acha inuit baji interesting 
Let the sunnis answer it 
I am glad that it wasn’t a No and 
I know that you will not ‘buy’ it, I had to give you the other ‘version’ of the history.
You know there is a hadith that Rasool Allah (saw) mentioned that Hazrat Hassan (ra) will bring two groups of Muslims together after a lot of strife. (Something to that effect).
You believe that Imam Hassan (ra) is infallible and sinless. I am sure that he knew what he was doing. If Hazrat Muawiyah (ra) was that bad as Shia hold him to be, do you think that Imam Hassan (ra) (Infallible to you) would give the reins of the Khilafate to such a person to damage Islam?
This peace treaty was predicted by Rasool Allah (saw) for the betterment of the Muslims.
You are right that the letter was No. 58 and not 28 as I had mentioned – Sorry about that. Let’s just settle for that it was a typo.
I used the relevant part of the letter to answer your query, but you can see that I ended the letter with**…. ** indicating that there was more of the letter.
I can’t answer for him. If you read Tarikh Ibn Kathir, you will get the answers. It’s beyond my scope to answer it in full details.
If you go back to Letter No. 58 Hazrat Ali (ra) has answered your query.
“The point of contention between us was the question of the murder of Uthman.”
No, Sunnis do not take Nahjul Balagha of any authority. There is quite good quotes from Hazrat Ali (ra) which are very beneficial but it also contains a lot of material which Sunnis do not agree with it.
My very good Shia friend has gifted me a copy of Nahjul Balagha - I have gone through it, though not all of it. I quote from it for the benefit of my Shia brothers/Sisters here so that they can believe the references I give them. References for you from Sunni sources will be useless for you. Just like the link I gave you in my previous post.
Sorry to disappoint you, Ibn Abi-al-Hadid is not counted among the Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama’a. He is a Mutazilite and Sunnis take them to be deviants. Please refer to my thread - Aqeedah of Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jama’a, the last paragraph. I am quoting it here for your easy reference.
I hope that helps. I will get more info if needed but the above should suffice.
Thanks for the other version of history.
Ibn Sadique bhai this is what I dont’ understand if both men are good people why do they need to sign a peace treaty (assuming peace treaties are signed when there are differences{opposing views like israel palestine 
}) and to begin with were there other choices other then to sign a treaty with Muwiya (so that there won’t be bloodshed{if they didnt’ sign})
Forget about typo (nobody minded that I think 
) So you dont’ think the letter 73 is authentic? 
And how can you explain that Hazrat Ali(a.s.) was against Muwiya then?
and what’s “ijtahadi mistakes”?
Thanks Ibn Sadique I am sure you aren’t a cricket fan or are you?
Little Human , if you go read the letter No 58 again and note that Imam Ali (ra) has comfirmed that him and Hazrat Muawiyah (ra) were on the same faith and that there was not an iota of difference. In other words Imam Ali (ra) is saying that Hazrat Muawiyah (ra) was as much Muslim as he was.
(Note: We, Sunnis, do not take Hazrat Muawiyah (ra) equal in stature, rank and honour as that of Hazrat Ali (ra)
Hazrat Ali (ra) was not against Hazrat Muawiyah (ra). The people who had brutaly murdered Hazrat Uthman bin Affan (ra), a very close relative (cousin) of Hazrat Muawiyah (ra), had joined with Hazrat Ali’s supporters. Hazrat Muawiyah (ra) wanted Hazrat Ali (ra) to apprehend and punish them. Whereas Hazrat Ali (ra) wanted more time so that he could take the situatin in control and to acertain who were the culprits.
I have got the following form the Net and it’s got all the relevant references. You may not agree with it and you may have your sources stating something entirely different. ** History is such a subjective phenomenon.**
“If we read history, it would be made clear that Ali had great influence as he served as a close advisor to Uthman in the same way as he served the other two pious caliphs. **Umar used to say that had it not been for Ali, Umar would have perished. **
Moreover it was Ali(ra) and the two inmates of Paradise Hasan and Hussein who defended Uthman’s residence from the mischief mongers.[Tareekh Khaleefah Al-Khayyat, p.174]
He also was so powerful that he sought Uthman’s permission to defend him from the mischief mongers as he had 500 men ready for the task. Jabbir bin Abdullah said, “Ali sent a letter to Uthman saying, ‘I have 500 men, so give me the permission to defend you from these people, otherwise things would happen that they would kill you.’ Uthman answered, ‘May Allah reward you for your good intentions, but I do not want blood to be shed for my cause.’” [Tareekh Damascus, p.403]
It is also incorrect to assume that a scenario of a power conflict between Banu Hashim and Banu Ummayah was taking shape during the time of the first three pious Caliphs.
