Chapter Eight: The phantom merits of Mu’awiya
The aim of the writer (Abu Sulaiman) behind this passionate defense was to:
“I will represent Al-Tijani’s libels against this companion and I will refute these allegations against Mu’awiyah defend the writer of the revelation whom the Prophet peace be upon him said about: “O’ Allah, make him guided, a guider, and guide people through him.” [Sunan Al-Turmidhi, Book of "Virtues," Chapter of "Virtues of Mu'awiyah," #3842, see also Saheeh Al-Turmidhi #3018]
The Nasibi author has tried to prove Muawiyah as guide (Hadi) but he is so shamless to cite this tradition while he knew that Imam Tirmidhi himself rejected to deem the tradition to be ‘Sahih’. We will later on in this very chapter show the credibility of this hadith right from the Sunni sources while we will also shed light on the acts committed by the ‘guided guide’ of Ansar.org and other Nawasib so that the naïve Sunnies can better analyze the religious standing of Muawiyah.
Was Mu’awiya the writer of the revelation?
“It is a firm thing that Mu’awiyah was among the writers of the revelation. Muslim narrated in his Saheeh from Ibn Abbas that Abu Sufyan asked the prophet peace be upon him for three things: (He (Abu Sufyan) said to the prophet: “O’ Prophet of Allah, give me three things.” The prophet said: “yes.” … Abu Sufyan said: “Mu’awiyah, make him a writer (of the revelation) under your hands.” The prophet answered: “Alright.”) [Muslim with explanation. Book of "Virtues of the Companions," Chapter of "Virtues of Abu Sufyan," vol.17, p.2501] Ahmad narrated in his Musnad, and Muslim from Ibn Abbas who says: (Once I was a kid playing with other boys when I looked behind and I saw the prophet peace be upon him coming towards us. So I said: “The prophet did not come to anyone but to me.” So I went behind the door to hide. I did not feel until the prophet found me, grasped my neck, and pressed my shoulders gently. The prophet said: “Go and call Mu’awiyah for me.” And Mu’awiyah was his writer (of the revelation). So I went looking for Mu’awiyah and told him: “Go and answer the prophet of Allah peace be upon him because he needs you.”) [Musnad Ahmed, vol.1, Musnad Ibn Abbas #2651, and Muslim with explanation, Book of "Al-Birr wa Al-Silah," #2604] These two hadeeths prove that Mu’awiyah was one of the writers of the revelation”
Reply One – Prominent Ulema of Ahl’ul Sunnah have not counted Mu’awiya as writer of the revelation
One wonders to what extent Mu’awiya was the writer of the revelation, after all he embraced Islam following the conquest of Mecca, so the vast bulk of the revelation had already been revealed. In fact many classical Sunni scholars whilst listing those individuals honored as writer of the revelation did not count Mu’awiya. For evidence see the following texts:
- Fathul Bari, page 450 Volume 2
- Irshad al Sari, Volume 9 page 22
- Umdhathul Qari, Volume 9 page 307
- Nasah al Kafiya, page 170
Reply Two- Mu’awiya wrote letters not the revelation
In ‘Iqd al Fareed’ Volume 2 page 197 we read that:
“Ali bin Abi Talib with all of his honor and nobility in addition to his being a relative of Rasulullah (s), was also a writer of the revelation, thereafter he also became Khalifa. Uthman bin Afan used to write the revelation. In the absence of them (Ali & Uthman) Ubai bin Ka’ab and Zaid bin Thabit used to write, in the absence of these men, some other used to write. Khalid bin Saeed and Mu’awiya bin ‘Abu Sufyan were entrusted with the duty of writing documents, al-Mugira bin Shu’aba and al-Husain bin Numair used to write the documents for the people, they used to replace Khalid and Mu’awiya in their absence.”
Similarly Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani records in ‘al Isaba’ Volume 6 page 121:
“According to Madaini the writer of the revelation was Zaid bin Thabit and Muawiyah used to write for Prophet (s) the letters between Him (s) and the Arabs”.
Similarly Imam Dhahabi records in ‘Tarikh al-Islam’ Volume 4 page 309:
Al-Mufadhal Al-Ghulabi stated: “Zaid bin thabit was the writer of the revelation for Holy Prophet (s), Mu’awiya was His (s) writer of correspondece between Him (s) and the Arabs.”
The Sunni Sheikh from Al-Azhar Universitiy, Mahmood Abu Raya (d. 1385 H) also rejected the claim regarding Mu’awiya being the writer of Wahi. He states in ‘Sheikh al-Mudhira’ page 205:
“We don’t rule out the probability that he wrote for the Prophet (s) anything which was not related to revelation because that is something possible, but to write anything from Quran, this is something impossible”
On this topic the comments of the renowned Egyptian Sunni scholar Sayyid Qutb are worthy of note:
“The erroneous fable still persists that Mu’awiya was a scribe who wrote down the revelations of Allah’s Messenger. The truth is that when Abu Sufyan embraced Islam, he besought the Prophet to give Mu’awiya some measure of position in the eyes of the Arabs; thus he would be compensated of being slow to embrace Islam and of being one of those who had no precedence in the new religion. So the Prophet used Mu’awiya for writing letters and contracts and agreements. But none of the companions ever said that he wrote down any of the Prophet’s revelations, as was asserted by Mu’awiyas partisans after he had assumed the throne. But this is what happens in all such cases”.
Social Justice in Islam by Sayyid Qutb, English translation by John B. Hardie, page 215
Reply Three- A writer of the revelation became a kaafir
Allamah Salah-uddin Khalil bin Aybak al-Safadi (d. 764 H) records in his book ‘Al-Wafei bil Wafiyat’ Volume 17 page 100:
“Ibn Abi Sarh, the writer of wahi, Abdullah bin Saad bin Abi Sarh bin al-Harith, bin Habib, bin Judayma Abu Yahya al-Qurashi al-Amiri. Converted to Islam before fatah and migrated, he used to write revelation (Wahi) for the Messenger of Allah (s) and then he became apostate and moved to Quraish in Makka”
In Fathul Bari, Volume 9 page 22 we read:
“The first man from the Quraysh who was the writer of the revelation was Abdullah bin Saad. After this he apostatised and became a kaafir and then became a Muslim again”.
Also see ‘Al-Muntakhab min Dail al-Mudail’ page 41, Al-Ma’arif by ibn Qutayba, page 300 and Siyar alam al-Nubala, Volume 3 page 33.
As we see from this reference attaining the station of writer of the revelation means absolutely nothing, it does not in any way protect you from deviance since Saad who was incidentally Mu’awiya own Umayya relative became a kaafir after attaining this post. Even if we accept that Mu’awiya attained this honour then his later transgressions are even more damning. The writing down of the revelation does not in any way ‘protect’ Mu’awiya from the wrath of Allah (swt). It is the end result that counts; Allah (swt) was so impressed by the subservience of Iblis the Jinn that he elevated him to the Heavens. Despite this he was expelled and cursed by Allah (swt) following his refusal to submit himself to the will of Allah (swt). Hence Mu’awiya’s behaviour despite having benefited from sitting with Rasulullah (s) will no doubt be viewed as a greater transgression in the eyes of Allah (swt).
Was Mu’awiya a Hadi?
A number of interesting facts need to be considered before analyzing the authenticity of this hadith. It is quite logical that Rasulullah (s) would not just say something like this out of the blue. Mu’awiya must have demonstrated some quality in his presence that led to Rasulullah (s) making this dua. It is common an individual is only praised when he has committed a praiseworthy action and proven his worth e.g. on the battlefield, in exams etc. The clearest proof comes from a tradition that Abu Sulaiman cites:
A’amir bin Sa’ad bin Abi Waqqas who narrated from his father who says: (Mu’awiyah bin Abi Sufyan ordered Sa’d and asked him: “What prevented you from insulting Abu Turab (Ali bin Abi Talib)?” Sa’ad answered: “The prophet peace be upon him said three things to him (Ali bin Abi Talib), so I would not insult him because to have one of these three things is more beloved to me than Humr Al-Nni’am (a kind of best camels). I heard the prophet peace be upon him saying to appoint Ali as a leader when the prophet used to go to Jihad (Holy War). Ali then would say to him: “O’ Messenger of Allah, you left me with the women and children?” The prophet peace be upon him answered him: “Would not you be pleased if you were for me as Haroon was for Mousa? Except there is no prophecy after me.” And I heard the prophet saying at the day of Khaybar: “I would give this banner to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger and who Allah and His Messenger love him too.” He said: “Then we were looking for this honor.” Then the Prophet said: “Call Ali.” Ali was brought and he had sore eyes. So the prophet peace be upon him spitted in his eyes and gave him the banner. Then Allah granted victory to the Muslims by the hands of Ali. And when this verse revealed: “Come, let us gather together, our sons and your sons,” the messenger of Allah called Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Hussain and said: “O’ Allah, they are my family.”) [Saheeh Muslim with Explanation, Book of "The Companions," Chapter of "Virtues of Ali," #2404]
All three traditions praising Ali (as) have a context as to ‘why’ Rasulullah said these words praising ‘Ali, thus explaining the reason BEHIND these words. Now could Abu Sulaiman cite us the reason why Rasulullah (s) prayed for Mu’awiya as Hadi? Moreover with such a desire that Mu’awiya become a Hadi, surely Rasulullah (s) would have sought to train Mu’awiya in this role. Could Abu Sulaiman cite us any events when he sent Mu’awiya on dawah campaigns to guide the people or to converts to Judge over them (as he did when he sent Ali (as) to Yemen).
