Imam Ali (a.s) fighting Muawiya

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Large number of Sahabas demanded Qisas of Uthman's murder from Imam Ali (a.s) but large of number sahabas did not participate in the battle of siffeen.

Which proves that the belief of Sahaba who took religion directly from Muhammad(SAWS) was that Ali(as) wasn't infallible.

Lets assume,

I'm not interested in answering assumptions. I prefer to stay silent over those disputes, as is the belief of Ahlus-sunnah.

For me as a Shia, I don't believe Imam Ali (a.s) did ijtihad because for me he (a.s) is infallible like Prophet Mohammed (s.a.w.w). For e.g. Nabi Musa (a.s) and Nabi Haroon (a.s) during Bani Israel's worship of calf. Nabi Haroon (a.s) did not do ijtihad by disobeying Nabi Musa (a.s) orders and letting Bani Israel to follow Samiri.

And I dont believe in this because this belief goes against Quran(4:59).

Usamah bin Zaid did ijtihad and killed the person who had professed Tawhid. Now my question is, after this incident could Usamah bin Zaid kill another person who has professesed Tawhid (i.e. Muslim) by exercising ijtihad?

Again ifs and coulds, but the reason I used that hadeeth was to refute your misapplication of the hadeeth about killer will be in hell. And the purpose was met. Im not bothered in answering arguments related to ifs and coulds.

No matter what the situation, is there any leeway available to Muslims to rebel against Muslim Caliph?

Rebellion that is prohibited is that where in the rebels intend to remove the leader in power or directly destabilize his rule, while Muawiya(as) wasn't doing this, he was just holding back from Bayah and not leaving his seat of Amir, until his demands which were his right were met.

In same way there is Khas evidence present that anyone who kills a believer will be sent to hell.

ALLAH (SWT) says in Quran:
"But whoever kills a believer intentionally - his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally, and Allah has become angry with him and has cursed him and has prepared for him a great punishment." (Quran 4:93)

This is similar to the report about praying two units prayer will be guaranteed paradise. Act is Khaas, but its application on individuals isn't. And application on individuals or a specific group, needs to be Khaas.

[Ijtaba]

Which proves that the belief of Sahaba who took religion directly from Muhammad(SAWS) was that Ali(as) wasn't infallible.

It proves Sahabas followed authentic hadith by not particpating in Battle of Siffeen nor rebelling against the Caliph.

I'm not interested in answering assumptions. I prefer to stay silent over those disputes, as is the belief of Ahlus-sunnah.

The fact is Imam Ali (a.s) was not interested in fulfilling the demand of Muawiya of punishing all those people whom Muawiya thought was involved in murder of Uthman. In fact some of them joined Imam Ali's (a.s) army.

And I dont believe in this because this belief goes against Quran(4:59).

Not at all. This verse proves to obey those in authority. If someone disputes then he should refer to Quran and hadith. Quran and Hadith both commands to obey the Caliph and not to rebel against him. All in all Caliph should be obeyed in all circumstances until he gives up Salah or commits open Kufr.

Again ifs and coulds, but the reason I used that hadeeth was to refute your misapplication of the hadeeth about killer will be in hell. And the purpose was met. Im not bothered in answering arguments related to ifs and coulds.

Clear Quranic verse and Hadith exists stating Killer of Muslim will be in hell. Clear Quranic verse exists for Usamah in which a Muslim person who killed another Muslim mistakenly would be forgiven.

Rebellion that is prohibited is that where in the rebels intend to remove the leader in power or directly destabilize his rule, while Muawiya(as) wasn't doing this, he was just holding back from Bayah and not leaving his seat of Amir, until his demands which were his right were met.

By doing so, Muawiya was directly causing division in Muslim Ummah and going against Command of ALLAH (SWT) which gave Imam Ali (a.s) solid reason to fight the rebel.

This is similar to the report about praying two units prayer will be guaranteed paradise. Act is Khaas, but its application on individuals isn't. And application on individuals or a specific group, needs to be Khaas.

Intentionally killing a Muslim is forbidden in all circumstances. No need for khaas report for individuals or specific group. Provide Quranic verse or authentic hadith stating that a Person who killed Muslim intentionally will not go to hell as there exists no khaas report for that individual. Following your logic, today a Muslim can kill another muslim intentionally saying that his killing is based on ijtihad and there exists no khaas report stating that he would burn in hell.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

It proves Sahabas followed authentic hadith by not particpating in Battle of Siffeen nor rebelling against the Caliph.

Which implies that, they didn't consider Ali(as) as infallible, rather a fallible who was asking them to join his army, even though that was against the command of Prophet(S), as per them.

The fact is Imam Ali (a.s) was not interested in fulfilling the demand of Muawiya of punishing all those people whom Muawiya thought was involved in murder of Uthman. In fact some of them joined Imam Ali's (a.s) army.

I prefer to ignore arguments based on assumptions, even though i can refute these with reports, yet its futile so i'm just ignoring these.

Not at all. This verse proves to obey those in authority. If someone disputes then he should refer to Quran and hadith. Quran and Hadith both commands to obey the Caliph and not to rebel against him. All in all Caliph should be obeyed in all circumstances until he gives up Salah or commits open Kufr.

the verse shows that only Allan and Prophet(S) are infallible. If Ulil Amr was infallible, then there wouldn't have been a scope to dispute with them. And on top of that, referring to Allah and Prophet(S), and as per reliable traditions Ulil Amr could make mistakes as well. And even Sahaba believed this, that's why when Ali(as) burned people as punishment, Ibn Abbas(as) viewed that action wrong, he didn't consider it to be right. Which implies that he didn't consider Ali(as) as infallible, and when there was dispute between him and Ulil Amr, he judged the matter between them by referring to hadeeth of Prophet(s).

