointed Imam resign from something which he has a divine right to?
 

Sayyidina Hasan gave up his divine authority to rule over the Muslims.

How is it in the long term benefit to resign from that which God Himself appointed you to?

How is this relevant to our present discussion? Btw those Muslims were Kufan ex-Shiites as we already discussed elsewhere.

Furthermore, you just contradicted yourself, because you said Imam Hasan رضى الله عنه gave up the rule in favor of Umayyads for the LONG TERM benefit of Muslims. Yet within a decade or thereabouts of having done so the Ahl al-Bayt are massacred by forces loyal to Umayyads. How is that a long term benefit?

In your doctrine the "worldly status of Caliphate" is the divine right of the 12 Imams and no one else!!!

How could Imam Hasan "step aside" from his divine right?

"How is this relevant to our present discussion? Btw those Muslims were Kufan ex-Shiites as we already discussed elsewhere"

We've already discussed this. There were no Shias or even Sunnis at the time. It was the Muslims and no one but the Muslims. And you still haven't answered my question, why did the Kufans write to Hussain? What was the reason and point? We need to establish why the Kufans wrote to Hussain to understand the situation by getting to know the facts.

"gave up the rule in favor of Umayyads"

No he didn't. That's your assumption based on twisting and turning things around so you can get your desired conclusion of the discussion. If he favoured the Ummayads or the peace treaty favoured them then you aren't familiar with the conditions Hassan put down. Bring forward those conditions and have the discussion fairly and properly rather than coming up with bits and pieces.

"Yet within a decade or thereabouts of having done so the Ahl al-Bayt are massacred by forces loyal to Umayyads. How is that a long term benefit?"

What the Ummayads did with the authority and power and what they got up to blame them and the Muslims Ummah who were so careless and irresponsible rather than the victims (progeny of the Prophet s.a.w).

What happened after the massacre of Karbala? Madina was torched and set alite, women and girls were raped and the people of Madina, Sahaba and their offspring's weren't spared either. Who are you going to blame here?

Since you're playing the blame game, rather than blaming Hassan why not blame the Prophet s.a.w for giving the Ummayads amnesty after the taking of Mecca while you're at it.

After all they never wanted to accept Islam  to begin with until they were brought to their knees after the taking of Mecca. They only accepted Islam just to save their lives and spare themselves.

[Abu Muhammad]

Since you are the one who wrote this, seems like you already have an opinion about it. And I just want to know what is that i.e. his intention. That's all:

This is not about me hating Umar. Infact it's not about Umar or his character, personality, performance or achievement. It's about his response and behaviour and the intentions behind it.

[iceman]

Since you are the one who wrote this, seems like you already have an opinion about it. And I just want to know what is that i.e. his intention. That's all:

And I told you his intentions were clear through his response and actions. So what would you have done? How would you have reacted towards the Prophet s.a.w?  That is all I want to know. Don't be shy.

[Abu Muhammad]

And I told you his intentions were clear through his response and actions. So what would you have done? How would you have reacted towards the Prophet s.a.w?  That is all I want to know. Don't be shy.

That was not an answer. What was Umar's intention? Seems like you know it.

[muslim720]

Bring forward those conditions and have the discussion fairly and properly rather than coming up with bits and pieces.

Fine, here are the conditions!

https://www.al-islam.org/imam-hasan-and-caliphate-qurrat-ul-ain-abidiy/terms-peace-treaty

Al-Islam.org cites a source which reports that Muawiya promised Imam Hassan (ra) that "I make peace with you on the condition that after me the government will be handed over to you and I vouch for you before God".

Imam Hassan (ra) died in 670 AD and Muawiya died in 680 AD.  The condition, therefore, was annulled because Muawiya promised to return the Caliphate to Imam Hassan (ra), not his blood relatives.

Now that the main condition clause you were clinging on to has been addressed and your last hope utterly refuted, can you answer our questions?

[iceman]

That was not an answer. What was Umar's intention? Seems like you know it.

He objected and further said;

"we have the book of Allah and that is enough for us".

