I read the drafts of his book that he posted on his academia.edu profile and I really liked it overall, although I think it’s still not as profoundly detailed as I wish it could be 🙂
I’m really glad Jonathan work paid off with this book and I hope he now proceeds with his other work on translation al-Bukhari and the book on controversial hadiths (I hope he didn’t change his plans for that last one), Jazah Allah Khairan
btw: @Paul bloggingtheology.com is down, maybe you can buy the domain name again and take control of it?
From the content tiles I can smell that it’s pushing the Quranist narrative. “Naskh: Fraud in the Name of God”, no, naskh is the simple concept that God can give laws for a certain circumstance and change it later when the circumstances change (for example Muslims were forbidden from defending themselves by waging war when they were in Makkah but they were permitted (and even obligated) to do it when they arrived in Madinah and had the resources and power).
This book is an attempt to explore why Muslims are in conflict with themselves, and why Muslims have been living in an isolation and intellectual vacuum. This book is an attempt to find out why Islam, as embodied in the Mushaf, calls for a sharply different set of norms than those adopted by the majority of Muslims. To search for answers, the book uses, as much as possible, two sources: the first is critical reasoning, and the second is the Mushaf… The book takes a methodical approach to analyzing the techniques that evolved throughout the ages to marginalize the Muslims’ mind and to project reason as the archenemy of Islam. It analyses alleged prophetic narratives (Hadith)…The book challenges the use of Hadith as a source of Islamic legislation… The conclusions in these two chapters put Hadith in a perspective and context that is completely non-convergent with prevailing Muslim doctrines. https://www.muslimsgreatestchallenge.com/description
What kills me about these kuffar is do they think ahadith and the mushaf just popped into existence one day lol. Even during Khalifah Rashidun and the Umayyads (the “Golden Age”), they were still using ahadith. And again from this person notice the lack of scholarly credentials:
Omar M. Ramahi is Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Waterloo, Canada. He studied Logic, Mathematics and Electrical and Computer Engineering at Oregon State University, and holds advanced degrees in Engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He worked in the industry for several years and was Associate Professor at the University of Maryland at College Park before joining Waterloo. He writes on subjects related to Islam and the Middle East. https://www.muslimsgreatestchallenge.com/the-author
As a note for everyone, my post was NOT intended to attack brother omer or anything like that. he was making a suggestion and trying to increase his knowledge (and may Allah reward him and increase it) my criticism was meant for Omar M. Ramahi who being a professor should know that you have to study a field to write on it. And that by doing this he is misleading people honestly seeking knowledge.
You accused brother Omar of kufr. That is unacceptable. Kufr means to cover up the truth when one knows it.
Perhaps we are all covering up the truth to one degree or another but to give anyone such a label is not acceptable when they declare that they are Muslims.
Only God can declare who is a kafir or not.
Your labeling is heinous and egregious….you should ask God for forgiveness and give some charity or something to make up for it.
I do not reject hadith and I take them to be authoritative as long as they do not conflict with the Qur’an and according to the Qur’an, anything that is fully in conflict with reason and morality is in conflict with the Qur’an.
I do think that it is wrong for Muslims to take words attributed to the Prophet in context that is not fully known and over 5-7 people over decades and centuries with those people themselves dead…and holding all that to be practically equal to the Qur’an to be the biggest bidah ever done in Islam.
You need to read his book to see what he says of hadith. He may have a view of hadith that is not the same as mine but as long as after due research, he comes to the conclusion of not taking hadith as authoritative, he should not be called a kafir.
Of course, you can strongly disagree with his views and I understand how you would naturally be upset if you think he is misleading others.
However, for claiming that he is misleading others, you need to read his book and bring anything that you think is misleading to his attention.
It depend on his intention. As long as someone does their due diligence in research and remains
open-minded to new information and knowledge, one cannot accuse such a person of ill will or of misleading others.
You have not even read one page of his book and you make such egregious accusations. He never said that Mushaf popped into out of nowhere.
You call the Umayyad the Golden Age? That is absurd and a cartoonish understanding of history.
Do you realize that it was Yazid who attacked Madina and thousands of the companions and their families were killed and hundreds or thousands of daughters of companions were raped?
Imagine if Netenyahu felt that Muslim nations were going to threaten his position as Prime Minister because of him killing and injuring Palestinians and continuing the home demolitions. Imagine if on the day he saw Muslim countries forces in the horizon, he declares his shahada. And then imagine that he declares himself the Khalifa of all 57+ Muslim nations and then he appoints his son to be the next Khalifa and then other relatives.
