A question about Muawiya

[Ijtaba]

The last Hadith was general, you failed to understand it properly. Difference of opinion occurs due to difference in interpretation.

In last hadith Abu Bakrah asked Prophet (s.a.w.w), “O Prophet of Allah, what do you order me?" You didn't get what I was saying. There exists only four companions who narrated Prophet (s.a.w.w) ordeing them (& Muslims) to avoid taking part in battle during Fitna. Even if the last hadith was general it was only known to Abu Bakrah and rest of Sahabas and Taba'een did know until Abu Bakrah himself made the order of Prophet (s.a.w.w) known to them. I say this because many members on this forum say that so and so hadith or view of Prophet (s.a.w.w) was not known to other Sahabas or Taba'een because at that time there was no internet or communication method by which all Sahabas could know. Take for example the case of Mutah. There exists some reports stating that Mutah was banned during the lifetime of Prophet (s.a.w.w) and some Muslims practicing Mutah during the lifetime of Prophet (s.a.w.w), Abu Bakr and first two years of Umar's rulership until Umar banned it completely. Ahlus Sunnah reconciles such contradictory reports by stating that Mutah was banned during the lifetime of Prophet (s.a.w.w) but not all Sahabas knew about the ban until Umar banned it completely. It was following such reasoning I said only 4 Sahabas knew what to do during Fitnah. It just does not make sense that Imam Ali (a.s), ibn Abbas (r.a), Ammar (r.a) and those Sahabas who joined Imam Ali (a.s) army weren't aware of such hadiths or Prophet (s.a.w.w) never told them what to do at the time of Fitnah.

How can you forget the important hadith of prophesy that the group which will fight Khawarij will be closer to truth from which Ahlus-sunnah derived that Ali(ra) was closer to truth and made correct ijtihad.

As for the ijtihad of Ali(ra) then it could be on this hadith

Narrated Arfaja : I heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: When you are holding to one single man as your leader, you should kill who seeks to undermine your solidarity or disrupt your unity. [Sahih Muslim Book 20, Number 4567]

I know about the prophecy but you didn't get what I was trying to ask. Imam Ali (a.s) did not make ijtihad based on Prophet's (s.a.w.w) prophecy. Nonetheless you have provided the hadith which seems reasonable for Imam Ali (a.s) to use this hadith for his (a.s) ijtihad.

Now, what I want to understand is why do Ahlul Sunnah say that Imam Ali (a.s) ijtihad is correct and Muawiya and Abu Musa's ijtihad were wrong? I ask this because both Muawiya and Abu Musa based their ijtihad on Prophetic hadiths and both of them were on truth (but not closer to truth like Imam Ali a.s).

By saying that Muwaiya made wrong ijtihad it somewhat means that hadith which Muawiya used for his ijtiihad didn't apply in his situation. That is Muawiya could not fight back Imam Ali (a.s) when the latter (a.s) came to take over Syria from him (Muawiya).

And similarly by saying Imam Ali (a.s) made correct ijihad means Imam Ali (a.s) was right in fighting (and killing) Muawiya and Syrians. According Prophet (s.a.w.w) Muslim lives, properties and honor are sacred but Imam Ali (a.s) was allowed to fight and kill Muawiya and Syrians. This means that Muawiya was committing a grave sin by dividing the Ummah by undermining the solidarity or disrupting the unity of Muslims that his (Muawiya) life, property and honor no longer remained sacred.

[Ijtaba]

The Syrians supported Muawiya because he was pro-Syrian and an effective politician. Muawiya's reign was relatively stable and prosperous...

But Imam Ali (a.s) thought otherwise. He (a.s) wanted to remove Muawiya from the governorship of Syria. A person of Taqwa not only cares about his people's worldly life but also about their hereafter life.

...Regarding the hadiths, note a few things:

• Muawiya was one man and Syria is a huge nation. Not everyone would have heard it.
• At this point, the great majority of the Syrians were Christian. Only a minuscule percentage of the population was Muslim. At this point, Islam was seen as an Arab religion and the Ummayads penalized conversion.
• The battle of Siffin increased the Nasibism.
• Ummayad governors cursed Imam Ali's name on the pulpits during and after Muawiya's tenure. Farid discussed it in his Karbala video.

Nasibism is hypocrisy and cursing a Muslim an act of wickedness.

Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, said:

Those who curse others are themselves cursed.

