The Truth about Mu’awiya bin Abu Sufiyan.

(A dark truth being suppressed since histories)

I truly dedicate this research article to the most respected “Ehl –e-bait (AS)”, without
them I would never be able to gather this information and share it to the world.

This article is totally research based and is collected from books of hadiths from different
sects; the references are quoted along for the confirmation. May Allah Almighty lead us to
the right path and help us to know the truth at every aspect of our lives. AMEN.
The truth about Mu’awiya bin Abu
Sufiyan.
The meaning of Mu’awiya
The leading Ulema of Ahl’ul Sunnah are in agreement that Mu’awiya means “barking bitch”.

For those interested they can consult the following texts:

Tareekh ul Khulafa by al Hafidh Jalaluddin Suyuti (Urdu translation by Maulana Hakeem Nasree)
page 253.
Sharh ul Aqaid page 510
Rabi’ ul Abrar by Allamah Zamakhshari page 700
Tahzeeb ul Kamaal fi Asma’ al-Rijal by Jamaluddin Mizzi page 371

Love and hatred of Ali is the difference between

one being legitimate and illegitimate
Mohibuddeen al-Tabari in Riyadh ul Nadhira, Volume 3 page 117 Chapter 116 narrates this tradition
from ‘Abu Bakr:

Rasulullah (s) said, “Love of Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Hussain is a sign of one being legitimate,
hatred of them is the sign of one being illegitimate”.
Similarly Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah Ibn Atheer in his ‘Nihayah’ Volume 5 page 155 records that:

“Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq said that certain types of individuals will never have love towards us, those
of illegitimate stock and those that possess an addiction to the anus (homosexual)”
In the case of Mu’awiya this tradition is certainly mist apt….

Ayesha’s testimony about methods of Nikah

during the time of Jahiliyya
We read in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2 Chapter 37, pages 44-45:

“Narrated Urwa bin Zubair: Aisha the wife of the Prophet told him that there were four types of
marriage during the Pre-Islamic period of ignorance. One type was similar to that of the present
day, i.e. a man used to ask somebody else for the hand of a girl under his guardianship or for his
daughter’s hand, and give her dowry and then marry her. The second type was that a man would
say to his wife after she had become clean from her period, “Send for so-and-so and have sexual
relations with him.” Her husband would then keep away from her and would never sleep with her
till she gets pregnant from the other man with whom she was sleeping. When her pregnancy
became evident, her husband would sleep with her if he wished. Her husband did so (i.e. let her wife
sleep with some other man) so that he might have a child of noble breed. Such marriage was called
Al-Istibda. Another type of marriage was that a group of less than ten men would assemble and
enter upon a woman, and all of them would have sexual relation with her. If she became pregnant
and delivered a child and some days had passed after her delivery, she would send for all of them
and none of them would refuse to come, and when they all gathered before her, she would say to
them, “You (all) know what you have done, and now I have given birth to a child. So, it is your
child, O so-and-so!” naming whoever she liked, and her child would follow him and he could not
refuse to take him. The fourth type of marriage was that many people would enter upon a lady and
she would never refuse anyone who came to her. Those were the prostitutes who used to fix red
flags at their doors as signs, and he who wished, could have sexual intercourse with them. If anyone
of them got pregnant and delivered a child, then all those men would be gathered for her and they
would call the Qaifs (persons skilled in recognizing the likeness of a child to his father) to them and
would let her child follow the man (whom they recognized as his father) and she would let him
adhere to him and will be called his son.

Mu’awiya bin Hind was the product of a

combined Nikah
Ibn Abi al Hadeed in Sharh Nahjul Balagha notes the following in Volume 10 page 130:

“Mu’awiya’s parentage was attributed to four persons namely Abi Amar bin Musaafir, Abi
Ammara bin Waleed, Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib and Sabah the Ethiopian. Abu Sufyan was short
and ugly whilst Sabah was young and handsome thus Hind offered him sex and from amongst the
Arabs, it has also been stated that Abu Sufyan’s other son Utbah was also a product of this union”.
Similarly in Rabi’ul Abrar by Allamah Zamakhshari, Volume 3 page 551:

“There were four people who were thought to be Mu’awiya’s father, Abi bin Umar bin Musaafir,
Abi Umar bin Waleed, Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib and Sabah”
Rabi’ul Abrar by Allamah Zamakhshari Volume 3 page 551
In Tadkhirat al Khawwas, page 114 Chapter 7 we read:

“Sham bin Muhammad Kalbi in his book Kitab Mushab notes that Imam Hasan said to Mu’awiya
‘Are you aware of the bed from which you was conceived?’ This means he was born from four
fathers”.
We read Sharh Ibn al Hadeed Volume 4 page 94 under the Chapter “Mun Kitab Ziyad Ubayya” that:

“Mu’awiya wrote a letter to Ziyad, the contents of which included the words ‘O son of Sumayya’
(amongst the Arabs there was a tradition that if one’s ancestry was questionable, then that
individual would be called by their mother’s name. In the same way that Imam Hasan referred to
Marwan as ‘Ibn Zurqa’- Mu’awiya sought to mock Ziyad by calling him the son of
Sumayya…Ziyad replied to Mu’awiya with these words ‘Mu’awiya you called me by the name of
my mother Sumayya, so as to mock me, well if I am the son of Sumayya then you are ‘Ibne Jamaat’
as you was a product of Nikah ijtimah”.
We read in al-Nasa’ih al-Kaafiyah page 85 we read:

Musafir was a handsome, generous man – he fell in love with the daughter of Utbah, and she fell in
love with him. She became pregnant. Maarif Ibne Khurbooz states that when her signs of
pregnancy became visible Hinda told Musafir to flee and he made his way out of the city. Naufal
states that Musafir was one of those individuals that was killed on account of his love of Hinda.

Ayesha’s testimony that Hinda committed Zina

We read in Tadkhira tul Khawass, page 62 Chapter “Dhikr Khwaarij” we read that

“When Mu’awiya’s sister Umme Habeeba received news about Muhammad bin Abu Bakr’s
murder, she sent Ayesha a cooked goat suggesting that the reason for his killing was his murder of
Uthman. When this happened Ayesha said “May Allah (swt) kill this daughter of fornicating
woman. By Allah! I shall never eat this meat again”.

The ‘virtues’ possessed by one born

illegitimately
Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah Qutubadeen Shirazi in his book “Nizhaat Al-Quloob Munkool az Istakhsa al
Fahm” page 981 states:

“A child born out of fornication is better due to the fact that a man does so with complete effort and
enjoyment, whilst a child conceived legitimately only pleases his wife. A child born from fornication
is more clever, that is why Amr bin Aas and Mu’awiya bin Abu Sufyan were great politicians and
are counted as amongst the people of deception, the greatest politician from this group was Ziyad
bin Ubayya”.

One born illegitimately can not be a Khalifa

Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah al Muhaddith Shah Waliyullah Dehlavi in his Hujjutul Balaghtha Volume 2 page
149 “Dhikr Khilafat” states:

“To be a Khalifa one must satisfy the following six requirements, he must be
1. wise
2. mature
3. Free
4. a Man
5. Brave
6. Possess good ancestry”
On this issue of ancestry Shah states:

“The Khalifa should be such an individual that people recognize him on account of his good family,
and not the opposite where the people would show him disrespect”.
The combined nikah, its merits and Hinda’s fornication has now been presented faithfully from the texts
of Ahl’ul Sunnah. Mu’awiya may indeed have been a master of deception and a great politician, but as
Shah Waliyullah states, one born illegitimately can not attaint the position of Khalifa, you need to possess
a good ancestry – something that Mu’awiya did not possess, his mother entered the pre jahiliyya system
of Nikah sleeping with four different men.

