Who would you have supported?

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

Imam Ali (as) or those who fought against him in Jamal and Siffin? Why and what for?

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Imam Ali (as) or those who fought against him in Jamal and Siffin? Why and what for?

None.

قالالحسن: ان عليا بعث إلى محمد بن مسلمة فجيء به فقال ما خلفك عن هذا الأمر قال دفع اليبن عمك يعني النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم سيفا فقال:” قاتل به ما قوتل العدو فإذارأيت الناس يقتل بعضهم بعضا فاعمد به إلى صخرة فاضربه بها ثم الزم بيتك حتى تأتيك منيةقاضية أو يد خاطئة”، قال خلوا عنه” . مسند أحمد بن حنبل : ج 4 ص: 225 ،وقالالشيخ شعيب الأرنؤوط:حسن بمجموع طرقه
al-Hassan ibn ‘Ali (ra) said: ‘Ali called for Muhammad ibn Muslimah so he was brought to him and he asked: “Why not participate in this?” Ibn Muslimah said: Your cousin (Prophet) gave me this sword and said: “Fight with it as long as you are fighting the enemy but when you see the people kill each other then seek a rock and strike it then retire to your home until you are dead or killed by a hand.” ‘Ali then told his men: “Leave him be.”

Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 4/225, Shu’ayb al-Arnaout said: all its chains are Hasan.
قالتعديسة بنت أهبان : لما جاء علي بن أبي طالب ههنا البصرة دخل على أبي . فقال يا أبامسلمألا تعينني على هؤلاء القوم ؟ قال بلى . قال فدعا جارية له . فقال ياجارية أخرجي سيفي. قال فأخرجته . فسل منه قدر شبر فإذا هوخشب . فقال:” إن خليلي وابن عمك صلى اللهعليه و سلم عهد إلي إذا كانت الفتنة بين المسلمين . فأتخذ سيفا من خشب” . فإنشئت خرجت معك . قال لاحاجة لي فيك ولا في سيفك .سنن ابن ماجة كتاب الفتن ج 2 ص:1309،قال الشيخ الألباني:حسن صحيح،ومسند أحمد ج 5ص: 69، و ج6 ص: 393 وقال شعيب الأرنؤوط: حديث حسن
‘Udaysah bint Ahban (ra) said: when ‘Ali ibn abi Talib came to us in al-Basarah he entered on my father and said: “O Abu Muslim will you not aid me?” He said: yes, then he told his female servant: “bring me the sword” and she did and when he took it out of its sheath it turned out to be a wooden sword, so he told ‘Ali: “Khalili(my beloved companion) who is your cousin(means the Prophet SAWS) may peace be upon him made me give him an oath that when the Fitnah happens I use this wooden sword, so if you want I will accompany you.” ‘Ali said: “I need not your help nor your sword.”
Sunan ibn Majah Kitab al-Fitan 2/1309 al-Albani said: Hasan Sahih, Musnad Ahmad 5/69 & 6/393 al-Arnaout said: Hasan.

عن ابي موسى الأشعري رضي الله عنه أن رسول الله -صلى الله عليه و سلم-قال عن أيام الفتنة : (( كسّروا قسيّكم ،و قطّعوا أوتاركم ،و ألزموا أجواف البيوت ،و كونوا فيها كالخيّر من بني آدم )). رواه أحمد في المسند ج 4ص: 408 وعلق الشيخ شعيبالأرنؤوط:صحيح لغيره .و الترمذي في سننه ج4 ص: 490 و صححه الألباني.وابن ماجة في السننج 2/ص1310 وصححه الألباني.
Abu Musa al-Asha’ari (ra): The Prophet SAWS told us about the days of Fitnah: “Break your swords and cut the strings of your bows and remain in the deepest part of your houses and be like best from amongst the children of Adam.”
Musnad Ahmad 4/408 al-Arnaout said: Sahih li ghayrihi, Sunan al-Tirmithy 4/490 and Ibn Majah 2/1310 al-Albani said Sahih.