Source: Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 315, Grade: Hasan

Again, Sunni theology accepted Imam Ali, the Uthmanites did not; there is a difference between the two. Islamic ossification and orthodoxification, Sunni orthodoxy was spreading in this era, Imami theology and practice orthodoxified in the 4th and 5th centuries.
For example in Anadalusia, Nasibism died out as Sunni scholars entered Spain.
https://ballandalus.wordpress.com/2015/05/17/the-expulsion-of-qadi-abu-bakr-ibn-al-arabi-d-1148-from-seville/

Who according to Ahlus Sunnah are Uthmanites? Are they considered Muslims or Nasibis?

That is not how people work, unfortunately. People rarely convert due to logical arguments.
For example, I have heard that in bars located in Baghdad's Shia districts, it is normal to hear Shias say "Curse Sunnis, curse Abu Bakr, they are not real Muslims, etc." I'm sure the same is true vice versa.

Even if that is not how people work, there are consequences of this in this world and hereafter. A person of Taqwa would prefer his religion Islam over everything.

I apologize, I assumed you were a friend due to your name. I sent him the links and he asked me what it was about, haha.
These are the articles:
https://shiismandislamichistory.wordpress.com/2020/06/15/the-theology-of-the-shia-in-the-time-of-imam-sadiq-a/
https://shiismandislamichistory.wordpress.com/2020/06/21/the-transformation-of-bada-from-the-occultation-till-the-school-of-baghdad/
https://shiismandislamichistory.wordpress.com/2020/06/08/early-imami-subgroups-and-beliefs/
https://shiismandislamichistory.wordpress.com/2020/06/12/a-reevaluation-of-hisham-b-hakams-subsect-in-the-earliest-days-of-imamism/

This requires a lengthy discussion and will take this thread off-topic. In near future, I will talk about this topic.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

In last hadith Abu Bakrah asked Prophet (s.a.w.w), “O Prophet of Allah, what do you order me?"

Abu Bakrah ibn al-Harith (ra): The Prophet SAWS said: “There will be a Fitnah in which the man who sleeps on his side is better than the man who sits down, and the one who sits is better than the one who stands, and the one who stands is better than the one who walks, and the one who walks is better than the one who marches to war.” So Abu Bakrah said: “O Prophet of Allah, what do you order me?” He replied: “He who has camels let him go take care of them and he who has sheep then let him go take care of them and he who has a land then let him go and take care of it.” Abu Bakrah said: “What about the one who has none of this?” He replied: “Then let him draw his sword and strike its tip against a rock, then keep away and save himself as much as he could.”
Abu Dawood in his Sunan 4/99, al-Albani said Sahih.

In this hadeeth the bold part shows that it was general and not specific to Abu Bakrah only.

You didn't get what I was saying. There exists only four companions who narrated Prophet (s.a.w.w) ordeing them (& Muslims) to avoid taking part in battle during Fitna. Even if the last hadith was general

You said:

The above hadiths only show that four Sahabas were given direct orders from Prophet (s.a.w.w) to avoid Fitnah, what about rest of Sahabas?

This statement portrayed that you meant the advise of Prophet(s) was only for these Sahaba, and not the others.

It just does not make sense that Imam Ali (a.s), ibn Abbas (r.a), Ammar (r.a) and those Sahabas who joined Imam Ali (a.s) army weren't aware of such hadiths or Prophet (s.a.w.w) never told them what to do at the time of Fitnah.

My previous response covered this question. Let me quote it again:

The last Hadith was general, you failed to understand it properly. Difference of opinion occurs due to difference in interpretation.

Even if we assume that Ali(as) didn't know the hadith but he was informed by sahaba when he asked them to join him. But he didnt agree with their interpretation, nor did he say that they were lying. It understood as their ijtihad and left them.

Nonetheless you have provided the hadith which seems reasonable for Imam Ali (a.s) to use this hadith for his (a.s) ijtihad.

Now, what I want to understand is why do Ahlul Sunnah say that Imam Ali (a.s) ijtihad is correct and Muawiya and Abu Musa's ijtihad were wrong? I ask this because both Muawiya and Abu Musa based their ijtihad on Prophetic hadiths and both of them were on truth (but not closer to truth like Imam Ali a.s).

Because of the Prophesy, there could be other factors too.

By saying that Muwaiya made wrong ijtihad it somewhat means that hadith which Muawiya used for his ijtiihad didn't apply in his situation. That is Muawiya could not fight back Imam Ali (a.s) when the latter (a.s) came to take over Syria from him (Muawiya).