Firstly we read that after the martyrdom of Uthman when Muawiyah opposed Ali, Ali’s brother Aqeel joined Muawiyah and served as a close advisor to him because he supported the latter’s perspectives. Likewise Muawiyah’s brother Ziyad was a close associate of Ali,
and the latter trusted him so much that he was appointed as the governor of Persia by Ali. So we find that there were of Banu Hashim who opposed Ali, and there were of Banu Ummayah who supported Ali.
It is also wrong to assume that Muawiyah’s appointment in Syria was actually meant a checkmate for Ali because during the latter’s caliphate, Muawiyah was willing to give an oath of allegience to Ali on the condition if he had punished the culprits who martyred Uthman.
Al-Dhahabi narrated in “Sayr A’alam Al-Nubala’a” from Ya’ali bin Ubayd from his father who says: Abu Muslim Al-Khulani and some others went to Mu’awiyah and asked him: **"Do you dispute Ali or are you equal to him? ** Mu’awiyah answered: **“By Allah no. I know he is better than I am, and he has the right to rule, but do not you know that Uthman was killed as an innocent? And I am his cousin and the seeker of his revenge? Therefore go to Ali and tell him to send me Uthman’s murderers then I will obey him.” ** They went to Ali and talked to him, but Ali refused to hand in Uthman’s murderers to Mu’awiyah. Sayr A’alam Al-Nubala’a, vol.3, p.140]”
So, you see they both had their points of view. We, Sunnis firmly believe that Hazrat Ali (ra) was on the right. Hazrat Muawiyah (ra) was on the wrong because his ijtihad was erroneous, though he was sincere in reaching that decision.
That I would presume would be acceptabe as Ijtihadi Mistake.
Just for reference.
*ijtihad (Arabic), original meaning “struggle”) is a technical term of the Islamic Law and means the process of making a legal decision by independent interpretation of the sources of the law, the Quran and the Sunnah. The opposite of ijtihad is taqleed, imitation. The person who applies ijtihad, the mujtahid must be a scholar of Islamic law. *
Coming to present times and giving you example from Shia perspective.
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini forwarded the Concept of Wiyat-e-Fiqeeh when he took power in Iran. Many Shia Ulemah and Ayatullahs were dead against this new concept.
Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri was leading opponent of Khomeini in this matter, so much so that he was put under house arrest since the 1980s and I think freed in 2003 due to very poor health. Both of them have followers. Both of them used Ijtehad to arrive at their conclusions. Both must be very sincere at arriving at their decisions. Since they both are at the opposite side of each other, one has to be right and the other wrong ( should I say more right than the other). And both can be very sincere at heart and believing that their cause to be the right one.
Agree?
That I would presume would be acceptabe as Ijtihadi Mistake too.
I (& All Sunnis) dont’ think the letter 73 is authentic.
Yes I am a very ardent cricket fan. But I am conscientiously objecting to the present cricket circus. I think it was arranged to divert the attention of public and give the ‘window of opportunity’ to the authorities to carry out the wishes of their masters. :topic: 
By the way, who won?
Let me re-emphasize again. The Status, Honour and Rank of Hazrat Ali (ra) is very much superior to that of Hazrat Muawiyah (ra) because:
He was one of the very first Muslims ( 2nd after Hazrat Khadijah (ra)
He is the husband of Lady Fatimah, the Leader of the Women of Paradise ( May Allah be pleased with her)
Prophet Muhammad (saw) loved him very much.
He is one of the Ten Blessed Souls (raa) who were given the good news of Paradise.
He is one the Rightly Guided Khalifahs.
He was one of the bravest Soldiers of Allah (swt)
He is the father of Imam Hassan and Imam Hussein ( May Allah be pleased with them both)
I could carry on for 3 to 4 pages …..
