Virtues of Mu'awiyah Part III: Did he write revelation?
- Anonymous
- Apr 11
- 12 min read
Updated: Jun 12
< Previous Part: The Innovations of Mu'awiyah
One of the praiseworthy characteristics given to Mu’awiyah is that he is addressed as ‘Katib al-Wahi’ which means writer of revelation. He is praised for this because he is argued as someone who preserved the Qur’an, which only a righteous Muslim would God bestow such a role to! What is the reality of this matter in the views of Sunni scholars themselves?
In this article, we will cover the following:
Mu’awiyah wrote letters not the revelation
The Prophet (SAW) did not instruct Mu’awiyah to write down revelation, rather, Mu’awiyahs role often involved writing letters for needs and affairs, which was unrelated to revelation. This is recorded by scholars such as in Ibn Abd al-Barr’s Iqd al-Farid, Vol. 4 pg. 243 - 244
فمن أهل هذه الصناعة: علي بن أبي طالب كرم الله وجهه، وكان مع شرفه ونبله وقرابته من رسول الله ﷺ يكتب الوحي، ثم أفضت عليه الخلافة بعد الكتابة، وعثمان بن عفان ـ كانا يكتبان الوحي، فإن غابا كتب أبي بن كعب وزيد بن ثابت، فإن لم يشهد واحد منهما، كتب غيرهما. وكان خالد بن سعيد بن العاص، ومعاوية بن أبي سفيان، يكتبان بين يديه في حوائجه، وكان المغيرة بن شعبة، والحصين بن نمير، يكتبان ما بين الناس، وكانا ينوبان عن خالد ومعاوية إذا لم يحضرا.
Among the people of this craft were: Ali b. Abi Talib (may Allah honor his face), who, despite his nobility, virtue, and kinship to the Messenger of Allah (saw), used to write the revelation, and later the caliphate came to him after this writing; and Uthman b. Affan both of them used to write the revelation. If they were absent, Ubayy b. Ka‘b and Zayd b. Thabit would write it, and if one of them was not present, someone else would write.
Khalid b. Sa‘id b. al-‘As and Mu‘awiyah b. Abi Sufyan used to write down his affairs, while al-Mughira b. Shu‘bah and al-Husayn b. Numayr used to record matters between people and would substitute for Khalid and Mu‘awiyah if they were not present.
This was recorded the same way in Tarikh al-Tabari Vol 21, pg. 214 (Arabic). Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani also affirms this matter in his al-Isaba, Vol. 6 pg. 121:
وقال المدائني كان زيد بن ثابت يكتب الوحي وكان معاوية يكتب للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فيما بينه وبين العرب
Al-Mada’ini said: Zayd b. Thabit used to write the revelation, and Mu‘awiyah used to write for the Prophet (saw) regarding matters between him and the Arabs.
Al-Dhahabi also records in Tarikh al-Islam, Vol. 4 pg. 309:
وذكر المفضل الغلابي : أن زيد بن ثابت كان كاتب وحي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ، وكان معاوية كاتبه فيما بينه وبين العرب
Al-Mufaddal al-Ghallabi mentioned that Zayd b. Thabit was the scribe of the revelation for the Messenger of Allah (saw), and Mu‘awiyah was his scribe for matters between him and the Arabs.
This a known fact accepted by Sunni scholars, and al-Ahzar University Shaykh, Mahmud Abu Rayyah, concludes with the following research in his Shaykh al-Mudhira, pg. 223:
Was Mu‘awiyah one of the scribes of revelation? This is the page with which we conclude our discussion here about the "Umayyad fabrication" in politics and religion, and it presents an example of such fabrication that can be measured against others. They wanted to curry favor with Mu‘awiyah, so they made him one of the scribes of revelation, and went to extremes in this flattery by narrating that he wrote Ayat al-Kursi with a pen of gold brought by Jibril as a gift for Mu‘awiyah from above the Throne.
This report became widespread among many people despite being false, rejected by reason and dismissed by sound intellect! How could the Prophet (saw) trust someone like Mu‘awiyah to write what was being revealed in the Qur’an- he, his father, and his mother were among those who embraced Islam reluctantly while faith had not yet entered their hearts!
Note: The Shaykh makes a valid point, and the absurdity behind the Prophet (SAW) entrusting this matter of all people to Mu’awiyah makes little sense when we come to know of his reputation and how he would become later on in his life, which the Prophet (SAW) certainly knew as his prophesied it. Refer to our previous part for more information.
As for transmitted reports, there is no authentic narration to support this. Those who fabricated this story should have backed it with proof, at least by showing one single verse from the Qur’an that Mu‘awiyah had written!