And similarly by saying Imam Ali (a.s) made correct ijihad means Imam Ali (a.s) was right in fighting (and killing) Muawiya and Syrians. According Prophet (s.a.w.w) Muslim lives, properties and honor are sacred but Imam Ali (a.s) was allowed to fight and kill Muawiya and Syrians. This means that Muawiya was committing a grave sin by dividing the Ummah by undermining the solidarity or disrupting the unity of Muslims that his (Muawiya) life, property and honor no longer remained sacred.

Muawiya(as) made an ijtihadi mistake that's the main factor to keep in mind, whether it became grave mistake is secondary issue.

Narrated Salim's father:
The Prophet (ﷺ) sent Khalid bin Al-Walid to the tribe of Jadhima and Khalid invited them to Islam but they could not express themselves by saying, "Aslamna (i.e. we have embraced Islam)," but they started saying "Saba'na! Saba'na (i.e. we have come out of one religion to another)." Khalid kept on killing (some of) them and taking (some of) them as captives and gave every one of us his Captive. When there came the day then Khalid ordered that each man (i.e. Muslim soldier) should kill his captive, I said, "By Allah, I will not kill my captive, and none of my companions will kill his captive." When we reached the Prophet, we mentioned to him the whole story. On that, the Prophet (ﷺ) raised both his hands and said twice, "O Allah! I am free from what Khalid has done."[Sahih al-Bukhari 4339]

Khalid bin waleed(as) killed some people when he was sent by Prophet(s), he misunderstood them and killed them, it was grave mistake. But did Prophet(s) punish him? Did he remove him from army ?

What matters is the fact that the group of muawiya(as) was declared Muslim believers by Prophet(s) and Ali(as). And Muawiya(as) is included among the group to whom Prophet(saws) gave glad tidings of Jannah.

[Bolani Muslim]

But Imam Ali (a.s) thought otherwise. He (a.s) wanted to remove Muawiya from the governorship of Syria. A person of Taqwa not only cares about his people's worldly life but also about their hereafter life.

Imam Ali desired Islamic unity and the prosperity of the Muslims as a whole. When Imam Ali became caliph, he replaced most governors with clansmen and supporters. No matter who, any governmental leader would fight to maintain national integrity.

Who according to Ahlus Sunnah are Uthmanites? Are they considered Muslims or Nasibis?

There is some info about them here.
https://shiismandislamichistory.wordpress.com/2020/07/03/the-original-shiites-the-wilayatites-and-the-wisayatites-part-1/

Even if that is not how people work, there are consequences of this in this world and hereafter. A person of Taqwa would prefer his religion Islam over everything.

You are intermixing theology, spirituality, and identity. I am discussing reality. I am informing you that idol-worshiping Muslims in India were a reality; that does mean I consider idol-worship licit.

The dislike of Ali by those Nasibis is the same as the loathing for Abu Bakr and Umar by modern Rafidis. The disrelish is due to culture, identity, and rumors.

This requires a lengthy discussion and will take this thread off-topic. In near future, I will talk about this topic.

In order to discuss, it is imperative that we are on the 'same page.' From your reply, it seems as though you misunderstood my intention. Your question stems from misunderstanding the Sunni view of the Companions. If you have time, I would recommend watching "The Sunni View of the Sahaba" by Yasir Qadhi.

The sahaba, as a whole, are respected because cursing and overly criticizing them is unbeneficial and, possibly, spiritually detrimental. Farid has some good videos about this on the Sunni Defense Youtube channel. This does not mean that we ought to exaggerate Muawiya's status nor curse him. Imam Nisai's reaction was moderate and Sunni. Did you read that link?

I don't want to derail the topic, but you mentioned that cursing a Muslim is an act of wicked hypocrisy. Rafidis curse Umar b. Khattab, the Muslim son-in-law of Bibi Fatima Zahra (as). Do you count this as hypocrisy?

[Soccer]

Those who curse are blessed per Quran, there has never been wrong cursing nor will there be by those who curse.  The ones who curse, curse the right people per Quran. That is why it said "and cursed by those who curse". Those who curse is a title to be on the straight path like mutaqeen, muslim, momin. To be a curser is to have mental clarity.

Those who curse of course, doesn't include those who curse Ali (a), but refers to those who curse all those who should be cursed.  Therefore, as you see, cursing those who deserve it and not turning a blind eye to them, is of course, blessed in Quran.

