Zaidi view of Muawiya

[Ali bin Hussein]

I've been asked a few times about the zaidi view of the sahaba.  Zaidi view is they were all individuals some were praised some made errors. But we generally keep silent where Imam Ali kept silent and speak out where he spoke out. Muawiya is explicitly critised due to many reasons. The following is a conclusion to an article:

Due to the aforementioned proofs, one should have no qualms about dispraising Mu’awiya bin Abi Sufy n. He should be condemned and not emulated as a righteous and just person. His deeds—even after his
supposed conversion to Islam—should be placed against the balance of the Holy Qur’ n as well as that of
the Prophetic Sunnah. Despite his tenure as a governor and ‘caliph,’ his legacy brings forth nothing but an
unapologetic violation of the true message of Islam.
Some apologists have sought to defend the son of Abu Sufy n. They claim that the text of hadīth and
history that denigrate his character and show him to be a degenerate are concoctions engineered by the
Abbasids. As we know, the Abbasids were the competing dynasty that overthrew the Umayyads. The Banu
Abbaas—they say—did not hesitate to diminish the stature of their rivals and portrayed the rulers of the
Banu Umayya as lawless and corrupt hedonists. Mu’awiya—they say—was an innocent victim of the anti- Umayyad propaganda.
We can respond to this in many ways. However, suffice to say that Mu’awiya’s corruptions are equally
reported by his defenders and pro-Umayyad apologists. Rather than deny them, they have attempted to
justify them. For example, his all out war effort against the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali bin Abi ālib
is not denied; rather, they say that Mu’awiya ‘exercised scholarly independent judgment (ijtih d)’ in
waging war against him. Their weak justifications are immaterial; however, the point is that even the lovers
of Mu’awiya do not deny what he did. Therefore, the claim that he was a hapless victim of anti-Umayyad
misinformation is erroneous at best.
We end our discussion on Mu’awiya by appealing to the intellect and sense of justice. Should a person of this calibre be honoured simply because he—briefly—accompanied Allah’s Messenger? Should we refrain
from mentioning his violations of Islamic Law with the lame excuse of ‘scholarly independent judgment’?
Should we continue to praise and pray for a person who implemented religious innovations and odious
practices? We leave that for you and your conscience to decide. However, those of us who are slaves to the
Truth will continue to condemn and dispraise Mu’awiya bin Abi Sufy n and his cohorts until the Day of
Judgment! This is not because of some personal grudge or emotional reason, rather it is because our love
for Islam and its inherent purity.
May Allah send his choicest blessings upon the Prophet Muhammad and his Purified Progeny to the
number of created things! May Allah send His damnation and punishment against their enemies to the number of created things! May Allah join our hearts to those who have submitted to the Truth for its own
sake! May Allah distance our hearts from those who have turned away from the Truth for their own sake!
Amen! O Allah, Amen!

Edited November 18, 2020 by Warilla

[Ali bin Hussein]

The above is an extract from the following article.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4zO0htKff-yT3llTXhuZ3NuRnc/view?fbclid=IwAR0ZjjVMYZnMnRm_dvsmVx7wKtdoIxnsQTuRnKfmXzJmX-k8NnuJGfRSQ4A

[MaisumAli]

Question for the Zaidi brothers, you too agree that Imam Ali(عليه السلام) was divinely appointed his Caliphate, yes? Then those who stole his Caliphate disobeyed God and his Messenger directly, so why do you regard them as good? Even though they stole his Divine right?

Edited November 18, 2020 by MaisumAli

[Ali bin Hussein]

5 minutes ago, MaisumAli said:

Question for the Zaidi brothers, you too agree that Imam Ali(عليه السلام) was divinely appointed his Caliphate, yes? Then those who stole his Caliphate disobeyed God and his Messenger directly, so why do you regard them as good? Even though they stole his Divine right?

We dont put everyone in boxes of good or bad. There are different levels of disobedience:

Khata (error)

Fasiq (open disobedience)

Munafiq (hypocrite)

Kaffir 

Use Imam Ali and his interactions with sahaba as a measurement of who they are and their status.

Edited November 18, 2020 by Warilla

[MaisumAli]

1 minute ago, Warilla said:

We dont put everyone in boxes of good or bad. There are different levels of disobedience:

Khata (error)

Fasiq (open disobedience)

Munafiq (hypocrite)

Kaffir 

Well what level would you put those who openly disobeyed the orders of The Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), and interfered in the matters of Allah?

[Ali bin Hussein]

Just now, MaisumAli said:

Well what level would you put those who openly disobeyed the orders of The Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), and interfered in the matters of Allah?

I will personally keep silent on it. And let Allah judge. As the whole thing I find confusing. But I know Imam Ali showed patients with some and guidance. And different levels of respect. I'll point out the things they did wrong but acknowledge what they did good.

I will say they are not Kaffir.

 

[Ali bin Hussein]

Also I'm posting zaidi articles and extracts from books. My individual views don't represent Zaydi scholars.

Edited November 18, 2020 by Warilla

[Eddie Mecca]

I acknowledge that Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman are in a different category than Mu'awiyah, Yazid, Hind and Abu Sufyan. I believe most reasonable Twelvers would acknowledge this. The relationship between Imam Ali (عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ) and the three khulafat was a complex one...It wasn't as bitter as some Twelvers portray but it wasn't as hunky-dory as the Sunnis attempt to suggest either (Sunnis view Islamic history through rose-colored lenses too much)...I believe it was somewhere in the middle but leaning more toward the Shi'a interpretation of historical events...Ali gave the three recommendations, suggestions, advice etc. periodically...this is acknowledged by all sides...Umar repeatedly said, "if it was not for Ali, Umar would have perished"...Abu Bakr supplicated, "O Allah please do not plague me with a problem that Ali ibn Abi Talib cannot solve" What does that mean? It means Ali was maneuvering cautiously through the red tape and attempting to assist Islam despite his reluctance to work directly with the governments of the first and second caliphs...but the point still remains that he assisted and provided consultation to the Shaykhayn from time-to-time...he (Ali), Hasan & Husayn protected Uthman when the people of Egypt stormed the palace in search of blood...would he have done the same for Mu'awiyah? I think we all know the answer to that question...between him (i.e. Ali) and Mu'awiyah there was nothing but the sword.

Edited December 12, 2020 by Eddie Mecca

[Ali bin Hussein]

Zaidi scholars have abroad range of views between that "hunky dory" and milder 12er view.