UIE, on 28 July 2012 - 03:44 AM, said:
This a question to My Brothers and Sisters is Sunni Schools of thought.
First of All Praise is due to Allah the Lord of all worlds. Peace and Blessings be unto The Holy Prophet Abul Qasim Muhammad ibn Abdullah (SAW) and his Pure and Noble Descents

.
Asalamualakum dear Brothers And Sisters,
May the Most Merciful bless you all in this Holy Month in Which the Holy Book of Wisdom is reviled.
wa' alaikumusalam. you may have not had much replies by sunnis due the ramadhan and I personally try to spend my time on ibaadah and aamal. Its my first time here since ramadhan so I will be concise to answer your points.
Quote
My Question is this, Can you please explain to me why is it that Muawiya Bin Abi Sufyan is held in high regards when:
because he was a companion of the prophet pbuh, who was a writer of the revelation and served almost like a secretrat to the prophet pbuh. We believe the companions to best muslims as they saw, ate with, accomponied the prophet pbuh through the tough times. Yes its true that although we avoid comparing the sahaabah there are ranks among them and muawiyah ra is maybe is not at the same level the ashra mubashara sahabah. We love, respect and honour all the sahabah as this is our aqeedah (If I am correct in thinking). They understood Islam better than we do, they sacrificed more than we do and they strived more than we do.
Quote
A) The 2nd Caliph is reputed to have said upon his visit to Damascus that appointing him (Muawiya) as governor was a grave mistake and that the only reason he (the Caliph) could not dismiss Muawiya from the post was out of fear that the son of Abu Sufyan would revolt.
simply not true. you are talking about umar ra here. I think the history of his khilafah proved he would take the right decisions even if it was against himself or his son. Also Muawiyah was a relatively new governer and the armies were infact under control of Saad bin abi waqqas ra,abu ubaidah ra, khalid bin walid ra, amr bin aas ra - so muawiyah was not in charge any expeditions like the sahabahs I mentioned were. Also umar ra denied muawiyah's request to invade Cyprus.
Quote
B.) Muawiya did not join Islam out of his love for the Holy Prophet (SAW). Going as Far as to Cursing his own father for embracing Islam and left for Syria.
simply not true. Infact most sunni ulama agree that muawiyah embraced Islam before his father at Hudaibiyah and kept his islam secret as many muslims stuck in Makkah did. they both openly declared their islam after the conquest of Makkah.
Quote
C) Revolted against the Caliphs of his time (i.e. Amirul Momineen

and Imam Hasan

) and caused fitna within the Muslims and murdered those who questioned him.
sunnis say that he had an ijtehaadi difference with ali ra and certainly ali ra was more on the haqq. You cannot ignore the context of the situation i.e. uthman ra being murdered. muawiyah was certainly not alone in his view and interestingly enough no scholar that I can think of since the event refuted muawiyah's actual reasonings for his ijtihaad. The fitnah was not caused by muawiyah - it was caused by those who killed uthman ra. why do you refuse to acknowledge this? if uthman ra died naturally then there would have been no doubt is sunni minds that the events of jamal and siffeen would never had happened.
muawiyah did not "murder those who questioned him" - infact many people questioned him, even abused him to his face but he was a man blessed with alot of patience. also remember that ali ra declared war on muawiyah and marched to siffeen (although I certainly do not question why he did this).
Quote
D) Murder the Mother of the Believers Ayesha.
simply not true. please check the authenticity of such narrations.
Quote
E) Broke the traditions of the first 5 Caliphs and appoint his son, who was not a legitimate candidate, and made by force senior companions of the Holy Prophet (SAW) to give allegiance to his son, Yazid.
not true, ibne zubair ra and hussain ra did not give the bayah so they were not forced. the majority of the ummah had accepted yazid and the reasoning was to continue the stability. most sunnis view yazid differently to how shias view him so you need to be aware of what the sunni scholars say about yazid.
Quote
F) Had the grandson of the Holy Prophet (SAW), Imam Hasan

, poisoned via his wife.
simply not true. please check the authenticity of such narrations.
Quote
G) Did not honor the treaty between himself and Imam Hasan

.
simply not true. please check the authenticity of such narrations.
Quote
H) Started a tradition of cursing Amirul Momineen

after Salat al Juma which lasted for 70 years.
simply not true. infact the khawarij were the ones started to curse ali ra and do takfir on him.Isn't it evident that hadiths of muawiyah allegedly ordering the cursing of ali ra - involved sahabahs like saad bin abi waqas ra and mughaira bin shuba ra who were governers of Kufa and surrounding areas NOT Damascus !!!
Quote
I) His mother chewed the liver of Hazrat Humza

before Islam. A convert to Islam has their sins wiped away. so this has no relevance.
Quote
Please answer while keeping all this in mind and please be logical I do not want a emotion based answer I need a Coherent Analytical and Intellectual response. In Advance I apologies if anyone is offended; my objective is to understand from the perspective of my Sunni brothers and sisters.
I welcome Both Shias and Sunnis to engage in this discussion not to prove each other wrong nor to be disrespectful to each others' beliefs but rather to get a higher understanding so that we can appreciate each other more and have greater understanding.
Thank You,
-Ibn Ammar
No problem in asking brother. I think it just boils down to shias and sunnis having their own hadiths and stories and the need to differentiate between authentic and fabricated events. Shias have been brought up to hate the sahabah (with some exceptions) and sunnis have been brought up to love the sahabah. The questions which one is authentic and which one isnt.