Since this thread of yours is about Hazrat Muawiyah, you can read the following link to see the other side of the History.
Ya but if I read letter 73(which is written DIRECTLY TO MUWIYA whereas your letter that you mention is talking about Syrians overall NO?), 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…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. <— Reading this makes me wonder if they were on the same faith.
^^ Okay i finished typing all this until I read you don’t believe letter 73 is authentic then do you believe letter 58 is authentic or not?
:topic: Pakistan lost Bus Allah kee marzee thee
Okay I was reading the link you provided it’s sort of hard for me to believe that Ali’s(a.s) son is not able to control the situation as stated in the website
When Hasan realised he could not control the situation, he handed over power to Mu’awiya which led to peace and re-unification of the Umma in 40/661, the year known as the Year of the Jama’a, or Community.
So basically the differences between Ali(a.s) and Muwiya was due to the death of Uthman? Right? That’s where the difference began?
Thanks for your reply 
{Edited}
Funny, you should make a comment which is totally irrelevant for this discussion. :-) -Faisal
little human - Letters 58 and 73 are from Shia source [Nahjul Balagha], it has no relevance for the Sunnis. I quoted the letter 58 form Nahjul Balagha to show you from your [Shia] book that Imam Ali (ra) had testified that hazrat Muawiyah (ra) was as much Muslim as he (Imam Ali) was. Yes, for you both the letters are relevant. Not For me.
Also there is a bit of contradiction between letter 58 where Imam Ali (ra) says:”…. ………..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………”
and letter No. 73 ** “………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…………”**
Infallible Imam can’t be talking of the same person!
I have got some very relevant info for you from Shia sources on the Web. It proves that the above statement to be very true. Unfortunately Imam Hassan’s followers were unreliable, unfaithful and betrayers. I have got the relevant material for your view from the links given.
http://www.1ummah.org/encyclopedia/imam_hassan.htm
Imam al-Hassan’s Abdication
Arguably one of the most profound displays of unity was the abdication of the caliphate by Imam Hasan to Mu’awiyah b. Abi Sufyan. In the year 40 A.H. the forth khalifah, 'Ali b. Abi Talib was fatally struck by the poison dagger of Abdur-Rahman b. Muljum. He died and reportedly left the people to choose the khalifah after him, although it was well known that his son was the best after him.
In the year 40 (May 17, 660-May 6, 661), allegiance was rendered to al-Hasan b. Ali for the Caliphate. The first to render allegiance to him is said to have been Qays b. Sad who said to him, ‘‘Hold out your hand, and I will pledge allegiance to you on condition [that you follow] the Book of God, Almighty and Great, and the example (sunnah) of His Prophet, and fight the violators.’’ Al-Hasan answered him, “… on condition [that I follow] the Book of God and the example of His Prophet, for that includes every stipulation.” So Qays rendered allegiance to him and was silent, and the people (also) pledged their allegiance to him."[ref.1]
Imam Hasan was prepared to continue the fight against Mu’awiyah that his father 'Ali had begun, but when he set out with his army, they turned their backs and looted their own camp, including the belongings of Imam Hassan.
“He sent Qays b. Sad (forward) in charge of his vanguard with twelve thousand men. Muawiyah also advanced with the Syrians and camped at Maskin. While al-Hassan was at al-Mada’in someone in the army announced, “Qays b. Sa`d has surely been killed, so flee!” **So they fled, having plundered the pavilion of al-Hasan, even fighting him for a carpet that was under him.”[ref.2] **
**At this point, al-Hasan was faced with a predicament. Without a reliable army and without the support of even the people who had so recently pledged allegiance to him, ** Imam Hasan was forced to consider the unity of the Ummah above his own powerful position. In doing so he was able to preserve the traditions and teachings of Islam, to prevent any more memorizers of Qur’an and prophetic ahadith from being killed, and to turn attention away from the rallying cries and political slogans of Mu’awiyah towards the balanced and pure teachings of jurists (fuqaha) of the time period (among whom was Imam Hasan himself).