[Farid]

If we had to choose one, it would be a really easy decision to make in retrospect. The narration of Ammar being killed by Al Fi'a Al Baghiya is the most obvious reason to show that he was correct in Siffeen.

Aa for Al Jamal, I honestly believe it was a mistake that nobody wanted.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

Imam Ali (as) or those who fought against him in Jamal and Siffin? Why and what for?

None.

قالالحسن: ان عليا بعث إلى محمد بن مسلمة فجيء به فقال ما خلفك عن هذا الأمر قال دفع اليبن عمك يعني النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم سيفا فقال:” قاتل به ما قوتل العدو فإذارأيت الناس يقتل بعضهم بعضا فاعمد به إلى صخرة فاضربه بها ثم الزم بيتك حتى تأتيك منيةقاضية أو يد خاطئة”، قال خلوا عنه” . مسند أحمد بن حنبل : ج 4 ص: 225 ،وقالالشيخ شعيب الأرنؤوط:حسن بمجموع طرقه
al-Hassan ibn ‘Ali (ra) said: ‘Ali called for Muhammad ibn Muslimah so he was brought to him and he asked: “Why not participate in this?” Ibn Muslimah said: Your cousin (Prophet) gave me this sword and said: “Fight with it as long as you are fighting the enemy but when you see the people kill each other then seek a rock and strike it then retire to your home until you are dead or killed by a hand.” ‘Ali then told his men: “Leave him be.”

Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 4/225, Shu’ayb al-Arnaout said: all its chains are Hasan.
قالتعديسة بنت أهبان : لما جاء علي بن أبي طالب ههنا البصرة دخل على أبي . فقال يا أبامسلمألا تعينني على هؤلاء القوم ؟ قال بلى . قال فدعا جارية له . فقال ياجارية أخرجي سيفي. قال فأخرجته . فسل منه قدر شبر فإذا هوخشب . فقال:” إن خليلي وابن عمك صلى اللهعليه و سلم عهد إلي إذا كانت الفتنة بين المسلمين . فأتخذ سيفا من خشب” . فإنشئت خرجت معك . قال لاحاجة لي فيك ولا في سيفك .سنن ابن ماجة كتاب الفتن ج 2 ص:1309،قال الشيخ الألباني:حسن صحيح،ومسند أحمد ج 5ص: 69، و ج6 ص: 393 وقال شعيب الأرنؤوط: حديث حسن
‘Udaysah bint Ahban (ra) said: when ‘Ali ibn abi Talib came to us in al-Basarah he entered on my father and said: “O Abu Muslim will you not aid me?” He said: yes, then he told his female servant: “bring me the sword” and she did and when he took it out of its sheath it turned out to be a wooden sword, so he told ‘Ali: “Khalili(my beloved companion) who is your cousin(means the Prophet SAWS) may peace be upon him made me give him an oath that when the Fitnah happens I use this wooden sword, so if you want I will accompany you.” ‘Ali said: “I need not your help nor your sword.”
Sunan ibn Majah Kitab al-Fitan 2/1309 al-Albani said: Hasan Sahih, Musnad Ahmad 5/69 & 6/393 al-Arnaout said: Hasan.

عن ابي موسى الأشعري رضي الله عنه أن رسول الله -صلى الله عليه و سلم-قال عن أيام الفتنة : (( كسّروا قسيّكم ،و قطّعوا أوتاركم ،و ألزموا أجواف البيوت ،و كونوا فيها كالخيّر من بني آدم )). رواه أحمد في المسند ج 4ص: 408 وعلق الشيخ شعيبالأرنؤوط:صحيح لغيره .و الترمذي في سننه ج4 ص: 490 و صححه الألباني.وابن ماجة في السننج 2/ص1310 وصححه الألباني.
Abu Musa al-Asha’ari (ra): The Prophet SAWS told us about the days of Fitnah: “Break your swords and cut the strings of your bows and remain in the deepest part of your houses and be like best from amongst the children of Adam.”
Musnad Ahmad 4/408 al-Arnaout said: Sahih li ghayrihi, Sunan al-Tirmithy 4/490 and Ibn Majah 2/1310 al-Albani said Sahih.