Mu’awiya the politician and khalifa dedicated 5 years of his life fighting the Imam of Guidance ‘Ali ibne
Abi Talib (as), he poisoned Imam Hasan (as), he introduced the ugly bidah of cursing Imam ‘Ali (as)
during the Friday Sermon. He murdered the supporters of ‘Ali (as), introduced practices that contradicted
the Qur’an and Sunnah, made his alcoholic son Yazeed Khalifa over the nation. Hinda’s suckling and the
combined Nikah may well have indeed created a great politician but, one of the signs of being illegitimate
is hatred of Imam ‘Ali (as) – and Mu’awiya through his actions confirmed the authenticity of this hadith.

One who fights the rightful Imam is a Fasiq

In al-Nasa’ih al-Kaafiyah page 130, Muhammad din Aqeeal Shaafi whilst discussing the justice of the
companions states:

“…prior to the murder of Uthman all the Sahaba were Adil (Just). After his murder, fitnah arose
and a viewpoint developed that those who fought against ‘Ali were fasiq because they rebelled
against the rightful Imam”.

One who turns his back on the right path is a

Zaalim and Fasiq
In Sharh al Maqasid Volume 2 page 306 Allamah Taftazani states that:

“The battles between the Sahaba are proof that some companions left the right path and became
Zaalim and Fasiq because they became affected by jealousy, hatred, hypocrisy, a desire for power
and indulgence because not all the companions were just, not was every individual who saw
Rasulullah (s), good”.
Sharh al Maqasid Volume 2 page 306
Clearly the right path was to attach themselves to ‘Ali (as). By turning their backs on him and fighting
him, proves that Mu’awiya and his party had gone astray. He fought ‘Ali and caused the death of
prominent companions. Thereafter as a Khalifa he adopted a policy of oppression against the lovers of
‘Ali and cursed him during the Friday Sermons. Do we need any further proof to demonstrate that
Mu’awiya had gone astray and hated Imam ‘Ali (as)? Mu’awiya continued to act in the way of
descendants. His brother, maternal grandfather and uncle were killed at the hands of Maula ‘Ali (as) at
Badr. Mu’awiya was hence motivated by hatred and dedicated his life to fighting Imam ‘Ali (as).

Mu’awiya’s Conquests
Some advocates of Mu’awiya commonly highlight the fact that the Muslim Empire was expanded under
his rule with Sahaba under his helm, as was not the case under Imam Ali (as)’s khilafat. It should be
pointed out that empire expansion means little in the eyes of Allah (swt). One will be questioned on the
day of judgement on his ‘personal deeds’ and Mu’awiya despite his advocate’s poor defences, will indeed
have a great deal to answer for. In any case, his conquests mean nothing, as Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah ‘Abu
Bakr al Jassas states in Ahkaam ul Qur’an Volume 3 page 119:

“Following the four khalifas the Sahaba participated in Jihad under the helm of Fasiq’s and
Faajirs, ‘Abu Ayub Ansari participated in Jihad under the Leadership of Yazeed”.

Mu’awiya’s declaration that Ziyad was the son

of ‘Abu Sufyan is proof that he was a fasiq
Imam Jalaluddeen Suyuti acknowledges thie following in his book ‘Al-Debaj ala Muslim’ volume 1 page
84:

‫ادعي زياد بضم الدال مبني للمفعول أي ادعاه معاوية وألحقه بأبيه أبي سفيان بعد أن كان يعرف بزياد بن أبيه الن أمه ولدته على فراش‬
‫عبيد وهذه أول قضية غير فيها الحكم الشرعي في االسالم‬
“When Zyiad was attributed, as Mu’awiya attributed him to his father Abu Sufyan while he
(Zyiad) was known as Zyiad bin Abih because his mother had given birth to him on Ubaid’s bed,
and this was the first Sharia law that was changed in Islam.”
Al-Debaj ala Muslim, Volume 1 page 84
Imam Suyuti also records in Tareekh ul Khulafa, page 185:
“Mu’awiya’s attributed Ziyad bin Abih and it was the first act that contradicted an order of
Rasulullah as al-Thalabi and others narrated it”.
We read in Tarikh Kamil Volume 3 page 68:

“They rejected the law of Rasulullah because Rasulullah (s) said that the legitimate child is one
born from wedlock”
Allamah Ibn Abdul Barr records in his esteem work ‘al-Estidkar’ volume 7 page 169:

Saeed bin al-Musayab said: ‘The first law of messenger of Allah that was rejected was in the case of
Ziyad’
Let us also read the views of Imam of Ahle Sunnah Ahmed bin Hanbal:

Ahmad (bin Hanbal) said: ‘The first law of the Holy Prophet (s) that was rejected is the case of
Ziyad’
Masael Ahmad bin Hanbal, page 89
For further Sunni references on this clear bidah please see the following links:

1. al-Kawkib al-Durri by Allamah Mahmood Ayubi page 327

2. Musalman kai aruj aur Zawaal, by Professor Ahmad Akbar Abadai, page 54
3. al Bidaya wa al Nihaya Volume 8 page 28
4. Tarikh ibn Asakir, page 412
5. Mizan al Itidal page 86, Dhikr Ziyad
6. Tarikh Abu’l Fida, page 185, Dhikr Mu’awiya
7. Tarikh ibn Khaldun, Volume 3 page 8 Dhikr Mu’awiya
This action of Mu’awiya contravened the Qur’an, we read in Surah Ahzab verses 4-5:

YUSUFALI: Allah has not made for any man two hearts in his (one) body: nor has He made your
wives whom ye divorce by Zihar your mothers: nor has He made your adopted sons your sons. Such is
(only) your (manner of) speech by your mouths. But Allah tells (you) the Truth, and He shows the
(right) Way.
Call them by (the names of) their fathers: that is juster in the sight of Allah. But if ye know not their
father’s (names, call them) your Brothers in faith, or your maulas. But there is no blame on you if ye
make a mistake therein: (what counts is) the intention of your hearts: and Allah is Oft-Returning, Most
Merciful.
A Fasiq is one who acts in violation to the Word of Allah (swt) and his Messenger. Mu’awiya through
this act proves that he was a fasiq. For his die hard Nasibi advocates we would like to know how they
explain this declaration of Mu’awiya? No doubt the ijtihad defence may be shouted out but as we have
consistently proven throughout this article, you cannot exercise ijtihad where you have nass (text), which
was present here via the words of Rasulullah (s). Despite this, Mu’awiya sought fit to make a declaration
that contravened the words of Rasulullah (s).

It is a religious duty to expose the deeds of a

fasiq
No doubt the advocates of Mu’awiya, like Abu Sulaiman, will seek to protect their Imam from harm, but
to highlight the faults of a fasiq of the likes of Mu’awiya, is a religious obligation. Hasan Basri stated
that:

“The testimonies of three people should be rejected:

The individual who openly indulges in bad acts.
A Zaalim Ruler
One who practices bidath”
(References: Sharh Muslim, by Nawawi Volume 2 page 322; Tafsir Ibn Katheer Volume 4 page 214;
Ahkam al Qur’an by ‘Abu Bakr Jassas; Tafseer Fathul Qadeer)
Abu Sulaiman can feel free to choose whatever category he likes because Mu’awiya fits at the helm of
each one. His bad acts were evident from his declaring a bastard as his brother. As ruler, his harsh
treatment of the likes of Hujr bin Adi as we have demonstrated, speaks for itself. With regards to his
bidah of cursing Imam Ali (as), it has been discussed at length previously.