Clear Quranic verse and Hadith exists stating Killer of Muslim will be in hell. Clear Quranic verse exists for Usamah in which a Muslim person who killed another Muslim mistakenly would be forgiven.

And thus we derive from it that, those who Sahaba who fought each other, did so due to misunderstanding, they didn't have personal enmity. Moreover, there even exist clear report that the one who prays two units of prayer will be guaranteed Paradise, compare this with the Killer of Muslim in hell argument now, because it nullifies your biased conclusions.

By doing so, Muawiya was directly causing division in Muslim Ummah and going against Command of ALLAH (SWT) which gave Imam Ali (a.s) solid reason to fight the rebel.

This was implicit, and he was holding some demands which were his right as per him. That's why it was ijtihadi mistake. Even wasn't someone whose intention was to remove Ali(as) from Caliphate. He even said that he would give bayah to Ali(as) if his right was granted to him.

Intentionally killing a Muslim is forbidden in all circumstances. No need for khaas report for individuals or specific group. Provide Quranic verse or authentic hadith stating that a Person who killed Muslim intentionally will not go to hell as there exists no khaas report for that individual. Following your logic, today a Muslim can kill another muslim intentionally saying that his killing is based on ijtihad and there exists no khaas report stating that he would burn in hell.

As said before, it wasn't intentional murdering which hadeeth forbids. He was holding his some demands which he considered to be his right, and if the caliph would try to take away his right by force he believed that he could defend back by fighting back. Just like a person whose property is being snatched could fight back. Hence you are comparing apples with oranges, due to your lacking of understanding.

[Ijtaba]

Which implies that, they didn't consider Ali(as) as infallible, rather a fallible who was asking them to join his army, even though that was against the command of Prophet(S), as per them.

There exists no authentic hadith which forbids Caliph to ask Muslims to join his army to fight against rebels. If Sahabas believed that Imam Ali (a.s) was going against the command of Prophet (s.a.w.w), then these Sahabas were misguided. If you believe otherwise, then provide authentic hadith forbidding Caliph to ask Muslims to join his army to fight against rebels.

I prefer to ignore arguments based on assumptions, even though i can refute these with reports, yet its futile so i'm just ignoring these.

Provide those authentic reports.

What do you understand by Imam Ali (a.s) not punishing those people who were involved in Uthman's murder (according to Muawiya) and letting them join his (a.s) army to fight Muawiya?

the verse shows that only Allah and Prophet(S) are infallible. If Ulil Amr was infallible, then there wouldn't have been a scope to dispute with them. And on top of that, referring to Allah and Prophet(S), and as per reliable traditions Ulil Amr could make mistakes as well. And even Sahaba believed this, that's why when Ali(as) burned people as punishment, Ibn Abbas(as) viewed that action wrong, he didn't consider it to be right. Which implies that he didn't consider Ali(as) as infallible, and when there was dispute between him and Ulil Amr, he judged the matter between them by referring to hadeeth of Prophet(s).

If according to you Prophet (s.a.w.w) is infallible then why did he (s.a.w.w) make mistake when, in seeking the pleasure of his (s.a.w.w) wives, he made unlawful that which God has made lawful. (Quran 66:1)

Prophet (s.a.w.w) has clearly stated that whoever obeys my commander, obeys me (s.a.w.w.) and whoever disobeys my commander, disobeys me (s.a.w.w). When an Ansari was appointed as commander by the Prophet (s.a.w.w) and he got angry with his troops. He set a fire and commanded his troops to jump into the fire by saying whoever obeys me, obeys the Prophet (s.a.w.w) - due to command of Prophet (s.a.w.w) of obeying his (s.a.w.w) commander. But the troops disobeyed Prophet's (s.a.w.w) commander, thus disobeying the Prophet's (s.a.w.w) command. When Prophet (s.a.w.w) came to know about the incident then he (s.a.w.w) retracted from his words (s.a.w.w) by saying that Obedience (to the commander) is obligatory only in what is good (i.e. Maroof).

If the troops had obeyed the command of the Prophet (by obeying his s.a.w.w commander) then they would had always remained in the Fire.

About Imam Ali (a.s) burning the people in Fire, is there any authentic report that he (a.s) repented or regretted his action of burning the people?

What is fatwa of Ahlul Sunnah on retaliatory punishment (qisaas) when a person is killed by burning? Should the criminal also be punished by burning based on following Quranic verses:

“Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him. And fear Allah, and know that Allah is with Al-Muttaqoon (the pious)”
[al-Baqarah 2:194]

“And if you punish (your enemy, O you believers in the Oneness of Allah), then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted. But if you endure patiently, verily, it is better for As-Sabirin (the patient ones, etc.)”
[an-Nahl 16:126].

If yes, then isn't killing by burning punishing with the punishment of ALLAH (SWT)?

And thus we derive from it that, those who Sahaba who fought each other, did so due to misunderstanding, they didn't have personal enmity. Moreover, there even exist clear report that the one who prays two units of prayer will be guaranteed Paradise, compare this with the Killer of Muslim in hell argument now, because it nullifies your biased conclusions.

So are you saying that there is a contradiction?

What will be the end of a person who prays two units of prayer and kills another Muslim intentionally, will he be in Paradise or Hell?

This was implicit, and he was holding some demands which were his right as per him. That's why it was ijtihadi mistake. Even wasn't someone whose intention was to remove Ali(as) from Caliphate. He even said that he would give bayah to Ali(as) if his right was granted to him.