So is the situation regarding Jamal and Siffin the exception to the rule of fighting Ahl Al-Baghi and the people who rebel against the Imam of the Muslims?

If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah; but if it complies then make peace between them with justice and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just). [49:9]

I have a few more questions:

Was the obligation to obeying the Caliph not obligatory to Mu'awiyah and A'isha?

What if it wasn't a sahabi who rebelled against Imam Ali (as) - but a normal person, would they still be excused?

And what if someone rebelled against Umar in the same way and for the same reasons Mu'awiyah rebelled against Imam Ali (as) - would the ruling still be the same?

Also, is it halal according to the Sunnis to rebel against the Imam of the Muslims for the same reasons Mu'awiyah rebelled against Imam Ali (as)?

Was Mu'awiyah in err, or was Imam Ali (as) in err, or were both of them right or both of them in err?

I just want to know if you're consistent.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

So is the situation regarding Jamal and Siffin the exception to the rule of fighting Ahl Al-Baghi and the people who rebel against the Imam of the Muslims?

If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah; but if it complies then make peace between them with justice and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just). [49:9]

The situation was not as simple as you imagine to be, Muawiya(ra) held the view Qisas should occur in regards to killers of Uthman(ra). And the right of Qisas is in Quran.

قال الجعفي: حدثنا يعلى بن عبيد، عن أبيه، قال: جاء أبو مسلم الخولاني  وأناس إلى معاوية، وقالوا: أنت تنازع عليا أم أنت مثله ؟ فقال: لا والله،  إني لاعلم أنه أفضل مني وأحق بالامر مني، ولكن ألستم تعلمون أن عثمان قتل  مظلوما، وأنا ابن عمه، والطالب بدمه، فائتوه، فقولوا له، فليدفع إلي قتلة  عثمان، وأسلم له.
فأتوا عليا، فكلموه، فلم يدفعهم إليه
Al-Ju’fi (Yahya bin Sulaiman, from his book  “Siffeen”): Ya’la bin Ubaid, from his father: Abu Muslim Al-Khawlani and  a group of people entered upon Mu’awiyah, and they asked, “Do you  dispute Ali? Are you his equal?” He replied, “No, I am not, and I know  that he is better than me, and deserves this (khilafa) more than me, but don’t you know that Uthman was killed unjustly, and  that I am his cousin, and that I ask for his blood? So go to him (Ali),  and tell him to bring forth the killers of Uthman, and I will submit to  him.” So, they went to Ali, and spoke to him, but he didn’t hand them  (the killers).

Ofcourse, we believe that Muawiya(ra) made wrong Ijtihaad, but the issue was not as simple as you think.

I have a few more questions:

Was the obligation to obeying the Caliph not obligatory to Mu'awiyah and A'isha?

Firstly, don't equate Ayesha(ra) and Muawiya(ra). Their case was different.

You quoted this: If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel make ye peace between them.......

The purpose Ayesha(ra) was coming to make peace between Muslims.

أن عائشة لما نزلت على الحوأب سمعت نباح الكلاب فقالت ما أظنني إلا راجعة سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول لنا أيتكن ينبح عليها كلاب الحوأب فقال لها الزبير ترجعين عسى الله أن يصلح بك بين الناس
الراوي: عائشة المحدث: الهيثمي – المصدر: مجمع الزوائد – الصفحة أو الرقم: 7/237
خلاصة حكم المحدث: رجال أحمد رجال الصحيح
Aisha (RA) narrated: That when she came down to al Hawaab she heard the barking of the dogs then said: “I see myself returning after this, I heard the prophet PBUH say: ‘Then what would you (the wives of the prophet) do when you hear the barking of Al-Hawab dogs?’” Al Zubair bin al Awwam said: “You return? maybe Allah will reconcile the people through you?”
source: Mujama’a al Zawaed 7/237.
Grading: Rijal Ahmad Rijal al SAHIH.

