Two posts are removed from this thread just now. If the concept has still not sunk in, I am sure additional arrangements can be made to drill the message in: "This place is for productive discussions".
Get it now! :-)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
Two posts are removed from this thread just now. If the concept has still not sunk in, I am sure additional arrangements can be made to drill the message in: "This place is for productive discussions".
Get it now! :-)
[/QUOTE]
well ur the boss :)
anyways what do u think bout the hadith humhaipakistani posted? what do u think bout this guy mawiya?
In case you haven't noticed, I have no comments on the topic under discussion, except to say the discussion is high-class, from both sides; and this is really good and I have a lot to think about the issues.
And if someone is just poking their heads to post some sarcasm and inane stuff, they should stuff it :)
Hazrat Imam Hasan(A) had a peace treaty with Muawiya. It would interest you to actually read that treaty.. and the points they negotiated..the link is provided in the previous post.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by ravage: *
But you see, you contradict yourself when you saw that both there wasnt a flaw in the process and when you say that the group of eminent muslims, with the best of intentions, **must have selected a tyrant by mistake.*
My contention is, that even if you grant Muawiya the best of intentions in selecting the most unbiased and "eminent" eminent people, and even granting that those eminent people had no consideration in mind other than figuring out the best Caliph, fact that a tyrant did become the legitimate ruler reflects that there is a fundamental flaw in the process itself, that you say decides Khilafa.
Given that you have the benefit of hindsight, you might now say that Imam Husain was martyred for what was good, true etc. But you really dont. And neither did yazid. Anyone who lead a rebellion would say that this guy is not a good leader. Those who gave their bayt before didnt take it back. That makes Hussain a legitimate person to murder.
Once again, you're forced to choose between this process or the ahle bayt.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting.... couple of points to note here. I'll start with addressing the parts I highlighted in bold, though what I'm about to say runs at a slight tangent to my main argument. You are saying that the system enabled a tyrant to become legitimate ruler .... whereas I'm coming from the exact opposite side. I'm saying that the legitimate ruler turned into a tyrant (and thus became illegitimate)
But anyway, coming to my main point, there is a difference between a system being flawed and humans failing to implement the system correctly. The sunni concept of Khilafat is a two-stage process. Stage one is to become Khalif by reception of the majority of bayts (in past times, or majority vote in modern times where the infrastructure now supports this). Stage two is maintainance of the position through rule according to Islam, failing which people are supposed to call this out and have you removed from your position. Several Ottoman Caliphs, for instance, were forced to abdicate when called out for not adhering to Islam. In the case of Yazid, stage two of the system failed to be implemented by the people. The system is perfect - it was people who failed.
I actually found one of your comments to be distinctly perplexing.... you said "Given that you have the benefit of hindsight, you might now say that Imam Husain was martyred for what was good, true etc. But you really dont. And neither did yazid. Anyone who lead a rebellion would say that this guy is not a good leader. Those who gave their bayt before didnt take it back. That makes Hussain a legitimate person to murder."
If Yazid was no longer ruling by Islam, then he no longer was legitimately Khalif, regardless of what people at the time thought. Those who backed him from that point on were in the wrong. Hindsight has nothing to do with it.
Thanks for your reply. This is certainly a very interesting discussion.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *
Interesting.... couple of points to note here. I'll start with addressing the parts I highlighted in bold, though what I'm about to say runs at a slight tangent to my main argument. You are saying that the system enabled a tyrant to become legitimate ruler .... whereas I'm coming from the exact opposite side.
I'm saying that the legitimate ruler turned into a tyrant (and thus became illegitimate)
[/QUOTE]
Okay. I will try to show that not only is this claim not true, but even if we accept your claim, your method of Khilafat reduced Imam's shahadat to the suppression of a revolt against the Islamic govt.
[QUOTE]
But anyway, coming to my main point, there is a difference between a system being flawed and humans failing to implement the system correctly. The sunni concept of Khilafat is a two-stage process. Stage one is to become Khalif by reception of the majority of bayts (in past times, or majority vote in modern times where the infrastructure now supports this). Stage two is maintainance of the position through rule according to Islam, failing which people are supposed to call this out and have you removed from your position. Several Ottoman Caliphs, for instance, were forced to abdicate when called out for not adhering to Islam. In the case of Yazid, stage two of the system failed to be implemented by the people. The system is perfect - it was people who failed.