Whatever the demands of Muawiya he had no leeway of fighting Caliph of Muslims.

Sahih Muslim: Book 20, Number 4555:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said:

One who defected from obedience (to the Amir) and separated from the main body of the Muslims-if he died in that state-would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya (i.e. would not die as a Muslim). One who fights under the banner of a people who ate blind (to the cause for which they are fighting. i.e. do not know whether their cause is just or otherwise), who gets flared up with family pride, calls, (people) to fight for their family honour, and supports his kith and kin (i.e. fignts not for the cause of Allah but for the sake of this family or tribe) -if he is killed (in this fight), he dies as one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya. Whoso attacks my Umma (indiscriminately) killing the righteous and the wicked of them, sparing not (even) those staunch in faith and fulfilling not his promise made with those who have been given a pledge of security-he has nothing to do with me and I have nothing to do with him.


Clear and authentic hadith forbidding to fight Muslim ruler for the sake of family pride, family honor and support of one's kith and kin. For which reason was Muwaiya fighting against Muslim Ruler?

As said before, it wasn't intentional murdering which hadeeth forbids. He was holding his some demands which he considered to be his right, and if the caliph would try to take away his right by force he believed that he could defend back by fighting back. Just like a person whose property is being snatched could fight back. Hence you are comparing apples with oranges, due to your lacking of understanding.

Provide one single authentic hadith allowing Muslim to fight back Muslim Caliph when his right or property is snatched by force.

Sahih Muslim: Book 33, Hadith 82
It his been narrated through a different chain of transmitters, on the authority of Hudhaifa b. al-Yaman who said:

Messenger of Allah, no doubt, we had an evil time (i. e. the days of Jahiliyya or ignorance) and God brought us a good time (i. e. Islamic period) through which we are now living Will there be a bad time after this good time? He (the Holy Prophet) said: Yes. I said: Will there be a good time after this bad time? He said: Yes. I said: Will there be a bad time after good time? He said: Yes. I said: How? Whereupon he said: There will be leaders who will not be led by my guidance and who will not adopt my ways? There will be among them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of human beings. I said: What should I do. Messenger of Allah, if I (happen) to live in that time? He replied: You will listen to the Amir and carry out his orders; even if your back is flogged and your wealth is snatched, you should listen and obey.

Muslims are ordered to listen and obey the Muslim ruler even if their backs are flogged and their wealth are snatched by force.

[Rationalist]

No, he (a.s) accepted bayah from Muhajirun and Ansar when they gave him (a.s) bayah willingly without there being any coercion.

Yes the same people who gave bayah for 3 Calipahs before him. So if Imam Ali (as) accepted bayah without the 12er Shia conditions for accepting an Imam then why did Imam Jafar as Sadiq(as) in the 12er Shia view tell the Mutazilla they must reject the 3 Calipahs for Caliphate? Why did this version of Imam Jafar contradict Imam Ali?

[Ijtaba]

Yes the same people who gave bayah for 3 Calipahs before him. So if Imam Ali (as) accepted bayah without the 12er Shia conditions for accepting an Imam then why did Imam Jafar as Sadiq(as) in the 12er Shia view tell the Mutazilla they must reject the 3 Calipahs for Caliphate? Why did this version of Imam Jafar contradict Imam Ali?

Provide the report of Imam Jafar Sadiq (a.s)

[muslim720]

Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 6898:

Ahnaf b. Qais reported: I set out with the intention of helping this person (Hadrat 'Ali) that Abu Bakra met me. He said: Ahnaf, where do you intend to go? I said: I intend to help the cousin of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), viz. 'Ali. Thereupon he said to me: Ahnaf, go back, for I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: When two Muslims confront one another with swords (in hands) both the slayer and the slain would be in Fire. He (Ahnaf) said: I said, or it was said: Allah's Messenger, it may be the case of one who kills. but what about the slain (why he would be put in Hell-Fire)? Thereupon he said: He also intended to kill his companion.

This narration falls under the following heading, "The Book Pertaining to the Turmoil and Portents of the Last Hour (Kitab Al-Fitan wa Ashrat As-Sa`ah)".

Would be nice if we contextualize our "evidence" and I would urge Ijtaba to read the preceding and proceeding reports in the same chapter.

[muslim720]

Ijtihad can only be exercised by Hakam (i.e. Ruler) If you have come across any hadith stating otherwise (i.e. ijtihad can be done by any Sahaba) then please provide that hadith.

My simple research yielded a narration from Sunan Abu Dawud according to which Mu'adh ibn Jabal (ra) was appointed by the Holy Prophet (saw) to go to Yemen.  Before leaving, Mu'adh (ra) was asked how he would judge when the occasion of deciding a case arose.  Mu’adh (ra) replied, "according to the Quran".  The Holy Prophet (saw) thereupon asked what he would do if he did not find the solution to the problem in the Quran, to which Mu’adh (ra) said he would govern according to the Sunnah.  But when the Holy Prophet (saw) asked if he could not find it in the Sunnah also, Mu’adh (ra) said, "ana ajtahidu" (I will exert myself to find the solution).  The Holy Prophet (saw) thereupon patted his back and told him he was right.

By the way, the requirements for being a mujtahid are to have extensive knowledge of Arabic, the Qur'an, Sunnah and legal theory (Usul al-fiqh), not rulership.

1st Group

Hadith (and Quranic verse) exists which says Imam should be supported against rebels.

In that case, you should not complain about Muslims not helping Imam Ali (ra) against Abu Bakr (ra).  He was the leader and so Muslims had to support him against Imam Ali's (ra) "rebellion" (to not give bayah to Abu Bakr).

