Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Topics' started by abu Hasan, Feb 8, 2016.
Aqdas, Allah se daro aur haq ko pehchano for the sake of your akhirah.
Nawaz, this is no good. This has been answered long ago. You have to be sincere. Why are you acting like a wahabi? They will call that hadith daeef/mawdu that shows the honour of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam and you're just denying reports that honour Amir Mu'awiyah radiyAllahu anhu!
Look, ijtihadi mistake and rebellion aren't mutually exclusive:
Why can't you understand simple concepts? In fact, I think you do get it but your hatred for a sahabi makes you act like this.
It's very easy:
1. Hazrat Ali radiyAllahu anhu was certainly on haqq
2. Hazrat Mu'awiyah radiyAllahu anhu was certainly in the wrong
3. But his going against mawla ali was due to incorrect ijtihad
4. A mujtahid or faqih who makes incorrect ijtihad is not reviled
For the sake of your akhirah, just stop.
slander is when you falsely attribute lies to a person which is was not the case. Here is what al-Mulla Ali al-Qari al-Hanafi says in one his later works after Mirqat.
شرح الشفاء :الملا علي القاري: و أما معاوية و أتباعه فيجوز نسبتهم إلى الخطأ و البغي و و الخروج و الفساد و أ ما لعنهم فلا يجوز
Sharh al-Shifa by Mulla Ali Qari Hanafi: as for Muawiya and his followers, it is permissible to call them upon error and being rebels and on wickedness but to curse them is not allowed.
or here is what one of our great hanafi fiqh works al-hidaya says:
كتاب أدب القاضي: الهداية
ثم يجوز التقلد من السلطان الجائر كما يجوز من العادل ) لأن الصحابة رضي الله عنهم تقلدوه من معاوية رضي الله عنه والحق كان بيد علي رضي الله عنه في نوبته ، والتابعين تقلدوه من الحجاج وكان جائرا
It is allowed for one to be a judge under the rule of a tyrant as it is under a just ruler because sahaba worked as judges under Muawiya whilst the truth was with Ali during his reign and tabieen becamse judges for Hajjaj who was a tyrant.
or what the prominent student of Imam Azam Abu Hanifa, Imam Muhammad al-shaybani says in:
:الجواهر المضية في طبقات الحنفية
محمد بن الحسن يقول لو لم يقاتل معاوية عليا ظالما له متعديا باغيا كنا لا نهتدي لقتال أهل البغي
If muawiya had not fought with Ali whilst being a zalim/unjust and a rebel/baghi who transgressed then we would not have known the rulings for fighting with rebels
or what Imam abu bakr al-jassas says in his ahkam al-Quran:
أحكام القرآن للجصاص
قاتل علي بن أبي طالب الفئة الباغية بالسيف ومعه من كبراء الصحابة وأهل بدر من قد علم مكانهم , وكان محقا في قتاله لهم لم يخالف فيه أحد إلا الفئة الباغية التي قابلته وأتباعها وقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لعمار : " تقتلك الفئة الباغية " وهذا خبر مقبول من طريق التواتر. حتى إن معاوية لم يقدر على جحده " لما قال له عبد الله بن عمر , فقال : إنما قتله من جاء به فطرحه بين أسنتنا
Ali ibn Abi Talib fought with rebel group whilst with him were great sahaba and sahaba of Badr. He was on the truth and no one opposed him except the rebels and the Prophet (saww) said to Ammar: you will be killed by the Rebel group and this report is mutawatir and even muawiya couldnt deny it when ibn umar told him and he said we didnt kill Ammar but one the one who brought him to our weapons killed him....
Imam al-San`ani in his famous commentry subul al-salaam on Imam Ibn Hajr al-asqalani's book bulugh al-maram says:
والحديث دليل على أن الفئة الباغية معاوية ومن في حزبه والفئة المحقة علي رضي الله عنه ومن في صحبته وقد نقل الإجماع من أهل السنة بهذا القول جماعة من أئمتهم كالعامري وغيره
"This hadith of Ammar Yasir is proof that the rebel party is Muawiya and his group and the Ali was on the truth and those with him and there is IJMA of ahlesunnat upon this position, stated by al-amiri and others from ahlesunnat."
and on and on....
so who are these people. whu dont you call them shiah? there tens more but this much is sufficient to demonstrate that our position is that of ahl al-sunna. Nothing more and nothing less.
as you can see, that points to the far-fetched twists and turns to salvage that report devoid of any logic. It is clear that the report contradicts with established facts on two counts: the marriage of Umm Habiba (as) being prior to Abu Sufyan's Islam and Abu Sufyan having zero leadership role during the life of the Noble Prophet (saww). Yet we have the Rasul Allah (saww) affirming to both erroneous demands. Unfortunately the contradiction is too great to be reconciled though 'some' have tried.
