Proof of Mu'awiyah's hypocrisy?

[zahralzu]

Shias claim Mu'awiyah's (and aisha etc) hypocracy can easily be proven by his hatred for Imam Ali (عليه السلام), and consider anyone fighting the divinely appointed imam to be a hypocrite, yet, not only did the Imam not do takfir on him but he didn't even accuse him of hypocrisy... 

Shia scholars Majlisi in “Bihar” (32/324); Burjardi “Jamiu ahadeth ash-shia” (13/93) transmitted:
٢٩٧ – قرب الإسناد: ابن طريف عن ابن علوان عن جعفر عن أبيه أن عليا (عليه السلام) كان يقول لأهل حربه: إنا لم نقاتلهم على التكفير لهم ولم نقاتلهم على التكفير لنا ولكنا رأينا أنا على حق ورأوا أنهم على حق.
٢٩٨ – قرب الإسناد: بالاسناد قال: إن عليا لم يكن ينسب أحدا من أهل حربه إلى الشرك ولا إلى النفاق ولكنه كان يقول: هم إخواننا بغوا علينا.
297 – Furat by his chain: ibn Tareef – Ibn Alwan – Jafar – Father – Ali (alaihi salam) who said about those who fought against him: We don’t fight with them due to their takfir, and don’t fight with them due to their takfir of us. But we see that we are upon truth, and they see that they are upon truth.
298 – Furat by his chain: Ali didn’t attribute anyone from those who fought with him to shirk or to hypocrisy, but he use to say: Our brothers which revolt against us.

 

Abul Abbas Abdullah ibn Jafar al-Himayri narrated in his Shia book “Qurub al-Isnad” book (p94/#318) :

جعفر ، عن أبيه  : أن علياً  لم يكن ينسب أحداً من أهل حربه إلى الشرك ولا إلى النفاق ، ولكنه كان يقول : « هم إخواننا بغوا علينا »

Jafar from his father, Ali didn’t attributed anyone from those who fought against him to shirk and neither to hypocrisy, but he said: They our brothers which revolt against us.

 

should this change our view on him?

[Debate follower]

 

Assalama alaykum - Allow me to add the following:

Written to the people of various localities describing what took place between him and the people of Siffin

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 (peace be upon him and his household) and on the same principles and canons of religion. So far as faith in Allah and the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his household) 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.

Letter 58: Peak of Eloquence - Nahj Al-Balagha   http://english.almaaref.org/essaydetails.php?eid=578&cid=102

Points to Note:

1) “while we had common faith in one Allah, in the same Prophet (peace be upon him and his household)”
2) and on the same PRINCIPLES and CANONS of RELIGION.
3) So far as faith in Allah and the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his household) was concerned we never wanted them (the Syrians) to believe in anything over and above or other than what they were believing in
4) and they did not want us to change our faith.
5) Both of us were united on these principles.

The above clearly proves that there was no difference in Principles of Faith – There is  a Complete Harmony in Faith – Imam Ali (رضي الله عنه) has not pointed out any differences in Principles of Faith!

Imam Ali (رضي الله عنه) Did NOT mention his Imamate or Event of Ghadir Khumm

The Only Point of Difference -   “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.”

[zahralzu]

41 minutes ago, Debate follower said:

 

Assalama alaykum - Allow me to add the following:

Written to the people of various localities describing what took place between him and the people of Siffin

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 (peace be upon him and his household) and on the same principles and canons of religion. So far as faith in Allah and the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his household) 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.

Letter 58: Peak of Eloquence - Nahj Al-Balagha   http://english.almaaref.org/essaydetails.php?eid=578&cid=102

Points to Note:

1) “while we had common faith in one Allah, in the same Prophet (peace be upon him and his household)”
2) and on the same PRINCIPLES and CANONS of RELIGION.
3) So far as faith in Allah and the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his household) was concerned we never wanted them (the Syrians) to believe in anything over and above or other than what they were believing in
4) and they did not want us to change our faith.
5) Both of us were united on these principles.

