The Only Authentic Narration About Muawiyah

Islam is based on reflection and reason. It is the only religion that calls the human being to reasoning and to following sound intellect. The Noble Qur'an repeatedly condemns the lack of reasoning in human beings, and from the words of the people of the Fire it states that the cause of entering Hell was the absence of reason (1).

But it must be noted that whenever reasoning is removed from Muslim culture and conduct, Islam not only fails to bring guidance, progress, and felicity, but in that state an Islam in which thinking is trampled becomes a great danger and causes misery in this world and wretchedness in the hereafter.

In truth, whenever reasoning is suspended and sound intellect is buried under the rubble of fanaticism, unlawful love and hatred, and crooked thinking, nothing remains of Islam. Islam is the religion of rational human beings, and the foolish can never attain the honor of Islam. Imam al-Sadiq (peace be upon him) said: "Whoever has intellect has religion, and whoever has religion enters Paradise" (2).

The function of Islam without reason is service to tyranny. It is Islam without thinking that chooses its caliphs from Banu Umayyah, and without doubt Islam without reason is the same as Umayyad Islam. This anti-intellectual Islam is a religion whose foundation is the justification of the vile deeds of Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan. In this anti-reason creed, merely because Muawiyah carries the title of companion of the Prophet, his grave crimes must be covered up.

Reasoning and thought are what distinguish human beings from animals. Therefore, a school in which reason has disappeared and every question is forbidden cannot be called Islam, unless it is said that this is Umayyad Islam, which lacks all reasoning. Umayyad Islam has always served tyranny throughout history, and unfortunately even today one can still find people who defend Muawiyah.

If today we introduced Muawiyah to non-Muslim thinkers together with his ideas, the crimes he committed, and the innovations and distortions he established in religion, and if we presented one after another the criminal acts that he persisted in until the end of his life, these thinkers would have no choice but to admit that Muawiyah is among the greatest criminals in human history. It is therefore extremely ugly that among Muslims there are still people who allow themselves to defend Muawiyah and people like him, and who write books to justify his deeds or conceal his crimes.

Muawiyah is the son of Hind. The famous view about his father is that Abu Sufyan was his father, but researchers among both Shi'a and non-Shi'a have a view contrary to this fame and attribute Muawiyah to Musafir ibn Abi Umar, Umarah ibn Walid, Abu Sufyan, and another person.

Hind, Muawiyah's mother, was among the women with a sign (3). She had a strong interest in committing fornication with black men, and whenever a dark-skinned child was born to her through fornication, she would kill the child. It is narrated from non-Shi'i scholars that Musafir ibn Umar possessed beauty and handsome appearance; Hind fell in love with him and had relations with him, and this ugly act of the two became famous among Quraysh.

When Hind was about to give birth, Musafir fled from Mecca to Hirah out of fear of Hind's father. Hind's father, through the promise of abundant wealth, married her to Abu Sufyan, and three months after Abu Sufyan's marriage to Hind, Muawiyah was born. Muawiyah's grandmother, Abu Sufyan's mother, was also a woman of the flag, and this behavior was common in the clan of Banu Umayyah (4).

Perhaps readers will consider this a great matter: how can someone with such lineage and family honor be called caliph, and how can a group who consider themselves Muslims support him and claim love for him? The answer is that this question and objection are valid, and no answer can be found except to say that, in their view, illegitimate birth is not among vile acts and is not an anti-value; rather, it is a great honor. Zuhri was asked: Is it permissible for an illegitimate person to lead prayer? He replied: Yes, there is no problem, because our great imams were illegitimate (5).

After the martyrdom of the Commander of the Faithful Ali (peace be upon him), Muawiyah was able to sit on the seat of rule and begin the government of Banu Umayyah. Historians deliberately defend anyone who becomes ruler. Therefore, merely because Muawiyah managed to take power, they constructed a lofty personality for him.

They tried to prove that Muawiyah had accepted Islam before the conquest of Mecca and, on that basis, to introduce him as a scribe of revelation. But their effort is useless, because Muawiyah's condition before and after the conquest of Mecca is clear. One proof that invalidates this claim is the historians' admission that the Messenger of God counted Muawiyah among the mu'allafah al-qulub in the Battle of Hunayn and gave him from the war spoils. Thus, if his Islam had been before the conquest of Mecca, the Prophet would not have placed him among the mu'allafah al-qulub (6).

