[AnthonyKing]

salam,
the aqeedah of muslims should be and is, at least for those who are on right path, that prophet muhammad (saw) was guided by Allah in his actions always. a logical conclusion regarding the merits of Ali and muawiya is that if both were merited by Prophet. didnt the Prophet know about future events? according to hadith by abu huraira Prophet highlighted all the things that ummah will pass through. he highlighted the batlle of siffin in these words,
1/ ammar bin yasir will be killed by a rebellious group. the tradition is found with correct chain of transmission from bukhari, muslimetc.
2/ my ummah will experience fitnah and those with Ali are on right path. kanzul ammal.

fourteen centuries later we know about this hadith and amir muawiya didnt knew about these? some people say that he was a mujjadid. well didnt the mujjadid knew of this hadith.
ur allegation that wat abt hazrat ummul momineen Ayesha (ra) and Talha wa Tubair "(ra)
well as i said u need to study more and contemplate on truth.
1/ ummul momineen repented over her actions and in the first place didnt want to fight with Ali. it was not personal grudge against Ali. did she abuse Ali? no. she can be reffered as case of incorrect ijtihad as truthful reports about the killing of Uthman(ra) WERE DENIED TO HER.
2/ BOTH TALHA AND ZUBAIR LEFT THE BATTLE FIELD AND WERE KILLED BY MARWAN AND SABAees respectively.

REGARDING AMIR MUAYIA(RA) these conditions are missing. he never repented his stand, even though his supporters like Abdullah bin umro bin aas (ra) repented his stand till the last breath of his life.

regarding your hadith about the merit of amir muawiya. yes he was a sahabi, but was a later convert to islam. infact he was in the companionship of prophet (saw) for two years only and could not benefit like abu huraira etc.

without getting too lenghty let me cite example of the imam of rijal, the writer of the best commentary on bukhari sharif, imam ibn hajar asqalani. he attested that there was no hadith in praise of muawiya{{(see fatah al bari)

besides a fact to contemplate is that muawiya stayed after the fall of mecca in mecca not medina while as the revelation continued in medina and most of the quran was revealed. caN ALI AND MUAWIYA BE BOTH MERITIOUS AND FIGHT FOR A MATTER WHERE IJTIHAD IS NOT REQUIRED. WERENT SAHABAS MEANT AS EXAMPLES.


i will continue to refute your subjective and illogical answers step by step , so wait
wasalam

[AnthonyKing]

Salam aleykum,

this is NOT a simple text! This is pretty complicated text, I am sorry ask someone else like brother Abbe maybe or some other Arab speakers.

wellwisher,
the narrations i provided to you are not weak in the least. regarding the party of hadrat Ali (ra) and his stands in fitna . the Prophet of mercy and knowledge(ra) clearly said:-
1/ Ammar will be killed by a baghi(rebellious) group.
ibn saad vol 3 p253, tabari vol 4 p 27, ibn atir tarikh al kamil vol 3 p 165, albiday ibn kathir vol 7 p 270, ibn hajar asqalani tehzeeb ul tehzeeb volk 7 p 210, narrated again by ibn jajar in isabah vol 2 p506, as also narrated by sahih bukhari, sahih muslim, tirmizi, nisai, behaqi, musnad ahmed etc.

2/ my ummah will experience fitna and ali will be on the right path( kanzul ammal hadith no 33106)


in fact ahl sunnah support the stand of Ali. ibn taimiyah wrote in minhaju us sunnah
" ahl sunnah are real shia of ali not rafidis who slander the sahaba. ahl sunnah supported ali in all his wars "

the same words were used by shah abdul aziz muhaddith dehalvi in refutation of shia allegations in taufa athna asharia.
now ur cacophony that what about the stand of Ayesha (ra). let me point the difference:-

hadrat Aisha was asked by qais ibn saad(ra) on the caliphate of Ali. she replied it was a correct decision. if you analyze the battle of jamal. hadrat aisha wanted to go back after the dogs barked at Hawab as she had the Prophet(saw) hear about the incident and ordered his wives to refrain from it. but she was kept in the dark by many enemies of ali and hence marched forward. the army of aisha(ra) was uncontrollable and didnt even heed aisha and others which is vouched by the fact that even after talha and zubair repented their stand the army controlled its battle against ali. furthermore hadrat aisha repented her stand throughout her life.

