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 Mu’awiya as guide (Hadi) but he is so shameless 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 Mu’awiya.
Ansar.org states:
“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”
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:
In ‘Iqd al Farid’ Vol. 4 pg. 243 - 244 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 Caliph. Uthman bin Affan 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 others used to write. Khalid bin Sa’eed and Mu’awiya bin ‘Abu Sufyan were entrusted with the duty of writing documents, al-Mughira bin Shu'ba 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’ Vol. 6 pg. 121:
وقال المدائني كان زيد بن ثابت يكتب الوحي وكان معاوية يكتب للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فيما بينه وبين العرب
“According to Madaini the writer of the revelation was Zaid bin Thabit and Mu’awiya used to write for the Prophet (s) the letters between Him (s) and the Arabs”.
Similarly Imam Dhahabi records in ‘Tarikh al-Islam’ Vol. 4 pg. 309:
وذكر المفضل الغلابي : أن زيد بن ثابت كان كاتب وحي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ، وكان معاوية كاتبه فيما بينه وبين العرب
Al-Mufadhal Al-Ghulabi stated: “Zaid bin Thabit was the writer of the revelation for the Holy Prophet (s), Mu’awiya was His (s) writer of correspondence between Him (s) and the Arabs.”
The Sunni Sheikh from Al-Azhar University, Mahmud Abu Raya (d. 1385 H) also rejected the claim regarding Mu’awiya being the writer of Wahi. He states in ‘Sheikh al-Mudhira’ pg. 223:
“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 Social Justice in Islam by Sayyid Qutb, English translation by John B. Hardie, pg. 215:
“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’awiya’s partisans after he had assumed the throne. But this is what happens in all such cases.”
Allamah Salah-uddin Khalil bin Aybak al-Safadi (d. 764 H) records in his book ‘Al-Wafei bil Wafiyat’ Vol. 17 pg. 100:
أبي سرح الكاتب الوحي عبدالله بن سعد بن أبي سرح بن الحارث بن حبيب بن جذيمة أبو يحيى القرشي العامري. أسلم قبل الفتح وهاجر وكان يكتب الوحي لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ثلم ارتد منصرفا وصار إلى قريش بمكة
“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, Vol. 8 pg. 651 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’ pg. 41, Al-Ma’arif by ibn Qutayba, pg. 300 and Siyar a'lam al-Nubala, Vol. 3 pg. 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 honor 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 behavior despite having benefited from sitting with Rasulullah (s) will no doubt be viewed as a greater transgression in the eyes of Allah (swt).
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-Ni’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 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 any events when he sent Mu’awiya on dawah campaigns to guide the people or to convert 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?
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 Siffeen and Ali (as) and his Shi’a were deviants as they were fighting the Hadi – does Abu Sulaiman uphold this view?
If we look into the works of Ahlul Sunnah we learn that this alleged Hadi made decisions in violation to the Sharia.
Allah ((swt)) states in his Glorious Book in Surah Maida verse 44:
ﻭَﻣَﻦْ ﻟَّﻢْ ﻳَﺤْﻜُﻢْ ﺑِﻤَﺂ ﺍَﻧْﺰَﻝَ ﺍﻟﻠّـٰﻪُ ﻓَﺎُﻭﻟٰٓﺌِﻚَ ﻫُـﻢُ ﺍﻟْﻜَﺎﻓِﺮُﻭْﻥَ
"And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers"
This verse makes it clear that an individual that issues an edict that is not pursuant to what Allah ((swt)) has stipulated, goes out of the folds of Islam. Now with this in mind, we read in Sahih Muslim, Kitab al Imara Book 020, Number 4546:as follows:
حَدَّثَنَا زُهَيْرُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ، وَإِسْحَاقُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، قَالَ إِسْحَاقُ أَخْبَرَنَا وَقَالَ، زُهَيْرٌ حَدَّثَنَا جَرِيرٌ، عَنِ الأَعْمَشِ، عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ وَهْبٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ عَبْدِ رَبِّ الْكَعْبَةِ، قَالَ دَخَلْتُ الْمَسْجِدَ فَإِذَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْعَاصِ جَالِسٌ فِي ظِلِّ الْكَعْبَةِ وَالنَّاسُ مُجْتَمِعُونَ عَلَيْهِ فَأَتَيْتُهُمْ فَجَلَسْتُ إِلَيْهِ فَقَالَ كُنَّا مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فِي سَفَرٍ فَنَزَلْنَا مَنْزِلاً فَمِنَّا مَنْ يُصْلِحُ خِبَاءَهُ وَمِنَّا مَنْ يَنْتَضِلُ وَمِنَّا مَنْ هُوَ فِي جَشَرِهِ إِذْ نَادَى مُنَادِي رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم الصَّلاَةَ جَامِعَةً . فَاجْتَمَعْنَا إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ " إِنَّهُ لَمْ يَكُنْ نَبِيٌّ قَبْلِي إِلاَّ كَانَ حَقًّا عَلَيْهِ أَنْ يَدُلَّ أُمَّتَهُ عَلَى خَيْرِ مَا يَعْلَمُهُ لَهُمْ وَيُنْذِرَهُمْ شَرَّ مَا يَعْلَمُهُ لَهُمْ وَإِنَّ أُمَّتَكُمْ هَذِهِ جُعِلَ عَافِيَتُهَا فِي أَوَّلِهَا وَسَيُصِيبُ آخِرَهَا بَلاَءٌ وَأُمُورٌ تُنْكِرُونَهَا وَتَجِيءُ فِتْنَةٌ فَيُرَقِّقُ بَعْضُهَا بَعْضًا وَتَجِيءُ الْفِتْنَةُ فَيَقُولُ الْمُؤْمِنُ هَذِهِ مُهْلِكَتِي . ثُمَّ تَنْكَشِفُ وَتَجِيءُ الْفِتْنَةُ فَيَقُولُ الْمُؤْمِنُ هَذِهِ هَذِهِ . فَمَنْ أَحَبَّ أَنْ يُزَحْزَحَ عَنِ النَّارِ وَيَدْخُلَ الْجَنَّةَ فَلْتَأْتِهِ مَنِيَّتُهُ وَهُوَ يُؤْمِنُ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ وَلْيَأْتِ إِلَى النَّاسِ الَّذِي يُحِبُّ أَنْ يُؤْتَى إِلَيْهِ وَمَنْ بَايَعَ إِمَامًا فَأَعْطَاهُ صَفْقَةَ يَدِهِ وَثَمَرَةَ قَلْبِهِ فَلْيُطِعْهُ إِنِ اسْتَطَاعَ فَإِنْ جَاءَ آخَرُ يُنَازِعُهُ فَاضْرِبُوا عُنُقَ الآخَرِ " . فَدَنَوْتُ مِنْهُ فَقُلْتُ لَهُ أَنْشُدُكَ اللَّهَ آنْتَ سَمِعْتَ هَذَا مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَأَهْوَى إِلَى أُذُنَيْهِ وَقَلْبِهِ بِيَدَيْهِ وَقَالَ سَمِعَتْهُ أُذُنَاىَ وَوَعَاهُ قَلْبِي . فَقُلْتُ لَهُ هَذَا ابْنُ عَمِّكَ مُعَاوِيَةُ يَأْمُرُنَا أَنْ نَأْكُلَ أَمْوَالَنَا بَيْنَنَا بِالْبَاطِلِ وَنَقْتُلَ أَنْفُسَنَا وَاللَّهُ يَقُولُ { يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لاَ تَأْكُلُوا أَمْوَالَكُمْ بَيْنَكُمْ بِالْبَاطِلِ إِلاَّ أَنْ تَكُونَ تِجَارَةً عَنْ تَرَاضٍ مِنْكُمْ وَلاَ تَقْتُلُوا أَنْفُسَكُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ بِكُمْ رَحِيمًا} قَالَ فَسَكَتَ سَاعَةً ثُمَّ قَالَ أَطِعْهُ فِي طَاعَةِ اللَّهِ وَاعْصِهِ فِي مَعْصِيَةِ اللَّهِ .
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 Kaaba and the people had gathered around him. I took 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 pledge 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. If 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 insofar as he is obedient to God; and disobey him in matters involving disobedience to God.
For more info on this point from our opponents point of view, see this article titled “The kufr of one who rules according to other than what Allaah revealed - Islam Question & Answer”
The role of a caliph is to tell people to refrain from consuming unjust wealth and killing each other, yet Mu’awiya was telling his subjects to do just that. Who forced people to break the Shariah. We see as per the testimony of Abd al-Rahman b. Abd Rab al-Kaaba that Muwaiya issued orders that were in contradiction to that which Allah (swt) had stipulated in the Qur'an, that thus renders him a kafir as per the words of Allah (swt)
Regarding the acts committed by Mu’awiya contradicting the Islamic Shariya, let us begin with his first open violation of Quranic injunctions by declaring Ziyad, the bastard son of Abu Sufiyan as his real brother. He did so at the time of appointing Ziyad. Imam Jalaludin Suyuti also acknowledges this in his book ‘Al-Debaj ala Muslim’ Vol. 1 pg. 84:
“When Ziyad 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.”
Imam Suyuti also records in Tarikh ul Khulafa, pg. 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 Vol. 3 pg. 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’ Vol. 7 pg. 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, pg. 89[2]
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’ pg. 31:
“During the reign of Mu’awiya, a group testified that Abu Sufyan confessed that Ziyad 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 condemned 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 Umayyah was Taqiyya.”
This action of Mu’awiya contravened the Qur’an, as we read 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.
Ibn Kathir in his esteemed work Al Bidayah wal Nihaya, Vol.1 pg. 448 while recording the ‘merits’ of Mu’awiya ibn Hind, 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 Mu’awiya, 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 Umayya used to do.
Imam of Ahle Sunnah Ibn Qudamah records in his esteemed work Al-Mughni, Vol. 9 pg. 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, Urwa, al-Zuhri, Atta, Tawus, al-Hasan, Amro bin Abdulaziz, Amr bin Dinar, al-Thawri, Abu Hanifa and his companions, Malik, Shafi’i and the rest of the jurists, and that is what we follow. It is narrated about Amr, Mu’adh 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 6764 that Rasulullah (s) said, “A Muslim cannot be the heir of a disbeliever, nor can a disbeliever be the heir of a Muslim”.
We read in Sahih Muslim 985 c:
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ رَافِعٍ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، عَنْ مَعْمَرٍ، عَنْ إِسْمَاعِيلَ بْنِ أُمَيَّةَ، قَالَ أَخْبَرَنِي عِياضُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ سَعْدِ بْنِ أَبِي سَرْحٍ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ أَبَا سَعِيدٍ الْخُدْرِيَّ، يَقُولُ كُنَّا نُخْرِجُ زَكَاةَ الْفِطْرِ وَرَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فِينَا عَنْ كُلِّ صَغِيرٍ وَكَبِيرٍ حُرٍّ وَمَمْلُوكٍ مِنْ ثَلاَثَةِ أَصْنَافٍ صَاعًا مِنْ تَمْرٍ صَاعًا مِنْ أَقِطٍ صَاعًا مِنْ شَعِيرٍ فَلَمْ نَزَلْ نُخْرِجُهُ كَذَلِكَ حَتَّى كَانَ مُعَاوِيَةُ فَرَأَى أَنَّ مُدَّيْنِ مِنْ بُرٍّ تَعْدِلُ صَاعًا مِنْ تَمْرٍ . قَالَ أَبُو سَعِيدٍ فَأَمَّا أَنَا فَلاَ أَزَالُ أُخْرِجُهُ كَذَلِكَ
Sa'd b. Abu Sarh heard Abu Sa'id al-Khudri as saying:
We, on behalf of young or old, free or slave, used to take out the Zakat of Fitr while the Messenger of Allah (may peace he upon him) was among us, in three kinds, one sa' of dates, one sa' of cheese, or one sa' of barley, and we continued to take that out till the time of Mu'awiya, for he saw that two mudds of wheat were equal to one sa' of dates. Abu Sa'id said: I would continue to take that out as before (i e. one sa' of wheat).
Based on modern volume measurements a prophetic mudd (1/4 saa'). When Rasulullah (s) was giving one sa' of wheat it meant four mudd. When Mu'awiya came to power he changed the amount of zakat that Rasulullah (s) had calculated, four mudds he calculated were changed to two mudds. Mu'awiya based this on his assumption that Syrian land was greater in value and should be valued differently, meaning that the poor received less zakat than the Rasulullah (s). This was open defiance to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) and Allah ((swt)) says in Surah Ahzab verse 36:
وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ وَلَا مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَى ٱللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُۥٓ أَمْرًا أَن يَكُونَ لَهُمُ ٱلْخِيَرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ ۗ وَمَن يَعْصِ ٱللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُۥ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلَٰلًا مُّبِينًا
And it becometh not a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His messenger have decided an affair (for them), that they should (after that) claim any say in their affair; and whoso is rebellious to Allah and His messenger, he verily goeth astray in error manifest.
