As for his statement:
“The reason they called Muawiya ‘the maternal uncle of the believers,’ but not Muhammad, is that this Muhammad loved Ali, whereas Muawiya hated him.”
The response is:
This too is a lie. [Abdullah] ibn Umar [was] more entitled (1) to this description than either of them. He fought alongside neither one nor the other. He revered and loved Ali and would recount his virtues and merits. He also pledged allegiance to Muawiya when the people united under him and did not rebel against him. His sister was superior to Muawiya’s sister, his father was superior to Muawiya’s father, and the people loved and revered him more than they did Muawiya or Muhammad. Despite this, he did not become known as “the maternal uncle of the believers.” It is therefore evident that the reason was not what he alleged.
Moreover, Ahl al-Sunnah have greater love for those who did not fight Ali than for those who fought him, and they regard those who did not fight him as superior to those who did. Among them were Sa'd ibn Abī Waqqās, Usāma ibn Zayd, Muhammad ibn Maslama (2), and Abdullah ibn Umar—may Allah be pleased with them. According to Ahl al-Sunnah, these men were superior to those who fought Ali. Loving Ali and refraining from fighting him (3) are, by the consensus of Ahl al-Sunnah, better than hating and fighting him. They agree that loyalty to him and love for him are obligatory, and they are among the staunchest in defending him and refuting those who malign him, including the Kharijites and other Nasibis hostile to him. Yet every context calls for its own discussion.
The Rafidah cannot establish the obligation of loyalty to him as Ahl al-Sunnah can. Ahl al-Sunnah unanimously condemn the Kharijites, who harbor greater hatred and enmity toward him than anyone else. Ahl al-Sunnah also unanimously agree that they must be fought. How, then, can a slanderer slander