top of page
Search

Virtues of Mu'awiyah Part II: The Innovations of Mu'awiyah

  • Writer: Anonymous
    Anonymous
  • Apr 1
  • 38 min read

Updated: Apr 11

< Previous Part: Why was al-Nasa'i killed?

Previously, we discussed how there are no authentic virtues in praise of Mu’awiyah according to many major Sunni scholars, and there are several who do not speak well of him. Despite this, attempts have been made to attribute authentic virtues to Mu’awiyah. However, upon examining these claims, we find many faults and inconsistencies within them. Most of these narrations are reported by Ibn Abi ‘Umairah, whose companionship is not established nor is proven to hear from the Prophet (SAW).

One of the popular cited reports is found in Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3842:

Narrated 'Abdur-Rahman b. Abu 'Umairah - and he was one of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ): From the Prophet (ﷺ), that he said to Mu'awiyah: "O Allah, make him a guiding one, and guide (others) by him."

Another version of this report narrated by the same narrator as: 

 اللهم علم معاوية الكتاب والحساب وقه العذاب

O Allah, teach Muawiyah the Book, maths, and protect him from the punishment.

It is logical to assume that the Prophet (saw) would not make such a statement without reason, Mu‘awiyah must have demonstrated some quality in his presence that prompted this dua. It is common for an individual to be praised only after committing a praiseworthy action, such as on the battlefield or during difficult times like poverty.

Has Mu’awiyah done anything ever recorded for the Prophet (saw) to praise him as a guider? Was he a man of considerable knowledge? Was he a man of piety and righteousness? Was he a man who guided others during the Prophet’s lifetime? No, none of this is true, which places a few questions over the Hadith at face value. 

Moreover, this hadith is not authentic, despite what Darrusalam says. This is agreed upon by Sunni scholars, as Ibn Abi Umaira did not hear this hadith from Rasulullah (saw).  Ibn Abdul Barr says in al-Isti'ab Fi Ma’arift al-Sahaba, pg. 449, Bio # 1547:

 عبد الرحمن بن أبي عميرة: حديثه مضطرب، لا يثبت في الصحابة، وهو شامي. روي عن ربيعة بن يزيد عنه: أنه سمع رسول الله يقول، وذكر معاوية: «اللهم اجعله هادياً مهدياً، واهده واهد به»، ومنهم من يوقف حديثه هذا ولا يرفعه، ولا يصح مرفوعاً عندهم. وحديثه منقطع الإسناد مرسل، لا تثبت أحاديثه، ولا تصح صحبته. 

Abd al-Rahman b. Abi Umayrah: His hadith is inconsistent, and his status as a Companion is not established. He was from Sham. 

It is narrated from Rabi‘ah b. Yazid, from him, that he heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say regarding Mu‘awiyah: "O Allah, make him a guide, rightly guided, and guide others through him." 

Some narrators stop at him and do not attribute the hadith to the Prophet (ﷺ), and it is not considered authentic as a marfu‘ narration. His hadith is disconnected (munqati‘) and mursal (missing links in transmission). His narrations are not established, and his companionship (with the Prophet) is not authentic.

The following scholars also weaken the first report in a similar way:

Mu’awiyah is a Innovator in Religion

The Prophet (saw) made a du’a and he is never rejected by God as he is God’s messenger on earth. If he made a du’a that requested Mu’awiyah to be guided, we would find that he would live up to this name and end up guiding others, but we find the opposite through-out his life. Consider the following Bid’ahs that Mu’awiyah introduced in Islam and whether or not a mubtadi (an innovator) can be considered as a ‘guide’ to Islam. 

In one hadith found in Sahih al-Bukhari 6585 we read:

On the Day of Resurrection a group of companions will come to me, but will be driven away from the Lake-Fount, and I will say, 'O Lord my companions!'. It will be said, 'You have no knowledge as to what they innovated after you left; they turned apostate as renegades (reverted from Islam).

The Ahlul Sunnah claims that all the Sahaba strictly followed the Qur'an and Sunnah, but the hadith above shows that this is not true. On the Day of Judgment, some companions will be driven away from the Lake-Fount because they introduced innovations after Rasulullah (s). This raises an important question: who were these companions? And if they changed the religion, how can they be seen as guides for the Ummah?  

The hadith makes it clear that they will be separated from Rasulullah (s) because of their innovations. Now, we will provide evidence that Muawiyah, whom today's Nawasib try to present as a Hadi, was actually the Chief Innovator. According to the hadith, these actions alone are enough to send him to Hell

Mu’awiyah forbade reciting Talbiya during Hajj

The Talbiyah (تلبية) is a sacred prayer and statements that pilgrims of the Kaaba make during Hajj or Umrah, stating ‘Labayka Allahuma Labayk’ (Here I am, oh Allah, here I am). This is a Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (saw), but when Mu’awiyah came to power he would forbid this practice out of hatred to ‘Ali (as) according to the words of Ibn Abbas:

عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُبَيْرٍ: قَالَ كُنْتُ مَعَ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ بِعَرَفَاتٍ فَقَالَ مَا لِي لاَ أَسْمَعُ النَّاسَ يُلَبُّونَ قُلْتُ يَخَافُونَ مِنْ مُعَاوِيَةَ ‏.‏ فَخَرَجَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ مِنْ فُسْطَاطِهِ فَقَالَ لَبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ لَبَّيْكَ لَبَّيْكَ فَإِنَّهُمْ قَدْ تَرَكُوا السُّنَّةَ مِنْ بُغْضِ عَلِيٍّ ‏.‏

From Saʿid b. Jubayr: He said, "I was with Ibn ʿAbbas at ʿArafat, and he said, 'Why do I not hear the people reciting the Talbiyah?' I said, 'They fear Muʿawiyah.' So Ibn ʿAbbas came out of his tent and said, 'Labbayka Allahumma Labbayk! Labbayk! For indeed, they have abandoned the Sunnah out of hatred for ʿAli.'"

The reason this was out of hatred for ‘Ali (as) was explained by Imam al-Suyuti and al-Sindi, two prominent Sunni scholars, in their Sharh Sunan Nasai, Vol. 5, pg. 279:

أي لأجل بغضه أي وهو كان يتقيد بالسنن فهؤلاء تركوها بغضا له

[They abandoned this Sunnah] because of their hate [of Ali], because he was committed with the Sunnah, so they abandoned it because of their hate towards him.

In another version of this report, Ibn Abbas actually curses Mu’awiyah! Refer to al-Bayhaqi’s Sunan al-Kubra, Vol. 5 pg. 183, H. # 9447 where he records:

أخبرنا أبو الحسن محمد بن الحسين العلوي، أنبأ عبد الله بن محمد بن الحسن ابن الشرقي، ثنا علي بن سعيد النسوي، ثنا خالد بن مخلد، ثنا علي بن صالح ، عن ميسرة بن حبيب النهدي عن المنهال بن عمرو عن سعيد بن جبير، قال: كنا عند ابن عباس بعرفة فقال : يا سعيد مالي لا أسمع الناس يلبون، فقلت يخافون معاوية، فخرج ابن عباس من فسطاطه فقال : لبيك اللهم لبيك وإن رغم أنف ،معاوية ، اللهم العنهم فقد تركوا السنة من بغض علي رضي الله عنه

From Saʿid b. Jubayr, who said: "We were with Ibn ʿAbbas at ʿArafah, and he said, 'O Saʿid, why do I not hear the people reciting the Talbiyah?' I said, 'They fear Muʿawiyah.' So Ibn ʿAbbas came out of his tent and said, 'Labbayka Allahumma Labbayk! Even if Muʿawiyah dislikes it! O Allah, curse them, for they have abandoned the Sunnah out of hatred for ʿAli, may Allah be pleased with him.'"