[Ijtaba]

Abu Bakrah ibn al-Harith (ra): The Prophet SAWS said: “There will be a Fitnah in which the man who sleeps on his side is better than the man who sits down, and the one who sits is better than the one who stands, and the one who stands is better than the one who walks, and the one who walks is better than the one who marches to war.” So Abu Bakrah said: “O Prophet of Allah, what do you order me?” He replied: “He who has camels let him go take care of them and he who has sheep then let him go take care of them and he who has a land then let him go and take care of it.” Abu Bakrah said: “What about the one who has none of this?” He replied: “Then let him draw his sword and strike its tip against a rock, then keep away and save himself as much as he could.”
Abu Dawood in his Sunan 4/99, al-Albani said Sahih.

In this hadeeth the bold part shows that it was general and not specific to Abu Bakrah only.

You said: This statement portrayed that you meant the advise of Prophet(s) was only for these Sahaba, and not the others.
 My previous response covered this question. Let me quote it again:Even if we assume that Ali(as) didn't know the hadith but he was informed by sahaba when he asked them to join him. But he didnt agree with their interpretation, nor did he say that they were lying. It understood as their ijtihad and left them.

You still don't get it. 4 companions knew what they were to do in Fitnah as they were instructed by the Prophet (s) but I wanted to know whether rest of the companions knew (or were they instructed by Prophet) what they were to do at the time of Fitnah? Did Abu Bakra tell every Sahaba about the general order? If no, then only Abu Bakra & those whom Abu Bakra narrated the general order knew. Rest of Sahabas still remained uninformed about the general order.

Why did Imam Ali (a.s) not agree with their interpretation as those reports can only be interpreted in one way. How did Imam Ali (a.s) interpret the orders of Prophet (s) given to those companions?

Muawiya(as) made an ijtihadi mistake that's the main factor to keep in mind, whether it became grave mistake is secondary issue.

Prophet (s) revealed that this Ummah would be destroyed by Muslims fighting one another. Dividing & destroying the Ummah is grave sin & not ijtihadi mistake.

Narrated Salim's father:
The Prophet (ﷺ) sent Khalid bin Al-Walid to the tribe of Jadhima and Khalid invited them to Islam but they could not express themselves by saying, "Aslamna (i.e. we have embraced Islam)," but they started saying "Saba'na! Saba'na (i.e. we have come out of one religion to another)." Khalid kept on killing (some of) them and taking (some of) them as captives and gave every one of us his Captive. When there came the day then Khalid ordered that each man (i.e. Muslim soldier) should kill his captive, I said, "By Allah, I will not kill my captive, and none of my companions will kill his captive." When we reached the Prophet, we mentioned to him the whole story. On that, the Prophet (ﷺ) raised both his hands and said twice, "O Allah! I am free from what Khalid has done."[Sahih al-Bukhari 4339]

Khalid bin waleed(as) killed some people when he was sent by Prophet(s), he misunderstood them and killed them, it was grave mistake. But did Prophet(s) punish him? Did he remove him from army ?

What are you implying by saying that Prophet (s) did not punish Khalid nor removed him from his army even after Khalid killed those people?

Imam Ali (a.s) did not punish killers (& rebels) of Uthman nor removed them from his army.

What matters is the fact that the group of muawiya(as) was declared Muslim believers by Prophet(s) and Ali(as). And Muawiya(as) is included among the group to whom Prophet(saws) gave glad tidings of Jannah.

Can you provide the hadith where Prophet (s) gave the glad tidings of Jannah to the group in which Muawiya was included?

[Ijtaba]

You are intermixing theology, spirituality, and identity. I am discussing reality. I am informing you that idol-worshiping Muslims in India were a reality; that does mean I consider idol-worship licit.

The dislike of Ali by those Nasibis is the same as the loathing for Abu Bakr and Umar by modern Rafidis. The disrelish is due to culture, identity, and rumors.

Idol-worship & Nasibism leads to Hell. A person must avoid these satanic things at all costs. If person indulges in these evil things due to culture, identity and rumors then he/she is destroyed.

In order to discuss, it is imperative that we are on the 'same page.' From your reply, it seems as though you misunderstood my intention. Your question stems from misunderstanding the Sunni view of the Companions. If you have time, I would recommend watching "The Sunni View of the Sahaba" by Yasir Qadhi.

Isn't Yasir Qadhi controversial figure after the episode that happened between Mohammed Hijab and Yasir Qadhi on the preservation of al-Qur'an?

