In a lengthy narration recorded in Tirmizhī, the Prophet صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ stated,

وَلَعَنَ آخِرُ هَذِهِ الأُمَّةِ أَوَّلَهَا

“…When the last of this Ummah curses the first…, anticipate a red wind, collapsing of the earth, and transformation.”

(Tirmizhī, Chapter on Al-Fitan, Hadīth 2210)

Refuting the Shīa

On the illicit views regarding Hadhrath Amīr Muāwiyah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ

by Shaykh Faheem (Islamic Lifestyle Solutions)

Preamble

The following refutation is based on some illegitimate claims by ‘anonymous’ Shīa sources on the internet. These radical comments made against Hadhrath Amīr Muāwiyah bin Abī Sufyān y were brought to the attention of Moulana Uzayr Soofie by one of the local musallees of the Musjid Soofie Subhani in Newlands West, Durban. The objections were tabled as part of the monthly I.L.S. Ulama study group which was attended and sanctioned by;

  1. Muftī Moin Moeeni (Assistant researcher on the article)
  2. Shaykh Faheem
  3. Moulana Saleh Joosab Arbee
  4. Moulana Uzayr Soofie
  5. Moulana Dawood Fickra
  6. Moulana Tabrez Noori
  7. Hafez Abdul Azeem Ziaee
  8. Hafez Talha Kazi
  9. Moulana Ishaq Osman
  10. Moulana Khalid Banda Ahsani

The following Ulama had missed the meeting but have concurred with the information;

  1. Moulana Feroz Osman
  2. Moulana Tahir Janghi
  3. Hafez Riaz Hoosen
  4. Moulana Nadeem Misbahi
  5. Moulana Abdul Qadir Ansari

The standpoint of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamā’ah in relation to the merit of the Ahlul Bayt (Noble Household of the Prophet صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ) and the Sahābas (Illustrious Companions of the Prophet صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ) is to love and honor both accordingly as elucidated in the Qur’ān and Sunnah. We do not ridicule members of either grouping, be it individually or collectively. We acknowledge the erudite members of each category to be praiseworthy after the Prophets عَلَیْھِمُ السَّلَامُ of Allāh Almighty. We further affirm that whilst this article is in defense of a prominent Sahābī viz. Hadhrath Amīr Muāwiyah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ, that we will endeavor to maintain the same stance of defense should anyone ridicule any member of the Household of the Prophet صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ. The I.L.S has already demonstrated this position with our 2015 publication entitled ‘Tragedy at Karbalā[1].

 

The Problem

Some mischief-makers who have too much of time on their hands spread their toxic mentality to the ignorant surfers of the internet in order to create doubt in the minds of the Muslim masses. We will demonstrate from their ‘so-called’ objections that they indeed baseless and are the rants of an emotionally-driven smear campaign on the name of a famous companion whose rule was foretold indirectly by the Prophet صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ, and whose supplication for him was direct.

They are well aware that the general Sunnī public is not well-versed in the in-depth analysis of hadīth and history, hence allowing these mischievous people the necessary scope to exploit such weaknesses. A contributing factor to this is the undeniable fact that the 21st century Muslim pays no heed to the strategic importance of the acquisition of Islamic knowledge because it does not herald the type of monetary reward expected to ‘live’ by. Hence it is important to note that these types of objections from the Shīa can lead even a knowledgeable man to a cul-de-sac of doubt and a possible exiting from the fold of Islām, so how much severe will it impact those whose Islamic knowledge is minimal?

May we all be granted true knowledge of this beautiful deen!

Methodology

Since these objections are immensely immoral allegations laid against Hadhrath Amīr Muāwiyah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ, we will progress to quote the objections verbatim so as to display to the reader the depths of hatred displayed by these wayward people.

In some instances, we will delve into citing Naql (textual evidences) to disprove the objections, and in other cases we will only refute it by the use of Aql (intellectual evidences) as the rational faculty will suffice to any sane person as a refutation.

To think….or not to think?

This is a fundamental question which must be acknowledged in the subject. It seems as though the arguments have evolved to become a debate of ‘Emotion VS Reason’. Those who lean on the subject merely by emotion tend to become blinded to the rational faculty dictating the premise of the subject.