Famous deobandi scholar and former chief of Jamaat-e-Islami, Sayyid Abu’l Ala Maudoodi, after citing
the words of Hasan Basri in Tahfim ul Qur’an Volume 5 page 87, makes these relevant comments:

“It is imperative that we highlight such individuals to prevent the risk of running in to danger
(from such individuals) if narrators, witnesses and writers display such faults then such weaknesses
should not be hidden, rather they should be conveyed”

Praising a fasiq leads to incurring the wrath of

Allah (swt)
Whilst Abu Sulaiman and his Nasibi advocates have dedicated their life to defending Mu’awiya and
heaping praise on him, no matter what the cost, we would urge our Ahl’ul Sunnah brothers not to get
roped in to their actions, for the consequences are simply too great. The Sunni scholar al Muhaddith Shah
Abdul Aziz Dehlavi in Tauhfa Ithna Ashariyya page 191 Chapter 7 states:

“It is recorded in Sahih hadith that when someone praises a bad character person, Allah (swt) gets
upset with him”.
Clearly one who is a momin is one that has love for ‘Ali (as). Why would such an individual risk
incurring the wrath of Allah (swt) by showering praise on an individual who was an enemy of ‘Ali (as),
fought and cursed him? The modern day Nasibis are trying their utmost to recruit people into their
obnoxious cult by declaring their affiliation with Imam ‘Ali (as). The reality is very different as one can
see from their passionate defence of Mu’awiya which as is the case with Abu Sulaiman, in fact turns in to
an attack on Imam ‘Ali (as). No rational lover of Ahl’ul Sunnah would ever wish to praise those that
cursed Maula ‘Ali (as). Let us leave the Nasibi’s to wallow in their hypocrisy. They made their own bed
let them lie in, to join them on their road to Hell.

“It is little wonder that Hanafi scholar Maulana ‘Abdul Hakeem Chishti in his biography of Maulana
Waheed uz Zaman cited his comments from “Waheed ai Lughath”:

“To say ‘may Allah be pleased with him’ after Mu’awiya’s names takes a considerable amount of
courage”.
Hayaat Waheed uz Zaman, page 109 by Maulana Muhamad Abdul Haleem Chishti

Muawiya was wicked and is cursed

In Nuzlul Abrar Volume 3 page 94 by famed Salafi scholar Maulana Waheed uz Zaman Khan Hyderabadi
made these very frank comments about Mu’awiya and his cohorts whilst attacking the character of his
governor Walid:

“if an evil-doer comes to you with a report, look carefully into it“[49:6]. It was descended in Al Walid
Ibn Aqaba .
Also His (swt) saying: “Is he who is a believer like unto him who is an evil-liver? They are not alike.”
[32:18]
And from that we know that there was wicked persons among the Sahaba like Al Walid and his
likes who are Mu’awiya, Amr bin Al-Ass, Mughira, and Sumra.
And the meaning of the Sahaba are fair, means they are truthful in the narration and not that they
are protected from being wicked.”
Nuzlul Abrar, Volume 3 page 94
Allamah Waheed uz Zaman also refers to Mu’awiya having attained the wrath of Allah (swt):

And God Almighty said: “Those who malign Allah and His messenger, Allah hath cursed them in the
world and the Hereafter, and hath prepared for them the doom of the disdained.”
Mu’awiya, Yazid, Umro bin Al ‘Ass, Shimr, Umer bin Sa’ad, Sannan, Khuli annoyed Allah and His
prophet, so every one who was like them is cursed . For that some of our companions like Ahmad
bin Hanbal have allowed to curse Yazid and his likes .
Al Marshrab al Wardi Minal Fiqha e Muhammadi, page 251 by Maulana Waheed uz Zaman Khan
Hyderabadi
Note: Both of these referecnes have been deleted from the later versions of both of these books.

Mu’awiya was a Nasibi

In “Lisan al Arab” page 762 by Ibn Manzur states:

“Nawasib are those who hate Ali, and embrace that hatred as part of their faith”
If this is the definition of a Nasibi then Mu’awiya was the practical definition of one. If his fighting
against Imam Ali (as) is not clear evidence in itself, then his introducing the practice of cursing ‘Ali (as)
in all mosques throughout the territories, serves as unequivocal proof that he had a deep seated hated of
Imam ‘Ali (as) in his heart. Mu’awiya sought to institutionalize this hatred, by making the ritual cursing a
part of the Friday Sermon, by doing so he in effect sought to convince the masses that this was a part of
the Deen. It is little wonder that modern day Pakistani Hanafi scholar Maulana Sayyid Lal Shah Bukhari
in “Isthakhlaaf ai Yazid” page 216 admitted:

“The founder of Nasibi ideology was Mu’awiya”.

Fatwa of Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah, Shah Abdul

Aziz that Nawasib are equal to dogs and pigs
Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi declared in “Tauhfa Ithna Ashariyya” page 6:

“The Ulema of Ahl’ul Sunnah regard the enemies of Ali, the Nasibis as the worst party that recites
the Shahada. We regard them as equivalent to dogs and pigs”

Appraisals of Mu’awiya
Character references play a pivotal role in society. Having good character means that you have such
admirable traits as honesty, responsibility and piety. It is important to have good character. The ability of
someone to couch for the character of another is essential to attaining a place in university, work etc.
From a religious context a good character of a person will help judge his suitability to take up religious
posts such as an Imam, teacher etc. Let us now present the character reference of the Imam of the Nasabis
namely Mu’awiya, from those that had the honour of meeting him.

Appraisal of Mu’awiya by Rasulullah (s)

First appraisal – Rasulullah (s) cursed Mu’awiya’s stomach
We read in Sahih Muslim hadith number 6298, a tradition narrated by Ibn Abbas:

“I was playing with children and Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) happened to pass by (us). I
hid myself behind the door. He (the Prophet) came and he patted upon my shoulders and said: Go
and call Mu’awiya. I returned and said: He is busy in taking food. He again asked me to go and call
Mu’awiya to him. I went (and came back) and said that he was busy in taking food, whereupon he
said: May Allah not fill his belly! Ibn Muthanna said: I asked Umm Umayyah what he meant by
the word Hatani. He said: It means “he patted my shoulders”.
Nasibi excuses for the Prophet’s curse on Muawiya’s stomach
Anyone with the slightest honesty can recognize how severely Muawiya is being condemned in this
Hadeeth. Unsurprisingly the Nawasib due to their absence of integrity offer an alternative interpretation,
and seek to suggest that the Hadeeth should be recognized as an appraisal of Muawiya. Consider this the
article ‘Hadith About Muawiyyah: “May Allah Not Fill His Belly” [A Sunni Perspective]’ wherein
Ibn al-Hashimi stated:
The Shia will look within the Hadith collection of the Ahlus Sunnah in order to prove their viewpoint.
However, the Shia will oftentimes need to make use of academic deceit when they quote such Hadith.
One such example can be found when they procure Hadith about Muawiyyah.
It is recorded in the Hadith of the Ahlus Sunnah that the Prophet said of Muawiyyah, “May Allah not fill
his belly.” The Shia will then claim that the Hadith thereby condemns Muawiyyah. What these Shia fail
to say is that there is an Arabic saying “may Allah not fill your belly” which means “may your sustenance
be without end” (i.e. its end never come). In the Semitic cultures, this is a commonly used colloquialism:
when someone is about to die, people say that so-and-so has reached his fill of food.
Oftentimes, Shia youth will go to various discussion forums and use simple “copy and pastes” in order to
“prove” their point; they will duplicate this Hadith. These Shia propagandists do not have a grasp of the
Arabic language and are thus liable to make such mistakes whereby they take things drastically out of
context. The analogy of this is a man telling his son to “break a leg” before a soccer match. If we were to
literally translate “break a leg” into Chinese, it would lose its intended meaning; a Chinese reader would
think that this father actually wants his son to physically get hurt! If this same Chinese reader asked the
Chinese police to arrest this man for child abuse, they would probably do so. But if this Chinese reader
went to English-speaking police, they would probably laugh at him for misinterpreting English
colloquialism. In the same manner do we laugh at the Shia who use the afore-mentioned Hadith to prove
anything.
The truth is that the Shia scholars who first posted this Hadith about Muawiyyah were engaging in deceit
in order to fool the masses and “prove” their point. In reality, the Hadith is in praise of Muawiyyah and
not a condemnation of him. Unfortunately, this Hadith is now circulating the internet without proper
context. We see that this is a recurring theme in the debate with the Shia.