The sahaba, as a whole, are respected because cursing and overly criticizing them is unbeneficial and, possibly, spiritually detrimental. Farid has some good videos about this on the Sunni Defense Youtube channel. This does not mean that we ought to exaggerate Muawiya's status nor curse him. Imam Nisai's reaction was moderate and Sunni. Did you read that link?

I don't want to derail the topic, but you mentioned that cursing a Muslim is an act of wicked hypocrisy. Rafidis curse Umar b. Khattab, the Muslim son-in-law of Bibi Fatima Zahra (as). Do you count this as hypocrisy?

Difference between Nasibi & Rafidi:

• Nasibi considers Imam Ali (a.s) Muslim & son-in-law of Holy Prophet (s) but then hates him (a.s) & curse him (a.s)
• Rafida considers Umer bin Khattab as Hypocrite, Oppressor & Liar as well as do not consider him as son-in-law of Bibi Fatima Zahra (s.a) and then hates him and curse him.

Nasibi hates & curse a person whom they consider Muslim & son-in-law of Holy Prophet (s) whereas Rafida hates & curse a person whom they consider Hypocrite, Oppressor & Liar.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

You still don't get it. 4 companions knew what they were to do in Fitnah as they were instructed by the Prophet (s) but I wanted to know whether rest of the companions knew (or were they instructed by Prophet) what they were to do at the time of Fitnah? Did Abu Bakra tell every Sahaba about the general order? If no, then only Abu Bakra & those whom Abu Bakra narrated the general order knew. Rest of Sahabas still remained uninformed about the general order.

There is no certain evidence that whether all the remaining Sahaba knew about it or whether they were informed by those who knew. However, you may contemplate upon the point that, how many of Sahaba didn't participate in this fitnah from either sides.

Why did Imam Ali (a.s) not agree with their interpretation as those reports can only be interpreted in one way. How did Imam Ali (a.s) interpret the orders of Prophet (s) given to those companions?

Surely, he interpreted in different way. Those reports aren't explicit in stating those were about Ali's(ra) time, hence there's scope of differing interpretation.

Prophet (s) revealed that this Ummah would be destroyed by Muslims fighting one another. Dividing & destroying the Ummah is grave sin & not ijtihadi mistake.

Demanding a right Given by Allah, isn't. It wasn't a fight for personal reasons, which is prohibited. Muawiya's(ra) fight was based on ijtihad.

What are you implying by saying that Prophet (s) did not punish Khalid nor removed him from his army even after Khalid killed those people?

Implying, that it wasn't such a mistake that khalid(ra) was doomed hell due to that, or that his Sahabiyat with Prophet(s) got cancelled.

Imam Ali (a.s) did not punish killers (& rebels) of Uthman nor removed them from his army.

He cursed them. Which shows, the situation was suitable for him to punish them at that time.

Can you provide the hadith where Prophet (s) gave the glad tidings of Jannah to the group in which Muawiya was included?

https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2015/11/23/the-remarkable-merit-of-muawiyara-related-to-first-naval-expedition/

[Bolani Muslim]

Isn't Yasir Qadhi controversial figure after the episode that happened between Mohammed Hijab and Yasir Qadhi on the preservation of al-Qur'an?

No major speaker is critic-less. In any case, that video is uncontroversial.

Difference between Nasibi & Rafidi:

• Nasibi considers Imam Ali (a.s) Muslim & son-in-law of Holy Prophet (s) but then hates him (a.s) & curse him (a.s)

Again, you skipped over what I wrote. Nasibism is of two types, theological and nontheological. The two ought not to be confused. A person can be a Christian Nasibi, as the Syrians were, or be a Shia-Zoroastrians, as the supporters of the Abbasid revolution were. Nasibism and Shi'ism are more than theologies, and that is important to understand when analyzing history.

• Rafida considers Umer bin Khattab as Hypocrite, Oppressor & Liar as well as do not consider him as son-in-law of Bibi Fatima Zahra (s.a) and then hates him and curse him.

Claiming that Fatima Zahra (a) is not Umar's mother-in-law is as accurate as declaring that 'Bibi Fatima was really Abu Bakr's daughter, but the Shias twisted the facts.' Sounds ridiculous, right? Well so is denying the fact that Umar and Um Kulthoom b. Ali married, something the Shia laity negate but the scholars don't.

There's so point to discussing as you're not serious. You read none of the links I shared. It seems you are here to debate, not learn.