With all of this in mind, Imam Hasan began exchanging letters with Mu’awiyah in hopes that a peace treaty would be achieved. Imam Hasan was willing to hand over the leadership to Mu’awiyah in exchange for the safe passage of the family of the Prophet [s] to Madinah and that his followers (shi’a) would be given security from Mu’awiyah’s army.
On the 15th of Jumada al-Awwal 41 A.H. a peace treaty was signed between Mu’awiyah b. Abi Sufyan and al-Hassan b. 'Ali. Imam Hassan outlined the following stipulations for the treaty:
“That the cursing of the commander of the faithful (Ali b. Abi Talib) should be abandoned and the practice of using the personal prayer (qunut) in the formal prayer (salat) (as prayer) against him should be set aside; that his followers should be given security and that none of them should be exposed to any evil; that each of them who had certain rights should attain those rights.”[ref.3]
Peace was made between Mu’awiyah and al-Hassan at Maskin, Iraq. After the treaty was finalized, al-Hassan went out to the people and spoke: **“O people of Iraq, I am glad to be rid of you for three reasons: your killing of my father, your stabbing of me, and your plundering of my possessions.”[ref 4] **
He then left for Kufah, entered the masjid, and spoke to the people there saying: “O people of al-Kufah, be God-fearing toward your neighbors and guests and toward the members of the family of your Prophet, from whom God removed sinfulness and whom He purified completely (Qur’an 33:33).” And the people began to weep.[ref. 5]
Notes:
- Ta’rikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk by Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310 A.H.), “Events of the Year 40” pg. 1
- Ibid., pg. 3
- Kitab al-Irshad by Abu 'Abdullah Muhammad al-Harithi al-Baghdadi al-Shaykh al-Mufid
- Ta’rikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk by Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310 A.H.), “Events of the Year 40” pg. 9
- Ibid pg. 11
Imam Hassan (AS), A Brief Look into His Life
…The people began to look at one another and asked each other, "What do you think he intends by what he has just said?
“We think that he intends to make peace with Muawiya and hand over the authority to him” they answered.
**"By Gods the man has become an unbeliever they declared and they rushed towards his tent. They plundered him to the extent that they even took his prayer mat from under him.
Then Abd al- Rahman b. Abd Allah b. Ja’al al-Azdi set on him and stripped his silk cloak from his shoulder. ** He remained sitting, still girt with his sword but without his cloak. He called for his horse and mounted it. Groups of his close associates and his Shia surrounded him and kept those who wanted (to attack) him away from him. He said:
Summon (the tribes of) Rabia and Hamdan to me.
They were summoned to him and they surrounded him and defended him, peace be on him, from the people. A mixed group of others went with him (as well). When he was passing through the narrow pass of Sabat, a man of Banu Asad called al-Jarrah b. Sinan caught hold of the reins of his mule. He had an axe in his hand. He cried:
God is greater (Allaku akbar)! You have become a polytheist, Hassan, just like your father became a polytheist before.
**Then he stabbed him in the thigh. It penetrated right through to the bone. He seized (al-Hassan) by the neck and they both fell to the ground. A man from al-Hasan’s Shi’a called Abd Allah b. Khatal al- Tai; pulled the axe away from his hand and struck him with it in the stomach. Another man called Zubyan b. Umara attacked him, struck him upon the nose and killed him. Another man who had been with (al-Jarrah) was caught and killed. ** Al-Hasan, peace be on him, was carried on a stretcher to al- Mada’in where he was lodged with Sa’d b. Masud al-Thaqafi. The latter was the governor of (Ali), the commander of the faithful, peace be on him, there and al-Hassan had confirmed him in that position.
**Al-Hassan, peace be on him, was distracted by his own (discomfort) and with treating his wound. (In the meantime) a group of the tribal leaders wrote secretly to Mu’awiya offering to accept his authority (lit. to listen and obey). They urged him to come to them and they guaranteed to hand over al-Hasan, peace be on him, when they got to his camp, or to kill him treacherously. **
Muawiya set off towards Iraq. When he reached the bridge of Manbij, al-Hasan, peace be on him, reacted. He sent Hujr b. Adi to order the leaders of Amman to set out and to call the people together for war.