Any thinking person will realize that the Shīa who raise these preposterous objections upon Hadhrath Amīr Muāwiyah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ, only stand to prove that there is no thought process behind their entire argument. Why? Well, when we realize that all the Shīa accept the Prophecy located in Bukhārī regarding Imām Al-Hasan[2] رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ  and the stability which his great sacrifice would brought to the Ummah during that time, it becomes clear that the objectors have abandoned all reason in their argument.

The narration states,

عَنْ أَبِي بَكْرَةَ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ أَخْرَجَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم ذَاتَ يَوْمٍ الْحَسَنَ فَصَعِدَ بِهِ عَلَى الْمِنْبَرِ، فَقَالَ ‏ ابْنِي هَذَا سَيِّدٌ، وَلَعَلَّ اللَّهَ أَنْ يُصْلِحَ بِهِ بَيْنَ فِئَتَيْنِ مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ ‏”

Narrated by Hadhrath Abū Bakrah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ,

“Once the Prophet صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ brought out Al-Hasan and took him up the pulpit along with him and said, “This son of mine is a Sayyid (i.e. chieftain) and I hope that Allāh Almighty will help him bring about reconciliation between two Muslim groups.”[3]

 

The Shīa count this narration as part of the virtues of Imām Al-Hassan رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ which the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamā’ah have no qualms with whatsoever. The two points of discussion here are,

  1. The Prophet صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ mentioned that Imām Al-Hasan رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ would restore equilibrium to the Ummah by bringing together two quarrelling groups of ‘Muslims’. It is unanimously agreed that by Imām Al-Hasan رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ relinquishing his claim to the Khilāfah at that time, that he handed it over to a ‘Muslim’, who in this case was Hadhrath Amīr Muāwiyah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ, under no duress! Hence the Shīa who curse and claim that Muāwiyah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ was out of the fold of Islām must also acknowledge that in order for the prophecy to be fulfilled, that ‘Muslim’ man (Hadhrath Muāwiyah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ) must also be acknowledged, otherwise the prophecy remains unfulfilled!

  1. The fact Imām Al-Hasan رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ gave the Khilāfah over to Hadhrath Muāwiyah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ willingly, is proof that Imām Al-Hasan رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ held him in high esteem. Furthermore, he acknowledged Hadhrath Muāwiyah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ as the Emir of the believers. If Hadhrath Muāwiyah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ was as bad as they portray him to be, certainly a Noble member of the household like that of Imām Al-Hasan رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ would never acknowledge the leadership of such a ‘terrible’ man? The fact that he did so, and the Shīas of today do not acknowledge him, is proof of how far they have strayed from the teachings of their own ‘Imāms’.

The Objections

Some of this information may be difficult for anyone who holds the Sahābas in esteem to stomach, but we assure you that our citation of these objections is only exhibit the lengths that these extremists will take in order to justify their position.

Objection 1:

The first headlined objection reads,

Rasulullah (s) made three Dua’s, one that was rejected’. As further corroboratory evidence to support this ‘misguided’ view, the anonymous author states,

Amongst Ahl’ul Sunnah’s traditions in praise of Hadhrath Umar, they commonly cite this one that we have taken from Riyadh ul Nadira Volume 2 page 13:

“Rasulullah made a dua, O Allah Strengthen Islam by either Umar bin Khattab or Abu Jahil, whoever you prefer more”.

Here Rasulullah made a du’a for Abu Jahil to be guided to the truth but this never transpired, and his example is very much like Mu’awiya’s.”

Rebuttal 1:

 In their blind hatred for Hadhrath Amīr Muāwiyah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ, these fanatics attack the duā of Rasūlullāh r because he r supplicated for Hadhrath Amīr Muāwiyah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ. This is a killer mistake on their part. The proof cited by the anonymous fanatic is probably the weakest proof I have ever seen.  He quotes the famous supplication of the Prophet r which resulted in the Islām of Sayyidunā Umar bin Al-Khattāb رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ. The duā clearly has a ‘choice’. The Prophet صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ supplicated for ‘either’ Umar رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ ‘or’ Abū Jahl. He did not ask for both. Furthermore, the excerpt which he cited explains that the Prophet صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ asked Allāh Almighty to bring into Islām the ‘preferable’ choice ‘between’ the two aforementioned people. It is no secret that Abū Jahl did not accept Islām, whilst Hadhrath Umar رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ accepted Islām and progressed to be the ‘accepted’ Caliph of the Muslims. Hence the duā for Abū Jahl was not rejected because there was a choice between the two and Allāh Almighty accepted the supplication in favour of Hadhrath Umar رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ.