However, here is, among others, what Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, the staunch supporter of the Umayyad dynasty had to say about the report:
قد رد هذا الحديث جماعة من الحفاظ وعدوه من الأغلاط في كتاب مسلم قال ابن حزم هذا حديث موضوع لا شك في وضعه والآفة فيه من عكرمة بن عمار فإنه لم يختلف في أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم تزوجها قبل الفتح بدهر وأبوها كافر وقال أبو الفرج بن الجوزي في كتاب الكشف له هذا الحديث وهم من بعض الرواة لا شك فيه ولا تردد
This hadith has been rejected by a group of Huffaz and have counted it as an error in sahih Muslim. Ibn Hazm declared it a fabrication...and Ibn al-Jawzi said that there is no doubt that this hadith is an error by some reporters..
as for that interpretation that abu sufyan asked to renew the marriage. This is even beyond far-fetched. the same ibn qayyim says about this:
وقد تكلف أقوام تأويلات فاسدة لتصحيح الحديث كقول بعضهم إنه سأله تجديد النكاح عليها
some people tried tried to interpret it falsely by explaining that it was a a request for renewal of marriage...
However, one can cite many examples where a sanad is sahih but the matn is problematic and scholars have rejected it. A hadith is judged by two mechanisms: bil-riwaya and bil-diraya. the latter including a contradiction to established facts.
..terrifying times ahead..
...we have people blurring the lines between the Sunni/shia theological divide and even conceding points to the shia and claiming fiqha jaffaria as a valid school..we have people who are hell bent on making jews and christians into "ahle imaan" and will twist and bend ahadeeth to fit their agenda and even go as far as propagating that the Holy Prophet peace be upon Him allowed and even prompted others to "pray according to their own tradition"...we have people ignoring the classical tafaseer of the great imams and promoting perennialism in modern day interpretations of the Holy Qur'an..we have people in the garb of tasawuff mislead the masses and allow all types of transgression all in the name of love.......and the one common factor..all these people say they belong to Sunni orthodoxy...yet the real Sunnis are referred to as short sighted and intolerant.
I truly fear for the young muslims now and in the future..without sound scholarship they won't know if they're coming or going.
What I don't understand is why these self-styled tafzilis don't openly declare themselves shias. Why do they have to pretend to be sunnis when they trash the sunni opinions? If they believe shias are the only lovers of ahle bayt, then why masquerade as sunnis? Be a shia, if you are so convinced that they are only ones who'll attain salvation. Why pick from here and pick from there? If sunnis are wrong, then shias are right or vice versa. Both can't be right. White can't mix with black nor the 'gur' (sweet) with 'gobar' (excreta). You are either this or that.
i asked my local Alim regarding Ijma on the superiority of Abu Bakr (R) and Umar (R) over everyone else and he said there is clear Ijma from Scholars and Sahaba and with authentic narrations and he send me
قال الحافظ ابن حجر:
( ونقل البيهقي في [ الاعتقاد ] بسنده إلى أبي ثور عن الشافعي أنه قال: أجمع الصحابة وأتباعهم على أفضلية أبي بكر، ثم عمر ثم عثمان، ثم عليّ ) ، فتح الباري ( 7 / 17 ) .
قال النووي رحمه الله تعالى :
( اتفق أهل السنة على أن أفضلهم أبو بكر ثم عمر ) ، شرح النووي على صحيح مسلم ( 15 / 148 )
Search for Facebook Ashrafiya Islamic Foundation
Muhadith Azam Mission
nawazuddin : I advice you to read this http://bewley.virtualave.net/muawiya.html
Then Abu Sufyan (R) does have some virtues (Fadail) and so does his son Muawiya (R) ;
Every Sahabi has virtues, their ranks may be different. Suffice the Prophet's sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam dua for Muawiya (R): “Allah, make him (Muawiya ) guided, a guider, and guide people through him”. [Imam Bukhari in Tarikh AlKabir and Sunan at-Tirmidhi]
Do you think the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam dua will be not accepted?