They were slow to (answer) him and then they came forward. (Al- Hasan) had a **mixed band of men: some of them belonged to his Sh’ia and to his father’s: some of them were members of the Muhakimma (i.e. Kharijites) who were influenced by (the desire of) fighting Muawiya with every means (possible); some of them were men who loved discords and were anxious for booty; some of them were doubters; others were tribal supporters who followed the leaders of their tribes without reference to religion. **
He set off until he came to Hammam Umar, then he went on to Dayr Kab. He stopped at Sabat, just before the bridge and spent the night there. In the morning, he, peace be on him, wanted to test his followers and make their situation clear with regard to obedience to him, so that in that way he might be able to distinguish his friends from his enemies and be in a clear mind (about his position) to meet Mu’awiya and the Syrians. He ordered the call to be made:
cont’d
The prayer is a general one (which all should attend) (al-salat jamia). They gathered and he went up on the pulpit and addressed them. He said:
Praise belongs to God whenever a man praises Him. I testify that there is no god but God whenever a man testifies to Him. I testify that Muhammad is His servant and His apostle whom He sent with the truth and whom He entrusted with revelation, may God bless him and his family. By God, I hope that I shall always be with God's praise and kindness. I am the sincerest of God's creatures in giving advice to them. I have not become one who bears malice to any Muslims nor one who wishes evil or misfortune tor him. Indeed what you dislike about unity (jama'a) is better for you than what you like about division. I see what is better for you better than you see for yourselves. Therefore do not oppose my commands and do not reject my judgement. May God forgive both me and you and may He guide me and you to that in which there is love and satisfaction. ……….
[QUOTE]
So basically the differences between Ali(a.s) and Muwiya was due to the death of Uthman? Right? That's where the difference began?
[/QUOTE]
Exactly, that’s what Imam Ali (ra) said in the letter No.58 ** “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.......”**
I think I have said enough on this thread. I hope that brother *mAd_ScIeNtIsT * is back from Bahrain and carry on where he left off.
I must laud you for having such a nice debate. You kept your cool and were very civil as you always are, not that I provoked you. You may be a *Little Human * but have a big Heart.:D
I will only respond to you if have any query of what I have stated or want further clarification.
[QUOTE]
Pakistan lost Bus Allah kee marzee thee
[/QUOTE]
Never mind, next time. :D
Woh hee tou. According to the my book in my hands (Nahjul Balagha) Letter 58 and then it goes
A letter sent by Hazrath to the people of various provinces, giving them the reasons of the battle of Siffen…
It wasn’t specifically to Muwiya unlike letter 73 which goes…
A letter to Moavia
Both letters could be directed towards different people.
But khair N.B. is not relevant to you :o)
Thanks for the links for Hazrat Hassan(a.s.) I don’t think I have a problem with what Hazrat Hassan(a.s.) did, so basically the treaty HAD to be signed so that there will be unity among muslims.
Imam Hasan was prepared to continue the fight against Mu’awiyah that his father 'Ali had begun, but when he set out with his army, they turned their backs and looted their own camp, including the belongings of Imam Hasan.
What was the “fight” all about? That’s the BIG question :+) Wasn’t Hazrat Ali (as) being blamed for the death of Usman. Who was doing the blaming and spreading this? Who do sunnis think were behind the death of Usman?
Come anytime you want Ibn Sadique.
Mad_Scientist should be here by today or tomorrow Nahin tou won’t be the fan of his foot anymore 
{Imagine maddy having the honor to post your foot in the rel. forum what a milestone! 
{I’ll give you the excuse to put your foot here if you make me understand what I am asking :=D}}
Oye Ravage Ravage Where art Thou? I am missing your inputs 
:topic: Aj match hai 
Ab Allah Allah karo
:) im right here little human, merely not educated enough on the topic to participate in your and ibn sadique's debate.. am reserving my brainwaves till MS responds
Little Human -with a big Heart I am responding to make further clarifications.
True that the letter N0. 58 was sent by Hazrath to the people of various provinces, giving them the reasons of the battle of Siffen…
When Hazrat Ali uses the word Syrians isn’t he referring to Hazrat Muawiyah (ra) and his army (followers)? He could have disqualified Hazrat Muawiyah by saying whatever I have said about Syrians doesn’t apply to their leader. As he did not, Hazrat Muawiyah (ra) is very much part and parcel of Syrians.