[/QUOTE]
If you reflect back into the actual events surrounding Karbala, you'll recall that Imam Hussain was killed over not giving Yazid his Bayt. Now, theres no vetos in bayt, its a simple majority consensus vote. Furthermore this was all at the outset of his rule, when he was taking bayts from eminent people. Yazid's "legitamacy" as a ruler from the majority-bayt perspective was never in question atleast as far as yazid (and almost everyone else) was concerned. In consequence of all this background, we have three conclusions
- Yazid had secured the majority bayt, and was thus the Khalifatul waqt according to the sunni interpretation.
- Hussain had not given him his bayt, had not accepted him as Khalifa, and was considered a threat/claimant to the Khalifa's throne.
- The second part of the selection stage hadnt even started yet, and neither can you show that Hussain's claim against yazid was backed by contraventions of yazid against Islamic law as calif, as opposed to unacceptance of yazid as Khaliftatul muslimeen.. because im not sure if yazid had too much time to make the contraventions he was going to make.
Furthermore, if you adopt the position of pitting system against people implementing it theres really no need for you to even argue if it was the first or the second stage that caused the havoc. I presume you're concerned for Muawiya's honour, but in the eminent group of people were no less sahabis, some moreso. In protecting him and laying blame on the latter, you glorify one for the other.
Bottom line, something in the system, a weakness that either didnt cater for the judgement of the people implementing it, the character of the people implementing it, or the courage of people implementing it, meant that the legitimate Khalifatul Waqt was within his rights to murder the Prophet's aal.
[QUOTE]
I actually found one of your comments to be distinctly perplexing.... you said "Given that you have the benefit of hindsight, you might now say that Imam Husain was martyred for what was good, true etc. But you really dont. And neither did yazid. Anyone who lead a rebellion would say that this guy is not a good leader. Those who gave their bayt before didnt take it back. That makes Hussain a legitimate person to murder."
If Yazid was no longer ruling by Islam, then he no longer was legitimately Khalif, regardless of what people at the time thought. Those who backed him from that point on were in the wrong. Hindsight has nothing to do with it.
[/QUOTE]
Whos to say that a lone voice demanding an Islamic ruler is the voice of the Imam or that of a power hungry trouble seeker? If people who backed him from that point were in the wrong, you only say that because history has shown them to be so. At that time, there was the lone voice of Hussain and some dissidents in Kufa, against a sea of mute "ulema", a lot of them sahaba.
- Yazid had secured the majority bayt, and was thus the Khalifatul waqt according to the sunni interpretation.
True.
- Hussain had not given him his bayt, had not accepted him as Khalifa, and was considered a threat/claimant to the Khalifa's throne.
Giving bayt to the Khalif is not obligatory, he was well within his rights not to do so. This does not justify murdering him in any way.
The second part of the selection stage hadnt even started yet, and neither can you show that Hussain's claim against yazid was backed by contraventions of yazid against Islamic law as calif, as opposed to unacceptance of yazid as Khaliftatul muslimeen.. because im not sure if yazid had too much time to make the contraventions he was going to make
Yazid demanded Imam Hussain's (ra) bayt after being appointed as ruler - i.e some time, albeit a small amount, had passed. Surely if Imam Hussain (ra) felt that Yazid was not suitable for Khilafat, this means that in that very short period of time Yazid had already begun committing acts of evil.
[quote]
Furthermore, if you adopt the position of pitting system against people implementing it theres really no need for you to even argue if it was the first or the second stage that caused the havoc. I presume you're concerned for Muawiya's honour, but in the eminent group of people were no less sahabis, some moreso. In protecting him and laying blame on the latter, you glorify one for the other.
[/quote]
Of course those eminent people included sahabis. Sunnis don't hold sahabis to be infallible, we know they were humans who were capable of human errors. We acknoledged that many sahabis, including Muawiyya bin Abu Sufyan (ra), and Bibi Aisha (ra), erred and did horrific wrong in rebelling and taking up arms against the Ameer-ul-Mumineen and Khalif Hazrat Ali bin Abu Talib (ra). But we also believe in forgiveness if someone repents their actions, hence we still hold them in respect because we believe that they repented and sought forgiveness.
Similarly, it was possible for Sahabis and other eminent Muslims to make human errors such as selecting Yazid for Khalif.
[quote]
Bottom line, something in the system, a weakness that either didnt cater for the judgement of the people implementing it, the character of the people implementing it, or the courage of people implementing it, meant that the legitimate Khalifatul Waqt was within his rights to murder the Prophet's aal.