It is worth mentioning that Ibn ʿAbbas did not attempt to justify Muʿawiyah by suggesting he exercised ijtihad. Instead, he explicitly stated that the Sunnah was abandoned due to Muʿawiyah’s hatred of Imam ʿAli (as). This is a strong rebuttal to those who argue that the Umayyads' hostility towards Imam ʿAli (as) was purely political and had no religious basis. The narration makes it clear that Muʿawiyah’s hatred was so extreme that he abolished a Sunnah of Rasulullah (saw)- reciting the Talbiyah in Hajj- simply because Imam ʿAli (as) practiced it. Ibn ʿAbbas was firm in stating that this decision was driven by hatred, not political rivalry. When a religious act is prohibited solely because Imam ʿAli (as) performed it, the motivation is undeniably religious, not just political.

Mu’awiyah made the Bismillah silent

That wasn’t the only legislation that Mu’awiyah had changed over hatred of Ali (as). He would also recite the Bismillah silently, which is known to be recited out loud- especially by Imam Ali (as). Consider the following said by Fakhr al-Din al-Razi in Tafsir al-Kabir, Vol.1 pg. 168 - 169:

يروى البيهقي في السنن الكبرى عن أبي هريرة قال: كان رسول الله يجهر في الصلوة ببسم الله الرحمن الرحيم ، ثم إن الشيخ البيهقي روى الجهر عن عمر بن الخطاب ، وابن عباس ، وابن عمر ، وابن الزبير، وأما أن علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه كان يجهر بالتسمية فقد ثبت بالتواتر، ومن إقتادى في دينه بعلي بن ابي طالب فقد إهتدى، والدليل عليه قوله عليه السلام : اللهم أدر الحق مع علي حيث دار. وهي أن علياً عليه السلام كان يبالغ في الجهر بالتسمية ، فلما وصلت الدولة إلى بني أمية بالغوا في المنع من الجهر ، سعياً في إبطال آثار علي عليه السلام ، فلعل أنساً خاف منهم فلهذا السبب إضطربت أقواله فيه 

Al-Bayhaqi narrated in Sunan Al-Kubra from Abu Huraira, who said: "The Messenger of Allah (saw) used to recite aloud in prayer: Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim." Then, Al-Bayhaqi also narrated the practice of reciting aloud from Umar b. al-Khattab, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar, and Ibn al-Zubayr. 

As for Ali b. Abi Talib (ra), his recitation of Bismillah aloud is established by tawatur (mass-transmission). Whoever follows Ali b. Abi Talib in his religion is guided, as proven by the saying of the Prophet (saw): "O Allah, make the truth revolve with Ali wherever he turns." It is known that Ali (as) used to emphasize reciting Bismillah aloud. 

However, when power passed to Banu Umayyah, they sought to prevent this practice to erase the traces of Ali (as). Perhaps Anas feared them, which is why his statements on this matter appear inconsistent.

The Umayyads would prohibit and change practices within the prayer out of pure hatred of following in the footsteps of Ali (AS). This is why Sunni-Shia fiqh is so different at times, because many of the Umayyad rulers would change the religion to avoid appearing similar to ‘Ali, even if he was on the truth and they had to contradict it. For them, hatred of Ali was stronger than love for the truth- assuming there even was any. 

Mu’awiyah rejected praying Qasr while travelling

When going Hajj, you are considered a traveller unless you actually live in Mecca, but neither ‘Uthman or Mu’awiyah lived there, hence they’re supposed to shorten their prayers as per the Qur’an: And when you travel throughout the land, there is no blame upon you for shortening the prayer. [4:101] This is known as a Qasr prayer. 

However, while Mu’awiyah knew of this basic ruling, it is unsurprising that his predecessor, Uthman, was completely ignorant of this. This is such that Uthman would pray the full prayer even while he was on Hajj, and no one dared to correct the Umayyad ruler lest they face the edge of his sword. In fact, even Mu’awiyah did not wish to correct this Sunnah, and rather continued on the ignorant path of Uthman to avoid ‘insulting him’! 

لما قَدِمَ علينا معاوية حاجّاً قَدِمنا معه مكة، قال: فصلى بنا الظُّهرَ ركعتين، ثم انصرف إلى دار الندوة، قال: وكان عُثمان -حين أتمَّ الصَّلاةَ- ِإذا قَدِمَ مكة صلَّى بها الظُّهرَ والعَصْرَ والعِشاءَ الآخِرَةَ أَرْبعاً أَرْبعاً، فإذا خَرَجَ إلى مِني وعَرَفات قَصَرَ الصَّلَاة، فإذا فَرَغَ من الحج وأقامَ بمِنى أتمَّ الصَّلاةَ حتى يَخْرُجَ من مكة، فلما صلى بنا معاويةُ الظُّهْرَ ركعتين نَهَضَ إليه مروانُ بنُ الحَكَم وعَمْرُو بنُ عُثمان، فقالا له: ما عابَ أحدٌ ابن عمك بأقبح ما عِبْتَهُ به، فقال لهما وما ذاك؟ قال: فقالا له : أَلَمْ تَعْلَمْ أَنَّه أَتَمَّ الصَّلاةَ بمكة، قال : فقال لهما : وَيْحَكُما، وهل كان غير ما صنعتُ؟! قد صلَّيْتُهُما مع رسول الله ﷺ ومع أبي بكرٍ وعُمرَ رضي الله عنهما قالا : فإِنَّ ابنَ عمّك قد كان أتمها، وإِنَّ خِلافَكَ إِيَّاهُ له عَيْبٌ، قال: فَخَرَجَ معاوية إلى العَصْرِ فصلاها بنا أربعا

"When Muʿawiyah came to us for Hajj, we accompanied him to Makkah. He led us in the Ẓuhr prayer, praying two rakʿahs (as Qasr), and then went to Dār al-Nadwah. ʿUthmān, when he completed the prayer, used to pray Ẓuhr, ʿAṣr, and ʿIshāʾ in Makkah as four rakʿahs. However, when he went to Minā and ʿArafāt, he shortened the prayer. After completing the Hajj, if he remained in Minā, he would perform full prayers until he left Makkah.  

When Muʿawiyah led us in Ẓuhr as two rakʿahs, Marwān b. al-Ḥakam and ʿAmr b. ʿUthmān approached him and said, ‘No one has ever criticized your cousin as harshly as you have just done.’ Muʿawiyah asked, ‘What do you mean?’  They replied, ‘Don’t you know that he (ʿUthmān) completed the prayer in Makkah? Your opposition to him is a serious fault.’ So, when Muʿawiyah came out for ʿAṣr, he led it as four rakʿahs."

Muʿawiyah clearly knew the correct Sunnah, shortening the prayer during Hajj, as practiced by Rasulullah (saw). Yet, he chose to abandon this in favor of ʿUthmān’s innovation of completing the prayer. Why prioritize ʿUthmān’s bidʿah over the established Sunnah? It seems Muʿawiyah chose family loyalty over sticking to the Prophet’s (saw) practice. For those who revere him, this raises the question: is it really fitting for someone hailed as a leader to put politics before the Qur’an and Sunnah?

Mu’awiyah reduced Takbirs in the daily prayer

Muʿāwiyah didn’t only alter the ʿĪd prayers, but introduced bidʿahs to the daily prayers by reducing the number of Takbīrs in the daily prayers. After rukūʿ, we stand up and then go down to sujūd, and we say Allāhu Akbar before going to sujūd. However, Muʿāwiyah abandoned this practice for the same reason he forbade Tamattuʿ, which was following in the footsteps of the second most ignorant man in Islamic Law, ʿUthmān.