[AnthonyKing]

ok brother no problem, but can you atleast check that does any narration among those, sets a condition that the ones(general people) taking up mubahila should be infallible or purified?

wellwisher,
regarding to your answer to my question that Hujr ibn adi was not a sahabi and he was killed for a crime. well again you didnt do justice. the problem with people like you is that u check certian websites rafidi or nasibi and make the statements recorded their as your ideology. please study yourself.
hujr ibn adi was killed in 51 Ah. the reason was that the governor of kufa ziyad, father of infamous ibn ziad , used to hurl curses on Ali and ahl bait. hujr , a sahabi criticized him for it. for this crime he was imprisoned and sent to damascus with these words" this person hujr bin adi, is sending blessings on Ali and his family".
qazi sharih, a reputed qadhi from kufa wrote to muawiya(ra) to refrain from the injustice of punishing Hujr. at last amir muawiya(ra) put the condition before hujr and his associates to curse Ali and ahl bair rejecting which they could be killed. as expected from a sahabi who kept himself on the right path, Hujr ibn adi refused in these words" i wont utter the filth that displeases Allah". as a consequence he and his associates were matyred and one was buried alive for his love of Ali"

references.....tabari vol 4, p190, ibn abdur barr alistiab vol 1 p 135, ibn athir vol 3 p234,albidayah wa alnihayah ibn kathir vol 8 p55, ibn khaldun vol 3 p 13.

the killing of hujr was injustice as the stand of hadrat Aisha (ra) proves clearly..

imam ibn hajar asqalani(ra) records in isabah vol 2 p 355 that hadrat Aisha sent message with hazrat abdul rehman(ra) to muawiya in which she instructed muawiya(ra) in these words:-

" safegaurd yourselves from Allah in killing of hujr ibn adi(ra) and his associates"

but Hujr ibn adi and his associates were already matyred.
the tradition is supported by ibn athir in usad ul gabah where he records that after the incident when muawiya(ra) visited hejaz, he was question and criticized by hadrat Aisha(ra) on the matter.

hadrat ibn umar (ra) wept at the matyrdom of hujr ibn adi( recorded by ibn hajar in isabah , ibn abdur barr in istiab)

regarding his being a sahabi it is accepted by all including ibn saad in tabaqaat, etc.
ibn kathir has recorded that some dont regard him a sahabi and continues later in these words... sahabi ibn hujr benefitted from the meeting with Prophet(saw). now tell me is this justice?

imam dahabi further writes the same words of hujr's association with Prophet(saw). furthermore the reaction of sahabas to his killing proves it all.
in Al Isaba ibn hajar asqalani quotes Hujr:

He was killed upon the orders of Mu'awiya in a village called Mriaj Adra near Damascus. At the time of his execution he requested: 'Do not remove these chains after I am killed, nor clean the blood. We will meet again with Mu'awiya and I shall petition my case against him'.

later on amir muawiya(ra) himself admitted in these words.... the killing of Hujr lessened my days.(tabari, albidayah)

[RooxiaNof]

listen moron, history books are filled with extremely weak, and fabricated reports, so unless each of your referece is backed by its authenticity , its waste of time to discuss that. So stop spreading his demo of your jahalat and try to find some authentic reports.

[ebookinfo]

@wellwisher

i think 'omarashidwani' is a Shia. He quotes from their works. He must be trying to instill poison in our minds.

[pipitous]

This individual "omarashidwani" is just searching random threads on Amir al-Mumineen Mu'awiyah (ra) in order to attack him, What a rotten piece of Fitnah you are Mr.omarashidwani you quote the narrations against him regardless of authenticity and you ignore those Sahih narrations who favour him.

[ebookinfo]

This individual "omarashidwani" is just searching random threads on Amir al-Mumineen Mu'awiyah (ra) in order to attack him, What a rotten piece of Fitnah you are Mr.omarashidwani you quote the narrations against him regardless of authenticity and you ignore those Sahih narrations who favour him.