[/quote]
The flaw in this argument is that you are now implying that a man who has the majority of the bayts would still be legitimate Khalif even if his rule was not according to Islam. The crux of my argument is that despite having received the bayt from the majority of the leading Muslims, Yazid's reign still became illegitimate (and thus Imam Hussain's (ra) actions became completely legitimate) because his rule was not according to Islam.
I refuse to even consider the possibility that as great a Muslim as Imam Hussain (ra) would take such actions as he did unless Yazid was not ruling by Islam.
[quote]
Whos to say that a lone voice demanding an Islamic ruler is the voice of the Imam or that of a power hungry trouble seeker?
[/QUOTE]
The truly righteous
[quote]
If people who backed him from that point were in the wrong, you only say that because history has shown them to be so. At that time, there was the lone voice of Hussain and some dissidents in Kufa, against a sea of mute "ulema", a lot of them sahaba.
[/quote]
And that is what really makes him shine out as such a truly great Muslim, and an inspiration and role model to all future generations of Muslims who may otherwise be tempted to stay silent in the face of tyranny. :)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *
Of course those eminent people included sahabis. Sunnis don't hold sahabis to be infallible, we know they were humans who were capable of human errors. We acknoledged that many sahabis, including Muawiyya bin Abu Sufyan (ra), and Bibi Aisha (ra), erred and did horrific wrong in rebelling and taking up arms against the Ameer-ul-Mumineen and Khalif Hazrat Ali bin Abu Talib (ra). But we also believe in forgiveness if someone repents their actions, hence we still hold them in respect because we believe that they repented and sought forgiveness.
[/QUOTE]
thank you for atleast admitting what horrific wrong they did..this is the same Ali (a.s.) whom Prophet (pbuh&up) loved so so much
now can you bring from ur history books where mawiya and aisha regretted their acts
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sheraz CT: *
thank you for atleast admitting what horrific wrong they did..this is the same Ali (a.s.) whom Prophet (pbuh&up) loved so so much
now can you bring from ur history books where mawiya and aisha regretted their acts
[/QUOTE]
That's what i was gonna ask coz it's new to me.
I am glad to see Ravage and maddy posting here.
Anyway been reading the Nahjul Balagha and have noticed it has many letters which were written to Muwiya by Hazrat Ali(as). I don't know if Sunnis believe in this book (although i have seen Ibn Sadique quoting from this book occasionally) but it's a good read.
One of the letters I quote here:
*I have become sick of reading your letters and of replying to them. I feel that I have made an error in giving them undue importance and taking them seriously. You are always unreasonable and often irrational. Your sole desire is to make me accept your demand (for allowing your oppressive, tyrannical and apostatic sway over a big province) and for this you have carried on an unending series of correspondence. Your condition is like that of a man who wants to live in a land of happy dreams and does not want to face facts or like the one who is confused and who does not know what to do and where to go and who is unaware of what the future (life after death) has in store for him. I know that you are not a fool but you resemble foolish and unreasonable people. I swear by Allah that had I not been disinclined to bring harm to you I would have taken the initiative and would have punished you very severely. Beware that Satan has made you incorrigible, it has made you blind to good things as shown by the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) and deaf to his teachings. May the Peace of Allah be upon those who deserve it. *
Waisay I thought kay
Haq ko Haq kathay hain
Batil ko Batil kathay hain
Na Haq ko Batil ka libhas paylaana chaiyay
or Na he Batil ko Haq ka libhas paylaana chaiyay
IF Muwiya was against Hazrat Ali(as)....
I find it hard to understand the thing
kay hum ISS ko bhee mantay hain OR USS ko bhee mantay hain......
If BOTH were FOR islam then why were they against each other?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *
Yazid demanded Imam Hussain's (ra) bayt after being appointed as ruler - i.e some time, albeit a small amount, had passed. Surely if Imam Hussain (ra) felt that Yazid was not suitable for Khilafat, this means that in that very short period of time Yazid had already begun committing acts of evil.
Of course those eminent people included sahabis. Sunnis don't hold sahabis to be infallible, we know they were humans who were capable of human errors. We acknoledged that many sahabis, including Muawiyya bin Abu Sufyan (ra), and Bibi Aisha (ra), erred and did horrific wrong in rebelling and taking up arms against the Ameer-ul-Mumineen and Khalif Hazrat Ali bin Abu Talib (ra). But we also believe in forgiveness if someone repents their actions, hence we still hold them in respect because we believe that they repented and sought forgiveness.