Al-Shawkani explains this issue in Nayl al-Awtar, vol. 2 pg. 265:

وروى [الطبراني] عن أبي هريرة أن أول من ترك التكبير معاوية. وروى أبو عبيد أن أول من تركه زياد. وهذه الروايات غير متنافية لأن زياداً تركه بترك معاوية وكان معاوية تركه بترك عثمان، وقد حمل ذلك جماعة من أهل العلم على الإخفاء، وحكى الطحاوي أن بني أمية كانوا يتركون التكبير في الخفض دون الرفع، وما هذه بأول سنة تركوها .

Al-Ṭabarānī narrated from Abū Hurayrah that the first to abandon the Takbīr was Muʿāwiyah. Abū ʿUbayd narrated that the first to abandon it was Ziyād. These narrations are not contradictory, as Ziyād abandoned it due to Muʿāwiyah's action, and Muʿāwiyah abandoned it due to ʿUthmān’s practice. Some scholars explained this as a form of concealment. Al-Ṭaḥāwī mentioned that the Umayyads would abandon the Takbīr during the lowering (of the head), but not during the raising. This, however, was not the first Sunnah they abandoned.  

Mu’awiyah innovated the Eid Adhan

It is well-known amongst the Sunnah that an Adhan is not recited for the Eid prayers. Just refer to Sunan an-Nasa'i 1575:

I attended the prayer with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) on the day of 'Eid. He started with the prayer before the Khutbah, with no Adhan and no Iqamah. 

But Mu’awiyah departed from this Sunnah, where we read in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shayba Vol. 4 pg. 216:

وقال قتادة‏:‏ عن سعيد بن المسيب‏:‏ أوّل من أحدث الأذان في العيد معاوية.

Qatādah narrated from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyib: The first to introduce the Adhān on Eid was Muʿāwiyah.

The author of Sharh Jami' at-Tirmidhi, vol. 3 pg. 76 affirmed this report as authentic, and likewise did al-Qastalani in Irshad al-Sari, vol 2, pg. 653. 

Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani likewise affirms this matter in Fathul Bari Vol. 2 pg. 525:

واختلف في أول من حالا الأذان فيها أيضا فروى بن أبي شيبة بإسناد صحيح عن سعيد بن المسيب أنه معاوية وروى الشافعي عن الثقة عن الزهري مثله وزاد فأخذ به الحجاج حين أمر على المدينة وروى ابن المنذر عن حصين بن عبد الرحمن قال أول من أحدثه زياد بالبصرة وقال الداودي أول من أحدثه مروان وكل هذا لا ينافي أن معاوية أحدثه كما تقدم في البداءة بالخطبة

There is a difference of opinion regarding who was the first to establish the practice of giving both the Adhān and Iqāmah on the Day of Fitr and the Day of Nahr. Ibn Abī Shaybah narrates, with an authentic chain of transmission, that it was Muʿāwiyah. Similarly, al-Shāfiʿī narrates from a reliable source that al-Zuhrī said the same, adding that Ḥajjāj ibn Yūsuf adopted this practice when he became the governor of Madinah. On the other hand, Ibn al-Mundhir narrates from Ḥusayn b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān that the first person to introduce this practice in Basrah was Ziyād, while al-Dāwdī claims that it was Mārwān. 

However, all these opinions do not contradict the earlier narration that Muʿāwiyah was the one who first introduced the practice, as mentioned in the case of beginning the sermon.

Mu’awiyah innovated the Eid Khutba

The Eid prayer does not have a Khutba before it’s prayer according to the Sunnah, such as in Sahih Muslim 885b and in Imam Malik’s Muwatta 431:

Jabir b. ‘Abdullah reported: I observed prayer with the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) on the ‘Id day. He commenced with prayer before the sermon without Adhan and Iqama.

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard more than one of their men of knowledge say, “There has been no call to prayer or iqama for the id al-Fitr or the id al-Adha since the time of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.” Malik said, “That is the sunnah about which there is no disagreement among us.”

However, when Mu’awiyah came to power, he would introduce the Khutba before the Eid prayer, as we read in Al-Umm lil-Shafi‘i Vol. 1, pg. 235:

أخبرنا الربيع قال أخبرنا الشافعي قال أخبرنا احتمة عن الزهرى أنه قال لم يؤذن للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ولا لأبي بكر ولا لعمر ولا لعثمان في العيدين حتى أحدث ذلك معاوية بالشام

Al-Rabi' narrated to us, saying: Al-Shafi'i told us, saying: Ihtimah narrated to us from Al-Zuhri that he said: 

"The Prophet ﷺ, nor Abu Bakr, nor Umar, nor Uthman were given permission to call the Adhan (call to prayer) for the two Eids, until Mu'awiyah introduced this practice in al-Sham (Greater Syria)."

Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani in Fath al-Bari Vol. 3, pg. 279:

 أن معاوية أحدثه كما تقدم في البداءة بالخطبة

Mu‘awiyah was the one who originally introduced it, as mentioned earlier regarding beginning the Eid sermon before the prayer.

This was affirmed by numerous sources, but Sunni scholars acknowledge this very well hence no need to delve into all the sources.

Mu’awiyah shortened the Iqamah in prayers

Mu’awiyah’s distortion in the method of prayers prescribed by Almighty continues, al-Dhahabi says in Tanqih al-Tahqiq, Vol. 1, pg. 113:

وقال النخعي : أول من نقص الإقامة معاوية

وقال مجاهد: كان الأذان والإقامة مثنى مثنى، فلما قام بنو أمية أفردوا الإقامة.

Al-Nakhʿī said: The first to shorten the Iqāmah was Muʿāwiyah.

Mujahid said: “Adhan and Iqamah, both were double, but when Bani Umayyah ruled they made the Iqamah single”.

So, Muʿāwiyah introduced the Iqāmah in Eid prayers, which was not prescribed by Allah (swt), and he also shortened the Iqāmah in daily prayers, whereas it should have been maintained according to Sunni texts. We do not know why Muʿāwiyah had the habit of interfering with the decisions set by Allah (swt)!

Mu’awiyah rejected the legal rules of Islam

We have demonstrated examples of how Mu’awiyah changed the laws of Islam out of ignorance, politics and hatred of Ali (AS). We will now cover numerous examples where Mu’awiyah rejected and opposed the legal teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah, voiding him of being any sort of guide. 

Mu’awiyah declared Ziyad as his real brother

One of the famous acts committed by Mu’awiyah where he contradicted the Shari’a was when he violated the Qur’anic injunctions by declaring Ziyad, a bastard son, as his real brother. He did this when he appointed Ziyad as his governor, thus altering the shari’a based on his whims and desires. 

The Holy Qur’an says in Surat Ahzab 33:4-5:

And he has not made your adopted sons your [true] sons. That is [merely] your saying by your mouths, but Allah says the truth, and He guides to the [right] way. 

Call them by [the names of] their fathers; it is more just in the sight of Allah. But if you do not know their fathers - then they are [still] your brothers in religion and those entrusted to you. And there is no blame upon you for that in which you have erred but [only for] what your hearts intended. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.

Rasulullah (saw) is also to have said in Sahih Muslim 61 and 63b, the following:

No person who claimed knowingly anyone else as his father besides his own committed anything except infidelity.

He who claimed for another one his fatherhood besides his own father knowingly that he was not his father, to him Paradise is forbidden.

Al-Suyuti in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim says in Al-Dibaj, vol. 1, pg. 84:

لما ادعي زياد مبني للمفعول، أي ادعاه معاوية وألحقه بأبيه أبي سفيان بعد أن كان يعرف بزياد بن أبيه، لأن أمه ولدته على فراش عبيد، وهذه أول قضية غير فيها الحكم الشرعي في الإسلام.