I don't want to make it very lengthy with bringing quotes and counter quotes, but common sense of muslim dictates that Abu Sufyan and Muawiya were both Sahabis and Jannah is guaranteed for them and Nawazuddin a unknown tafzili person trying to belittle them and no one knows where he will end up (Jannah or Jahunum) with shaky and shady beliefs
Hafiz Ibn Hajar said:
وَاتَّفَقَ أَهْلُ السُّنَّةِ عَلَى وُجُوبِ مَنْعِ الطَّعْنِ عَلَى أَحَدٍ مِنَ الصَّحَابَةِ بِسَبَبِ مَا وَقَعَ لَهُمْ مِنْ ذَلِكَ وَلَوْ عَرَفَ الْمُحِقَّ مِنْهُمْ لِأَنَّهُمْ لَمْ يُقَاتِلُوا فِي تِلْكَ الْحُرُوبِ إِلَّا عَنِ اجْتِهَادٍ وَقَدْ عَفَا اللَّهُ تَعَالَى عَنِ الْمُخْطِئِ فِي الِاجْتِهَادِ بَلْ ثَبَتَ أَنَّهُ يُؤْجَرُ أَجْرًا وَاحِدًا وَأَنَّ الْمُصِيبَ يُؤْجَرُ أَجْرَيْنِ
Ahl as-Sunnah are unanimously agreed that it is obligatory not to slander (insult, object) any of the Sahabah because of what happened between them because of disputes, even if ones knows which group among them was right, because they did not fight in those wars except on the basis of what they thought was right (ijtihad), and Allah, may He be exalted, has forgiven the one who is mistaken in his ijtihad. Indeed it is proven that he will be given one reward, and the one who gets it right will be given two rewards. [Fath al-Bari, 13/34] (internet source)
The above makes sense, so what constitutes as slander ?
literally, yes, i pasted - but that is not the same as mindless cut-and-paste. i usually cross check from printed books. i am not saying you said anything different, but just clarifying.
it is quite rich that you accuse qaDi iyaD of plagiarising. i assume [certainly no proof] that you regularly plagiarise from shia/rawafid websites and research - so how deriding qaDi iyaD is well...you know what.
sure, we will wait like many such promises. but one request: do not interject it anywhere: start a separate thread on how qaDi iyaD 'plagiarised' for his shifaa.
why is it more 'authentic'? and explain? when have you ever done the nawazish of explaining anything? you don't even reference properly, unless you are asked for references. all you do is cut and paste, hit and run. but if you please, can you explain why it is more authentic?
both are mentioned in the same source - from the same book shifa sharif, which you sneer at. so why is one more authentic than another? unless of course you were citing some other 'more authentic' work in this particular reference.
so i assume that you deny that hazrat mu'awiyah raDiyAllahu anhu was katib e waH'y? then just say it so - why all the drama? [side note: i suspected this when you mentioned the hadith in another thread, hence my question.]
what is the side note here and your stating shifa is just out of helplessness. talk about red herrings! no one did takfir for insulting hazrat mu'awiyah, but should such a person be scolded and reprimanded? yes, and that is what we are doing.
a third-rate cut-and-paste expert will not know where to stop. i am not talking about you, but chalo jane deyte hain...
imam nawawi in explaining this particular hadith of muslim said the same things which qurTubi in his muf'him has said. perhaps:
what is wrong with this? in matters such as this, one needs to consider opinions of senior ulama as there is no possibility of independent investigation. of course, unless revisionists who refer to the same sources and come up with their own version of what actually happened.
yes, by ibn Hazm. and imam nawawi quoted ibn SalaH that ibn Hazm is known for his faulting ayimmah and speaking recklessly about previous ulama.
yeah, bounty-hunters have a larger field to run around - one line that suits their opinion is enough for them to finalise judgement. but sincere students will have to read the whole thing and examine contexts. the debate about the narrator [ikrimah in this case] is a in itself a non-issue. as we have seen even reports of people like abd al-razzaq al-san'ani were weakened by rijal imams when it comes from a particular route or when they narrate it from a specific period in their lives when reliability is questionable; such as san'ani's narrations after he went blind. i will come to that presently, but first:
in muf'him, al-qurtubi in this very hadith (titled by imam muslim as: manaqib abu sufyan, #2409) he mentions that it is a problematic hadith. after discussing historical accuracy - which i reiterate that nobody argues against; qurtubi says:
summary of the above: abu'l faraj ibn al-jawzi said that ikrimah ibn ammar was blamed [ittihamu] and his narrations were weakened by yaHya ibn sayid and ahmad ibn Hanbal; and therefore bukhari did not include his narrations in his SaHiH. however muslim related his reports [in his SaHiH] because yaHya ibn ma'yin said that he was 'thiqah' [trustworthy].
