In his attempt to protect his Nasibi Imam, Abu Sulaiman vigorously seeks to deny the historically established fact that Imam Ali (as) was cursed by Mu’awiya.
It is a lie that Mu’awiyah ordered to insult Ali from the pulpits. There is no rightful or clear evidence about that. Mu’awiya’s biography and manners refuses this accusation. What some of the historians mention about that has no value because when these historians presents these words about Mu’awiyah, they do not differentiate between true or false stories. In addition, most of these historians are Shia. But some of the Historians narrated in their books sound stories and false stories, but they are excused when they attributed these stories to their narrators so that we could judge these stories, whether to accept them or reject them.
This being the case then what facts of history should we accept, only those that support Nasibi’s and defame Shi’a? Abu Sulaiman is stating that anything that agrees with the Shi’a must be false on account of Shi’a influence. By the same logic anything that supports Nawasib must also be false as it is based on Nasibi influence.
Evidence of the tradition of cursing Ali and Mu’awiya being at its heart can be found in a vast array of books penned by the leading scholars of Ahl’ul Sunnah. The books of Tarikh, Sirah and hadith are replete with the fact that Mu’awiya introduced the bidah of cursing the Imam of Guidance, Ameerul Momineen Ali (as), throughout his Kingdom. If we are to accept Abu Sulaiman’s absurd claim then he is in effect suggesting that all the classical Sunni historians were duped into narrating this fable. It would be one thing to say that this alleged fabrication could only be located in scarcely known extant works, but the fact is that leading scholars of Ahl’ul Sunnah have narrated that Imam Ali (as) was indeed reviled during the reign of the Banu Umayya upon the specific orders of Mu’awiya bin Hind. Abu Sulaiman’s attempts to hide this fact is in vain. To suggest that most of the historians (who narrated this) are Shi’a rather than Sunni who would never find fault with Mu’awiya, is indeed a laughable notion. Especially for Abu Sulaiman and those wishing to examine the matter further we shall insha’allah present a list of references where you can locate this episode. We will then leave it to our open minded readers to decide whether there is indeed any basis for Abu Sulaiman’s claims that this event never happened, and that it was all a mistake by dim witted historians, duped by the Rafidah!
We read in Sahih Muslim:
This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Shu’ba with the same chain of transmitters. Amir b. Sa’d b. Abi Waqqas reported on the authority of his father that Muawiya b. Abi Sufyin appointed Sa’d as the Governor and said: What prevents you from abusing Abu Turab (Hadrat ‘Ali), whereupon be said : It is because of three things which I remember Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) having said about him that I would not abuse him and even if I find one of those three things for me, it would be more dear to me than the red camelg. I heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) say about ‘Ali as he left behind hrin in one of his campaigns (that was Tabuk). ‘All said to him: Allah’s Messenger, you leave me behind along with women and children. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to him: Aren’t you satisfied with being unto me what Aaron was unto Moses but with this exception that there is no prophethood after me. And I (also) heard him say on the Day of Khaibar: I would certainly give this standard to a person who loves Allah and his Messenger and Allah and his Messenger love him too. He (the narrator) said: We have been anxiously waiting for it, when he (the Holy Prophet) said: Call ‘Ali. He was called and his eyes were inflamed. He applied saliva to his eyes and handed over the standard to him, and Allah gave him victory. (The third occasion is this) when the (following) verse was revealed: “Let us summon our children and your children.” Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) called ‘Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain and said: O Allah, they are my family.
Sahih Muslim, Chapter of Virtues of Companions, Section of Virtues of Ali, Book 31, Number 5915
The above narration of Sa’d in Sahih Muslim is so clear that the Sunni Ulema in past centuries arrived at the conclusion that Mu’awiya ordered Sa’d to curse Ali (as). A departure from this accepted fact occurred after the passage of 650 years, when Al-Nawawi, tried to defend Mu’awiya by advancing some lame excuses that today’s Nasibis blindly cling to cite on their internet forums. Abu Sulaiman is the perfect example who cites the pathetic defence of Nawawi, namely that:
“This hadeeth does not mean that Mu’awiyah ordered Sa’ad to insult Ali. But, as it is obvious, Mu’awiyah wanted to know the reason that prevented Sa’ad from insulting Ali… Al-Nawawi says: “Mu’awiyah’s saying does not declare that he ordered Sa’ad to insult Ali, but asked him for the reason that prevented him from insulting. As if Mu’awiyah was saying to him: “Have you refrained from insulting Ali as a result of piety, fear or anything like that? If it was as a result of piety and veneration to refrain from insulting, then you are rightful and if it were other than that, then there would be another answer.” Or it might be that Sa’ad was in a group of people who insults Ali and he did not insult Ali with them, and could not prevent them and controverted them so Mu’awiyah asked him this question. They said: “And it may have another explanation, that what prevented you from making Ali wrong in his thought and opinion, and to show to people our good opinion and thought and that Ali was wrong?” [Ibid. p250-252]
Imam al-Nawawi said:
“The Ulema said that any hadith that appears to refer to intra-Sahaba enmity should be interpreted figuratively”.
We will respond by saying that it this is blind worship of the Sahaba and constitutes a major innovation. We ask:
‘Has Allah (swt) revealed this legal principle via the Quran or the tongue of his blessed Prophet (saw)? If the Sahaba were aware of this legal position, why did they abuse, curse and fight one another?
We shall in this very chapter provide textual evidences that just like Muawiya,companions like Mughira bin Shu’ba and Busr bin Irtat shamelessly cursed/abused Ali bin Abi Talib (as). For more detail, please see our article “Shari Penalty of Cursing Sahaba”, and chapter of:
Incidents of Sahaba Cursing/Abusing each other
Wherein numerous incidents of the Sahaba abusing and fighting each other are quoted from Bukhari and Muslim.
Al-Nawawi has used ONLY his insane logic in this case and has tried to provide as many lame excuses as he could, so as to change the meaning of this tradition of Sa’d to defend and honour of Mu’awiya. We will ask, is the conjecture of Nawawi valid when we measure it against:
Whilst the job of a good lawyer is to defend the position of his client and seek to defend him from all charges, what we have seen here is a scenario of a lawyer defending the indefensible
The above tradition from Sahih Muslim clearly indicates that Mu’awiya was surprised why he was refraining from cursing. Mu’awiya asks this question with surprise “What prevents you!” . You only ask a matter in this way if you are surprised if for example an individual is acting in a manner that is contrary to a norm / precedent. Let us provide two simple examples:
One: In the West, it is enshrined in law and custom for drivers to wear seat belts. If I act contrary to it in front of my acquaintances, a common reaction would be for them to ask “What prevents you from wearing a seat belt?”. Why? Because I am violating an accepted practice and they are enquiring WHY!
Two: If you walk into a room and see people doing something that you disapprove of, would you ask the person abstaining from the action, or the people doing the action, would you not directly ask them WHY they were doing (or not doing) such an act? For instance, if I walked into a room where one of my kids was doing something that I never approve while the other child was not doing it, I would NOT ask the one doing nothing wrong as to why he was not misbehaving. I’d ask the one doing the thing I didn’t approve and that’s human nature.
Likewise, it is clear common sense that Mu’awiya wanted to know why Sa’d was NOT cursing Ali (as). This demonstrates that cursing Ali was a common practice and Mu’awiya wanted to know why he was acting contrary to it?
Also let us analyze these arguments in light of the following version of the tradition recorded by Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani:
And Abi Ya’la from Sa’d from another source which is not incorrect, Sa’d said: “Even if a saw was placed over my neck to abuse Ali, I wouldn’t abuse him.”
Fathul Bari Sharah Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 7, Page 74, “Bab Manaqib Ali”
The arguments put forward by Sa’d in this tradition makes it further clear that cursing Ali (as) was a common practice at that time and force was being used by the rulers for this purpose, it is for this precise reason that Sa’d stated that he would not submit under and form of duress.
If this still is not logical for the children of Muawiya then the clearest proof comes from the next narration from other sources of Ahl’ul Sunnah that shed light on Mu’awiya’s intention.
The Traditions cited hereinafter are those that Al-Nawawi deliberately CONCEALED, as they come into direct conflict with his Conjectures.
Since the Arabic grammar of the version found in Sahih Muslim is in an ‘interrogative style’ that might provide a glimmer of hope to people like Nawawi to offer an alternative interpretation, the fact is variants of the same episode have recorded that leave us with no doubt about what Mu’awiyah’s intentions. For example, we read the following version record by Muhibuddin al-Tabari in his famed work ‘Al-Riyadh al-Nudhira Fi Manaqib Ashra Mubashira’ Volume 1 page 262:
Saeed said: Mu’awyia ordered Sa’d to curse Abu Turab, so he replied: ‘Regarding what you have said, the Prophet said three things…’
Imam of Ahle Sunah Mulla Ali Qari also relied upon the version recorded by Muhibuddin Tabari in his esteemed work Mirqat Sharah Mishkat, Volume 17 page 493.
Mirqat Sharah Mishkat, Volume 17 page 493
The important words is أمر that means command / instruct so Mu’awiya issued an order that Ali (as) be cursed and was inquiring as to why his order had been ignored. The dishonest English translator defined أمر as
قال أمر معاوية بن أبي سفيان سعدا
Muawiya b. Abi Sufyan appointed Sa’d as the Governor and said:
“and said” is not أمر it is Mu’awiyah ordered Sa’d, as can be evidenced from the following narrations:
We read in Sahih al Bukhari Vol. 2, Book 26, Hadith 671
إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم لَمَّا قَدِمَ أَبَى أَنْ يَدْخُلَ الْبَيْتَ وَفِيهِ الآلِهَةُ فَأَمَرَ بِهَا فَأُخْرِجَتْ
“Narrated Ibn `Abbas:
When Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) came to Mecca, he refused to enter the Ka`ba with idols in it. He ordered (idols to be taken out).
When a Jewish woman poisoned meat has resulted in death of Bashir ibn al-Bara' ibn Ma'rur al-Ansari, following an investigation:
رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقُتِلَتْ وَلَمْ يَذْكُرْ أَمْرَ الْحِجَامَةِ .