When Ziyad was claimed- meaning he was claimed by Mu'awiya and attributed to his father, Abu Sufyan- he had previously been known as Ziyad b. Abiha, as his mother had given birth to him on the bed of ‘Ubayd. This was the first case in Islam where a legal ruling was altered.

Despite these clear rulings issued by the Prophet that prohibit claiming someone as a father without clear knowledge, Mu’awiyah claimed Ziyad as his real brother son of Abu Sufyan despite there being no evidence to prove this, especially since his mother birthed him in another man’s bed! 

This was recognised by even the early Muslims, for reference refer to Ibn Abdul Barr in al-Estidhkaar, vol. 7 pg. 169:

قَالَ سُفْيَانُ : قَالَ ابْنُ أبي نجيح : قال : أول حكم بُدِّلَ فِي الإِسلام استلحاق معاوية زياداً. وَرَوَى شَعْبَةُ ، عَنْ سَعْدِ بْنِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ الْمُسَيِّبِ ، قَالَ : أَولُ قَضاءٍ عَلِمْتُهُ مِنْ قَضاءِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ﷺ رُدْ دَعْوَة زِيَادٍ.

Sufyan said that Ibn Abi Nujayh stated: "The first ruling to be altered in Islam was Mu'awiya's legitimization of Ziyad."  

Shu'ba narrated from Sa'd b. Ibrahim, from Sa'id b. al-Musayyib, who said: "The first judgment I knew to be rejected from the rulings of the Messenger of Allah (saw) was the claim of Ziyad."

The major jurists of the Sunnis like Ahmad b. Hanbal says the same, as recorded in Masa’il Harb, vol. 1, pg. 325, H. # 272:

قال أحمد: أول قضاء علم برده من قضاء رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ‌دعوة ‌زياد.

Ahmad said: “The first law of the Holy Prophet (SAW) that was rejected is the case of Ziyad.”

The famous historian, Ibn al-Athir, likewise says in Tarikh al-Kamil, vol. 3, pg. 41:

فاستلحقه معاوية، وكان استلحاقة أوّل ما رُدّتْ أحكام الشريعـة عــلانيـة، فإنّ رسول الله ﷺ قضى بالولد للفراش، وللعاهر الحجر.

Mu'awiyah legitimized him, and this act was the first public rejection of Islamic legal rulings. The Messenger of Allah (saw) had ruled that a child belongs to the marriage bed, and the adulterer gets nothing.

Hasan b. Farhan al-Maliki records in Nahu Inqad al-Tarikh, pg. 31:

فلما كان في أيام معاوية شهد جماعة على اقرار أبي سفيان بأن زياداً ولده فاستلحقه معاوية بذلك وخالف الحديث الصحيح أن الولد للفراش وللعاهر الحجر» !! وذلك لغرض دنيوي!! وقد أنكر هذه الواقعة على معاوية من أنكرها وقد أجمع أهل العلم على تحريم نسبته إلى أبي سفيان وما وقع من أهل العلم في زمان بنی أمية فإنما هو تقبة.

During the time of Mu'awiya, a group of people testified that Abu Sufyan had acknowledged Ziyad as his son. Based on this, Mu'awiya legitimized him, contradicting the authentic hadith: "The child belongs to the marriage bed, and the adulterer gets nothing." This was done for worldly gain. Many scholars condemned this act, and there was a consensus among scholars on the prohibition of attributing Ziyad to Abu Sufyan. As for those scholars who allowed it during the Umayyad era, it was only out of coercion. 

Mu’awiyah allowed two sisters to marry

Al-Suyuti records in Durr al-Manthur, Vol. 2 pg. 477:

وأخرج ابن المنذر عن القاسم بن محمد. أن حياً سألوا معاوية عن الاختين مما ملكت اليمين يكونان عند الرجل يطؤهما ؟ قال : ليس بذلك بأس . فسمع بذلك النعمان بن بشير فقال : أفتيت بكذا وكذا ...؟ قال : نعم .

Ibn al-Mundhir narrated from al-Qasim b. Muhammad that a group of people asked Mu‘awiyah about having intercourse with two sisters from among those whom one’s right hand possesses. Mu‘awiyah said, "There is no harm in that." When al-Nu‘man b. Bashir heard of this, he said, "Did you give such a ruling?" Mu‘awiyah replied, "Yes."  

Perhaps this so called guide has never opened up the book of Allah before to know that such a practice is vehemently condemned in Islam, for the Almighty states: And [also prohibited are] the wives of your sons who are from your [own] loins, and that you take [in marriage] two sisters simultaneously. [4:23] 

Mu’awiyah changed laws regarding non-muslims

Ibn Kathir in his esteemed work Al-Bidayah wal-Nihaya, Vol.1 pg. 448 while recording the ‘merits’ of Mu’awiyah states:

وقال أبو اليمان، عن شُعيب ، عن الزهرى : مَضَت السُّنَّةُ أَن لا يَرِثَ الكافر المسلم ، ولا المسلمُ الكافر، وأولُ مَن وَرَّث المسلم من الكافر معاوية ، وقَضَى بذلك بنو أُمية بعده.

Abu al-Yaman narrated from Shu'ayb, from al-Zuhri: "The established Sunnah is that a disbeliever does not inherit from a Muslim, nor does a Muslim inherit from a disbeliever. The first to grant inheritance from a disbeliever to a Muslim was Mu'awiya, and the Umayyads continued this ruling after him."

Mu’awiya’s introduction of this practice was an open violation to the teachings of Sunni Islam as we read in Sahih al-Bukhari 6764:

A Muslim cannot be the heir of a disbeliever, nor can a disbeliever be the heir of a Muslim.

The only reason Mu’awiyah changed this law is so that he could continue with his political game of bribery! This is not the only law he changed regarding the disbelievers, for on the next page on pg. 449 we read:

ومضت السنة‏:‏ أن دية المعاهد كدية المسلم، وكان معاوية أول من قصرها إلى النصف، وأخذ النصف لنفسه‏.‏

It is established by the Sunnah that the blood money (diyya) for a non-Muslim living under Islamic protection (mu'ahid) is the same as that of a Muslim. However, Mu'awiya was the first to reduce it by half, taking the other half for himself.

Mu’awiyah is just claiming the blood money owed to non-muslims for himself, with no justification from the Qur’an or Sunnah. What kind of guide would do such?

Mu’awiyah changed Zakat laws

We read in Sahih Muslim 985 c:

We, on behalf of young or old, free or slave, used to take out the Zakat of Fitr while the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) was among us, in three kinds, one sa' of dates, one sa' of cheese, or one sa' of barley, and we continued to take that out till the time of Mu'awiya, for he saw that two mudds of wheat were equal to one sa' of dates. Abu Sa'id said: I would continue to take that out as before (i e. one sa' of wheat).

Based on modern volume measurements a prophetic mudd (1/4 saa'). When Rasulullah (s) was giving one sa' of wheat it meant four mudd. When Mu'awiya came to power he changed the amount of zakat that Rasulullah (s) had calculated, four mudds he calculated were changed to two mudds. Mu'awiya based this on his assumption that Syrian land was greater in value and should be valued differently, meaning that the poor received less zakat than the Rasulullah (s). 

This was open defiance to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) and Allah (swt) says in Surah Ahzab 33:36:

وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ وَلَا مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَى ٱللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُۥٓ أَمْرًا أَن يَكُونَ لَهُمُ ٱلْخِيَرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ ۗ وَمَن يَعْصِ ٱللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُۥ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلَٰلًا مُّبِينًا

And it becometh not a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His messenger have decided an affair (for them), that they should (after that) claim any say in their affair; and whoso is rebellious to Allah and His messenger, he verily goeth astray in error manifest.

