Some people reject the authentic hadith: (When two Muslims meet with their swords, and one kills the other,

Eid Abbasi : Some people reject the authentic hadith: with the following description: The Companions fought each other after the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and some of them were among those promised Paradise; so how do you reconcile the hadith with the fighting of some of the Companions during the time of 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him)?

The Shaykh : The hadith is to be understood as applying to those who fight not in the cause of Allah, but in the cause of defending oneself or being greedy for wealth, or the like. This understanding of the hadith is necessary. The question arises in reality from the questioner’s failure to remember, at least, and I do not say from his lack of knowledge, of the like of the saying of Allah (Mighty and Majestic): . We find in this verse an explicit statement from the Lord of the Worlds (Mighty and Majestic) applying the term "believers" to both the righteous party and the transgressing party. . So when our Lord (Mighty and Majestic) rules that both of the two fighting parties are among the believers, then we cannot reconcile the verse with this hadith except by understanding the hadith as applying to fighting in the cause of this world, not in the cause of seeking the truth, as is the intent of the previous verse. In that case, both are in the Fire here; because each of them intended to kill the other without right. But when each of them fights the other in what he believes is fighting in the cause of Allah; then this hadith is not to be understood as applying to such a situation. Rather, the verse is to be understood as applying to this situation. And in that case, it is necessary to understand the hadith as applying to fighting in the cause of this world.
And both of these situations exist on this earth. The fighting of 'Ali with Mu'awiyah, the fighting of 'Ali with the army of 'Aishah, and the like; all of it falls under the generality of the verse: to its end. This is what we say to reconcile the verse and the hadith. But in every believing party, we can imagine that there are individuals who are not believers in the first place, but rather they displayed Islam and concealed disbelief. They appeared as Muslims, but in themselves, legally, they are hypocrites. And they are as He (Glorified and Exalted is He) said: . The two fighting armies, the army of 'Ali and the army of Mu'awiyah, I personally do not rule out that there are individuals in each of the armies to whom the verse does not apply, but to whom the hadith applies; meaning individuals who took it up out of pre-Islamic tribal zeal in both parties, while the majority imagines that they fought, that some of them fought each other in the cause of establishing the truth which they believe.
So the summary is: that the hadith is to be understood as applying to the one whose intention was bad, and the verse to the one whose intention was good, but who may have been mistaken and not correct in his action.
And this reminds me to clarify for you the meaning of another hadith; it is a famous and authentic hadith, and many people are afflicted by it through its bad application or bad understanding; namely his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): , and whoever says to a Muslim "disbeliever," . Also, this hadith must be understood and interpreted as the hadith of the fighting Muslims was interpreted, and that both are in the Fire due to their bad intent, unlike if their intent was good. So whoever declares a Muslim a disbeliever has committed disbelief, if he declared him a disbeliever while knowing that he is not a disbeliever, knowing that he is a Muslim, and then he issues the ruling of disbelief against him; this disbelief returns to him. But if he declared him a disbeliever based on what he heard from him or what appeared to him, and he did not rush, did not defend himself, and did not follow his desire; then this hadith does not apply to him; even if he declared him a disbeliever while being mistaken, as long as he did not intend to declare him a disbeliever in his heart, but rather intended to issue the ruling that he deserves legally, but in the result he was mistaken. This is how the hadiths must be interpreted in light of the hadiths and the legal principles. And this also reminds us of a very important truth from which people have strayed, both in the past and in the present, and they have deviated from the path of the Muslim community.
It reminds us that disbelief is of two types: disbelief of the heart and practical disbelief. Disbelief of the heart is that which takes its owner out of the religion, while practical disbelief does not take him out of the religion. And on this basis, the hadiths should also be interpreted, including his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): ; the mere fighting of a Muslim against his Muslim brother is disbelief; does this mean apostasy? The answer: We look at his fighting of his Muslim brother; if it is fighting accompanied by the heart’s permission of this fighting, the fighting of a Muslim, then it is doctrinal disbelief, and it means apostasy. And if his fighting of his Muslim brother is not accompanied by the heart’s permission of this fighting, but rather it is one of his sins against his Lord, then it is practical disbelief and not doctrinal disbelief. This is a topic that we have discussed repeatedly and over and over.