Would you call that Golden Age 2?
And Netenyahu was not even trying to kill the Prophet as Muawiyah was before he converted to Islam along with his father Abu Sufyan (the main enemy of the Prophet) and his mother Hind (who chewed the liver of Hamza) when Muslims were about to take over Makkah (or according to another source before that), the first Umayyad “Khalifa” and then later trying to kill the Prophet’s family in this hypothesized conversion to Islam scenario.
Regarding misleading Muslims, could you even imagine how far Islam could have spread if people like Abu Sufyan and Muawiyah were not persecuting or fighting the Prophet and his followers almost the entire life of the Prophet?
And then continuing to attack and kill the Prophet’s family members and close followers of the Prophet’s family.
Think about how much loss to Islam from that.
And no, I am not a Shia Muslim. I do believe that Shia hadith is not as strong as Sunni hadith in general.
Shia Muslims distort history a lot and they exaggerate things in history like you do.
Calling Umayyad’s the Golden Age…amazing.k God for forgiveness and give some charity or something to make up for it.
I do not reject hadith and I take them to be authoritative as long as they do not conflict with the Qur’an and according to the Qur’an, anything that is fully in conflict with reason and morality is in conflict with the Qur’an.
I do think that it is wrong for Muslims to take words attributed to the Prophet in context that is not fully known and over 5-7 people over decades and centuries with those people themselves dead…and holding all that to be practically equal to the Qur’an to be the biggest bidah ever done in Islam.
You need to read his book to see what he says of hadith. He may have a view of hadith that is not the same as mine but as long as after due research, he comes to the conclusion of not taking hadith as authoritative, he should not be called a kafir.
Of course, you can strongly disagree with his views and I understand how you would naturally be upset if you think he is misleading others.
However, for claiming that he is misleading others, you need to read his book and bring anything that you think is misleading to his attention.
It depend on his intention. As long as someone does their due diligence in research and remains
open-minded to new information and knowledge, one cannot accuse such a person of ill will or of misleading others.
You have not even read one page of his book and you make such egregious accusations. He never said that Mushaf popped into out of nowhere.
You call the Umayyad the Golden Age? That is absurd and a cartoonish understanding of history.
Do you realize that it was Yazid who attacked Madina and thousands of the companions and their families were killed and hundreds or thousands of daughters of companions were raped?
Imagine if Netenyahu felt that Muslim nations were going to threaten his position as Prime Minister because of him killing and injuring Palestinians and continuing the home demolitions. Imagine if on the day he saw Muslim countries forces in the horizon, he declares his shahada. And then imagine that he declares himself the Khalifa of all 57+ Muslim nations and then he appoints his son to be the next Khalifa and then other relatives.
Would you call that Golden Age 2?
And Netenyahu was not even trying to kill the Prophet as Muawiyah was before he converted to Islam along with his father Abu Sufyan (the main enemy of the Prophet) and his mother Hind (who chewed the liver of Hamza) when Muslims were about to take over Makkah (or according to another source before that), the first Umayyad “Khalifa” and then later trying to kill the Prophet’s family in this hypothesized conversion to Islam scenario.
Regarding misleading Muslims, could you even imagine how far Islam could have spread if people like Abu Sufyan and Muawiyah were not persecuting or fighting the Prophet and his followers almost the entire life of the Prophet?
And then continuing to attack and kill the Prophet’s family members and close followers of the Prophet’s family.
Think about how much loss to Islam from that.
And no, I am not a Shia Muslim. I do believe that Shia hadith is not as strong as Sunni hadith in general.
Shia Muslims distort history a lot and they exaggerate things in history like you do.
Calling Umayyad’s the Golden Age…amazing.le when they declare that they are Muslims.
I am not calling you a kafir. I assume you are well-intentioned and knowledgable. But you are out of bounds calling any Muslim a kafir.
The “le when they declare that they are Muslims.” is an error that got in there as I was trying to rearrange sentences within the last post. Disregard that phrase.
To begin Munkareen al hadith (hadith rejectors aka Quranits I just don’t like calling them that as it make them think they have some sort of legitimacy) are by consensus kuffar I kept the statement general but if you associate the statement with Omar well… hey don’t promote kufr in your ignorance.
Anyways moving on to an Aqeedah point you said:
“Only God can declare who is a kafir or not.”