he then mentions abu muhammad ali ibn ahmad [who is ibn Hazm] that he said: this is a forgery and there is no doubt in its being fabricated. and the problem [aafah] with this ikrimah ibn ammar. and that which validates that it is fanciful [wahm] is the saying of abu sufyan to the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam: 'make me a leader' and he replied 'alright'. no one has heard of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam making abu sufyan a leader until his passing away from this world - then how can the Prophet sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam renege on his promise? it is not permissible/possible for him to do so. [end of ibn Hazm's citation]
qurtubi says: this hadith has been reconciled by some scholars - who deem it to be SaHiH that abu sufyan asked the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam to renew the marriage, and he did according to his own understanding that it was permissible as he was not aware of sharayi rulings, having become a new muslim just then. and the excuse for not making him a leader is that it was not a time-bound pledge - he SallALlahu alayhi wa sallam was waiting for an opportunity, but that never came by until he SallALlahu alayhi wa sallam passed away from this world. or that he SallALlahu alayhi wa sallam saw a sharayi reason which was an obstacle to his [abu sufyan] being a leader, and hence did not vest in him sharayi authority - and if he promised him sharayi leadership, and noticed that the conditions were not met, he did not give him a sharayi position. wAllahu a'alam.
where ikrimah ibn ammar was weakened by imam ahmad and others was in narrations which he narrated from yaHya ibn abi kathir. even ibn al-jawzi statement by qurtubi indicates that they rejected certain narrations of ikrimah. in tahdhib of ibn Hajar [7/261]:
those who narrated from ikrimah ibn ammar of yamamah: shu'bah, thawri, wakiy, yaHya al-qaTTan, ibn al-mubarak, ibn mahdi, yaHya ibn abi zayidah among others.
abdullah ibn ahmad ibn hanbal narrates from his father that `ikrimah is muDTarib al-Hadith [confuses] from yaHya ibn abi kathir; he also narrates from his father that ikrimah is muDTarib al-Hadith frrom other than iyas ibn salamah, and his hadith via iyas is sound [SaliH].
abu zur'ah al-dimashqi said: i have heard ahmad weaken reports of ayub ibn utbah and ikrimah ibn ammar from yaHya ibn kathir, though ikrimah is more trustworthy [awthaq] of the two.
faDl ibn ziyad said: i asked abu abdullah, is there anyone among people of yamamah who is more prominent that ikrimah al-yamami, such as ayyub ibn `utbah and mulazim ibn `amr and others; and he replied: 'ikrimah is higher than all of these [others]' or something like that.
muawiyah ibn SaliH from yaHya ibn ma'yin says: trustworthy [thiqah].
uthman al-darimi said: i asked ibn mayin: do you prefer ibn utbah or ikrimah ibn ammar? he replied i prefer`ikrimah, and ayyub [ibn utbah] is weak.
ibn al-madiyni said: the reports of ikrimah via yaHya ibn abi kathir which are not munkar, yaHya ibn sayid would consider them weak. and elsewhere he said: yaHya would weaken the reports of people of yamamah such as ikrimah and others like him.
muhammad ibn uthman ibn abi shaybah from ali ibn al-madiyni: ikrimah is trustworthy and validated [thiqah, thabt] among our companions [meaning aS'Hab al-hadith of his time].
imam bukhari said: muDTarib in his hadith reporting from yaHya ibn abi kathir and he did not have any written down book [to which he could refer].
aajurriy said from abu dawud: thiqah, however in his hadith via yaHya ibn abi kathir, there is confusion, [iDTirab].
nasayi said: 'there is no harm in him, except in his hadith from yaHya ibn kathir'
abu Hatim said: 'he was truthful [saduq] sometimes mistakenly attributes [wahm] in his Hadith; sometimes he does tadlis in his hadith; and in reports via yaHya ibn kathir, there are mistakes [aghaliT].