You **DID have ** the problem before you read the Links I had provided. Alhamdulilah now you don’t have the problem.
I think the matter here is very obvious. After the tragic death of Hazrat Ali (ra), Hazrat Hassan (ra) was elected as the new Khalifah – so he had to carry on the unfinished business to subduing the ‘Syrians’. As to what the fight was all about? I think we have covered it quite well. I will quote myself again. “Al-Dhahabi narrated in “Sayr A’alam Al-Nubala’a” from Ya’ali bin Ubayd from his father who says: Abu Muslim Al-Khulani and some others went to Mu’awiyah and asked him: "Do you dispute Ali or are you equal to him? Mu’awiyah answered: “By Allah no. I know he is better than I am, and he has the right to rule, but do not you know that Uthman was killed as an innocent? And I am his cousin and the seeker of his revenge? Therefore go to Ali and tell him to send me Uthman’s murderers then I will obey him.” They went to Ali and talked to him, but Ali refused to hand in Uthman’s murderers to Mu’awiyah. Sayr A’alam Al-Nubala’a, vol.3, p.140]”
Hazrat Muawiyah (ra) was asking Hazrat Ali (ra) to bring to justice the murderers of Righteous Khalifah Hazrat Uthman al Ghani (ra), who had joined Hazrat Ali’s supporters.
About the tragic death of Hazrat Othman Al Ghani (ra) you can get quite good info from the following link:
Let me re-emphasize again that We, Sunnis, firmly believe that Hazrat Ali (ra) was on the right. Hazrat Muawiyah (ra) was on the wrong because his ijtihad was erroneous, though he was sincere in reaching that decision.
And I wear size 46 Shoes!
I don’t think I will ever make you understand what you are asking for and neither is it my intention to make you understand ‘my way’. What we are discussing is history and we [Shia & Sunni] have our own versions of history and History is subjective.
All I want you to know is that there is another version to history that you have been used to.
I am a Conscientious Objector to the present ‘cricket circus’. But I will pray that the result of the match makes you happy!
Again I will only respond to you if have any query of what I have stated or want further clarification.
^ Not only have I learned a lot from this discussion but also realised the differences are quite sharp :0) [considering my religious knowledge is quite 
]
At the moment I am reading alot of articles and need time to digest the points that are so opposite to each other (shia sunni versions I mean) Although I still dont understand why the history is so contrasting (is that the right word?) 
:topic: Shoes 46! Mashallah I wonder what’s the size of Mad_Scientist foot.
So like Ravage ( Ravago! ) we’ll wait for him to come back and carry on where he left and if I have further Questions I revive this thread :O)
Or Cricket I think Pakistan lost :+) Bus Allah kee marzee thee
Thanks for your patience Ibn Sadique and everyone else 
Ok it's Saturday but Mad_Scientist is still not here :D he's probably stuck with the tension in Waziristan :)
I have one more thing to ask and that's with regards to Muwiya's father Abu Sufyan and his mother Hind, what's the opinion of sunnis over these two people?
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ibn Sadique: *
*
Hazrat Ali (ra) was not against Hazrat Muawiyah (ra). The people who had brutaly murdered Hazrat Uthman bin Affan (ra), a very close relative (cousin) of Hazrat Muawiyah (ra), had joined with Hazrat Ali’s supporters. **
What ijtihad did Muwayah use to assume that Imam Ali (as) would knowingly allow Uthman's murderers to join his group?
On the other side of the coin, if Muwayah was so concerned about Uthman's safety, where was he when the people were revolting against Uthman? The revolt was taking place over a long time. So much so that Uthman had requested Muwayah's help. But no help came. Food for thought.
And the bottomline in all this discussion is - what right had Muwayah to go against the rightful Calipah and imam of the time - one who was elected by the ummah? The caliph should have been allowed to make a decision as to what actions to take.
Who was Muwayah, lowly unqualified governor of Syria, to question the Caliph's plans? And to thrust war upon him?
Your understanding is basic and simple since that is the only was you will be able to defend Muwayah and his "innocent" mistake.
May Allah swt guide you.
ps - Najul balagha is considered an authentic source of Imam Ali's (as) writing by most prominent sunni scholars. And here you are dismissing it because it is against what you have been taught in yr madrassahs.