Mu’awiyah rejected to justly enforce hudud on thieves

If you commit theft and fulfill the legal criteria for this crime, then your outcome is as the Qur’an says: As for the thief, whether male or female, cut off their hands as an exemplary punishment from Allah for their transgression [5:33]

Moreover, if someone bought something that they were unaware of being stolen, according to the hadith in Sunan an-Nasa'i 4680 the following occurs:

There was the governor of Al-Yamamah, and Marwan wrote to him saying that Mu'awiyah had written to him, saying that any man who had something stolen from him had more right to it wherever he found it. 

I wrote to Marwan saying that the Prophet had ruled that if the one who bought it from the one who stole it is not guilty of anything (and did not realize that it was stolen goods), then the owner has the choice: If he wishes, he may buy it from the one who bought it from the thief, or if he wishes he may go after the thief. Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthman also passed judgment along these lines. 

This means that the person who bought a stolen item has a right to keep it, since he could not know that it was a stolen item. The owner can either buy the item back, or he can seek compensation from the thief. However, the narration continues to say that Mu’awiyah decided to change this ruling:

Marwan sent my letter to Mu'awiyah, and Mu'awiyah wrote to Marwan (saying): 'Neither you nor Usaid are in a position to tell me what to do, rather I am the one who tells you what to do because I am superior in rank to you, so do what I tell you.' 

This change to theft laws was not the only thing Mu’awiyah innovated, as in another narration recorded in Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah, pg. 321 by al-Mawardi (d. 450 H) states:

It is related that Mu’awiyah had the arms of the band of thieves cut off. When the last one’s turn came for the cutting, he recited the following lines: 

"Commander of the Faithful, listen to my appeal, my right arm—do not torture it by severing. If left covered, my hand will be like a pretty woman, and a pretty woman is not exposed to anything shameful. What good will remain in the world if a right hand parts from its left?"

Mu’awiyah said, “What am I to do with you after I had your companions amputated?”. Whereupon the thief’s mother retorted, “Why, you make this one of the sins you ask God to forgive!”. So, he released him, and that was the first mandatory punishment [Hadd] pardoned in Islam.

In this narration, Mu‘awiyah correctly imposes the theft law on a couple of individuals but decides to pardon one man after a mother persuades him to commit a sin and later repent. What kind of guide is this, who plays with the laws of God not by the hand of justice, but according to his own opinions and views?

 Mu’awiyah changed ghanima laws

The Qur’an and Sunnah dictated that the fifth portion of war booty (ghanima) be placed into the treasury and the remaining four-fifths be distributed amongst the troops that participated in the battle, but Mu’awiyah issued an order that from the war booty gold and silver would be removed, and the remainder be distributed.

A number of esteemed sunni scholars have recorded:

Al-Hassan said: ‘Ziyad wrote to al-Hakam ibn Amro al-Ghafari while he was a governor of Khurasan: ‘The Ameer al-Momineen wants to store the yellow (gold) and white (silver) (from the booty) and don’t distribute these among the people.”

The correct meaning of the words ‘yellow’ and ‘white’ mentioned in the above cited traditions is explained by Ibn Manzur in Lisan al-Arab, Vol. 4 pg. 460:

الصفراء : الذهب ، والبيضاء : الفضة

Yellow: Gold, and white: silver

Other scholars that say the same include:

In another report it’s recorded:

  أن معاوية خطب يوم جمعة فقال : إنما المال مالنا ، والفيء فيئنا ، فمن شئنا أعطيناه ، ومن شئنا منعناه ، في كلام طويل 

Muʿawiyah delivered a sermon on a Friday and said: 'The wealth belongs to us, and the fayʾ is ours. We give it to whomever we wish, and we withhold it from whomever we wish,' in a lengthy speech."

Mu’awiyah says all this while the Qur’an prohibits him from acting so. When this was addressed to him, the following occurs in Sahih al-Bukhari 4660:

I passed by Abu Dharr said to him, "What has brought you to this land?" He said, "We were at Sham and I recited the Verse: "They who hoard up gold and silver and spend them not in the way of Allah; announce to them a painful torment" (9.34) where upon Muawiya said, 'This Verse is not for us, but for the people of the Scripture.' Then I said, 'But it is both for us and for them.'”

We see here that not only was Mu’awiya hoarding gold and silver, he was incorrectly interpreting the Qur’an to try and excuse his conduct. When Abu Dharr (AS) confronted Mu’awiyah for this matter, he simply dismissed him by denying the verse altogether, because it is very clear that the meaning of this verse is not about non-muslims, but to both!

In Tabaqat Ibn Saad, Vol. 5 pg. 305, Mu’awiya had deprived the people from their due share of Khums:

Yahya bin Shibl said: ‘I sat with Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas and Abi Jafar Muhammad bin Ali, then a man came to them and cursed Umar bin Abdul Aziz, so they prohibit him (of cursing) and said: ‘We never received Khums since Mu’awiya’s reign till today and Umar bin Abdul Aziz gave it to Bani Abdul Muttalib’

Mu’awiyah permitted alcohol

It has been recorded by Imam of Ahlus Sunnah Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his Musnad Ahmad b. Hanbal Vol. 38 pg. 25 - 26, Hadith # 22941:

حدثنا زيد بن الحُبَاب، حدثني حُسَين، حدثنا عبد الله بن بريدة ، قال :دخلتُ أنا وأبي على معاويةَ فأَجلَسَنا على الفُرش، ثم أتينا بالطعام ،فَأَكَلْنا، ثم أُتينا بالشَّراب فشَربَ معاوية، ثم ناول : أبي، ثم قال : ما شَربتُه منذ حَرَّمَه رسول الله ﷺ ثم قال معاوية : كنت أجمل شباب قريش ، وأَجُودَه ثَغراً، وما شيء كنتُ أَجِدُّ له لَذَّةٌ كما كنتُ أَجده وأنا شاب غيرَ اللَّبَن، أو إنسان حسنِ الحديث يُحدِّثُني.

Abdullah b. Buraidah said: "I entered with my father to see Mu'awiya, and he seated us on cushions. Then food was brought, and we ate. Afterward, a drink was brought, and Mu'awiya drank, then handed it to my father. He then said, 'I haven't drunk it since the Messenger of Allah (saw) prohibited it.' Then Mu'awiya said: 'I was the most handsome young man in Quraysh and the most generous in spirit. There was nothing I found more enjoyable when I was young than either milk or a person with good conversation who would speak to me.'"

The editor of this print says it is reliable, and in Majma al-Zawa'id, Vol. 5 pg. 37 Hadith # 8022 al-Haythami also authenticates the report. 

Mu’awiya's love for alcohol was such that he even recited couplets praising it after getting unconscious due to intoxication We read an episode recorded in Tarikh Ibn Asakir, Vol. 27 pg. 312  about the meeting of two old friends, one being Abdullah b. Harith and the other one was Mu’awiyah, he would eventually say:

وأنت الذي تقول: شربتُ الخمرَ حتى صرت كلاً على الأدنى ومالي من صديق

[Abdullah b. Harith says]: And you (Mu’awiyah) are the one who said: I drank wine until I became a burden to those close to me, and I don’t have a friend.  

Imam Abu Sa'id al-Haitham in Musnad Al-Shashi, Vol. 3, pg. 172 - 174, H. # 1257 records a more detailed narrative:

Ubadah b. al-Samit once saw a cart carrying wine while he was in Syria. He asked, "What is this? Oil?" They replied, "No, it is wine being sold to so-and-so." He took a knife from the market and went to the cart, slashing every container of wine. 