That’s not how it works. We have set criteria on what is and what is not a Muslim. 5 pillars/ 6 articles. This is why the people were killed during the Apostate wars they believed like Muslims but rejected the duty of Zakat and thus negated their Islam. Hadith Rejectors negate belief in the Messengers and have thus left the folds of Islam. If he claims that hadith is not authoritative (and it is properly explained to him) and he continues he is a kaffir plain and simple nor am I out of line. He is the one who should repent for speaking about Allah’s religion in stupidity. I do not need to read his book because they ALL say the same crap that’s been refuted over and over again it starts to become repetitive. The last point to say on this matter is whether purposeful or not (I believe the former) he is misleading because again common sense I have to study a subject to speak on it. Why would I read a laymen’s work when I am more learned in the subject than him?
Now onto the other points, you said:
“I do think that it is wrong for Muslims to take words attributed to the Prophet in context that is not fully known and over 5-7 people over decades and centuries with those people themselves dead…and holding all that to be practically equal to the Qur’an to be the biggest bidah ever done in Islam.”
This is incorrect and I would advise you personally to take a hadith class from THOSE QUALIFIED TO SPEAK ON THE SUBJECT. Here is one for your studies (Usool al Hadith):
You will notice that there is no Hadith Rejector that has ever studied the field which is why they propagate stupid lies to Muslims like “over 5-7 people in a chain, decades or centuries after his death”.
First off common sense should say how come NO SCHOLAR in over 1,000 years ever debated the matter? The first point is, we have extremely early hadith collections that were absorbed into later works like Bukhari
The second is these people can never explain how the Qur’an reached us in the first place and when you get down to the nitty-gritty they essentially believe the Mushaf and use circular logic.
Onto your next point, you criticized my descriptive term regarding the Umayyads. To begin I am very familiar with Islamic history (it one of my favorite topics after tafsir) notice, the quotes I used around “Golden Age” whether you agree or not to Non-Muslims this is considered the peak of Islamic civilization (regarding the sciences etc.) and the Umayyads did form the Caliphate into an Empire. His retarded argument was that ahadith were “holding Muslims back” but the peak of Islamic civilization in the sciences was using hadith lol. So again he has the absurd and cartoonish view of Islamic history.
Moving on to your points regarding Muawiyya(ra) several points as you might want to read up more on the First Fitna:
1. The issue wasn’t clear and if somebody killed my people I wouldn’t have much to talk about as well.
2. Even though Ali(ra) was right being the Prophet’s(saw) family doesn’t automatically make someone right.
3. In the Second Fitna not only the Prophet’s(saw) family was fighting.
4. Sins of the son dont transfer
5. Islam was going to spread as far as Allah willed it and it happened exactly in the best way so no loss there.
6. Regarding the argument “he was bad before Islam” argument than what do you say about heavy hitters like Umar bin Khattab(ra), Amr bin Al-As(ra), Kahlid bin Waleed(ra) or even yours truly? Sorry man being bad and becoming good is cool.
8. Abu Sufyan(ra) and Hind(ra)
a. Abu Sufyan(ra) is the Prophet’s (saw) father in law through Ramlah(ra)
b. Abu Sufyan(ra) lost his eye in Jihad
c. Both served with honors at the Battle of Yarmouk (I would argue the most important battle during the Rashidun Caliphate era) and Hind(ra) is pretty much responsible for the Muslim right flank not breaking to see why this was important see the videos @ 5:13 and @6:47 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fffnn283y_c
There are more but you get the point. The saying “hindsight is 20/20” applies here as it’s easy to criticize when it’s over and done, this is why fitna is worse than murder. Them doing bad before Isalm has already been forgiven by Allah so bringing that up has no use otherwise I can attack a LOT of Sahaba on this subject. Them making a wrong opinion afterward is the same thing and again you can attack a LOT of Sahaba on this subject as well (including some of the greats like Abu Bakr(ra), Umar(ra), Uthaman(ra) and Ali(ra)). being a Sahaba does not make someone a perfect human being but they were among the best this nation has produced and Allah chose them for the special title for a reason.