One should also ask Abu Sulaiman, is it not curious that Mu’awiya never once recollected this hadith? Would this not have been clear evidence to convince his doubters?
It is also quite fascinating that Rasulullah referred to Mu’awiya as a Hadi who would guide the people whilst he never referred to the three caliphs as Hadi who would provide Hidaya (guidance). No such tradition appears about these three in the Sihah Sittah. Is Abu Sulaiman therefore suggesting that Mu’awiya was more learned on matters pertaining to the Deen than them? With such a strong hadith do we have any evidence that the three khulafa ever appointed Mu’awiya as a Judge over the Muslim Ummah after all the role of a Judge far outweighs the role of a governor – since only a Hadi can attain the station of Qadi. So did the three khulafa recognize Mu’awiya’s greatness and appoint him as a Judge?
A Hadi is one who guides his followers in accordance with the Qur’an and Sunnah
Hadi is one that guides the Ummah in accordance with the Qur’an and Sunnah, so exactly what Hidaya did Mu’awiya provide for his followers? Can we interpret this hadith to mean that he was the Hadi that would lead the Ummah to fight Imam Ali (as) and curse him in the mosques?
If Mu’awiya was indeed a Hadi for the Ummah and people would be guided by him then that in effect means that anyone that opposes him is opposing guidance and has deviated from the right path. In other words the alleged hadith would suggest that Mu’awiya and his supporters were right at Sifeen and Ali (as) and his Shi’a were deviants as they were fighting the Hadi – does Abu Sulaiman uphold this view?
If we look in to the works of Ahl’ul Sunnah we learn that this alleged Hadi made decisions in violation to the Sharia.
Mu’awiya ‘the Hadi’ declared Ziyad, the bastard son of Abu Sufiyan as his real brother contradicting the Sharia
Regarding the acts committed by Muawiyah contradicting to the Islamic Shariya, let us begin with his first open violation of Quraninc injunctions by declaring Ziyad, the bastered son of Abu Sufiyan as his real brothther. He did so at the time of appointintg Ziyad. Imam Jalaluddeen Suyuti also acknowledges this in his book ‘Al-Debaj ala Muslim’ volume 1 page 84:
“When Zyiad was attributed, as Mu’awiya attributed him to his father Abu Sufyan while he (Zyiad) was known as Zyiad bin Abih because his mother had given birth to him on Ubaid’s bed, and this was the first Sharia law that was changed in Islam.”
Al-Debaj ala Muslim, Volume 1 page 84
Imam Suyuti also records in Tareekh ul Khulafa, page 185:
“Mu’awiya’s appointed Ziyad bin Abih and it was the first act that contradicted an order of Rasulullah as al-Thalabi and others narrated it”.
We read in Tarikh Kamil Volume 3 page 68:
“They rejected the law of Rasulullah because Rasulullah (s) said that the legitimate child is one born from wedlock”
Allamah Ibn Abdul Barr records in his esteem work ‘al-Estidkar’ volume 7 page 169:
Saeed bin al-Musayab said: ‘The first law of messenger of Allah that was rejected is the case of Ziyad’
Let us also read the views of Imam of Ahle Sunnah Ahmed bin Hanbal:
Ahmad (bin Hanbal) said: ‘The first law of the Holy Prophet (s) that was rejected is the case of Ziyad’
Masael Ahmad bin Hanbal, page 89
Let us now cite the words of one of the beloved scholars by Salafies Sheikh Hasan Farhan al-Maliki who was born in 1390 H and graduated from Imam Muhammad bin Saud University in year 1412 H. He records in ‘Naho Inqad al-Tarikh’ page 31:
“During the reign of Mu’awiya, a group testified that Abu Sufyan confessed that Ziad to be his son, so according to that Mu’awiya attributed him (to Abu Sufyan) and contradicted the correct hadith which is boy belongs to the bed (where he was born), and for the adulterer is the stone! And that was for worldly benefit. Those who condemn Mu’awiya’s deed had declared it. And the scholars agreed on the illegality of his attribution to Abu Sufyan, and what happened (of silence) from the scholars during the reign of Bani Umaya was Taqyia.”
This action of Mu’awiya contravened the Qur’an, as we raed in Surah Ahzab verses 4-5:
YUSUFALI: Allah has not made for any man two hearts in his (one) body: nor has He made your wives whom ye divorce by Zihar your mothers: nor has He made your adopted sons your sons. Such is (only) your (manner of) speech by your mouths. But Allah tells (you) the Truth, and He shows the (right) Way.
Call them by (the names of) their fathers: that is juster in the sight of Allah. But if ye know not their father’s (names, call them) your Brothers in faith, or your maulas. But there is no blame on you if ye make a mistake therein: (what counts is) the intention of your hearts: and Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.
Mu’awiya ‘the Hadi’ made decisions that contradicted the Shar’ia on inheritance
Ibn Kathir in his esteemed work Al-Bidayah (Urdu), vol 8 page 989-990 (Nafees Academy Karachi) while recording the ‘merits’ of Muawiya bin Hinda, records:
The Sunnah is that that neither could a kaafir inherit from a Muslim, nor a Muslim inherit from a kaafir. The first person to allow a Muslim to inherit from Kafir, whilst Kafir could not inherit from a Muslim was Muawiya, and Bani Umaya did the same after him till Umar bin Abdulaziz came and revived the Sunnah, but then Hisham returned back to what Mu’awiya and Bani Umatya used to do.
Al Bidayah (Arabic), Volume 8 page 141
Imam of Ahle Sunnah Ibn Qudamah records in his esteemed work Al-Mughni, Volume 7 page 166- Kitab al-Faraiz:
“The scholars are unanimous that the non Muslim does not inherit the Muslim, the majority of companions and jurists said: ‘The muslim do not inherit the non Muslim’. That is what narrated from Abu bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Usama bin Zaid, Jaber bin Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with them), and so was said by Amro bin Uthman, Arwa, al-Zuheri, Atta, Tawous, al-Hasan, Amro bin Abdulaziz, Amro bin Dinar, al-Thawri, Abu Hanifa and his companions, Malik, Shafeei and the rest of the jurists, and that is what we follow. It is narrated about Amr, Mu’ath and Mu’awiya (may Allah be pleased with them) that they allowed Muslim to inherit the non Muslim, but they didn’t allow Non-Muslim to inherit a Muslim”
Mu’awiya’s introduction of this practice was an open violation to the teachings of Islam and we read in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 8 hadith number 756 that Rasulullah (s) said, “A Muslim cannot be the heir of a disbeliever, nor can a disbeliever be the heir of a Muslim”.
Mu’awiya ‘the Hadi’ contradicted the Shar’ia on Blood money
Ibn Katheer records in Al-Bidayah (Urdu), vol 8 page 989-990 (Nafees Academy Karachi):
“Another Sunnah that was ablolished was the blood money of non-Muslim being equal to the blood money of a Muslim, but Muawiya was the first person who reduced it to half, and kept the remaining half for himself”
Mu’awiya ‘the Hadi’ contradicted the Shar’ia on the distribution of war booty
In the distribution of war booty Mu’awiya acted in violation to the Book of God and his Sunnah. The Qur’an and Sunnah dictated that the fifth portion of war booty be placed into the treasury and the remaining four / fifths be distributed amongst the troops that participated in the battle, but Mu’awiya the ‘Ameer al-Momineen’ of Nawasib issued an order that from the war booty gold and silver would be removed, and the remainder be distributed.
A number of esteemed sunni scholars have recorded:
Al-Hassan said: ‘Ziyad wrote to al-Hakam ibn Amro al-Ghafari while he was a governor of Khurasan: ‘The Ameer al-Momineen wants to store the yellow (gold) and white (silver) (from the booty) and don’t distribute these among the people”.
1. Al-Istiab, Volume 1 page 358, Translation of Al-Hakam al-Amro al-Ghafari
2. Al-Dur al-Manthur, Volume 6 page 234, Commentary of 65:2
3. Siar alam alnubala, Volume 2 page 475
4. Al-Mustadrak al-Hakim, Volume 3 page 442
5. Musanaf ibn Abi Shayba, Volume 7 page 270
Some Sunni scholars have recorded the episode in this manner:
Ibn Habib mentioned that Zyiad wrote to al-Rabee bin Ziyad saying: ‘The Ameer al-Momineen wrote to me to order you to store the yellow (gold) and white (silver) while distribute the rest.’