Mu'awiya ‘the Hadi’s’ open defiance to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) on the ownership of stolen property
We read in Sunan an-Nasa'i 4680:
أَخْبَرَنَا عَمْرُو بْنُ مَنْصُورٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدُ بْنُ ذُؤَيْبٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، عَنِ ابْنِ جُرَيْجٍ، وَلَقَدْ، أَخْبَرَنِي عِكْرِمَةُ بْنُ خَالِدٍ، أَنَّ أُسَيْدَ بْنَ حُضَيْرٍ الأَنْصَارِيَّ، ثُمَّ أَحَدَ بَنِي حَارِثَةَ أَخْبَرَهُ أَنَّهُ، كَانَ عَامِلاً عَلَى الْيَمَامَةِ وَأَنَّ مَرْوَانَ كَتَبَ إِلَيْهِ أَنَّ مُعَاوِيَةَ كَتَبَ إِلَيْهِ أَنَّ أَيُّمَا رَجُلٍ سُرِقَ مِنْهُ سَرِقَةٌ فَهُوَ أَحَقُّ بِهَا حَيْثُ وَجَدَهَا . ثُمَّ كَتَبَ بِذَلِكَ مَرْوَانُ إِلَىَّ فَكَتَبْتُ إِلَى مَرْوَانَ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَضَى بِأَنَّهُ إِذَا كَانَ الَّذِي ابْتَاعَهَا مِنَ الَّذِي سَرَقَهَا غَيْرُ مُتَّهَمٍ يُخَيَّرُ سَيِّدُهَا فَإِنْ شَاءَ أَخَذَ الَّذِي سُرِقَ مِنْهُ بِثَمَنِهَا وَإِنْ شَاءَ اتَّبَعَ سَارِقَهُ ثُمَّ قَضَى بِذَلِكَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرُ وَعُثْمَانُ فَبَعَثَ مَرْوَانُ بِكِتَابِي إِلَى مُعَاوِيَةَ وَكَتَبَ مُعَاوِيَةُ إِلَى مَرْوَانَ إِنَّكَ لَسْتَ أَنْتَ وَلاَ أُسَيْدٌ تَقْضِيَانِ عَلَىَّ وَلَكِنِّي أَقْضِي فِيمَا وُلِّيتُ عَلَيْكُمَا فَأَنْفِذْ لِمَا أَمَرْتُكَ بِهِ . فَبَعَثَ مَرْوَانُ بِكِتَابِ مُعَاوِيَةَ فَقُلْتُ لاَ أَقْضِي بِهِ مَا وُلِّيتُ بِمَا قَالَ مُعَاوِيَةُ .
Usaid bin Zubair Al-Ansari, who was one of Banu Harithah narrated that:
There was the governor of Al-Yamamah, and Marwan wrote to him saying that Mu'awiyah had written to him, saying that any man who had something stolen from him had more right to it wherever he found it. Then Marwan wrote saying that to me (Usaid). I wrote to Marwan saying that the Prophet had ruled that if the one who bought it from the one who stole it is not guilty of anything (and did not realize that it was stolen goods), then the owner has the choice: If he wishes, he may buy it from the one who bought it from the thief, or if he wishes he may go after the thief. Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthman also passed judgment along these lines. Marwan sent my letter to Mu'awiyah, and Mu'awiyah wrote to Marwan (saying): 'Neither you nor Usaid are in a position to tell me what to do, rather I am the one who tells you what to do because I am superior in rank to you, so do what I tell you.' Marwan sent the letter of Mu'awiyah to me, and I said: I will not judge according to Mu'awiyah opinion as long as I am the governor."'
Ibn Kathir records in Al-Bidaya Wal Nihaya, Vol 11 pg. 449:
ومضت السنة: أن دية المعاهد كدية المسلم، وكان معاوية أول من قصرها إلى النصف، وأخذ النصف لنفسه.
“Another Sunnah that was ablolished was the blood money of non-Muslim being equal to the blood money of a Muslim, but Mu’awiya was the first person who reduced it to half, and kept the remaining half for himself”
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, pg. 154, Translation of Al-Hakam al-Amro al-Ghafari
2. Al-Durr al-Manthur, Vol. 8 pg. 199, Commentary of 65:2
3. Siyar a'lam al nubala, Vol. 2 pg. 475
4. Al-Mustadrak al-Hakim, Vol. 3 pg. 500
5. Musannaf ibn Abi Shayba, Vol. 10 pg. 384
If the 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 in Lisan al-Arab, Vol. 4 pg. 460:
الصفراء : الذهب ، والبيضاء : الفضة
“Yellow: Gold, and white: silver”
Shaykh Abdul Hamid al-Sherwani (d.1118 H) records in ‘Hawashi al-Sharwani Vol. 6 pg. 175:
الصفراء والبيضاء أي الذهب والفضة
“Yellow and white which is gold and silver”
We read in the margin of Sunnan Abi Dawoud by Allamah Saeed al-Laham (Vol. 2 pg. 35):
الصفراء والبيضاء : المال من الذهب والفضة
“Yellow and white is the money of gold and silver”
Also we read in the introduction of Fath al-Bari Sharah Sahih Bukhari, pg. 152, by Ibn Hajar:
قوله الصفراء والبيضاء أي الذهب والفضة
“His saying yellow and white means gold and silver”
Sheikh Muhammad bin Aqeel al-Hadrami (d. 1350 H) records in ‘Nisaih al-Kaafiyah’ pg. 170:
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’.
More References:
1. Majm’a al-Zawa'id, Vol. 5 pg. 236 Tradition No. 9199
2. Musnad Abu Yala, Vol. 13 pg. 374
3. Al-Mu'jam al-Kabir, Vol. 19 pg. 294
4. Tarikh al-islam by al-Dahabi, Vol. 4 pg. 314
5. Tarikh Dimashq, Vol. 59 pg. 168
Imam Abi Bakr al-Haythami said in Majma al-Zawa'id: ‘The narrators are thiqa’ while famous Salafi scholar Husain Salim Asad in his margin of the book Musnad Abu Ya’la said: ‘The chain is sahih’.
In Tabaqat Ibn Saad, Vol. 5 pg. 305 - Biography of Umar bin Abdul Aziz, the author Imam Ibn Sa’ad records that Mu’awiya 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 Mu’awiya’s reign till today and Umar bin Abdulaziz gave it to Bani Abdul Muttalib’
Mu’awiya the Hadi incorrectly interpreted the Qur'an to justify his hoarding of gold and silver
We read in Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith number 4660:
حَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا جَرِيرٌ، عَنْ حُصَيْنٍ، عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ وَهْبٍ، قَالَ مَرَرْتُ عَلَى أَبِي ذَرٍّ بِالرَّبَذَةِ فَقُلْتُ مَا أَنْزَلَكَ بِهَذِهِ الأَرْضِ قَالَ كُنَّا بِالشَّأْمِ فَقَرَأْتُ {وَالَّذِينَ يَكْنِزُونَ الذَّهَبَ وَالْفِضَّةَ وَلاَ يُنْفِقُونَهَا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَبَشِّرْهُمْ بِعَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍ} قَالَ مُعَاوِيَةُ مَا هَذِهِ فِينَا، مَا هَذِهِ إِلاَّ فِي أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ. قَالَ قُلْتُ إِنَّهَا لَفِينَا وَفِيهِمْ.
Narrated Zaid bin Wahb:
I passed by (visited ) Abu Dhar at Ar-Rabadha and said to him, "What has brought you to this land?" He said, "We were at Sham and I recited the Verse: "They who hoard up gold and silver and spend them not in the way of Allah; announce to them a painful torment, " (9.34) where upon Muawiya said, 'This Verse is not for us, but for the people of the Scripture.' Then I said, 'But it is both for us (Muslim) and for them.'”
We see here that not only was Mu’awiya hoarding gold and silver, he was incorrectly interpreting the Qur’an to try and excuse his conduct.
It has been recorded by Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his Musnad Vol. 38 pg. 25-26:
“Abdullah bin Buraida said: ‘I entered on Mu’awiya 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, Mu’awiya 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’….”
Several children of Mu’awiya 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'i declared it ‘Hasan’ (al-Musnad al-Sahih, pg. 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 Jordan, he has been a student of some esteemed Sunni scholars such as al-Azeemi (the margin writer 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, Hafiz Abi Bakar al-Hathami who has also recorded this tradition in his esteemed work ‘Majma al Zawaid’ Vol. 5 pg. 554 Hadith 8022 and then stated:
رواه أحمد ورجاله رجال الصحيح
“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, Vol. 27 pg. 312 about the meeting of two old friends, one being Abdullah bin Harith al-Umaya and the other one was Mu’awiya.
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 Mu’awiya’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 get 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):
Sakhr bin Harb! 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.
This is the Hadi of the Nawasib, a man that flagrantly ignored the Islamic prohibition on alcohol. We read in Sunan Abi Dawud Book 26, Hadith 3666:
حَدَّثَنَا عُثْمَانُ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا وَكِيعُ بْنُ الْجَرَّاحِ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ بْنِ عُمَرَ، عَنْ أَبِي عَلْقَمَةَ، مَوْلاَهُمْ وَعَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْغَافِقِيِّ أَنَّهُمَا سَمِعَا ابْنَ عُمَرَ، يَقُولُ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم " لَعَنَ اللَّهُ الْخَمْرَ وَشَارِبَهَا وَسَاقِيَهَا وَبَائِعَهَا وَمُبْتَاعَهَا وَعَاصِرَهَا وَمُعْتَصِرَهَا وَحَامِلَهَا وَالْمَحْمُولَةَ إِلَيْهِ " .
Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said: Allah has cursed wine, its drinker, its server, its seller, its buyer, its presser, the one for whom it is pressed, the one who conveys it, and the one to whom it is conveyed.
Mu’awiya ‘the Hadi’ used to smuggle alcohol
Mu’awiya 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 Mu’awiya’s convoy consisting of a queue of camels having alcohol on their backs. Abada asked: “What are these?”. People answered: “These are alcohol that Mu’awiya 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), pg. 638
Imam Abu Sa'id al-Haitham in Musnad Al-Shashi Volume 3 pages 172-174 records a more detailed narrative:
حدثنا محمد بن إسحاق الصغاني ، نا محمد بن عباد ، نا يحيى بن سليم ، عن ابن خثيم ، عن إسماعيل بن عبيد بن رفاعة ، عن أبيه ، أن عبادة بن الصامت ، مرت عليه قطارة وهو بالشام تحمل الخمر فقال : ما هذه ؟ أزيت ؟ قيل : لا بل خمر تباع لفلان ، فأخذ شفرة من السوق فقام إليها ولم يذر منها راوية إلا بقرها ، وأبو هريرة إذ ذاك بالشام فأرسل فلان إلى أبي هريرة فقال : ألا تمسك عنا أخاك عبادة بن الصامت : إما بالغدوات فيغدو إلى السوق فيفسد على أهل الذمة متاجرهم ، وإما بالعشي فيقعد بالمسجد ليس له عمل إلا شتم أعراضنا وعيبنا فأمسك عنا أخاك ، فأقبل أبو هريرة يمشي حتى دخل على عبادة فقال : يا عبادة ما لك ولمعاوية ؟ ذره وما حمل فإن الله يقول : تلك أمة قد خلت لها ما كسبت ولكم ما كسبتم قال : يا أبا هريرة لم تكن معنا إذ بايعنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وعلى آله وسلم ؟ بايعناه على السمع والطاعة في النشاط والكسل ، وعلى النفقة في العسر واليسر ، وعلى الأمر بالمعروف والنهي عن المنكر ، وأن نقول في الله لا تأخذنا في الله لومة لائم ، وعلى أن ننصره إذا قدم علينا يثرب فنمنعه ما نمنع منه أنفسنا وأزواجنا وأهلنا ولنا الجنة ، ومن وفى وفى الله له الجنة بما بايع عليه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وعلى آله وسلم ، ومن نكث فإنما ينكث على نفسه ، فلا يكلمه أبو هريرة بشيء ، فكتب فلان إلى عثمان بالمدينة أن عبادة بن الصامت قد أفسد علي الشام وأهله ، فإما أن يكف عنا عبادة بن الصامت ، وإما أن أخلي بينه وبين الشام ، فكتب عثمان إلى فلان أدخله إلى داره من المدينة ، فبعث به فلان حتى قدم المدينة فدخل على عثمان الدار وليس فيها إلا رجل من السابقين بعينه ومن التابعين الذين أدركوا القوم متوافرين فلم يهم عثمان به إلا وهو قاعد في جانب الدار ، فالتفت إليه فقال : ما لنا ولك يا عبادة ؟ فقام عبادة قائما وانتصب لهم في الدار فقال : إني سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وعلى آله وسلم أبا القاسم يقول : « سيلي أموركم من بعدي رجال يعرفونكم ما تنكرون وينكرون عليكم ما تعرفون ، فلا طاعة لمن عصى الله ، فلا تضلوا بربكم » . فوالذي نفس عبادة بيده ، إن فلانا لمن أولئك فما راجعه عثمان بحرف
Ubadah Bin Rafa said that when Ubadah Bin Samit was in Syria, a litter (of camels) passed by him with wine. So he asked: ‘What is it? Is it Zait (oil)?’ He was told: ‘No rather this is alcohol that is being sold to so and so’ after listening to this Ubadah grabbed a blade from the market and attacked the litter and didn’t leave even a single utensil in usable form (broke all of them). Abu Hurairah was in Syria at that time, and so and so sent him to Abu Hurairah asking: ‘Cant you hold back your brother Ubadah Bin Samit as in the afternoon he went to the market and ruined the trade of the people of dhimma and during evenings he sat in the mosque and did nothing but insult us and highlight our faults? So, stop your brother from working against us’. Abu Huraira approached Ubadah and said, “O Ubadah, what’s the issue between you and Mu’awiyah? Leave it, why bother when Allah has said ‘this group has passed, they will be judged as per their acts and you on yours’ Ubaidah replied: ‘O Abu Huraira, you weren’t with us when we pledged allegiance to the Prophet (s). We pledged to be obedient to the Prophet(s) in good and bad times and on spending (in the way of Allah) through good and bad times and adhering to the good and refraining from the bad. By Allah, we shall speak the truth, undeterred by accusations and when the Prophet(s) comes to us in Yathrib, we shall support him and protect him from which we have protected ourselves, our wives and household so that we will attain Paradise for our reward. And whosoever fulfills his oath towards Allah, has pledged allegiance to the Prophet(s), so for him is the Paradise and whoever breaks this oath has oppressed himself’. Abu Huraira didn’t reply. So and so wrote to Uthman in Madina that Ubadah Bin Samit has caused chaos here in Syria along with the Syrians, either control his acts or remove him from Syria. Uthman replied him: ‘Send Ubadah to Uthman’s house in Madina’ that person then sent Ubaidah with him and Ubadah reached Madina and went to meet Uthman at his house, at Uthman’s house there was no one apart from the two, one from the forerunners and one from the Tabi’in so Uthman wasn’t worried from their presence and they were standing near the door, Uthman addressed Ubadah and said: ‘What is your issue with us?’ So Ubaba stood up to them and said: ‘I had heard the Prophet(s) saying that after him matters will be in control of those who will like what you dislike and will reject what you like. Therefore, whoever disobeys Allah shouldn’t be obeyed so that they may deviate you from your Lord. Therefore, by the Lord who controls Ubadah’s life, so and so is one of such people’. Upon (hearing) this Uthman didn’t utter a single word.