The above clearly proves that there was no difference in Principles of Faith – There is  a Complete Harmony in Faith – Imam Ali (رضي الله عنه) has not pointed out any differences in Principles of Faith!

Imam Ali (رضي الله عنه) Did NOT mention his Imamate or Event of Ghadir Khumm

The Only Point of Difference -   “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.”

this starts off by using the word 'الظاهر' which means 'obviously', 'apparently', 'it seems as though', 'you'd think that', 'they're claiming that'; but it doesn't mean 'the reality is' or 'what's in their hearts'; this is taken as 'sarcasm', the word الظاهر actually negates everything said later and thus exposes the Syrians for their hypocrisy 

[Ansar Shiat Ali]

1 hour ago, Debate follower said:

 

Assalama alaykum - Allow me to add the following:

Written to the people of various localities describing what took place between him and the people of Siffin

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 (peace be upon him and his household) and on the same principles and canons of religion. So far as faith in Allah and the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his household) 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.

Letter 58: Peak of Eloquence - Nahj Al-Balagha   http://english.almaaref.org/essaydetails.php?eid=578&cid=102

Points to Note:

1) “while we had common faith in one Allah, in the same Prophet (peace be upon him and his household)”
2) and on the same PRINCIPLES and CANONS of RELIGION.
3) So far as faith in Allah and the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his household) was concerned we never wanted them (the Syrians) to believe in anything over and above or other than what they were believing in
4) and they did not want us to change our faith.
5) Both of us were united on these principles.

The above clearly proves that there was no difference in Principles of Faith – There is  a Complete Harmony in Faith – Imam Ali (رضي الله عنه) has not pointed out any differences in Principles of Faith!

Imam Ali (رضي الله عنه) Did NOT mention his Imamate or Event of Ghadir Khumm

The Only Point of Difference -   “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.”

Many other Hadiths say say so, Why does Imam Ali (عليه السلام) need to say he is an Imam when everyone already knows he is?

@zahralzuTo prove the Hypocrisy of Muawiya (la), I am sure everyone here has heard the Hadith by Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), "Only a Mu'min loves you and only a Hypocrite hates you."

Muawiya (la) started the cursing of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) in salat, on the Minbar, everywhere. This lasted for more then 80 years.

@Debate followerThe topic is about Muawiya, get on topic, we can debate Muawiya later.

[Debate follower]

31 minutes ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

Many other Hadiths say say so, Why does Imam Ali (عليه السلام) need to say he is an Imam when everyone already knows he is?

The Blessed Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) NEVER tired of reminding the people again and again and whenever appropriate that he was the Prophet of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala.  Same Is the case in the Blessed Quran – repeatedly reminding the people that Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) was the Prophet of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)

 

Quote

@Debate followerThe topic is about Muawiya, get on topic, we can debate Muawiya later.

I concur with you that the topic is about Muawiya! 

I’m sure many people have debated about Muawiya many times over in this site. Thanks, I won’t have the time.

I just quoted a letter from Hz. Ali (رضي الله عنه) stating without any ambiguity that he (رضي الله عنه) and Muawiya had no issues as far principles of faith were concerned. 

[MaisumAli]

Firstly, 

11 hours ago, zahralzu said:

297 – Furat by his chain: ibn Tareef – Ibn Alwan – Jafar – Father – Ali (alaihi salam)

Without even going into too much detail, this chain is Sooo vague! Like who the heck is "Furat"? There were many Furats, so unless the person isn't specified then the chain becomes weak, plus I found no mention of Ibn Tareef(whoever that is) in Rijal Al Ghadiri, not did I find any mention of Ibn Alwan(Again who the heck are you), and I even searched with the arabic but yet couldn't find it

 

Again who is 'Furat'? You have to be more specific, in Rijal Al Ghadiri 'Furāt b. Aḥnaf' is a liar and a Ghali

 

So straight up this chain is extremely vauge and can't be relied upon

 

11 hours ago, zahralzu said:

Furat by his chain

Again same thing, this one is even more worse, it's "Mursal"(disconnected) and possibly even Daif (Weak)

 

11 hours ago, zahralzu said:

Jafar from his father

 This chain in itself is weak, but I see which tradition you are talking about, here is the entire chain:

 

 

عبد الله بن جعفر الحميري في ( قرب الإسناد ) عن هارون بن مسلم ، عن مسعدة بن زياد ، عن جعفر ، عن أبيه ان علي

 

This tradition is 'Sahih', and it was also said in Taqaiyya! So it is not a Hujjah upon us!