At that time, Abu Hurayrah was in Syria, so a person sent a message to him saying: "Won’t you stop your brother Ubadah b. al-Samit?... Please stop him." So Abu Hurayrah walked to Ubadah and entered upon him, saying: "O Ubadah, what is your issue with Muawiyah?

Ubadah responded, "O Abu Hurayrah, you were not with us when we gave our allegiance to the Messenger of Allah (saw). We pledged to him to listen and obey in times of ease and difficulty, to spend in times of hardship and ease, to enjoin good and forbid evil, to speak the truth about Allah without fear of the blame of anyone, and to support him when he came to us in Medina, protecting him as we protect our own lives, wives, and families.  

A similar narrative also appears Ibn Asakir’s Tarikh Dimashq, Vol. 26 pg. 197 - 198 and in Siyar A’lam al-Nubala, Vol. 2 pg. 9 - 10, but it seems that the name of Mu’awiyah as been censored from the recent versions of these books and instead the word “Fulan” appears, but in any case, the fact that Ubada b. Samit spilled the alcohol belonging to the ruler of Syria is still clear evidence for being Mu’awiyah. Otherwise, why would Abu Huraira bring up his name?

Muawiya’s addiction to alcohol was sustained by an extensive smuggling operation. Consider the following report:

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ حَمْدَانَ، ثنا الْحَسَنُ بْنُ سُفْيَانَ، ثنا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ مُوسَى السُّدِّيُّ، ثنا أَبُو تُمَيْلَةَ يَحْيَى بْنُ وَاضِحٍ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِسْحَاقَ، عَنْ بُرْدَةَ بْنِ سُفْيَانَ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ كَعْبٍ الْقُرَظِيِّ، قَالَ: " غَزَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ سَهْلٍ الْأَنْصَارِيُّ فِي زَمَانِ عُثْمَانَ، وَمُعَاوِيَةُ أَمِيرٌ عَلَى الشَّامِ، فَمَرَّتْ بِهِ رَوَايَا خَمْرٍ تُحْمَلُ لِمُعَاوِيَةَ، وَبُرٌّ فَقَامَ إِلَيْهَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بِرُمْحِهِ، فَنَقَرَ كُلَّ رَاوِيَةٍ مِنْهَا، فَنَاوَشَهُ غِلْمَانُهُ حَتَّى بَلَغَ مَثْأَنَةَ مُعَاوِيَةَ، فَقَالَ: دَعُوهُ فَإِنَّهُ شَيْخٌ قَدْ ذَهَبَ عَقْلُهُ، فَقَالَ: كَذَبَ وَاللهِ، مَا ذَهَبَ عَقْلِي، وَلَكِنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَهَانَا أَنْ نُدْخِلَ بُطُونَنَا، وَأَسْقِيَتَنَا، وَأَحْلِفُ بِاللهِ لَئِنْ أَنَا بَقِيَتُ حَتَّى أَرَى فِي مُعَاوِيَةَ مَا سَمِعْتُ مِنَ رَسُولِ اللهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، لَأَبْقُرَنَّ بَطْنَهُ وَلَأَمُوتَنُّ دُونَهُ

Abdur-Rahman b. Sahl al-Ansari participated in a campaign during the time of Uthman, and Muawiyah was the governor of Syria. He came across containers of wine being carried for Muawiyah, and wheat. Abdur-Rahman took his spear and went to each of the containers, piercing them. His servants confronted him until they reached the place where Muawiyah was. They said, 'Leave him, for he is an old man who has lost his mind.' He responded, 'By Allah, my mind has not gone. But the Messenger of Allah (saw) forbade us from filling our stomachs and drinking intoxicants. And I swear by Allah, if I remain alive and witness in Muawiyah what I heard from the Messenger of Allah (saw), I will certainly pierce his belly and die in doing so.'

Abdur Rehman destroyed the alcohol being transported for Muawiyah, and would risk his life in proving the impermissibility of this. The tradition is also present in the following Sunni books:

So here we come to know about the alcohol smuggler of that era while those who are in this profession today, they are merely following the Sunnah of Mu’awiya.

Mu’awiyah employed bribery

We read in Ibn Hajar’s Fathul Bari, vol. 13, pg. 75:

 عن نافع أن معاوية أراد ابن عمر على أن يبايع ليزيد فأبى وقال لا أبايع لأميرين، فأرسل إليه معاوية بمائة ألف درهم فأخذها، فدس إليه رجلا فقال له ما يمنعك أن تبايع؟ فقال: إن ذاك لذاك – يعني عطاء ذلك المال لأجل وقوع المبايعة – إن ديني عندي إذا لرخيص

Nafi’ reported that Mu’awiyah wanted Ibn ‘Umar to pledge allegiance to Yazid, but he refused and said, “I will not pledge allegiance to two rulers.” Then Mu’awiyah sent him 100,000 dirhams, and he took it. Mu’awiyah then sent a man to him, who asked, “What prevents you from pledging allegiance?” Ibn ’Umar replied, “That is for that”—meaning that the money was given in exchange for the pledge—“In that case, my religion would indeed be cheap to me.”

The primary source for this was Tabaqat al-Kubra, Vol 4, pg 138 and graded reliable by Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut in Siyar A’lam al-Nubala, Vol. 3, pg. 225.

Bribery is when someone offers money or gifts to influence another person’s decisions in a dishonest way. That’s exactly what Mu’awiyah did here, he tried to secure Ibn ’Umar’s support for Yazid by paying him. Ironically, Ibn ’Umar didn’t seem to take issue with the bribery itself; rather, his frustration was over the amount he was given to back Yazid.

Mu’awiyahs shameless act is contrary to the Sunnah, one the partakes in such behavior is accursed, for Rasulullah (saw) said as recorded in Sunan Abu Dawud 3573:

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) cursed the one who bribes and the one who takes bribe.

Mu'awiyah permitted interest (riba) 

We read in Sunan Ibn Majah 18:

Ubadah bin Samit Al-Ansari went on a military campaign with Mu'awiyah in the land of the Byzantines. He saw people trading pieces of gold for Dinar and pieces of silver for Dirham. He said: "O people, you are consuming Riba (usury)! 

For I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: 'Do not sell gold for gold unless it is like for like; there should be no increase and no delay (between the two transactions).'" 

Mu'awiyah said to him: "O Abu Walid, I do not think there is any Riba involved in this, except in cases where there is a delay." 'Ubadah said to him: "I tell you a Hadith from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and you tell me your opinion! If Allah brings me back safely I will never live in a land in which you have authority over me." 

When he returned, he stayed in Al-Madinah, and Umar bin Khattab said to him: "What brought you here, O Abu Walid?" So he told him the story, and what he had said about not living in the same land as Mu'awiyah. 'Umar said: "Go back to your land, O Abu Walid, for what a bad land is the land from where you and people like you are absent." Then he wrote to Mu'awiyah and said: "You have no authority over him; make the people follow what he says, for he is right."

We can see from this narration that Mu'awiyah didn't define a certain type of transaction as interest even though the Sahabi Ubadah b. Samit told him what he was doing contradicted the Sunnah of Rasulullah. Mu'awiyah did not correct his view, that means he either didn't accept the testimony of Ubadah or simply preferred his own opinion to the Sunnah, which seems more plausible considering his track record of opposing the Quran and Sunnah. Ubadah was so outraged by this he vowed not to live in a country wherein Mu'awiyah had authority. Even Umar b. al-Khattab agreed with him on this issue. 

This isn’t the first time this occurs, the same issue repeats with another companion, Abu ad-Darda as we read in Imam Malik’s Muwatta 1324:

Yahya related to me Malik from Zayd ibn Aslam from Ata ibn Yasar that Mu’awiya ibn Abi Sufyan sold a gold or silver drinking-vessel for more than its weight. Abu Darda said, “I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbidding such sales except like for like.” 