A similar narrative also appears in Tarikh Ibn Asakir, Vol. 26 pg. 197 and in Siyar A'lam al Nubala, Vol. 2 pg. 10 but it seems that the name of Mu’awiya 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 Mu’awiya. Shaykh Shoib al-Arnaut, wrote in the margin of Siyar A'lam Nubala that the tradition is ‘Hasan’.
From this narration we deduce the following:
Muawiya’s addiction to alcohol was sustained by an extensive smuggling operation. Abu Naeem Isfahani records in Marifat al-Sahaba, Volume 1 page 1828:
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ حَمْدَانَ، ثنا الْحَسَنُ بْنُ سُفْيَانَ، ثنا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ مُوسَى السُّدِّيُّ، ثنا أَبُو تُمَيْلَةَ يَحْيَى بْنُ وَاضِحٍ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِسْحَاقَ، عَنْ بُرْدَةَ بْنِ سُفْيَانَ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ كَعْبٍ الْقُرَظِيِّ، قَالَ: " غَزَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ سَهْلٍ الْأَنْصَارِيُّ فِي زَمَانِ عُثْمَانَ، وَمُعَاوِيَةُ أَمِيرٌ عَلَى الشَّامِ، فَمَرَّتْ بِهِ رَوَايَا خَمْرٍ تُحْمَلُ لِمُعَاوِيَةَ، وَبُرٌّ فَقَامَ إِلَيْهَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بِرُمْحِهِ، فَنَقَرَ كُلَّ رَاوِيَةٍ مِنْهَا، فَنَاوَشَهُ غِلْمَانُهُ حَتَّى بَلَغَ مَثْأَنَةَ مُعَاوِيَةَ، فَقَالَ: دَعُوهُ فَإِنَّهُ شَيْخٌ قَدْ ذَهَبَ عَقْلُهُ، فَقَالَ: كَذَبَ وَاللهِ، مَا ذَهَبَ عَقْلِي، وَلَكِنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَهَانَا أَنْ نُدْخِلَ بُطُونَنَا، وَأَسْقِيَتَنَا، وَأَحْلِفُ بِاللهِ لَئِنْ أَنَا بَقِيَتُ حَتَّى أَرَى فِي مُعَاوِيَةَ مَا سَمِعْتُ مِنَ رَسُولِ اللهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، لَأَبْقُرَنَّ بَطْنَهُ وَلَأَمُوتَنُّ دُونَهُ
Abdur Rehman Bin Sahal left for a war during Uthman’s era, Mu’awiya was the governor of Syria at that time, he witnessed camels laden with alcohol which were being taken to Muawiya, so Abdur Rehman pierced them with his arrows, the whole story was narrated to Muawiya, upon which Muawiya said, that the old man had become senile. Abdur Rehman said, “by Allah, Muawiya lies, I am not senile, we were however prohibited by the Prophet (s) from satiating our our bellies with alcohol, By Allah if I remain alive and witness in Mu’awiya what the Prophet (s) told me, I will rip open his belly and kill him
This narration proves:
Allamah Muttaqi Ali Hindi has recorded a similar kind of incident in this manner in Kanzul Ummal, Vol. 5 pg. 713 Hadith 13716:
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 Mu’awiya’s stomach or I will die’.
The tradition is also present in the following esteemed Sunni books:
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 Mu’awiya.
Ibn Sad recorded this narration via his chain from Nafi’ in Tabaqat Ibn Saad Vol 4, pg 138 who said:
عَنْ نَافِعٍ أَنَّ مُعَاوِيَةَ بَعَثَ إِلَى ابْنِ عُمَرَ بِمِائَةِ أَلْفٍ. فَلَمَّا أَرَادَ أَنْ يُبَايِعَ لِيَزِيدَ بْنِ مُعَاوِيَةَ قَالَ: أَرَى ذَاكَ أَرَادَ. إِنَّ دِينِي عِنْدِي إِذًا لَرَخِيصٌ
"Mu’awiya sent currency amounting to 100 thousand to Abdullah bin Umar. He intended on securing the pledge of allegiance for Yazid bin Mu’awiya. Ibn Umar said: I assumed that this must be the motive of Muawiyah. Does he think my religion is for such a low price?"
We read in Fath ul Bari Volume 13 page 75:
عن نافع أن معاوية أراد ابن عمر على أن يبايع ليزيد فأبى وقال لا أبايع لأميرين، فأرسل إليه معاوية بمائة ألف درهم فأخذها، فدس إليه رجلا فقال له ما يمنعك أن تبايع؟ فقال: إن ذاك لذاك – يعني عطاء ذلك المال لأجل وقوع المبايعة – إن ديني عندي إذا لرخيص
Naf’ee narrated that Mu’awiya wanted Ibn Umar to give Bayah to Yazid, but he (Ibn Umar) refused and said: ‘I don’t give bayya to two commanders’. Then Mu'awiya sent 100,000 Dirham to him and he (ibn Umar) received it. Then he (Mu’awiya) sent a man to him (Ibn Umar) and he (the man) said to him (ibn Umar): ‘What is stopping you from giving bayya?’ He (ibn Umar) replied: ‘If this (money) is for that (bayya) if so then my faith is of low price’. When Mu’awyia died Ibn Umar gave bayah to Yazid.
Similarly we read in Siyar Alam al-Nubala, Volume 3 page 225 that has been graded as ‘Sahih’ by Shaykh Shoib Al-Arnaut:
عن أيوب، عن نافع، أن معاوية بعث إلى ابن عمر بمئة ألف، فلما أراد أن يبايع ليزيد، قال: أرى ذاك أراد، إن ديني عندي إذا لرخيص
Nafe’a narrated that Mu'awiya sent 100,000 Dirham to Ibn Umar, when he (Mu'awiya) wanted him (Ibn Umar) to give bayah to Yazid, he (Ibn Umar) said: I see what he wanted by it, if so then my faith is low price.
Bribery is the act of offering someone money or something valuable in order to persuade them to do something for you. That is exactly what Mu'awiyah did here, he sought to secure ibn Umar's backing for Yazid by paying him. It is with b noting that Ibn Umar didn't have an umbrage with Mu'awiyah for this corrupt act, his anger was with regards to the amount he had been given to support Yazid.
Muawiyah shameless act is despicable and contrary to the Sunnah, one the partakes in such behavior is accursed, for Rasulullah (s) said as recorded in Sunan Abu Dawud Book 24, Hadith 3573:
حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ يُونُسَ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ أَبِي ذِئْبٍ، عَنِ الْحَارِثِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ، عَنْ أَبِي سَلَمَةَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو، قَالَ لَعَنَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم الرَّاشِيَ وَالْمُرْتَشِيَ
Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-'As:
The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) cursed the one who bribes and the one who takes bribe.
Mu’awiya the Hadi’s ruling on fasting contradicted the Sunnah
We read in Sahih Muslim Book 6, Hadith 2391:
حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ يَحْيَى، وَيَحْيَى بْنُ أَيُّوبَ، وَقُتَيْبَةُ، وَابْنُ، حُجْرٍ قَالَ يَحْيَى بْنُ يَحْيَى أَخْبَرَنَا وَقَالَ الآخَرُونَ، حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ، - وَهُوَ ابْنُ جَعْفَرٍ - عَنْ مُحَمَّدٍ، - وَهُوَ ابْنُ أَبِي حَرْمَلَةَ - عَنْ كُرَيْبٍ، أَنَّ أُمَّ الْفَضْلِ بِنْتَ الْحَارِثِ، بَعَثَتْهُ إِلَى مُعَاوِيَةَ بِالشَّامِ قَالَ فَقَدِمْتُ الشَّامَ فَقَضَيْتُ حَاجَتَهَا وَاسْتُهِلَّ عَلَىَّ رَمَضَانُ وَأَنَا بِالشَّامِ فَرَأَيْتُ الْهِلاَلَ لَيْلَةَ الْجُمُعَةِ ثُمَّ قَدِمْتُ الْمَدِينَةَ فِي آخِرِ الشَّهْرِ فَسَأَلَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَبَّاسٍ - رضى الله عنهما - ثُمَّ ذَكَرَ الْهِلاَلَ فَقَالَ مَتَى رَأَيْتُمُ الْهِلاَلَ فَقُلْتُ رَأَيْنَاهُ لَيْلَةَ الْجُمُعَةِ . فَقَالَ أَنْتَ رَأَيْتَهُ فَقُلْتُ نَعَمْ وَرَآهُ النَّاسُ وَصَامُوا وَصَامَ مُعَاوِيَةُ . فَقَالَ لَكِنَّا رَأَيْنَاهُ لَيْلَةَ السَّبْتِ فَلاَ نَزَالُ نَصُومُ حَتَّى نُكْمِلَ ثَلاَثِينَ أَوْ نَرَاهُ . فَقُلْتُ أَوَلاَ تَكْتَفِي بِرُؤْيَةِ مُعَاوِيَةَ وَصِيَامِهِ فَقَالَ لاَ هَكَذَا أَمَرَنَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم . وَشَكَّ يَحْيَى بْنُ يَحْيَى فِي نَكْتَفِي أَوْ تَكْتَفِي .
Kuraib reported that Umm Fadl, daughter of Harith, sent him (Fadl, i.e. her son) to Mu'awiya in Syria. I (Fadl) arrived in Syria and did the needful for her. It was there in Syria that the month of Ramadan commenced. I saw the new moon (of Ramadan) on Friday. I then came back to Medina at the end of the month. Abdullah b. 'Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) asked me (about the new moon of Ramadan) and said:
When did you see it? I said: We saw it on the night of Friday. He said: (Did) you see it yourself? I said: Yes, and the people also saw it and they fasted and Mu'awiya also fasted, whereupon he said: But we saw it on Saturday night. So we will continue to fast till we complete thirty (fasts) or we see it (the new moon of Shawwal). I said: Is the sighting of the moon by Mu'awiya not valid for you? He said: No; this is how the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) has commanded us. Yahya b. Yahya was in doubt (whether the word used in the narration by Kuraib) was Naktafi or Taktafi.
If Mu'awiya was indeed the Hadi for the Ummah, why was ibn Abbas telling people to abandon his directive on fasting as it ran contrary to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s)?
Mu'awiya preferred his opinion about what is interest to the Sunnah of the Prophet (s)
We read in Sunan Ibn Majah Hadith number 18:
حَدَّثَنَا هِشَامُ بْنُ عَمَّارٍ، حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ حَمْزَةَ، حَدَّثَنِي بُرْدُ بْنُ سِنَانٍ، عَنْ إِسْحَاقَ بْنِ قَبِيصَةَ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، أَنَّ عُبَادَةَ بْنَ الصَّامِتِ الأَنْصَارِيَّ النَّقِيبَ، صَاحِبَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ غَزَا مَعَ مُعَاوِيَةَ أَرْضَ الرُّومِ فَنَظَرَ إِلَى النَّاسِ وَهُمْ يَتَبَايَعُونَ كِسَرَ الذَّهَبِ بِالدَّنَانِيرِ وَكِسَرَ الْفِضَّةِ بِالدَّرَاهِمِ فَقَالَ يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنَّكُمْ تَأْكُلُونَ الرِّبَا سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ يَقُولُ " لاَ تَبْتَاعُوا الذَّهَبَ بِالذَّهَبِ إِلاَّ مِثْلاً بِمِثْلٍ لاَ زِيَادَةَ بَيْنَهُمَا وَلاَ نَظِرَةَ " . فَقَالَ لَهُ مُعَاوِيَةُ يَا أَبَا الْوَلِيدِ لاَ أَرَى الرِّبَا فِي هَذَا إِلاَّ مَا كَانَ مِنْ نَظِرَةٍ . فَقَالَ عُبَادَةُ أُحَدِّثُكَ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ وَتُحَدِّثُنِي عَنْ رَأْيِكَ لَئِنْ أَخْرَجَنِي اللَّهُ لاَ أُسَاكِنْكَ بِأَرْضٍ لَكَ عَلَىَّ فِيهَا إِمْرَةٌ . فَلَمَّا قَفَلَ لَحِقَ بِالْمَدِينَةِ فَقَالَ لَهُ عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ مَا أَقْدَمَكَ يَا أَبَا الْوَلِيدِ فَقَصَّ عَلَيْهِ الْقِصَّةَ وَمَا قَالَ مِنْ مُسَاكَنَتِهِ فَقَالَ ارْجِعْ يَا أَبَا الْوَلِيدِ إِلَى أَرْضِكَ فَقَبَحَ اللَّهُ أَرْضًا لَسْتَ فِيهَا وَأَمْثَالُكَ . وَكَتَبَ إِلَى مُعَاوِيَةَ لاَ إِمْرَةَ لَكَ عَلَيْهِ وَاحْمِلِ النَّاسَ عَلَى مَا قَالَ فَإِنَّهُ هُوَ الأَمْرُ .