1. Istiab, Volume 2 page 381 Translation No. 2579, Rabi bin Ziyad bin Anas
2. Siar alam alnubala, Volume 2 page 475
3. Asad al-Ghaba, Volume 2 page 36
4. Al-kamil fi al-Tarikh, Volume 3 page 470
If pathetic Nawasib fail to understand the correct meaning of the words ‘yellow’ and ‘white’ mentioned in the above cited traditions then let us help them by citing the meaning from great Sunni figures, for example Ibn Manzur states:
“Yellow: Gold, and white: silver”
Lisan al-Arab, Volume 4 page 460
Shaykh Abdulhamid al-Sherwani (d.1118 H) records in ‘Hawashi al-Sharwani’ Volume 5 page 140:
“Yellow and white which is gold and sliver”
We read in the margin of Sunnan Abi Dawoud by Allamah Saeed al-Laham (Volume 2 page 35):
“Yellow and white is the money of gold and silver”
Also we read in the introduction of Fath al-Bari Sharah Sahih Bukhari by Hasan Zaki:
“His saying yellow and white means gold and silver”
Sheikh Muhammad bin Aqeel al-Hadrami (d. 1350 H) records in ‘Nisai al-Kaafiyah’ page 131:
Ibn Hajar mentioned that it has been narrated with a chain of narration having thiqah narrators that Mu’awiya issued a sermon on Friday and said: ‘Verily the money is our money and the booty is our booty, we will give it to whoever we want and will seize it from whoever we want’.
1. Majm’a al-Zawaid, Volume 5 page 236 Tradition No. 9199
2. Musnad Abi Yala, Volume 13 page 374
3. Al-Mu’ajam al-Kabir, Volume 19 page 294
4. Tarikh al-islam by al-Dahabi, Volume 4 page 314
5. Tarikh Dimashq, Volume 59 page 168
Imam Abi Bakar al-Haythami said in Majma al-Zawaid: ‘The narrators are thiqa’ while famous Salafi scholar Husain Salim Asad in his margin of the book Musnad Abi Ya’la said: ‘The chain is sahih’.
In Tabaqat Ibn Saad, Volume 5 page 291- Biography of Umar bin Abdul Aziz, the author Imam Ibn Sa’ad records that Muawiyah had deprived the people from their due share of Khums:
Yahya bin Shibl said: ‘I sat with Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas and Abi Jaffar Muhammad bin Ali, then a man came to them and cursed Umar bin Abdul Aziz, so they prohibit him (of cursing) and said: ‘We never received Khums since Muawiya’s reign till today and Umar bin Abdulaziz gave it to Bani Abdulmutalib’
Mu’awiya ‘the Hadi’ drank a prohibited substance
Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah Ibn Hanbal records in his Musnad Volume 5 page 347:
“Abdullah bin Buraida said: ‘I entered on Muawiya with my father, then he (Mu’awiya) made us sit on a mattress then he brought food to us and we ate, then he brought drink to us, Muawiya drank and then he offered that to my father, thus (my father) said: ‘I never drank it since the messenger of Allah made it Haram’….”
Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Volume 5 page 347 Hadith: 22991
Screen shot of the Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal with the margin by Shaykh Shoib al-Arnaut
Several children of Muaiywah i.e. the hardline Nawasib have sought their utmost to find flaws in the chain of this narration but the fact is that the tradition at maximum is ‘Sahih’ and minimum is ‘Hasan’ as late Salafi scholar from Yemen Sheikh Muqbil al-Wadi’e decalred it ‘Hasan’ (al-Musnad al-Sahih, page 185). Allamah Hasan bin Ali al-Saqqaf (born in 1961) is a contemporary Sunni scholar of modern day, he is the chief of Imam Nawawi center in Jordon, he has been a student of some esteemed Sunni scholars such as al-Azeemi (the margin writter of the book Sahih Ibn Khuzaima), Hafiz Ghemari and Sheikh Bouti. Allamah Saqqaf has written a margin for the book “Dafu Shubah al-Tashbih” by Imam Abu al-Faraj bin al-Jawzi al-Hanbali in which Allamah Saqqaf wrote about this tradition: “The narrators are the narrators of Sahih Muslim”. And the version of Musnad Ahmad available at the above cited link is compiled by Shaykh Shoaib Al-Arnaut who stated about that tradition: “The chain is strong”. But if still the fact that the father of Nawasib drank a Haram substance is frustrating them and they are dying to prove it a weak narration, then let us hit the final nail in the coffin of Nasibism by presenting the comments of great Sunni Imam, Hafid Abi Bakar al-Hathami who has also recorded this tradition in his esteemed work ‘Majma al Zawaid’ Volume 5 page 554 Hadith 8022 and then stated:
“Ahmad narrated it and the narrators are the narrators of Sahih”
Mu’awiya’s love for alcohol was such that he even recited couplets praising it after getting unconscious due to intoxication We read an episode recorded in Tarikh ibn Asakir about the meeting of two old friends, one being Abdullah bin Harith al-Umaya and the other one was Muawiya.
Anbasa bin Amro reported that Abdullah bin al-Harith bin Umaya bin Abdshams went to Mu’awiya who came so close to him (Abdullah) till Muawiya’s knees touched the head of Abdullah, then Mu’awiya asked him: ‘So, what is left in you?’ (Abdullah) said: ‘By Allah (nothing left) my good and evil are gone.’ Mu’awiya said: ‘By Allah, the good left your heart, but still a lot of evil remains, so what do we got for you?’ (Abdullah) said: ‘If you did a good deed I will not thank you and if you did a bad deed I will blame you’. (Mu’awiya) said: ‘By Allah you are not doing justice with me’. (Abdullah) said: ‘When I did justice with you? By Allah, I wounded the head of your brother Handhla and I even didn’t pay the penalty tax for it, I used to say (poem):
Sakhar bin Harab! We don’t consider you as a master, rule other than us, you are not a master.
You (Mu’awiya) used to say:
‘I drank alcohol till I become a burden over my mate, and I had one friend‘
Then he (Abdullah) jumped on Mu’awiya hitting him by his hand, Mu’awiya inclined and began laughing.
Tarikh ibn Asakir, Volume 27 page 312 Translation No. 3230
Mu’awiya ‘the Hadi’ used to smuggle alcohol
Muawiya bin Hind was not only the initiator of mass terrorism in Islam, the first tyrant to make muslim women captives, he was also the idol of present day smugglers aka Don, particularly the smugglers of alcohol. Muhadith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehalwi in his anti-Shia book records the following incident:
“Abada bin Samit was in Syria when he saw Muawiya’s convoy comprised of a queue of camels having alcohol on thier back. Abada asked: “What are these?”. People answered: “These are alcohol that Muawiya has sent for the purpose of selling”. Abada came with a knife and he cut the ropes on the camels till all the alcohol spilled out”
Tuhfa Athna Ashariya (Farsi), page 638
The tradition can be read in Tarikh Ibn Asakir, Volume 26 page 197 and in Siyar Alam al Nubla, Volume 2 page 10 but it seems that the name of Muawiya as been deleted from the recent versions of these books and instead the word “Fulan” (sucn ahd such person) appears, but in any case, the fact that Abada bin Samit spilled the alcohol belonging to the ruler of Syria is still recorded in these books and shall suffice to point out the ruler of Syria namely Muawiya. Shaykh Shoib al-Arnaut, wrote in the margin of Siyar Alam Nubla that the tradition is ‘Hasan’.
Allamah Muttaqi Ali Hindi has recorded a similar kind of incident in this manner:
Muhammad bin Ka’ab al-Qurdhi said: ‘Abdulrahman bin Sahl al-Ansari participated in a war during Uthman’s reign and Mu’awiya was a ruler of Syria, then a barrel of alcohol passed before him (Abdulrahman), so he went there while holding his spear and penetrated into every barrel, the slaves resisted him, till Mu’awiya was informed about that. (Mu’awiya) said: “Leave him, he is an old man and has lost his mind’. (Abdulrahman) said: ‘By Allah, he has lied, I didn’t lose my mind, but the messenger of Allah (pbuh) forbade us to drink it, I swear by Allah that if I live till I see what I heard from the Messenger of Allah about Mu’awiya, either I will split and open Muawiya’s stomach or I will die’.
Kanzul Ummal, Volume 5 page 713 Hadith 13716
The tradition is also present in the following esteemed Sunni books:
- Faydh al-Qadir, by al-Manawi, Volume 5 page 462, Tradition 7969
- Tarikh Damishq, Volume 34 page 420
- Asad al-Ghaba, Volume 1 page 699, topic- Abdurehman bin Sahl bin Zayd
- Al-Isaba, Volume 4 page 313, Translation 5140
So here we come to know about the alcohol smuggler of that era while those who are in this profession today, they are merely following the Sunnah of Muawiyah.