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, the distinguished student of Ibn Taymiyyah, writes that Muawiyah accepted Islam in the year of the conquest after Khaybar (7). Beyond this, the exposure by Mughirah, one of Muawiyah's party and a politician in the service of Banu Umayyah, leaves no honor or Islam for Muawiyah, and his historical report makes us needless of any debate about Muawiyah's conversion.

Mughirah narrates that in a private gathering Muawiyah said to him: By God, as long as I live I will strive to bury the name of Muhammad and put it in the dust (8). After this report, what difference does it make whether Muawiyah accepted Islam in the first year of Hijrah or after the conquest of Mecca? Whenever he accepted Islam, he was a hypocrite, and his intention was to strike the body of Islam from within.

When Bayhaqi heard that some people say Muawiyah left faith because of his war against Ali (peace be upon him), he said: No, it is not so. Muawiyah was not a believer and had not entered faith so that he could leave it. Rather, during the Prophet's time he moved from unbelief to hypocrisy, that is, he became one of the hypocrites; and after the Prophet's passing he returned to his original unbelief (9).

Abu Wa'il says: I was with Masruq in the region of Silsilah when suddenly mounts carrying idols and statues made of copper passed by us. They were asked about this cargo, and they said: It is Muawiyah's order from the lands of Sind and India.

Masruq said: If I knew they would kill me, I would sink all these mounts, but I fear torture. By God, I do not know what kind of human Muawiyah is and among what kind of people he belongs. Has he despaired of the hereafter and therefore strives not to lose the world, or have his ugly deeds been made fair-seeming to him? (10)

Most striking of all is that Muawiyah held a cross in his hand at the time of death. If we mix a little reason with a little fairness and do not deprive ourselves of these two divine gifts, we will never consider Muawiyah a Muslim. Based on what has passed, it must be said either Muawiyah never accepted Islam, or if he accepted Islam, his Islam was certainly and without doubt hypocritical. In both cases, the result is the same: Muawiyah's unbelief.

Muawiyah took part in the wars that his father Abu Sufyan planned and financed, and he displayed acts of courage. In the Battle of Badr, three sons of Abu Sufyan, Hanzalah, Amr, and Muawiyah, were present. One was killed, another was captured, and Muawiyah fled. He reached Mecca on foot, so that his feet became swollen and he remained under treatment for two months (11).

For the enlightenment of minds, it is necessary to compare this scene with the following historical report. Although, because of the oppression against the Commander of the Faithful, comparing him with rootless people is itself painful, and truly comparing the lord of courage, honor, light, and guidance with the source of corruption and vileness is an ugly act, what can be done in an age when the source of vileness is introduced as truth and books are written to prove his legitimacy? This comparison is made so that light may be distinguished from darkness, and so that if there is a person who reasons, he may put his intellect to work.

When Ali (peace be upon him) completed the mission entrusted to him by the Noble Prophet on the night of migration, he migrated toward Medina. He traveled by night and hid by day until he reached Medina, while blood flowed from his feet and they were swollen.

The Prophet said: Call Ali. It was said: He cannot walk. The Noble Prophet personally came to visit him, embraced him, and wept over his wounds and condition. Then he placed a little of his blessed saliva on the Imam's feet, and after that Ali never felt pain in his feet until he was martyred (12).

Of course, Muawiyah's courage in the Battle of Siffin must not be forgotten, because Muawiyah had similar acts of courage in Siffin as well. As he himself said: "In Siffin I placed my foot in the stirrup and intended to flee" (13).

Interestingly, some defenders of Muawiyah wrote the following to purify and sanctify him: "Muawiyah did not take part in Badr, Uhud, Khandaq, and Hudaybiyyah, which were among the most important campaigns of the Muslims against the unbelievers, in the ranks of the unbelievers." But these foolish defenders forgot that if someone did not participate in battle, especially the Battle of Uhud, kohl would be sent to him, as an allusion that he was a woman and a coward, or his house would be destroyed (14).

In reality, Muawiyah was one of the most stubborn enemies of Islam, and as much as he could he fought Islam and the great Prophet and strove to destroy Islam. After the conquest of Mecca, when the political and military power of Islam had reached its peak, he was forced to accept Islam. It must not be overlooked that his acceptance of Islam was a change of tactic for continuing the struggle, not submission before God and His Messenger. Yet they work very hard to erase Muawiyah's enmities against Islam.