Reply One
Lets just for arguments sake accept this claim of Nawasib that we know nothing of Arabic – tell us one
thing whose knowledge of the true meaning of this Hadeeth should we accept, yours or that of Imam
Muslim? The hadeeth that you suggest is an appraisal of Muawiya has been inserted by Muslim under this
heading:

“He upon whom Allah’s Apostle (May Peace Be Upon Him) invoked curse whereas he in fact did
not deserve it, it would be a source of reward and mercy for him”
Look carefully at the wording here, those that fall within this Hadeeth chapter are those that the Prophet
(s) cursed, so how can this Nasibi suggest that it is an appraisal of Muawiya suggesting that he attains
eternal sustenance. If Imam Muslim really wanted to evidence this as an appraisal of Muawiya then he
could have placed this within the chapter dealing with the merits of the Sahaba but he did not, he placed it
in the chapter dealing with those that the Prophet cursed! We are sure that Ibn al Hashimi is fully aware of
the heading wherein this Hadeeth is found, but his love of Muawiya was such that he made a last ditch
effort to defend his Imam before his Sunni audience, tragically the only thing that he achieved was to
expose his intellectual dishonestly.

Reply Two
Face facts Ibn al-Hashimi, this Hadeeth is a clear condemnation of Mu’awiya which is why when Imam
Nasai recited it in Damascus he was murdered. If (as Ibn al Hashimi and other Nasibi lawyers suggest) it
was an appraisal of him then why did the Damascans not recognize it as such, and instead murder Imam
Nasai for reciting it? Ibn al Hashimi suggests that the Shia debaters lack knowledge of Arabic as used by
the Arab people, tell us are the Syrians not Arabs? Would they have been ignorant of this alleged
praiseworthy term in Semitic culture? If they were aware of this praiseworthy saying, then rather than fill
Imam Nasai’s pockets with sweets and Dirhams, why did they react by beating him so severely that he
died of his injuries? Imam Nasai’s recital of this tradition and the violent reaction of the Syrians and the
chapter wherein Imam Muslim records this Hadeeth proves that the Hadeeth is a severe condemnation of
Muawiya. Mu’awiya’s eating habits were a mirror reflection of the type of behaviour that Allah (swt) has
condemned in the Qur’an, stating that the kaafirs eat like animals.

Reply Three
Here we deem it appropriate to also mention the excuse that was advanced by Ibn Katheer al-Nasibi in al
Bidayah. He provided an interesting commentary of this Hadeeth suggesting that Rasulullah (s) had
praised Mu’awiya via this supplication, by pointing out he would benefit from the blessing of Allah (swt).
It’s the type of logic wherein someone says ‘Your house will burn down” meaning no mouse will remain
in the house.

Reply Four
Now we should also comment on the Sunni notion we read above in shape of the chapter name in Sahih
Muslim. It tells us that the curse of Rasool (saw) becomes a blessing ONLY if he curses someone who
didn’t deserve it, but it will certainly be a valid and applicable curse if the one being cursed is worthy of it
. Now the key question is, whether the Prophet’s curse really hurt Muawiya or it was just a ‘friendly
curse’ as Nawasib would like to suggest? The answer is that the Prophet’s curse acted as a major blow to
Muawiya’s life as he would eat SEVEN times a day, and yet remained hungry, Ibn Kathir records in Al-
Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, Volume 8 page 119:

‫ أول من‬:‫وكذا روى عن مغيرة عن إبراهيم أنه قال‬. ‫ أول من خطب جالسا معاوية حين كثر شحمه وعظم بطنه‬:‫وقال مغيرة عن الشعبي‬
‫ أول من جلس على المنبر معاوية واستأذن الناس في الجلوس‬:‫وقال أبو المليح عن ميمون‬. ‫خطب جالسا يوم الجمعة معاوية‬.
And Mughira reported from Sh’ubi: “And Muawiya was the first person who started giving
sermon (of Friday prayer) while sitting. And this happened at that time when Muawiya acquired
thick layers of fat and his stomach grew large.
Mughirah also reported Ibrahim: “The first individual that delivered the Friday sermon whilst
seated was Muawiya”.
And Abu Malih also reported the same from Memoon that Muawiya was the first who sat on the
Minbar.
We also read in Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, Volume 8 page 138:

‫ ويأكل في اليوم سبع أكالت‬،‫ كان يأكل في اليوم سبع مرات يجاء بقصعة فيها لحم كثير ويصل فيأكل منها‬،‫فإنه لما صار إلى الشام أميرا‬
‫ وهذه نعمة ومعدة يرغب فيها كل الملوك‬،‫ ومن الحلوى والفاكهة شيئا كثيرا ويقول وهللا ما أشبع وإنما أعيا‬،‫بلحم‬.
“When he became the ruler of Syria, he used to eat SEVEN times a day. The bowl which was
brought to him for eating was full of meat and onions. He would eat from the bowl seven times a
day along with a lot of sweets and fruits. Despite this he would still say: “By God! my belly is not
full, but I am tired and food is a form of blessing with which all Kings are interested.”
Reply Five
The interesting thing is that Rasulullah (s) said that a believer does not eat excessively whilst a kaafir
does. In this regards we read in Sahih Muslim, The Book of Drinks (Kitab Al-Ashriba) Volume 7, Book
65, Number 306:

Narrated Ibn ‘Umar: Allah’s Apostle said, “A believer eats in one intestine (is satisfiedwith a little
food), and a kafir (unbeliever) or a hypocrite eats in SEVEN intestines (eats too much).”
One can now easily relate the habit of Muawiya eating seven times a day with this prediction of the
Prophet (s) according to which only the Kuffar adhere to such eating habits. Moreover we read in Sahih
Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 65, Number 308:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah’s Apostle said, “A Muslim eats in one intestine (i.e. he is satisfied with a little food) while a
Kafir (unbeliever) eats in seven intestines (eats much).”
Here we see a difference between Muslim and Kufar in eating habits. In his commentary of this Nawawi
in Sharh said eating less is good etiquette whilst excessive eating is bad etiquette. We hence leave it to
Mu’awiya’s supporters to think about this. Rasulullah (s) said that excessive eating is the sign of a kafir
and Allah (swt) compared this to an animal. With this in mind how can this Hadeeth be an appraisal of
Mu’awiya?

It is down to Mu’awiya’s lovers to issue the appropriate Fatwa on their Imam in light of this Hadeeth.
When Rasulullah (s) raised his hands and supplicated “May Allah not fills his belly!” Will this benefit
him in the next world? The example of Mu’awiya is like that of kaafirs and animals, it is not the practice
of the believer as is clear from the Seerah of Rasulullah (s).
If Nawasib argue that it was against the manner of the Prophet to believe that he would supplicate against
a believer, we will respond that Mu’awiya was worthy of such condemnation, since Rasulullah (s) said a
believer is he whose blood is protected from another Muslim, and killing a Muslim is Fisq and killing him
is kufr and He (s) also said that loving Ali (as) is belief and hating Ali (as) is disbelief.