We do not rule out the possibility that he may have written for the Prophet (saw) on certain matters not related to revelation, as that is possible. But for him to have written anything from the Qur’an- that is impossible. Al-Mada’ini said: Zayd b. Thabit used to write the revelation, and Mu‘awiyah used to write for the Prophet (saw) in matters between him and the Arabs.
Muhammad b. Uqayl al-'Ilwi has similar remarks in his al-Nasa'ih al-Kafiyah, pg. 265 - 266. The renowned Egyptian Sunni scholar, Sayyid Qutb, reinforces this research in his famous Social Justice in Islam, pg. 215 as well.
Is there proof for Mu’awiyah being a scribe?
The only narration that mentions Muawiyah writing something for the Prophet (saw) is found in Sahih Muslim. It states that Abu Sufyan asked the Prophet (saw) for three things, and the Prophet (saw) granted them: that his daughter, Umm Habibah, be married to him, that Muawiyah be made a scribe for him, and that he be made a commander to fight the disbelievers as he had fought the Muslims. However, scholars have weakened this narration and ruled it to be fabricated. The full narration, as found in Sahih Muslim 2501 reads:
Allah's Apostle, confer upon me three things. He replied in the affirmative. He (further) said: I have with me the most handsome and the best (woman) Umm Habiba, daughter of Abu Sufyan; marry her, whereupon he said: Yes. And he again said: Accept Mu'awiya to serve as your scribe. He said: Yes. He again said: Make me the commander (of the Muslim army) so that I should fight against the unbelievers as I fought against the Muslims. He said: Yes. Abu Zumnail said: If he had not asked for these three things from Allah's Apostle (ﷺ), he would have never conferred them upon him, for it was (his habit) to accede to everybody's (earnest) request.
It was reported solely by Muslim when mentioning the virtues of Abu Sufyan. However, it has been unanimously regarded as invalid. This is because Abu Sufyan embraced Islam reluctantly after the conquest of Mecca. Prior to that, he was an enemy of Allah and His Messenger (saw). As for his daughter, Umm Habibah, she accepted Islam before the Hijrah. She was one of those who migrated to Abyssinia, fleeing from her father and people. The Prophet (saw) married her while her father was still deeply entrenched in disbelief and hostile in his opposition to the Prophet (saw). Thus, showing a historical discrepancy in this report, as Abu Sufyan is asking the Prophet to marry Umm Habiba while she should already be married to him prior to Abu Sufyan's conversion. There is no mention of renewing any contract, it’s clearly referring to a marriage.
It’s very clear this narration occurs after Abu Sufyan’s conversion for two reasons:
Why else would Abu Sufyan be making requests for the Prophet (saw)? Why would he ask him to marry his daughter? Why would he ask for his son to be a scribe of the Qur’an? Why would he ask to be a commander of the Muslims?
The Hadith clearly states that the Muslims refused to even look at Abu Sufyan, nor would they sit with him, indicating that his visit was after he had already embraced Islam, not before. This is further confirmed by the fact that the companions were grieving the missed opportunity to have dealt with him earlier, suggesting that his conversion had already occurred. If the visit had indeed taken place before his Islam, the companions' reaction would have been quite different.
We read in Mukhtasar Sahih Muslim, pg. 457 by al-Albani:
(هذا من الأحاديث المشهورة بالإشكال، لاتفاقهم أن أبا سفيان إنما أسلم يوم فتح مكة، وأنه ﷺ دخل على أم حبيبة قبل إسلام أبي سفيان، ولذلك ذهب ابن حزم إلى أن الحديث موضوع، واتهم به عكرمة بن عمار روايه عن أبي زميل، وأنكر ذلك عليه الحافظ عبد الغني المقدسي في "أفراد مسلم" (١١ /، ١/ ٧٠) وبالغ في الشناعة عليه، وأجاب عن الشبهة بأن أبا سفيان لما أسلم أراد بقوله "أزوجكها" تجديد النكاح … ! وذكر في الشرح عن ابن الصلاح نحوه، ثم ختم الشارح البحث بقوله: "قلت: وكل هذه الاحتمالات لا تخلو عن بعد، فالإشكال باق، والرواية غير خالية من الغلط والخلط في سياق. والله أعلم". وأقول: إن عكرمة بن عمار وإن كان غير متهم في نفسه، فإنه ليس بالحافظ فقد اختلفوا فيه، فأورده الذهبي في "الضعفاء" وقال: "وثقه ابن معين، وضعفه أحمد". وقال الحافظ في "التقريب": "صدوق يغلط، وفي رواية عن يحيى بن أبي كثير اضطراب، ولم يكن له كتاب". قلت: فمثله: لا يستحق هذا التكلف من تأويل حديثه للإبقاء عليه. وقد ذكر الذهبي في "الميزان" أنه حديث منكر.