saji said: 'truthful [saduq] - ahmad and yaHya considered him trustworthy [thiqah] except yaHya ibn sayid who weakened him in his narrations via yaHya ibn kathir.
ibn Hibban included him in his book thiqat. dar quTni considered him thiqah. ibn adi considered him 'accurate when he narrates from thiqah' [mustaqim al-hadith].
ikrimah passed away in 159 AH and was a pious man; aSim ibn ali said that he was mustajab al-da'awat - that he was such that his prayers would be accepted.
this particular hadith of muslim is narrated via abu zumayl who is simaak ibn al-walid al-Hanafi al-yamami who narrates from ibn abbas raDiyAllahu `anhuma. [see tahdhib 4/235] about whom both ibn ma'yin and imam ahmad said that he was thiqah [trustworthy] ibn Hibban in his thiqat. dhahabi in his mizan [#3554] says: 'many have said that he is thiqah/trustworthy.'
why am i analysing this after already acknowledging the historical inaccuracy of some points mentioned in the hadith? just to show that you cannot generalise and summarily dismiss SaHiH reports. and to clarify the status of certain narrators. wa billahi't tawfiq.
don't just throw terms without understanding them well. this is no red herring. you said you would quote qaDi iyaD - and i told you what he said about insulting SaHabah. the 'accurate' versions are also fine - and i will talk about your despicable attack on qaDi iyaD and his shifa shortly, wa billahi't tawfiq. regardless, please do post his views on tafDil - as i said, it is good to learn. maybe i have not seen it.
he is repeating the same argument found commonly on shiachat, between salafis and shias, [ supposed shiite iranian research done over the centuries at Qom financed by Safavis, mudslinging Sunni masters when it comes to that ] lest naive brothers here think he is anymore knowledgeable than them; he is repeating the same argument from shiites written against Sunnis, again and again on our forum for the past couple of years in a never ending ellipse.
and he makes us feel the underlying purpose here is Love of 'Ali !!! and Karbala happening all over again which is typical shiite emotional blackmail for our Love of 'Ali
nawaz's full of holes and is leaking from each one of them. I recommend that he be banned forthwith since he is polluting the forum with his filth. May he be raised with his swine brethrens (i.e. shias)
apart from an appeal to authority, I find no arguments to respond to. That report about abu sufyan has been called a fabrication by hadith scholars at most and severely problematic in the least. ikrima has been weakened by a notable number of rijal scholars, a quick look at al-mufham of al-qurtubi would be good. A hadith is judged on two accounts: sanad and matn. when the text is contrary to established facts than it is also rejected, etc. please re-visit usul al-hadith. a sahih sanad is not guaranteed authenticity unless it fulfils some criterion. There are two facts that the hadith of three things by abu sufyan contradicts. His asking to marry his daughter umm habiba to the Prophet (saww) and the Rasul Allah(saww) promising; is against the established facts that she married the Prophet (saww) whilst abu sufyan was kafir and you can see kitab al-umm of Imam al-shafi on that. secondly, abu sufyan was promised to be made the commander of muslim army which in fact never occurred and the Prophet (saww) can never go against His word. The empirical facts are against the report. and as for Muwaiya ibn abi sufyan being a scribe then since it is also part of this report in which other two things are against facts hence this also rejected though he could have been a scribe for the letters of the Prophet(saww) as mentioned by al-madaini, etc. Perhaps in another place in sahih muslim when Ibn abbas was sent by the Prophet (saww) to call Muawiya ibn abi sufyan a couple of times and on both occasions he was eating and Huzur paak (saww) said May Allah Never fill his belly!...perhaps he was being called to come and write a letter!