Mu’awiya ‘the Hadi’ used to sell idols to polythiests helping them to worship the idols
As we all know that the reason that some people apparently entered the pale of Islam during the time of our Prophet (s) was not due to their conviction towards Islam, rather they had some hidden agendas, possibily to hurt Islam by secretly aiding their ‘actual’ relatives and friends, the idol worshippers. By reading the following habit of Muawiya, one can easily put him into the same category of people. One of the esteemed Hanafi Imam Sarkhasi (d. 483 H) who enjoys the title of ‘Shams al-Aimah’ (Sun of Imams) in his acclaimed work al-Mabsut, Volume 14 page 46 records:
Masrooq (rh) reported that Mu’awiya (ra) sent idols made up of copper to India for the purpose of selling, further Masrooq (rh) passed on those and said: ‘By Allah if I knew that he (Mu’awiya) would kill me I would sink (the idols), but I’m afraid that he (Mu’awiya) would rather tourcher and then persecute me. By Allah I don’t know what kind of man Mu’awiya is, is he the one to whom evil deeds seem to be fair, or who despairs of the hereafter (to survive) so he enjoys this life.’ It has been said that those idols were obtained as war booty, so Mu’awiya (ra) ordered their sale in India to buy (from it’s income) weapons and camels for the invaders and that is the evidence on which Abu Hanifa (rh) relied for permitting the sale of idols and the sale of the cross for the purposes of worship.’
Al-Mabsut, Volume 14 page 46
Al-Mabsut, Volume 7 page 269
This is the Hadi of the Nawasib. The role of a Hadi is to show all people the true path, to shw the disbelievers that they are on the wrong path, and that Islam is the true path. Rather than adhere to this role of a Hadi, Muawiya preferred aiding the Kuffar to worship false deities by selling idols to them. Rather than guides these deviants he was helping them to continue with their kufr ways!
We shall take the opportunity to clarify that selling idos is prohibted under Shia fiqh (see ‘Mesbah al-Faqaha’ by Sayyed Khoei, Volume 1 page 242). Also we read in ‘Feqh al-Sadiq’ by Sayyed Rohani, Volume 14 page 140 that:
‘The heresy worshipping equipments such as cross and idol, the popular view among the scholars is about the prohibitions of selling these, verily there is Ijma on it.’
Mu’awiya ‘the Hadi’ undresses and inspects the body of a naked woman
Ibn Katheer proudly records:
Ibn Asakir has narrated under the events of Mu’awiya’s slave Khadij al Hazi that Mu’awiya bought a fair complexioned and beautiful slave girl and he (Khadij) undressed her and brought her before Mu’awiya while he was having a stick in his hand and he started bowing towards her vagina and said: ” I wish this vagina were for me; take her to Yazeed bin Muawyah.” And then said “No! Call Rabi` bin Umro al Qarshi”. He (Rabi) was a Faqih. When he came, Muawyah asked him: “This slave girl has been brought before me in naked condition and I have seen her here and there and I wished to send her to Yazeed”. He said: “O commander of faithful! Don’t do this. This is not appropriate”. Mu’awiya said: “Your suggestion is correct”. Narrator says that Mu’awiya then gifted her to the servant of Fatima daughter of Holy Prophet (s) namely Abdullah bin Mas`adat Fazari who was black and Muaywah told him: “Make your children white through her”.
And this shows the cleverness and intelligence of Muawyah because he had seen her with lustful intention and felt weak in front of her, and then he was also scared of gifting her to Yazeed due to the verse of Holy Quran, and Faqih Rabi` bin Umro al Jarshi al Damashqi also agreed with him”
Al Badayah wal Niahayh (Urdu), Vol 8 page 992, Topic- Wives and sons of Muawyah (published by Nafees Academy Karachi).
We don’t understand how the children of Mu’awiya such as Ibn Kathir can praise their father for mocking with the honor of a woman. According to the supposed hadith Nasibis deem Mu’awiya to be their “guide”. We can deduce the horrible guidance they obtained from their beloved guide. How can a religious guide allow a man to undress a woman and not only that but then pass disparaging comments about her in the presence of another person and in effect treat her like a toy ball that can be thrown from one hand into another in the very naked condition.
Mu’awiya ‘the Hadi’ tells the people to consume haraam items and kill each other
We read in Sahih Muslim, Kitab al Imara Book 020, Number 4546:
It has been narrated on the authority of ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Abd Rabb al-Ka’ba who said: I entered the mosque when ‘Abdullah b. ‘Amr b. al-’As was sitting in the shade of the Ka’ba and the people had gathered around him. I betook myself to them and sat near him. (Now) Abdullah said: I accompanied the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) on a journey. We halted at a place. Some of us began to set right their tents, others began to compete with one another in shooting, and others began to graze their beasts, when an announcer of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) announced that the people should gather together for prayer, so we gathered around the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). He said: It was the duty of every Prophet that has gone before me to guide his followers to what he knew was good for them and warn them against what he knew was bad for them; but this Umma of yours has its days of peace and (security) in the beginning of its career, and in the last phase of its existence it will be afflicted with trials and with things disagreeable to you. (In this phase of the Umma), there will be tremendous trials one after the other, each making the previous one dwindle into insignificance. When they would be afflicted with a trial, the believer would say: This is going to bring about my destruction. When at (the trial) is over, they would be afflicted with another trial, and the believer would say: This surely is going to be my end. Whoever wishes to be delivered from the fire and enter the garden should die with faith in Allah and the Last Day and should treat the people as he wishes to be treated by them. He who swears allegiance to a Caliph should give him the piedge of his hand and the sincerity of his heart (i. e. submit to him both outwardly as well as inwardly). He should obey him to the best of his capacity. It another man comes forward (as a claimant to Caliphate), disputing his authority, they (the Muslims) should behead the latter. The narrator says: I came close to him (‘Abdullah b. ‘Amr b. al-’As) and said to him: Can you say on oath that you heard it from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? He pointed with his hands to his ears and his heart and said: My ears heard it and my mind retained it. I said to him: This cousin of yours, Mu’awiya, orders us to unjustly consume our wealth among ourselves and to kill one another, while Allah says:” O ye who believe, do not consume your wealth among yourselves unjustly, unless it be trade based on mutual agreement, and do not kill yourselves. Verily, God is Merciful to you” (iv. 29). The narrator says that (hearing this) Abdullah b. ‘Amr b. al-As kept quiet for a while and then said: Obey him in so far as he is obedient to God; and diqobey him in matters involving disobedience to God.
The role of a caliphs is to tell people to refrain from consuming ujust wealth and killing eachother, yet Mu’awiya was telling his subjects to do just that. Who forced people to break the Shariah.
Mu’awiya ‘the Hadi’ took interest
We read in Muwatta Book 31, Number 31.16.33 under the chapter “Selling Gold for Silver, Minted and Unminted”:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Zayd ibn Aslam from Ata ibn Yasar that Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan sold a gold or silver drinking-vessel for more than its weight. Abu’dDarda said, “I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbidding such sales except like for like.” Muawiya said to him, “I don’t see any harm in it.” Abu’d-Darda said to him, “Who will excuse me from Muawiya? I tell him something from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and he gives me his own opinion! I will not live in the same land as you!” Then Abu’d-Darda went to Umar ibn al-Khattab and mentioned that to him. Umar ibn al-Khattab therefore wrote to Muawiya, “Do not sell it except like for like, weight for weight.”
Muwatta Book 31, Number 31.16.33
Just contemplate the significance of this narration. Mu’awiya had entered in to a profit making transaction that was haraam. Abu’d-Darda corrected him and told him of the verdict of Rasulullah (s) on the matter only permitting such transactions on a ‘like for like’ basis. Rather than concede that he was wrong, Abu Sulaiman’s Hadi replies “I don’t see any harm in it” – thus justifying his opinion over that of Rasulullah (s). We congratulate Abu Sulaiman for grasping a Hadi who has no shame in holding an opinion different to that of Rasulullah (s)!
One would think that the natural response would be for Mu’awiya to desist from such actions in the future, Mu’awiya had been told clearly by Abu’d Darda and Umar that an individual can only sell a like for like item i.e. Gold for Gold. The position under the Sharia had been made clear and yet as Khalifa, Abu Sulaiman’s Hadi Imam continued to ignore the order of Rasulullah (s) on the matter. We read in Sahih Muslim Book 010, Number 3852:
“Abil Qiliba reported: I was in Syria (having) a circle (of friends). in which was Muslim b. Yasir. There came Abu’l-Ash’ath. He (the narrator) said that they (the friends) called him: Abu’l-Ash’ath, Abu’l-Ash’ath, and he sat down. I said to him: Narrate to our brother the hadith of Ubada b. Samit. He said: Yes. We went out on an expedition, Mu’awiya being the leader of the people, and we gained a lot of spoils of war. And there was one silver utensil in what we took as spoils. Mu’awiya ordered a person to sell it for payment to the people (soldiers). The people made haste in getting that. The news of (this state of affairs) reached ‘Ubada b. Samit, and he stood up and said: I heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) forbidding the sale of gold by gold, and silver by silver, and wheat by wheat, and barley by barley, and dates by dates, and salt by salt, except like for like and equal for equal. So he who made an addition or who accepted an addition (committed the sin of taking) interest. So the people returned what they had got. This reached Mu’awiya. and he stood up to deliver an address. He said: What is the matter with people that they narrate from the Messenger (may peace be upon him) such tradition which we did not hear though we saw him (the Holy Prophet) and lived in his company? Thereupon, Ubida b. Samit stood up and repeated that narration, and then said: We will definitely narrate what we heard from Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) though it may be unpleasant to Mu’awiya (or he said: Even if it is against his will). I do not mind if I do not remain in his troop in the dark night. Hammad said this or something like this”.