It is as though they forgot Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman's infiltration, by the order of the Noble Prophet, into the heart of the enemy on one of the nights of the Battle of Khandaq, when Medina was under siege by the confederates under Abu Sufyan's command, in order to obtain information about their situation. There, out of fear that Muslim forces had infiltrated the camp of the polytheists, the enemy sat in a circle, hand in hand, and asked each other their names in the darkness of the night.

Hudhayfah, who was trapped in their circle, says: With complete cleverness and skill, I asked the person on my left: Who are you? He said: Amr ibn al-As. Then I asked the person on my right: Who are you? He said: Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan. In this way no one asked me a question, and I saved myself (15).

Hudhayfah's report shows that Muawiyah came as far as the trench together with the confederates and various tribes to destroy the foundation of Islam. But we have no report of Muawiyah spending his sword and courage in any battle in favor of Islam and the Prophet. Muawiyah either did not participate in battle, or if he did, he acted against Islam.

In the Battle of Siffin, Ali (peace be upon him) would come to the battlefield every morning and call Muawiyah to the field, saying: Why do you send people to be killed? Come to the field so that whichever of us prevails, the matter will belong to him. Amr ibn al-As said to Muawiyah: This man speaks fairly to you.

Muawiyah forced Amr to go to the field against Ali (peace be upon him). When Amr ibn al-As became certain on the battlefield that he would be sent to Hell by Ali's sword, he threw himself from his horse to the ground and exposed his private parts. Haydar al-Karrar turned his horse away from him, and Amr ibn al-As survived.

One day Muawiyah and Amr ibn al-As were sitting at the dinner table when Muawiyah looked at Amr and laughed. Amr asked: Why are you laughing? He said: Because of your cleverness and presence of mind in Siffin, when you saved your life from Ali by means of your private parts. Amr replied: By God, I was on your right when Ali called you to the field; your eyes became crossed from fear, and something appeared from you that I now dislike mentioning (16). Because of Muawiyah's intense courage, he soiled his clothes, although Amr ibn al-As disliked mentioning that point.

The tradition of Umayyad Islam is to manufacture virtues for vile people. The Umayyads are among the greatest causes of history's deviation from its path, and without doubt the most influential people in the history of hadith and in the spread of fabricated and false reports are the Umayyads. This betrayal by Umayyad Muslims is among the greatest betrayals of the Noble Prophet of Islam. Of course, it is a source of pride that, by the blessing of the infallible Imams, none of the fabricated Umayyad reports entered the Shi'i hadith collections, and one must firmly believe that Shi'i hadith books are pure and clean of Umayyad fabrications, unlike non-Shi'i books whose most authentic claimed collections are filled with Umayyad fabrications.

Muawiyah, who was at the head of the movement to spread lies and spent enormous sums to fabricate hadiths in the service of Umayyad Islam, was not exempted from the rule of manufacturing virtues. Many virtues were made for him and spread among the people. Today, some who worship an idol called the justice of the companions cling to these fabrications, but awake scholars among the non-Shi'a warned that these virtues were forged. To keep this brief, fabricated narrations are not mentioned; only the admissions of non-Shi'i scholars that Muawiyah's virtues are false are cited.

The views of non-Shi'i scholars about the narrations of Muawiyah's virtues must not be forgotten: they explicitly deny the existence of even one authentic hadith in Muawiyah's virtue and say that not even one sound narration has reached us in this regard.

Ishaq ibn Ibrahim al-Hanzali says: We do not have even one authentic hadith in Muawiyah's virtue (17). Ibn Taymiyyah, who is among the staunch supporters of Banu Umayyah and Muawiyah, says: "A group fabricated virtues for Muawiyah and narrated hadiths from the Prophet about that, all of which are lies" (18).

Ayni, the commentator of Sahih al-Bukhari, says: We do not have one authentic and musnad hadith in Muawiyah's virtue. Ishaq ibn Rahwayh, Nasa'i, and others have explicitly admitted this. This is why Imam al-Bukhari wrote in his book "Chapter on Mentioning Muawiyah" and did not write "The Virtue and Merits of Muawiyah" (19).