Why did he say that? He must have known or had some idea of what the Prophet s.a.w is going to write.

Now dare to answer my question, what would you have done and how would you have reacted. Or just keep looking for excuses and ways and counter arguments to protect Umar.

[muslim720]

He objected and further said;

"we have the book of Allah and that is enough for us".

I have a better scenario for you that you keep dodging.  Imam Ali (ra) took an oath by Allah (swt) saying he would not do what the Holy Prophet (saw) had instructed him.

You are talking about objecting and adding more to it, here we have an "infallible" Imam (ra) swearing by Allah (swt) that he would not do something the Holy Prophet (saw) asked him to do.

[iceman]

I have a better scenario for you that you keep dodging.  Imam Ali (ra) took an oath by Allah (swt) saying he would not do what the Holy Prophet (saw) had instructed him.

You are talking about objecting and adding more to it, here we have an "infallible" Imam (ra) swearing by Allah (swt) that he would not do something the Holy Prophet (saw) asked him to do.

See what I mean, what we're discussing is something else. All you do is bring in counter arguments one after the other. Speak about the incident of the pen and paper and Umar's reaction. Deal with this in an honest manner and then by all means we will talk about the counter argument. Build the strength and courage to be honest and fair.😊 The counter argument you're bringing in is different and separate.

[Cherub786]

There are two things here which are being mixed or you are seeing it as one and the same thing. Our doctrine is Imamah. We believe that Hassan was the Imam of the people appointed by Allah and introduced by the Prophet s.a.w. That's what we believe in.

We also believe and we believe you also share this with us that Hassan was Caliphatul Muslimeen. He was and became the 5th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims. This position 'Caliphatul Muslimeen' was created and came into existence at and from Saqifa.

And this position of Caliphatul Muslimeen is not and has got nothing to do with divine appointment and authority. This is exactly where the misunderstanding is and is the cause of confusion.

Hassan resigned and stepped aside from the man made authority and accepted title and position of Caliphatul Muslimeen and not the divine appointment and title of Imamah. I will explain this further Inshallah!

Does this mean you accept the authority of the Khalifat ul Muslimeen, I mean the institution which was created from Saqifa?

Do you accept the authority of this institution despite it not being divinely appointed?

If you say no, then how was it valid for sayyidina Hasan RA to have this office? Do you recognize the authority of sayyidina Hasan RA as the fifth caliph?

If you say yes, then you have contradicted your own principle that any office which is not divinely appointed is invalid.
You will also have to recognize the legitimacy of the 3 caliphates (Abu Bakr's, Umar's and Uthman's رضى الله عنهم).

You have said that the office of Imamate is not in lieu of caliphate but something altogether separate from it.
If that is the case why are you concerned with Saqifa and why do you attack the legitimacy of the 3 caliphates?

I look forward to your answers.

[Cherub786]

Oh man I can't wait for him to answer my latest questions. I've spun an elaborate web and I'm ready to trap him big time.
He will either have to eat his own words or admit his defeat.

[Cherub786]

"We also believe and we believe you also share this with us that Hassan was Caliphatul Muslimeen. He was and became the 5th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims. This position 'Caliphatul Muslimeen' was created and came into existence at and from Saqifa. And this position of Caliphatul Muslimeen is not and has got nothing to do with divine appointment and authority."

Mr. Iceman is totally going to regret having written these words. Just wait.

[muslim720]

See what I mean, what we're discussing is something else. All you do is bring in counter arguments one after the other. Speak about the incident of the pen and paper and Umar's reaction. Deal with this in an honest manner and then by all means we will talk about the counter argument. Build the strength and courage to be honest and fair.😊 The counter argument you're bringing in is different and separate.

Wait a minute!  You introduced Treaty of Hudaibiyah to the discussion.  Since you are passing judgment on Umar (ra) for "disobeying" the Prophet (saw), why can't you comment about the same "disobedience" shown by Imam Ali (ra) while drafting the Treaty of Hudaibiyah?