Sahih Muslim Book 010, Number 3852
Yet again Mu’awiya allowed a transaction that was not based on the ‘like for like principle’ as stipulated by Rasulullah (s). It is interesting to see Mu’awiya’s denial of this matter declaring “they narrate from the Messenger (may peace be upon him) such tradition which we did not hear though we saw him”. How can Mu’awiya deny knowledge of this matter when it is proven from the previous narration in Muwatta that as Governor of Syria under Umar this issue was brought to his attention by Abu’d Darda and then confirmed in writing to him by the Khalifa himself?
We also read in Sharah Ma’ni al-Athaar by Imam Tahawi that Mu’awiya used to take interest.
“Mu’awiya purchased a Pearl and Yaqoot necklace for 4,600 dirhams. When Mu’awiya got on to the puplit Abada bin Samit stood up and said “No! Mu’awiya entered in to an agreement based on interest and also ate interest and as a result of this is in the Fire”.
Mani al Athaar, page 262
Interest is a despicable act in the eyes of Allah (swt) and In Sahih Muslim hadith number 3881 Jabir bin Abdullah narrates:
“Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) cursed the accepter of interest and its payer, and one who records it, and the two witnesses; and he said: They are all equal”.
Sahih Muslim hadith number 3881
Mu’awiya’s introduction of interest in clear violation to the Sharia is worthy of note, particularly in light of the modern day book of Hanafi Fatwas “Aqaaidul Islam” – rendered into English by Moulana Zahier Ahmed Ragie. On page 158 we read the following fatwa:
“A person becomes an unbeliever if he makes lawful the unlawful acts of Islam or vice versa e.g. legalizes interest etc”
Mu’awiya ‘the Hadi’ made changes to the Eid Salat
Suyuti in Tarikh ul Khulafa page 200 notes that:
“Zuhri narrates in relation to the Salat of Eid, the first to deliver the Khutba before the Salat was Mu’awiya bin Abu Sufyan”.
We read the following in al ‘Al-Uam’ volume 1 page 392 by Imam al-Shafi’ee:
Shafi’ee stated that Abdullah bin Yazid al-Khutmi said: ‘The prophet (pbuh), Abu bakr, Umar and Uthman used to start by praying before the sermon till Muwiyah came and made the sermon before (the prayer)’
Al-Uam, volume 1 page 392
Ibn Kathir records in Al Bidayah Volume 8 page 139:
Qatadah narrated from Saeed bin al-Musiyib: ‘Muawiya was the first person to recite Adhan and Iqamah during Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha”
We read in Kitab al Ilm Volume 1 page 229 that:
“Imam Zuhri narrates that Rasulullah (s), Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman lead the Eid Salat without Adhan, but Mu’awiya introduced the Adhan in the Eid prayer”.
Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Fathul Bari Volume 2 page 529 expands on this matter yet further:
“There is a difference of opinion over who introduced the Adhan in Eid Salat. Ibn Sheba has a tradition with a Sahih Isnad attributing this to Mu’awiya, whilst Shaafi states Ibn Ziyad introduced this in Basra, Daud claims that Marwan introduced this – but the vast bulk of traditions do not support this. Mu’awiya introduced this in the same way that he introduced the khutba of Eid before Salat”.
Once again Abu Sulaiman’s Hadi Imam is shown to have changed the Sharia, this time in connection with Eid prayers, in that there is no doubt, for we read in Sahih Muslim Book 004, Hadith Number 1926 Chapter 164: The prayer of the two Ids:
Jabir b. ‘Abdullah reported: I observed prayer with the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) on the ‘Id day. He commenced with prayer before the sermon without Adhan and Iqama.
In addition to this clear proof we also present the fatwa of Imam Malik taken from the English translation of his Muwatta under the chapter “The Ghusl of the Two Ids, the Call to Prayer for The prayer, and the Iqama” Book 10, Number 10.1.1:
“Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard more than one of their men of knowledge say, “There has been no call to prayer or iqama for the id al-Fitr or the id al-Adha since the time of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.” Malik said, “That is the sunna about which there is no disagreement among us.”
Mu’awiya ‘the Hadi’ reduced the number of Takbeers from daily prayers
Muawiya not only made changes to the Eid prayers but he also had the audacity to make changes in the daily prayers by reducing the Takbeer. Imam of Ahle Sunnah Badruddin al Ayyni records in ‘Umadatul Qari Sharah Sahih Bukhari’ Volume 6 page 58:
Al-Tabari said: ‘Abu Huraira was asked about the first one who abandoned Takbir during raising the head and prostration, he replied: ‘Muawiya’.
Imam Jalaluddin Syuti likewise recorded:
“The first person who reduced Takbir was Mu’awiya”.
al-Wasael ela al-Musamerah, page 164
We read in the Sharah of ‘Muawtta Imam Malik’ written by Allamah Ashfaq al-Rahman al-Sindi:
“Al-Tabarani recorded in authority of Abu Huraira that the first one who abandon it (Takbir) is Mu’awiya”
Muawtta of Imam Malik, page 61
One of the favorite scholar of Salafies Qadhi Showkani also discloses some more prominent Sunni names while recording about those who abandoned Takbeer, as he records in his authority work ‘Nail al-Awtar’ Volume 2 page 265:
Tabari narrated from Abu Huraira that the first one who abandoned takbir is Mu’awiya. It has been narrated from Abu Ubaid that the first one who abandon it is Ziyad. Such traditions are not contradictory because Ziyad abandoned it because Mu’awiya had abandoned it, and Mu’awiya abandoned it because Uthman had abandoned it”
Shawkani in the same page has also quoted the comments of the Imam of Ahle Sunnah Tahawi who without mentioning the name of Muawiya, stated:
“Al-Tahawi said that Bani Umaya abandoned Takbir during prostration but not during raising, and that is not the first Sunnah they abandoned.”
Mu’awiya ‘the Hadi’ reduced Iqamah from daily prayers
Muawiya’s distortion in the method prayers prescribed by Almighty continues. Imam Dhahabi records:
Al-Nakhaei said: ‘The first one who reduced the Iqamah was Mu’awiya.’
Tanqih al-Tahqiq by al-Dahabi, Volume 1 page 113
Dhahabi also records:
Mujahid said: “Adhan and Iqamah, both were double, but when Bani Umaya ruled they made the Iqamah single”
So Muawiya introduced Iqamah in Eid prayers which actually was not precribed by Allah (swt) and he reduced Iqamah from daily prayers while it should have been there according to Sunni text, we don’t know why Muawiya had the habit of interfering into the decisions put forward by Allah (swt)!
Mu’awiya ‘the Hadi’ issued a Fatwa deeming it permissible for a man to marry two sisters at any one given time
Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah, Hafiz Jalaluddin Suyuti in ‘Durr al Manthur’ Volume 2 page 477 records the following fatwa of Abu Sulaiman’s Hadi Imam:
“Qasim bin Muhammad records that Mu’awiya was asked whether it was permissible for a man to marry two sisters at any one given time. Mu’awiya replied ‘There is nothing wrong with that’. Upon hearing this reply, Numan bin Basheer asked ‘You have issued this fatwa?’ to which Mu’awiya replied ‘yes’.
Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 2 page 477, Commentary of the verse 4:23
Mu’awiya ‘the Hadi’ introduced the Bidah of a single oath and witness in Islam.
We read in the Sharah of ‘Muawtta Imam Muhammad’ written by one of the revered Hanafi & Deobandi scholars Allamah Muhammad Abdul Hai al-Lucnowi (d. 1304 H):
Ibn Abi al-Deab reported that he asked ibn Shehab al-Zuhari about the oath with the a witness, he (al-Zuhari) replied: “This is bid’ah and the first one who practiced it was Mu’awiya.”
Taleequl Majeed – Sharah Muawtta Imam Muhammad, page 363
We read in one of the esteemed Hanafi works, Sharah Waqaya:
“If the opponent denied, the oath will be required from the claimant, and this is bid’ah, the first one who introduced it was Mu’awiya”
Sharah Waqayah, Volume 3 page 205
Imam of Ahle Sunnah Allamah Saaduddin Taftazani records:
“It is mentioned in al-Mabsut that judgment by single witness and oath is bid’ah, the first one who introduced it was Mu’awiya”
Tauzeeh Sharah Talweeh, page 430
Mu’awiya ‘the Hadi’ abandoned to apply the mandatory punishment for theft in Islam
Allah (swt) has prescribed certain punishments for different sins, the penalty for theft, sarqa, is the amputation of a hand which is prescribed by the creator of the universe in his blessed book. We read in Quran.