Ibn Hibban narrated, “Aysha wrote to Abu Mousa – and he was the governor of Kufah appointed by Ali-, “You know what happened to Uthman, and I came out to reform between people. Therefore, tell your people to stay at their house, and to be content until they get what they love i.e. the reformation of the Muslims’ matter.” [Book of the Trustworthy, by Ibn Hibban, vol.2, p.282]

Ibn Al-Emad in Shathrat Al-Thahab says, “When Ali arrived at Basrah, he went to Aysha and said, “May Allah forgive you.” She answered, “You too, I only wanted reformation.”” (Shatharat Al-Thahab, vol.1, p.42)

As for Muawiya(ra), We believe He made a wrong ijtihad. But this became only apparent when Ali(ra) fought the Khawarij, as Prophet(saws) said, the group which will be NEAR to truth will fight them. 

I left the other questions, because we believe that Muawiya(ra) was wrong.

[Hani]

((Imam Ali (as) or those who fought against him in Jamal and Siffin? Why and what for?))

The above question is OFTEN asked by Shia, I've been asked this countless times by many random Shia online. To me this shows the level of the person I'm discussing with, what his priorities are and where his focus is.

Who knows if I lived at the time where I would be, what my education and knowledge would be, where my tribal affiliations would lead me etc... The question itself is flawed in this sense because all those aspects would affect my judgement.

Secondly, assuming I was able to travel in time to that period in my current state. I would have much more valuable input and knowledge to offer than to waste my life in a petty civil war. I could prophesy the future, tell them where things will go, clarify what issues the nation will face in the future and get whoever I can to try and exercise the necessary measures and precautions to prevent further catastrophe.

Keep in mind, both sides may think I'm a crazy quack or claimant of prophet-hood at which they may attempt to murder me.

Now the correct question to ask was "Who was right and who was wrong?"

This was resolved ages ago by the scholars who by majority agree `Ali was ultimately right even though they all stumbled. We Ahlul-Sunnah say those days have passed and it's up to us to learn lessons from this, lessons in unity against common enemies, lessons that all sides will lose in civil-war, lessons that killing other Muslims is dangerous, lessons that communication and negotiations must be the means to solve disputes, lessons that dropping your right for the sake of God and Islam is a necessary sacrifice at times, lessons that tribal affiliation and tribal extremism must not affect our judgement of truth etc...

Sadly, some people seem to have learned wrong lessons or useless lessons, that's why we keep seeing civil wars and disunity in our times.

My favorite heroes from that period remain al-Hasan bin `Ali and `Abdullah bin `Umar.

As Farid said, knowing the Hadith of Ammar dying or being killed will help you know how to calibrate your compass. 'Ali was rightly guided.

[Rationalist]

Imam Ali (as) of course. Also, the people who supported Imam Ali (as) were closer to Ahle Sunnah than the Rafidah. So in this war it was really the Sunnis who fought on his side. When the 12er Shia ask this question, they are only referring to a world of imagination. This imagination isn't any different than the romantic idea of a 12th Imam appearing.   Also in terms of support is the same case with Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain (as). They both took bayah from those who were closer to the Sunnis.  By the time the Rafidah came into existence, the 9 Imams gave up on the idea of Caliphate.

[Hadrami]

Imam Ali (as) or those who fought against him in Jamal and Siffin? Why and what for?

Im not sure if I dont know what we know now. I may end up supporting Ali ra or Mu'awiyah ra or none, like what happened to many back then. However, if i knew what we know now, most likely i would support Ali ra.

As for people who claim to be shia of Ali who said they will surely support Ali ra 100%, the historical fact shows the opposite. Those who claimed to be his loyal shia (though not 12ers like you, since that belief hasnt been made up) abandoned al-Hasan ra & betrayed al-Husein ra.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

So basically, Mu'awiyah did ijtihad and err. (Expected this answer).

How do you determine when someone does excusable ijtihad and error, or when someone is rebelling against the Imam of the Muslims? Is there a process to this or what? If my relative is killed, and I know the Imam of the Muslims is keeping the killers of my relative away from qisas, am I allowed to wage a war?