Similarly, it was possible for Sahabis and other eminent Muslims to make human errors such as selecting Yazid for Khalif.
The flaw in this argument is that you are now implying that a man who has the majority of the bayts would still be legitimate Khalif even if his rule was not according to Islam. The crux of my argument is that despite having received the bayt from the majority of the leading Muslims, Yazid's reign still became illegitimate (and thus Imam Hussain's (ra) actions became completely legitimate) because his rule was not according to Islam.
I refuse to even consider the possibility that as great a Muslim as Imam Hussain (ra) would take such actions as he did unless Yazid was not ruling by Islam.
[/QUOTE]
Lets take the crux of your argument then, since you refuse to consider the other possibility .
Consider a situation when one man is saying that this fellow is not ruling according to Islam, the other group of eminent people that you would normally refer to under such circumstances are silent/supportive of the fellow.
Even if we take the assumption that initially he was a proper caliph, later on he became immoral, given that the majority of the eminent muslims still laid their trust in him meant that he was infact the Khalifatul muslimeen.
right?
[QUOTE]
The truly righteous
[/QUOTE]
theres the difference between your belief and ours. we beleive the truly rightous ones should be the ones selecting the khalifa in the first place, and not merely responsible for dismissing him :)
I dont mean to intrude on the brilliant discussion, but i just couldnt help it. :-D Below are a few points that i'd like clarified if possible.
There was an argument given by mad_scientist, about Yazid intially being a good caliph for only a period of time, and then Imam Hussain seeing the change in the colours, decided it was time to revolt.
However, this argument doesnt hold water in that, muawiyah died on 20th Rajab in 60 AH (680AD), on 27th Rajab, on the orders of yazid, Waleed sent for Imam Hussain to give ba'it and on 28th rajab, Imam Hussain his family and followers left for mecca to do Hajj and then planned to go to Kufa.
seven days are not really enough for a person to decide things are going downhill. It also leaves the question of why the the Imam (as) (and another person) were the only ones who hadnt given bayt in the first place, whereas the rest of madina had already?
Another thing, when yazid came to rule, there were some people who had not given bayt to yazid, just before muawiyah died. Imam Hussai (as) being one of them. Yet Yazid did not pursue for the bayt of the others, in the same desperate way in which he demanded bayat from Imam Hussain(as). why do you think that is?
Final point, Mad_scientist, you've stated once or twice, that Yazid was selected by a few people who were supposedly unaware of yazids real character, however, we all know generally speaking that muawiyah appointed Yazid, hence the start of the monarchy system.
But as youve already explained your view that,
[QUOTE]
Muawiyya (ra) did not introduce Malookiyat to replace Khilafat!!! This accusation would only have held true if he had simply appointed Yazid as his successor. But Muawiyya (ra), instead, requested the eminent/prominent Muslims to support Yazid for Khalif upon the death of Muawiyya (ra). Yazid was never appointed to Khalifat... he was selected for the position!
[/QUOTE]
however, in requesting people to support yazid as his successor, muawiyah infact explicitly went against the condition of the peace treaty he had with Imam Hasan(as), that upon mauwiya's death, the khilafat would not in any circumstances go to his son yazid. The succession to khilafa after muawiya rightfully should have been Imam Hussain(as)'s (or Imam Hasan's if he had been living at the time) according to the most important condition of the peace treaty.
So baisically mauwiyah's request to the eminent/prominent muslims to support yazid was infact illegal in the first place.
Perhaps, it was another in a long line of ijtahadi mistakes?:-)
ijtahadi mistakes
*
ijtahadi ghulti kay liaay sahib-e-ijtahad hona zaroori hay. Yani mujtahid hona zaroori hay. Jo mjtahid hi na ho us ka kya ijtahad. Aur phir bula batay ko badsha bananay main kya ijtahad ki baat hay. Wo be muahiday ki khlaf versi kartay whoway. Sunnyoun kay pass sif ya hi aik daleel hay un logoun ko bachany kay liaay jinhoun nay Allah, Rashool aur Ahle bait ki mukhalfat ki. (saaw)*
As Shiraz said, if according to some, Muawiyah made mistake in fighting Ali then he should have regretted it at some point of his life. But we see no such repent. Now how can it be called mistake then?
Everyone knows that Ali was right and Muawiyah was wrong. So Muawiyah is alone responsible for killing of thousands of sahabas in BOTH groups. No one can ignore his responsibility from those thousands of killings. And again, he never repented whatever damage he did to Islam.