 

Plus Imam Sajjad(عليه السلام) clears this up for us:

 

"Abu Abdullah (عليه السلام) having said: ‘Ali bin Al-Husayn (عليه السلام) was seated in the Sacred Masjid, so a man from the people of Al-Kufa said to him, ‘Ali (عليه السلام) has said: ‘They are our brothers which rebel against us?’

So Ali bin Al-Husayn (عليه السلام) said to him: ‘O Abdullah! Have you not read the book of Allah And to Aad (We Sent) their brother Hud? (7:65) So, Allah Destroyed (the people of) Aad and Rescued Hud (عليه السلام) And to Thamood (We Sent) their brother Salih (11:61), so Allah Destroyed (the people of) Thamood and rescued Salih (as)’.

 

Tafsir Al Ayyashi Vol. 2, Page 161, Hadith #43

 

So as you can see! This holds no merit for Muawiya and his goons!

 

 

Further proof is that we have authentic narrations that state otherwise:

 

354. Yahya, from Abdulah Bin Muskaan, from Zureys who said: The people disputed in the presence of Abu Ja’far ((عليه السلام).). So some of them said, ‘The wars fought by Ali ((عليه السلام).) were (against a people) more evil than the wars fought by the Rasool Allah (saww), and some of them said, ‘The wars fought by the Rasool Allah (saww) were (against a people) more evil than the wars fought by Ali ((عليه السلام).)’. He (the narrator) said, ‘So Abu Ja’far listened to them and said: ‘What are you all saying?’ So they said, ‘May Allah keep you ((عليه السلام).) well, we are disputing with regards to the wars of the Rasool Allah (saww) and the wars of Ali ((عليه السلام).). Some of us are saying that the wars of Ali ((عليه السلام).) were (against a people) more evil than the wars fought by the Rasool Allah (saww), whilst some of us are saying that the wars fought by the Messenger (saww) were (against a people) more evil than the wars fought by Ali ((عليه السلام).)’. So Abu Ja’far ((عليه السلام).) said: ‘No! But, the wars of Ali ((عليه السلام).) were (against a people) more evil than the wars of the Rasool Allah (saww)’. So I said to him ((عليه السلام).), ‘May I be sacrificed for you ((عليه السلام).), the wars of Ali ((عليه السلام).) were (against a people) more evil than the wars of the Rasool Allah (saww)?’ He ((عليه السلام).) said: ‘Yes, and I ((عليه السلام).) shall inform you about that. The Messenger (saww) fought wars (against a people) who did not accept Al-Islam, and that the wars of Ali ((عليه السلام).) were (against a people) who accepted Al-Islam, then fought against him ((عليه السلام).)’.

 

Al Kafi v.8, ch 354, h 1

Majlisi(rh):صحيح

 

 

2 hours ago, Debate follower said:

 

Assalama alaykum - Allow me to add the following:

Written to the people of various localities describing what took place between him and the people of Siffin

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 (peace be upon him and his household) and on the same principles and canons of religion. So far as faith in Allah and the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his household) 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.

Letter 58: Peak of Eloquence - Nahj Al-Balagha   http://english.almaaref.org/essaydetails.php?eid=578&cid=102

Points to Note:

1) “while we had common faith in one Allah, in the same Prophet (peace be upon him and his household)”
2) and on the same PRINCIPLES and CANONS of RELIGION.
3) So far as faith in Allah and the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his household) was concerned we never wanted them (the Syrians) to believe in anything over and above or other than what they were believing in
4) and they did not want us to change our faith.
5) Both of us were united on these principles.

The above clearly proves that there was no difference in Principles of Faith – There is  a Complete Harmony in Faith – Imam Ali (رضي الله عنه) has not pointed out any differences in Principles of Faith!