Shawkani says: The hadith masters agree that not even one authentic hadith has been transmitted in Muawiyah's virtue (20). Ibn Hajar also says: This ignorant man, meaning Ishaq ibn Muhammad al-Susi, is the one who brought fabricated and false hadiths in Muawiyah's virtue, hadiths from which the nature recoils and which the ear refuses to hear (21).

These people are among the great scholars of the non-Shi'a. If their statements in hadith cannot be trusted, the non-Shi'a cannot trust anyone else. But one question remains: what motive did the fabricators have in forging hadiths about Muawiyah's merits?

Can it be said that their only motive in spreading these lies was the gold coins that Muawiyah gave out, or should we look for a higher and more important motive? The reality is that Muawiyah's money, dirhams, and dinars were not the only cause of this event. A more important cause was at work and must be analyzed in detail in a separate writing. But in answer to this question, we suffice with one report from non-Shi'i sources.

Abd Allah, the son of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, says: I asked my father about Ali and Muawiyah. Ahmad ibn Hanbal reflected for a little while and then said: What shall I say about these two? Know that Ali had many enemies. They tried hard to find a flaw or defect in him, but when they found none, they turned to the one who fought him and was hostile to him and fabricated virtues and merits for him, so that in this way they might express their plot and enmity toward Ali (22).

Ahmad ibn Hanbal, one of the fanatics of the non-Shi'a, considers the abundance of false virtues for Muawiyah to be the result of abundant enmity toward Ali (peace be upon him). Of course, one must ask Ahmad ibn Hanbal here: did Ali's enemies, in their hostility to him, only fabricate virtues for Muawiyah, or was it necessary to fabricate virtues for everyone who stood against Ali?

If we accept Ahmad ibn Hanbal's statement in this regard, and given the decisive historical indicators we have no choice but to accept it, should we not doubt all the virtues narrated for Ali's opponents, such as the virtue mentioned for Abu Bakr that he was the Prophet's companion in the cave, or the virtues of the second and third rulers, and of all those who were in the opposing party to Ali in the story of Saqifah and the accursed document?

Ahmad ibn Hanbal either did not want to tell his son, or forgot to tell him, that Muawiyah was not the only one who fought Ali. Aishah, Talhah, Zubayr, and many others fought Ali (peace be upon him). Perhaps his fanaticism prevented him from saying that the first war against Ali was in Medina and in his house, and that the first people of Ali's purified household to be martyred were his wife and his six-month-old child, who was miscarried behind the door because of the attack of the first and second usurpers.

Now, with these points in mind, we review Ahmad ibn Hanbal's words again. Abd Allah, the son of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, says: I asked my father about Ali and Muawiyah. My father was silent for a little while and then said: My son, what can I say about these two? Know that Ali has many enemies. They tried to find a flaw in him, but found none, so they exalted the one who fought him and fabricated virtues for him. This was done out of enmity toward Ali.

His statement should be corrected in this way: One of the betrayals committed by Ali's enemies was that they fabricated virtues for everyone who fought Ali, from Abu Bakr and Umar to Aishah and Muawiyah. Although this statement of Ibn Hanbal's son has other consequences, we suffice with this one question from him.

Yet fairness requires that among all the narrations fabricated and mentioned in Muawiyah's virtues, there is only one authentic and acceptable narration. It would be unfair not to mention this virtue, which has been transmitted to us with a sound chain.

In truth, this one authentic narration about Muawiyah has been transmitted in hadith collections: Muawiyah's supporters were so delighted to hear this virtue that they killed the narrator of the hadith. The only authentic narration in Muawiyah's virtue is that the Prophet of Islam said: May God never fill Muawiyah's belly.

Imam Nasa'i, in the mosque of Damascus, when Muawiyah's supporters asked him for a hadith about Muawiyah's virtue, said: "I know no virtue for him except 'May God not fill your belly.'" After hearing this hadith, Muawiyah's supporters tortured Imam Nasa'i, beat him, and threw him out of the mosque. As a result of this torture, Imam Nasa'i died (23).

According to Dhahabi, Muawiyah was never satisfied and was counted among the gluttons of the world (24). According to Ibn Kathir, he ate seven meals a day. Large dishes full of food and meat were brought to him at every meal, and he ate them and would say: I am tired, but I am not full (25).