I read the drafts of his book that he posted on his academia.edu profile and I really liked it overall, although I think it’s still not as profoundly detailed as I wish it could be 🙂
I’m really glad Jonathan work paid off with this book and I hope he now proceeds with his other work on translation al-Bukhari and the book on controversial hadiths (I hope he didn’t change his plans for that last one), Jazah Allah Khairan
btw: @Paul bloggingtheology.com is down, maybe you can buy the domain name again and take control of it?
thanks – happy to get the domain name if someone can purchase it for me 🙂
Paul, please check out
https://www.muslimsgreatestchallenge.com/
I would love to get your thoughtful take on this book
It is available on Amazon and also directly from the author
@brotheromer
From the content tiles I can smell that it’s pushing the Quranist narrative. “Naskh: Fraud in the Name of God”, no, naskh is the simple concept that God can give laws for a certain circumstance and change it later when the circumstances change (for example Muslims were forbidden from defending themselves by waging war when they were in Makkah but they were permitted (and even obligated) to do it when they arrived in Madinah and had the resources and power).
@brotheromer
It appears the book is not written by a scholar in the Islamic sciences. So i’m afraid it will not be at the top of my reading list.
@ united states of
It is. From the Description:
This book is an attempt to explore why Muslims are in conflict with themselves, and why Muslims have been living in an isolation and intellectual vacuum. This book is an attempt to find out why Islam, as embodied in the Mushaf, calls for a sharply different set of norms than those adopted by the majority of Muslims. To search for answers, the book uses, as much as possible, two sources: the first is critical reasoning, and the second is the Mushaf… The book takes a methodical approach to analyzing the techniques that evolved throughout the ages to marginalize the Muslims’ mind and to project reason as the archenemy of Islam. It analyses alleged prophetic narratives (Hadith)…The book challenges the use of Hadith as a source of Islamic legislation… The conclusions in these two chapters put Hadith in a perspective and context that is completely non-convergent with prevailing Muslim doctrines.
https://www.muslimsgreatestchallenge.com/description
What kills me about these kuffar is do they think ahadith and the mushaf just popped into existence one day lol. Even during Khalifah Rashidun and the Umayyads (the “Golden Age”), they were still using ahadith. And again from this person notice the lack of scholarly credentials:
Omar M. Ramahi is Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Waterloo, Canada. He studied Logic, Mathematics and Electrical and Computer Engineering at Oregon State University, and holds advanced degrees in Engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He worked in the industry for several years and was Associate Professor at the University of Maryland at College Park before joining Waterloo. He writes on subjects related to Islam and the Middle East.
https://www.muslimsgreatestchallenge.com/the-author
Notice NOTHING in Islamic sciences.
As a note for everyone, my post was NOT intended to attack brother omer or anything like that. he was making a suggestion and trying to increase his knowledge (and may Allah reward him and increase it) my criticism was meant for Omar M. Ramahi who being a professor should know that you have to study a field to write on it. And that by doing this he is misleading people honestly seeking knowledge.
You accused brother Omar of kufr. That is unacceptable. Kufr means to cover up the truth when one knows it.
Perhaps we are all covering up the truth to one degree or another but to give anyone such a label is not acceptable when they declare that they are Muslims.
Only God can declare who is a kafir or not.
Your labeling is heinous and egregious….you should ask God for forgiveness and give some charity or something to make up for it.
I do not reject hadith and I take them to be authoritative as long as they do not conflict with the Qur’an and according to the Qur’an, anything that is fully in conflict with reason and morality is in conflict with the Qur’an.
I do think that it is wrong for Muslims to take words attributed to the Prophet in context that is not fully known and over 5-7 people over decades and centuries with those people themselves dead…and holding all that to be practically equal to the Qur’an to be the biggest bidah ever done in Islam.
You need to read his book to see what he says of hadith. He may have a view of hadith that is not the same as mine but as long as after due research, he comes to the conclusion of not taking hadith as authoritative, he should not be called a kafir.
Of course, you can strongly disagree with his views and I understand how you would naturally be upset if you think he is misleading others.
However, for claiming that he is misleading others, you need to read his book and bring anything that you think is misleading to his attention.
It depend on his intention. As long as someone does their due diligence in research and remains
open-minded to new information and knowledge, one cannot accuse such a person of ill will or of misleading others.
You have not even read one page of his book and you make such egregious accusations. He never said that Mushaf popped into out of nowhere.
You call the Umayyad the Golden Age? That is absurd and a cartoonish understanding of history.
Do you realize that it was Yazid who attacked Madina and thousands of the companions and their families were killed and hundreds or thousands of daughters of companions were raped?
Imagine if Netenyahu felt that Muslim nations were going to threaten his position as Prime Minister because of him killing and injuring Palestinians and continuing the home demolitions. Imagine if on the day he saw Muslim countries forces in the horizon, he declares his shahada. And then imagine that he declares himself the Khalifa of all 57+ Muslim nations and then he appoints his son to be the next Khalifa and then other relatives.