Also, I like to thank you regarding bringing up the hadith of Ammar. Who was the killer of Ammar? And is he in Jannah or Jahnnam right not?

Also, regarding A'isha, did she do ijtihad on the nass or not - since she knew about the dogs of haw'ab?

[Hadrami]

anyone knows if shia consider aqeel ibn abi talib as kafir for siding with muawiya? There seems to be confusion among shia

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

How do you determine when someone does excusable ijtihad and error, or when someone is rebelling against the Imam of the Muslims? Is there a process to this or what? If my relative is killed, and I know the Imam of the Muslims is keeping the killers of my relative away from qisas, am I allowed to wage a war?

Was Muawiya(ra) the one who waged war or it was Ameer ul Momineen Ali(ra) who invaded Syria, and reached Siffin an area in Syria?  And if you read Nahjul Balagha, then the letter Ali(ra) wrote to Muawiya(ra), where in he threatened Muawiya(ra) that anyone who goes against the decison of Mujahireen and Ansar, would be FOUGHT. So if it was Ali(ra) then it was his right. As for Muawiya(ra) setting by the condition that justice should be done towards his relative prior to his allegiance to Ali(ra), then this was his ijtihaad, as we discussed. He felt that he had the right to demand the fulfillment of his condition before he makes allegiance to Ali(ra).

Also, I like to thank you regarding bringing up the hadith of Ammar. Who was the killer of Ammar? And is he in Jannah or Jahnnam right not?

Jannah InshaAllah.
 Refer this article:
http://umm-ul-qura.org/2015/11/12/will-the-killer-of-ammar-ibn-yasir-go-to-hell/

Also, regarding A'isha, did she do ijtihad on the nass or not - since she knew about the dogs of haw'ab?

There is no clear instruction mentioned in the authentic versions of hadeeth, that what Ayesha(ra) should do in that situation. As for what Ayesha(ra) did, then that was based on the command of Allah.

If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel make ye peace between them.......

This incident did not have any far-reaching effect on Ayesha(ra) herself to the point that she started seriously of turning back and giving up the cause for which she had set out, namely to set matters straight among the Muslims and correct their mistakes. The matter did not go beyond a passing thought on her part, in which the possibility of turning back
merely crossed her mind. This is how she expressed it when she said: "I thought about going back, but it was only an idea that did not last for long." Then her mission became clear again, after az-Zubayr reminded her of what Allah might bring about at her hands in terms of setting things straight among the Muslims.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

How do you determine when someone does excusable ijtihad and error, or when someone is rebelling against the Imam of the Muslims? Is there a process to this or what? If my relative is killed, and I know the Imam of the Muslims is keeping the killers of my relative away from qisas, am I allowed to wage a war?

Was Muawiya(ra) the one who waged war or it was Ameer ul Momineen Ali(ra) who invaded Syria, and reached Siffin an area in Syria?  And if you read Nahjul Balagha, then the letter Ali(ra) wrote to Muawiya(ra), where in he threatened Muawiya(ra) that anyone who goes against the decison of Mujahireen and Ansar, would be FOUGHT. So if it was Ali(ra) then it was his right. As for Muawiya(ra) setting by the condition that justice should be done towards his relative prior to his allegiance to Ali(ra), then this was his ijtihaad, as we discussed. He felt that he had the right to demand the fulfillment of his condition before he makes allegiance to Ali(ra).

Also, I like to thank you regarding bringing up the hadith of Ammar. Who was the killer of Ammar? And is he in Jannah or Jahnnam right not?

Jannah InshaAllah.
 Refer this article:
http://umm-ul-qura.org/2015/11/12/will-the-killer-of-ammar-ibn-yasir-go-to-hell/

Also, regarding A'isha, did she do ijtihad on the nass or not - since she knew about the dogs of haw'ab?

There is no clear instruction mentioned in the authentic versions of hadeeth, that what Ayesha(ra) should do in that situation. As for what Ayesha(ra) did, then that was based on the command of Allah.