It was narrated from Ishaq bin Qabisah from his father that:
Ubadah bin Samit Al-Ansari, head of the army unit, the Companion of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), went on a military campaign with Mu'awiyah in the land of the Byzantines. He saw people trading pieces of gold for Dinar and pieces of silver for Dirham. He said: "O people, you are consuming Riba (usury)! For I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: 'Do not sell gold for gold unless it is like for like; there should be no increase and no delay (between the two transactions).'" Mu'awiyah said to him: "O Abu Walid, I do not think there is any Riba involved in this , except in cases where there is a delay." 'Ubadah said to him: "I tell you a Hadith from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and you tell me your opinion! If Allah brings me back safely I will never live in a land in which you have authority over me." When he returned, he stayed in Al-Madinah, and 'Umar bin Khattab said to him: "What brought you here, O Abu Walid?" So he told him the story, and what he had said about not living in the same land as Mu'awiyah. 'Umar said: "Go back to your land, O Abu Walid, for what a bad land is the land from where you and people like you are absent." Then he wrote to Mu'awiyah and said: "You have no authority over him; make the people follow what he says , for he is right."
We can see from this narration that Mu'awiyah didn't define a certain type of transaction as interest even though the Sahabi Ubadah bin Samit told him what he was doing contradicted the Sunnah of Rasulullah. Mu'awiyah did not correct his view, that means he either didn't accept the testimony of Ubadah that raises question on the Sunni doctrine the all the Sahaba were just and truthful or simply preferred his own opinion to the Sunnah, that seems more plausible considering his track record of opposing the Quran and Sunnah. Ubadah was so outraged by this he vowed not to live in a country wherein Mu'awiyah had authority. Mu'awiyah preferred what he "thought". Allah (swt) says about such people in Sura Maida verse 47:
وَلْيَحْكُمْ أَهْلُ ٱلْإِنجِيلِ بِمَآ أَنزَلَ ٱللَّهُ فِيهِ ۚ وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَآ أَنزَلَ ٱللَّهُ فَأُو۟لَٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلْفَٰسِقُونَ
And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.
We read in Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith number 3500:
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو الْيَمَانِ، أَخْبَرَنَا شُعَيْبٌ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، قَالَ كَانَ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ جُبَيْرِ بْنِ مُطْعِمٍ يُحَدِّثُ أَنَّهُ بَلَغَ مُعَاوِيَةَ وَهْوَ عِنْدَهُ فِي وَفْدٍ مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْعَاصِ يُحَدِّثُ أَنَّهُ سَيَكُونُ مَلِكٌ مِنْ قَحْطَانَ، فَغَضِبَ مُعَاوِيَةُ، فَقَامَ فَأَثْنَى عَلَى اللَّهِ بِمَا هُوَ أَهْلُهُ، ثُمَّ قَالَ أَمَّا بَعْدُ فَإِنَّهُ بَلَغَنِي أَنَّ رِجَالاً مِنْكُمْ يَتَحَدَّثُونَ أَحَادِيثَ لَيْسَتْ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ، وَلاَ تُؤْثَرُ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم، فَأُولَئِكَ جُهَّالُكُمْ، فَإِيَّاكُمْ وَالأَمَانِيَّ الَّتِي تُضِلُّ أَهْلَهَا، فَإِنِّي سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ " إِنَّ هَذَا الأَمْرَ فِي قُرَيْشٍ، لاَ يُعَادِيهِمْ أَحَدٌ إِلاَّ كَبَّهُ اللَّهُ عَلَى وَجْهِهِ، مَا أَقَامُوا الدِّينَ ".
Narrated Muhammad bin Jubair bin Mut`im:
That while he was with a delegation from Quraish to Muawiya, the latter heard the news that `Abdullah bin `Amr bin Al-`As said that there would be a king from the tribe of Qahtan. On that Muawiya became angry, got up and then praised Allah as He deserved, and said, "Now then, I have heard that some men amongst you narrate things which are neither in the Holy Book, nor have been told by Allah's Messenger (ﷺ). Those men are the ignorant amongst you. Beware of such hopes as make the people go astray, for I heard Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) saying, 'Authority of ruling will remain with Quraish, and whoever bears hostility to them, Allah will destroy him as long as they abide by the laws of the religion.' "
`Abdullah bin `Amr bin Al-`As is counted by the Ahlul Sunnah as a respected Sahabi of the Prophet (s). Look at the accusation that Mu'awiyah levels against him, he's accused of being an ignorant liar. If all the Sahaba are just and truthful, why did Mu'awiyah rejects a Hadith attributed to Rasulullah (s) that was supported by this narration in Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith number 7117
حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْعَزِيزِ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، حَدَّثَنِي سُلَيْمَانُ، عَنْ ثَوْرٍ، عَنْ أَبِي الْغَيْثِ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ " لاَ تَقُومُ السَّاعَةُ حَتَّى يَخْرُجَ رَجُلٌ مِنْ قَحْطَانَ يَسُوقُ النَّاسَ بِعَصَاهُ ".
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "The Hour will not be established till a man from Qahtan appears, driving the people with his stick."
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 habits of Mu’awiya, one can easily put him into the same category of people.The incident was recorded by Baladhuri in Ansab Al Ashraf Vol 5, pg. 137, and it was also recorded by 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, Vol. 24 pg. 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.’
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, Mu’awiya preferred aiding the Kuffar to worship false deities by selling idols to them. Rather than guide these deviants he was helping them to continue with their kufr ways!
We shall take the opportunity to clarify that selling idos is prohibited under Shia fiqh[3] (see ‘Mesbah al-Faqaha’ by Sayyed Khoei, Vol. 1 pg. 147.) Also we read in ‘Feqh al-Sadiq’ by Sayyed Rohani, Vol. 20 pg. 183 that:
‘The heresy worshiping equipment such as cross and idol, the popular view among the scholars is about the prohibitions of selling these, verily there is Ijma on it.’
Ibn Kathir proudly records in Al Bidayah wal Nihaya, Vol 11 pg. 452[4]:
Ibn Asakir has narrated under the events of Mu’awiya's slave Khadij al Khasi (the eunuch) 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 Yazid 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 Yazid ''. He said: “O commander of the 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 Mu’awiya 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 Yazid due to the verse of Holy Quran, and Faqih Rabi` bin Umro al Jarshi al Damashqi also agreed with him.”
We don’t understand how the children of Mu’awiya such as Ibn Kathir can praise their father for mocking 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.
We read in Muwatta Book 31, Number 31.16.33 under the chapter “Selling Gold for Silver, Minted and Unminted”:
Yahya related to me Malik from Zayd ibn Aslam from Ata ibn Yasar that Mu’awiya ibn Abi Sufyan sold a gold or silver drinking-vessel for more than its weight. Abu Darda said, “I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbidding such sales except like for like.” Mu’awiya said to him, “I don’t see any harm in it.” Abu’d-Darda said to him, “Who will excuse me from Mu’awiya? 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 Mu’awiya, “Do not sell it except like for like, weight for weight.”
Just contemplate the significance of this narration. Mu’awiya had entered into 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 Caliph, 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”.
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 Caliph himself?
We also read in Sharh Ma’ni al-Athaar, Vol. 4, pg. 75, 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 onto the pulpit Ubada bin Samit stood up and said “No! Mu’awiya entered into an agreement based on interest and also ate interest and as a result of this is in the Fire”.
Interest is a despicable act in the eyes of Allah (swt) and In Sahih Muslim 3881 Jabir bin Abdullah narrates:
“Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) cursed the acceptor of interest and its payer, and one who records it, and the two witnesses; and he said: They are all equal”.
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[5]. On pg. 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”
We read in Sunan an-Nasa'i 1575:
أَخْبَرَنَا عَمْرُو بْنُ عَلِيٍّ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْمَلِكِ بْنُ أَبِي سُلَيْمَانَ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا عَطَاءٌ، عَنْ جَابِرٍ، قَالَ شَهِدْتُ الصَّلاَةَ مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فِي يَوْمِ عِيدٍ فَبَدَأَ بِالصَّلاَةِ قَبْلَ الْخُطْبَةِ بِغَيْرِ أَذَانٍ وَلاَ إِقَامَةٍ فَلَمَّا قَضَى الصَّلاَةَ قَامَ مُتَوَكِّئًا عَلَى بِلاَلٍ فَحَمِدَ اللَّهَ وَأَثْنَى عَلَيْهِ وَوَعَظَ النَّاسَ وَذَكَّرَهُمْ وَحَثَّهُمْ عَلَى طَاعَتِهِ ثُمَّ مَالَ وَمَضَى إِلَى النِّسَاءِ وَمَعَهُ بِلاَلٌ فَأَمَرَهُنَّ بِتَقْوَى اللَّهِ وَوَعَظَهُنَّ وَذَكَّرَهُنَّ وَحَمِدَ اللَّهَ وَأَثْنَى عَلَيْهِ ثُمَّ حَثَّهُنَّ عَلَى طَاعَتِهِ ثُمَّ قَالَ " تَصَدَّقْنَ فَإِنَّ أَكْثَرَكُنَّ حَطَبُ جَهَنَّمَ " . فَقَالَتِ امْرَأَةٌ مِنْ سَفِلَةِ النِّسَاءِ سَفْعَاءُ الْخَدَّيْنِ بِمَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ قَالَ " تُكْثِرْنَ الشَّكَاةَ وَتَكْفُرْنَ الْعَشِيرَ " . فَجَعَلْنَ يَنْزِعْنَ قَلاَئِدَهُنَّ وَأَقْرُطَهُنَّ وَخَوَاتِيمَهُنَّ يَقْذِفْنَهُ فِي ثَوْبِ بِلاَلٍ يَتَصَدَّقْنَ بِهِ .
It was narrated that Jabir said:
"I attended the prayer with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) on the day of 'Eid. He started with the prayer before the Khutbah, with no Adhan and no Iqamah. When he finished the prayer, he stood leaning on Bilal, and he praised and glorified Allah ((SWT)) and exhorted the people, reminding them and urging them to obey Allah ((SWT)). Then he moved away and went to the women, and Bilal was with him. He commanded them to fear Allah ((SWT)) and exhorted them and reminded them. He praised and glorified Allah, then he urged them to obey Allah, then he said: 'Give charity, for most of you are the fuel of Hell.' A lowly woman with dark cheeks said: 'Why, O Messenger of Allah?' He said: 'You complain a great deal and are ungrateful to your husbands.' They started taking off their necklaces, earrings and rings, throwing them into Bilal's garment, giving them in charity."
It was Mu'awiya who departed from this Sunnah, Ibn Kathir records in Al Bidayah Volume 11 page 448:
وقال قتادة: عن سعيد بن المسيب: أول من أذن وأقام يوم الفطر والنحر معاوية
“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”
Ibn Abi Shaybah acknowledges the same with an authentic chain in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shayba Volume 4 page 216:
وقال سعيد بن المسيب: أول من أحدث الأذان فى العيد معاوية
Abu al-Ula Muhammad Abderrahman al-Mubarakafoori confirms that the chain is sahih in Tuhfatul-Ahwadhi bi Sharh Jami' at-Tirmidhi Volume 3 page 76
Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Fathul Bari Volume 2 page 525 expands on this matter yet further:
“There is a difference of opinion over who introduced the Adhan during the Eid Salat. Ibn Abi Shaybah 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”.
Other Sunni scholars have concurred with this stance, namely that Mu'awiyah was the pioneer of this bidah:
Imam Al-Qastallani recorded in Irshad al Sari fi Sharh Sahih Bukhari Vol 2, pg. 653:
وأول من أحدث الأذان فيها: معاوية، رواه ابن أبي شيبة بإسناد صحيح
Suyuti in Tarikh ul Khulafa pg. 160 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-Um’ Vol. 1 pg. 235 by Imam al-Shafi’i:
Shafi’i 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)’
Ibn Kathir records in Al Bidayah Wal Nihaya, Vol. 11 pg. 448:
وقال قتادة: عن سعيد بن المسيب: أول من أذن وأقام يوم الفطر والنحر معاوية.
Qatadah narrated from Saeed bin al-Musiyib: ‘Mu’awiya was the first person to recite Adhan and Iqamah during Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha”
We read in Kitab al Ilm Vol. 1 pg. 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 Vol. 2 pg. 529 expands on this matter yet further:
“There is a difference of opinion over who introduced the Adhan in Eid Salat. Ibn Shayba[6] 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 Eids:
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 sunnah about which there is no disagreement among us.”