Remember that Muawiyah started the tradition of cursing Ali after each Juma prayer. This tradition continued for 90 years!
Can people ignore this also?
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/muawiya/en/chap7.php
"The books of Tarikh, Sirah and hadith are replete with the fact that Mu’awiya introduced the bidah of cursing Imam of Guidance, Ammerul Momineen Ali (as), in his Kingdom.
1. Mohibuddin al Tabari in his classical book of hadith Riyad ul Nadira states that “Mu’awiya ordered Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas to curse 'Abu Turab” (Volume 3 page 194).
2. Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his commentary of Sahih al Bukhari “Fathul Bari” states:
"Mu’awiya issued an order to curse Hadhrath 'Ali. Upon hearing this Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas said “Even if you place a sword over my head and demand that I curse 'Ali, I will refuse to do so”.
3. Ibn Abi al Hadeed in his commentary of Nahjul Balagha Volume 1 page 464 states:
“At the end of the Friday sermon Mu’awiya would say ‘O Allah, curse Abu Turab, he opposed your Deen and path, curse him and punish him in the fire.’ He introduced this bidah during his reign, his Governors acted upon it, this bidah continued until the reign of Umar bin Abdul Aziz”
4. In Mu’jam al Buldan, Volume 1 page 191 Allamah Yaqoot Hamawi states:
“Upon the orders of Mu’awiya, 'Ali was cursed during the reign of Banu Umayya from Mashrik (east) to Mughrib (west) from the Mosque Puplits”.
5. In al-Nasa’ih al-Kaafiyah page 77 we read that
“This practice (of cursing) reached such state that the people considered that without cursing Ali their Friday worship was incorrect”
6. In al-Nasa’ih al-Kaafiyah page 70 we read that:
Some people from Banu Umayya approached Mu’awiya and said 'You’ve attained power so why don’t you stop the practice of cursing 'Ali, he replied “By Allah I wont, not until every child grows up, not until every grown up becomes elderly, not until no one is left to praise him”.
7. In Tarikh Madhahib al Islam Muhammad Abu Zahra records in Volume 1 page 35:
"And during the reign of Banu Umayya the dignity of 'Ali was attacked, he was cursed because Mu’awiya during his reign introduced the ugly bid`ah of cursing 'Ali. His successors continued this tradition until the reign of Umar bin Abdul Aziz.
:k: In sunni belief who do you blame the poisoning on and why did the poisoners do it?
I was thinking why was there the NEED to sign a treaty between the two men Hazrat Hassan(a.s.) and Muwiya.
I asked earlier…
""IF Muwiya was against Hazrat Ali(as)…
I find it hard to understand the thing
kay hum ISS ko bhee mantay hain OR USS ko bhee mantay hain…
If BOTH were FOR islam then why were they against each other?“”
Same Q goes for Muwiya and Hazrat Hassan (a.s.) if both were for Islam I am puzzled why they need to “sign a treaty” supposedly for peace??
Also excuse my ignorance what’s “ijtahadi mistakes”?
Hope my post doesn’t get ignored 
This link should provide you some of the info. http://www.ansar.org/english/hasan.htm
The Following letter of Imam Ali (ra) does answer to your questions.
“The thing began in this way: We and the Syrians were facing each other **while we had common faith in one Allah, in the same Prophet (s) and on the same principles and canons of religion. So far as faith in Allah and the Holy Prophet (s) was concerned we never wanted them (the Syrians) to believe in anything over and above or other than what they were believing in and they did not want us to change our faith. Both of us were united on these principles. ** The point of contention between us was the question of the murder of Uthman. It had created the split. They wanted to lay the murder at my door while I am actually innocent of it… [Nahjul Balagah Letter No. 28]
Happy? 
I'll reply to humhaiapkistani and ravage when I get back from my holiday on Wednesday/Thursday. Not only am I trying to avoid intellectual activity and relax, but there seems something horribly wrong and ungrateful about coming to a Shia Muslim majority country (Bahrain) and then arguing with Shias :)
PS: Thanks for making your latest entry, Ibn Sadique... your knowledge is invaluable :)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *
PS: Thanks for making your latest entry, Ibn Sadique... your knowledge is invaluable :)
[/QUOTE]
thats the sad part..so much knowledge and yet still does not see the point
ibn sadique thats sermon 58 and not 28..mawiya is suppose to be a sahaba of the Prophet (pbuh&up)..did he not see in Prophet (pbuh&up) the love He had for Imam Ali (a.s.)..there are numerious hadith in ur sahih books which shows the true love He had for Imam Ali (a.s.)..but he still used the dumb ppl of syria to fight against Imam Ali (a.s.)..he knew Imam Ali (a.s.) was innocent but his main purpose was to kill Him..he just hated Imam Ali (a.s.) and that will make him really burn in hell
p.s. dont ignore the post by price abbas..where he had ppl in the mosque curse Imam Ali (a.s.)