“The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) then ordered regarding her and she was killed”
(Sunan Abi Dawud Hadith number 4511)
Now coming to the narration, itself, what was the order of Muawiya that led to him raising a question with S’ad ibn Abi Waqqas? The order and the follow up questions must be connected. We will support our claim with the following evidences:
Allah (swt) says:
قَالَ مَا مَنَعَكَ اَلَّا تَسۡجُدَ اِذۡ اَمَرۡتُكَ
Allah said: 'What prevented you from prostrating, when I commanded you to do so?'
(Surah Anam verse 12)
We read in Sahih al Bukhari Vol. 1, Book 11, Hadith 652
رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَصَلَّى، فَلَمَّا انْصَرَفَ قَالَ " يَا أَبَا بَكْرٍ مَا مَنَعَكَ أَنْ تَثْبُتَ إِذْ أَمَرْتُكَ
“When Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) finished the prayer, he said, "O Abu Bakr! What prevented you from staying when I ordered you to do so?"
As you can see here a question will be asked when an order hasn't been carried out. They are both connected. Likewise, Mu’awiya instructed him to explain himself as he had not implemented his instruction, namely the instruction to curse Ali (as). The question he raised had a direct nexus with his order, the refusal meant that he demanded answers. These examples support our position that an order relates to the subject of discussion in the same way Mu’waiya ordered people to curse Imam Ali (as) and he questioned why his order hadn't been implemented.
Ibn Kathir records that:
When Mu’awiya went for Hajj, he held the hand of Sa’d bin Abi Waqas and said to him: ‘Oh Abi Ishaq! We are the people who abandoned Hajj because of wars until we almost forgot some of its laws, so we performed Tawaf (circumambulation) to imitate your Tawaf’. When they completed (the hajj), he (Muawiya) entered upon him (Sa’d) in a conference room and sat with him on his sofa, then he (Muawiya) mentioned Ali bin Abi Talib and cursed him. He (Sa’d) said: ‘You brought me to your house and made me sit on your sofa and then you have begun to curse Ali?’
Al Bidayah wa al Nahayah, Volume 7 page 341, Chapter: The virtues of Ali
It is evident that Al-Nawawi has sought to conceal these traditions, so as to deceive people by making lame excuses and submitting his conjectures that Mu’awiya was not asking Sa’d to curse Ali (as).
We should point out that a Nasibi in a very known Shia debate forum on the internet tried to cast doubts on the authenticity of one of the narrators in the tradition namely Ahmed bin Khalid, since Nawasib are fond of rotating anti-Shia texts all over the internet, we will clarify this misconception, the narrator Ahmed bin Khalid is an extremely authentic narrator. Al-Dahabi said about him: “Imam, Muhadith, Thiqah” (Siar alam al Nubala, v9 p539). Imam Yahya ibn Mueen said: ‘Thiqah’ (Tahdib al-kamal, v1 p301). Imam Ibn Haban included him in his book of authentic narrators ‘al-Thuqat’ (v8 p6). He has also been deemed Thiqah by Imam Ibn Khuzaima as he declared in his book that he only narrated from Thiqah narrators while hadiths having Ahmed bin Khalid in the chains can be read in the book. Imam Hakim narrated hadith from him and stated the hadith to be Sahih according to the condition of Imam Muslim while Imam Dhahabi echoed the same (Mustadrak, v4 p117 Hadith 7072). Imam Ibn Majah narrated hadith from him and beloved Imam of Salafies Al-Baani decalred the hadith as ‘Sahih’ (Sahih Ibn Majah, v2 p351 Hadith 3188).
In Musanaf Ibn Abi Shayba, volume 7 page 496 as well as in Sunan Ibn Majah, Volume 1 page 45 we read the following tradition:
عن سعد بن أبي وقاص قال قدم معاوية في بعض حجاته فدخل عليه سعد فذكروا عليا فنال منه فغضب سعد وقال تقول هذا
“On his way to Hajj, Sa’d met Mu’awiya and his companions mentioned Ali upon which Mu’awiya cursed him, Sa’d got angry and asked ‘why do you say such things?’”
An esteemed pillar of the Salafi Sect Shaykh Al-albaani graded the above cited Hadith as ‘Sahih’, see
Sahih Sunan Ibn Majah by Albani, Volume 1 page 26
Not only this but Al-Albaani stated:
فنال منه)) أي نال معاوية من علي وتكلم فيه))
“((cursed him)) means Mu’awyia cursed Ali and spoke ill about him”
So Sa’d got ANGRY! But why? According to the risible logic of Al-Nawawi and his adherents, his ANGER was only on account of the fact that Mu’awiya ‘requested’ that he offer his reasons for not cursing Ali (as)! Will you get ANGRY if someone simply requests you to tell him why you don’t curse another person?
No matter how many visibly fraudulent attempts present day Nawasib make to trivialize the issue there is exists a dearth of historical data that demonstrates Muawiya abused Imam Ali bin Abi Talib (as). In Musanaf Ibn Abi Shayba, volume 7 page 496 as well as in Sunan Ibn Majah, Volume 1 page 45 we read the following tradition:
عن سعد بن أبي وقاص قال قدم معاوية في بعض حجاته فدخل عليه سعد فذكروا عليا فنال منه فغضب سعد وقال تقول هذا
“On his way to Hajj, Sa’d met Mu’awiya and his companions mentioned Ali upon which Mu’awiya abused him, [Fanal Minhu] Sa’d got angry and asked ‘why do you say such things?’”
Shaykh Al-albaani graded the above cited Hadith as ‘Sahih’ in Sahih Sunan Ibn Majah by Albani, Volume 1 page 26
As usual, this tradition also causes serious cramps in the stomach of present day Nawasib and hence they are often found deliberately misinterpreting the tradition and their argument is that the word ‘curse’ has not been used therein. Even if the word ‘curse’ is not unambiguously mentioned in this version of the tradition, the fact that Muawiya abused Imam Ali bin Abi Talib (as) is sufficient to prove the point raised by Shias. The spontaneous reaction of Sa’d of becoming angry upon hearing the words used by Muawiya is sufficient to prove that Muawiya had badmouthed Ali bin Abi Talib (as). Don’t tell us that (according to absurd logic of Al-Nawawi and his adherents) that the anger shown by Sa’d was only because Mu’awiya was ‘requesting’ him to offer his reasons for not cursing Ali (as)! At this juncture we deem it apt to explain the meaning of words used in the tradition. Ibn Manzur stated in Lisan al-Arab, Volume 11 page 685:
أَن رجُلًا كَانَ يَنَالُ مِنَ الصَّحَابَةِ
، يَعْنِي الْوَقِيعَةَ فِيهِمْ.
"And regarding the tradition that one person ‘Yunaa’ a Sahabi means that the person abused the Sahabi"
Also see Majma Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 4 page 818 by Tahir Patni and Taj al-Uroos, Volume 31 page 54 by Allamah Zubedi.
The following account in particular, when read alongside the actual tradition of Sahih Muslim under discussion, will clarify the whole episode and negate all the absurd attempts to misinterpret the tradition of Sahih Muslim on the basis of pathetic conjectures. We read:
“When Hassan bin Ali died, Mu’awyia performed the Hajj, and then entered into Madina where he wanted to curse Ali from Prophet’s pulpit, thus they said to him: ‘Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas is right here and he will not accept your behaviour, you should ask him first.’ Thus he sent for him and asked him about this to which he (Sa’d) said: ‘If you did it, I shall leave the mosque and never come here again.’ Thus Mu’awiya restrained himself from cursing (Ali) until Sa’d passed away, when Sa’d died, he cursed him (Ali) from the pulpit and also ordered his governors to curse him from the pulpits and they (his governors) did likewise. Then Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), wrote to Mu’awyia saying: ‘You are cursing Allah and his Messenger from your pulpits and that is as a result of cursing Ali bin Abi Talib and his lovers and I testify that Allah and his Messenger love him.’ However he (Mu’awyia) didn’t pay any attention to her statement”.
al Aqd al-Fareed, Volume 3 page 300
As pointed out above, the Kufr act initiated by Muawiy of cursing Ali bin Abi Talib (as) from the pulpits incensed Ummul Momineen Um Salama (sa). As Imam Ahmed records with a chain that has been declared ‘Sahih’ by Shaykh Shoib al-Arna’ut:
Abdullah al-Jadali said: ‘I came to Um Salama and she said to me: ‘How come Allah’s Messenger is being cursed among you?’. I replied: ‘We seek refuge from Allah or praise Allah or some similar words’. She said: ‘I heard Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) saying ‘whoever curses Ali has cursed me’
Musnad Ahmed, Volume 6 page 323 Hadith 26791
Similarly we read in Musnad Aba Y’ala, Volume 12 page 444 a tradition about which the margin writer Hussain Salim Asad has stated: ‘The narrators are Thiqah’. We read:
Abi Abdullah al-Jadali said: Um Salama said: ‘How come Allah’s Messenger is being cursed from the pulpits?’ I replied: ‘How?’. She replied: ‘Aren’t Ali and his lovers being cursed?’ I testify that Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) used to love him’.
al-Tabari reported:
When Muawiya Ibn Abi Sufyan put al-Mughairah Ibn Shu’ba in charge of Kufah in Jumada 41 (September 2- October 30, 661), he summoned him. After praising and glorifying God, he said:
“Now then, indeed a forbearing person has been admonished in the past… The wise might do what you want without instruction. Although I have wanted to advise you about many things, I left them alone, trusting in your discernment of what pleases me, what helps my regime and what sets my subjects [raiyyah] on the right path. I would continue to advise you about a quality of yours- do not refrain from abusing Ali and criticizing him, not from asking God’s mercy upon Uthman and His forgiveness for him. Continue to shame the companions of Ali, keep at a distance, and don’t listen to them. Praise the faction of Uthman, bring them near, and listen to them.
History of Tabari, English version, events of year 51 AH, Execution of Hujr Ibn Adi, v18, pp 122-123
The very instructions of Muawiya to his governors are found in next tradition as well.
Imam Ibn Jareer Tabari records:
The Messenger of Muawiya then came to them with orders to release six and to kill eight, telling them:
We have been ordered to let you disavow Ali and curse him. If you do so, we shall release you, and if you refuse, we shall kill you.