Why are you still crying over it, more than 14 centuries later?

[Ijtaba]

This narration falls under the following heading, "The Book Pertaining to the Turmoil and Portents of the Last Hour (Kitab Al-Fitan wa Ashrat As-Sa`ah)".

Would be nice if we contextualize our "evidence" and I would urge Ijtaba to read the preceding and proceeding reports in the same chapter.

Didn't understand what you're trying to say?

Are you saying that Muslim wrote this report under the heading, "The Book Pertaining to the Turmoil and Portents of the Last Hour (Kitab Al-Fitan wa Ashrat As-Sa`ah)" so this Fitna (of Battle of Jamal) will occur at the Last Hour?

[muslim720]

Same report in another text:

Al-Harith ibn ‘Amr reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, sent Mu’adh to Yemen and he said, “How will you judge?”  Mu’adh said, “I will judge according to the Book of Allah.”  The Prophet said, “What if it is not in the Book of Allah?”  Mu’adh said, “Then, with the Sunnah of the messenger of Allah.”  The Prophet said, “What if it is not in the Sunnah of the messenger of Allah?”  Mu’adh said, “Then, I will strive to form an opinion.”  The Prophet said, “All praise is due to Allah, who has made suitable the messenger of the messenger of Allah.”

Source: Sunan al-Tirmidhī 1327

[muslim720]

Didn't understand what you're trying to say?

Are you saying that Muslim wrote this report under the heading, "The Book Pertaining to the Turmoil and Portents of the Last Hour (Kitab Al-Fitan wa Ashrat As-Sa`ah)" so this Fitna (of Battle of Jamal) will occur at the Last Hour?

No, Imam Muslim (rah) has compiled this report under the chapter to clarify this type of fitnah (Muslim shedding the blood of another Muslim) will be a later phenomenon.  It does not apply to the Battle of Jamal which happened in the early years of Islam.

[Ijtaba]

My simple research yielded a narration from Sunan Abu Dawud according to which Mu'adh ibn Jabal (ra) was appointed by the Holy Prophet (saw) to go to Yemen.  Before leaving, Mu'adh (ra) was asked how he would judge when the occasion of deciding a case arose.  Mu’adh (ra) replied, "according to the Quran".  The Holy Prophet (saw) thereupon asked what he would do if he did not find the solution to the problem in the Quran, to which Mu’adh (ra) said he would govern according to the Sunnah.  But when the Holy Prophet (saw) asked if he could not find it in the Sunnah also, Mu’adh (ra) said, "ana ajtahidu" (I will exert myself to find the solution).  The Holy Prophet (saw) thereupon patted his back and told him he was right.

By the way, the requirements for being a mujtahid are to have extensive knowledge of Arabic, the Qur'an, Sunnah and legal theory (Usul al-fiqh), not rulership.

Mu'adh bin Jabal was made Hakam (i.e. Governor) of Yemen. Mu'adh as hakam could exercise Ijtihad. Muawiya was hakam of Syria during the time of Umar and Uthman but was removed by Imam Ali (a.s) as hakam of Syria when Imam Ali (a.s) became Caliph of Muslims.

Even if, for the sake of argument, if I believe Muawiya was mujtahid... looking at the hadith narrated by Muadh:

01. Mujtahid should judge in accordance with Allah's Book. (Clear verses forbidding to kill Muslims intentionally nor cause division in Muslim Ummah by acting against commands of ALLAH SWT i.e becoming a rebel)

02. Mujtahid should act in accordance with the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) if he does not find any guidance in Allah's Book. (Clear hadiths stating to obey Ruler of Muslims, not to fight the Ruler, not to kill Muslims because killing Muslims will lead to hell-fire, not to cause division in Muslim Ummah by fighting for family pride & honor instead of fighting for the cause of ALLAH SWT)

In that case, you should not complain about Muslims not helping Imam Ali (ra) against Abu Bakr (ra).  He was the leader and so Muslims had to support him against Imam Ali's (ra) "rebellion" (to not give bayah to Abu Bakr).

Why are you still crying over it, more than 14 centuries later?

Imam Ali (a.s) went with his (a.s) family to Muhajirun and Ansar to remind them of his (a.s) status and rights so that they could help him (a.s). Sadly, only four people showed up. Imam Ali (a.s) had done his duty and completed his (a.s) hujjah so that no people would deny that they were oblivious of Imam's (a.s) position and rights. Imam Ali (a.s) never rebelled against first 3 Caliphs which shows that he (a.s) was not power-hungry like Muawiya.

[Ijtaba]

No, Imam Muslim (rah) has compiled this report under the chapter to clarify this type of fitnah (Muslim shedding the blood of another Muslim) will be a later phenomenon.  It does not apply to the Battle of Jamal which happened in the early years of Islam.

So, Abu Bakra and Ahnaf b. Qais misunderstood the hadith?

Abu Bakra and Ahnaf b. Qais applied this hadith to the Battle of Jamal.
 

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

There exists no authentic hadith which forbids Caliph to ask Muslims to join his army to fight against rebels. If Sahabas believed that Imam Ali (a.s) was going against the command of Prophet (s.a.w.w), then these Sahabas were misguided. If you believe otherwise, then provide authentic hadith forbidding Caliph to ask Muslims to join his army to fight against rebels.

Calm down. I used that case just to prove that Sahaba didn't consider Ali(as) as infallible.

Provide those authentic reports.

I dont want to waste time after speculation based theories. It's waste of time. But yes, if it was something you based on reliable traditions then, that would have been a different case.

What do you understand by Imam Ali (a.s) not punishing those people who were involved in Uthman's murder (according to Muawiya) and letting them join his (a.s) army to fight Muawiya?