Imam Ali (رضي الله عنه) Did NOT mention his Imamate or Event of Ghadir Khumm

The Only Point of Difference -   “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.”

Prove it's authecity! The onus is on you to prove the authenticity of the report, which you have failed to provide! And no, Nahjul Balagah is not 100% authentic, unlike you we don't have any Sahih book other that the Qur'an, prove it's authecity through the matn "text"(since Nahjul Balagah doesn't have a chain) and if you can't then please don't spread misconceptions about matters you have no knowledge of

 

Plus we have authentic narrations that contridict this report so yeahh kinda defeats the purpose don't you think?

[Sabrejet]

3 hours ago, Debate follower said:

I just quoted a letter from Hz. Ali (رضي الله عنه) stating without any ambiguity that he (رضي الله عنه) and Muawiya had no issues as far principles of faith were concerned. 

Mu'awiya isn't even addressed in particular in this sermon; Amir ul Momineen  is addressing those in various provinces in general; he's trying to present a picture for the cause and necessity for the conflict to take place to outside observers in other provinces, not necessarily combatants. Remember, the rest of the Islamic world have no first hand information about whats going on at this point. Read between the lines; he is making it clear that he isn't waging war for them apostatizing, like the first one did in his Ridda wars. He's waging war because he, Amir ul Momineen, took a decision, and his subjects disagreed, and took up arms in rebellion. The proper response was to wage war and face them. Btw taking up arms against a righteous Imam in itself is a deadly serious offense in Islam.

 

Conveniently, you haven't even quoted the whole sermon. Here is the last paragraph:

"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."

Here, he is describing the fate of the Syrians, and reading between the lines, those khwarij from his army who broke off after arbitration.

Read the whole sermon again without bias, and then continue. Please don't try to twist the words of Amir ul Momineen to feed your narrative. This isn't the only letter in the book; Nahjul Balagha isn't just one paragraph. Its full of letters, speeches, and sermons, and quite a few of them explicitly address Mu'awiya and his "merits".

[Cool]

On 11/7/2020 at 6:49 PM, zahralzu said:

Jafar from his father, Ali didn’t attributed anyone from those who fought against him to shirk and neither to hypocrisy, but he said: They our brothers which revolt against us.

So Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), instead of saying this :

"Ammar will be killed by a rebel group. He will be inviting them to (obey) Allah and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire. "

should have said that:

"Ammar will be killed by his brothers who would rebel against Ali (عليه السلام)"

Quote

that Ibn `Abbas told him and `Ali bin `Abdullah to go to Abu Sa`id and listen to some of his narrations; So they both went (and saw) Abu Sa`id and his brother irrigating a garden belonging to them. When he saw them, he came up to them and sat down with his legs drawn up and wrapped in his garment and said, "(During the construction of the mosque of the Prophet) we carried the adobe of the mosque, one brick at a time while `Ammar used to carry two at a time. The Prophet (ﷺ) passed by `Ammar and removed the dust off his head and said, "May Allah be merciful to `Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious aggressive group. `Ammar will invite them to (obey) Allah and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire."

Sahih al-Bukhari 2812

 

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

On 11/7/2020 at 6:49 PM, zahralzu said:

– قرب الإسناد: ابن طريف عن ابن علوان عن جعفر عن أبيه أن عليا (عليه السلام) كان يقول لأهل حربه: إنا لم نقاتلهم على التكفير لهم ولم نقاتلهم على التكفير لنا ولكنا رأينا أنا على حق ورأوا أنهم على حق.
٢٩٨ – قرب الإسناد: بالاسناد قال: إن عليا لم يكن ينسب أحدا من أهل حربه إلى الشرك ولا إلى النفاق ولكنه كان يقول: هم إخواننا بغوا علينا.
297 – Furat by his chain: ibn Tareef – Ibn Alwan – Jafar – Father – Ali (alaihi salam) who said about those who fought against him: We don’t fight with them due to their takfir, and don’t fight with them due to their takfir of us. But we see that we are upon truth, and they see that they are upon truth.
298 – Furat by his chain: Ali didn’t attribute anyone from those who fought with him to shirk or to hypocrisy, but he use to say: Our brothers which revolt against us

The first narration proves nothing if you read it carefully.