History of Tabari, English version, events of year 51 AH, v18, p149
Those who deny that Muawiya promulgated the act of cursing Ali bin Abi Talib (as) throughout his reign, should be reminded about the peace treaty between Imam Hasan (as) and Muawiya that contained several conditions, one of those was that Muawiya would no longer curse Ali (as) which Muawiya refused to accept, it was then said that he would not allow the cursing of Ali (as) whilst Imam Hasan (as) was present and could hear it, which Muawiya accepted this but since Nasibism was flowing through his veins, he did not keep this promise. In Tarikh Kamil, Volume 2 page 108 we read the testimony of Ibn Athir that during the negotiations with Mu’awiya:
“Al-Hasan asked Mu’awiya to give him what is in Kufa’s treasury worth five million, Ebjird city tax, and not to curse Ali, Mu’awiya refused to desist from cursing Ali, so (al-Hasan) asked him not to curse Ali when he could hear it, (Mu’awiya) accepted this but failed to fulfil it, and about Darabjird city tax, the people of Basrah refused to deliver it to him and said that the income belonged to them and they would not give it to any one, their rejection was upon the orders of Mu’awiya”
Tarikh Kamil (Urdu), Volume 3 pages 2-3 (Usmania Academy, Hyderabad, India)
Tarikh Kamil (Arabic), Volume 3 page 272 (Beruit)
Tarikh Kamil, Volume 2 page 108 (from www.islamport.com)
Imam Dhahabi also recorded:
“Then he (al-Hasan) wrote to Mu’awiya to give him the treasury (of Kufa), not to curse Ali and give him the tax of Darabjird every year”
Al-Abar fi Khabar min Ghabar, Volume 1, page 18 Chapter: Year 37 the battle of Sifin
Imam Ibn Jarir Tabari also records:
“Al Hasan had already made peace with Muawiya on condition that he concede to him what was in his treasury plus the revenue (kharaij) of Darabjird and that Ali is not reviled in his hearing.”
History of Tabari, Volume 18 page 5
One of the narrators in the chain of the cited tradition from Tareekh Tabari is Awnah bin al-Hakam al-Kalbi about whom Imam Dhahabi stated: ‘He was truthful (seduq) in his narrations’ (Siyar alam al-Nubla, v7 p201) while Imam Ejli included him in his book of authentic narrators “Marifat al-Thuqat” v2 p196. Shaykh Yaqut al-Hamawi (575-626) records: “Awanah bin al-Hakam bin Ayadh bin Wazer ibn Abdulharith bin Abi Husn bin Thalba bin Jubair bin Amer bin al-Numan. He was a scholar in history and traditions, was Thiqah…Abdullah bin Jaffar said: ‘Awanah bin al-Hakam amongst the scholars of history and conquests from Kufa and highly knowledgeable in poems and eloquence, he had brothers and witty narrations, he was authentic and the whole al-Madaeni narrations are from him” (Mu’ajam al-Udaba, v2 p232). Safadi (d. 764 H) records about Awnah: “It appears that he is Seduq”. (Nakth al-Hayman, v1, p90). Also we read in the margin of Ibn Aarabi’s book ‘al-Awasim min al-Qawasim’ by Allamah Muhibuddin al-Khatib, p189: “Awanah bin al-Hakam was one of the greatest Sheikhs of al-Madaeni”.
Ibn Asakir records the same from a chain with three different variants:
Abu Bakar Muhammad bin Abdulbaqi from al-Hassan bin Ali from Muhammad bin al-Abbas from Ahmad bin Marouf from al-Hussain bin Muhammad from Muhammad bin Saad from Abu Ubaid from Mujalid from al-Shu’abi and Yunus bin Abi Ishaq from his father and Abi al-Sefr and others.
So the three variants are:
[1]. Abu Bakar Muhammad bin Abdulbaqi from al-Hassan bin Ali from Muhammad bin al-Abbas from Ahmad bin Marouf from al-Hussain bin Muhammad from Muhammad bin Saad from Abu Ubaid from Mujalid from al-Shu’abi.
[2]. Abu Bakar Muhammad bin Abdulbaqi from al-Hassan bin Ali from Muhammad bin al-Abbas from Ahmad bin Marouf from al-Hussain bin Muhammad from Muhammad bin Saad from Abu Ubaid Yunus bin Abi Ishaq from his father.
[3]. Abu Bakar Muhammad bin Abdulbaqi from al-Hassan bin Ali from Muhammad bin al-Abbas from Ahmad bin Marouf from al-Hussain bin Muhammad from Muhammad bin Saad from Abu Ubaid from Abi al-Sefr and others.
All the chains mention that Imam Hasan (as) placed the following conditions before Muawiya La’een:
“Not to curse Ali whilst he could hear it, send him the tax of Fesa and Darabjird in Persian every year.”
Tareekh Damishq by Ibn Asakir, Volume 13 page 246
All the narrators in the 2nd chain are authentic. Abu Bakar Muhammad bin Abdulbaqi: Ibn al-Jawzi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Trikh al-Islam, by Dahabi, v36, p392), Dahabi said: ‘Adil’ (Siar alam alnubala, v20 p23). Hassan bin Ali al-Jawheri: Al-Baghdadi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Tarikh Baghdad, v7 p404), Dahabi said: ‘Seduq’ (Siar alam, v18 p68). Muhammad bin al-Abbas al-Khazaz: Al-Baghdadi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Tarikh Baghdad, v3 p337), Dahabi said: ‘Thiqa’ (Siar alam, v16 p409). Ahmad bin Maroof bin Beshr: Al-Baghdadi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Tarikh Baghdad, v5 p368), Dahabi said: ‘Thiqa (Tarikh Islam, v24, p103). Hussain bin Muhammad bin Abdulrahman bin Fehm: Al-Baghdadi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Tarikh Baghdad, v8 p91), Dahabi said: ‘Huge Hafiz’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v2 p680) & also said: ‘He was strict in narrating’ (Tarikh al-Islam, v21 p164). Muhammad bin Saad (the author of Tabaqat al-Kubra): Al-Baghdadi said: ‘According to us he is among just people and truthful in narrating’ (Tarikh Baghdad, v2, p366), Dahabi said: ‘Hafiz, Allamah, Hujja’ (Siar alam, v10 p664). Muhammad bin Ubaid al-Tenafsi: Both Ibn Hajar & Dahabi declared him Thiqa (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p110 & Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v1 p333). Yunus bin Abi Ishaq: Both Ibn Hajar & Dahabi decalred him Seduq (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p348 & al-Kashif, v2 p402). [His father] Abi Ishaq al-Suba’i: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1, p739), Dahabi said: Thiqah, Hujja (Siar alam, v5 p394).
We don’t know whether it is intentional or by mistake, but in the copy of Tarikh Ibn Asakir the names of two narrators have been merged i.e. ‘al-Hussain bin Muhammad bin Saad’ which gives an impression that its a single narrator when they are in fact two different people, the first one having the surname Muhammad while the other one as his first name as Muhammad and thus, actually it should be ‘al-Hussain bin Muhammad from Muhammad bin Saad’ as correctly recorded by Imam Dhahabi and Imam Jamaluddin al-Mezi with two and three variants of chain respectively. We read in Siyar alam al-Nubla:
Ibn Saad: Narrated Muhammad bin Ubaid from Mujalid from al-Shu’bi and Yonus bin Abi Ishaq from his father…not to curse Ali while he can hear that…”
Siar alam al-nubala by Imam Dhahabi, Volume 3 page 263
So the two variants of chain that Dhahabi used are:.
[1]. Muhammad bin Saad from Muhammad bin Ubaid from Mujaled from al-Shu’bi.
[2]. Muhammad bin Saad from Muhammad bin Ubaid from Yunus bin Abi Ishaq from his father.
Imam Jamaluddin al-Mezi records:
Muhammad bin Saad said: Narrated Muhammad bin Ubaid from Mujalid from al-Shu’abi – and Younus bin Abi Ishaq from his father – and Abi al-Sefer and others…not to curse curse Ali while he can hear that…”
Tahdib al-Kamal by Imam Jamaluddin al-Mezi, Volume 6 page 246 Translation No. 1248
The three variants Imam Al-Mezi relied on are:
[1]. Muhammad bin Saad from Muhammad bin Ubaid from Mujalid from al-Shu’bi.
[2]. Muhammad bin Saad from Muhammad bin Ubaid from Yunus bin Abi Ishaq from his father.
[3]. Muhammad bin Saad from Muhammad bin Ubaid from Abi al-Sefr & others.
The reason for emphasizing on different variants chain is, that all three scholars namely Imam Dhahabi, Imam Jamaluddin al-Mezi and Ibn Asakir have quoted and relied on this narration from Imam Ibn Sa’ad, the author of the famed Sunni work ‘Tabaqat al-Kubra’, but today we do not find this tradition in Tabaqat due to a surgery performed by Nasibi doctors who extracted the ‘truth tumour’ that posed a threat to the image of their master Muawiya.
Regarding the conditions on which the treay took place With regards to the treaty condition agreed between Imam Hasan (as) and Muawiya bin al-Hinda, we also read in Tarikh al-Wardi:
“The conditions were: To give him what is in Kufa’s public treasury, the tax of Darabjird city in Persia, and not to curse Ali.
He (Mu’awiya) didn’t accept the condition that the cursing of (Ali) be stopped. So, He (al-Hasan) asked them to stop cursing when he (al-Hasan) could hear it. (Mu’awiya) accepted that condition but he didn’t fulfil it.”
Tarikh of Al-Wardi, Volume 1 page 251
Ibn Kathir records in Al Bidayah wal Nihayah, Volume 8 page 17:
“He (Hasan) placed conditions of having five million from Kufa’s treasury, the income from the taxes of the city of Darabjird and not to curse Ali when he (al Hasan) could hear that”
Al Bidayah wal Nihayah, Volume 8 page 17
The authenticity of this incident has caused such a big blow to the Nasibi movement that they have removed this narration from various versions of the book available on the internet, such as from www.al-eman.com.
One of the champions of the Nasibi cult, Ibn Khaldun similarly recorded in Tarikh Ibn Khaldun, Volume 2 page 648:
He (al Hasan) wrote to Mu’awiya informing him about his abdication from khilafat in exchange for receiving Kufa’s treasure worth five million, the income from the taxes of the city of Dar Abjard and not to curse Ali when he (al Hasan) could hear it.