A chaotic situation, Fitnah. People being threatened that if they don't accept the position of Caliphate they would be killed, etc, can't be situation in control. For details watch Farid's lecture on Jamal to see how chaotic the situation was.

If according to you Prophet (s.a.w.w) is infallible then why did he (s.a.w.w) make mistake when, in seeking the pleasure of his (s.a.w.w) wives, he made unlawful that which God has made lawful. (Quran 66:1)

That was his ijthadi mistake. And the difference between a Prophet's mistake and Non-Prophet's mistake is that if Prophet makes a mistake, he is instantly corrected by Allah(swt) through Wahi(revelation), while this isn't the case with Non-Prophets, that's why obedience to them in conditional unlike Allah and his Prophet(s). Thus your objection the verse refute Shia belief is nullified.

Prophet (s.a.w.w) has clearly stated that whoever obeys my commander, obeys me (s.a.w.w.) and whoever disobeys my commander, disobeys me (s.a.w.w). When an Ansari was appointed as commander by the Prophet (s.a.w.w) and he got angry with his troops. He set a fire and commanded his troops to jump into the fire by saying whoever obeys me, obeys the Prophet (s.a.w.w) - due to command of Prophet (s.a.w.w) of obeying his (s.a.w.w) commander. But the troops disobeyed Prophet's (s.a.w.w) commander, thus disobeying the Prophet's (s.a.w.w) command. When Prophet (s.a.w.w) came to know about the incident then he (s.a.w.w) retracted from his words (s.a.w.w) by saying that Obedience (to the commander) is obligatory only in what is good (i.e. Maroof).

If the troops had obeyed the command of the Prophet (by obeying his s.a.w.w commander) then they would had always remained in the Fire.

If the ahadeeth about obeying the Caliph are seen in a holistic manner, the outcome would be that, obedience to Ulil Amr is condition, unlike obedience to Allah which is unconditional. Which again proves my point that, Ulil Amr are fallibles, if they were infallible they obedience to them wouldn't have been conditional.

Sayyiduna Abd Allah (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: A Muslim must listen to  and obey (the order of his ruler) in things that he likes or dislikes, as long as he is not ordered to commit a sin. If he is ordered to disobey Allah, then there is no listening and no obedience. (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6725 & Sahih Muslim, no. 1839).

About Imam Ali (a.s) burning the people in Fire, is there any authentic report that he (a.s) repented or regretted his action of burning the people?

Narrated ‘Ikrimah: That ‘Ali burnt some people who apostasized from Islam. This news reached Ibn ‘Abbas, so he said: “If it were me I would have killed them according to the statement of Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: ‘Whoever changes his religion then kill him.’ And I would not have burned them because the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: ‘Do not punish with the punishment of Allah.’ So this reached ‘Ali, and he said: “Ibn ‘Abbas has told the truth.”[Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1458 ; Sahih].

What is fatwa of Ahlul Sunnah on retaliatory punishment (qisaas) when a person is killed by burning? Should the criminal also be punished by burning based on following Quranic verses:

“Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him. And fear Allah, and know that Allah is with Al-Muttaqoon (the pious)”
[al-Baqarah 2:194]

“And if you punish (your enemy, O you believers in the Oneness of Allah), then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted. But if you endure patiently, verily, it is better for As-Sabirin (the patient ones, etc.)”
[an-Nahl 16:126].

If yes, then isn't killing by burning punishing with the punishment of ALLAH (SWT)?

I don't know, The reason I presented this example is to display, that how a noble Sahaba implemented  the Quranic verse 4:59, again it was because he didn't consider Ali(as) as infallible. My intention was to present his view and understanding.

So are you saying that there is a contradiction?

What will be the end of a person who prays two units of prayer and kills another Muslim intentionally, will he be in Paradise or Hell?

I don't say its a contradiction but rather your poor understanding which fails to reconcile the two. My argument was simple that based on general reports don't jump to conclusions about individuals. Only Allah knows their destiny. Except for the cases wherein he informed about certain individuals or a group in specific. For example: Hatib ibn Abi Baltah committed a major mistake by sending a secret letter to Quraysh, yet Prophet(saws) said he won't enter hell BECAUSE HE PARTICIPATED IN BADR.

Narrated Abu Az-Zubair: from Jabir, that a slave of Hatib [bin Abi Balt'ah] came to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) complaining about Hatib. So he said: 'O Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)! Hatib is going to enter the Fire!' So the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: 'You have lied! No one who participated in (the battle of) Badr and (the treaty of) Al-Hudaybiyah shall enter it.'" [Jami Tirmidhi, Vol. 1, Book 46, Hadith 3864; Sahih]

Whatever the demands of Muawiya he had no leeway of fighting Caliph of Muslims.

Sahih Muslim: Book 20, Number 4555:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said:

One who defected from obedience (to the Amir) and separated from the main body of the Muslims-if he died in that state-would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya (i.e. would not die as a Muslim). One who fights under the banner of a people who ate blind (to the cause for which they are fighting. i.e. do not know whether their cause is just or otherwise), who gets flared up with family pride, calls, (people) to fight for their family honour, and supports his kith and kin (i.e. fignts not for the cause of Allah but for the sake of this family or tribe) -if he is killed (in this fight), he dies as one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya. Whoso attacks my Umma (indiscriminately) killing the righteous and the wicked of them, sparing not (even) those staunch in faith and fulfilling not his promise made with those who have been given a pledge of security-he has nothing to do with me and I have nothing to do with him.


Clear and authentic hadith forbidding to fight Muslim ruler for the sake of family pride, family honor and support of one's kith and kin. For which reason was Muwaiya fighting against Muslim Ruler?