I wish the moderators could take care of this matter. InshAllah.

[AnthonyKing]

listen moron, history books are filled with extremely weak, and fabricated reports, so unless each of your referece is backed by its authenticity , its waste of time to discuss that. So stop spreading his demo of your jahalat and try to find some authentic reports.

salam well wisher,
it is really unfortunate that i provided you with tradition in history backed by hadith book references and yet you demand authenticity. brother, what more can i provide you with. this claim that history is filled with weak narration, well history gave the premise to hadith. ibn hisham, ibn saad were historians first them muhaddith. imam bukhari wrote history tarikh al kabir as well. the western world learnt history as a science from muslims and u feel history is inauthentic. what about the sirah of prophet(saw). it is history. then all sirah books be thrown into bins. history gave us the insight into origin of islam. hadith as a collection is history also. both follow the same science of narration. furthermore, hadith collection remains on fallacy more than history.
here both hadith and history are in opposition to amir muawiya,s stands(ra)

i hope the truth dawns on you brother.

[AnthonyKing]

[QUOTE=azhar123;614160]@wellwisher

i think 'omarashidwani' is a Shia. He quotes from their works. He must be trying to instill poison in our minds.[/
salam,
let the curse be on liars....hadith. ok who lied here. tabari, ibn athir, ibn khaldun, ibn abdur barr, ibn taimiyah, ibn kathir, ibn khaldun, imam bukhari, imam muslim, imam nisai....are these shias?

but it is not ur fault. even imam shafi, sibt ibn jauzi, shah abdul aziz muhaddith dehalvi, imam tabari, were called shias after speaking truth about ali. may Allah raise me with them and u among the slanderers. Ameen

[AnthonyKing]

listen moron, history books are filled with extremely weak, and fabricated reports, so unless each of your referece is backed by its authenticity , its waste of time to discuss that. So stop spreading his demo of your jahalat and try to find some authentic reports.

wellwisher i would like to clarify further that i never questioned the faith of amir muawiya(ra) but only his political stands and obvious mistakes. do you belive he was infallible. do you believe after prophet(saw) breathed his last the sahabas never sinned. if you believe so give me proofs. till then contemplate this:-
1/ Anas bin malik (ra) , well known sahaba , who was later matyred by the cruelty of ummayads narrates from Prophet(saw) that ...
Some of my companions will come to me at my Lake Fount, and after I recognise them, they will then be taken away from me, whereupon I will say, 'My companions!' Then it will be said, 'You do not know what they innovated (new things) in the religion after you.

the hadith is narrated with sahih chain in sahih bukhari vol 8 no 584,
the hadith is narrated with same chain by imam muslim in his sahih vol 15

what is implied here is not the generalization of sahaba. it means there were SOME (not all, may Allah be pleased with them) so called sahabas who didnt adhere to the truth and were hence neglected by Allah for his Prophet(saw).

sahabas were not infallible. accept it. and by the way amir muawiya doesnt stand on the same merit as those who accepted faith in mecca, migrated with prophet(saw). he was a tulaqa , those who accepted islam after the fall of mecca. Surely and very clearly amir muawiya(ra) doesnt stand the same position as Abu bakr, omar, uthman, ali , ammar, talha, abu dhar.

infact ibn taimiyah mentions in minhaj us sunnah that.......yazid bin abu sufyan was the brother of muawiya and higher in merit than him.

[AnthonyKing]

This individual "omarashidwani" is just searching random threads on Amir al-Mumineen Mu'awiyah (ra) in order to attack him, What a rotten piece of Fitnah you are Mr.omarashidwani you quote the narrations against him regardless of authenticity and you ignore those Sahih narrations who favour him.

if quoting hadith is fitnah then all hadith books should be done with and one should listen only to mr. tripolysocalledsunni