as for your red herring about Qadi Iyad from Imam Malik. first of all for your information al-shifa of qadi iyad in most parts is plagiarised work fron Ibn Saba`. more on that some other time. for now, here is what Imam Malik is supposed to have said. First what you pasted:
وقال أيضا : من شتم أحدا من أصحاب النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - : أبا بكر أو عمر أو عثمان أو معاوية أو عمرو بن العاص ، فإن قال : كانوا على ضلال وكفر قتل ، وإن شتمهم بغير هذا من مشاتمة الناس نكل نكالا شديدا
now a slightly more authentic version as it is from sahnun and I dont want to explain that too:
وحكى أبو محمد بن أبي زيد ، عن سحنون : من قال في أبي بكر وعمر وعثمان وعلي : إنهم كانوا على ضلالة وكفر قتل ، ومن شتم غيرهم من الصحابة بمثل ذلك نكل النكال الشديد
name of your ideal is missing in this one
and for a general view from shifa:
ورواه النسائي : أتيت أبا بكر ، وقد أغلظ لرجل فرد عليه ، قال : فقلت : يا خليفة رسول الله ، دعني أضرب عنقه . فقال : اجلس ، فليس ذلك لأحد إلا لرسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم
and another one from shifa:
ومن [ ص: 547 ] ذلك كتاب عمر بن عبد العزيز إلى عامله بالكوفة ، وقد استشاره في قتل رجل سب عمر - رضي الله عنه - ، فكتب إليه عمر : إنه لا يحل قتل امرئ مسلم بسب أحد من الناس إلا رجلا سب رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - ، فمن سبه فقد حل دمه .
on a side note: it is stated in our major hanafi books that khawarij did takfeer of sahaba but there is ijma that they are still muslims!
and yes, al-nawawi...what I was saying was about doctoring. meaning changing words but chalo jaane deyte hain...
frankly, you are nowhere near 1% of the greatness of imam nawawi, his piety and his learning. ulama say that imam nawawi's greatness and his sincerity (ikhlaS) can be gauged by the fact that many of his books are read and taught by everyone - his arbayin, adhkar, riyaD al-Salihin, tibyan...
so imam nawawi presented ta'wilat for the defence of the SaHabi hazrat mu'awiyah - unlike your summary dismissal of the hadith and Allah ta'ala knows better what your intentions in deriding the hadith of SaHiH muslim are.
why shouldn't they? unlike you and your erstwhile shaykh they were not abusive of elders. so who is talking off the high horse? you speak as if you are an angel who has never committed a saghirah or a kabeera and that you are the greatest scholar alive without ever having made a mistake in your life. not even when you were a small child and you never uttered anything incorrectly. so what? long after you and i are dead and gone, saHiH muslim and imam nawawi's sharH will remain as a reference. in sha'Allah.
if you mean that i am an alahazrat follower, then alHamdulillah, guilty as charged. i personally am the kind of person who will accept alahazrat's opinion even if i don't understand it.
Allah ta'ala knows best.
surely nawaz, those imams knew more about hadith and history than you do? and whether you like it or not - ulama are consistent to the principles of hadith. unlike you and your erstwhile shaykh who wants to reject hadith that doesn't make sense to you, ulama - let us say qaDi iyaD - said that if a hadith comes through saHiH route, it is deemed saHiH. whether you agree or not with the implications is a secondary matter.
this is your viewpoint. i don't have to agree. thousands of muhaddithin did not agree and why do you want to reject the whole report? what about hazrat mu'awiyah being a katib waHy - do you reject that one too? as i said, you probably need to study what munkar, gharib, muDTarib etc. means - unless of course the entire hadith sciences framework is not palatable to you as a british academic...
also fine. i wasn't actually accusing you of that - i was giving an example of how the hit-and-run tactics work.
actually great men - far far greater than us did not see it. please do share qadi iyad's opinion - perhaps i haven't seen it. what i know of qadi iyad is that narrating from imam malik:
the report goes against the established facts from the biography of Rasul Allah (saww) such as the fact that Umm habiba (as) married prior to Islam of Abu sufyan, and Abu sufyan never being made the commander of muslim armies by the Noble Prophet (saww). On both accounts, it is contrary to facts hence the whole report is rejected. that is the point. I know people have tried to salvage it with far fetched twists to safeguard sahih muslim but the fact is that it contrary to facts.
it is a problematic hadith, which is fine. but i asked you what is the point?
accepted and noted.
strike my sentence that it is ijma'a - but it goes without saying that qawl jumhur according to SaHiH hadith is that. wAllahu a'alam wa ilmuhu atam. and it is therefore, we do not do takfir of those who oppose it.
that is the point mr. ah!
for tafdil, we also rely on erudite Imams' opinions which you seem to reject because your lens is barelwi myopic. imam al-nawawi was a good muhaddith but he does doctor evidence when it comes to muawiya ibn abi sufyan, unfortunately. Qadi Iyad presents a frank discussion on tafdil in one of his books but you have myopia and when I present it you wont see it.
the fact is that abu sufyan asking for three things is indefensible and I dont know anyone who doesnt see an issue with it. why dont you enlighten us with this far-fetched evidences as is your style