Even *if* Muawiya is the villian claim he is, it in no way supports the imamate, their infallibility, etc. Zaydi Shias are not fond of Muawiya, yet they revere Abu Bakr and Umar.

[Ijtaba]

There is no certain evidence that whether all the remaining Sahaba knew about it or whether they were informed by those who knew. However, you may contemplate upon the point that, how many of Sahaba didn't participate in this fitnah from either sides.

Surely, he interpreted in different way. Those reports aren't explicit in stating those were about Ali's(ra) time, hence there's scope of differing interpretation.

Considering that many Sahabas did not take part in any battles during Fitnah it seems like they were aware about the orders of the Prophet (s).

Muhammad ibn Muslimah had been directly ordered by the Prophet (s) to only fight the enemy but when people started fighting between themselves then he was to break his sword by the rock and retire home.

Abu Muslim gave oath to the Prophet (s) that during Fitnah he would use wooden Sword.

If Imam Ali (a.s) interpreted the words of Prophet (s) differently then why didn't he (a.s) tell this to both of the above Sahabas? For example, Imam Ali (a.s) could had said to both of them that Prophet (s) was referring to Fitnah of Dajjal (or some other Fitnah) & not about the Fitnah which they are currently facing.

Demanding a right Given by Allah, isn't. It wasn't a fight for personal reasons, which is prohibited. Muawiya's(ra) fight was based on ijtihad.

Was Qisas more important than Unity of Muslim Ummah? And after becoming Ameer of Muslims did Muawiya take Qisas by punishing the rebels?

Implying, that it wasn't such a mistake that khalid(ra) was doomed hell due to that, or that his Sahabiyat with Prophet(s) got cancelled.

What do you understand by the prayer of Prophet (s) after he got to know what Khalid had done? i.e. what does the words, " O GOD, I am free from what Khalid has done" mean according to you?

He cursed them. Which shows, the situation was suitable for him to punish them at that time.

If he (a.s) cursed them & situation was also suitable for him (a.s) to punish them then why did he (a.s) not punish them? Why instead of punishing them he (a.s) took them under his army & fought against those demanding Qisas.

I have a question. Those rebels (who were involved in murder of Uthman) who joined Imam Ali (a.s) army during Siffeen, if they were killed during the battle, will they go to Heaven or Hell? Assuming they were in the party which was most closer to the truth?

https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2015/11/23/the-remarkable-merit-of-muawiyara-related-to-first-naval-expedition/

About the hadith, there are two different narrations. One reported by Anas (nephew of Umm Haram) only mentioned first batch of people who were to undertake navel expedition looked as "kings on thrones" whereas as the one reported by Umm Haram's husband mentioned the first batch of people who will undertake navel expedition are obliged (Wajib). Now, there is no mention of Muawiya by name in this hadith nor any mention of Jannah.

Secondly, who are the narrators of this hadith? Are they Syrians? Why have no Sahabi reported such hadith from Prophet (s)? If navel expedition had such significance then why did Muslims not undertake navel expeditions during the rule of Prophet (s), Abu Bakr & Umar?

Thirdly, why did Prophet (s) go to meet a woman in her house? What relation did Umm Haram had with Prophet? Was she his (s) aunt? Looking at the hadith it states that Umm Haram rubbed the head of Prophet (s) (in some translations it is "she searched for lices")

[Ijtaba]

Again, you skipped over what I wrote. Nasibism is of two types, theological and nontheological. The two ought not to be confused. A person can be a Christian Nasibi, as the Syrians were, or be a Shia-Zoroastrians, as the supporters of the Abbasid revolution were. Nasibism and Shi'ism are more than theologies, and that is important to understand when analyzing history.

A Nasibi is a Nasibi whether he be Jew, Christian or atheist.

Claiming that Fatima Zahra (a) is not Umar's mother-in-law is as accurate as declaring that 'Bibi Fatima was really Abu Bakr's daughter, but the Shias twisted the facts.' Sounds ridiculous, right? Well so is denying the fact that Umar and Um Kulthoom b. Ali married, something the Shia laity negate but the scholars don't.

I only answered your question on hypocrisy. Rafidis hate & curse those persons whom they consider Munafiqs (no hypocrisy on the part of Rafidi) whereas Nasibis curse that person whom they consider Muslim (hypocrisy on the part of Nasibi)

There's so point to discussing as you're not serious. You read none of the links I shared. It seems you are here to debate, not learn.

I read the link given by you about Syrians killing Nasa'i. It showed the intensity of Syrians hatred (Nasibism) & the love for Muawiya.