Allamah Ismaeel bin Abul Fida records in his Tarikh, Volume 1 page 126:
The conditions of al-Hasan were: To give him what is in Kufa’s treasury, give him ibjerd’s city tax income and not to curse Ali. He (Mu’awiya) didn’t accept the condition about cursing Ali, so al-Hasan asked him not to curse Ali when he could hear it, so (Mu’awiya) accepted that but but failed to fulfil it”
The peace treaty conditions have also been recorded by Salah-uddin Khalil bin Aybak al-Safadi (d. 764 H) in his authority work ‘Al-Wafi bil Wafiyat’ Volume 12 page 68 and by Imam Ibn Al-Shahnah al-Hanafi (d. 815 H) in ‘Roza tul Manazir’ page 117 and also commented that Muawiya did not fulfill even single of condition treaty. Moreover, Mufti Ghulam Rasool al-Hanafi of Daarul Uloom Qadiriyah Jilaniyah, London also recorded the treaty conditions from various Sunni works and then stated:
“Hadhrat Muawiya did not fulfil this condition as well, in fact, the rulers and governors of Bani Umayah abused Hadhrat Ali (kr), the lion of Allah”
Imam Hasan aur Khilafat e Rashida, page 167
If Muawiya was not involved in the Kufr act of cursing Ali bin Abi Talib (as) then why did Imam Hasan (as) place the condition before him that neither he nor his rulers curse Imam Ali (as) and then why did Muawiya reject the condition. The proposed condition and Muawiya’;s rejection of it nullifies the the argument of the Nawasib that Ali (as) was never cursed by Muawiya and leaves us with no doubt that Nawawi concealed the reality when formulating his conjectures.
Tashyid al-Mata’in is a refutation of chapter 10 of the famous anti-Shia book Tauhfa Athna Ashariya. In Volume 2 page 405 of the said book, we read that scholar of Ahl’ul Sunnah Wajihuddin Umar bin Abdulmuhsin Al-Arzanjani in his famous work ‘Hadaaiq al-Izhaar fi Sharah Mashaariq al-Anwaar’ wrote:
“When the people of knowledge saw that Mu’awiya’s language contravened the dictates of norms, they sought to justify his actions and this is wrong, for it is clear that Mu’awiya wanted Sa’d to curse Ali, and Sa’d objected. Mu’awiya asked what prevented him from cursing Abu Turab, to which Sa’d replied citing three traditions as his reasons.”
Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi al-Hanafi in His Tazkira tul Khawas, page 28 records the comments of Imam Zuhri:
“Mu’awiya cursed Ali and ordered people to do the same Sa’d’s fear of Allah stopped him from cursing Ali, ignoring the consequences.”
It is proven from Sahih Muslim that Mu’awiya would curse ‘Ali. Nawawi in his Sharh Muslim displays dishonesty in his defence of Mu’awiya. An Ahl’ul Sunnah scholar took notice of this, basing his comments on Sahih Muslim, we plead justice accordingly. Modern day Sunni scholar Shaykh Musa Shahin Lashin in his commentary of Sahih Muslim known as Fateh al-Munem, Volume 9 page 332 states:
ويحاول النووي تبرئة معاوية من هذا السوء …..هذا تأويل واضح التعسف والبعد، والثابت أن معاوية كان يأمر بسب علي ، وهو غير معصوم، فهو يخطئ، ولكننا يجب أن نمسك عن انتقاص أي من أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، وسب علي في عهد معاوية صريح
“Nawawi tried to prove Mu’awyia’s innocence from this bad deed…such an interpretation is clearly void, as it is confirmed that Mu’awyia used would order the cursing of Ali, he (Mu’awiyia) is not infallible, he might commit mistakes but we should not criticize anyone from amongst the companions of the Prophet of Allah (s), cursing Ali during Mu’awyia’s reign is something definite”.
One of the favorite scholars of the Salafies/Wahabies namely Muhammad bin Abdulhadi al-Sindi (d. 1138 H) in his esteemed commentary of Sunan Ibn Majah testified that one could deduce from the tradition of Sahih Muslim, that Muawiya ordered Sa’d to curse Ali bin Abi Talib (as).
“Muawiya insulted and abused Ali, verily he also ordered Sa’ad to abuse Ali as is mentioned in Muslim and Tirmidhi”
Sharh Sunnan ibn Majah, Kitab al-Muqadma, Chapter: Merits of Ali bin Abi Talib (ra)
Muhammad al-Amin al-Hurarri is a modern day Wahabi/Salafi scholar born in year 1348 A.H. an Ethiopian by origin he currently resides in Saudi Arabiawhere he is employed as a hadith teacher in Mecca. In his authority work Al-Kawkab al-Wahaj Volume 23 page 444 he attests:
أمر معاوية بن أبي سفيان) الأموي الشامي، الخليفة المشهور (سعداً) بن أبي وقاص رضي الله عنهما أي أمره بسب علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه فأبى سعد أن يسب علياً (فقال) معاوية بن أبي سفيان لسعد: (ما منعك) يا سعد (أن تسب أبا التراب
Mu’awyia bin Abi Sufyan the Umayyad Caliph ordered Sa’d bin Abi Waqas to curse Ali bin Abi Talib, but Saad refused to curse Ali, Mu’awyia bin Abi Sufyan therefore said to Sa’d: ‘O Sa’d what prevents you from cursing Abu Turab?’
Qurtubi in his famed work Al-Mufhem, Volume 20 page 25 whilst commenting on the tradition under discussion also stated that during the Ummayad dynasty the practice was to curse Ali bin Abi Talib (as):
وقول معاوية لسعد بن أبي وقاص : ما منعك أن تسب أبا تراب ؛ يدل : على أن مقدم بني أمية كانوا يسبون عليا وينتقصونه
The statement of Mu’awyia to Sa’d bin Abi Waqas “What prevents you from cursing Abu Turab” indicates that the first generation of Bani Umayya would abuse and belittle Ali.
If there still remains any doubt then let us submit the testimony from the tongue our arch nemesis the beloved Imam of the Salafis Ibn Tamiyah who in Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 5 page 42 also confirmed that Muawiya ‘ordered’ Sa’d to curse Ali bin Abi Talib:
“While the narration about Sa’d (relates to) when Mu’awyia ordered him to curse but he refused”
Mu’awiya sent out an unequivocal order to his Governors that they implement the cursing of Ali (as) in their provinces as we read in Tarikh Abul Fida Volume 1 page 120 that:
“Mu’awiya and his Governors during the Friday Sermons would say things in praise of Uthman and would curse Ali”.
Ibn Tamiyah records:
“The followers (shias) of Uthman used to abuse Ali openly from the Mosque pulpits”
Minhaj al Sunnah, Volume 6 page 201
We ask our opponents:
[1]. Where were those thousands of Sahaba and Tabieen whom they consider stars of guidance, when Ahle Bait (as) were cursed from the pulpits of Mosques? Were they doing Taqyyah?
[2]. Why Mu’awiya kept these Governors in their office even still after their cursing of Ahle Bait (as)?
We will keep repeating these two questions as we analyse this shameless practice further.
In this regard we will present three traditions affirming that Marwan bin Hakam (Laeen ibn Laeen), the beloved and reliable partner of Muawiyah used to curse Ali bin Abi Talib (as). First, let us cite the comments of Ibn Kathir from Al Badaya wa Al Nahaya, Volume 8 page 285 :
“When Marwan was a governor of Mu’awiya in Madina, he would curse Ali every Friday from the pulpit (Minbar). Hasan bin Ali then said to him: “Allah then cursed your father by the tongue of His messenger when you were in his ‘Sulub’ (loins) and has said that the curse of Allah be upon Hakam and his progeny.”
We read in Tarikh ul Khulafa, page 199:
“Umayr ibn Ishaq said: Marwan was the amir over us, and he would abuse ‘Ali every Jumah from the mimbar, whilst al Hasan would listen and offer no reply”
Imam Dhahabi also confirmed the Kufr act by Marwan (Laeen ibn Laeen) of cursing Ali bin Abiu Talib (as) by citing it as follows:
“Marwan bin Hakam used to curse Hadrat Ali (as) in the Sermon (Khutba) of Friday.”
Tarikh al Islam, by Al-Dhahabi, vol. 2, page 288
Now we present one of the principle books of Ahle Sunnah to prove that Marwan’s enmity towards the fourth caliph of Ahle Sunnah was not deemed sufficient grounds for the Ahle Sunnah to remain aloof from him, on the contrary he was granted a certain rank in their hadeeth works and the term “RA” was used for him.
The Governor of Medina who was one of the members of the house of Marwan called Sahl Ibn Sa’d, and ordered him to curse Ali. But Sahl refused to do so. The governor said: “If you don’t want to curse Ali, just say God curse Abu Turab (the nickname of Ali).” Sahl said: “Ali did not like any name for himself better than Abu Turab, and Ali used to become very happy when somebody would call him Abu Turab.”
Sahih Muslim, Chapter of Virtues of Companions, Section of Virtues of Ali, Arabic version, v4, p1874, Tradition #38
Ibn Hajar Makki al-Haythami records the following incident that shows the abhorrence this impure person had towards Ahlulbayt (as):
“There is another tradition with Thiqa narrators wherein when Marwan became ruler over Madina and proceeded to abuse Ali every Friday from the pulpit. Saeed bin Aas then became Wali (Governor)of Madina, he didn’t say anything but when Marwan returned as Wali he started uttering the same absurdities again. Hadhrat Hasan knew about this and would remain silent and he would enter the mosque at the time of Takbeer only, when Marwan became unsatisfied with the patience of Hasan (ra) and sent some appalling messages about him and His respected father. His absurdities included this sentence that “Your example is like that of a mule for when it is asked who its father is, it will reply: “a horse”. Hadhrat Hasan told the messenger: ‘Go back and tell Marwan: ‘By calling names to you, we do not want to remove whatever you have said against us. Verily we shall both appear before Allah. If you are ruled upon as a liar, Allah is the Greatest for taking revenge.” Verily Marwan has indeed ‘respected’ my grandfather Prophet (s) by giving me the similitude of a mule!”. When returning the messenger met Hadhrat Hussain and after forcing him, he told him the statement of Marwan. Hadhrat Hussain said: “Tell Marwan: Take information about your father and your people yourself, and the sign between you and me is that the curse of the Holy Prophet (s) has stuck between your two shoulders”
“Tanveer al-Iman” the Urdu translation of “Tat-heer al-Jinan” page 111
Sawaiq al-Muhriqa (Arabic), page 63
Salafi scholar Hassan bin Farhan Maliki, in his book Naho Enqad al-Tarikh, Volume 3 page 22 stated:
والي المدينة وهو مروان بن الحكم في زمن معاوية كان يسب ويأمر بسب علي على المنابر، هذه حقيقة تاريخية ثابتة
“The governor of Madina, Marwan bin al-Hakam during the reign of Mu’awyia used to curse Ali and ordered the cursing of Ali from the pulpits; this is an affirmed historical fact.