Would you call that Golden Age 2?
And Netenyahu was not even trying to kill the Prophet as Muawiyah was before he converted to Islam along with his father Abu Sufyan (the main enemy of the Prophet) and his mother Hind (who chewed the liver of Hamza) when Muslims were about to take over Makkah (or according to another source before that), the first Umayyad “Khalifa” and then later trying to kill the Prophet’s family in this hypothesized conversion to Islam scenario.
Regarding misleading Muslims, could you even imagine how far Islam could have spread if people like Abu Sufyan and Muawiyah were not persecuting or fighting the Prophet and his followers almost the entire life of the Prophet?
And then continuing to attack and kill the Prophet’s family members and close followers of the Prophet’s family.
Think about how much loss to Islam from that.
And no, I am not a Shia Muslim. I do believe that Shia hadith is not as strong as Sunni hadith in general.
Shia Muslims distort history a lot and they exaggerate things in history like you do.
Calling Umayyad’s the Golden Age…amazing.k God for forgiveness and give some charity or something to make up for it.
I do not reject hadith and I take them to be authoritative as long as they do not conflict with the Qur’an and according to the Qur’an, anything that is fully in conflict with reason and morality is in conflict with the Qur’an.
I do think that it is wrong for Muslims to take words attributed to the Prophet in context that is not fully known and over 5-7 people over decades and centuries with those people themselves dead…and holding all that to be practically equal to the Qur’an to be the biggest bidah ever done in Islam.
You need to read his book to see what he says of hadith. He may have a view of hadith that is not the same as mine but as long as after due research, he comes to the conclusion of not taking hadith as authoritative, he should not be called a kafir.
Of course, you can strongly disagree with his views and I understand how you would naturally be upset if you think he is misleading others.
However, for claiming that he is misleading others, you need to read his book and bring anything that you think is misleading to his attention.
It depend on his intention. As long as someone does their due diligence in research and remains
open-minded to new information and knowledge, one cannot accuse such a person of ill will or of misleading others.
You have not even read one page of his book and you make such egregious accusations. He never said that Mushaf popped into out of nowhere.
You call the Umayyad the Golden Age? That is absurd and a cartoonish understanding of history.
Do you realize that it was Yazid who attacked Madina and thousands of the companions and their families were killed and hundreds or thousands of daughters of companions were raped?
Imagine if Netenyahu felt that Muslim nations were going to threaten his position as Prime Minister because of him killing and injuring Palestinians and continuing the home demolitions. Imagine if on the day he saw Muslim countries forces in the horizon, he declares his shahada. And then imagine that he declares himself the Khalifa of all 57+ Muslim nations and then he appoints his son to be the next Khalifa and then other relatives.
Would you call that Golden Age 2?
And Netenyahu was not even trying to kill the Prophet as Muawiyah was before he converted to Islam along with his father Abu Sufyan (the main enemy of the Prophet) and his mother Hind (who chewed the liver of Hamza) when Muslims were about to take over Makkah (or according to another source before that), the first Umayyad “Khalifa” and then later trying to kill the Prophet’s family in this hypothesized conversion to Islam scenario.
Regarding misleading Muslims, could you even imagine how far Islam could have spread if people like Abu Sufyan and Muawiyah were not persecuting or fighting the Prophet and his followers almost the entire life of the Prophet?
And then continuing to attack and kill the Prophet’s family members and close followers of the Prophet’s family.
Think about how much loss to Islam from that.
And no, I am not a Shia Muslim. I do believe that Shia hadith is not as strong as Sunni hadith in general.
Shia Muslims distort history a lot and they exaggerate things in history like you do.
Calling Umayyad’s the Golden Age…amazing.le when they declare that they are Muslims.
I am not calling you a kafir. I assume you are well-intentioned and knowledgable. But you are out of bounds calling any Muslim a kafir.
The “le when they declare that they are Muslims.” is an error that got in there as I was trying to rearrange sentences within the last post. Disregard that phrase.
@ brotheromer
To begin Munkareen al hadith (hadith rejectors aka Quranits I just don’t like calling them that as it make them think they have some sort of legitimacy) are by consensus kuffar I kept the statement general but if you associate the statement with Omar well… hey don’t promote kufr in your ignorance.
Anyways moving on to an Aqeedah point you said:
“Only God can declare who is a kafir or not.”