Happy? Yes and No 
I read the link you provided the main arguement there is that the narrations are not authenticated.
Fine but I still fail to understand WHY there was the need to SIGN a peace treaty?(IF both men Hazrat Hassan (a.s.) and Muwiya were for Islam)
The letter was No. 58 {Btw adha adha letter kiyoun post kartay ho :D}.
Why would Hazrat Ali (a.s) say "they wanted to lay the murder at my door while I am actually innocent of it.
And to continue further in the same letter…
** They refused to accept my advice and said that they wanted to decide the issue on the point of the sword. When they thus rejected my proposal of peace and kept on sabre rattling threats, then naturally the battle, which was furious and bloody, started. When they saw defeat facing them across the battlefield, when many of them were killed, and many more wounded, then they went down on their knees and proposed the same thing, which I had proposed before the bloodshed had begun. I accepted their proposal so that their desire might be fulfilled, my intentions of accepting the principles of truth and justice and acting according to these principles might become clear and they might have no cause to complain against me. Now whoever adheres firmly to the promises made will be the one whose salvation will be saved by Allah and one who will try to go back upon the promises made, will fall deeper and deeper into heresy, error and loss. His eyes will be closed to realities and truth in this world and he will be punished in the next world.**
Why did they NOT accept his proposal?
In a letter I mentioned earlier…
- have become sick of reading your letters and of replying to them. I feel that I have made an error in giving them undue importance and taking them seriously. You are always unreasonable and often irrational. Your sole desire is to make me accept your demand (for allowing your oppressive, tyrannical and apostatic sway over a big province) and for this you have carried on an unending series of correspondence. Your condition is like that of a man who wants to live in a land of happy dreams and does not want to face facts or like the one who is confused and who does not know what to do and where to go and who is unaware of what the future (life after death) has in store for him. I know that you are not a fool but you resemble foolish and unreasonable people. I swear by Allah that had I not been disinclined to bring harm to you I would have taken the initiative and would have punished you very severely. Beware that Satan has made you incorrigible, it has made you blind to good things as shown by the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) and deaf to his teachings. May the Peace of Allah be upon those who deserve it. *
^ NOW this letter was specifically written to Muwiya LETTER 73.
My Question still remain (meaning I still dont’ understand :smack: )
""IF Muwiya was against Hazrat Ali(as)…
I find it hard to understand the thing
kay hum ISS ko bhee mantay hain OR USS ko bhee mantay hain…
If BOTH were FOR islam then why were they against each other?“”
and what’s “ijtahadi mistakes”?
P.s. do sunnis believe in Nahjul Balagha :konfused: or do you quote it just for the sake of quoting it
Maddy 
Every lie on ansar.com has been answered by the following website:
www.answering-ansar.com
Just a side note
Sharhu Nahj ul-Balagha witten by Ibn Abi-al-Hadid a Sunni - Mutazilite
Sharh 'Izz al-Din ibn Abi al-Hadid al-Mu’tazili(d. 656/1258). This is the most famous commentary on which several commentaries have been written. This has been translated into Persian, French and most probably in Urdu. Its selection Iltiqat al-durar al-nukhab was compiled in 1283/1866-67. Commentaries written on it number at least fifteen, among the authors of which are such eminent names as Ahmad ibn Tawus (d. 637/1239), Sayyid Hashim al-Bahrani (d. 1107/i695-96), Shaykh Yusuf al-Bahrani (1186!1772-3), Shaykh Muhsin Karim 'Abd al-Husayn ibn Musa, Mahmud Mallah and others. Critiques of his commentary were mainly directed against his position regarding the caliphate. Though Ibn Abi al-Hadid recognized al-Khutbat al-Shiqshiqiyyah as genuinely attributed to al-'Imam 'Ali (as), he, however, tried to interpret it in accordance with Sunni belief in the legitimacy of al-Khilafat al-Rashidah.
http://www.aalulbayt.org/html/eng/books/nahjulbalaga/commentaries.htm