Neither Muawiya(as) gave bayah that time, nor did he broke it. He had some demands which he believed to be his right, and when force was against him, he fought BACK. That's why it was an ijtihadi mistake.

Provide one single authentic hadith allowing Muslim to fight back Muslim Caliph when his right or property is snatched by force.

Sahih Muslim: Book 33, Hadith 82
It his been narrated through a different chain of transmitters, on the authority of Hudhaifa b. al-Yaman who said:

Messenger of Allah, no doubt, we had an evil time (i. e. the days of Jahiliyya or ignorance) and God brought us a good time (i. e. Islamic period) through which we are now living Will there be a bad time after this good time? He (the Holy Prophet) said: Yes. I said: Will there be a good time after this bad time? He said: Yes. I said: Will there be a bad time after good time? He said: Yes. I said: How? Whereupon he said: There will be leaders who will not be led by my guidance and who will not adopt my ways? There will be among them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of human beings. I said: What should I do. Messenger of Allah, if I (happen) to live in that time? He replied: You will listen to the Amir and carry out his orders; even if your back is flogged and your wealth is snatched, you should listen and obey.

Muslims are ordered to listen and obey the Muslim ruler even if their backs are flogged and their wealth are snatched by force.

Some of the Scholars explained this hadeeth, that it is during the situation when the Muslims are weak. Others disagreed, but again it shows that there is difference of opinion even in the interpretation of reports, due to ijtihad. And you may look at the example of Abdullah bin Zubayr(as). Or take example of Imam Husayn(as) when he threatened to call hilful fudul, when his property was take over by the Amir of Madinah, Waleed bin Utbah.

Now I gave few questions for you:

Taking into account number of people involved in Battle of Jamal (50,000) and Battle of Siffin (200,000) there exists khaas reports for only six people (i.e. Imam Ali a.s, Uthman, Talha, Zubayr, Ayesha & Muawiya.)

When you admit that your general reports doesn't apply in cases where there is Khaas evidence about the fate of certain individuals, then on what basis are you jumping to conclusion over a specific group using general reports? Because absence of Khaas reports doesn't mean that there is no possibility of them being pardoned by Allah. Because when some can be pardoned, some of whom were the leaders of the other group, then as Muslims, we should as forgiveness for the rest too, about whom there is no Khaas reports, instead of jumping to conclusions. Note, We are not asking you to claim Jannah for those about whom there are no Khaas reports, but just asking to hold back from passing judgements.

[muslim720]

Mu'adh bin Jabal was made Hakam (i.e. Governor) of Yemen. Mu'adh as hakam could exercise Ijtihad.

The Holy Prophet (saw) sent Mu'adh (ra) to teach people of Yemen about Islam.  He was made the head or leader of the duat (group of missionaries) on the basis that the Holy Prophet (saw) said regarding Mu'adh that "the most knowledgeable of my ummah in matters of Halal and haram is Muadh ibn Jabal".  Not because Mu'adh (ra) was nominated "hakam" and therefore could exercise ijtihad.

Muawiya was hakam of Syria during the time of Umar and Uthman but was removed by Imam Ali (a.s) as hakam of Syria when Imam Ali (a.s) became Caliph of Muslims.

As per your own necessity of being "hakam", that should allow Muawiya to also exercise ijtihad.  What is the issue here?

Even if, for the sake of argument, if I believe Muawiya was mujtahid... looking at the hadith narrated by Muadh:

01. Mujtahid should judge in accordance with Allah's Book. (Clear verses forbidding to kill Muslims intentionally nor cause division in Muslim Ummah by acting against commands of ALLAH SWT i.e becoming a rebel)

Is qiyas not in the Qur'an?  Your first point debunked.

02. Mujtahid should act in accordance with the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) if he does not find any guidance in Allah's Book. (Clear hadiths stating to obey Ruler of Muslims, not to fight the Ruler, not to kill Muslims because killing Muslims will lead to hell-fire, not to cause division in Muslim Ummah by fighting for family pride & honor instead of fighting for the cause of ALLAH SWT)

The ruler, although upon haqq, brought the army to fight Muawiya.  As much as I love Imam Ali (ra), he had no qualms withholding bayyah to Abu Bakr (ra) but could not tolerate the same treatment from Muawiya.  This is why our scholars encourage us to not get into these discussions.  So, your second point is in the bin as well.

Imam Ali (a.s) went with his (a.s) family to Muhajirun and Ansar to remind them of his (a.s) status and rights so that they could help him (a.s).

What right?  What will or document entitled him to anything?

At least I am glad you did not contest my actual point (that the Muslims were right to stand by the leader who was Abu Bakr).

Imam Ali (a.s) never rebelled against first 3 Caliphs which shows that he (a.s) was not power-hungry like Muawiya.

He was not power-hungry then why won't you follow your "infallible" Imam (ra) and let it go?  He would withhold the bayyah but would not tolerate the same from anyone else.  Talk about consistency!

The false allegation is that Umar (ra) burned down the house of Fatima (ra) to force the bayyah; in the case of Imam Ali (ra), he actually brought an army to fight Muawiya.  You condemn the former over a fable but see nothing wrong with the latter.  Somehow it is all Muawiya's fault for withholding bayyah.  Maybe Muawiya learned it from Imam Ali (ra) - to withhold bayyah!  You should commend him for following the Sunnah of your first "infallible" Imam (ra).