Mu’awiya 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’ Vol. 6 pg. 84:
وقال الطبري إن أبا هريرة سئل من أول من ترك التكبير إذا رفع رأسه وإذا وضعه قال معاوية
Al-Tabari said: ‘Abu Huraira was asked about the first one who abandoned Takbir during raising the head and prostration, he replied: ‘Mu’awiya’.
Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti likewise recorded in Tarikh al-Khulafa’, pg. 332:
أول من نقص التكبير معاوية
“The first person who reduced Takbir was Mu’awiya”.
al-Wasael ela al-Musamerah, pg. 164[7]
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”
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 ‘Nayl al-Awtar’ Vol. 2 pg. 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 abandoned it was 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 pg. has also quoted the comments of the Imam of Ahle Sunnah Tahawi who without mentioning the name of Mu’awiya, stated:
“Al-Tahawi said that Bani Umayyah abandoned Takbir during prostration but not during raising, and that is not the first Sunnah they abandoned.”
Mu’awiya’s distortion in the method of prayers prescribed by the Almighty continues. Imam Dhahabi records in Tanqih al-Tahqiq, Vol. 1 pg. 113:
وقال النخعي : أول من نقص الإقامة معاوية
Al-Nakhaei said: ‘The first one who reduced the Iqamah was Mu’awiya.’
Dhahabi also records:
Mujahid said: “Adhan and Iqamah, both were double, but when Bani Umayyah ruled they made the Iqamah single”
So Mu’awiya introduced Iqamah in Eid prayers which actually was not prescribed 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 Mu’awiya had the habit of interfering into the decisions put forward by Allah (swt)!
Imam of Ahlul Sunnah, Hafiz Jalaluddin Suyuti in ‘Durr al Manthur’ Vol. 2 pg. 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’.
We read in the Sharh of ‘Muawtta Imam Malik’ edited by Abdul Wahab Abdul Latif pg. 301:
ذكر ذلك ابن أبي ذئب عن ابن شهاب الزهري قال سألته عن اليمين مع الشاهد فقال : بدعة وأول من قضى بها معاوية
Ibn Abi al-Deab reported that he asked ibn Shehab al-Zuhari about the oath with a witness, he (al-Zuhari) replied: “This is bid’ah and the first one who practiced it was Mu’awiya.”
The chain up till Zuhri as Sahih as per the grading standard of Muslim. Had it been only one scholar then people might have said 'an opinion' but interestingly another Deobandi Scholar Zafar Thanvi wrote a monumental scholarly piece named 'A'ala Sunan'. He also used the same reference from Zuhri to prove his point.See A'ala Sunan, Vol 15, Pg 144, Published in Karachi.
Badrideen Aini al Hanafi in his famous commentary of Sahih al Bukhari, Umdatul Qari fi Sharh Sahih al Bukhari, Volume 13 page 351 wrote:
فقد روى عَن غَيرهم بأسانيد صِحَاح، أَنه لَا يجوز. مِنْهَا: مَا رَوَاهُ ابْن أبي شيبَة: حَدثنَا حَمَّاد بن خَالِد عَن ابْن أبي ذِئْب عَن الزُّهْرِيّ قَالَ: هِيَ بِدعَة وَأول من قضى بهَا مُعَاوِيَة، وَهَذَا السَّنَد على شَرط مُسلم
"and it is proven from several chains that judgment by a single witness and oath is bidah and ibn Abi Shaybah quotes Zuhri with a chain that an oath with a single witness is bidah and the first one that practiced it was Muwaiyah and this narration is Sahih as per the grading method of Muslim"
We read in Taleequl Majeed – Sharah Muwatta Imam Muhammad, pg. 363’ written by one of the revered Hanafi & Deobandi scholars Allamah Muhammad Abdul Hai al-Lucnowi (d. 1304 H):
ذكر ذلك ابن ابي ذئب عن ابن شهاب الزهري قال سألته عن اليمين مع الشاهد فقال : بدعة وأول من قضى بها معاوية
Ibn Abi al-Deab reported that he asked ibn Shehab al-Zuhari about the oath with a single witness, he (al-Zuhari) replied: “This is bid’ah and the first one who practiced it was Mu’awiya.”
We read in one of the esteemed Hanafi works Sharah Waqayah, Vol. 3 pg. 205:
إذا أنكر الخصم يرد اليمين على المدعي وعندنا هذا بدعة وأول من قضى بها معاوية
“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”
Imam of Ahle Sunnah Allamah Saaduddin Taftazani records in Tauzeeh Sharah Talweeh, pg. 430:
وذكر في المبسوط أن القضاء بشاهد ويمين بدعة وأول من قضى بها معاوية
“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”
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 the 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 Mu’awiya caught a group of thieves, applied the prescribed punishment to all of them except to the one who knew how to make Mu’awiya (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 scholars, Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Habib al-Basri al-Baghdadi al-Mawardi (d. 450 H) records in The ordinances of government, English translation of Ahkam al Sultaniyyah, pg. 321:
“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?
Mu’awiya 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”
Imam Ibn Saad records in Kitab Tabaqat Al Kubra Vol 3, pg. 10:
Shihab Ibn Abbad - Abd Al Jabbar Ibn Wared - Abi Al Zubayr - Jabir bin Abdullah: When Mu’awiya intended to run his creek that was in Uhud, his agents sent a letter to him and said: ‘It’s not possible, unless we run it through the graves of martyrs.’ Mu’awiya wrote in response: ‘Dig up the graves.’He (Jabir) says: So I saw them being carried on the shoulders of the men as if they were asleep. And a shovel hit the leg of al-Hamza Ibn Abd Al-Muttalib (AS) and blood came out.”
It would seem the son of Hind was trying to finish the vendetta his mother started.
Reciting Talbiyah during pilgrimage is a Sunnah, but when we analyze authentic Sunni texts, we come to know that Mu’awiya 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 Mu’awiya and his adherents were out and out Nasibi, and secondly they deliberately rejected 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 Mu’awiya’. 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, Vol. 5 pg. 253 Tradition 3019
2. Sahih Ibn Khuzaima, Vol. 4 pg. 260 Tradition 2830
3. Mustadrak al-Hakim, Vol. 1 pg. 636
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 , Vol. 5 pg. 183, Ibn Abbas (ra) actually cursed Mu’awiya and his Nasibi adherents:
“Thus ibn Abbas went out from his tent saying: “Labyak Allah huma Labayk” in defiance of Mu'awiyah, 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’ pg. 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 Sharh Sunan Nasai, Vol. 5, pg. 279 stated:
أي لأجل بغضه أي وهو كان يتقيد بالسنن فهؤلاء تركوها بغضا له
“Because of their hate, since he (Ali) was committed with Sunnah, so they abandoned it because of their hate towards him (Ali)”
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 authority work Tafsir Kabir, Vol. 1 pg. 180-181:
Imam Shafi'i narrated from his isnad that Mu’awiya 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 Mu’awiya! You have committed theft in prayers, where were ‘Bismillah al Rehman al Rahim’ and Takbeer during bowing and prostration? Al-Shafi'i 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 Muhajirin 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 Huraira (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 Umayyah, 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.”
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 hadith 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 Caliphs. Then why is this Sunnah being ignored and preference being given to the Bidah of Mu’awiya? Does this not prove that you are not followers of the Rasul (s) but are in fact the adherents of Mu’awiya the Nasibi?
We read in Sunan Abu Dawud Book 32, hadith Number 4119 and in Musnad Ahmed Ibn Hanbal Vol 28, pg. 426:
Narrated Al-Miqdam ibn Ma’dikarib: “Khalid said: Al-Miqdam ibn Ma’dikarib and a man of Banu Asad from the people of Qinnasrin 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 (pbuh) 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 (pbuh) forbidding us to wear gold?
He replied: Yes. He said: I adjure you by Allah, do you know that the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) prohibited the wearing of silk?
He replied: Yes. He said: I adjure you by Allah, did 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”.
Allamah Shams ul Haq Azeem Abadi in his famed commentary on Sunan Abu Dawood commonly known as ‘Awn al Mabood Sharh Sunan Abu Dawood, pg. 1883-1884 revealed the following about “a man” mentioned in the cited tradition of Sunan Abu Dawood. Allamah Shams ul Haq records:
فقال له فلان ) وفي بعض النسخ وقع رجل مكان فلان والمراد بفلان هو معاوية بن أبي سفيان رضي الله تعالى عنه والمؤلف لم يصرح باسمه وهذا دأبه في مثل ذلك وقد أخرج أحمد في مسنده من طريق حيوة بن شريح حدثنا بقية حدثنا بحير بن سعد عن خالد بن معدان قال وفد المقدام بن معد يكرب وفيه فقال له معاوية أيراها مصيبة الحديث
( أتعدها ) وفي بعض النسخ أتراها أي أنعد يا أيها المقدام حادثة موت الحسن رضي الله تعالى عنه مصيبة والعجب كل العجب من معاوية فإنه ما عرف قدر أهل البيت حتى قال ما قال فإن موت الحسن بن علي رضي الله عنه من أعظم المصائب وجزى الله المقدام ورضي عنه فإنه ما سكت عن تكلم الحق حتى أظهره وهكذا شأن المؤمن الكامل المخلص
“…Fa Qala Lahu Fulan…”(And so-and-so said to him)
In some texts, the word “Rajul''(a man) occurs in the place of “Fulan”(so-and-so), and what is intended by “Fulan” is Mu’awiya ibn Abi Sufyan. The author (i.e. Imam Abu Dawood) did not let it be known, as this was his practise. Ahmad (ibn Hanbal) has reported in his Musnad through Haiwah ibn Shareeh, Baqiyyah, Baheer ibn Sa’d, from Khalid ibn Ma’dan who said: “And Mu’awiya asked him whether he thought it was a calamity…”(the rest of the above hadith).
“…A-Ta’adaha…”(Do you consider this…?)
In some texts it is “A-Taraaha”(Do you see this…?), that is to consider. This means:’Do you regard, oh Miqdam, this event of the death of Al-Hassan as a calamity?’ Astonishment upon astonishment to Mu’awiya. Surely he never recognised the status of the Ahlul-Bait, (Mu’awiya) saying what he said. For surely the death of Al-Hassan ibn Ali (RA) is the greatest of tragedies. May Allah reward Miqdam, and may He be pleased with him, for he did not stay silent from speaking the truth, until he proclaimed it. And this is the sign of a genuine and pious believer.
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)? Mu'awiyah admitted that the Sunnah prevented the wearing of gold, silk and the skins of beasts of prey and riding on them and yet he didn't deny that all of them were worn in his house. A Hadi leads by example, to do that he needs to ensure that he is practising Islam within the confines of his own home and ensuring that his family are doing likewise. We read in Sahih Muslim Hadith number 1829 a:
حَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا لَيْثٌ، ح وَحَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ رُمْحٍ، حَدَّثَنَا اللَّيْثُ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَنَّهُ قَالَ " أَلاَ كُلُّكُمْ رَاعٍ وَكُلُّكُمْ مَسْئُولٌ عَنْ رَعِيَّتِهِ فَالأَمِيرُ الَّذِي عَلَى النَّاسِ رَاعٍ وَهُوَ مَسْئُولٌ عَنْ رَعِيَّتِهِ وَالرَّجُلُ رَاعٍ عَلَى أَهْلِ بَيْتِهِ وَهُوَ مَسْئُولٌ عَنْهُمْ وَالْمَرْأَةُ رَاعِيَةٌ عَلَى بَيْتِ بَعْلِهَا وَوَلَدِهِ وَهِيَ مَسْئُولَةٌ عَنْهُمْ وَالْعَبْدُ رَاعٍ عَلَى مَالِ سَيِّدِهِ وَهُوَ مَسْئُولٌ عَنْهُ أَلاَ فَكُلُّكُمْ رَاعٍ وَكُلُّكُمْ مَسْئُولٌ عَنْ رَعِيَّتِهِ " .
It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn 'Umar that the Prophet (May be upon him) said:
Beware. every one of you is a shepherd and every one is answerable with regard to his flock. The Caliph is a shepherd over the people and shall be questioned about his subjects (as to how he conducted their affairs). A man is a guardian over the members of his family and shal be questioned about them (as to how he looked after their physical and moral well-being). A woman is a guardian over the household of her husband and his children and shall be questioned about them (as to how she managed the household and brought up the children). A slave is a guardian over the property of his master and shall be questioned about it (as to how he safeguarded his trust). Beware, every one of you is a guardian and every one of you shall be questioned with regard to his trust.
In summary we are all shepherds with responsibilities towards those in our support bubble. The first responsibility one has is to one’s immediate family, when we are going to be questioned over how we conducted our affairs over our family the key question will be did you lead the family by example and ensure you practised Islam pursuant to the Qur'an and Sunnah so they were brought up with an understanding of what is right from wrong? The head of the household acts as the Hadi for his family. What type of example could Muwaiyah set a a Hadi for the Ummah when he was attire to be worn in his house that he knew were contrary to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s)? An alleged Hadi that nonchalantly permits haraam items in his own house has no moral authority to act as a Hadi to the Ummah. What type of Hadi is this? If he isn’t even adhering to the Sunnah in his house, how is going act as a Hadi for the outside world?