As for the thief, whether male or female, cut off their hands as an exemplary punishment from Allah for their transgression; for Allah is the Mighty, the Wise. (Quran 5:33)
But we see in history that Muawiyah caught a group of thieves, applied the prescribed punichement to all of them except to the one who knew how to make Muawiyah (even more) fool! The thief recited stupid couplets and the Imams of Nasibies suddenly forgot the above verse of Holy Quran. One of the esteemed Sunni schoalrs, Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Habib al-Basri al-Baghdadi al-Mawardi (d. 450 H) records:
“It is related that Muaiyah had the arms of the band of thieves cut off. When the last one’s turn came for the cutting, he recited the following lines:
Commander of the faithful, listen to my appeal,
My right arm not to torture by severing,
If unexpose, my hand will be like a pretty woman,
And a pretty woman is not exposed to anything shameful.
What good will there remain in the world,
If a right hand parts from its left?
Muawiya said, “What am I to do with you after I had your companions amputated?”. Where upon the thief’s mother retorted, “Why, you make this one of the sins you ask God to forgive!”, So, he released him, and that was the first mandatory punishment [Hadd] pardoned in Islam”
The ordinances of government, English translation of Ahkam al Sultaniyah, page 247
Mu’awiya ‘the Hadi’ and his Nasibi adherents abandoned the Sunnah due to their hatred of Ali (as)
Reciting Talbiya during pilgrimage is a Sunnah, but when we analyze authentic Sunni texts, we come to know that Muawiya and his adherents (that obviously included number of Nasibi Sahaba) abandoned this Sunnah due to their hatred of Ali bin Abi Talib (as), since Ali (as) used to perform Talbiya. This proves two points, firstly that Muawiya and his adherents were out and out Nasibi, and secondly they deliberately rejetected the Sunnah. We read the following tradition in some esteemed Sunni books:
Saeed bin Jubair said: ‘We were with ibn Abbas in Arafa and he said to me: ‘Oh Saeed, why don’t I hear the people performing talbya?’ I replied: ‘They are afraid of Muawiya’. Then ibn Abbas went out from his cottage and said: ‘I respond to your call, Oh Allah I respond to your call, they abandon the Sunnah for their hate towards Ali (ra).
1. Sunan Nasai, Volume 5 page 253 Tradition 3019
2. Sahih Ibn Khuzaima, Volume 4 page 260 Tradition 2830
3. Mustadrak al-Hakim, Volume 1 pages 364-365
Imam of Salafies Nasiruddin Al-Baani in his margin of Sunan Nisai has decalred the tradition as ‘Sahih’, Imam Hakim in Mustadrak has decalred the tradition Sahih according to the two Imams (Bukhari & Muslim), Imam Khuzaima also decalred it ‘Sahih’ while Allamah Al-Azeemi in his margin for the book ‘Sahih Ibn Khuzaima’ further called it ‘Sahih’.
In the version of this episode recorded by Al-Bayhaqi in his authority work al-Sunnan al-Kubra , Volume 5 page 113, Ibn Abbas (ra) actually cursed Muawiyah and his Nasibi adherents:
“Thus ibn Abbas went out from his tent saying: “Labyak Allah huma Labayk” in defiance of Mu’awyiah, may Allah curse them, they abandon the Sunnah due to their hatred of Ali (ra)”.
Sheikh Hasan al-Maliki said in the margin of his book ‘al-Suhba wa al-Sahaba’ page 64:
“No one abandoned it except the people of Syria because of their hatred towards Ali, because he (Ali) used to perform talbya on the day of Arafa as the prophet (pbuh) would do, therefore ibn Abbas said: ‘They abandoned the sunnah because of their hate towards Ali (ra)”
One of the favorite scholars of the Salafies/Wahabies namely Muhammad bin Abdulhadi al-Sindi (d. 1138 H) in his commentary of Sunan Nasai stated:
“Because of their hate, since he (Ali) was committed with Sunnah, so they abandoned it because of their hate towards him (Ali)”
Sharah Sunan Nasai
Mu’awiya ‘the Hadi’ and his fellow Nasibi rulers of Bani Ummayah abandoned to recite ‘Bismillah’ loudly due to their hate towards Ali (as)
Imam Fakhruddin al-Razi in the commentary of ‘Bismillah al Rehman al Rahim’ (In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful) records in his authortiy work Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 1 pages 180-181:
Imam Shafiyee narrated from his isnad that Muawiyah came to Madina and led the prayers, during prayers neither did he recite “Bismillah al Rehman al Rahim” nor did he recite Takbeer during bowing and prostration. After he recited Salam, the Muhajir and Ansaar called out: ‘O Muawiyah! You have committed theft in prayers, where were ‘Bismillah al Rehman al Rahim’ and Takbeer during bowing and prostration? Al-Shafiyee said : ‘Mu’awiya was a powerful ruler and very strong ( in terms of military support), so had reciting ‘Bismillah’ loudly not been a settled issue in the eyes of all companions from the Muhajir and the Ansar, they would have not been able to show objection to him for abandoning the ‘Bismillah”.
…Baihaqi narrates in ‘Sunan al Kabeera’ from Abu Hurraira (ra) that the Prophet (s) recited ‘in the name of Allah most gracious most merciful’ loudly. Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar, Ibn Zubayr recited loudly. Ali bin Abi Talib used to recite ‘Bismillah al Rehman al Rahim’ loudly in prayers and this is a proven fact that whoever followed Ali bin Abi Talib in religion, he has been guided and its proof is that Prophet (s) supplicated: ‘O Allah, turn the truth in the direction where Ali turns’.
… Ali was careful in reciting the ‘Bismillah’ loudly, but when the country was governed by Bani Umaya, they were careful in abandoning the recitation of ‘Bismillah’ loudly for the purpose of repealing the tradition of Ali, so may be Anas was scared of them and that is the reason for his contradictory reports.”
Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 1 pages 180-181
1). When adhering to Ali is guidance and truth then why do the Ahl’ul Sunnah not follow Imam Ali (as) when performing Salat?
2). If adhering to Ali (as) is guidance in the religion then what of turning away from him, and doing the opposite of what he did?
3). Ibn al-Hashimi, the author of www.ahlelbayt.com made it clear ‘In this hadeeth the Prophet guided to the way in which a person secures himself. He doesn’t affiliate him to any sect, only the way of the salaf as-salih, to the Sunnah of our Prophet and the rightly guided caliphs’. Tafseer al Kabeer cites clear narrations that reciting ‘Bismillah’ loudly was the Sunnah of the Prophet (s) and two of the rightly guided khaleefas. Then why is this Sunnah being ignored and preference being given to the Bidah of Muawiyah? Does this not prove that you are not followers of the Rasul (s) but are in fact the adherents of Muawiyah the Nasibi?
Mu’awiya ‘the Hadi’ wore prohibited items despite the fact that he was aware that Rasulullah (s) deemed them haraam
We read in Sunan Abu Daud Book 32, hadith Number 4119:
Narrated Al-Miqdam ibn Ma’dikarib: “Khalid said: Al-Miqdam ibn Ma’dikarib and a man of Banu Asad from the people of Qinnisrin went to Mu’awiyah ibn AbuSufyan.
Mu’awiyah said to al-Miqdam: Do you know that al-Hasan ibn Ali has died? Al-Miqdam recited the Qur’anic verse “We belong to Allah and to Him we shall return.”
A man asked him: Do you think it a calamity? He replied: Why should I not consider it a calamity when it is a fact that the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) used to take him on his lap, saying: This belongs to me and Husayn belongs to Ali?
The man of Banu Asad said: (He was) a live coal which Allah has extinguished. Al-Miqdam said: Today I shall continue to make you angry and make you hear what you dislike. He then said: Mu’awiyah, if I speak the truth, declare me true, and if I tell a lie, declare me false.
He said: Do so. He said: I adjure you by Allah, did you hear the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) forbidding use to wear gold?
He replied: Yes. He said: I adjure you by Allah, do you know that the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) prohibited the wearing of silk?
He replied: Yes. He said: I adjure you by Allah, do you know that the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) prohibited the wearing of the skins of beasts of prey and riding on them?
He said: Yes. He said: I swear by Allah, I saw all this in your house, O Mu’awiyah.
Mu’awiyah said: I know that I cannot be saved from you, O Miqdam.
Khalid said: Mu’awiyah then ordered to give him what he did not order to give to his two companions, and gave a stipend of two hundred (dirhams) to his son. Al-Miqdam then divided it among his companions, and the man of Banu Asad did not give anything to anyone from the property he received. When Mu’awiyah was informed about it, he said: Al-Miqdam is a generous man; he has an open hand (for generosity). The man of Banu Asad withholds his things in a good manner”.
So here we learn that Mu’awiya the Hadi:
- Was asked whether he was aware that Rasulullah (s) had prohibited the wearing of gold, silk and animal skin.
- Mu’awiya confirmed that he knew this to be the position
- The man testified that he had witnessed all three prohibited items being worn in his house
What a wonderful Hadi! One that is fully aware that a matter has been prohibited by Rasulullah (s) but openly violates this order. Can we define a Hadi as an individual that knowingly violates an order of Rasulullah (s)?