What a sad tale.
ws
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Gandalf: *
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ibn Sadique: *
*
Hazrat Ali (ra) was not against Hazrat Muawiyah (ra). The people who had brutaly murdered Hazrat Uthman bin Affan (ra), a very close relative (cousin) of Hazrat Muawiyah (ra), had joined with Hazrat Ali’s supporters. **
What ijtihad did Muwayah use to assume that Imam Ali (as) would knowingly allow Uthman's murderers to join his group?
On the other side of the coin, if Muwayah was so concerned about Uthman's safety, where was he when the people were revolting against Uthman? The revolt was taking place over a long time. So much so that Uthman had requested Muwayah's help. But no help came. Food for thought.
And the bottomline in all this discussion is - what right had Muwayah to go against the rightful Calipah and imam of the time - one who was elected by the ummah? The caliph should have been allowed to make a decision as to what actions to take.
Who was Muwayah, lowly unqualified governor of Syria, to question the Caliph's plans? And to thrust war upon him?
Your understanding is basic and simple since that is the only was you will be able to defend Muwayah and his "innocent" mistake.
May Allah swt guide you.
ps - Najul balagha is considered an authentic source of Imam Ali's (as) writing by most prominent sunni scholars. And here you are dismissing it because it is against what you have been taught in yr madrassahs.
What a sad tale.
ws
[/QUOTE]
Gandalf I wish you had read my posts and not just skimmed through. I am quoting myself again for you.
[QUOTE]
So, you see they both had their points of view. We, Sunnis firmly believe that Hazrat Ali (ra) was on the right. Hazrat Muawiyah (ra) was on the wrong because his ijtihad was erroneous, though he was sincere in reaching that decision.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
(Note: We, Sunnis, do not take Hazrat Muawiyah (ra) equal in stature, rank and honour as that of Hazrat Ali (ra)
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
Hazrat Ali (ra) was not against Hazrat Muawiyah (ra). The people who had brutaly murdered Hazrat Uthman bin Affan (ra), a very close relative (cousin) of Hazrat Muawiyah (ra), had joined with Hazrat Ali’s supporters. Hazrat Muawiyah (ra) wanted Hazrat Ali (ra) to apprehend and punish them. Whereas Hazrat Ali (ra) wanted more time so that he could take the situation in control and to ascertain who were the culprits.
[/QUOTE]
“Al-Dhahabi narrated in "Sayr A'alam Al-Nubala'a" from Ya'ali bin Ubayd from his father who says: Abu Muslim Al-Khulani and some others went to Mu'awiyah and asked him: "Do you dispute Ali or are you equal to him? Mu'awiyah answered: "By Allah no. I know he is better than I am, and he has the right to rule, but do not you know that Uthman was killed as an innocent? And I am his cousin and the seeker of his revenge? Therefore go to Ali and tell him to send me Uthman's murderers then I will obey him. " They went to Ali and talked to him, but Ali refused to hand in Uthman's murderers to Mu'awiyah. Sayr A'alam Al-Nubala'a, vol.3, p.140]”
We, Sunnis, take Hazrat Ali (ra) to be fourth righteous Khalifah and Hazrat Mua'wiyah (ra) is not included them them (Righteous Khalifahs).
These are all events of history and we do not take our Religion from history. We do not take religion from history but from Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw)
[QUOTE]
ps - Najul balagha is considered an authentic source of Imam Ali's (as) writing by most prominent sunni scholars. And here you are dismissing it because it is against what you have been taught in yr madrassahs.
[/QUOTE]
Sounds a bit funny: Najul balagha is considered an authentic source of Imam Ali's (as) writing by most prominent sunni scholars and yet it is being dismissed by madrassahs? If most prominent scholars had endorsed this book why hold it back?
Could you please give us your references where it states that "most prominent sunni scholars" consider Nahjul Balagha as authentic source of hazrat Ali's (ra) sayings? I would love to see these source.
Otherwise I will give your references from Shia sources regarding the views of prominent Sunni scholars on Nahjul Balagha.
[QUOTE]
May Allah swt guide you.
[/QUOTE]
- Ameen - And Insha'Allah all of us.
