How do we respond to the specious argument of those who malign Mu'awiyah, citing his statement: "Whoever wishes to speak on this matter, let him show us his horn; for we are more deserving of it than him and his father," and claiming that he altered the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, introducing the practice of hereditary succession, and that he breached his covenant with Al-Hasan, may Allah be pleased with him?

Here is a summary of the answer:

1. The narration reported by Al-Bukhari from Ibn Umar does not contain any insult towards Mu'awiyah. Rather, it is a statement that he was the most suitable for leadership, which does not mean he was superior in religious devotion. Someone with less religious devotion might be appointed due to their political experience, just as the Prophet, peace be upon him, did with some whose conversion to Islam was late.

2. Mu'awiyah's ijtihad (independent reasoning) in appointing his son Yazid was out of consideration for the public interest of uniting the people, because Banu Umayyah were the dominant clan of Quraysh and held power. The Companions affirmed this. Ibn Khaldun emphasized that Mu'awiyah chose what was less preferable over what was more preferable out of keenness for agreement and the unity of inclinations.

3. Those Companions who objected to Yazid's allegiance did not accuse him in his religious commitment. And what is narrated about him drinking wine requires proof with witnesses. Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah defended him, mentioning his diligence in prayer and his pursuit of good.

4. The matters that the Shi'a object to regarding Mu'awiyah are matters of ijtihad (independent reasoning), and most of the Companions and senior Tabi'un affirmed them.