In retrospect, this anonymous Shīa writer has affirmed that Sayyidunā Umar رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ was Allāh’s choice! Hence, he must accept the fact that Allāh Almighty would not choose the Islām of a man who, as they claim is a ‘usurper’ of Sayyindunā Alī’s رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ right to rule! He has indirectly accepted Sayyidunā Umar رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ as being a divine choice by Allāh Almighty, and must now accept him too! Otherwise, he will need to revise his own argument!

Objection 2:  

“Not only is this hadith contrary to logic and historical facts (We will quote that hadīth in the rebuttal) The narrator of this ‘Hadi’ hadith is not a reliable authority The narrator of the tradition in which Rasulullah (s) allegedly called Mu’awiya a Hadi is Abdul Rahman Abi Ameera Qurshee. About him we read in al Istiab Volume 3 page 399:

“Abdul Rahman Abi Ameera Qurshee is not proven to be a Sahabi. He was a Qurshee and a Syrian, his hadith are not deemed as authority and some have rejected this hadith”

Rebuttal 2:

The anonymous hater of the Sahabas has only questioned the supplication of the Prophet صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ because of a narration whereby he صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ prayed for the guidance of Hadhrath Muāwiyah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ. Such are the levels they are willing to stoop down to, even at the expense of weakening the duā of Rasūlullāh صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ!

That narration is as follows and is presented as it is found in the text of the Imām Tirmizhī رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ;

عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ أَبِي عَمِيرَةَ، وَكَانَ، مِنْ أَصْحَابِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَنَّهُ قَالَ لِمُعَاوِيَةَ ‏‏ اللَّهُمَّ اجْعَلْهُ هَادِيًا مَهْدِيًّا وَاهْدِ بِهِ ‏

“Narrated by Abdur Rahmān bin Abī Umairah – and he was one of the Companions of the Messenger صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ of Allāh, from the Prophet صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ, that he صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ said to Muāwiyah, “O Allāh, make him a Hādī (guiding one), and guide (others) by him.”[4]

Imām Tirmizhī رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ himself adds that the narrator in question is in fact a Sahābī of the Prophet صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ. The objector seems to believe that his own understanding of hadīth and the subject of Ilmur-Rijāl[5] is superior to that of the erudite Imām Tirmizhī رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ , who went on to state that the abovementioned narration is not even weak, let alone rejected. After quoting the narration he added,

هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ غَرِيبٌ

“This hadīth is Hasan Gharīb”

Hence according to Imām Tirmizhī رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ, the narration was not even considered weak. In relation to his status of not being a companion of the Prophet صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ – as claimed by this nameless accuser- who has cited an isolated source to justify his view. Allāmah ibn Hajr Al-Asqalānī رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ states regarding Abdur Rahmān bin Abī Umairah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ,

قال أبو حاتم وابن السكن له صحبة ذكره البخاري وابن سعد وابن البرقي وابن حبان وعبد الصمد بن سعيد في الصحابة وذكره أبو الحسن بن سميع في الطبقة الأولى من الصحابة الذين نزلوا حمص

“Abū Hātim and Ibn As-Sakn that he attained the companionship (of the Prophet صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ). Bukhārī, Ibn Sa’d, Ibn Al-Barqī and Abdus Samad bin Saīd counted him as a companion (of the Prophet صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ). Abul Hasan bin Samī’ counted him amongst the forerunners of the companions who resided at Hims”[6]

Ibn Hajr Al-Asqalānī رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ has mentioned numerous scholars who accepted Abdur Rahmān bin Abī Umairah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ as a companion of Rasūlullāh صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ.

Furthermore, Ibn Sa’d mentions,

عن عبد الرحمن بن أبي عميرة وكان من أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه قال في معاوية اللهم اجعله هاديا مهديا اهده واهد به

Abdur Rahmān bin Abī Umairah was of the companions of the Prophet صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ who said about Muāwiyah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنہُ, “O Allāh, make him a Hādī (guiding one), and guide (others) by him”[7]

The above information ought to suffice in the case of the companionship of Hadhrath Abdur Rahmān bin Abī Umairah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ. In order to reject the virtue of Hadrath Amīr Muāwiyah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ, the Shīa have,

  1. Attempted to weaken the power of the supplication of the Prophet صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ.
  2. Robbed a companion of his noble rank.
  3. In hind side, resulting in the questioning of the virtue of Hadhrath Muāwiyah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ.