Mu’awiya said to him, “I don’t see any harm in it.” Abu ad-Darda said to him, “Who will excuse me from Mu’awiya? I tell him something from the Messenger of Allah and he gives me his own opinion! I will not live in the same land as you!” Then Abu ad-Darda went to Umar ibn al-Khattab and mentioned that to him. Umar ibn al-Khattab therefore wrote to Mu’awiya, “Do not sell it except like for like, weight for weight.”

Subhan’Allah, a rightfully guided man prefers the opinion and views of himself over the Sunnah of the Prophet? One would think that the natural response would be for Mu’awiya to desist from such actions in the future, Mu’awiya had been told clearly by Abu’d Darda and Umar that an individual can only sell a like for like item i.e. Gold for Gold. 

We read in Sahih Muslim 1587a:

We went out on an expedition, Mu’awiyah being the leader of the people, and we gained a lot of spoils of war. And there was one silver utensil in what we took as spoils. Mu’awiyah ordered a person to sell it for payment to the soldiers. The people made haste in getting that. 

The news of (this state of affairs) reached ‘Ubada b. Samit, and he stood up and said: I heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) forbidding the sale of gold by gold, and silver by silver, and wheat by wheat, and barley by barley, and dates by dates, and salt by salt, except like for like and equal for equal. So he who made an addition or who accepted an addition (committed the sin of taking) interest. So the people returned what they had got. 

This reached Mu’awiya. and he stood up to deliver an address. He said: What is the matter with people that they narrate from the Messenger (may peace be upon him) such tradition which we did not hear though we saw him (the Holy Prophet) and lived in his company? Thereupon, Ubida b. Samit stood up and repeated that narration, and then said: We will definitely narrate what we heard from Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) though it may be unpleasant to Mu’awiya.

Yet again, Mu’awiyah permitted a transaction that did not adhere to the “like-for-like” principle stipulated by Rasulullah (s). It is interesting to note Mu’awiyah’s denial of this matter, as he declared, “They narrate from the Messenger (s) such traditions that we did not hear, though we saw him.” How could Mu’awiyah claim ignorance of this issue when it is clearly established in the earlier narration from Muwatta? As the Governor of Syria under Umar, this matter was brought to his attention by Abu’d-Darda and was later confirmed in writing by the Caliph himself. Any objective reader can see Mu’awiyah is clearly lying to the masses and trying to justify haram.

We also read in Sharh Ma’ani al-Athaar, Vol. 4, pg. 75 by al-Tahawi that Mu’awiya used to take interest:

اشترى معاوية بن أبي سفيان قلادة ، فيها تبر ، وزبرجد ، ولؤلؤ ، وياقوت بستمائة دينار. فقام عبادة بن الصامت ، حين طلع معاوية المنير ، أو حين صلى الظهر ، فقال ألا إن معاوية ، اشتري الربا وأكله ، ألا إنه في النار إلى حلقه

Mu’awiyah b. Abi Sufyan bought a necklace containing gold, peridot, pearls, and rubies for six hundred dinars. Upon seeing Mu’awiyah in the open or after the Dhuhr prayer, Ubadah b. al-Samit stood up and said, “Indeed, Mu’awiyah has engaged in and consumed usury. Indeed, he is in the Hellfire up to his throat.”

Interest is a despicable act in the eyes of Allah (swt); Sahih Muslim 3881:

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) cursed the acceptor of interest and its payer, and one who records it, and the two witnesses; and he said: They are all equal.

Mu’awiya wore gold, silk and beast skin

Mu'awiyah said to al-Miqdam: Do you know that al-Hasan ibn Ali has died? Al-Miqdam recited the Qur'anic verse "We Belong to Allah and to Him we shall return." A man asked him: Do you think it a calamity? He replied: Why should I not consider it a calamity when it is a fact that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) used to take him on his lap, saying: This belongs to me and Husayn belongs to Ali?

Al-Miqdam said: Mu’awiyah, if I speak the truth, declare me true, and if I tell a lie, declare me false. He said: Do so. 

He said: I adjure you by Allah, did you hear the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) forbidding us to wear gold?

He replied: Yes. 

He said: I adjure you by Allah, do you know that the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) prohibited the wearing of silk?

He replied: Yes. 

He said: I adjure you by Allah, did you know that the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) prohibited the wearing of the skins of beasts of prey and riding on them?

He said: Yes. 

He said: I swear by Allah, I saw all this in your house, O Mu’awiyah. Mu’awiyah said: I know that I cannot be saved from you, O Miqdam.

This was also recorded in Musnad Ahmad b. Hanbal Vol. 13, pg. 295 Hadith # 17123 and authenticated by Shakir. 

The report begins with Mu’awiyah implying the death of al-Hasan (as) was no mere calamity, but something to rejoice and celebrate over! The scholars have, of course, censored this from the report as we read “man” when in reality this was Mu’awiyah. The report later reveals how Mu’awiyah would openly contradict the Sunnah despite knowing very well that all of these things were haram and when confronted he just cried “I cannot be saved from you”.

In Sharh Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol 11, pg. 127 - 129 by Shams ul-Haq Abadi, he explains;

(فقال له فلا ) وفي بعض النسخ وقع رجل مكان فلان والمراد بفلان هو معاوية بن أبي سفيان رضي الله تعالى عنه والمؤلف لم يصرح باسمه وهذا دأبه في مثل ذلك وقد أخرج أحمد في مسنده من طريق حيوة بن شريح حدثنا بقية حدثنا بحير بن سعد عن خالد بن معدان قال وفد المقدام بن معد يكرب وفيه فقال له معاوية أيراها مصيبة الحديث

( أتعدها ) وفي بعض النسخ أتراها أي أنعد يا أيها المقدام حادثة موت الحسن رضي الله تعالى عنه مصيبة والعجب كل العجب من معاوية فإنه ما عرف قدر أهل البيت حتى قال ما قال فإن موت الحسن بن علي رضي الله عنه من أعظم المصائب وجزى الله المقدام ورضي عنه فإنه ما سكت عن تكلم الحق حتى أظهره وهكذا شأن المؤمن الكامل المخلص

(He said to him, “So-and-so”)—in some versions, the word rajul (a man) appears instead of fulan (so-and-so), but the intended person here is Mu’awiyah b. Abi Sufyan. The author did not explicitly mention his name, as was his habit in such cases. Ahmad recorded in his Musnad through his chain… that Miqdad b. Ma’dikarib came as a delegate, and in the narration, Mu’awiyah said to him, “Do you consider it a calamity?”

In some versions, the phrase appears as Ataraha (Do you see it?), meaning, “O Miqdad, do we consider the death of Hasan a misfortune?” The most astonishing thing about Mu’awiyah is that he never recognized the true status of Ahl al-Bayt, to the point that he uttered such words. Indeed, the death of Hasan b. Ali (r.a.) was one of the greatest tragedies. May Allah reward Miqdad and be pleased with him, for he never remained silent from speaking the truth until he made it known—such is the way of the sincere and complete believer.

Mu’awiyah commanded corruption

Allah (swt) states in his Glorious Book in 

ﻭَﻣَﻦْ ﻟَّﻢْ ﻳَﺤْﻜُﻢْ ﺑِﻤَﺂ ﺍَﻧْﺰَﻝَ ﺍﻟﻠّـٰﻪُ ﻓَﺎُﻭﻟٰٓﺌِﻚَ ﻫُـﻢُ ﺍﻟْﻜَﺎﻓِﺮُﻭْﻥَ 

And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, then it is those who are the disbelievers. [5:44]

Issuing rulings that oppose the Qur’an amount to kufr. When we refer to Sahih Muslim 1844 we read:

This cousin of yours, Mu’awiyah, orders us to unjustly consume our wealth among ourselves and to kill one another, while Allah says: “O you who believe, do not consume your wealth among yourselves unjustly, unless it be trade based on mutual agreement, and do not kill yourselves. Verily, God is Merciful to you” (4:29). 

