ما هي القصة الصحيحة لما حصل في التحكيم إذا كانت رواية لوط بن يحيى ضعيفة؟

It has become widespread among people what some historians mentioned: that Abu Musa al-Ash'ari and 'Amr ibn al-'As, may Allah be pleased with them both, agreed to depose both Ali and Mu'awiyah, may Allah be pleased with them both, then 'Amr ibn al-'As proceeded to depose Ali and affirm Mu'awiyah. This statement is not authentically narrated and is only reported by weak narrators.

The correct account is that the two arbitrators agreed to entrust the matter of the caliphate to the senior Companions, whom the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, was pleased with when he passed away, so that they might choose whoever they deemed fit for the caliphate, thereby resolving the dispute and preventing bloodshed.

The assertion that Mu'awiyah was a caliph and needed to be deposed, or that 'Amr betrayed Abu Musa, is a historical error. Mu'awiyah was not a caliph and did not claim the caliphate at that time; rather, he was demanding retribution for 'Uthman's blood. The caliphate was only established for him after the reconciliation with Al-Hasan ibn 'Ali, may Allah be pleased with them both.

The truth is that the arbitration did not involve deception or trickery; rather, it was agreed that the imamate would be discussed, not the individual administration of each of them in the lands under their rule. Consequently, 'Amr did not deviate from what they had agreed upon with Abu Musa; rather, the lands remained under the rule of whoever had control over them. The simple-mindedness was not from Abu Musa, but rather from understanding the facts contrary to their reality.