[Rationalist]

Provide the report of Imam Jafar Sadiq (a.s)

Chapter 7 - ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd and al-Mu’taziliy Groups’ Visiting abu ‘Abd Allah, 

‘Alayhi al-Salam

H 8184, Ch. 7, h 1
Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from his father from ibn abu ‘Umayr from ‘Umar ibn ‘Udhaynah from Zurarah from ‘Abd al-Karim ibn

‘Utbah al-Hashimiy who has said the following:

“I was sitting in the presence of abu ‘Abd Allah, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, in Makkah when a group of people

of al-Mu‘tazilah among whom ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd was present as well as Wasil ibn ‘Ata’, Hafs ibn

Salim Mawla’ ibn Hubayrah and people of their leaders came to visit. This happened during the time

when al-Walid was killed and people of al-Sham had differences among them. They spoke (about the

situation) a great deal with confusion and made it very lengthy. Abu ‘Abd Allah, ‘Alayhi al-Salam,

said to them, ‘You have spoken a great deal and it is excessive for me. Appoint someone from among

yourselves to speak in favor of your arguments and make it short.’ They then appointed ‘Amr ibn

‘Ubayd for this task. He spoke assiduously and made it lengthy. Among other things he said, ‘People

of al-Sham have killed their Caliph, and Allah, the Most Majestic, the Most Glorious, has struck one

group against the other and has scattered their affairs. We have deliberated and found a man who has

religion, reason, kindness, position and resource for Caliphate and he is Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah

ibn al-Hassan. We then decided to gather around him to pledge allegiance, then come with him in

public. Those who pledge allegiance with us will be of us and we will be for him. Those who stay

away from us we will keep away from him. Those who plan against us we will do Jihad and plan

against them because of their rebellion and their rejection to return them to the truth and the people of

truth. We like to present this plan before you so you will also join us; we need a person like you. It is

because of your position and the great number of your followers.’ When he finished, abu ‘Abd Allah,



‘Alayhi al-Salam, asked, ‘Are you all of the same opinion as ‘Amr is?’ They replied, ‘Yes, we are of
the same opinion.’ He (the Imam) then praised Allah and glorified Him; then asked Him to grant

salawat (favors and compensation to Muhammad and his family worthy of their services to His cause).

He then said, ‘We become angry when Allah is disobeyed but when He is obeyed we become happy.’

‘O ‘Amr, tell me if the nation will make you the person in charge of their affairs and give you

authority without fighting and expenses and said to you, “Whomever you choose to be their ruler with

authority is accepted by the nation.” Whom then would you choose for the nation?’ He replied, ‘I will

make it Shura’ (to be decided by the Muslims). He (the Imam) asked, ‘To be decided by all Muslims?’

He replied, ‘Yes, by all Muslims.’ He (the Imam) asked, ‘Will it be decided by their scholars of law

and good ones?’ He replied, ‘Yes.’ He (the Imam) asked, ‘Will such people be of Quraysh and

others?’ He replied, ‘Yes.’ He (the Imam) asked, ‘Will they be of Arab and non-Arab?’ He replied,

‘Yes.’ He (the Imam) then said, ‘O ‘Amr tell me, do you love abu Bakr and ‘Umar or denounce them?’

He replied, ‘I love them.’ He (the Imam) said, ‘But you just opposed them. What do you all say?’

They replied, ‘We love them.’ He (the Imam) then said, ‘O ‘Amr, were you to be a man who

denounced the two of them, then it would have been permissible for him to oppose them. How can you

love the two of them when you just opposed them? ‘Umar had made a covenant with abu Bakr on the

basis of which he pledged allegiance to him and he did not counsel anyone else on the issue.

Thereafter abu Bakr returned it to him (‘Umar) and did not counsel anyone in the issue. ‘Umar then

formed a council of six members. He kept all of al-Muhajirun and al-Ansar out of this council except

those six people from Quraysh. He made a will about the council to which, I think, neither you nor

your friends agree because you make a Shura’ of all Muslims.’ He asked, ‘What did he do?’ He (the

Imam) replied, ‘He commanded Suhayb to lead Salat (prayer) for the people for three days and to



consult the six people and no one else except the son of ‘Umar who consulted them but would have
had have no say in their decision. He made a will and advised those of al-Muhajirun and al-Ansar in

his presence to do this: “If three days pass before the council finish the task or pledge allegiance to a

man, you must cut off the necks of all the members of the council. If four of them agree on a plan

before three days pass but two of them oppose, you must cut off the necks of the two opposing

members of the council.” Do you accept such a plan about the council that you like all Muslims to

form?’ They replied, ‘No.’

“He (the Imam) said, ‘O ‘Amr, leave this aside.

[Rationalist]

If you mean Companions of Imam Baqir (a.s) and Imam Sadiq (a.s) then yes they should had joined Zayd bin Ali (a.s).

There are two views on this from the 12er Shia. One views says Imam Jafar told the Shias to join Imam Zayd bin Ali (as).
Another view is a fatwa through Al Ahwal which says they don't have to join. Which view was correct? Was Al Ahwal lying?


Here is Imam Jafar's View saying to support his revolt.