An appeal to justice
We have cited just a few examples where Mu’awiya violated the rules of Shari’a. What sort of Hadi could Mu’awiya be for others when he himself was so misguided that he turned his back on the Qur’an and Sunnah and followed practices that contradicted theses two sources? Can one who introduces not just one, but countless bidahs into the Deen be deemed a Hadi who has guided others? This is completely illogical, guidance is based on following the Qur’an and Sunnah not innovating and devising your own rulings to suit your personal desires! Would Rasulullah (s) deem an innovator to be a hadi? Clearly not! We had, in the previous section, highlighted the rulings of Ahl’ul Sunnah Ulema on Ahl’ul bidah, let us now cite Rasulullah(s)’s view on the matter…
Rasulullah (s) criticised those that praise Ahl’ul Bidah
Imam of the Salafis, Al-Albaani verifies as authentic this hadith taken from Baihaqi, in his commentary of Mishkaah al Masabih Volume 1 page 66 hadith number 189:
“He who honours an innovator has assisted him in the destruction of Islam”.
Abu Sulaiman and his fellow supporters should take note. They have set out pathetic defence for their master Mu’awiya, honouring him as a Hadi, despite the fact that he was the Chief of innovators having devised and instituted the bidah of vilifying Imam Ali (as) during the Friday sermons, he also introduced interest, made changes in Salat, distribution of war booty, the law of inheritance etc. Despite this Abu Sulaiman and his party continue to shower and extol this innovator calling him a Hadi. In doing so, they are only harming themselves for an innovator is an individual who is attacking Islam, and in the eyes of Rasulullah (s) those that praise him have aided and abetted him in the process.
Even if the advocates of Mu’awiya refuse to accept these facts, then let us look at this alleged hadith from several other angles.
Rasulullah (s) made three Dua’s, one that was rejected
We read in Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6904:
“Thauban reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Allah drew the ends of the world near one another for my sake. And I have seen its eastern and western ends. And the dominion of my Ummah would reach those ends which have been drawn near me and I have been granted the red and the white treasure and I begged my Lord for my Ummah that it should not be destroyed because of famine, nor be dominated by an enemy who is not amongst them to take their lives and destroy them root and branch, and my Lord said: Muhammad, whenever I make a decision, there is none to change it. Well, I grant you for your Ummah that it would not be destroyed by famine and it would not be dominated by an enemy who would not be amongst it and would take their lives and destroy them root and branch even if all the people from the different parts of the world join hands together (for this purpose), but it would be from amongst them, viz. your Ummah, that some people would kill the others or imprison the others”.
Rasulullah (s) was fully aware in his Prophetic capacity of the fitnah that would befall the Ummah after him, and he foretold in clear traditions that Imam ‘Ali (as) would face stiff opposition, that he would fight those who opposed his Leadership, the Qasateen. Mu’awiya was the Leader of the opposition / Fitnah group, hence even if for arguments sake we were to accept Rasulullah (s) making such a dua, it would have been rejected on account of Mu’awiya’s enmity and condemnation by Rasulullah (s) of those that shall fight Imam ‘Ali (as).
Rasulullah (s) even prayed for Abu Jahil to be guided
Amongst Ahl’ul Sunnah’s traditions in praise of Umar, they commonly cite this one that we have taken from Riyadh ul Nadira Volume 2 page 13:
“Rasulullah made a dua, O Allah! Strengthen Islam by either Umar bin Khattab or Abu Jahil, whoever you prefer more”.
Here Rasulullah made a du’a for Abu Jahil to be guided to the truth but this never transpired, and his example is very much like Mu’awiya’s. We even learn in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 8, Book 75, Number 406 that Rasulullah (s) made dua for the pagans:
At-Tufail bin ‘Amr came to Allah’s Apostle and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! The tribe of Daus has disobeyed (Allah and His Apostle) and refused (to embrace Islam), therefore, invoke Allah’s wrath for them.” The people thought that the Prophet would invoke Allah’s wrath for them, but he said, “O Allah! Guide the tribe Of Daus and let them come to us,”
Rasulullah was a mercy for mankind and it was part of his great compassion that he made du’as of guidance to the truth for all people, including the mushrikeen. Praying for their guidance should not in any way be deemed as a virtue of the mushrikeen. It was an example of Rasulullah’s desire that ALL are guided. So even if Rasulullah (s) did for arguments sake pray for Mu’awiya’s guidance, it was in the same way as he prayed for all to be guided to the right path whether Muslim or non Muslim.
Not all of Rasulullah’s prayers were accepted
Even if for arguments sake we were to accept this dua, according to Ahl’ul Sunnah not all of Rasulullah’s supplications were accepted by Allah (swt). Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Fathul Bari Volume 11 page 97 states:
“If the Prophet (s) makes a dua for his Ummah it is accepted by Allah (swt) whereas if he makes it for a particular individual it may or may not be accepted”.
So even if we are to accept this dua for arguments sake, to be Sahih, whether or not it will be accepted is subject to Allah (swt)’s discretion. With regards to Mu’awiya, his ‘noble’ deeds make it clear that Allah (swt) would never deem him as a Guide, and to prove this, let us see the words of Allah (swt)…
Allah (swt) never guides a wrongdoer
We read in Surah Tauba verse 80:
Whether thou ask for their forgiveness or not (their sin is unforgivable): if thou ask seventy times for their forgiveness Allah will not forgive them: because they have rejected Allah and His apostle; and Allah guideth not those who are perversely rebellious (Zalimoon).
Taken from Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation of the Qur’an].
Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s comments in the footnotes of this verse are indeed interesting:
“An awful warning for those who actively oppose the Cause of Allah. The Holy Prophet was by nature full of mercy and forgiveness. He prayed for his enemies. But in such a case even his prayers are nullified by their attitude of rejecting Allah”.
We suggest our readers contemplate this verse in light of Islamic history. There is no possibility that Mu’awiya was even remotely a Hadi who guided others on account of his guidance. Such was his guidance that he introduced the disgraceful practice of cursing Imam Ali (as) throughout his Kingdom and ordered his Governors to enforce this practice – was this a form of guidance that was leading people to the right path? He led an army against the rightful Imam becoming a baghi in the process. During his reign he killed Imam Hasan (as) and adherents of Imam ‘Ali such as Hujr bin Adi. Are these actions of a Hadi?
The narrator of this ‘Hadi’ hadith is not a reliable authority
The tradition cited by Ansar.org regarding Muawiyah being a Hadi has not been even approved by Imam Tirmidhi himself as he decalred it ‘Hasan Ghareeb’. Allamah Muhammad Abdurehman bin Abdurahim al-Mubarakfuri in his commentary of this tradition cited the comments of Allamah Ibn Abdul Barr:
‘The hafiz ibn Abdulbar said: “His companionship is not true and his chain (isnad) is not Sahih.”
We also read in ‘Tanaqudat al-Albani’ volume 2 page 228 by Allamah Hassan Saqaaf:
“The Marfu Hadith from Abdulrahman bin Abi Umaira (Oh Allah guide him and make let him guide) referring to Mu’awiya, this hadith cannot be Sahih in any way”
Razi records in ‘Elal al-Hadith’ Volume 2 page 362:
“Verily Abdulrahman bin Abi Umaria didn’t hear this hadith from the prophet (s)”
Imam Dhahabi records in ‘Siar alam al-Nubala’ Volume 3 page 126:
“The (chain) is disconnected”
Sadly for the advocates of Mu’awiya the embarrassment does not just end there…
Not a single hadith in praise of Mu’awiya is Sahih
The leading ‘Ulama of Ahl al-Sunnah have declared all hadith praising Mu’awiya as fabricated.
Imam Jalaluddeen Suyuti in his book Al-Leale al-Masnooa, Volume 1 page 424 while Allamah Ibn al-Jawzi in al- Mawdu’at, Volume 2 page 24 have recorded:
Al-Hakim said: ‘I heard Aba al-Abbas Muhammad bin Yaqoob bin Yusuf saying: ‘I heard my father saying: ‘I heard Ishaq bin Ibrahim al-Handhali saying: ‘There is no Sahih tradition about Mu’awyia’s virtues”’.
1. Al-Leale al-Masnooa, Volume 1 page 424
2. al-Mawdu’at Volume 2 page 24
Muhammad bin Ali bin Shawkani in his boko Fawa’id al Mujmu’a fi Bay’an al-Hadith al-Maudu’a, page 147 states that:
“Ibn Hibban commented that all ahadith in praise of Mu’awiya are fabricated”.
Fawa’id al Mujmu’a, page 147
Muhammad bin Aqeel al-Hadrami in his books Taqwiyat al-Iman, page 137 and al-Nasa’ih al-Kaafiyah, page 163 also confirmed:
“Al-Shawkani (may Allah’s mercy be upon him) said in al-Fawa’id al-Majmu’a: ‘The hufaz agreed that there is not a single Sahih hadith about Muawiya’s merits’.”