This is one of the hadiths well-known for its problematic nature, due to the consensus that Abu Sufyan only embraced Islam on the day of the conquest of Mecca, while the Prophet (saw) entered upon Umm Habibah before Abu Sufyan’s conversion. For this reason, Ibn Hazm considered the hadith fabricated and accused Ikrimah b. Ammar, who narrated it from Abu Zamil. Al-Hafiz Abdul Ghani al-Maqdisi rejected this accusation in Afrad Muslim and strongly denounced it.
He responded to the suspicion by saying that when Abu Sufyan embraced Islam, his statement "I have married her to you" was meant as a renewal of the marriage contract. Something similar was mentioned by Ibn al-Salah in his commentary.
I say: All these possibilities remain far-fetched, so the problem remains, and the narration is not free from error and confusion in its context. And Allah knows best. Although Ikrimah b. Ammar is not accused personally, he is not a reliable memorizer, as scholars have differed about him. I say: Someone like him does not deserve such strained interpretations of his hadith just to keep it valid. Al-Dhahabi mentioned in al-Mizan that it is a rejected hadith.
Does writing revelation necessitate virtue?
Despite there being no reliable evidence to prove Mu’awiyah being a Kitab al-Wahi, if we had to skip the research that covers this matter and accept for argument’s sake he was indeed, does that truly mean that Mu’awiyah was a righteous man? The fact is, it doesn’t, and this is acknowledged by Sunni scholars themselves because other men who wrote revelation apostated!
Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani records this in his Fath al-Bari, Vol. 8 pg. 651:
وقد كتب له قبل زيد ابن ثابت أبي بن كعب وهو أول من كتب له بالمدينة، وأول من كتب له بمكة من قريش عبد الله بن سعد بن أبي سرح ثم ارتد ثم عاد إلى الإسلام يوم الفتح، وممن كتب له في الجملة الخلفاء الأربعة والزبير بن العوام وخالد وأبان ابنا سعيد بن العاص بن أمية وحنظلة بن الربيع الأسدي ومعيقيب بن أبي فاطمة وعبد الله بن الأرقم الزهري وشرحبيل بن حسنة وعبد الله بن رواحة في آخرين، .
It was written for him by Ubayy b. Kab after Zayd b. Thabit, and he was the first to write for him in Medina. The first to write for him in Mecca from the Quraysh was Abd Allah b. Sad b. Abi Sarh, who later apostatized and then returned to Islam on the Day of the Conquest.
Among those who wrote for him in general were the four caliphs, al-Zubayr b. al-Awwam, Khalid and Aban, the two sons of Said b. al-As b. Umayyah, Hanzalah b. al-Rabi al-Asadi, Muayqib b. Abi Fatimah, Abd Allah b. al-Arqam al-Zuhri, Shurahbil b. Hasanah, and Abd Allah b. Rawahah, among others.
Al-Qastalani says the same in his Irshad al-Sari, Vol. 11, pg. 266 - 267 and so does Al-’Ayni in Umdat al-Qari, Vol. 20, pg. 27.
If Muawiyah was so famously known as Katib al-Wahi we would surely expect all three scholars to mention him in their list of scribes, yet none of them do. Moreover just as Ibn Abi Sarh apostatized from Islam despite being a Katib al-Wahi, so too could Muawiyah have if we were to assume he even was a Katib al-Wahi. This therefore proves that this is insufficient proof for Mu’awiyahs virtues.
Similarly, al-Safadi records in his famous al-Wafi bil Wafiyat, Vol. 17 pg. 100:
أبي سرح الكاتب الوحي عبدالله بن سعد بن أبي سرح بن الحارث بن حبيب بن جذيمة أبو يحيى القرشي العامري. أسلم قبل الفتح وهاجر وكان يكتب الوحي لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ثلم ارتد منصرفا وصار إلى قريش بمكة
Abdullah b. Sa‘d b. Abi Sarh embraced Islam before the Conquest and migrated. He used to write the revelation for the Messenger of Allah (saw), then he apostatized and returned to Quraysh in Mecca.
Al-Dhahabi records in his Siyar A'lam al-Nubala Vol. 3, pg. 33 - 34, Bio # 8 regarding Ibn Abi Sarh:
قال الدارقطني: ارتد، فأهدر النبي دمه، ثم عاد مسلماً، واستوهبه عثمان
الحسين بن واقد، عن يزيد النحوي، عن عكرمة، عن ابن عباس قال: كان ابن أبي سرح يكتب الرسول الله ﷺ، فأزله الشيطان، فلحق بالكفار، فأمر به النبي ﷺ أن يُقتل، فاستجار له عثمان.
Al-Daraqutni said: He apostatized, so the Prophet SAW declared his blood lawful. Then he returned as a Muslim, and ʿUthman interceded on his behalf.