Reply Six
Concluding the Prophet (s)’s curse on Mu’awiya’s stomach, we shall also mention the following
prediction of our Holy Prophet (s) which is quite relevant to His (s) curse on the filthy stomach of
Mu’awiya. Allamah Naeem bin Hamad al-Marozi (d. 229 H) records the following tradition in his
esteemed work ‘Al-Fetan’ Volume 1 page 116:

‫يجتمع أمر هذه األمة على رجل واسع السرم ضخم البلعم يأكل وال يشبع‬
Prophet (s) said: ‘This ummah will have Ijma on a man whose rectum’s hole will be as wide as the
hole of his throat, he eats but doesn’t get filled’
We can now deduce why Muawiya’s stomach remained constantly empty. That is why Allamah
Muhammad bin Aqeel Shaf’ee in his book ‘Nasai al-Kafia’ page 162 clearly stated that the person being
talked about in the above prediction is Muawiya. As for words “Was’a Saram” the Allamah Ibn Atheer
in his book ‘Al-Nihayah’ Volume 2 page 916 and Ibn Manzur in ‘Lisan al-Arab’ Volume 12 page 286
have clearly mentioned their meanings.
So next time when the children of Mu’awiya want to use the tradition of Sahih Muslim as one of the
merits of Mu’awiya rather than Prophet’s curse on his stomach, these people shall also mention the reason
behind the always empty stomach of Mu’awiya i.e. “Was’a Saram” .
Second appraisal – Rasulullah (s) cursed Mu’awiya, his brother
father and Amr bin Aas
We read in Ahl’ul Sunnah’s book ‘Maqatil Husayn’ page 117 part 4:

“Imam Hasan reminded Mu’awiya of the occasion “when your father was riding a red camel you
was in front of him and your brother Utbah was dragging the camel by its nose? On that occasion
Rasulullah (s) cursed your father, brother and you”
Rasulullah’s cursing of these three individuals on this specific occasion can also be located in Waq’at
Sifeen, Volume 8 page 185.

Ibn Katheer in al Bidaya wa al Nihaya, Volume 8 page 133 records this Hadeeth:

“If you see Mu’awiya on my pulpit then kill him”

Rasulullah (s) asked to kill Mu’awiya which negates the alleged ijma associated with his khilafah. To
hold a position contrary to this is clear opposition to Rasulullah (s)

Third appraisal – Rasulullah (s) cursed Mu’awiya and Amr bin

Aas
Imam al-Dhahabi recorded that:

‫ابن فضيل حدثنا يزيد بن أبي زياد عن سليمان بن عمرو بن األحوص عن ابي برزة كنا مع النبي صلى هللا عليه وسلم فسمع صوت غناء‬
‫فقال انظروا ما هذا فصعدت فنظرت فإذا معاوية وعمرو بن العاص يتغنيان فجئت فأخبرته فقال اللهم أركسهما في الفتنة ركسا ودعهما في‬
‫النار دعا‬
Abi Burza said: ‘We were with the prophet (pbuh) then he heard someone singing, so He (s) said:
‘Go and see what is going on there’. Thus, I climbed and looked, I saw Mu’awiya and Amr bin al-
Aas singing, then I rutrned and told (the prophet). He (the prophet) said: ‘May Allah throw them in
fitna (sedition) and push them towards hell’.
1. Mizan al-I’tidal, Volume 3 page 311
2. Siyar alam al Nubla, Volume 3 page 132
Fourth appraisal – Rasulullah (s) cursed Mu’awiya, his father
Abu Sufyan and his son Yazeed
Imam Ibn Jarir Tabari records in Tareekh Tabari, Volume 5 page 622:

‫ق ول الرسول عليه السالم وقد رآه مقبال على حمار ومعاوية يقود به ويزيد ابنه يسوق به لعن هللا القائد والراكب والسائق‬
The prophet (pbuh) said: ‘May Allah curse the leader, the rider and the driver’ when He (s) saw
him (Abu Sufiyan) on a donkey Mu’awiya leading it and his son Yazid riding on it’
Allamah Ismaeel bin Abul Fida in his famed history work also recrded:

‫ لعن هللا القائد والراكب والسائق‬: ‫ورأى النبـي (ص) أبـا سفيان مقبال ً ومعاوية يقوده ويزيد أخو معاوية يسوق به فقال‬
Prophet (s) saw Abu Sufyan coming and Mu’awiya leading him and Yazid (Mu’awiya’s brother)
driving him, so the Prophet (s) said: ‘May God curse the leader and the rider and the driver’.
Tarikh Abul-Fida, Volume 2 page 75
Ibn Mazahim records in ‘Waqat Sifeen’ page 218:

“Nasar narrated from Abdul Ghafar bin al Qasim who narrated from Adi bin Thabit who narrated
from Bara bin Aazab who said that Abu Sufiyan came along with Muawiya, thus Holy Prophet (s)
said: ‘May Allah curse the leader and the one being lead. Allah, send your wrath on Al-Aqi’as’. Ibn
al-Bara’ asked his father: ‘Who is Al-Aqi’as?’. He replied: ‘Muawiya’.
Allamah Ali bin Abi Bakar al-Haythami in his esteemed work ‘Majmu al-Zawaid’ also recorded a version
of this hadith without naming the characters.

Narrated Safena:
The prophet (s) was sitting, so a man on a mule passed and between his hands a leader, and behind
him a driver, so Prophet (s): “May God curse the leader, the driver and the rider”. Narrated by Al
Bazzar and his men are thiqat (authentic).
Majma ul Zawaid, Volume 1, page 113 Tradition: 437
Ffith appraisal – Mu’awiya shall die a kaafir
We read in Waq’at Sifeen page 217 and Tarikh Tabari Volume 8 page 186 that Abdullah ibne Umar
narrates that he heard Rasulullah say:

“Mu’awiya shall not die on the path of Islam”.

Both the above books on the same pages also record a similar hadith, this time narrated by Jabir bin
Abdullah who testified that he heard Rasulullah (s) say:

“At the time of his death, Mu’awiya shall not be counted as member of my Muslim Ummah”
Sixth appraisal – Mu’awiya shall be raised with a different
Ummah on the day of Judgment
We read in Ansab al Ashraf Volume 5 page 132 that Rasulullah (s) said:

“From this door shall enter a man from my Ummah who shall be raised with another Ummah on
the Day of Judgment, at that point Mu’awiya came through the door”
Seventh appraisal – Mu’awiya shall be in the deepest part of
Hell Fire
It is recorded in Tarikh Tabari, Volume 5 page 622 that Rasulullah (s) said:

“Verily Mu’awiya shall be in the deepest part of Hell from where he shall shout ‘Ya Hanan, Ya
Manan’ verily I have sinned and spread fitnah throughout the earth”.
Similarly find in Ansab al Ashraf Volume 5 page 132 that Rasulullah (s) said:

“Mu’awiya has a coffin in the deepest part of Hell, one that has a lock on it”.
In addition, in Waq’at Sifeen page 217, we learn that Abdullah ibne Umar had also condemned Mu’awiya
as follows:

“Verily Mu’awiya’s coffin is in the deepest part of Hell, Had Firawn not declared that he was the
most superior God, nobody would have been in a deeper part of Hell than Mu’awiya”.
Eighth appraisal – Mu’awiya and Amr bin al-Aas can never
gather for a good cause
According to the prediction of Holy Prophet (s), the gathering of Mu’awiya and Amr bin al-Ass is the
sign of evil as they can never gather for a good cause. We read the following episode in famed Sunni
work al-Eqd al-Fareed, Volume 1:
It is narrated that when Amro bin al-A’as went to Mu’awya and stood beside him in Ali’s case after
(Mu’awya) gave him Egypt as a booty. He (Amro bin Al-A’s) said to him (Mu’awiya): ‘There is a
honorable and well reputed man in your country, if he stands beside you, you will own the hearts of
the people, he is Ubada bin al-Samit.’
Mu’awiya sent to him, so when he (Ubada) arrived, (Mu’awiya) made space for Ubada between
him and Amro bin al-A’as, then he (Ubada) sat between them.
Then Mu’awiya praised Allah and then he mentioned the merits of Ubada and his vanguard of
Islam, then he mentioned the merits of Uthman and whatever had happened to him, then he
motivated (Ubada) to stand beside him. Ubada said: ‘I heard what you said, do you know why I sat
between you in your place?’ They said: ‘Yes, because of your honor, virtue and your vanguard of
Islam. He (Ubada) said: ‘By Allah, that is not why I sat between you, and I would never sit between
you in your place, but when we were marching along with the Prophet (s) for Tabuk battle, he
looked at both of you walking talking. So He (s) looked at us and said: ‘If you see them gathered,
separate them because they never gather for the good.”
Ninth appraisal – Mu’awiya is Kafir
Baladhuri records:

:‫وحدثني إسحاق وبكر بن الهيثم قاال حدثنا عبد الرزاق بن همام انبأنا معمر عن ابن طاوس عن أبيه عن عبد هللا بن عمرو بن العاص قال‬
،‫ وكنت تركت أبي قد وضع له وضوء‬:‫ قال‬،‫ يطلع عليكم من هذا الفج رجل يموت على غير ملتي‬:‫كنت عند النبي صلى هللا عليه وسلم فقال‬
‫ هو هذا‬: ‫ فطلع معاوية فقال النبي صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬:‫ قال‬،‫فكنت كحابس البول مخافة أن يجيء‬
Ishaq and Bakr bin Haytham from Abdurazaq bin Hamam from Mu’amar from Ibn Taous from
Taous bin Kisan from Abdullah Ibn Amr ibn Al-’as who stated: ‘I was sitting with the Prophet of
Allah (s) when He (s) said: ‘A man will come out of this mountain pass, who will die and he will be
outside my nation (Islam)’. I had left behind my father there for wudhu, and I feared, as if holding
back my urine, that he would be the one to come, but Mu’awiya came out. The Prophet (s) said:
‘He is the one’.
Ansab al-Ashraf, Volume 2 page 120
Ishaq bin Abi Israel: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p79), Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Al-
Kashif, v1 p234). Abdulrazaq bin Hamam: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p599),
Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Siar alam alnubala, v9 p563). Mu’amar bin Rashid: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah
Thabt’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p202), Dahabi said: ‘Hujja’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v1 p190). Abdullah bin
Taous: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p503), Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Siar alam
alnubala, v6, p103). Taous bin Kisan: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p448), Dahabi
said: ‘He had a great magnificence’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v1 p90). Abdullah bin Amro bin al-Sas: A
Sahabi. Moreover, Hafiz Ahmad bin al-Sidiq said about this tradition: ‘Sahih according to Muslim’s
condition’ (Jawnat al-Attar, v2 p154)
Tenth appraisal – Mu’awiya shall be killed if tried to sit on
Prophet’s pulpit
Baladhuri records in Ansab Al-Ashraf, volume 5 page 130:

‫ قال عاصم بن بهدلة حدثني زر بن حبيش عن عبد هللا بن مسعود‬:‫ سمعت سالما ً أبا المنذر يقول‬،‫حدثني إبراهيم بن العالف البصري قال‬
‫ “ إذا رأيتم معاوية بن أبي سفيان يخطب على المنبر فاضربوا عنقه‬: ‫ قال رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬:‫قال‬
Ibrahim Ibn Al-Alaaf from Salaam Ibn Sulayman from Isam Ibn Bahdalah from Zirr from
Abdullah Ibn Masood from Rasoolullah (s) who said: ‘If you see Muwiyah bin Abi Sufiyan on my
pulpit then kill him’.
Abdullah bin Masud: Sahabi. Zirr bin Hubaysh: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1
p311). Asim bin Bahdalah: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p546). Salaam bin Sulayman
Abu al-Munder: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p406). Ibrahim bin al-Alaf al-
Basri: Imam Ibn Haban included him among the Thiqa narrators (al-Thuqat, v8 p78).
Umar’s appraisal of Mu’awiya
First appraisal
Al Bidaya Volume 8 page 125 ‘Dhikr Mu’awiya’ contains the words of Umar :

“Mu’awiya is the Kisra of the Arabs”.

Umar compared Mu’awiya to kaafir king, the same Umar said that the Tulqa cannot be khalifas, and the
words of Umar are enough to refute the Nasibi assertions that Muawiyas’ reign is correct according to the
ijma of the Sahaba,

Second appraisal
Baladhuri records in Ansab al-Ashraf, Volume 3 page 403:

‫ كانت لي حاجة إلى عمر‬:‫ ثنا يحيى بن آدم عن وكيع عن إسماعيل بن أبي خالد عن شبيل اليحصبي قال‬،‫حدثني الحسين بن علي بن األسود‬
‫ أبو‬.‫ فنظرت فإذا هو معاوية‬،‫ لئن أطعتك لتدخلني النار‬:‫ فسبقني إليه رجل فكلمه فسمعت عمر يقول له‬،‫ فغدوت ألكلمه فيها‬،‫بن الخطاب‬
‫الحسن المدائني عن وكيع عن إسماعيل عن شبيل بمثله‬.
Al-Hussain bin Ali al-Aswad from Yahya bin Adam from Wakee from Ismail bin Abi Khalid from
Shubail al-Yahsabi who said: ‘I had requisition from Umar bin al-Khatab, hence I went to him to
ask him but a man reached to him before me and talked to him, then I heard that Umar was saying
to him: ‘If I obey you, you will make me enter into hell.’ Then I looked and it was Mu’awiya’.
Al-Hussain bin Ali al-Aswad: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p216). Yahya bin
Adam: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p296). Wakee: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib
al-Tahdib, v2 p284). Ismail bin Abi Khalid: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1
p93). Shubail al-Yahsabi: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p412).

Maula Ali (as) appraisal of Mu’awiya

First appraisal
In ‘Tauhfa Ithna Ashari’ page 308, Chapter Mathaein Uthman, Shah Abdul Aziz records these words of
advice of Maula Ali (as) to Ibn Ziyad:

“Muawiya has writtern you a letter, be careful of him or you will get fooled as he is a devil”.
Tauhfa Ithna Ashari, page 308
The Imam of truth Maula ‘Ali (as) compared Mu’awiya to Shaytan, and there is no way that a Shaytan
can be deemed the Khaleefa of Rasulullah (s), Nasibi such as Abu Sulaiman who espouses such a view
are the enemies of Islam.

Second appraisal
Shaykh Sulayman Qanduzi al-Hanafi in “Yanabi al Mawaddah” page 190 Chapter 53 quotes:

“Nasr bin Muzahim who heard from Abu Ishaq Ihsani who states that after the “Tahkeem
Incident” he read a manuscript in the possession of Said bin Abi Burdah. In it, it was written that
when the people asked ‘Ali whether or not his opponents were Momin he replied, with regards to
Mu’awiya and his companions ‘I do not regard them as Mu’min or Muslim, and I care little about
what Mu’awiya thinks”.
Other Sunni authorities have also recorded these words of Imam ‘Ali (as):
1. al-Nasa’ih al-Kaafiyah page 199
2. Al Bidaya Volume 7 page 259
3. Iqd al Fareed Volume 2 page 233
Third appraisal
Imam of Ahle Sunnah Ibn Abi Shebah records:

Abdulrahman bin Mughfal said: ‘I prayed with Ali dawn prayer, then he (Ali) performed Qunoot
and said: ‘Oh Allah, punish Mu’awiya and his followers, Amro bin al-Aas and his followers, Aba
al-Salami and his followers, Abdullah bin Qais and his followers.”
1. Musnaf Ibn Abi Shebah, Volume 2 page 108 Tradition 7050
2. Kanzul Ummal, Volume 8 page 134 Tradition 21989
Fourth Appraisal
Shaykh Muhammad Khudri Beik records in his book ‘Tarikh al-Umam al-Islamiyah’ Volume 2 page 67
records that Imam Ali (as) used to deem Muawiya to be of a much loswer man because of his hate against
Prophet Muhammad (s):