For this reason, this high virtue of Muawiyah, which ordinary human beings are incapable of reaching, became a proverb for someone who overeats and is not satisfied. Some have said: "I have a companion whose belly is like Hawiyah; it is as though Muawiyah is in his intestines." That is, it is as though Hawiyah is in my companion's stomach, so whatever he eats, he is not full; surely Muawiyah is in his stomach and does not become full.

What has passed shows an outline of Muawiyah's personality and makes clear who his friends are and to what extent his supporters lack thought. In this brief writing it became clear that supporting and defending Muawiyah is impossible unless one suspends reason and replaces it with fanaticism.

In continuation, we will address his betrayals in Islam during the time when he apparently accepted Islam, when he was the agent of Umar and Uthman in Syria, when Uthman was killed and he launched the seditions of Jamal and Siffin, and later when he reached power and managed to set aside his opponents through deceit, trickery, and plots.

Muawiyah's innovations and seditions are among the greatest calamities of the world of Islam. Many of the great figures of Islam, the great figures of existence, and God's chosen ones were martyred by his hand. He was the one who planned the assassination of Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba (peace be upon him) and carried it out through his agents in Medina.

Perhaps the bitter truth seems unexpected that Muawiyah planned the sorrowful event of Ashura in Iraq and prepared its preliminaries during his own lifetime, while the killing of Imam Husayn (peace be upon him) occurred at the hands of someone even more vile than him, his son Yazid. In reality, the accursed Yazid was the executor of a filthy plot designed by Muawiyah. Therefore, this point must be examined precisely.

In one sentence, Muawiyah is the killer of the Prophet's two grandsons, the two grandchildren about whom the Prophet said: "Hasan and Husayn are the masters of the youths of Paradise." What sound intellect accepts that the killer of the masters of the people of Paradise enters Paradise merely because he was a companion of the Prophet, except an intellect deformed under Umayyad propaganda?

1. Surat al-Mulk, verse 10. 2. Usul al-Kafi, vol. 1, p. 11. 3. She would place a flag at the door of her house to invite fornication. 4. Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah by al-Khu'i, vol. 3, p. 350; Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah by Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. 2, p. 102; Mathalib al-Arab, p. 72; Rabi' al-Abrar, vol. 3, pp. 549-551; Al-Aghani, vol. 9, p. 49; Al-Iqd al-Farid, vol. 6, p. 86. 5. Al-Muhalla, vol. 4, p. 213, Dar al-Afaq al-Jadidah, Beirut. 6. Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah by Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. 1, p. 490. 7. Ahkam Ahl al-Dhimmah, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, vol. 1, p. 91. 8. Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. 5, p. 129, quoted from Al-Muwaffaqiyyat by al-Zubayr ibn Bakkar. 9. Al-Kamil by al-Tabari, vol. 2, p. 204; Al-Kuna wa al-Alqab, vol. 2, p. 114. 10. Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. 5, p. 137. 11. Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. 15, p. 85. 12. Al-Kamil, Ibn al-Athir, vol. 1, p. 519. 13. Tarikh Dimashq, vol. 59, p. 138; Siyar A'lam al-Nubala, vol. 3, p. 156; Al-Iqd al-Farid, vol. 4, p. 340; Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. 8, p. 59; Wafayat al-A'yan, vol. 5, p. 241. 14. Al-Imta', p. 66; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 19, p. 2. 15. Al-Maghazi, vol. 2, p. 488; Sirat Ibn Hisham, vol. 3, p. 242. 16. Al-Iqd al-Farid, Ibn Abd Rabbih, vol. 3, p. 110. 17. Al-La'ali al-Masnu'ah, vol. 1, p. 388; Al-Mawdu'at, vol. 2, p. 24; Al-Fawa'id al-Majmu'ah, p. 407; Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, vol. 8, p. 123. 18. Minhaj al-Sunnah, vol. 2, p. 207. 19. Umdat al-Qari, vol. 16, p. 249; Fath al-Bari, vol. 7, p. 83; Irshad al-Sari, vol. 6, p. 141; Wafayat al-A'yan, vol. 1, p. 77. 20. Al-Fawa'id al-Majmu'ah, p. 407. 21. Lisan al-Mizan, vol. 1, p. 374. 22. Al-Muntazam, vol. 3, p. 372. 23. Siyar A'lam al-Nubala, vol. 14, pp. 129-132; Wafayat al-A'yan, vol. 1, p. 77. 24. Siyar A'lam al-Nubala, vol. 3, p. 123. 25. Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, vol. 8, p. 123.