Al-Husayn b. Waqid, from Yazid al-Nahwi, from ʿIkrimah, from Ibn ʿAbbas, said: Ibn Abi Sarḥ used to write for the Messenger of God SAW, but Satan caused him to slip, so he joined the disbelievers. The Prophet SAW ordered that he be killed, but ʿUthman sought protection for him.
Attaining the role of scribe of the revelation offers no protection from deviation, as seen with Sa‘d, a relative of Muawiyah, who apostatized despite holding this position. Even if Muawiyah did hold this honor, his later actions make him more culpable. The role of scribe does not shield anyone from Allah's wrath. The example of Iblis, who was once elevated by Allah (swt) yet cast out for refusing to submit, illustrates that actions, not positions, determine judgment.
Al-Hasan reconciles between two muslim groups
In a famous prophecy, it is narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari 2704:
My son is a master (sayyid) and Allah may use him to make peace between two great parties of Muslims.
Firstly, this hadith has an addition made to it by Umayyad fabricators, which is ‘great’ عَظِيمَتَيْنِ which is not part of the true text. Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani mentions this in his Fath al-Bari, vol. 13, pg. 66 where he says Abd Allah b. Muhammad added in his narration: “great” (ʿaẓīmatayn), and this addition is also found in the narration of Mubarak b. Faḍālah, and in that of ʿAli b. Zayd. The same was said in Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi, vol. 10, pg. 189 by Al-Mubārakfūrī:
زَادَ الْبُخَارِيُّ فِي رِوَايَةٍ عَظِيمَتَيْنِ
Al-Bukhari added in one narration: “ʿaẓīmatayn” (two great factions).
Secondly, this report mentions factions of Muslims. Mu’awiya was professing that he was a Muslim (though his stance towards Ahlulbayt (as) has been contrary to his claim of being a Muslim), hence the agreement was indeed between two Muslim groups, but his subsequent conduct in breaching the conditions of the agreement bear testimony to the fact that he was a fasiq.
We read from Kitab al-Iman, pg. 276 by Ibn Taymiyyah:
وقد اتفق العلماء على أن اسم المسلمين في الظاهر يجري على المنافقين، لأنهم استسلموا ظاهراً وأتوا بما أتوا به من الأعمال الظاهرة بالصلاة الظاهرة والزكاة الظاهرة، والحج الظاهر والجهاد الظاهر كما كان النبي يجري عليهم أحكام الإسلام الظاهر، واتفقوا على أنه من لم يكن معه شيء من الإيمان فهو كما قال الله تعالى: (إِنَّ الْمُنفِقِينَ فِي الدَّرْكِ الْأَسْفَلِ مِنَ النَّارِ)
The scholars have agreed that the name of "Muslims" in the apparent is applicable to the hypocrites because they have submitted in the apparent and they have carried out deeds in the apparent extent of the apparent salat, and apparent zakat, apparent hajj, apparent jihad, and also as the Prophet implemented on them the apparent legal rulings of Islam, and they have agreed that he who does not have anything of faith, he is as Allah has stated: “The hypocrites are in the lowest pit of the hell fire.” {4:145}
More scholars can be quoted to support this view, but this is well-known and confirmed by the consensus of scholars.
Mu’awiyah spread Islam?
Some supporters of Mu‘awiya often point to the territorial gains made under his rule, especially noting that some of the Sahaba were involved under his leadership. They contrast this with the time of Imam Ali (as), during which such expansion did not occur. But it's important to remember that the size of an empire means very little in the eyes of Allah (swt). What truly matters is the individual's own actions. On the Day of Judgment, every person will be questioned about their personal deed, not their political or military successes. Mu‘awiya, regardless of how his defenders try to justify his actions, will have a great deal to account for.
His conquests, in the grand scheme, carry no real value something even the respected Sunni scholar Abu Bakr al-Jassas acknowledged when he stated in Ahkam ul-Quran, Vol. 4 pg. 319:
وقد كان أصحاب النبي ﷺ يغزون بعد الخلفاء الأربعة مع الأمراء الفساق وغزا أبو أيوب الأنصاري مع يزيد اللعين
The Companions of the Prophet (saw) used to go on military campaigns after the era of the four caliphs alongside corrupt rulers, and Abu Ayyub al-Ansari participated in a campaign with Yazid the accursed.
In the famous hadith of Rasulullah (saw) it says, recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari 6606:
O Bilal! Get up and announce in public: None will enter Paradise but a believer, and Allah may support this religion (Islam) with a wicked man.
Therefore, it is insufficient to use this to demonstrate any virtue for Mu’awiyah.
< Previous Part: The Innovations of Mu'awiyah
Comments