We read in Masael Imam Ahmad- Kitab al-Eilal wa Maarifat al-Rijal, Volume 3 page 176 No. 4781:
عن عمير بن إسحاق قال كان مروان أميراً علينا ست سنين فكان يسب عليا كل جمعة ثم عزل ثم استعمل سعيد بن العاص سنتين فكان لا يسبه ثم أعيد مروان فكان يسبه
From Umair ibn Ishaaq who said: Marwan was our Ameer for six years and he used to curse Ali every Friday! Then he was fired and then Said ibn al-Aas was hired for two years and he did not curse him. After him Marwan was rehired and he (again) cursed him.
In the footnote we read:
“He said the chain of narration is Sahih and may Allah (swt) help us.”
We again ask Nawasib to inform us of the whereabouts of the scores of beloved Sahaba and Tabaeen at a time when Ali and his family were being abused by Mu’awiya’s governor in Madina? Were they all hiding under the veil of Taqqiyah?
As for those children of Mu’awiya who try to conjure up excuses by insisting that the traditions wherein Marwan cursed Ali (as), suggest that he was acting upon the orders of Muawiya, then we would like to ask them a simple question:
“As the governors of Muawiya publicly cursed Ali (as) from the mosque pulpits before thousands of worshippers throughout Muawiya’s vast reign, what efforts did he (Muawiya) personally take to curtail this act, if he was indeed not involved in that Kufr act? Is there any documentary evidence of Muawiya ordering that this practice be stopped forthwith? Were those governors guilty of this shameless deed, apprehended, relieved of their duties or punished in any other way?”
The first tradition we present in this regard is from ‘Tarikh Kamil’ Volume 3 page 234 wherein we read that:
“Mu’awiya appointed Mughira as a Governor telling him ‘I have based your appointment on common sense, give me bayya on the condition that you continue with the practice, (namely) that you don’t cease to disgrace and curse ‘Ali and praise Uthman. Mughira was the Governor of Kufa for some time, during it he cursed and disgraced ‘Ali”.
Also see the following tradition recorded by Imam Ibn Jareer Tabari:
When Muawiya Ibn Abi Sufyan put al-Mughairah Ibn Shubah in charge of Kufah in Jumada 41 (September 2- October 30, 661), he summoned him. After praising and glorifying God, he said:
“Now then, indeed a forbearing person has been admonished in the past… The wise might do what you want without instruction. Although I have wanted to advise you about many things, I left them alone, trusting in your discernment of what pleases me, what helps my regime and what sets my subjects [raiyyah] on the right path. I would continue to advise you about a quality of yours- do not refrain from abusing Ali and criticizing him, not from asking God’s mercy upon Uthman and His forgiveness for him. Continue to shame the companions of Ali, keep at a distance, and don’t listen to them. Praise the faction of Uthman, bring them near, and listen to them.”
History of Tabari, English version, events of year 51 AH, Execution of Hujr Ibn Adi, v18, pp 122-123
On the same page of Tabari, it is written:
“Al Mughira remained governor of Kufah for Mu’awiyah for seven years and (some) months. He was the best behaved and most (strongly) in favor of well being, in spite of the fact he would not stop blaming ‘Ali for what had happened and for killing Uthman”
So, according to this tradition, Mughira counted Maula Ali (as) amongst the killers of Uthman. Although here at the end of the Hadith, the narrator has not identified those killers of Uthman referred to by Mughira at the beginning of this tradition, he has made clear that it was “Ali” to whom Mughira was referring to.
And also see later narrations wherein hadith ahead of Hujr bin Addi, where Hujr bin Addi made it very clear that he understood who Mughira was referring to as the killer of Uthman. Al-Tabari reported on the next page:
“Once governor of Kufa Mughira bin Shuba, as usual sought mercy for Uthman and asked that his killers be punished (Ali)”.
Upon this Hujr bin Addi stood up and gave a lecture against Mughira:
“O man. Order our rations and stipends for us, for you have certainly withheld them from us, and this is not your right, and no one who preceded you has desired that. You have become passionate about blaming the Commander of the Faithful and praising the criminals”.
History of Tabari, English version, events of year 51 AH, Execution of Hujr Ibn Adi, v18, pp 124
We read in Musnad Ahmad, Volume 3 page 185 that has been declared ‘Hasan’ by Shaikh Shoib Al-Arn’aut:
From Abdillah al-Mazini who said: ‘When Muawiya left Kufa he employed al-Mughirah ibn Shubah. ’He said: al-Mughirah hired orators to insult Ali’.
Musnad Ahmad, Volume 3 page 185
We read one episode with reference to a sahabi Zaid bin Arqam in Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Volume 4 Hadith 18485:
“The uncle of Ziad bin Alaqa narrated that al-Mughira bin Shu’aba abused Ali pursuant to which Zaid bin Arqam stood up and said: ‘You know that the Prophet forbade abusing the dead, then why are you abusing Ali when he is dead?’”
This tradition has been recorded and declared ‘Sahih’ by Shaykh Shoib al-Arnaut in his margin of Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal, Imam Hakim in ‘Mustadrak’ Volume 1 page 541 Hadith 1419 also declared it ‘Sahih’ while Imam Dhahabi, who otherwise had a habit of poking his nose into every other tradition of Hakim, didn’t raise any objection over the it. The version of al-Mustadrak researched by Shaikh Muqbil bin Hadi al-Wadi also shows that he didn’t raise any objection over the authenticity and thereby he also echoed the opinion of Imam Hakim. Furthermore Nasiruddin Al-Albaani also graded it Sahih in ‘Selselat al-ahadith al-Sahiha’ Volume 5 page 520 Hadith 2397. Al-Haythami in Majmza al-Zawaid, Volume 8 page 86 stated that all the narrators of the tradition are Thiqa.
Al-Mustadrak al-Hakim, Volume 1 page 541 Hadith 1419
Selselat al-ahadith al-Sahiha, Volume 5 page 520 Hadith 2397
There is another similar episode recorded in several esteemed Sunni works wherein Mughira bin Shuba insulted Imam Ali (as), Saeed bin Zayd intervened and mentioned the names of Sahaba who were given glad tidings by Prophet (s) of Paradise that included Ali bin Abi Talib (as). We read the following in Musnad Ahmed:
حَدَّثَنَا وَكِيعٌ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنِ الْحُرِّ بْنِ الصَّيَّاحِ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ الْأَخْنَسِ، قَالَ: خَطَبَنَا الْمُغِيرَةُ بْنُ شُعْبَةَ فَنَالَ مِنْ عَلِيٍّ، رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ، فَقَامَ سَعِيدُ بْنُ زَيْدٍ فَقَالَ: سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، يَقُولُ: " النَّبِيُّ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَأَبُو بَكْرٍ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَعُمَرُ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَعُثْمَانُ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَعَلِيٌّ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَطَلْحَةُ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَالزُّبَيْرُ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَعَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ عَوْفٍ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَسَعْدٌ فِي الْجَنَّةِ " وَلَوْ شِئْتُ أَنْ أُسَمِّيَ الْعَاشِرَ
"Abdul Rehman bin Al-Akhnas narrated that Mughira bin Sh’uba gave sermon and abused Ali (ra) pursuant to which Saeed bin Zayd stood and stated that: ‘I heard Holy Prophet (s) saying….’. "
It has been declared as ‘Hassan’ by Shaikh Shoib al-Arnaut in Musnad Ahmed Bin Hanbal, Volume 3 page 177 and so did Shaikh Faisal Jawabra in Al-Sunnah by Ibn Abi Asim, page 90 Hadith 1460. Ziauddin Muqdasi recorded the tradition in Al-Ahadith al-Mukhtara, Volume 3 page 289 which shows that it was an authentic narration in his eyes according to the standard set by him. Abdul Malik bin Dhaish who has researched over Al-Ahadith al-Mukhatara has declared the tradition to be ‘Hasan’. Shaikh Hussain Salim Asad has declared it ‘Hasan’ in Musnad Abi Yala al-Musli, Volume 2 page 209. Ahmed Shakir declared it ‘Sahih’ in Musnad Ahmed, Volume 2 page 290. Ibn Hibban recorded the tradition in his Sahih, Volume 10 page 404. Imam Nasai also recorded the episode in Sunan Nasai, Volume 7 Hadith 8148:
عن عبدالله بن ظالم قال خطب المغيرة بن شعبة فسب عليا فقال سعيد بن زيد أشهد على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لسمعته يقول أثبت حراء فإنه ليس عليك إلا نبي أو صديق أو شهيد
"Abdullah bin Zalim said: al-Mughira bin Shu’aba was addressing and abusing Ali pursuant to which Saeed bin Zaid said: ‘I testify that the messenger of Allah said: ‘Be still, Hira, for only a Prophet, or an ever-truthful, or a martyr is on you…”
More interestingly, there is yet another version of the above cited episode wherein Muawiya was also shown to have been present whilst Mughira bin Shuba abused Ali bin Abi Talib (as) that alarmed Sahabi Saeed bin Zaid and since that placed Muawiya at the crime scene his spiritual children tried their best to hide his name. We read the incident in Sunan Abu Daud Book 41, Hadith 4632, Chapter Chapter: The Caliphs in the following manner:
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْعَلاَءِ، عَنِ ابْنِ إِدْرِيسَ، أَخْبَرَنَا حُصَيْنٌ، عَنْ هِلاَلِ بْنِ يِسَافٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ ظَالِمٍ، وَسُفْيَانَ، عَنْ مَنْصُورٍ، عَنْ هِلاَلِ بْنِ يِسَافٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ ظَالِمٍ الْمَازِنِيِّ، قَالَ ذَكَرَ سُفْيَانُ رَجُلاً فِيمَا بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ ظَالِمٍ الْمَازِنِيِّ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ سَعِيدَ بْنَ زَيْدِ بْنِ عَمْرِو بْنِ نُفَيْلٍ قَالَ لَمَّا قَدِمَ فُلاَنٌ الْكُوفَةَ أَقَامَ فُلاَنٌ خَطِيبًا فَأَخَذَ بِيَدِي سَعِيدُ بْنُ زَيْدٍ فَقَالَ أَلاَ تَرَى إِلَى هَذَا الظَّالِمِ فَأَشْهَدُ عَلَى التِّسْعَةِ
"Narrated Sa'id ibn Zayd:
AbdurRahman ibn al-Akhnas said that when he was in the mosque, a man mentioned Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). So Sa'id ibn Zayd got up and said: I bear witness to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) that I heard him say: Ten persons will go to Paradise: The Prophet (ﷺ) will go to Paradise, AbuBakr will go to Paradise, Umar will go to Paradise, Uthman will go to Paradise, Ali will go to Paradise, Talhah will go to Paradise: az-Zubayr ibn al-Awwam will go to paradise, Sa'd ibn Malik will go to Paradise, and AbdurRahman ibn Awf will go to Paradise. If I wish, I can mention the tenth. The People asked: Who is he: So he kept silence. The again asked: Who is he: He replied: He is Sa'id ibn Zayd".