Mu’awiya ‘the Hadi’ preferred the Bidah of Uthman over the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s)
Ibn Hanbal records in Musnad ibn Hanbal Volume 28, pg. 71 -72 Hadith number 16857:
Ibad says: When Ameer Muawiyah attended our residence for Hajj, we accompanied him to Makkah. He (Muawiyah) made us offer 2 rakat Zuhr prayer and went into Dar-Al-Nadwah however since Hadhrath Uthman started leading salat, whenever he came to Makkah, he would offer 4 rakat of Dhuhr and 4 for Asr and Isha and would shorten them (Qasr) in Mina and Arafah and after Hajj when he (Uthman) returned to Mina, he would offer the complete prayer until he left Makkah. When Muawiyah (contrary to this) made us offer 2 rakat for Dhuhr, Marwan Bin Hakim and Umro bin Uthman stood up and said he had disgraced his cousin, no one ever has done that before you. He(Muawiyah) asked how? On this the both said: Are you unaware of the fact that Uthman would recite the complete prayer in Makkah? Muawiyah said: woe is me! I was wondering, what have I done? I had offered 2 rakats with Rasulullah (s) and Shaykhayn. The two said 'but your cousin offered 4 rakats, your opposing him is strange'. Therefore when he (Mu'awiyah) he recited Asr, we recited 4 rakats.
Look at how Mu'awiyah acknowledges the correct Sunnah but then opts to abandon it in favour of the innovation of his cousin 'Uthman. Why was the bidah of Uthman giving priority to the established Sunnah of Rasulullah (s)? Mu'awiyah gave preference to family loyalty over the Sunnah, is that conduct becoming of an individual that the Ahlul Sunnah revere?
This clearly isn't the correct approach, especially from one that Rasulullah (s) allegedly referred to as a Hadi in Sunni hadith literature. The correct approach is to follow the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s), we have evidence from the books of the Ahlul Sunnah in this regard. We read Jami` at-Tirmidhi Volume 2, Book 4, Hadith 824:
حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ بْنُ حُمَيْدٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي يَعْقُوبُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ بْنِ سَعْدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي، عَنْ صَالِحِ بْنِ كَيْسَانَ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، أَنَّ سَالِمَ بْنَ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، حَدَّثَهُ أَنَّهُ، سَمِعَ رَجُلاً، مِنْ أَهْلِ الشَّامِ وَهُوَ يَسْأَلُ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ عُمَرَ عَنِ التَّمَتُّعِ بِالْعُمْرَةِ إِلَى الْحَجِّ فَقَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عُمَرَ هِيَ حَلاَلٌ . فَقَالَ الشَّامِيُّ إِنَّ أَبَاكَ قَدْ نَهَى عَنْهَا . فَقَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عُمَرَ أَرَأَيْتَ إِنْ كَانَ أَبِي نَهَى عَنْهَا وَصَنَعَهَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَأَمْرَ أَبِي نَتَّبِعُ أَمْ أَمْرَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ الرَّجُلُ بَلْ أَمْرَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم . فَقَالَ لَقَدْ صَنَعَهَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم . قَالَ هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ . قَالَ وَفِي الْبَابِ عَنْ عَلِيٍّ وَعُثْمَانَ وَجَابِرٍ وَسَعْدٍ وَأَسْمَاءَ بِنْتِ أَبِي بَكْرٍ وَابْنِ عُمَرَ . وَقَدِ اخْتَارَ قَوْمٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ مِنْ أَصْحَابِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَغَيْرِهِمُ التَّمَتُّعَ بِالْعُمْرَةِ . وَالتَّمَتُّعُ أَنْ يَدْخُلَ الرَّجُلُ بِعُمْرَةٍ فِي أَشْهُرِ الْحَجِّ ثُمَّ يُقِيمَ حَتَّى يَحُجَّ فَهُوَ مُتَمَتِّعٌ وَعَلَيْهِ دَمٌ مَا اسْتَيْسَرَ مِنَ الْهَدْىِ فَإِنْ لَمْ يَجِدْ صَامَ ثَلاَثَةَ أَيَّامٍ فِي الْحَجِّ وَسَبْعَةً إِذَا رَجَعَ إِلَى أَهْلِهِ وَيُسْتَحَبُّ لِلْمُتَمَتِّعِ إِذَا صَامَ ثَلاَثَةَ أَيَّامٍ فِي الْحَجِّ أَنْ يَصُومَ فِي الْعَشْرِ وَيَكُونَ آخِرُهَا يَوْمَ عَرَفَةَ فَإِنْ لَمْ يَصُمْ فِي الْعَشْرِ صَامَ أَيَّامَ التَّشْرِيقِ فِي قَوْلِ بَعْضِ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ مِنْ أَصْحَابِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم مِنْهُمُ ابْنُ عُمَرَ وَعَائِشَةُ وَبِهِ يَقُولُ مَالِكٌ وَالشَّافِعِيُّ وَأَحْمَدُ وَإِسْحَاقُ . وَقَالَ بَعْضُهُمْ لاَ يَصُومُ أَيَّامَ التَّشْرِيقِ . وَهُوَ قَوْلُ أَهْلِ الْكُوفَةِ . قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى وَأَهْلُ الْحَدِيثِ يَخْتَارُونَ التَّمَتُّعَ بِالْعُمْرَةِ فِي الْحَجِّ وَهُوَ قَوْلُ الشَّافِعِيِّ وَأَحْمَدَ وَإِسْحَاقَ .
Salim bin Abdullah narrated that :
he had heard a man from Ash-Sham asking Abdullah bin Umar about Tamattu after Umrah until Hajj, so Abdullah bin Umar said: "It is lawful." The man from Ash-Sham said: "But your father prohibited it." So Abdullah bin Umar said: "Is the order to follow my father or is the order (to follow) for the Messenger of Allah?" The man said: "Rather it is for the Messenger of Allah." So he said: "Indeed the Messenger of Allah did it."
We read in Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 2, Book 26, Hadith 634:
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بَشَّارٍ، حَدَّثَنَا غُنْدَرٌ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنِ الْحَكَمِ، عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ حُسَيْنٍ، عَنْ مَرْوَانَ بْنِ الْحَكَمِ، قَالَ شَهِدْتُ عُثْمَانَ وَعَلِيًّا ـ رضى الله عنهما ـ وَعُثْمَانُ يَنْهَى عَنِ الْمُتْعَةِ وَأَنْ يُجْمَعَ بَيْنَهُمَا. فَلَمَّا رَأَى عَلِيٌّ، أَهَلَّ بِهِمَا لَبَّيْكَ بِعُمْرَةٍ وَحَجَّةٍ قَالَ مَا كُنْتُ لأَدَعَ سُنَّةَ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم لِقَوْلِ أَحَدٍ.
Narrated Marwan bin Al-Hakam:
I saw `Uthman and `Ali. `Uthman used to forbid people to perform Hajj-at-Tamattu` and Hajj-al- Qiran (Hajj and `Umrah together), and when `Ali saw (this act of `Uthman), he assumed Ihram for Hajj and `Umrah together saying, "Labbaik for `Umra and Hajj," and said, "I will not leave the tradition of the Prophet (ﷺ) on the saying of somebody."
Mu'awiyah during his own tenure (like Uthman) sought to prohibit the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) on the issue of Hajj Tamattu. We read in Sunan an-Nasa'i Volume 3, Book 24, Hadith 2735:
أَخْبَرَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ الْحَارِثِ بْنِ نَوْفَلِ بْنِ الْحَارِثِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْمُطَّلِبِ، أَنَّهُ حَدَّثَهُ أَنَّهُ، سَمِعَ سَعْدَ بْنَ أَبِي وَقَّاصٍ، وَالضَّحَّاكَ بْنَ قَيْسٍ، - عَامَ حَجَّ مُعَاوِيَةُ بْنُ أَبِي سُفْيَانَ - وَهُمَا يَذْكُرَانِ التَّمَتُّعَ بِالْعُمْرَةِ إِلَى الْحَجِّ فَقَالَ الضَّحَّاكُ لاَ يَصْنَعُ ذَلِكَ إِلاَّ مَنْ جَهِلَ أَمْرَ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى . فَقَالَ سَعْدٌ بِئْسَمَا قُلْتَ يَا ابْنَ أَخِي . قَالَ الضَّحَّاكُ فَإِنَّ عُمَرَ بْنَ الْخَطَّابِ نَهَى عَنْ ذَلِكَ . قَالَ سَعْدٌ قَدْ صَنَعَهَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَصَنَعْنَاهَا مَعَهُ .
It was narrated from Muhammad bin 'Abdullah bin Al-Harith bin Nawfal bin Al-Harith bin 'Abdul-Muttalib that:
during the year that Mu'awiyah bin Abi sufyan performed Hajj, he heard Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas and Ad-Dahhak bin Qais talking about joining 'Umrah to Hajj (Tamattu) Ad-Dahhak said: "none does that but one who is ignorant of the ruling of Allah." Sa'd said: "What a bad thing to say, O son of my brother!" Ad-Dahhak said: "Umar bin Al-Khattab forbade that." Sa'd daid: "The Messenger of Allah did that and we did it with him."
Mu'awiyah even abandoned the Sunnah on account of his hatred of Imam Ali (as)*
We read in Sunan an-Nasa'i Volume 3, Book 24, Hadith 3009:
أَخْبَرَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ عُثْمَانَ بْنِ حَكِيمٍ الأَوْدِيُّ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا خَالِدُ بْنُ مَخْلَدٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ صَالِحٍ، عَنْ مَيْسَرَةَ بْنِ حَبِيبٍ، عَنِ الْمِنْهَالِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُبَيْرٍ، قَالَ كُنْتُ مَعَ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ بِعَرَفَاتٍ فَقَالَ مَا لِي لاَ أَسْمَعُ النَّاسَ يُلَبُّونَ قُلْتُ يَخَافُونَ مِنْ مُعَاوِيَةَ . فَخَرَجَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ مِنْ فُسْطَاطِهِ فَقَالَ لَبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ لَبَّيْكَ لَبَّيْكَ فَإِنَّهُمْ قَدْ تَرَكُوا السُّنَّةَ مِنْ بُغْضِ عَلِيٍّ
It was narrated that Saeed bin Jubair said:
"I was with Ibn Abbas in Arafat and he said: 'Why do I not hear the people reciting Talbiyah?' I said: They are afraid of Muawiyah.' So Ibn Abbas went out of his tent and said: "Labbaik Allahumma Labbaik, Labbaik! They are only forsaking the Sunnah out of hatred for Ali.'"
This has also been recorded in:
It is worth noting that ibn Abbas didn't seek to exonerate Mu'awiyah by suggesting he'd exercised ijtihaad, rather he said the Sunnah had been abandoned due to Muawiyah's hatred of Imam Ali (as). This serves as a major slap in the face of the advocates of Mu'awiyah, that insist that the issue he and and the Umayyads had with Imam Ali (as) that included their hatred and vilification of him because he was their political opponent, it has no religious basis. We would invite them to ponder over the above narration wherein Muawiyah's hatred of Imam Ali (as) is so extreme that he abolishes the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s), reciting Talbiyah in Hajj on the sole premise that Imam Ali (as) practiced it. Ibn Abbas was clear that the decision was motivated by a hatred of Imam Ali (as). When you are outlawing a religious practice because Imam Ali (as) practiced the motivation is a religious one, not a political one.
Mu'awiyah was an individual that introduced and adhered to practices that were contrary to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s); he:
1. introduced the Adhan for Eid prayers, that Rasulullah (s) did not do
2. offered complete prayers when traveling, pursuant to the practice of Uthman when he was conscious that this was not the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s)
3. reintroduced Uthman's prohibition of Tamattu after Umrah even though this ran contrary to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) as highlighted by Abdullah ibn Umar and Imam Ali (as).
4. outlawed the recital of the Talbiyah during Hajj despite it being the Sunnah due to his hatred of Imam Ali (as).
We read in Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 8, Book 76, Hadith 585:
وَقَالَ أَحْمَدُ بْنُ شَبِيبِ بْنِ سَعِيدٍ الْحَبَطِيُّ حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي، عَنْ يُونُسَ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ الْمُسَيَّبِ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، أَنَّهُ كَانَ يُحَدِّثُ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ " يَرِدُ عَلَىَّ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ رَهْطٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِي فَيُحَلَّئُونَ عَنِ الْحَوْضِ فَأَقُولُ يَا رَبِّ أَصْحَابِي. فَيَقُولُ إِنَّكَ لاَ عِلْمَ لَكَ بِمَا أَحْدَثُوا بَعْدَكَ، إِنَّهُمُ ارْتَدُّوا عَلَى أَدْبَارِهِمُ الْقَهْقَرَى "
Abu Huraira narrated that the Prophet (ﷺ) said:
"On the Day of Resurrection a group of companions will come to me, but will be driven away from the Lake-Fount, and I will say, 'O Lord (those are) my companions!' It will be said, 'You have no knowledge as to what they innovated after you left; they turned apostate as renegades (reverted from Islam).