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) said we don't fight them due to their kufr, but because we are at haq.

It makes sense because Ali (عليه السلام) never fought any of three caliphs or other companions after Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

He fought when Muawiyah rebelled and Ali (عليه السلام) says we are at haq so we fight.

The rest has been cleared by @MaisumAliw.r.t chains etc.

And one more thing, we had the right to defend ourselves from terrorists so we had to hide our beliefs thus some sahih narration might have it but it was due to fear or in front of other non-shia people to avoid getting caught and then killed.

Else shia hadiths would have been lost.

[Ansar Shiat Ali]

23 hours ago, Debate follower said:

The Blessed Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) NEVER tired of reminding the people again and again and whenever appropriate that he was the Prophet of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala.  Same Is the case in the Blessed Quran – repeatedly reminding the people that Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) was the Prophet of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)

 

I concur with you that the topic is about Muawiya! 

I’m sure many people have debated about Muawiya many times over in this site. Thanks, I won’t have the time.

I just quoted a letter from Hz. Ali (رضي الله عنه) stating without any ambiguity that he (رضي الله عنه) and Muawiya had no issues as far principles of faith were concerned. 

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) had many religious problems with Muawiya (la). Hell, the people were scared of Muawiya and they left the Sunnah because they hated Imam Ali (عليه السلام)!

We know were Muawiya and the people who love Muawiya are going.

Edited November 9, 2020 by Ansur Shiat Ali

[YaAli.313]

On 11/8/2020 at 12:49 AM, zahralzu said:

Shias claim Mu'awiyah's (and aisha etc) hypocracy can easily be proven by his hatred for Imam Ali (عليه السلام), and consider anyone fighting the divinely appointed imam to be a hypocrite, yet, not only did the Imam not do takfir on him but he didn't even accuse him of hypocrisy... 

Shia scholars Majlisi in “Bihar” (32/324); Burjardi “Jamiu ahadeth ash-shia” (13/93) transmitted:
٢٩٧ – قرب الإسناد: ابن طريف عن ابن علوان عن جعفر عن أبيه أن عليا (عليه السلام) كان يقول لأهل حربه: إنا لم نقاتلهم على التكفير لهم ولم نقاتلهم على التكفير لنا ولكنا رأينا أنا على حق ورأوا أنهم على حق.
٢٩٨ – قرب الإسناد: بالاسناد قال: إن عليا لم يكن ينسب أحدا من أهل حربه إلى الشرك ولا إلى النفاق ولكنه كان يقول: هم إخواننا بغوا علينا.
297 – Furat by his chain: ibn Tareef – Ibn Alwan – Jafar – Father – Ali (alaihi salam) who said about those who fought against him: We don’t fight with them due to their takfir, and don’t fight with them due to their takfir of us. But we see that we are upon truth, and they see that they are upon truth.
298 – Furat by his chain: Ali didn’t attribute anyone from those who fought with him to shirk or to hypocrisy, but he use to say: Our brothers which revolt against us.

 

Abul Abbas Abdullah ibn Jafar al-Himayri narrated in his Shia book “Qurub al-Isnad” book (p94/#318) :

جعفر ، عن أبيه  : أن علياً  لم يكن ينسب أحداً من أهل حربه إلى الشرك ولا إلى النفاق ، ولكنه كان يقول : « هم إخواننا بغوا علينا »

Jafar from his father, Ali didn’t attributed anyone from those who fought against him to shirk and neither to hypocrisy, but he said: They our brothers which revolt against us.

 

should this change our view on him?

just the fighting against Imam Ali Bin Abi Taleb Karram-Allah-u Wajhahu is enough to consider him a kaffir or murtad.

sunnis say whoever rebels or fights against caliphate al rashidun then he is a murtad.

funny when muawiyah does it its as if they change their minds .

Ali is from khulafa Al Rashidun. Fighting against the caliph is kuffr!!!!!