[RooxiaNof]

wellwisher i would like to clarify further that i never questioned the faith of amir muawiya(ra) but only his political stands and obvious mistakes. do you belive he was infallible. do you believe after prophet(saw) breathed his last the sahabas never sinned. if you believe so give me proofs. till then contemplate this:-
1/ Anas bin malik (ra) , well known sahaba , who was later matyred by the cruelty of ummayads narrates from Prophet(saw) that ...
Some of my companions will come to me at my Lake Fount, and after I recognise them, they will then be taken away from me, whereupon I will say, 'My companions!' Then it will be said, 'You do not know what they innovated (new things) in the religion after you.

the hadith is narrated with sahih chain in sahih bukhari vol 8 no 584,
the hadith is narrated with same chain by imam muslim in his sahih vol 15

what is implied here is not the generalization of sahaba. it means there were SOME (not all, may Allah be pleased with them) so called sahabas who didnt adhere to the truth and were hence neglected by Allah for his Prophet(saw).

sahabas were not infallible. accept it. and by the way amir muawiya doesnt stand on the same merit as those who accepted faith in mecca, migrated with prophet(saw). he was a tulaqa , those who accepted islam after the fall of mecca. Surely and very clearly amir muawiya(ra) doesnt stand the same position as Abu bakr, omar, uthman, ali , ammar, talha, abu dhar.

infact ibn taimiyah mentions in minhaj us sunnah that.......yazid bin abu sufyan was the brother of muawiya and higher in merit than him.

when did i say he was infallibe? He was not ,even ali(ra) was not infallible mind you. This is the belief of Ahlesunnah.

So your ridiculous run arounds dont refute my claim alhamdulilah., which i made in my last post.

And refer my blog i have anwered the stupidity spread by your brethren(shiatu dajjal) regarding hadeeth of lake.

[RooxiaNof]

salam well wisher,
it is really unfortunate that i provided you with tradition in history backed by hadith book references and yet you demand authenticity. brother, what more can i provide you with. this claim that history is filled with weak narration, well history gave the premise to hadith. ibn hisham, ibn saad were historians first them muhaddith. imam bukhari wrote history tarikh al kabir as well. the western world learnt history as a science from muslims and u feel history is inauthentic. what about the sirah of prophet(saw). it is history. then all sirah books be thrown into bins. history gave us the insight into origin of islam. hadith as a collection is history also. both follow the same science of narration. furthermore, hadith collection remains on fallacy more than history.
here both hadith and history are in opposition to amir muawiya,s stands(ra)

i hope the truth dawns on you brother.

history reports when in any way trying to condemn a noble sahabi of prophet(saw0 or any sahabi of Prophet(saw) should be thoroughly scrutinized. When cant just blindly accept it. And historians themselve stated that what they bring in their books needs to be verified. So dont try to fool your ownself and others.

And it is well known fact that shias(narrators) have fabricated reports of histroy , every talib ul ilm knows this basic but it seems you are far away from truth.

[vNGiDaFX]

wellwisher,
regarding to your answer to my question that Hujr ibn adi was not a sahabi and he was killed for a crime. well again you didnt do justice. the problem with people like you is that u check certian websites rafidi or nasibi and make the statements recorded their as your ideology. please study yourself.
hujr ibn adi was killed in 51 Ah. the reason was that the governor of kufa ziyad, father of infamous ibn ziad , used to hurl curses on Ali and ahl bait. hujr , a sahabi criticized him for it. for this crime he was imprisoned and sent to damascus with these words" this person hujr bin adi, is sending blessings on Ali and his family".
qazi sharih, a reputed qadhi from kufa wrote to muawiya(ra) to refrain from the injustice of punishing Hujr. at last amir muawiya(ra) put the condition before hujr and his associates to curse Ali and ahl bair rejecting which they could be killed. as expected from a sahabi who kept himself on the right path, Hujr ibn adi refused in these words" i wont utter the filth that displeases Allah". as a consequence he and his associates were matyred and one was buried alive for his love of Ali"

references.....tabari vol 4, p190, ibn abdur barr alistiab vol 1 p 135, ibn athir vol 3 p234,albidayah wa alnihayah ibn kathir vol 8 p55, ibn khaldun vol 3 p 13.

the killing of hujr was injustice as the stand of hadrat Aisha (ra) proves clearly..