If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel make ye peace between them.......

This incident did not have any far-reaching effect on Ayesha(ra) herself to the point that she started seriously of turning back and giving up the cause for which she had set out, namely to set matters straight among the Muslims and correct their mistakes. The matter did not go beyond a passing thought on her part, in which the possibility of turning back
merely crossed her mind. This is how she expressed it when she said: "I thought about going back, but it was only an idea that did not last for long." Then her mission became clear again, after az-Zubayr reminded her of what Allah might bring about at her hands in terms of setting things straight among the Muslims.

Imam Ali (as) did not "invade" Syria, you don't invade places you have authority over. I know you told me this is his ijtihaad, my argument with you is: is this a good enough excuse to not blame him for the killings of thousands of Muslims?

These are your hadiths, from Sahih Muslim:

It has been narrated through a different chain of transmitters. on the authority of Simak who said: Ash'ath b. Qais pulled him (Salama b. Yazid) when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Listen to them and obey them, for on them shall be the burden of what tney do and on you shall be the burden of what you do.

It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas that the messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who found in his Amir something which he disliked should hold his patience, for one who separated from the main body of the Muslims even to the extent of a handspan and then he died would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya.

As you can see, the bay'ah to the Imam is unconditional. Mu'awiyah created his own condition that qisas should be instituted, with no basis from nass, therefore he did ijtihaad over the command of the Prophet, did he not?

So I take it the hadith about the killer of Ammar has turned out to be weak. Interesting, do you agree @Farid and @Hani with the article written above?

Interesting. So the hadiths about haw'ab in your opinion are neutral in terms of commanding A'isha at what she should do if the dogs start barking. The more you know. As you should probably know me by now, I am not an arrogant person when it comes to discussing issues, I've admitted when I was wrong or moved away from my arguments I found out were weak. So I hope you do not get angry at my questions.

If A'isha was there for islah, why did she choose one side over the other? Did she consider Imam Ali (as) group as the baghi group? And do you agree with some Sunnis who say she regretted her decision?

[Farid]

Yeah, I do not believe in the hadith about the killer of Ammar being in hellfire. That hadith is weak, and I have been saying that for years. The defect is pointed out by Sh. Abdullah Al Saad.

[Hani]

Yeah, I do not believe in the hadith about the killer of Ammar being in hellfire. That hadith is weak, and I have been saying that for years. The defect is pointed out by Sh. Abdullah Al Saad.

I agree on this point, I looked at the study of this Hadiths' texts and sources and you're right, the problem seems to be the mixing of two separate prophetic narrations into one. Therefore, the tradition that reads "`Ammar shall be killed by the transgressing party, he calls them to heaven and they call him to hell." this text is incorrect.

This is supported by an authentic narration from `Abdullah bin `Amr bin al-`As where two men come to Mu`awiyah quarreling, each claiming to have scored the kill (i.e `Ammar) so `Abdullah bin `Amr says:

فقال عبد الله بن عمرو : لِيَطب به أحدكما نفسا لصاحبه ، فإني سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول : تقتله الفئة الباغية

"Let one of you both be kind enough to grant it to the other. I have heard the Messenger (saw) say: He shall be killed by the transgressing party."

Notice how he mentioned nothing about hellfire. However, the text also implies that the one who killed him directly is sinful and that God is upset with the killer.

Imam Ali (as) did not "invade" Syria, you don't invade places you have authority over.

Here's the problem with your reading of this historical section. You're normalizing `Ali's ascension to leadership when it isn't, a group did not accept the pledge as valid in the first place and did not act based on `Ali's Imamah. Unlike the three before him, `Ali came to power in a specific circumstance. A Caliph was assassinated in public, his killers literally went and chose his successor (who happened to be suitable) but those loyal to the previous Caliph (who also happen to be his family) were enraged at this, they didn't accept the pledge as legitimate and demanded the killers be brought to justice before offering allegiance. Furthermore, you know the rumors spread about `Ali's stance and some assassins claiming he sent them, `Ali had previously been a political competitor to `Uthman, this all further complicated things.