These are the extreme measures they are willing to pursue in order to create hatred against Hadhrath Muāwiyah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ.

Objection 3:

“Sadly for the advocates of Mu’awiya the embarrassment does not just end there Not a single hadith in praise of Mu’awiya is Sahih The leading ‘Ulama of Ahl al-Sunnah have declared all hadith praising Mu’awiya as fabricated.”

Refutation 3:

Whilst the first part of his statement may have some validity, the statement declaring that the leading Ulama of the Ahlus Sunnah have declared all hadīth in praise of Muāwiyah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ as ‘fabricated’ is a blatant lie!!!

Regarding the issue of no sahīh hadith from the Prophet r in praise of Hadhrath Muāwiyah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ, let us commence by appealing to the rational faculty and remain on the intellectual evidences as it will suffice.

Does the absence of a sahīh report mean that all other reports are fabricated? That is to conclude that since a fire didn’t burn you, that all fires no longer possess the ability to burn! There are numerous narrations about him located in the ‘major’ books of hadīth. The scholars of rijāl have all included him in the rank of the Companion. In fact he was the personal writer of the Messenger صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ and some have cited his hand in writing the revelation as a scribe. Leaving aside all arguments of authenticity or not, Hadhrath Muāwiyah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ is undoubtedly a Sahābī of the Prophet صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ. That alone takes his merit to a level far beyond our reach, and a virtue in itself.

 We do not deny that there are some fabricated narrations in praise of both Sayyidunā Alī رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ as well as Hadhrath Muāwiyah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ. The existence of such fabrications in praise of either of them does not negate their virtue which has been transmitted by numerous sources and has gained intellectual acceptance.

 Regarding all narrations in his praise as being fabricated, the anonymous writer has contradicted himself in the document. If ‘all’ praise in favour of Hadhrath Amīr Muāwiyah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ was indeed fabrication, why did he not deem the hadīth in Tirmizhī (from objection 2) as a fabricated narration? Why did he find the need to scrutinize the narrator, yet not declare it as a fabrication? This is because he knows that it is not fabricated, nor is it weak! In fact, the principle of hadīth has always allowed a ‘weak’ narration to be cited as evidence in matters pertaining to fadhā’il (virtue). We invite them to study the teachings of the principles of hadīth as elucidated by the giants of the field for centuries. A Dha’īf (weak) hadith is not to be equated with a Maudhū’ (fabricated) narration. On the contrary, scholars have always held that a weak hadīth is acceptable in matters of Fadhā’il (virtue) such as,

  • Imām Abū Zakariyya Yahyā bin Sharaf An-Nawāwī Ad-Dimashqī رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ
  • Imām Jalāluddīn As-Suyūtī رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ
  • Mullā Alī Qāri Al-Hanafī رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ
  • Shaykh Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dehlvī رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ

  Others have opined that at certain instances, a weak narration may even reach the status of Hasan Li-ghayrihi. This current sort of equation -of a weak narration to the level of fabrication- has been unheard of for almost 1300 years, that is, until the emergence of the Saudi Wahhabi / Salafi ideology. Hence, for the Shīa to now adopt the same methodology, but by even more extremist ways, is shocking to say the least! If there was indeed nothing virtuous about Hadhrath Muāwiyah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ, would Sayyidunā Umar رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ have appointed him as governor? Were those companions of the Prophet صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ who remained loyal to him all blind? Was the Mother of the Believers, Sayyidah Āishah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ uneducated? We seek refuge with Allāh Almighty lest we feel His wrath for cursing His beloveds!