Sheikh Abu Rayah records in ‘Adhwa ala al Sunnah’ page 128:
“The traditions about Muawiya’s merits are not true”
Al Muhaddith Shaykh Abdul Haqq Dehlavi in ‘Sharh Mishkat Shareef’ Volume 4 page 716 (published in 1873) after citing the hadith in praise of Mu’awiya including the ‘guidance hadith’ Abu Sulaiman cited from Tirmidhi, comments:
“It is recorded in Jami’ al-Usul that many Muhaddith scholars have concluded that there exists not even a single hadith in praise of Mu’awiya that is Sahih”.
Sharh Mishkat Shareef Vol. 4 page 716
Abu’l Hasan al-Kanani (907-963 H) in Tunziyaa as Shari’a al Murfoo’a, Volume 2, Chapter 8 page 7 comments:
“Imam Hakim cites from a chain used by Ibn al-Jauzi who cites Ishaaq bin Rehwiya: ‘There exists nothing in praise of Mu’awiya that is Sahih’.”
Tunziyaa as Shari’a al-Murfoo’an Vol. 2 Chapter 8 page 7
Similarly, Imam Dhahabi records in his esteemed work ‘Siyar alam al Nubla’ Volume 3 page 132:
Ishaaq Ibn Rehwiya said: ‘There is not any Sahih hadith from the prophet (pbuh) about the merits of Muawiya’.
Shaykh Ismail bin Muhammad al-Ajluni (d. 1162 H) in Kashful Khafa, Volume 2 page 420 states:
“There exist no hadith in praise of Mu’awiya that is Sahih.”
Kashful Khafa Vol. 2 page 420
Allamah Badruddin al-Aini in ‘Ummdat ul Qari fi Sharh Sahih Bukhari’ Volume 7 page 994 comments:
If you say that many traditions have been narrated regarding Muawiya’s virtues, I will say yes but none of them has been reported with an authentic chain of narration and that is what has been declared by Ishaq ibn Rehwiya and Nisai and others. That’s why he (Bukhari) named the chapter as ‘Dhikr Muawyia’ [Mentioning Muawiya] and not ‘merits’ or ‘praises of Muawiya’.
Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani in his commentary of Bukhari namely Fathul Bari states in Volume 7 page 104:
“Bukhari on the topic (biography) of Mu’awiya wrote a Chapter namely ‘Dhikr Muawiya’ [Mentioning Muawiya] and he didn’t write ‘praise’ or ‘merits (of Muawiya)’ because the merits cannot be derived from this hadith… Ibn Abi Asim wrote a book about his (Mu’awyia’s) merits and so did Umar Ghulam Thalab and Abu Bakr al-Naqash but Ibn Jawzi recorded in (his book) “Mawdu’at” some of the traditions which the previous scholars had recorded in their books and then he quoted from Ishaq ibn Rehwiya that he said: ‘Nothing is authentic in praise of Mu’awiya’. And this is the reason which made Bukhari avoid using the word ‘virtue’ (in chapter name).”
Fathul Bari Vol. 7 page 104
Similarly, Imam Qatalani in his commentary of Bukhari namely Irshad al-Sari states in Volume 6 page 141:
“He didn’t name the chapter as ‘virtues’ and ‘merits of Mu’awyia’ as a condemnation”.
Irshad al-Sari, Volume 6 page 141
We read in Tareekh ibn Khalikaan, Volume 1 page 35:
“The compiler of Sunan Nasa’i Ahmad bin Ali was a hafiz of Hadith and in his time an Imam of Ahl’ul hadith. Towards the end of his life he went to Damascus and he was asked about the virtues of Mu’awiya, Imam Nasa’i replied “Mu’awiya should protect himself, what praise should I shower on him, I know only virtue namely that Rasulullah (s) cursed him “May Allah never satiate his stomach”
Ibn Tamiyah in Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 4 page 400:
“One party of people fabricated traditions about the merits of Muawiya and they narrated hadith from the prophet (pbuh) in that matter (Muawiya’s merits) all of which are lies.”
Minhaj al Sunnah, Volume 4 page 400
Let us now quote one of the great students of Ibn Hajjar Makki al-Haythami and Mullah Muttaqi Hindi namely Allamah Muhammad Tahir al-Sediqi al-Fatni (d. 986) from his work ‘Tadkirat al-Mouduat’ page 100:
“There isn’t any Sahih Marfu (hadith) about Muawiya’s merits”
It will be relevant to cite the following account from Al-Bidaya wa al-Niyhaya, Volume 11 page 409 wherein we read that Imam of Ahle Sunnah Hakim did not include any Hadith in praise of Muawiya:
Abu Abdulrahman al-Salami said: ‘I visited al-Hakim when he was hiding from the Karamya and he could not get out because of them, thus I said to him: ‘If you narrate a tradition regarding Mu’awyia’s virtues, you will get rid of this situation’. He replied: ‘I wont do it, I wont do it’
Rasulullah’s advice for Mu’awiya is also a fabrication
One tradition commonly cited by the advocates of Mu’awiya is this one, in which Mu’awiya states:
“I longed to become Khalifa ever since I was told by the Prophet: O Mu’awiya rule justly if you come to power”.
Like all traditions praising Mu’awiya this is also a fabrication and Ibn Kathir in al Bidaya Volume 8 page 122 notes:
“…on the tradition in which Rasulullah (s) said O Mu’awiya rule justly if you come to power” – Imam Bayhaqi stated that the narrator of this hadith Ismail bin Buram is weak”
Rasulullah (s) in fact did indeed give advice to his followers about how to react if Mu’awiya attained power.
Is Mu’awiya paradise bound on account of his participation in the battle of Hunain?
As part of their efforts to grant their Imam a “get out jail card” we have now noticed Nawasib advancing an absurd claim that his participation in the battle of Hunain gave him the green light to enter Paradise, and have sought to corroborate their claim by relying upon the following Qur’anic verse (Surah 9, Ayah 26):
Then Allah sent His peace of reassurance down upon His messenger and upon the BELIEVERS, and sent down hosts ye could not see, and punished those who disbelieved. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
Reply One – This verse merely states Allah (swt) emboldened the believers on that day
This verse informs us of the divine support to the believers during the battle of Hunain there is no guarantee of Paradise therein.
Reply Two – The verse only benefits believers in the true sense of the word not those that stood in the ranks of the Muslims but were pagans and hypocrites
Merely attending the battle alongside Muslims in no way means such persons benefited from the blessings of Allah (swt). We read in Fatah al-Bari, Volume 6 page 125:
شهود صفوان بن أمية حنينا مع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وهو مشرك
“Sawfan bin Umaya attended the battle of Hunayn with the Prophet (s) whilst he remained a pagan (Mushrik)”
In the same way a Mushrik did not acquire the blessings of Allah (swt) from this verse, the same applies from those posing as Muslims when they were in reality hypocrites, Mu’awiya was of that category for Ammar bin Yasir (ra), decades later during the battle of opined that Mu’awyia was never was Muslim. We read in Tarikh ibn Abi Khaythama, Volume 2 page 991:
حَدَّثَنَا أبي ، قال : حَدَّثَنا جَرِير ، عَنِ الأَعْمَش ، عن مُنْذِرٍ الثَّوْرِيّ ، عن سَعْد بن حُذَيْفَة ، قال : قال عَمَّار : والله ما أَسْلَموا ولَكِنَّهُم اسْتَسْلَمُوا وأسرُّوا الْكُفْر حَتَّى وجدوا عليه أَعْوَانًا فأَظْهَروه
Ammar said: ‘By Allah they didn’t convert to Islam but they surrendered and veiled disbelief until they found supports so they unveiled it’.
Ibn Aqeel al-Hadrami in his book Tqawiyat al-Iman, page 169 has also recorded this tradition while Hassan Maliki in his book ‘Bahth fi Islam Mu’awyia’ page 67 has stated ‘The chain is Sahih’ . A similar narration can also be found in Majma al-Zawaid by Haythami, Volume 1 page 308:
وعن سعد بن حذيفة قال : قال عمار بن ياسر يوم صفين وذكر أمرهم وأمر الصلح فقال : والله ما أسلموا ولكن استسلموا وأسروا الكفر فلما رأوا عليه أعوانا أظهروه
Saad bin Hudayfa said: ‘On the day of Sifeen Ammar bin Yasir mentioned them and mentioned the peace treaty and said: ‘By Allah they didn’t convert to Islam but they surrendered and veiled disbelief until they found supports so they unveiled it’
- Was Mu’awiya seeking Qisas for the death of Uthman?
- Mu’awiya’s appointment of Yazeed as his successor
- The callous killing of the Sahaba including Hujr bin Adi (ra) and of other innocent Shias
- The peace treaty with Imam Hasan (as)
- Mu’awiya the baghi (rebel)
- Mu’awiya instituted the bid’ah of cursing Imam Ali (as)
- The phantom merits of Mu’awiya
- Abu Sulaiman’s plea of clemency for Mu’awiya
- Was Mu’awiya a Momin or Munafiq?
- The ‘true’ merits of Mu’awiya bin Hind
- No public Twitter messages.