Based on that, I'm not astonished at what happened. We say Mu`awiyah and his allies were sinful for rejecting to pledge to the Imam since it caused division and deaths. We're confident in God's mercy and forgiveness for many of those who participated in the civil-war as long as intentions were sincere. What we have no doubt about is that both teams were Muslims as stated by prophetic traditions and that God united them through al-Hasan bin `Ali.

I'm actually trying to do a study of Mu`awiyah's character and personality based only on authentic reports, I hope it gets done someday.

[Rationalist]

I'm actually trying to do a study of Mu`awiyah's character and personality based only on authentic reports, I hope it gets done someday.

Can you review this book on the subject?

http://al-mostafa.info/data/arabic/depot3/gap.php?file=i001463.pdf

[Hani]

I'll have to read it to review it, the best book on Mu`awiyah so far is "Marwiyat Mu`awiyah fi Tarikh al-Tabari".

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

Yeah, I do not believe in the hadith about the killer of Ammar being in hellfire. That hadith is weak, and I have been saying that for years. The defect is pointed out by Sh. Abdullah Al Saad.

I agree on this point, I looked at the study of this Hadiths' texts and sources and you're right, the problem seems to be the mixing of two separate prophetic narrations into one. Therefore, the tradition that reads "`Ammar shall be killed by the transgressing party, he calls them to heaven and they call him to hell." this text is incorrect.

This is supported by an authentic narration from `Abdullah bin `Amr bin al-`As where two men come to Mu`awiyah quarreling, each claiming to have scored the kill (i.e `Ammar) so `Abdullah bin `Amr says:

فقال عبد الله بن عمرو : لِيَطب به أحدكما نفسا لصاحبه ، فإني سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول : تقتله الفئة الباغية

"Let one of you both be kind enough to grant it to the other. I have heard the Messenger (saw) say: He shall be killed by the transgressing party."

Notice how he mentioned nothing about hellfire. However, the text also implies that the one who killed him directly is sinful and that God is upset with the killer.

Imam Ali (as) did not "invade" Syria, you don't invade places you have authority over.

Here's the problem with your reading of this historical section. You're normalizing `Ali's ascension to leadership when it isn't, a group did not accept the pledge as valid in the first place and did not act based on `Ali's Imamah. Unlike the three before him, `Ali came to power in a specific circumstance. A Caliph was assassinated in public, his killers literally went and chose his successor (who happened to be suitable) but those loyal to the previous Caliph (who also happen to be his family) were enraged at this, they didn't accept the pledge as legitimate and demanded the killers be brought to justice before offering allegiance. Furthermore, you know the rumors spread about `Ali's stance and some assassins claiming he sent them, `Ali had previously been a political competitor to `Uthman, this all further complicated things.

Based on that, I'm not astonished at what happened. We say Mu`awiyah and his allies were sinful for rejecting to pledge to the Imam since it caused division and deaths. We're confident in God's mercy and forgiveness for many of those who participated in the civil-war as long as intentions were sincere. What we have no doubt about is that both teams were Muslims as stated by prophetic traditions and that God united them through al-Hasan bin `Ali.

I'm actually trying to do a study of Mu`awiyah's character and personality based only on authentic reports, I hope it gets done someday.

This is strange and I am getting contradictory statements from many of the users here. It seems to me that amongst hardcore Sunnis, there is disagreement over Mu'awiyah.

I've got two answers so far:

1) he did ijtihaad, so he gets ajr for that.
2) he was sinful and we hope Allah forgives him and his followers as long as their intentions were sincere.

So what is the correct answer?

If it's #1, I have a question regarding that which is, did Mu'awiyah do ijtihaad over nass when he refused to pledge allegiance? - based on the hadiths which I quoted before from Sahih Muslim -

If it is #2, why does intention matter here? If someone commits a sin, who cares what the intention is? A sin is a sin and someone will be punished for it unless he is forgiven.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

These are your hadiths, from Sahih Muslim:

It has been narrated through a different chain of transmitters. on the authority of Simak who said: Ash'ath b. Qais pulled him (Salama b. Yazid) when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Listen to them and obey them, for on them shall be the burden of what tney do and on you shall be the burden of what you do.