[Bolani Muslim]

I only answered your question on hypocrisy. Rafidis hate & curse those persons whom they consider Munafiqs (no hypocrisy on the part of Rafidi) whereas Nasibis curse that person whom they consider Muslim (hypocrisy on the part of Nasibi)

I discourage you from doing so. If you are right then you earn no benefit, if wrong, you risk upsetting God and His Prophet (saw).

I don't agree with this article, but you might find it interesting. It is the Ibadi view of Sifeen and Nahrawan.
https://primaquran.com/2020/06/09/the-ibadi-narrative-on-what-really-happened-at-the-battle-of-siffin/

I read the link given by you about Syrians killing Nasa'i. It showed the intensity of Syrians hatred (Nasibism) & the love for Muawiya.

Yes, our Imam is the Ahlulbaytist (Shia) Imam Nasai, not the Nasibis. Our sect supports Imam Nasai and considers him a martyr. What I'm trying to say is that authentic Sunnism is "Shia," i.e. pro-Ahlulbayt. The problem is that some think that Sunnis do not treasure the Ahlulbayt (as), but this is false.

I watched a video today, basically it seems that the reason modern Sunnis strongly defend Muawiya is as a result of reacting to Shias. For example, Sunnis pray 5x per day, Shias react to this by praying 3x. Shias criticized and cursed the sahaba, Sunnis reacted by becoming overly protective and banning any critique.

A recent example is the view of Bukhari and Muslim. Until the 1900s, scholarly weakening of hadiths and sub-hadiths within the two sahihs was acceptable. Once orientalists began questioning the entire hadith corpus, the ulema became overprotective and banned any critique of narrations therein.

Something similar occurred with Muawiya, initially, some Sunni scholars  would criticize him, but as sects became more defined, Sunnis became defensive and banned any critique. I remember hearing from another video, "Opening the door of criticizing Muawiya opens the door to criticizing the sahaba." What I understood from this is that Muawiya (ra) is easy to fault, however, exposing his lapses opens a Pandora's box.

I like the series in the bottom link, it is held at a Shia seminary in the UK, I believe. Shia and Sunni scholars are invited to discuss sensitive matters, academically. Some videos are better than others, depending on the scholars, and background knowledge is helpful. This is a discussion of the concept of "Adalah al-Sahaba."
https://youtu.be/G1qe2Sbh2qo

This is the video by Yasir Qadhi I talked about. It is a good video to watch first. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cVfiTrdiFtw

I'm sorry if I offended anyone. I hope my input has been beneficial to the discussion.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

If Imam Ali (a.s) interpreted the words of Prophet (s) differently then why didn't he (a.s) tell this to both of the above Sahabas? For example, Imam Ali (a.s) could had said to both of them that Prophet (s) was referring to Fitnah of Dajjal (or some other Fitnah) & not about the Fitnah which they are currently facing.

Sahaba were free to hold different interpretation of it, they understood their limits hence didn't push each other to accept their interpretation. Besides, even Your Imams can have different interpretation on a certain issue. Like how Ali bin hussain(ra) didn't prefer interpretation of Ali(ra) for not dying hair.

So its an unacademic argument.

Was Qisas more important than Unity of Muslim Ummah? And after becoming Ameer of Muslims did Muawiya take Qisas by punishing the rebels?

There are reports that people were imprisoned and killed during the rule of Mu'awiyah(ra). But i can't say about their authenticity as for now.

https://youtu.be/Vl_8VgiqG4w

What do you understand by the prayer of Prophet (s) after he got to know what Khalid had done? i.e. what does the words, " O GOD, I am free from what Khalid has done" mean according to you?

What you had quoted has the answer to this question. Re-read that. It means khalid(ra) did a big mistake.

But as i said, it wasn't such a mistake that khalid(ra) was doomed hell due to that, or that his Sahabiyat with Prophet(s) got cancelled. if one says otherwise then he needs to provide evidence that how did Prophet(s) deal with khalid(ra) for this incident after he came to know about it.

If he (a.s) cursed them & situation was also suitable for him (a.s) to punish them then why did he (a.s) not punish them? Why instead of punishing them he (a.s) took them under his army & fought against those demanding Qisas.

I made a typo mistake. I meant situation wasn't suitable to punish the culprits.

I have a question. Those rebels (who were involved in murder of Uthman) who joined Imam Ali (a.s) army during Siffeen, if they were killed during the battle, will they go to Heaven or Hell? Assuming they were in the party which was most closer to the truth?