imam ibn hajar asqalani(ra) records in isabah vol 2 p 355 that hadrat Aisha sent message with hazrat abdul rehman(ra) to muawiya in which she instructed muawiya(ra) in these words:-

" safegaurd yourselves from Allah in killing of hujr ibn adi(ra) and his associates"

but Hujr ibn adi and his associates were already matyred.
the tradition is supported by ibn athir in usad ul gabah where he records that after the incident when muawiya(ra) visited hejaz, he was question and criticized by hadrat Aisha(ra) on the matter.

hadrat ibn umar (ra) wept at the matyrdom of hujr ibn adi( recorded by ibn hajar in isabah , ibn abdur barr in istiab)

regarding his being a sahabi it is accepted by all including ibn saad in tabaqaat, etc.
ibn kathir has recorded that some dont regard him a sahabi and continues later in these words... sahabi ibn hujr benefitted from the meeting with Prophet(saw). now tell me is this justice?

imam dahabi further writes the same words of hujr's association with Prophet(saw). furthermore the reaction of sahabas to his killing proves it all.
in Al Isaba ibn hajar asqalani quotes Hujr:

He was killed upon the orders of Mu'awiya in a village called Mriaj Adra near Damascus. At the time of his execution he requested: 'Do not remove these chains after I am killed, nor clean the blood. We will meet again with Mu'awiya and I shall petition my case against him'.

later on amir muawiya(ra) himself admitted in these words.... the killing of Hujr lessened my days.(tabari, albidayah)

asalamu alykum,
brother omar, you have presented your point of view beautifully. of course, your reserarch and argumentive attitude seem satisfactory. keep the good job up.
wasalam

[vNGiDaFX]

wellwisher,
regarding to your answer to my question that Hujr ibn adi was not a sahabi and he was killed for a crime. well again you didnt do justice. the problem with people like you is that u check certian websites rafidi or nasibi and make the statements recorded their as your ideology. please study yourself.
hujr ibn adi was killed in 51 Ah. the reason was that the governor of kufa ziyad, father of infamous ibn ziad , used to hurl curses on Ali and ahl bait. hujr , a sahabi criticized him for it. for this crime he was imprisoned and sent to damascus with these words" this person hujr bin adi, is sending blessings on Ali and his family".
qazi sharih, a reputed qadhi from kufa wrote to muawiya(ra) to refrain from the injustice of punishing Hujr. at last amir muawiya(ra) put the condition before hujr and his associates to curse Ali and ahl bair rejecting which they could be killed. as expected from a sahabi who kept himself on the right path, Hujr ibn adi refused in these words" i wont utter the filth that displeases Allah". as a consequence he and his associates were matyred and one was buried alive for his love of Ali"

references.....tabari vol 4, p190, ibn abdur barr alistiab vol 1 p 135, ibn athir vol 3 p234,albidayah wa alnihayah ibn kathir vol 8 p55, ibn khaldun vol 3 p 13.

the killing of hujr was injustice as the stand of hadrat Aisha (ra) proves clearly..

imam ibn hajar asqalani(ra) records in isabah vol 2 p 355 that hadrat Aisha sent message with hazrat abdul rehman(ra) to muawiya in which she instructed muawiya(ra) in these words:-

" safegaurd yourselves from Allah in killing of hujr ibn adi(ra) and his associates"

but Hujr ibn adi and his associates were already matyred.
the tradition is supported by ibn athir in usad ul gabah where he records that after the incident when muawiya(ra) visited hejaz, he was question and criticized by hadrat Aisha(ra) on the matter.

hadrat ibn umar (ra) wept at the matyrdom of hujr ibn adi( recorded by ibn hajar in isabah , ibn abdur barr in istiab)

regarding his being a sahabi it is accepted by all including ibn saad in tabaqaat, etc.
ibn kathir has recorded that some dont regard him a sahabi and continues later in these words... sahabi ibn hujr benefitted from the meeting with Prophet(saw). now tell me is this justice?

imam dahabi further writes the same words of hujr's association with Prophet(saw). furthermore the reaction of sahabas to his killing proves it all.
in Al Isaba ibn hajar asqalani quotes Hujr:

He was killed upon the orders of Mu'awiya in a village called Mriaj Adra near Damascus. At the time of his execution he requested: 'Do not remove these chains after I am killed, nor clean the blood. We will meet again with Mu'awiya and I shall petition my case against him'.

later on amir muawiya(ra) himself admitted in these words.... the killing of Hujr lessened my days.(tabari, albidayah)

asalamu alykum,
well researched and well argued point of view presented by you. keep the job of truth going.
wasalam

[vNGiDaFX]

history reports when in any way trying to condemn a noble sahabi of prophet(saw0 or any sahabi of Prophet(saw) should be thoroughly scrutinized. When cant just blindly accept it. And historians themselve stated that what they bring in their books needs to be verified. So dont try to fool your ownself and others.

And it is well known fact that shias(narrators) have fabricated reports of histroy , every talib ul ilm knows this basic but it seems you are far away from truth.

salam brother,
i read your replies to omarashidweni and it seems you are playing the doubting thomas. he has given you correct traditions and you seem to be losing it ,trust me. the traditions he has given have a consensus of all historians both classical as well as formative. besides he gave you hadith references . not fair on your part. mawia(ra) had merits but they could be easily surpassed by merits that even people who fought under ali(ra) had, not to speak of ali.

your next allegation about the infallibility well yes nobody is infallible. BUT prophet(saw) said with correct hadith that
1/ i leave behind two things quran and ahl bait ....recorded in sahih muslim
2/ in namaz we offer duroode ibrahim which contains salutations to aal mohammad...well i wonder people who abused ali and hold grudges against him, how is their namaz being accepted by Allah.
3/ regarding your hadith of lake, actually pond. well the hadith is sahih and its narrations and recordings remain unparalleled.
if ur allegationis that rafidis have corrupted history then do you mean we sunnis dont have history of our own. this argument is for losers to make. what about bukhari, muslim etc which contain so many kharji, rafidi, nasibi, qadri, etc narrators. then hadith books should be done with also. it is justice.

formative and classical history was written mostly under anti shia regimes, ummayad and abbasids. furthermore, grow up, if you can, becoz the glorious reigns and deeds of sahaba were given to us by history. why werent they fabricated?

hadith as a science is as good and as bad as history. in fact it is history in itself as per the science it follows. you said weak narrations, they are in bukhari and muslim also. wat abt that?

imam ahmed ibn hanbal(ra) correctly said" wen the enemies of Ali found no lacking in his character, they forged hadith elevating their own status"


Imam Sakhawee writes that the status of Imam Bukhari is higher than Imam Muslim. The reason he gives this is that Imam Bukhari has taken narration from 435 narrators, among these narrators there are only 80 weak narrators. Imam Muslim has taken narration from 620 narrators. About 160 narrators are known to be weak from among these

(Fath-ul-mughees, chapter on Imams Bukhari and Muslim, by Imam Sakhawee)

Hafidhh Asqalani and Imam Ay’nee write that Imam Daar Qutni has written a book called “Istadrikaat” in which he has objected to many narrations of Imam Muslim and Imam Bukhari (Muqaddamah, Fath-ul-Baari by Hafidh Asqalani and Umdat-ul-qaari by Imam Ay’nee)

so accept the truth. be cerebral.
and of course hadrat muawiya was writer of revelation.

wasalam

[vNGiDaFX]

history reports when in any way trying to condemn a noble sahabi of prophet(saw0 or any sahabi of Prophet(saw) should be thoroughly scrutinized. When cant just blindly accept it. And historians themselve stated that what they bring in their books needs to be verified. So dont try to fool your ownself and others.

And it is well known fact that shias(narrators) have fabricated reports of histroy , every talib ul ilm knows this basic but it seems you are far away from truth.

just answer this. why cant history condemn a sahabi? u urself admitted that they were not infallible. the main reason was sahabas werent included in durood sharif by PROPHET HIMSELF is becoz the reason of them not being infallible. our scholars by using these foolish arguments have narrowed the horizons of reason.