It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas that the messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who found in his Amir something which he disliked should hold his patience, for one who separated from the main body of the Muslims even to the extent of a handspan and then he died would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya.

As you can see, the bay'ah to the Imam is unconditional. Mu'awiyah created his own condition that qisas should be instituted, with no basis from nass, therefore he did ijtihaad over the command of the Prophet, did he not?

I would like to add what hani stated on this matter. Obedience to Imam is conditional, this is what the quranic verse 4:59 means. And we even know of incidents, where in some Sahaba(like Ali, Ibn Umar) refused to obey the Caliph, if they considered the view of Caliph was against the Sunnah of Prophet(saws). So,  Muawiya(ra) could have considered that, since the relatives of Uthman(ra) are entitled to Qisas which is proven from Quran, and it was from the Sunnah of Prophet(saws) to bring the Qisas in effect, without any delay. And as Hani rightly pointed out the situation that time, which prompted Muawiya(ra) to put that condition, in which he was wrong.

If A'isha was there for islah, why did she choose one side over the other? Did she consider Imam Ali (as) group as the baghi group? And do you agree with some Sunnis who say she regretted her decision?

Ayesha(ra) was from the third group, which wanted to make reconciliation between the two groups. Ayesha(ra) considered Ali(ra) on haq, when she found out that Ali(ra) fought Khawarij. She regretted, and even Ali(ra) regretted for his decision.

I've got two answers so far:

1) he did ijtihaad, so he gets ajr for that.
2) he was sinful and we hope Allah forgives him and his followers as long as their intentions were sincere.

We are no one to judge these matters, or to blame people of sinning. Its better to leave these matters on Allah(swt).

We read in Shahrh us-Sunnah:
 
Remain quiet about the fighting between ‘Ali and Mu’aawiyah and ‘Aaishah, Talhah and az-Zubayr. May Allah have mercy upon them all and upon those with them. Do not dispute about them, leave their affair to Allah, the Blessed and Most High.[Kitab Sharh us-Sunnah by Al-Barbahari]

[Hani]

The two different responses you got are due to two different readings of history and jurisprudence. No doubt the Jumhour are of the opinion that it is an erroneous Ijtihad. This needs a deep research based on clear objective rules.

[Ebn Hussein]

Same emotional field questions I used to throw at Sunnis as well before Allah guided me away from the darkness of Rafd.

Later I learnt that it was of course due to the lack of Tawhidz after all Rafida are even known to pray to and have tawakkul on their Imams, whereas Muslims are focused on Allah only, hence Tawhidi statements such as

- Allah Al-Musta3aan (Allah is the only source of help)

- Hasbunallah wa ni3ma Al Wakil

- Ya Allah

etc.

are almost exclusively Sunni (in some Arab countries saying such terms IS a sign of being a Sunni and NOT a Rafidi!) whereas the Rafidah are known for everything other than Tawhid. So there is no wonder that the phrase:

- Qaddarallah (or qadarallah)

is also almost exclusively Sunni, as the belief in Al-Qadr (no Jabr) is firmly rooted in the life of a Muwahhid/Monotheist, hence he doesn't ask silly questions of the "if" kind as this is from Shaitan.

This is what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade when he said, “If anything happens to you, do not say, ‘If only I had done such and such, then such and such would have happened.’ Say instead, ‘Qaddar Allaah wa maa sha’a kaan (Allaah decreed and what He wills happens), for ‘If only’ opens the door to the Shaytaan”, i.e., it makes you vulnerable to grief and fear, which is harmful to you and is of no benefit. Know that whatever befalls you, you could not have avoided, and whatever does not happen to you, you could not have made it happen to you, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“No calamity befalls, but by the Leave [i.e. Decision and Qadar (Divine Preordainments)] of Allaah, and whosoever believes in Allaah, He guides his heart” [al-Taghaabun 64:11]