 Imam al-Sadiq (a) said, "Woe to someone who hears his call and does not support him" (Al-Saduq, 'Uyun akhbar al-Rida (a), vol. 1 p. 2)


Here is al Ahwal's fatwa on saying they don't have to support him
H 429, Ch. 1, h5

A number of our people have narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Isa from Ali ibn al-Hakam from Aban who has that al-Ahwal reported to him the following: “Zayd ibn Ali ibn al-Husayn, recipient of divine supreme covenant, sent a message to me for a meeting with him when he was in hiding. When I met him, he said, ‘O abu Ja‘far, what do you say if someone from us comes to you asking to join us? Will you rise up with him (against the enemies)?’ I said, ‘If such a person would be your father or brother I would join him.’ He then said, ‘I want to rise up against these people. Come and join me.’  I said, ‘No, may Allah make my soul of service to you.’ He then said, ‘Is it that you distance yourself away from me?’  I said, ‘It is only one soul. If Allah’s Authority on earth existed, then those keeping away from you would have saved themselves and those joining you would have faced their destruction. If no Divine Authority existed on earth then people joining and keeping away from you would be the same.’ He then said, ‘O abu Ja‘far, I would sit with my father at the same table and he would feed me chunky morsels and cool off for me the hot ones out of kindness and diligent care. Do you think he was not afraid for me from the fire of hell? So he has informed you about religion and did not inform me?’ “I said, ‘May Allah make my soul of service to you, this also is of the kindness of your father to you. To save you from the fire he did not inform you. He was concerned for you that after having the information you might ignore his guidance and become subject to fire. He informed me also. If I follow I will be safe and I will be destroyed, if I disobeyed (him), for which (my destruction) he was not that much concerned.’ “Then I told him, ‘May Allah make my soul of service to you, are you of a higher degree of excellence or the prophets?’ He said, ‘It is the prophets.’ I said, ‘Consider what Ya‘qub said to Joseph, “My son do not tell your dream to your brothers. They may plot against you.” Why did he not inform the brothers so that they would not plot against Joseph? He hid it from them and so also your father has done; he was afraid for you.’ He then said, ‘When you say that, I swear to Allah that your friend (the Imam, recipient of divine supreme covenant, did tell me in Madina that I will be killed and crucified in al-Kunnasa and that he has a book with him that lists the people killed and crucified.’ “I then went for Hajj and reported the story of Zayd to abu ‘Abd Allah, recipient of divine supreme covenant, and what I said to Zayd. The Imam, recipient of divine supreme covenant, said, ‘It seems you surrounded him from his front, back, left, right, above and below and did not leave for him any way out.’”

[fgss]

Zayd bin Ali (a.s) is one muttaqi shia. Imam Baqir (a.s) and Imam Sadiq (a.s) needed more than one muttaqi shia i.e. they needed 313 muttaqi shias like Zayd bin Ali (a.s) to revolt against unjust government.

In your previous reply you said, Zaid bin Ali revolted due to reasons known to him.

That means he had no idea about this 313 concept. And there are reports which say he wasn't even aware about any divine Imam present in his family.

If Zayd bin Ali (a.s) considered Imam Jafar Sadiq (a.s) as his Imam, and Imam Jafar Sadiq (a.s) considered Zayd bin Ali (a.s) as martyr then I think your question has been answered.

If you mean Companions of Imam Baqir (a.s) and Imam Sadiq (a.s) then yes they should had joined Zayd bin Ali (a.s).

No its not the case.

Zaid bin Ali did not consider anyone from his family or outside as his Imam. And Imam Jafar declaring him as a martyr was due to Prophetic narrations he had from his forefathers.

There is a report in kitab al-kafi, where Mumin al-Taq al-Ahwal, one of the very close companion of Imam Sadiq, is refuting Zayd bin Ali on divine Imamah doctrine and giving justification for not joining him. (See brother rationalist's last post for that report)

Below are some glimpses from history which further clarify Zayd bin Ali's position and authority as an Imam himself.

Imam Zayd in al-Sham

Meanwhile the news that Zayd was on his way to Damascus arrived before Zayd did. Pros and cons were anticipating his arrival. Once he did arrive he was put under “house arrest” at a place called al-Rusafah. He then became the focal point of scholars and students who went to see and learn from him. Overnight al-Rusafah became a hub of scholarly, fiqhi, and literary activity.

Zayd bin Ali and Hisham face to face

Hisham said: “You are Zayd who holds hopes for the khilafah. How can you aspire to such a thing when you are a slave-woman’s son?!

Zayd replied: “How do you impugn a man whose grandfather is Allah’s Prophet (P) and whose father is ‘Ali ibn Abi Taleb?”

Hisham was flabbergasted. He could not find the right words to speak. Imam Zayd realized this and said to him: “Ittaqi Illah ya Hisham” (Fear Allah, O Hisham).

Imam Zayd left while stating his well-known expression: “People who dislike the ardor of swords are candidates for humiliation.” It is also reported that he said: “Whoever is cozy with holding on to worldly life shall experience humiliation unendingly.”

Hisham was later told of these words by Zayd. And he realized something that he had been ignoring, he said to his hirelings and assistants: “And you claim that this [Prophetic] household are a thing of the past? Not so when a person like this [Zayd] is their successor.”

[Tarikh Ibn Asaker, Vol VI]

[muslim720]

Is qiyas not in the Qur'an?  Your first point debunked.

QiSas.

Made a typing error in haste!  Qisas!

[fgss]

In short, Zayd bin Ali (as) was not familiar with divine concept of Imamah, as he had never heard such thing from his father. Some other members of ahlul bayt like Muhammad Nafs Zakkiyah, his brother, his father and others from Imam Hassan (as) and Imam Hussain (as) progeny were also unaware about such divine concept (also rejected taqiyyah). So they all revolted on their own, declaring themselves in public as an Imam.

[ISLAMIC OPPOSITION OF AL-NAFS AZ-ZAKIYA ® by Imam Muhammad al-Asi]
The majority of the Muslims of Al-Medinah, through a Shura process, as was supposed to be the case through the past 100 odd years, agreed that An-Nafs Az-Zakiyah qualifies to lead the Muslims in finishing the struggle of the past years and launching the Muslims into a new era of Adl, justice, equality and political participation that was lost in the previous years at that level.