Gandalf - I did wait for you to bring forward your proof to back up your claim that ** “Najul balagha is considered an authentic source of Imam Ali’s (as) writing by most prominent sunni scholars”. **
I have managed to get the following from Shia Site.
**Compiler of Nahjul Balagha
Sayyid Sharif al-Radi ** (359-406H/970-1015AD)
Extracted from the above link:
*“In the galaxy of the outstanding Shia Scholars two brothers from an eminent family of the descendants of the Prophet (saw) outshone all the others due to their extraordinary brilliance in their time. They were al Sharif al-Murtada, who occupied the chair of his teacher as his successor to the marji’iyyah of the Shi’ah world of scholarship, and his younger brother al-Sharif al-Radi, acclaimed to be a great genius of versatile talents, still unprecedented in the history of Islamic scholarship and Arabic literature.” *
**Tafsir of Nahjul Balagha
Ibn Abi al-Hadid ** (d. 655 or 656H/1257 or 1258AD), He wrote the Tafsir of Nahjul-Balaghah.
The great Scholars of Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jama’a of their time, who were very critical of Nahjul Balagha.
**Ibn Khallikan ** [Below the Link provided for his Scholarship]
http://87.1911encyclopedia.org/I/IB/IBN_KHALLIKAN.htm
**Al-'Allamah al-Dhahabi ** [Below the Link provided for his Scholarship]
http://www.sunnah.org/history/Scholars/al_dhahabi.htm
**Imam Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani ** [Below the Link provided for his Scholarship]
http://www.dar-us-salam.com/a-hafizhajar.htm
I have extracted the following from the link:
http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/nahjulbalaga/misconceptions.htm (Shia Site)
Ibn Khallikan (d. 681/1282) who, without referring to any author or source, made the following remarks about the authorship of Nahj al-balaghah:
- “People have different opinions about the compiler of Nahj al-balaghah, a collection of the utterances of al-'Imam 'Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) There is difference as to whether it was compiled by al-Sharif al-Murtada or his brother al-Radi. It is also said that it is not at all the composition of 'Ali (as) and that the one who compiled it and attributed it to him made it*
These remarks were made in Wafayat al-aya’n in connection with the account of the life and work of al-Sharif al-Murtada, al-Radi’s elder brother. Ibn al-'Athir al Jazari (555-630/1160-1232) in Mukhtasar al-Wafayat, Salah al- Din al-Safadi (d. 764/1362) in al-Wafi bi al-wafayat, al-'Allamah al-Yafi’I (d. 768/1366) in Mir’at al Jinan, and Ibn al-'Imad in Shadharat al-dhahab were content just to repeat Ibn Khallikan’s conjecture without bothering to substantiate it. Al-'Allamah al-Dhahabi (d. 748/1347) in Mizan ul-'i’tidal was the first person to pick up the audacity to raise the unfounded doubt to a degree of certainty a century after Ibn Khallikan. He wrote in his account of al-Murtada:
”Al Sharif al-Murtada, who is accused of fabricating Nahj al- balaghah , was a scholar of considerable knowledge. Whosoever sees his book Nahj al-balaghah would come to believe that it was falsely attributed to Amir al-Mu’minin (as), because it contains open abuse rather than downgrading of the two caliphs Abu Bakr and 'Umar. Contradictions and mean matters have also crept into it, which do not conform with the spirit of the Companions of the Quraysh and our knowledge of the later Companions. One is convinced that the major part of this book is forged and unauthentic.”
Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani (d. 748H/1347AD) repeated al-Dhahabi’s objections without bothering to probe deeper into the matter. The most interesting and at the same time the weakest part of the objections concerns ascription of the authorship of Nahj al-balaghah to al-Murtada.
Note must be made that Nahjul Balagha was compiled about 300 years after the death of Hazrat Ali (ra).
Firstly, Ap donno piyo pani…{just in case}
[thumb=E]glass11810_3998577.JPG[/thumb]
[thumb=E]glass11810_3998577.JPG[/thumb]
I got two glasses here
Secondly, I have one more thing to ask and that’s with regards to Muwiya’s father Abu Sufyan and his mother Hind, what’s the opinion of sunnis over these two people?
No one’s gonna tell me?
Goes and drinks a cup of water