The Salafi scholar Nasirudin Albani includes this hadith in his Silsilat Al Ahadeeth Al-Saheeha Vol 7 Page 1672
We further read Sunan Abi Dawud 4530:
حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ حَنْبَلٍ، وَمُسَدَّدٌ، قَالاَ حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، أَخْبَرَنَا سَعِيدُ بْنُ أَبِي عَرُوبَةَ، عَنْ قَتَادَةَ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ، عَنْ قَيْسِ بْنِ عَبَّادٍ، قَالَ انْطَلَقْتُ أَنَا وَالأَشْتَرُ، إِلَى عَلِيٍّ عَلَيْهِ السَّلاَمُ فَقُلْنَا هَلْ عَهِدَ إِلَيْكَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم شَيْئًا لَمْ يَعْهَدْهُ إِلَى النَّاسِ عَامَّةً قَالَ لاَ إِلاَّ مَا فِي كِتَابِي هَذَا - قَالَ مُسَدَّدٌ قَالَ - فَأَخْرَجَ كِتَابًا - وَقَالَ أَحْمَدُ كِتَابًا مِنْ قِرَابِ سَيْفِهِ - فَإِذَا فِيهِ " الْمُؤْمِنُونَ تَكَافَأُ دِمَاؤُهُمْ وَهُمْ يَدٌ عَلَى مَنْ سِوَاهُمْ وَيَسْعَى بِذِمَّتِهِمْ أَدْنَاهُمْ أَلاَ لاَ يُقْتَلُ مُؤْمِنٌ بِكَافِرٍ وَلاَ ذُو عَهْدٍ فِي عَهْدِهِ مَنْ أَحْدَثَ حَدَثًا فَعَلَى نَفْسِهِ وَمَنْ أَحْدَثَ حَدَثًا أَوْ آوَى مُحْدِثًا فَعَلَيْهِ لَعْنَةُ اللَّهِ وَالْمَلاَئِكَةِ وَالنَّاسِ أَجْمَعِينَ " . قَالَ مُسَدَّدٌ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عَرُوبَةَ فَأَخْرَجَ كِتَابًا .
Narrated Qays ibn Abbad:
I and Ashtar went to Ali and said to him: Did the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) give you any instruction about anything for which he did not give any instruction to the people in general?
He said: No, except what is contained in this document of mine. Musaddad said: He then took out a document. Ahmad said: A document from the sheath of his sword. It contained: The lives of all Muslims are equal; they are one hand against others; the lowliest of them can guarantee their protection. Beware, a Muslim must not be killed for an infidel, nor must one who has been given a covenant be killed while his covenant holds. If anyone introduces an innovation, he will be responsible for it. If anyone introduces an innovation or gives shelter to a man who introduces an innovation (in religion), he is cursed by Allah, by His angels, and by all the people"
Whilst the Ahl'ul Sunnah insist that the Sahaba were all individuals that strictly observed the dictates imposed upon them pursuant to the Qur'an and Sunnah the above hadith suggest this clearly isn't the case, on the day of judgment there will be companions that shall be driven away from the Lake-Fount as they partook in innovations after him (s). This begs this question, 'who were these companions?' Once identified how can they be deemed beacons of guidance for the Ummah? Lest not forget, as per the above mentioned hadith they will be whisked away from Rasulullah (s) for adhering to innovations after him (s). We will now present evidence that Mu’awiya who today’s Nawasib are desperate to pitch as a Hadi was the Chief Innovator and if these offenses alone as per the aforementioned hadith are enough to send him to Hell
To evidence the corruption during Mu’awiya’s tenure one needs to look no further that Ibn Sa’ad in Tabaqat Volume 4 pages 83-84
قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا عَفَّانُ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ وَعَمْرُو بْنُ عَاصِمٍ الْكِلابِيُّ وَيَعْقُوبُ بْنُ إِسْحَاقَ الْحَضْرَمِيُّ قَالُوا: حَدَّثَنَا سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ الْمُغِيرَةِ عَنْ حُمَيْدِ بْنِ هِلالٍ عن أبي بردة قال: قَالَ أَبُو مُوسَى: كَتَبَ إِلَيَّ مُعَاوِيَةُ: سَلامٌ عَلَيْكَ. أَمَّا بَعْدُ فَإِنَّ عَمْرَو بْنَ الْعَاصِ قَدْ بَايَعَنِي عَلَى الَّذِي قَدْ بَايَعَنِي عَلَيْهِ وَأُقْسِمُ بِاللَّهِ لَئِنْ بَايَعْتَنِي عَلَى مَا بَايَعَنِي عَلَيْهِ لأَبْعَثَنَّ ابْنَيْكَ أَحَدَهُمَا عَلَى الْبَصْرَةِ وَالآخَرُ عَلَى الْكُوفَةِ. وَلا يُغْلَقُ دُونَكَ بَابٌ. وَلا تقضي دونك حاجة.
Abu Burda says that Abu Musa said: ‘Muawiya wrote to me as follows: ‘Peace be upon you, I wish to evidence that Amr Bin Aas has pledged allegiance to me on a few things and by Allah, you should likewise pledge allegiance to me, like Amr Bin Aas has done, so that from two of your sons, I will make one the Governor of Basra and the other as Governor of Kufa and will not shut any door for you and will fulfill each of your need’
Thus we learnt that positions were not being given on merits rather those were based on loyalty and support, just like you have corrupt leaders who currently secure loyalty through bribery.
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 these 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 Ahlul bidah, let us now cite Rasulullah(s)’s view on the matter…
Imam of the Salafis, Al-Albaani verified as authentic this hadith taken from Baihaqi, in his commentary of Mishkat al Masabih Vol. 1 pg. 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 defense for their master Mu’awiya, honoring 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, let us look at this alleged hadith from several other angles.
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 argument's 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).
Amongst Ahlul Sunnah’s traditions in praise of Umar, they commonly cite this one that we have taken from Riyadh al Nadira Vol. 2 pg. 278:
“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 Vol. 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 duas 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.
Even if for argument's 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 Vol. 11 pg. 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)…
We read in Surah Tawba 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 tradition cited by Ansar.org (see here) regarding Mu’awiya being a Hadi has not been even approved by Imam Tirmidhi himself as he declared it ‘Hasan Ghareeb’. Allamah Ibn Abdul Barr recorded In al Isti’ab pg. 449 regarding the man who narrated it from the prophet:
“His companionship is not true and his chain (isnad) is not Sahih.”
We also read in ‘Tanaqudat al-Albani’ Vol. 2 pg. 229 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’ Vol. 6 pg. 381 - 382:
“Verily Abdulrahman bin Abi Umaria didn’t hear this hadith from the prophet (s)”
Imam Dhahabi records in ‘Siyar alam al-Nubala’ Vol. 3 pg. 126:
“The (chain) is disconnected.”
One of the hadiths that the modern lovers of Muawiya have clung to in order to try to defend Muawiya is the hadith which supposedly guarantees him paradise on account of his naval campaigns against the Byzantines. We read in Sahih Al Bukhari Vol. 4, Book 52, Hadith 175:
Narrated Khalid bin Madan:
That 'Umair bin Al-Aswad Al-Anasi told him that he went to 'Ubada bin As-Samit while he was staying in his house at the sea-shore of Hims with (his wife) Um Haram. 'Umair said. Um Haram informed us that she heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, "Paradise is granted to the first batch of my followers who will undertake a naval expedition." Um Haram added, I said, 'O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! Will I be amongst them?' He replied, 'You are amongst them.' The Prophet (ﷺ) then said, 'The first army amongst' my followers who will invade Caesar's City will be forgiven their sins.' I asked, 'Will I be one of them, O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)?' He replied in the negative."
Allow us to refute this desperate defense by simply quoting what the top scholars who wrote sharh of Bukhari had to say about it. We read in Imam of Ahle Sunnah Badruddin al-Aini commentary of this tradition in Umdat al Qari, Vol. 14 pg. 278:
وقال المهلب في هذا الحديث منقبة لمعاوية لأنه أول من غزا البحر ومنقبة لولده يزيد لأنه أول من غزا مدينة قيصر انتهى قلت أي منقبة كانت ليزيد وحاله مشهور فإن قلت قال في حق هذا الجيش مغفور لهم قلت لا يلزم من دخوله في ذلك العموم أن لا يخرج بدليل خاص إذ لا يختلف أهل العلم أن قوله مغفور لهم مشروط بأن يكونوا من أهل المغفرة حتى لو ارتد واحد ممن غزاها بعد ذلك لم يدخل في ذلك العموم فدل على أن المراد مغفور لمن وجد شرط المغفرة
Ibn al-Muhalab said that this hadith contains a merit for Muawiya because he is the first one who invaded through sea and a merit for Yazid because he invaded Cesar’s city.
I say that what kind of merits could there be for Yazid while his status is known! If you say that He (s) said about this army that their sins are forgiven then I say its not necessary to include each and every one without any exception because the scholars agree that the forgiveness is conditional by being for the one who deserve forgiveness, because had some one among the invaders become apostate after the invasion, he would have not been included among those who had been forgiven, which proves that the forgiveness (in the hadith) is conditional.
Likewise Imam Abdul Rauf Munawi while commenting on this tradition records in Faydh al-Qadir, Vol. 3 pg. 109 Tradition 281:
لا يلزم منه كون يزيد بن معاوية مغفورا له لكونه منهم إذ الغفران مشروط بكون الإنسان من أهل المغفرة ويزيد ليس كذلك لخروجه بدليل خاص ويلزم من الجمود على العموم أن من ارتد ممن غزاها مغفور له وقد أطلق جمع محققون حل لعن يزيد
“It is not necessary that Yazid is forgiven just because he was with them, since the forgiveness is conditional by being for the one who deserve forgiveness while Yazid is not so and there is an exception in his case according to a reliable proof, but if we want to be stubborn in dealing with this tradition that it include every one then we have to include who ever become apostate among the invaders, in addition a group of scholars declared the lawfulness of cursing Yazid.”[8]
Imam of Ahle Sunnah Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his esteemed commentary of Sahih Bukhari Fathul Bari, Vol. 6 pg. 120[9] presents his arguments relying on the arguments of two more Sunni scholars namely Ibn al-Tiin and Ibn al-Munir:
قال المهلب في هذا الحديث منقبة لمعاوية لأنه أول من غزا البحر ومنقبة لولده يزيد لأنه أول من غزا مدينة قيصر وتعقبه بن التين وبن المنير بما حاصله أنه لا يلزم من دخوله في ذلك العموم أن لا يخرج بدليل خاص إذ لا يختلف أهل العلم أن قوله صلى الله عليه و سلم مغفور لهم مشروط بأن يكونوا من أهل المغفرة حتى لو ارتد واحد ممن غزاها بعد ذلك لم يدخل في ذلك العموم اتفاقا فدل على أن المراد مغفور لمن وجد شرط المغفرة فيه منهم
Ibn al-Muhalab said that this hadith contains a merit for Muawiyah because he is the first one who invaded through sea and a merit for Yazid because he invaded Caesar’s city.
Ibn al-Tiin and Ibn al-Munir answered back and said that it is not necessary to include every one without any exception because the scholars agree that forgiveness is conditional by being for the one who deserve forgiveness, because if some one among the invaders became apostate after the invasion, he will not be included among those who had been forgiven, which proves that the forgiveness (in the hadith) is conditional.
Similarly, Imam Qastalani in his famed commentary of Sahih Bukhari namely Irshad al Sari, Vol 6 pg. 408 stated:
واستدلّ به المهلب على ثبوت خلافة يزيد وأنه من أهل الجنة لدخوله في عموم قوله مغفور لهم.
وأجيب: بأن هذا جارٍ على طريق الحمية لبني أمية ولا يلزم من دخوله في ذلك العموم أن لا يخرج بدليل خاص إذ لا خلاف أن قوله عليه الصلاة والسلام "مغفور لهم" مشروط بكونه من أهل المغفرة حتى لو ارتد واحد ممن غزاها بعد ذلك لم يدخل في ذلك العموم اتفاقًا قاله ابن المنير، وقد أطلق بعضهم فيما نقله المولى سعد الدين اللعن على يزيد لما أنه كفر حين أمر بقتل الحسين، واتفقوا على جواز اللعن على من قتله أو أمر به أو أجازه ورضي به، والحق أن رضا يزيد بقتل الحسين
“In this hadith, Muhalab has inferred about Yazid’s caliphate and he being worthier to enter paradise by saying that he was included in the generality of the word ‘Maghfoor lahum’ in this hadith. This has been refuted in the manner that this has been said just in support of Bani Umayah and Yazid being included in its generality doesn’t mean that he is unable to be excluded from it on the basis of some special reason because there isn’t any dispute in the fact that the aforesaid words of ‘Maghfoor lahum’ by Prophet (s)are conditional for those people deserving of forgiveness (Maghfarah), if somebody among them becomes apostate after the war then there is a consensus that such a person will no longer be included in this glad tiding. This has been said by Ibn Munir and verily some scholars have deemed it permissible to curse Yazid for example Saaduddin Taftazani”[10]
Sadly for the advocates of Mu’awiya the embarrassment does not just end there…
The Nawasib ancestors of our modern opponents went so far as to claim that Muawiya was greater than the prophets of Allah! We read in Al Tuyuriyat Vol 1, pg. 113:
أَخْبَرَنَا أَحْمَدُ، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدٌ، حَدَّثَنَا محمد بن خلف بن المرزبان، حدثني الخاقاني المعروف بحماحم عن ابن أبي ناظرة أَنَّ ثلاثةَ مَشايِخَ حضَرُوا المسجِدَ الجامِعَ بالجانِبِ الغَرْبِيّ في يَوْمِ جُمْعةٍ، فقالَ واحِدٌ منهم لآِخَرَ يَلِيْه: جُعِلْتُ فِداكَ أيُّهُما أفضلُ؛ مُعاويةُ أو عيسى بنُ مريمَ؟ قالَ: لا، واللهِ ما أدْرِي، وسمِع الثالِثُ فقالَ: وَيْلَكَ، تَقِيْسُ كاتِبَ الوَحْيِ إلَى نبِيِّ النَّصارَى؟
Three old men were attending the mosque on a Friday, one of them turned to the other and asked "May I be ransomed for you, which is better Muawiya or Isa Ibn Maryam (as)? He said "No by Allah I do not know." The third heard this and said, "How dare you compare the writer of revelation to the prophet of the Christians?"