Objection 4:

“Imam Bukhari on the topic of Mu’awiya wrote a Chapter Bab ai Dhikr Mu’awiya because no hadith in praise of Mu’awiya are proven”

Refutation 4:

Whilst other chapters for other companions have been mentioned in Bukhārī as ‘Bāb Fadhli Falaan’ (Chapter on the Virtue of so and so), there is a chapter in Sahīh Bukhārī titled, ‘Bāb Zhikri Muāwiyah’ (Chapter on the mention of Muāwiyah). However, Imām Bukhārī رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ also discussing the esteemed cousin of the Prophet صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ, Sayyinuā Abdullāh ibn Abbās رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْھُمَا named the chapter ‘Bāb Zhikri Abdullāh bin Abbās رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْھُمَا’. Does this now infer that Imām Bukhārī رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ found no authentic information regarding this learned companion who is also a member of the Ahlul Bayt of Rasūlullāh صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ? Of course, they would never make such a claim because of him being a member of the Ahlul Bayt.

Other esteemed companions whose chapters in Bukhārī did not mention the word ‘virtue’ are,

  1. Hadhrath Talha bin Ubaidillāh رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنہُ (The famous companion who was promised Jannah)
  2. Hadhrath Usāmah bin Zaid رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْھُمَا (The son of Hadhrath Zaid bin Hārithaah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ who was the adopted son of Rasūlullāh صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ)
  3. Hadhrath Mus’ab bin Umair رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ (The famous youth who gave up all luxury for Islām and became the first ambassador of Islām)

 This devious person then carefully selected certain excerpts and quoted them out of context to justify his stance. He famously quotes Ibn Hajr Al-Asqalānī رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ from his famed work ‘Fathul Bārī’ as a means to justify his stance. However, a cursory reading of the named chapter reveals,

عبر البخاري في هذه الترجمة بقوله : ذكر ولم يقل فضيلة ولا منقبة لكون الفضيلة لا تؤخذ من حديث الباب ؛ لأن ظاهر شهادة ابن عباس له بالفقه والصحبة دالة على الفضل الكثير ، وقد صنف ابن أبي عاصم جزءا في مناقبه ، وكذلك أبو عمر غلام ثعلب ، وأبو بكر النقاش

“Bukhāri mentioned ‘zhikr’ rather than Manāqib or Fadhīlah (virtue) because there is no fadhīlah in this (specific) hadith (quoted by Bukhāri) but the apparent testimony of Ibn Abbās is evidence of his (Muāwiyah’s) great virtue (i.e. the words Ibn Abbās رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْھُمَا used for Muāwiyah  رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنہُstating that) he is a faqīh (Jurist) and he was sahābī of Prophet صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ. Ibn Abī Āsim wrote a (separate) section in his (Muāwiyah’s رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنہُ) manāqib, Abū Umar Ghulām Tha’lab and Abū Bakr Naqqāsh also (wrote a section in Manaqib for him)”[8]

Then Ibn Hajr رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ says,

لَكِنْ بدقيق نظره استنبط مَا يدْفع بِهِ رُؤُوس الرَّوَافِضِ

“But with his (Bukhārī’s) deep understanding, He deduced the ruling (from the āthār of Ibn Abbās رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ where he said Muāwiyah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ was a faqīh and sahābī), due to which the leaders of the Rawāfidh (Shīa) are refuted.”[9]

Yet again, this anonymous hater of the Sahābas ‘forgot’ to mention those points (as illustrated above) which are not in conformity with his wayward understanding of the subject.

Objection 5:

“Rasulullah صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ ordered the killing of Mu’awiya in the event of him becoming Khalifa “If you see Mu’awiya on my pulpit then kill him”

Rebuttal 5:

At this point, the reader may wonder how can we even form a rebuttal for such a clear-cut command of the Prophet صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ?

The rational faculty once again causes us to immediately reject such nonsensical claims. Hadhrath Muāwiyah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ accepted Islām during the lifetime of the Prophet صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ. What would be a need for him صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ to issue such a statement for the latter period after his demise, when he could have prevented all that from happening during his lifetime? Surely there must have been something else to it? What about the thousands of illustrious companions and members of the Noble Household, including Imāam Al-Hasan رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ who actually placed Muāwiyah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ in the unified seat of authority? Surely there must be something else to it? How is it possible for so many of the greatest people of this Ummah to pass a blind eye to the command of the Prophet صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ? By the Grace of Allāh Almighty, a cursory study of this ‘supposed’ command to kill Hadhrath Muāwiyah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ reveals the deception of these insolent haters. The narration in Mīzān Al-I’tidāl is as follows,

  حدثنا عباد بن يعقوب، حدثنا الحكم بن ظهير، عن عاصم، عن ذر، عن عبد الله – مرفوعاً: إذا رأيتم معاوية على منبرى فاقتلوه