[vNGiDaFX]

Aoothoo billahi Min ashaitan Ar Rajeem......This is exactly why the shias call the ppl of the sunnah "Enemies of the Ahlul-Bait" because of trying to downgrade the crimes of the Ummayyeds. Its well known that Muawiyya opposed the messengers family. He may not hav been as bad as Yazid and may Allah forgive him but this stuff is clear:

This hadith has been narrated. on the authority of Shu'ba with the same chain of transmitters. Amir b. Sa'd b. Abi Waqqas reported on the authority of his father that Muawiya b. Abi Sufyin appointed Sa'd as the Governor and said: What prevents you from abusing Abu Turab (Hadrat 'Ali), whereupon he said: It is because of three things which I remember Allah's Messenger having said about him that I would not abuse him and even if I find one of those three things for me, it would be more dear to me than the red camel. I heard Allah's Messenger say to Ali as he left him behind in one of his campaigns (that was Tabuk). Ali said to Allah's Messenger, you leave me behind along with women and children. Thereupon Allah's Messenger said to him: Aren't you satisfied with being unto me what Aaron was unto Moses but with the exception that there is no prophethood after me. And I (also) heard him say on the Day of Khaibar: I would certainly give this standard to a person who loves Allah and his Messenger and Allah and his Messenger love him too. He (the narrator) said: We have been anxiously waiting for it, when he (the Holy Prophet) said: Call 'Ali. He was called and his eyes were inflamed. He applied saliva to his eyes and handed over the standard to him, and Allah gave him victory. (The third occasion is this) when the (following) verse was revealed:" Let us summon our children and your children." Allah's Messenger called 'Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain and said: O Allah, they are my family. (Bukhari and Muslim)

But we refrain of speaking ill of Muawiyya because of a tradition attributed to the messenger (May peace and blessings be upon him):

" Th first amongst my followers who will invade Ceaser's city will be forgiven their sins."
[Sahi Al; Bukhari, Vol. I P. 109,

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 175: (Sahih Bukhari – Translated by Muhsin Khan)
Narrated Khalid bin Madan:

'Umair bin Al-Aswad Al-Anasi told him that he went to 'Ubada bin As-Samit while he was staying in his house at the sea-shore of Hims with (his wife) Um Haram. 'Umair said. Um Haram informed us that she heard the Prophet saying, "Paradise is granted to the first batch of my followers who will undertake a naval expedition." Um Haram added, I said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Will I be amongst them?' He replied, 'You are amongst them.' The Prophet then said, 'The first army amongst' my followers who will invade Caesar's City will be forgiven their sins.' I asked, 'Will I be one of them, O Allah's Apostle?' He replied in the negative."

Muawiyya tok part in both of these campaigns. He organized them so we should refrain from speaking ill someone Allah may hav forgiven...but don't paint the illusion that certain events never took place just leave the subject alone and Allahu Alim.

i agree with the first half of your argument. people like these put bad name to ahl sunnah.

[RooxiaNof]

just answer this. why cant history condemn a sahabi? u urself admitted that they were not infallible. the main reason was sahabas werent included in durood sharif by PROPHET HIMSELF is becoz the reason of them not being infallible. our scholars by using these foolish arguments have narrowed the horizons of reason.

lol seems you made another id.. :P

anyways , you always create your own stupid arguments and try to argue on those, but while doing that you miss the actual arguments.

Sahaba can be condemned when did i deny? but I said that those reports NEEDS TO BE THOROUGHLY scrutinized, understood this? We cant just take those narrations for granted without verification this is what i said. So am i wrong in this?

So again i repeat the same thing dont try to fool people with your retarded arguments.

Lol, in durood shareef wives of Prophet(Saw) were included so are they infalllible ? What an idiot this is.

[pipitous]

if quoting hadith is fitnah then all hadith books should be done with and one should listen only to mr. tripolysocalledsunni

omarashidwani = usmanakhter = LIAR.

Although I haven't researched the period of Mu'awiyah (ra) and Yazid in depth and It's my fault for not doing so YET It is SO Obvious when you quote weak Hadiths to attack Mu'awiyah (ra) and ignore the Sahih Hadiths that praise him, you are such a bad liar and probably one of the most biased researchers in history.