They will be punished for their crime InshaAllah.

I base my view on this report, in regards to battle of Jamal, even though Ali's(ra) party was  closer to haq yet, Ali(ra) said that this:

بشر قاتل ابن صفية بالنار سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم يقول : لكل نبي حواري و إن حواري الزبير

هذه الأحاديث صحيحة عن أمير المؤمنين علي و إن لم يخرجاه بهذه الأسانيد
تعليق الذهبي قي التلخيص : هذه أحاديث صحاح

Ali bin Abi talib (RA) said ‘Give the news of hellfire to the one who killed Ibn Safiya ( al-Zubair bin al-Awwam RA) because I heard the Prophet(saw) saying :’ Every prophet used to have a Hawari (i.e. disciple who supports him), and my Hawari(i.e disciple who supports me) is Az-Zubair bin Al-’Awwam.
Sources: This Hadith was Narrated by Ali ibn Abi Talib (RA) in: Musnad Ali By Ibn Jarir al Tabari with a SAHIH Isnad. in Musnad Ahmad By Ahmad Shakir with a SAHIH Isnad. In Sahih al Musnad by al Wadi’ee with a good chain of narrators.
Overall Hadith grading: SAHIH.

Similar report is also present in Shia book Bihar al-Anwar of Baqir al-Majlisi 32/336:

أن أمير المؤمنين لما جاءه ابن جرموز برأس الزبير قال : “بشر قاتل ابن صفية بالنار “.بحار الأنوار للمجلسي ج32 ص336

When ibn Jurmouth came to Ameer al-Mumineen with the head of al-Zubair, he said: “Promise hell-fire to the killer of ibn Saffiyah(Al Zubair)”.

About the hadith, there are two different narrations. One reported by Anas (nephew of Umm Haram) only mentioned first batch of people who were to undertake navel expedition looked as "kings on thrones" whereas as the one reported by Umm Haram's husband mentioned the first batch of people who will undertake navel expedition are obliged (Wajib). Now, there is no mention of Muawiya by name in this hadith nor any mention of Jannah.

Jannah is understood from it as per the Scholars.

Hafiz Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani said:

 وقوله : قد أوجبوا ” أي فعلوا فعلا وجبت لهم به الجنة .

The saying (Paradise is) “granted” .. Paradise is WAJIB ON THEM. [Fath al Bari; under the commentary of hadith discussed]

The evidence of Muawiya(ra) being included in it, then see this hadith:

Narrated Anas bin Malik: Um Haram said, “Once the Prophet (SAWS) slept in my house near to me and got up smiling. I said, ‘What makes you smile?’ He replied, ‘Some of my followers who (i.e. in a dream) were presented to me sailing on this green sea like kings on thrones.’ I said, ‘O Allah’s Messenger (SAWS)! Invoke Allah to make me one of them.” So the Prophet (SAWS) invoked Allah for her and went to sleep again. He did the same (i.e. got up and told his dream) and Um Haran repeated her question and he gave the same reply. She said, “Invoke Allah to make me one of them.” He said, “You are among the first batch.” Later on it happened that she went out in the company of her husband ‘Ubada bin As-Samit who went for Jihad and it was the first time the Muslims undertook a naval expedition led by Muawiya.[ Sahih al-Bukhari #2799]

Secondly, who are the narrators of this hadith? Are they Syrians? Why have no Sahabi reported such hadith from Prophet (s)? If navel expedition had such significance then why did Muslims not undertake navel expeditions during the rule of Prophet (s), Abu Bakr & Umar?

From where ever they may be it doesn't matter, otherwise people will start questioning whether any hadith about virtue of Ali(r) has kufan narrator just to cast doubts on it.
Not an academic question, there are many authentic reports which came via single Sahabi.
Logically, speaking it wasn't suitable for making naval expedition, in the earlier stage, as it could have been risky for Muslim armies, as they may haven't been not equipped for that task at that time. They prioritized conquering other important regions first, etc.

Thirdly, why did Prophet (s) go to meet a woman in her house? What relation did Umm Haram had with Prophet? Was she his (s) aunt? Looking at the hadith it states that Umm Haram rubbed the head of Prophet (s) (in some translations it is "she searched for lices")

They were Mahrams of Prophet(s).
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/20127/umm-haraam-and-umm-sulaym-were-mahrams-of-the-prophet-peace-and-blessings-of-allaah-be-upon-him