To summarize, you are commenting on Hadith of Pen and Paper while you also pointed to Treaty of Hudaibiyah (in a failed attempt to whitewash Imam Hassan making peace with Muawiya and giving him the Caliphate).  I don't see why you cannot clarify the "disobedience" of Imam Ali (ra) during the drafting of Treaty of Hudaibiyah when it was you who directed us to it.

[Abu Muhammad]

He objected and further said;

"we have the book of Allah and that is enough for us".

Why did he say that? He must have known or had some idea of what the Prophet s.a.w is going to write.

Now dare to answer my question, what would you have done and how would you have reacted. Or just keep looking for excuses and ways and counter arguments to protect Umar.

He must have known what? If, according to Twelvers, Prophet (saw) has already announced Ali as his (saw) successor to more than a hundred thousand sahabas including Umar at Ghadir Khum, don't you think your argument looks terribly stupid and moronic that Umar's intention was to stop Prophet from writing it? It has been announced to the Islamic world of that time according to Twelvers and what Umar or even anybody else could do about it?

So, what do you think of Umar's intention now?

[iceman]

Gentlemen like I said before, and you have completely failed to acknowledge, ONE AT A TIME, ONE MATTER AT A TIME AND ONE STEP AT A TIME. It's just me up against many of you. It's like putting up and dealing with a pack of wolves. 😊

[iceman]

Fine, here are the conditions!

https://www.al-islam.org/imam-hasan-and-caliphate-qurrat-ul-ain-abidiy/terms-peace-treaty

Al-Islam.org cites a source which reports that Muawiya promised Imam Hassan (ra) that "I make peace with you on the condition that after me the government will be handed over to you and I vouch for you before God".

Imam Hassan (ra) died in 670 AD and Muawiya died in 680 AD.  The condition, therefore, was annulled because Muawiya promised to return the Caliphate to Imam Hassan (ra), not his blood relatives.

Now that the main condition clause you were clinging on to has been addressed and your last hope utterly refuted, can you answer our questions?

I've read the link and here is the first matter;

'When Imam Al-Mujtaba (as) read the above letter of Muawiya, he gave a brief reply in one sentence'

:He is trying to tempt me about something which I would not hand over to him if I had an inclination towards it."

I wonder what Hassan meant by that.

"After quoting the above sentence of Imam Al-Mujtaba (as), Baladhuri writes that Imam Al-Mujtaba (as) called 'Abdullah bin Haras b. Noful, the nephew of Muawiya, and told him that he should go to his uncle (Muawiya) and tell him that'

Tell him what? Notice the next bit,

'if Muawiya was agreeable to guarantee the life and honour of the general public, then he would agree to hand over the reign to him'

Oh God, what was that,

"If Muawiya was agreeable to guarantee the life and honour of the general public"

TO GUARANTEE THE LIFE AND HONOUR OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC?

What on earth is this? Is this how bad and ruthless Muawiya was that if he doesn't have and get his way the life and honour of the general public is at stake? Yes, absolutely. That's exactly the kind of character he was. Do you know now what was at stake here and who and what Hassan was dealing with and up against.

[iceman]

He must have known what? If, according to Twelvers, Prophet (saw) has already announced Ali as his (saw) successor to more than a hundred thousand sahabas including Umar at Ghadir Khum, don't you think your argument looks terribly stupid and moronic that Umar's intention was to stop Prophet from writing it? It has been announced to the Islamic world of that time according to Twelvers and what Umar or even anybody else could do about it?

So, what do you think of Umar's intention now?

"He must have known what?"

Why did he say, "the book of Allah is sufficient for us" if he didn't no or have an idea of what was going to be written? He wasn't just a Companion but also a close relative of the Prophet s.a.w. And you think the Prophet s.a.w wouldn’t have said or mentioned and discussed anything about it previously? And you still continue to protect and defend him and his actions? What would you have done, OK OUT OF LOVE? 😊

"Umar or even anybody else could do about it?"

They would have exactly done what Muawiya did. And that is they would have used their, influence, contacts, wealth and connections and resort to violence and threatening behaviour.