Would such a guide command unjust wealth to be consumed and for others to kill another?  

Mu’awiyah hated Hadith narrated

That while he was with a delegation from Quraish to Muawiya, the latter heard the news that `Abdullah bin `Amr bin Al-`As said that there would be a king from the tribe of Qahtan. On that Muawiya became angry, got up and then praised Allah as He deserved, and said, "Now then, I have heard that some men amongst you narrate things which are neither in the Holy Book, nor have been told by Allah's Messenger (ﷺ). Those men are the ignorant amongst you. Beware of such hopes as make the people go astray, for I heard Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) saying, 'Authority of ruling will remain with Quraish, and whoever bears hostility to them, Allah will destroy him as long as they abide by the laws of the religion.' "

In this narration, a companion, Abdullah, is narrating a Hadith that angered Mu’awiyah. He jumps to denying the hadith and dismissing Abdullah, even though he is a companion! We wonder what this hadith that Mu’awiyah did not want to be narrated to have said. Perhaps it was the one in Sahih al-Bukhari 7117 but with more detail offered:

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "The Hour will not be established till a man from Qahtan appears, driving the people with his stick."

Mu’awiyah permitted idols to be sold

As we all know, the reason some people seemingly entered the fold of Islam during the time of our Prophet (saw) was not due to their conviction in Islam, but rather due to hidden agendas, possibly to harm Islam by secretly aiding their true relatives and friends, the idol worshippers. By examining the following habits of Mu’awiya, one can easily categorize him in the same group of people. 

Refer to the following incident recorded al-Sarkhasi’s al-Mabsut, Vol. 24, pg. 46:

أوف لهم بعهدهم ونحن نستعين بالله عليهم وذكر من مسروق رحمه الله قال بعث معاوية رضى الله عنه تماثيل من صفر تباع بأرض الهند فمر بها على مسروق رحمه الله قال والله لو أني أعلم أنه يقتلنى لفرقتها ولكنى أخاف أن يعذبني فيفتني والله لا أدرى أى الرجلين .ماوية رجل قد زين له سوء عمله أورجل قد يئس من الآخرة فهو يتمتع في الدنيا وليسل هذه تماثيل كانت أصيبت في الغنيمة فأمر معاوية رضى الله عنه ببيعها بأرض الهند ليتخذها الاسلحة والكراع للغزاة فيكون دليلا لابي حنيفة رحمه الله في جواز بيع الصم والضليب ممن يعبده كما هو طريقة القياس وقد استعظم ذلك مسروق رحمه الله كما هو طريق الاستحسان الذي ذهب اليه أبو يوسف ومحمد رحمهما الله فى كراهة ذلك ومسروق من علماء التابعين

It is narrated from Masruq (rahimahullah) that Mu’awiya (ra) sent statues made of brass to be sold in the land of India. When they passed by Masruq (rahimahullah), he said, "By Allah, if I knew that they would kill me, I would destroy them. But I fear that they would torture me and cause me to fall into fitnah. I do not know which of the two men is worse: Mu'awiya, a man to whom his evil deeds have been made pleasing, or a man who has given up on the Hereafter and seeks to enjoy himself in this world." 

These were statues that were acquired from the war booty, and Mu’awiya ordered them to be sold in India to be used as weapons and saddles for the fighters, in line with the opinion of Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah) regarding the permissibility of selling idols and crosses to those who worship them, as it is understood through analogy. However, Masruq (rahimahullah) condemned this, as it went against the principle of istihsan (juridical preference) that was followed by Abu Yusuf and Muhammad (rahimahumallah), who disliked it. Masruq was one of the scholars of the Tabi’een.

A primary source for this report can be found in al-Baladhuri’s Ansab al-Ashraf, vol 5, pg. 137, where the full chain is mentioned as Yusuf and Ishaq - Jarir - al-’Amash - Abi Wa’il - Masruq. 

Would a guider of Islam aid idolaters in worshipping false deities? And what is more concerning is that the Hanifa Madhab permits such a thing to occur! When God condemns the worship of false deities, Hanifs permit aiding others in doing so? What justification can there be in aiding the disbelievers in their shirk? We are not even allowed to sell alcohol to the non-muslim, what makes the Hanifs believe we could sell idols? 

Praise be to God who has sanctified our religion from such nonsense, where in Shi’a Fiqh the prohibition for selling idols has been very clear. This was mentioned by numerous scholars such as:

Inspecting naked women

Ibn Kathir proudly records in Al Bidayah Wal Nihaya, Vol 11 pg. 452:

وروى ابن عساكر في ترجمة حديج الخصى مولى معاوية قال : اشترى معاوية جارية بيضاء جميلة ، فأدخلتها عليه مجردة وبيده قضيب ، فجعل يهوى به إلى متاعها - يعنى فرجها - ويقول : هذا المتاع لو كان متاع ! اذهب بها إلى يزيد بن معاوية . ثم قال : لا ، ادع لي ربيعة بن عمرو الجرشي - وكان فقيها - فلما دخل عليه قال : إن هذه أتيت بها مجردة ، فرأيت منها ذاك وذاك ، وإنى أردت أن أبعث بها إلى يزيد . فقال : لا تفعل يا أمير المؤمنين ؛ فإنها لا تصلح له . فقال : نعم ما رأيت . قال : ثم وهبها لعبد الله بن مسعدة الفزارى مولى فاطمة بنت رسول الله ﷺ ، وكان أسود ، فقال له : بيض بها ولدك . وهذا من فقه معاوية وتحريه ، [١٧٣/٦ و ] حيث كان نظر إليها بشهوة ، ولكنه استضعف نفسه عنها ، فتحرج أن يهبها من ولده يزيد لقوله تعالى : (ولا تنكحوا ما نكح آباؤكم من النساء). وقد وافقه على ذلك الفقيه ربيعة بن عمرو الجرشي الدمشقي

Ibn Asakir narrated in the biography of Hudayj al-Khasī, the servant of Mu‘awiyah: Mu‘awiyah purchased a beautiful white slave girl and had her brought to him unclothed. Holding a stick, he gestured toward her private parts and said, "This would be desirable if it were permissible! Take her to Yazid b. Mu‘awiyah." Then he changed his mind and called for Rabi‘ah b. ‘Amr al-Jurashi, a jurist. When Rabi‘ah arrived, Mu‘awiyah said, "I had this girl brought to me unclothed, and I saw such and such of her. I intended to send her to Yazid." Rabi‘ah replied, "Do not do so, O Commander of the Faithful, for she is not lawful for him." Mu‘awiyah said, "You have spoken well." Then he gifted her to ‘Abdullah b. Mas‘adah al-Fazari, the servant of Fatimah, who was Black, said: "Whiten your children with her."

In some modern prints of Bidayah wal-Nihayah this report is censored and removed, but the original reference remains alive in Tarikh Dimashq Vol 12, pg. 238 - 239. Let us hope that Ahlus Sunnah do not try and update this edition to remove these horrific truths of Islamic history. How can the followers of Mu’awiyah, such as Ibn Kathir, find virtue in their Uncle (Mu’awiyah) attacking the honor of a woman. Would a guide of Islam do such devious acts?

< Previous Part: Why was al-Nasa'i killed?


Kommentarer

bottom of page