The tradition has been declared as ‘Sahih’ by Al-Albaani in his Sunna Abi Daud, Volume 3 page 211. Zubair Ali Zai declared it ‘Hasan’ in his version of Sunan Abi Daud, Volume 5 page 183. Saykh Shoib al-Srnaut declared it ‘Sahih’ in his version of Sunan Abi Daud, Volume 7 page 40. While doing commentary of the cited tradition, Allamah Khalil Ahmed Sahranpuri stated in Bazal al-Majhud Fil Hil Abi Daud, Volume 18 page 175:
When such and such person came to Kufa (means Muawiya) and he made such and such musannperson to stand as orator and according to one transcript the [grammatical] reference returns t0 Muawiya therefore the orator was Mughira bin Shuba as recorded in the version published by Al-Ahmedia. I have read in some transcripts that ‘such and such person’ means Mu’awiya bin Abi Sufiyan and he made ‘such and such person to stand’ means Mughira bin Shuba and give a sermon so he delivered one that contained abuse of Ali or that Muawiya was addressed in the said sermon to be superior to Ali or something similar to that was spoken.
Allamah Shamsul Haq Azeem Abadi while doing commentary of the cited tradition in his esteemed work Aun al-Mabood Sharah Sunan Abi Daud, Volume 12 page 261, stated as follows:
سَمِعْتُ سَعِيدِ بْنِ زَيْدِ بْنِ عَمْرِو بْنِ نُفَيْلٍ) هُوَ أَحَدُ الْعَشَرَةِ الْمُبَشَّرَةِ بِالْجَنَّةِ (لَمَّا قَدِمَ فُلَانٌ إِلَى الْكُوفَةِ أَقَامَ فُلَانٌ خَطِيبًا) قَالَ فِي فَتْحِ الْوَدُودِ وَلَقَدْ أَحْسَنَ أَبُو دَاوُدَ فِي الْكِنَايَةِ عَنِ اسْمِ مُعَاوِيَةَ وَمُغِيرَةَ بِفُلَانٍ سِتْرًا عليهما في مثل هذا المحل لكونهما صاحبيين (فَأَخَذَ بِيَدِي سَعِيدُ بْنُ زَيْدٍ) هَذَا مَقُولُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ ظَالِمٍ (فَقَالَ) أَيْ سَعِيدٌ (إِلَى هَذَا الظَّالِمِ) يَعْنِي الْخَطِيبَ
"Saeed bin Zayd ibn Amro bin Nafail who was among Ashra Mubashra (when such and such person came to Kufa he made such and such person to stand as an orator). It is mentioned in Fatah al-Wadud that here Abu Daud did a splendid job by referring to Muawiya and Mughria as ‘such and such person’ and thereby Abu Daud kept the names of both of them hidden behind a veil whilst recording such type of narrations because both of them were companions. He (caught hold of the hand of Saeed bin Zayd) this was the statement of Abdullah bin Zalim (and he said) means Saeed (Are you seeing this tyrant) means the orator".
Similarly we read in Fadhael al-Sahaba by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Volume 1 pages 142-143:
عن عبدالرحمن بن الأخنس أن المغيرة بن شعبة خطب فنال من فلان
"From Abdur Rahman ibn al-Akhnas who said: “al-Mughirah ibn Shu’bah gave a sermon and cursed so and so”.
We read in the footnote:
“So and so is Ali ibn Abi Talib as it is found in the narrations by Ibn Abi Asim and Ahmed”
As for its authenticity, the margin writer namely Wasiullah bin Muhammad Abbas has declared the tradition as Sahih:
Fadhael al-Sahaba by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Volume 1 pages 142-143 Hadith 87
Yet, this notorious enemy of Ali bin Abi Talib (as) is respected by our opponents and is remembered by using “RA” with his name!
We read the following account in the History of Tabari:
“When Busr spoke on the pulpit (minbar) of al Basrah, he reviled ‘Ali. Then he said ‘I imlore God, that anyone knows that I am truthful should say so, or likewise if I am a liar” When Abu Bakrah said, “By God we know you only as a liar” (Busr) order him to be strangled”
History of Tabari Volume 18 (English version) page 15
Similarly, Ibn Athir records:
When Hassan made peace with Mu’awiya in year 41 H, Hamraan bin Af’aan attacked Basra and occupied it, Mu’awiya then sent him to Busr bin Artat and ordered him to kill the progeny of Ziyad bin Abih, and Ziyad was in Persia because Ali bin Abi Talib had sent him there, when Busr spoke on the pulpit (minbar) of al Basrah, he reviled ‘Ali. Then he said ‘I implore God, that anyone who knows that I am truthful should say so, or likewise if I am a liar” When Abu Bakrah said, “By God we know you only as a liar”
Tarikh Kamil, Volume 2 page 110
Busr bin Irtat is also one of the companions, thus the ad nauseum Nawasib slogan “All Sahabah are just” falls flat here since an individual cursing Ali bin Abi Talib (as) is a Munafiq and a Kafir according to authentic Sunni traditions!
Ziyad, the mistake of Muawiyah’s infamous father Abu Sufian continued the practice of Mughira bin Shuba and would curse Imam Ali (as) from the mosque pulpits in his sermons.
Tabari has noted the following words of Ziyad (History of Tabari, vol 4 page 190):
“Ziyad praised Uthman and his companions and then cursed the killers of Uthman. Upon that Hujr stood up……”
Ibn Atheer records in Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, volume 3 page 473:
Then he (Ziyad) sent mercy upon Uthman and praised his companions and cursed his killers”.
Ibn Kathir records in Al-Bidaya wa Al-Nihaya, Volume 8 page 55:
“He (Ziyad) mentioned in the end of it (sermon) the virtue of Uthman and then disparaged his killers and those who had aided them”.
Ibn Khaldun in Tarikh Ibn Khaldun, Volume 3 page 11:
“And he (Ziyad) sent mercy upon Uthman and cursed his killers and said about Hujr…”
But who did Mughira bin Shu’ba and Ziyad deem to be the killers of Uthman? Just see the following tradition and you will know whom they cursed in name as the “killers of Uthman”.
Al-Tabari reported:
The Messenger of Muawiya then came to them (Ziyad) with orders to release six and to kill eight, telling them:
We have been ordered to let you disavow Ali and curse him. If you do so, we shall release you, and if you refuse, we shall kill you.
History of Tabari, English version, events of year 51 AH, v18, p149
Hujr bin Adi (ra) knew this fact too (i.e. they are cursing Ali) and that is why he always replied to the sermons of Mughira bin Shuba and Ziyad in the following words:
O Mughira! you have lost your senses and you don’t know to whom you are showing your love…… You DISGRACE AMEERUL MOMINEEN (Ali) and you praise the criminals.
History of Tabari, vol.4, page 188, 189
We read in Tarikh Kamil, Vol 3 page 207:
“And when Mughira was placed in charge of Kufa, Kathir ibn Shahab was placed in charge of al-Ray, and he used to copiously curse Ali from the pulpit of Al-Ray…And Ziyad…when he reached Basra got up onto the pulpit and gave a khutba (sermon) wherein he cursed Ali”
This Kathir bin Shahab narrated Hadith in Sunni works on the authority of Umar ibn al Khattab. We read in Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d:
“He narrated traditions from Umar bin Khattab and was one of Mu’awiya bin Abu Sufyan’s Governors”.
Ibn Abi al Hadeed in his commentary of Nahjul Balagha Volume 1 page 464 states:
“At the end of the Friday sermon Mu’awiya would say ‘O Allah, curse Abu Turab, he opposed your Deen and path, curse him and punish him in the fire.’ He introduced this bidah during his reign, his Governors acted upon it, this bidah continued until the reign of Umar bin Abdul Aziz”
In al-Nasa’ih al-Kaafiyah, page 77 we read that
“This practice (of cursing) reached such a state that the people considered that without cursing Ali their Friday worship was incorrect”
Allamah Muhammad bin Aqeel al-Shafiee records in al-Nasa’ih al-Kaafiyah page 70 we read that:
Some people from Banu Umayya approached Mu’awiya and said ‘You’ve attained power so why don’t you stop the practice of cursing Ali, he replied “By Allah I wont, not until every child grows up, not until every grown up becomes elderly, not until no one is left to praise him”.
In ‘Tarikh Madahib al Islam’ Muhammad Abu Zahra records in Volume 1 page 35:
“And during the reign of Banu Umayya the dignity of Ali was attacked, he was cursed because Mu’awiya during his reign introduced the ugly bid`ah of cursing Ali. His successors continued this tradition until the reign of Umar bin Abdul Aziz. The tradition entailed cursing the Imam of Guidance Ali at the end of the Friday Sermons, the Sahaba’s remonstrations that this was wrong was ignored, Mu’awiya and his Governors refused to desist from their actions. Ummul’Momineen Salma (ra) wrote a letter to Mu’awiya and his respective Governors reminding them that by cursing ‘Ali they were in fact cursing Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s)”.
Tarikh Madahib al Islam by Muhammad Abu Zahra, page 35
This book has also been rendered in to Urdu by Professor Ghulam Hamid Hurrayree and we attach the Urdu translation of the above text:
If today’s Nawasib try and distance themselves from this reference by deeming Abu Zahra’s book as unreliable, they should know that their beloved Website Ansar.org deemed the same book as reliable enough to ‘prove’ that the Shi’a betrayed Zayd Ibn Ali due to his refusal to criticize the Shaykhayn, (please see footnote 6 in their article). If this source can be advanced as ‘proof’ by Ansar.org against the Shi’a then by the same token this book can also be used by the Shi’a as ‘proof’ against Mu’awiya.