“Abdullāh narrated, ‘When you see Muāwiyah on my pulpit then kill him”

Imām Zhahabī رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ then states further regarding the narrator of this narration ‘Hakam bin Zhahīr’,

قال ابن معين: ليس بثقة

“Yahyā bin Maīn رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ stated that he not trustworthy”

He then states,

وقال البخاري: منكر الحديث

“Bukhārī stated that his narrations are rejected”

Imām Zhahabī رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ mentions another chain in which Amr bin Ubayd is a narrator. He then states that Amr bin Ubayd used to call towards Shīasm.[10]

Imām Jalāluddīn As-Suyūtī رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ in his famous work documenting numerous fabricated narrations explains,

إذا رأيتم مُعَاويَة عَلَى منبري ، فاقتلوه  . هذا مُعَاويَة بْن تابوت رأس المنافقين ، وكان حلف أن يبول ويتغوط عَلَى منبره ، وليس هُوَ مُعَاويَة بْن سُفْيَان

“When you see Muāwiyah on my pulpit then kill him, this is Muāwiyah bin Tābūt who vowed to urinate and excrete on the mimbar, and this was not Muāwiyah bin Abī Sufyān[11]

Conclusion

We have demonstrated that none of the accusations made by this anonymous Shīa person possesses the necessary scholarship to even make for a valid argument. The claims are based mainly on calculated misinformation in order to create doubt and justify the beating of their chests to their own wayward followers. Such monstrous behaviour is indicative of a vendetta that knows no bounds. We can only request these extremists to change their ways whilst the clock of life still ticks.

May Allāh Almighty reward the Ulamā of Haq for documenting the cited information, as well as the Ulamā and Huffāzh mentioned in this article for taking the time to meet and deal with these type of ridiculous claims.

“If anything good has been achieved by this work, then the praise belongs to Allāh and the faults belong to me!”

Shaykh Faheem

Head of Education and Publications Depts

Islamic Lifestyle Solutions

Durban, South Africa

9/11/2016

[1] Translation of the  book ‘Shām-e-Karbalā’ by Allāmah Shafī O’Karvī رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ

[2] Imām Hasan رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ was the son of Sayyidunā Alī رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ and is regarded as the second Shīa Imām. Whilst we undoubtedly differ with the Shīa on the concept of Imāmat, we do not deprive our Sunnī brethren from the undeniable status of the Noble Household of the Prophet صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَاٰلِہٖ وَسَلَّمَ. We address our scholars of past and present with the title of Imām, and if non-descendants of the Prophet صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ do not need justification for that title, then of course the Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَ اٰلِہٖ وَسَلَّمَ are more worthy! Furthermore, our definition of Imām is more literal, whilst theirs is premised on a Theo-terminological teaching.

[3]  Sahīh Al-Bukhārī – Book of Virtues and Merits of the Prophet صَلَّی اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہِ وَسَلَّمَ and his Companions رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْھُمْ, Chapter on the Signs of Prophethood in Islām, Hadīth 3629

[4]  Jāmi` At-Tirmizhi – Chapters on Virtues, Book 49, Hadith 4213

[5] Ilmur-Rijāl literally meaning ‘Knowledge of Men’ but more commonly understood as the Science of Narration, refers to a discipline of Islamic religious studies within hadīth terminology in which the narrators of hadīth are evaluated. Its goal is to distinguish authentic and reliable narrations from unreliable traditions, in establishing the credibility of the narrators, using both historic and religious knowledge.

[6] Al-Isābah Fī Tamyīzis Sahābah by Ibn Hajr Al-Asqalānī, Volume 3, Page 355,  Published by Dar-el-Fikr, Beirut.

[7] Tabqāt Al-Kubrā of Ibn Sa’d. Online version

[8] Fathul Bārī, Bāb Zhikri Muāwiyah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ, Hadīth no. 3555

[9] Fathul Bārī, Bāb Zhikri Muāwiyah رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنْہُ, Hadīth no. 3555

[10] Mīzāb Al-I’tidāl by Imām Zhahabī under Amr bin Ubayd

[11] Al-La’ālil Masnū’ah fil Ahādīth Al-Maudhū’ah by Imām Suyūtī