The embarrassment for the nawasib doesn't stop there, for the fools went so far as to ascribe to him the traits of the divine! We read in Muhadharat Al Udaba Vol 2, pg. 500:
و قال بعض عوام الناصبة معاوية ليس بمخلوق. فقيل: كيف؟ قال: لأنه كاتب الوحي و الوحي ليس بمخلوق و كاتبه منه
“Some of the nawasib laymen said “Muawiya is uncreated.” When asked why, they replied “It is because Muawiya is the writer of revelation and revelation is uncreated, and the writer is a part of it (revelation.)
The sheer absurdity of such a claim does not warrant a response.
The leading `Ulama of Ahl al-Sunnah have declared all hadith praising Mu’awiya as fabricated.
Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti in his book Al-Leale al-Masnooa, Vol. 1 pg. 424 and Allamah Ibn al-Jawzi in al-Mawdu’at Vol. 2 pg. 24 have recorded:
قال الحاكم سمعت أبا العباس محمد بن يعقوب بن يوسف يقول سمعت أبي يقول سمعت إسحق بن إبراهيم الحنظلي يقول لا يصح في فضل معاوية حديث
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”’.
Muhammad bin Ali bin Shawkani in his book Fawaid al Mujmu’a, pg. 407 states that:
“Ibn Hibban commented that all ahadith in praise of Mu’awiya are fabricated”.
Sheikh Mahmud Abu Rayah records in ‘Adhwa ala al Sunnah’ pg. 101:
في فضائل معاوية من أحاديث لا أصل لها
“The traditions about Mu’awiya’s merits are not true”
Abu’l Hasan al-Kanani (907-963 H) in Tanziyat al Shari’a al-Murfoo’an Vol. 2 pg. 7 comments:
“Imam Hakim cites a chain used by Ibn al-Jauzi who cites Ishaaq bin Rehwiya: ‘There exists nothing in praise of Mu’awiya that is Sahih’.”
Similarly, Imam Dhahabi records in his esteemed work ‘Siyar a'lam al Nubla’ Vol. 3 pg. 132:
الأصم حدثنا أبي سمعت ابن راهويه يقول لا يصح عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في فضل معاوية شيء
Ishaaq Ibn Rehwiya said: ‘There is not any Sahih hadith from the prophet (pbuh) about the merits of Mu’awiya’.
Shaykh Ismail bin Muhammad al-Ajluni (d. 1162 H) in Kashful Khafa, Vol. 2 pg. 420 states:
“There exists no hadith in praise of Mu’awiya that is Sahih.”
Allamah Badruddin al-Aini in ‘Ummdat ul Qari fi Sharh Sahih Bukhari’ Vol. 16 pg. 343 comments:
فإن قلت قدر ورد في فضيلته أحاديث كثيرة. قلت نعم ولكن ليس فيها حديث يصح من طريق الإسناد نص عليه إسحاق بن راهويه والنسائي وغيرهما ، فلذلك قال باب ذكر معاوية ولم يقل فضيلة ولا منقبة
If you say that many traditions have been narrated regarding Mu’awiya’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 Mu’awiya’ [Mentioning Mu’awiya] and not ‘merits’ or ‘praises of Mu’awiya’.
Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani in his commentary of Bukhari namely Fathul Bari states in Vol. 7 pg. 129:
“Bukhari on the topic (biography) of Mu’awiya wrote a Chapter namely ‘Dhikr Mu’awiya’ [Mentioning Mu’awiya] and he didn’t write ‘praise’ or ‘merits (of Mu’awiya)’ because the merits cannot be derived from this hadith… Ibn Abi Asim wrote a book about his (Mu’awiya'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).”
Similarly, Imam Qastalani in his commentary of Bukhari namely Irshad al-Sari states in Irshad al-Sari, Vol. 8 pg. 244:
“He didn’t name the chapter ‘virtues’ and ‘merits of Mu'awiya’ as a condemnation.”
Ibn Taymiyya in Minhaj al-Sunnah, Vol. 4 pg. 400:
“One party of people fabricated traditions about the merits of Mu’awiya and they narrated hadith from the prophet (pbuh) in that matter (Mu’awiya’s merits) all of which are lies.”
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-Mawdhu’at’ pg. 100:
لا يصح مرفوعا في فضل معاوية شئ
“There isn’t any Sahih Marfu (hadith) about Mu’awiya’s merits”
It will be relevant to cite the following account from Al-Bidaya wa al-Niyhaya, Vol. 15 pg. 561 - 562 wherein we read that Imam of Ahle Sunnah Hakim did not include any Hadith in praise of Mu’awiya:
وقال أبو عبدالرحمن السلمي : دخلت على الحاكم وهو مختف من الكرامية لا يستطيع يخرج منهم ، فقلت له : لو خرجت حديثا في فضائل معاوية لأسترحت مما أنت فيه ، فقال: لا يجئ من قبلي لا يجيء من قبلي
Abu Abdul rahman 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’awiya's virtues, you will get rid of this situation’. He replied: ‘I won't do it, I won't do it’
It may not be out of place to mention here that Imam Nasai was subjected to a severe physical assault by the Nawasib of his era for believing that there existed no Sahih Hadith in praise of Muawiya hence him not recording any hadith in his Hadith books and he succumbed to these. Imam Subki gave the following conclusion of him in his book Tabaqat al-Shafiyea al-Kubra, Volume 3 page 16:
وَقد اخْتلفُوا فى مَكَان موت النسائى فَالصَّحِيح أَنه أخرج من دمشق لما ذكر فَضَائِل على قيل مَا زَالُوا يدافعون فى خصيتية حَتَّى أخرج من الْمَسْجِد ثمَّ حمل إِلَى الرملة فتوفى بهَا
There are different views regarding the place of death of Nasai but the correct (Sahih) view is that when he narrated the merits of Ali at Syria, he was expelled from there and reportedly assailants kept on inflicting blows to his testicles until he was expelled from mosque he proceeded to Ramala where he died
Al-Dhahabi recorded the testimony of Imam ad-Dāraquṭnī in this regard in his book in Tarikh ul Islam, Volume 23 page 109:
وقال الدَّارَقُطْنيّ: إنّه خرج حاجًا فامتُحِن بدمشق، وأدرك الشّهادة، فقال: احملوني إلى مكّة. فَحُمِل وتوفي بها.
Dāraquṭnī stated that he (Nasai) left for performing Hajj, he met with an incident at Syria due to which he chose martyrdom and asked that he be taken to Mecca where he died.
Similarly Dhahabi recorded the view of Hamzah al-Aqabi in Siyar alam al-Nubala, Volume 14 page 132 in the following manner:
رَوَى أَبُو عَبْدِ اللهِ بنُ مَنْدَةَ، عَنْ حَمْزَةَ العَقْبِيِّ المِصْرِيِّ وَغَيْرِهِ، أَنَّ النَّسَائِيَّ خَرَجَ مِنْ مِصْرَ فِي آخِرِ عُمُرِهِ إِلَى دِمَشْقَ فَسُئِلَ بِهَا عَنْ مُعَاوِيَةَ، وَمَا جَاءَ فِي فَضَائِلِهِ. فَقَالَ: لاَ (2) يَرْضَى رَأْساً برَأْسٍ حَتَّى يُفَضَّلَ؟ قَالَ: فَمَا زَالُوا يَدْفَعُوْنَ فِي حِضْنَيْهِ (3) حَتَّى أُخْرِجَ مِنَ المَسْجَدِ، ثُمَّ حُمِلَ إِلَى مَكَّةَ فَتُوُفِّيَ بِهَا.
Abū ʿAbdullāh Muḥammad bin Isḥāq Ibn Manda reported from Hamzah al-Atabai and others that during the last period of the life of Nasai he moved to Syria from Egypt, whilst there he was asked about the merits of Muawiya pursuant to which Nasai replied: ‘Isn’t if sufficient for Muawiya that he remains saved with a narrow escape let alone his merits are being asked? The narrator said that the crowd inflicted severe blows upon his testicles until he was expelled from mosque and was taken to Mecca where he died
Ibn Khallikan recorded the view of Abu Na’eem in his book Wafiyat al-Ayan, Volume 1 page 77:
وقال الحافظ أبو نعيم الأصبهاني لما داسوه بدمشق مات بسبب ذلك الدوس
Hafiz Abdul Naseem Asfahani stated that assailants launched an assault upon Nasai in Syria which resulted in his death.
Imam Muhammad Bin Musa al-Hashmi was one of the Sunni Imams of his era regarding whom Ibn Hajar Asqalani stated in Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb, page 158 that he used to give preference to Imam Nasai which he never gave even to his own son. Imam Dhahabi in his book Tarikh ul Islam, Volume 23 page 107 recorded testimony of Imam Muhammad bin Musa al-Hashmi in the following manner:
سمعه الوزير ابن حنزابة، من محمد بن موسى المأمونيّ صاحب النِّسائيّ، وفيه: فسمعتُ قومًا ينكرون عليه كتاب «الخصائص» لعليّ رضى الله عنه وتَرْكَه تصْنيف فضائل الشّيخين. فذكرت له ذلك فقال: دخلت إلى دمشق والمُنْحَرِف عن عليّ بها كثير، فصنَّفتُ كتاب «الخصائص» رجاء أن يهديهم الله [4] . ثُمَّ صَنَّفَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ «فَضَائِلَ الصَّحَابَةِ» ، فَقِيلَ لَهُ وَأَنَا أَسْمَعُ: أَلَا تُخَرِّجُ «فَضَائِلَ مُعَاوِيَةَ» . فَقَالَ: أَيُّ شَيْءٍ أُخَرِّجُ؟ «اللَّهمّ لَا تُشْبِعْ بَطْنَهُ»
Muhammad bin Musa, the student of Nasai, stated: ‘When I observed that Nasai’s writing of book Al-Khasais for Ali (ra) attracted negative criticism and for failing to pen a book praising Abu Bakr and Umar I asked about it from Nasai to which he replied: ‘I visited Syria and found those residing therein had deviated from Ali hence I decided to produce a book that might enable them to be guided’ and subsequently Nasai wrote book Fadhail al-Sahaba regarding which it was said to him, that I heard: ‘You haven’t recorded the merits of Muawiya’ to which Nasai replied: ‘What should have I written? (Should have I written that) ‘May Allah never fill Muawiya’s stomach’’.
Ibn Khalkan in Wafiyat al-Ayan, Volume 1 page 77 recorded the opinion of the scholars of Egypt:
قال محمد بن إسحاق الأصبهاني: سمعت مشايخنا بمصر يقولون: إن أبا عبد الرحمن فارق مصر في آخر عمره، وخرج إلى دمشق، فسئل عن معاوية وماروي من فضائله
Hafiz Abu Nu`aym al-Isfahani stated that he heard from his teachers from Egypt that during the last period of life, Nasai went from Egypt to Syria where he was asked about Muawiya but he didn’t narrate any of his merits
One tradition commonly cited by the advocates of Mu’awiya is this one, in which Mu’awiya states:
“I longed to become Caliph 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 Vol. 11 pg. 143 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 Ibrahim[11] is weak”
Rasulullah (s) in fact did indeed give advice to his followers about how to react if Mu’awiya attained power.
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.
This verse informs us of the divine support to the believers during the battle of Hunain there is no guarantee of Paradise therein.
Merely attending the battle alongside Muslims in no way means such persons benefited from the blessings of Allah (swt). We read in Fath al-Bari, Vol. 6 pg. 208:
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, Vol. 2 pg. 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 Taqwiyat al-Iman, pg. 169 has also recorded this tradition while Hassan Maliki in his book ‘Bahth fi Islam Mu’awyia’ pg. 67 has stated ‘The chain is Sahih’ . A similar narration can also be found in Majma al-Zawa'id by Haythami, Vol. 1 pg. 148 -149:
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’[12]
[1] These sharhs are explaining the following hadith: Sahih al-Bukhari 4989
[2] This cannot be located in any edition of this book. Neither in Urdu or Arabic.
[3] See Al-Sayyid Ali Al Sistani’s (ha) fatwa on idols here: https://www.sistani.org/english/book/48/2298/
[4] The Nawasib have removed this story from modern prints of Bidaya wal Nihaya, but the original reference which Ibn Kathir cites can be seen in Tarikh Dimashq Vol 12, pg. 238 - 239
[5] This source is only available in Urdu, so we could not find it.
[7] Unfortunately, due to this book not being available, we could not get it from this source.
[8] While this argument mainly concerns Yazid it can also be applied to Muawiya.
[10] Again, the argument refers to Yazid but it applies to Muawiya.
[12] Our opponents may point out that the chain of this hadith has Saad the son of Hudhayfa Ibn Al Yaman (AS) who has no authentication in the Sunni books of Rijal; We read in Al Mustadrak ala Al Sahihain Vol 4, pg. 548 a hadith that has him in the chain. Al Hakim graded the hadith Sahih and Al Dhahabi agreed in his talkhis, meaning Saad is Thiqah. He is also listed in Ibn Hibbans Thuqat, see here.