We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 2, Book 15, Number 76:
Narrated Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri:
The Prophet used to proceed to the Musalla on the days of Id-ul-Fitr and Id-ul-Adha; the first thing to begin with was the prayer and after that he would stand in front of the people and the people would keep sitting in their rows. Then he would preach to them, advise them and give them orders, (i.e. Khutba). And after that if he wished to send an army for an expedition, he would do so; or if he wanted to give and order, he would do so, and then depart. The people followed this tradition till I went out with Marwan, the Governor of Medina, for the prayer of Id-ul-Adha or Id-ul-Fitr.
When we reached the Musalla, there was a pulpit made by Kathir bin As-Salt. Marwan wanted to get up on that pulpit before the prayer. I got hold of his clothes but he pulled them and ascended the pulpit and delivered the Khutba before the prayer. I said to him, “By Allah, you have changed (the Prophet’s tradition).” He replied, “O Abu Sa’id! Gone is that which you know.” I said, “By Allah! What I know is better than what I do not know.” Marwan said, “People do not sit to listen to our Khutba after the prayer, so I delivered the Khutba before the prayer.”
Why would the people (the sahaba and tabieen) choose to refrain from listening to the sermon after Eid prayers? Were these people flagrantly ignoring the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) or was there an underlying reason that caused them to abandon this sermon?
One needs to understand the background that led to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) being changed. We have already proven that Mu’awiya sought to keep a grip on his reign by subjecting his enemies, the Shi’a of Ali (as) to oppression. One method of doing so was through iinstilling instilling into the minds of the people a hatred of ‘Ali (as). The best mechanism for doing so was during prayer times, after all a viewpoint could be propagated to thousands of people at one time, and it was coming from the mouth of the Imam, thus giving it more clout. We had already mentioned the fact that Mu’awiya had utilised this method by ordering the cursing of ‘Ali (as) in Friday sermons, he extended this practice to the Eid prayers also. The Sunnah of the Prophet (s) was that the Khutbah was after Eid prayers, but as Marwan said “People do not sit to listen to our Khutba after the prayer’ – clearly pious people disliked to hear the beloved of Rasulullah (s) being abused in such a manner which is why they preferred to walk away than hear it.
This change in Sunnah was not Marwan’s choice rather he was merely implementing the order of Mu’awiya, as we read in Sahih Muslim Book 001, Number 0079:
It is narrated on the authority of Tariq b. Shihab: It was Marwan who initiated (the practice) of delivering khutbah (address) before the prayer on the ‘Id day. A man stood up and said: Prayer should precede khutbah. He (Marwan) remarked, This (practice) has been done away with. Upon this Abu Sa’id remarked: This man has performed (his duty) laid on him. I heard the Messenger of Allah as saying: He who amongst you sees something abominable should modify it with the help of his hand; and if he has not strength enough to do it, then he should do it with his tongue, and if he has not strength enough to do it, (even) then he should (abhor it) from his heart, and that is the least of faith.
al ‘Al-Uam’ volume 1 page 392 by Imam al-Shafi’ee we read:
Shafi’ee stated that Abdullah bin Yazid al-Khutmi said: ‘The prophet (pbuh), Abu Bakar, Umar and Uthman used to start by praying before the sermon until Muawiya came and made the sermon before (the prayer)’
Of course Muawiya changed the timing of prayers via his governors, hence we read that Imam of Deobandies, Muhammad Anwar Shah Kashmiri recorded the following reference in his esteemed commentary of Sahih Bukhari about Marwan; the beloved governor of Muawiya:
“The sunnah is to perform prayer before the sermon, but Marwan made it (the sermon) before the prayer because he used to abuse Ali (may Allah be pleased with him)”
Faiz al Bari Sharah Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1 page 722 No. 954, Kitab al-Eidayn
Qadhi Showkani records in his authority work ‘Neel al-Awtar’ Volume 3 page 363:
Al-Iraqi said: ‘The truth is that the first one to did that was Marwan in Madina during the caliphate of Muawiya’
The importance of getting the people’s mind frame to hate Ali (as) was such that Mu’awiya was prepared to change the Sunnah of the Prophet (s) if it ensured that the anti Ali message reached the ears of the people. This was all quite intentional getting a people accustomed on a staple diet of cursing Ali (as) in prayers would gradually become incorporated as natural custom, so that eventually people (particularly successive generations) exposure to Ali (as) would be restricted to hearing him being cursed during prayers. The objective of Muawiya was thus to get people accustomed to associating Maula Ali (as) with all that was inherently evil, as time went on people’s knowledge of Ali (as) would be with regards to treating him as a figure of hate.
Uptil now we relied upon traditions to prove that Muawiya had institited the Bidah of cursing Ali bin Abi Talib (as) from the pulpits and his governors, with the exception of Sa’d bin Abi Waqas, obeyed his orders. Now let us bring the testimonies of some prominent scholars of Ahle Sunnah who have vouched the same.
Egyptian Sunni scholar Ahmad Zaki Safwat in his book ‘Umar bin Abdul Aziz’ (Urdu tanslation by Abdul Samhad al-Azhari) pages 54-55 states:
“Hadhrat Umar (bin Abdul Aziz) abolished the practice of cursing Ali on the pulpits, that started during the reign of Amir Mu’awiya.
Historians have recorded that in 41 Hijri, Mu’awiya wrote to his Governors stating ‘I have no responsibility for anyone who praises Ali and his family. As a result [reciters] from every pulpit in every village would curse ‘Ali, they would distance themselves from ‘Ali, and would disrespect him and his family.
Mu’awiya issued an edict throughout the provinces that no one should accept the testimony of any Shi’a or members of that person’s family. In a separate order he stated that if it is established that an individual loves ‘Ali and the Ahl’ul bayt, his name should be removed from the register and his stipends should be withheld. In another order Mu’awiya said that any person who has friends that are Shi’a should be punished and his house should be demolished.
Mu’awiya went on Hajj, upon his arrival in Madina he intended on disrespecting ‘Ali. People told him not to since Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas would oppose such an action. Mu’awiya sent a man to Sa’d so as to ascertain his viewpoint, Sa’d replied, ‘If you perform such an act I shall never set foot in the Mosque again’. Mu’awiya chose to desist from this action until the death of Sa’d in 55 Hijri – it was then that he proceeded to climb on to the pulpit of ‘Ali and from there spoke out against him, he then wrote to his Governors to discredit ‘Ali. Umm Salmah wrote to Mu’awiya stating ‘You are in fact cursing Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s), verily I testify that Rasulullah (s) loved him ['Ali]. Mu’awiya ignored her words”.
Imam Dhahabi in his book Siyar Alam an-Nubla, Volume 7 page 130 has recorded the following statement of one of the revered Sunni Imams namely Abdulrahman bin Amro Awzai ( d. 157 H):
Sadaqa bin Abdullah said: ‘I heard al-Awzai saying: ‘We didn’t obtain gifts until we testified that Ali was a hypocrite and declared our disavowal towards him”.
The statement of this Sunni Imam also serves as strong evidence that the rulers of Bani Ummayah were pursuing the practice of abusing Ali bin Abi Talib (as) that had been introduced by Muawiyah. The policy was to either threaten the masses to abuse Ali bin Abi Talib (as) or offer them gifts and other benefits and it is unfortunate and yet not suprising to see that Sunni Imams opted for the second option in this regard. Let us now quote the names of the rulers belonging to Bani Umayah that ruled during the life of Imam Awzai:
The comments on this shameful practice of Pakistani Hanafi scholar Maulana Raghib Rahmani in his book “Umar bin Abdul Aziz” page 246, are indeed very poignant:
“It is indeed unfortunate that this bidah was introduced that cut the nose of the cities, this bidah even reached the pulpits and even shamelessly reached the ears of those present in the Mosque of Rasulullah (s). This bidah was introduced by Amir Mu’awiya”.
Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz was a leading Sunni scholar and was a lead name in his fight against the spread of Shi’aism in the Indian Subcontinent. Despite his opposition to the Shi’a he also made the acknowledgement in his Fatawa Azizi on page 214:
“…The act of cursing Ali was introduced by Mu’awiya, this is not worse than fighting, for we learn from hadith that cursing a Muslim is Fisq, fighting him is kufr. It is established that Mu’awiya fought ‘Ali and in doing so he committed a great sin, to explain this away in terms of ijtihad is wrong”.
Deobandi’s are rigid Hanafis from the Indian Subcontinent and are strong opponents of the Shi’a hence there is NO opportunity for Abu Sulaiman to claim that they were influenced by Shi’a leanings and at the same time Nasibis like that of Sipah Sahaba have no excuses to deny the testimonies of the ulema of their school.
Maulana Sayyid Abu’l Ala Maudoodi records this fact in his “Khilafat wa Mulukiyaat”. On page 174 he writes:
“Another extremely Makrooh (dislikeable) Bida that was introduced during the reign of Hadhrat Muawiya was that he and upon his orders, all of his governors would curse Ali during the sermon from the Imam’s position. This took such an extreme that this practice even took place in the Mosque of the Prophet, in front of the grave of the Prophet (saws), the cursing of the most beloved relative would take place, in the presence of Ali’s progeny and his close relatives who would hear this abuse with their own ears.” (Tabari, Volume 4 page 188, Ibn Athir Volume 3 page 234, al Bidayah Volume 8 page 259 and Volume 9 page 80).
Khilafat wa Mulukiyaat, page 174
Before supporters of Mu’awiya seek to attack Maudoodi it should be pointed out that he was NOT expressing an opinion, he was citing the facts recorded in the annals of Sunni history books, including al Bidayah by Ibn Kathir. The sources are cited; Maudoodi has not just fabricated them out of the blue.