That’s not how it works. We have set criteria on what is and what is not a Muslim. 5 pillars/ 6 articles. This is why the people were killed during the Apostate wars they believed like Muslims but rejected the duty of Zakat and thus negated their Islam. Hadith Rejectors negate belief in the Messengers and have thus left the folds of Islam. If he claims that hadith is not authoritative (and it is properly explained to him) and he continues he is a kaffir plain and simple nor am I out of line. He is the one who should repent for speaking about Allah’s religion in stupidity. I do not need to read his book because they ALL say the same crap that’s been refuted over and over again it starts to become repetitive. The last point to say on this matter is whether purposeful or not (I believe the former) he is misleading because again common sense I have to study a subject to speak on it. Why would I read a laymen’s work when I am more learned in the subject than him?
Now onto the other points, you said:
“I do think that it is wrong for Muslims to take words attributed to the Prophet in context that is not fully known and over 5-7 people over decades and centuries with those people themselves dead…and holding all that to be practically equal to the Qur’an to be the biggest bidah ever done in Islam.”
This is incorrect and I would advise you personally to take a hadith class from THOSE QUALIFIED TO SPEAK ON THE SUBJECT. Here is one for your studies (Usool al Hadith):
https://diploma.islamiconlineuniversity.com/opencampus/course/index.php?categoryid=11
You will notice that there is no Hadith Rejector that has ever studied the field which is why they propagate stupid lies to Muslims like “over 5-7 people in a chain, decades or centuries after his death”.
First off common sense should say how come NO SCHOLAR in over 1,000 years ever debated the matter? The first point is, we have extremely early hadith collections that were absorbed into later works like Bukhari
The second is these people can never explain how the Qur’an reached us in the first place and when you get down to the nitty-gritty they essentially believe the Mushaf and use circular logic.
Onto your next point, you criticized my descriptive term regarding the Umayyads. To begin I am very familiar with Islamic history (it one of my favorite topics after tafsir) notice, the quotes I used around “Golden Age” whether you agree or not to Non-Muslims this is considered the peak of Islamic civilization (regarding the sciences etc.) and the Umayyads did form the Caliphate into an Empire. His retarded argument was that ahadith were “holding Muslims back” but the peak of Islamic civilization in the sciences was using hadith lol. So again he has the absurd and cartoonish view of Islamic history.
Moving on to your points regarding Muawiyya(ra) several points as you might want to read up more on the First Fitna:
1. The issue wasn’t clear and if somebody killed my people I wouldn’t have much to talk about as well.
2. Even though Ali(ra) was right being the Prophet’s(saw) family doesn’t automatically make someone right.
3. In the Second Fitna not only the Prophet’s(saw) family was fighting.
4. Sins of the son dont transfer
5. Islam was going to spread as far as Allah willed it and it happened exactly in the best way so no loss there.
6. Regarding the argument “he was bad before Islam” argument than what do you say about heavy hitters like Umar bin Khattab(ra), Amr bin Al-As(ra), Kahlid bin Waleed(ra) or even yours truly? Sorry man being bad and becoming good is cool.
@brotheromer
Also forgot to add merits of the Sahaba who you mentioned:
7. Muawiyyah (ra)
a. was a scribe of the Prophet(saw),
b. is confirmed to be a Muslim by the Prophet(saw)
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/92/56
c. is confirmed to be in Jannah (he was the first one to build the Islamic Navy),
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/56/17
8. Abu Sufyan(ra) and Hind(ra)
a. Abu Sufyan(ra) is the Prophet’s (saw) father in law through Ramlah(ra)
b. Abu Sufyan(ra) lost his eye in Jihad
c. Both served with honors at the Battle of Yarmouk (I would argue the most important battle during the Rashidun Caliphate era) and Hind(ra) is pretty much responsible for the Muslim right flank not breaking to see why this was important see the videos @ 5:13 and @6:47
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fffnn283y_c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRB6KTg18W8
There are more but you get the point. The saying “hindsight is 20/20” applies here as it’s easy to criticize when it’s over and done, this is why fitna is worse than murder. Them doing bad before Isalm has already been forgiven by Allah so bringing that up has no use otherwise I can attack a LOT of Sahaba on this subject. Them making a wrong opinion afterward is the same thing and again you can attack a LOT of Sahaba on this subject as well (including some of the greats like Abu Bakr(ra), Umar(ra), Uthaman(ra) and Ali(ra)). being a Sahaba does not make someone a perfect human being but they were among the best this nation has produced and Allah chose them for the special title for a reason.