He (Ali) saw Mu’awiya much lower than him, why? Because he was from al-Tulaqa and the son of
al-Tulaqa who used to show enmity and fight against the prophet (pbuh)”
Tarikh al-Umam al-Islamiyah, Volume 2 page 67
Fifth Appraisal
This is for those ignorant ones who claim that Maula Ali bin Abi Talib (as) had love and affection
towards his all time enemy Mu’awiya bin Hind. Imam Mawardi in his book Adab al-Dunya wa al-Deen,
page 197 and Shamsuddin Abu al-Barakat al-Demashqi al-Shafiyee (d. 871 H) in Jawahir al-Matalib,
Volume 2 page 158 recorded:

“A man came to Ali and said to him : ‘I love you and I love Muwayia’. He (Ali) may Allah be
pleased with him replied: ‘Now you are one eyed, either to heal or get blind’.
The above mentioned reply from the door of knowledge is totally comprised on logic i.e. one cannot love
an oppressed and the oppressor at the same time.

Ayesha’s appraisal of Mu’awiya

First appraisal – Mu’awiya’s Government compared by Ayesha

to Firawn (Pharoah) and other Kaafirs (Pagans)
We are quoting from the following books:

1. Shaykh ul Mudira, page 165

2. al Bidaya, 131 Volume 8
3. Mukhtasar Ta’reekh al-Dimishq, Volume 25 page 42

Aswat bin Yazeed said to Ayesha: ‘Aren’t you surprised that this Mu’awiya is from Tulaqa (freed
captive) and in Khilafat he fought the companions? Ayesha replied ‘this Government and
Kingdom, Allah (swt) gives leadership to both just and tyrannical, for 400 years in Egypt the
enemies of God, Firawn ruled as did other Kaafir Kings”.
Ayesha’s comparing of Mu’awiya to Firawn and other kaafirs is in fact a reference to the Qur’an, where
Allah (swt) states in Surah Hud verses 96-99:

“And we sent Moses, with Our Clear (Signs) and an authority manifest, Unto Pharaoh and his chiefs:
but they followed the command of Pharaoh and the command of Pharaoh was no right (guide). He will
go before his people on the Day of Judgment, and lead them into the Fire (as cattle are led to water):
But woeful indeed will be the place to which they are led! And they are followed by a curse in this (life)
and on the Day of Judgment: and woeful is the gift which shall be given (unto them)!”
Taken from Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation.
It is sheer stupidity for the like of Abu Sulaiman to suggest a reign that Ayesha compared to that of a
Muslim to infact be the Khilafat of the Prophet (s). If these stupid Nasabi uphold the khilafat of
Mu’awiya, they are in effect deeming Ayesha to be a liar which destroys their whole aqeedah.

Second Appraisal – Ayesha cursed Mu’awiya and Amr bin Aas

In connection with Mu’awiya’s killing of Ayesha’s brother, we read as follows:

“Following the death of Muhammad bin ‘Abu Bakr the people of Egypt gave bayya to Mu’awiya. It
was following this (event) that Ummul Mu’mineen Ayesha would curse Mu’awiya and Amr bin Aas
after every Salaat”.
1. Tar’ikh Ibn al Wardi Voume 1 page 245
2. Tar’ikh Kamil Vol. 3 page 180
3. Uthman Shaheed by Muhammadi bin Yahya bin Abi Bakar Maliki (d. 741 H), Urdu translation by
Kaukab Shadani, page 216 (Nafees Academy Karachi)
4. Tadhkira tul Khawas, page 62

Saad ibn Waqqas’s appraisal of Mu’awiya

We read these words of Sa’d to Mu’awiya in Fasul al Muhimma, page 164, Dhikr Hasan bin ‘Ali and in
Tarikh Kamil, page 407:

“Peace be upon you, o King!”

Sa’d is counted by the Ahl’ul Sunnah as one of the ten blessed with Paradise and he addressed Mu’awiya
as a King not a Khaleefa.

Mu’awiya the second’s appraisal of his

grandfather Mu’awiya
We read in Hayaath al Haywaan Volume 1 page 88 the khutbah of the Mu’awiya the second i.e.
Mu’awiya bin Yazeed bin Mu’awiya, wherein he said:

“My grandfather fought over the khilafat with than man more entitled to it, i.e. ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib”
See how grandson views the grandfather as unjust. Mu’awiya never sought forgives from ‘Ali for the
injustice that he perpetuated.

Qays bin Sa’d bin Ibada’s appraisal of

Mu’awiya
We read in al Bidaya, Volume 8 page 108 “Dhikr Qays bin Sa’d bin Ibada” that he mocked Mu’awiya as
follows:

‫ وأنت يا معاوية كنت صنما ً من أصنام الجاهلية‬:‫فقال له قيس‬

“O Muawiya! You are an idol from amongst the idols of jahilyya”
We read in Muruj al Dhahab Volume 8 page 125:

“Your son is an idol worshipper as are you”.

These words suffice to destroy the Nasibi appraisals of Mu’awiya. Or should we question by the
truthfulness of the Sahaba?

Abu Hurrayra’s appraisal of Mu’awiya

We read in Seerah Halabeeya Volume 3 page 367:

“On the plains of Sifeen Abu Hurrayra who pray Salat behind ‘Ali and would eat with Mu’awiya.
Someone asked why he did this, to which he replied “Salat behind ‘Ali is better and food provided
by Mu’awiya is better”.
In the eyes of Abu Hurrayra, Mu’awiya was not even worthy of leading the Salat, so what right did he
have to rule the Muslim state?

Muhammad bin Abi Bakar’s appraisal of

Mu’awiya
We read in Murujh al Dhahab Volume 3 page 20 that Muhammad bin Abi Bakr said to Mu’awiya:

‘You are the cursed son of a cursed person”.

Samra bin Jandab’s appraisal of Mu’awiya

We read the following words by one of a notorious Nasibi Sahabi namely Samra bin Jandab in Tarikh
Tabari Volume 3 page 240, Dhkir Mu’awiya:

‫فقال سمرة لعن هللا معاوية وهللا لو أطعت هللا كما أطعت معاوية ما عذبني أبدا‬
“May Allah curse Muaw’iya, had I obeyed Allah in the same manner that I had obeyed Mu’awiya,
God would not have made be perish”
1. Tarikh Kamil, Volume 3 page 640, Dikr Wafat Rabi
2. Tarikh Tabari, Volume 3 page 240
Look at the supplication of Mu’awiya’s former governor; he gave the sort of du’a that he truly deserves.

Miswan, appraisal of her husband Mu’awiya

We read in Tarikh Abdul Fida Volume 1 page 193, Dhikr the death of Yazeed:

“On one occasion I entered the house of Mu’awiya and Yazeed’s mother was singing couplets about
Mu’awiya:
“I fear that I preferred my cousin Ziyad since this house is like that of Jews”
No one knows of the character of a man better than his wife.
Mamun Abbasi’s appraisal of Mu’awiya
We read in Murujh al Dhahab volume 4 page 41:

“During his reign Mamun ordered the cursing of Mu’awiya from the pulpits, stating it was revenge
from Allah (swt) for his cursing the family of the Prophet (s).

The people of Madina’s appraisal of Mu’awiya

We have already cited this reference earlier from Al Bidaya Volume 8 page 132 and Iqd al Fareed
Volume 2 page 139 both record that:

“In the year of Jamaa, Mu’awiya entered Madina and gave a sermon from the Mosque pulpit
stating ‘I have become ruler over you. Although I know that you are unhappy with my rule and
that your hearts bear enmity towards me, I have attained power via the sword”.
Any rule attained via oppression cannot be deemed valid ijma. It is telling that the city wherein the great
Sahaba and Tabieen resided were unhappy with the rule of Mu’awiya.