The supporters of Mu’awiya were naturally perturbed by Maudoodi’s critical stance of Mu’awiya. This led to rebuttal and counter rebuttals by Deobandi Ulema. Pakistani scholar Abu Khalid Muhammad Aslam in “Khilafat wa Mulukiyyat wa Ulema-i-Ahle Sunnat” wrote in defence of Maulana Maudoodi. He wrote:
“Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi in Hakayat Awliyaa wrote that Shah Ismail Shaheed (rh) had a debate in Lucknow with a Shi’a by the name of Subhan Khan. Shah Ismail asked him: ‘Did they curse Mu’awiya in the court of Ali?’ Khan replied: ‘Ali’s Court was pure of such things’. Shah Ismail then asked: ‘Did Mu’awiya curse Ali in his Court?’ To which Khan replied: ‘Yes he did’. Maulana Ismail then said: ‘The Ahl’ul Sunnah are alhamdolillah followers of Ali and have left Mu’awiya’ (Hakayat Awliya, page 124).
From this it is proven that Shah Ismail and Thanvi both agreed that in Mu’awiya’s Court people would curse Ali. Now if someone continues to deny this then we are left with no other choice but to adopt silence in the presence of illiterates, one should take note of the individual who was being cursed.
Qadhi Zayn ul Abideen Sajjad Meerutee in Tareekh-e-Milat writes: ‘The greatest reform amongst all achieved by Umar bin Abdul Aziz was one that has been written in Gold namely the fact that he put an end to the tradition of cursing Ali (r). It had been an old practice that the caliphs and their Banu Umaya suporters would curse Ali in their sermons. When he became caliph, he ordered the pratice of cursing Ali in the sermons to be banned and instead the following verse was recited… (Tareekh-e-Milat, Vol 3 page 624)’.
Maulana Shah Moinuddin Ahmed Nadvi in Tareekh-e-Islam, writes: ‘During his reign, Mu’awiya introduced the condemnable tradition of cursing Ali (r) from the pulpits, his subjects followed suit. Mughira bin Shu’ba was a man of great qualities but in his obedience to Mu’awiya he also followed this bidah’ (Tareekh-e-Islam, Part 1 & 2 pages 13-14).
Tell us, were these prominent scholars whose statements we have cited above scholars of Ahle Sunnah or not? If all of them are Ahle Sunnah, then what right does the one have to count himself amongst Ahle Sunnah, who forms an opinion that goes against the aforementioned scholars? It would better that they leave Ahle Sunnah and embrace Yazeed and Nasibi ideaology, entertaining others with their new thoughts”. [Khilafat wa Mulukiyyat wa Ulema-i-Ahle Sunnath, by Abu Khalid Muhammad Aslam - pages 120-122]
Khilafat wa Mulukiyyat wa Ulema-i-Ahle Sunnath page 120-122
Here we have attached the scanned page from Maulana Asharaf Ali Thanvi’s famed work ‘Hakayat al Awliya’ also known as ‘Arwah Thalasah’ that contains the incident of Shah Ismaeel Shaheed mentioned above:
Arwah Salasah, page 77 (Published in Lahore)
In Tarikh Madahib al Islam, Volume 1 page 35 Muhammad Abu Zahra records:
“And during the reign of Banu Umayya the dignity of Ali was attacked, he was cursed because Mu’awiya during his reign introduced the ugly bid`ah of cursing Ali. His successors continued this tradition until the reign of Umar bin Abdul Aziz. The tradition entailed cursing the Imam of Guidance Ali at the end of the Friday Sermons, the Sahaba’s remonstrations that this was wrong was ignored, Mu’awiya and his Governors refused to desist from their actions. Ummul’Momineen Salma (ra) wrote a letter to Mu’awiya and his respective Governors reminding them that by cursing ‘Ali they were in fact cursing Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s)”.
Taha Hussain, the renowned Egyptian research scholar writes that Muawiyah forced Syrian prisoners to curse Ali ibn Abi Talib(as) and show their love for Uthman.
“Now the path was clear for Amir Muawiyah (ra), he through his men, brought two conditions before the prisoners, first to curse Ali (ra) and to love Uthman. Those who accepted this were pardoned whilst the necks of those who rejected this were removed.
A group of some important Syrian personalities mediated for some of those prisoners before Muawiyah hence he accepted their intercession. Now only eight men were left from amongst that rejected (the condition) to curse Ali (ra). The story about their murder is lengthy… The second from amongst those who refused to curse Ali (ra) instead began to malign Muawiyah and Uthman. Muawiyah handed him over to Ziyad and instructed in that he be killed in the most brutal manner. Ziyad buried him alive”
Hadhrat Ali(ra), page 244 Urdu translation by Allamah Abdul Hameed Numani (Nafees Academy Karachi)
Modern day Sunni scholar Shaykh Hassan Saqqaf stated in his book Maselat al-Rouya, page 11:
“The (Ummayad) regime adopted and embraced the cursing, swearing and disparaging of Ali”.
In the footnote of this sentence, he wrote:
“Some ignorant and intolerant people stubbornly insist on denying this even though it’s a proven fact about Mu’awyia”.
Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah Muhammad Abdul Hai Lucknawi testified that the Nasibi rulers of Banu Umaiyah made the criticism of Ali bin Abi Talib (as) to be a part of their religion.
“Question 268: It is in practice to recite the verse “IN ALLAHA BEAMREKUM BILADL E WAL AHSAN in the second sermon. What is the reason behind it?
Answer: The Bani Umayah rulers used to taunt and malign the fourth caliph in their sermons. When Umer bin Abdul Aziz became caliph, he was a religious worshiper and a pious ruler, he ended the prevailing practice of taunting and replaced it by introducing the recitation of this verse in the second sermon”
In Tafseer Mazhari Volume 5 page 21, Hanafi Scholar Qadhi Thanaullah Uthmani makes the admission that:
“There was a time when the Banu Umayya would curse the family of the Prophet”.
Ibn Hazm writes in his book “Jawami’ al Seerah” published in Gujranwala, Pakistan:
“…And then the caliphate was transferred to Bani Abbas…but it returned to a kingship as before…however this time they did not curse any of the Sahaba (ra) unlike Bani Umayyah who supported people who used to curse Ali (ra), and those who cursed his pure sons, the sons of Zahra”
We read in Fatah ul-Bari, Volume 7 page 57:
ثم كان من أمر علي ما كان فنجمت طائفة أخرى حاربوه ثم أشتد الخطب فتنقصوه واتخذوا لعنه على المنابر سنة
“Then it was the matter of Ali and a group of people fought against him, then the situation got more complicated and they began to belittle him and they made cursing Ali from the pulpits, a regular habit”
Imam Muhammad Zahed al-Kawthari, the Imam of Hanafis during the Ottoman empire wrote in his book Taneeb al-Khateeb, page 285:
ولا شك أن خلفاء بني أمية كانوا يلعنون الإمام علي بن أبي طالب كرم الله وجهه على ذلك المنبر أخزاهم الله, إلى أن رفع ذلك عمر بن عبد العزيز رضي الله عنه
“No doubt that the caliphs of Bani Umaya used to curse Imam Ali bin Abi Talib (kr) from the pulpit, may Allah disgrace them, until Umar bin Abdulaziz banned it”
Allamah Shibli Numani writes:
“Traditions were first formed in book form in the days of Ummayads, who, for about 90 years, throughout their vast dominions stretching from the Indus in India to Asia Minor and Spain, insulted the descendants of Fatima and got Ali openly censured in Friday sermons at the mosques. They had hundreds of saying coined to eulogise Amir Muawiya.
Siratun Nabi, Volume 1 page 60
So to summarise from the references presented (many more could have been cited we felt this will suffice for the sake of brevity), we learn:
In light of these established let us now see the true position of Mu’awiya in light of hadith and Fatwas of Ahl’ul Sunnah:
Abdul Qadir Jilani in ‘al-Ghuniya’ Voulme 1 page 60 narrates that Rasulullah (s) said:
“Whoever introduces a bidah or protects it is cursed by Allah (swt) his Angels and the vast bulk of mankind”.
Abdul Qadir Jilani in ‘al-Ghuniya’ Voulme 1 page 18, Chapter “Dhikr Mu’awiya” states:
No one should go near Ahl’ul Bidah, don’t go near them, don’t share in their happiness on Eid, don’t participate in their Salat or Funerals, don’t read mercies upon them”.
Imam Sa’duddeen Taftazani in Sharh al Maqasid page 270 comments:
“One should hate Ahl’ul bidah, talk ill of them, curse them, do not pray Salat behind them to do so is Makruh”.
These fatwas make it clear those that indulge in bidah are cursed and it is a duty to separate ourselves from such people. This being the case one needs no reminding that Mu’awiya was responsible for the introduction of the bidah of cursing Ameerul Momineen ‘Ali throughout his empire a bid`ah that went on for 90 years.
We read in Al-Jam’e al-Saghir, Volume 2 page 608 Hadith 8736 that has been declared ‘Sahih’ by the author Hafiz Jalaluddin Syuti:
Prophet said: ‘Whoever curses Ali has cursed me and whoever has cursed me, he has cursed Allah’
In Tauhfa Ithna Ashariyya Shah Abdul Aziz states on page 394:
“If the people of Syria i.e. Mu’awiya and his supporters bore enmity towards ‘Ali(r), considered him a kaafir and cursed him, then I consider such people to be kaafir”.
As is the habit of the Ulema of his like, Shah Abdul Aziz has sought to cast doubts as to whether Mu’awiya did indeed curse Maula ‘Ali (as). Fortunately as is common amongst such scholars his contradiction is exposed by the fact that he himself admitted in Fatwa Azeezi that Mu’awiya would curse Maula Ali (as). If those that curse Maula Ali are kaafir then from the Shah’s own pen Mu’awiya IS a kaafir as are those that entertained this action.
In Tauhfa Ithna Ashariyya Shah Abdul Aziz states on page 263:
“What view should we hold of those people who express happiness on Ashura when Imam Hussain was killed, who marry on that day, who disrespect the family of the Prophet and the descendants of Sayyida Fatima? It is correct to refer to such individuals as Murtad”.
If one who shows disrespect towards Ahl’ul bayt (as) is a Murtad then clearly one of the rank and file of Mu’awiya who demonstrated his disrespect of ‘Ali (as) by introducing the cursing of him in the Mosques comes at the fore-front of such murtads. Moreover one should also highlight Mu’awiya’s pleasure upon receiving the news that Imam Hasan (as) was dead.
Is it not curious that those that curse the Sahaba are kaafir (as a general rule) whilst those that curse Imam ‘Ali (as) are not kaafir but the Imam of Nasibis, whom Allah (swt) is pleased with? Now think about the personality being cursed, a Khalifa Rashid, the cousin and son in law of the Prophet (s) – Ali ibne abi Talib (as)