Ibn Katheer’s appraisal of Mu’awiya

We read in al Bidaya Volume 8 page 135:

“The Sunnah is Mu’awiya should be referred to as king not khaleefa”

These words are a real slap for these Nasibi who refer to Mu’awiya as the rightful khaleefa.

Imam Shafiyee’s appraisal of Mu’awiya that his

testimony is unacceptable
Allamah Ismaeel Abul Fida records:

“Imam Shafyee said that the testimony of four companions will not be accepted and those four are
Mu’awiya, Amr bin Aas, Mugheera (bin Shuba) and Ziyad (bin Abi)”
Kitab Mukhthasar fi Ahbar al Bashar Vol. 1 page 100

Imam of Ahle Sunnah al-Atiqi al-Baghdadi’s

appraisal of Mu’awiya
Let us now reveal the testimony of great Sunni Imam al-Atiqi about whom Imam Dhahabi wrote:

“The Imam the Muhadith, the Thiqah, Abu al-Hassan Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin
Mansor al-Baghdady al-Atiqi”
Siar alam alnubala, Volume 17 page 602
Allamah Khateeb Baghdadi records about him:

“I wrote from him & he is Seduq (truthful)”

Tarikh Baghdad, Volume 5 page 143
Now we read the following testimony of Imam al-Atiqi about Mu’awiya in Tarikh Baghdad, volume 6,
page 248 ‘Dhkir Yahyah bin Abdul Hameed al-Hamani’:
“Atiqi said: ‘Mu’awaiya did not die on the Islamic faith”.
Tarikh Baghdad, volume 6, page 248
For those who may cast doubt on the authenticity of Yahyah bin Abdul Hameed Hamani we shall point
out that he is one of the narrators of Sahih Muslim, moreover Imam Yahyah bin Mueen declared
him ‘Thiqa’ (Tahdib al-Kamal v31, p423), Ibn Numair and Muhammad al-Bushanji also declared
him ‘Thiqa’ (Tahdib al-Tahdib v11 p 248) and Allamah Ibn Shaheen included him in his book of Thiqa
narrators ‘Tarikh Asma al-Thuqat’ page 270.
Is it not shameful for these Nasibis to tout the Khilafat of one that failed to die on the Islamic faith? These
Nasabis are so thick, they deem one whose death on Iman is unproven to be the legitimate khalifa of the
Prophet (s).

Imam of Ahle Sunnah Ali bin Ja’ad’s appraisal

of Mu’awiya
Imam Dhahabi in Siyar Alam al-Nubala, Volume 10 page 464 has recorded the statement of the Sheikh of
Baghdad, Ali bin Ja’ad (d. 230 H) regarding Mu’awiya:

‫قال أحمد بن إبراهيم الدورقي قلت لعلي بن الجعد بلغني أنك قلت ابن عمر ذاك الصبي قال لم أقل ولكن معاوية ما أكره أن يعذبه هللا‬
Ahmad bin Ibrahim al-Duraqi said: ‘I said to Ali bin al-Ja’ad: ‘I have been informed that you said
called Ibn Umar a kid.’ He replied: ‘I didn’t say such a thing but I don’t mind if Allah would
punish Muawyia’.
Similarly we read in Masael Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, page 408:

‫ مات وهللا معاوية على غير اإلسالم‬:‫ سمعت علي بن الجعد يقول‬: ‫وسمعت أبا عبدهللا وقال له دلويه‬
“I heard Aba Abdullah that Delweh said to him: ‘I heard Ali bin al-Ja’ad saying: ‘By Allah
Muawyia had died as a non-Muslim’”.

Mu’awiya – According to the Imams of

Ahlulbayt (as)
In order to misguide naive Shias, some Nawasib try to make feeble attempts to prove that the Imams of
Ahulbayt (as) thought well of Mu’awiya. Therefore, before ending the article, we deemed it appropriate to
present the actual status of Mu’awiya in the eyes of Imams (as). We read the following statement of Imam
Jafar Sadiq (as) in Usool al-Kafi, Volume 8 page 234:

“Abu Abdullah (as) said: ‘Three things are the proud of a believer and decorate him in the world
and hereafter, prayer in the end of night, to abstain from what is in the hand of the people and
advocate the Imam from Muhammad’s (s) progeny.
And three are the most evil of creatures by whom the best of the creatures were afflicted with, Abu
Sufyan is one of them who fought the messenger of Allah (s) and showed enmity towards Him (s),
Mu’awiya who fought Ali (as) and showed enmity towards Him, and Yazid bin Mu’awiya may God
curse him, who fought Hussain bin Ali (as) and showed enmity towards him till he killed Him (as).”
Allamah Majlesi in Mirat al-Uqool, Volume 26 page 178 declared it to be a ‘Hasan’ narration while
Sheikh Hadi Najafi declared it ‘Sahih’ in Mawsuat ahl Albayt, Volume 4 page 445.
Shaykh Saduq records in Al-Khesal, page 360:

Muhammad bin Fudhail al-Zerqi narrated that Abu Abdullah (as) said that his father [Imam Baqir
(as)] who said that his father [Imam Sajjad (as)] said: ‘The hell got seven gates, gate will make
enter into it Pharaoh, Haman and Korah. And gate will make enter into it the polytheists and the
disbelievers who never believed in Allah. And gate will make enter itnto it Bani Umaya because it is
particularly for them, no one will compete them, and it’s a blazed gate, it’s the gate of Saqar and it
is bottomless, they will remain there for seventy years and they will remain there eternally. And
gate will make enter into it whoever hate us, fought us and disappointed us, verily it’s the most
horrible and warm gate.’
Muhammad bin Fudhail al-Zerqi said: ‘I asked Abu Abdullah (as): ‘The gate which you mentioned
from your father from your grand father (as) that Bani Umaya will enter into, will they be those of
them who died as polytheist or those who attained Islam?’ Abu Abdullah (as) replied: ‘Didn’t you
hear that he (Imam Sajjad) said: ‘And gate will make enter into it the polytheists and the
disbelievers. So this gate will make enter into it every polytheist and disbeliever, who don’t believe
in the day of judgment, while the other gate will make enter into it the Bani Umaya, because it is
made specially for Abi Sufian, Mu’awiya and al-Marwan, they will enter from that gate and hell
fire will destroy them, no one will listen to them (to their begging).’

A German scholar’s recognition of the

contribution made by Mu’awiya
We have thus far cited the criticisms heaped upon Mu’awiya by Islamic figures, who recognized him for
the shames trouble maker that he was. Whilst such a viewpoint is understandable due to the untold
suffering his seditious conduct caused to Muslims when Imam Ali (as) took power, it is worthy to note
that a critic of Islam was in awe of Mu’awiya for his activities that split the Muslims into two camps
when Imam Ali (as) took power, a split that created a weaker Ummah less able to spread its teachings to
other domains, in other word Mu’awiya was able to stop the spread of Islam in its tracks. Salafi scholar
Rasheed Reza in Mujalat al-Manar, volume 30 page 450 wrote:

‫قال أحد علماء األلمان المتعصبين لجنسيتهم أنه ينبغي لنا أن نقيم لمعاوية تمثاالً من الذهب في أعظم ساحة من عاصمتنا ( برلين ) وينبغي‬
‫ إذ لواله لكانت هذه الشعوب كلها عربية تدين باإلسالم‬، ‫مثل ذلك لجميع شعوب أوربة‬

“One German scholar with bias in favor of his race stated that they should build a golden statue for
Mu’awyia in best square in Berlin, and every nation should do so, because without him, all nations
would have become Arab and Muslim nation”.