Question:

Salaam alaikum,

I would appreciate it if you could comment on the authenticity of the following reports about Muawiya (RA). I have read your article defended Amir Muawiya (RA) from Tijani's lies, but these are additional reports shia highlight:

1) Syed Abul 'Ala Mawdudi in, Khilafat o Mulukiyat, states:

"One more dis-liked innovation (bid'at) that reigned in the time of Hadhrat Muawiya [ra], that he himself (khud), and by his orders all (tamam) his governers, in their sermons (khutboon) through the pulpit reviled and insulted (sab o shatm) Hadhrat Ali [ra]. Even yet, in the mosque of the Prophet (S), through the pulpit (minbar) before the rawdah e nabawi, the dearest of the Prophet's (S) relatives were villified (gal'ian) and Hadhrat Ali's (ra) children and the nearest of his kin bore witness to these villifications (gali'an)."

The references from Mawdudi are to al Tabari, Tarikh, v4, p188, Ibn al Athir, al Kamil, v3, v4, p154, Ibn Kathir, al Bidaya, v8, p259, v9, p80.

2) Al Tabari writes in his work on history, they were,

"al Hasan had already made peace with Muawiyah on condition that he concede to him what was in his treasury plus the revenue of Darabjird and that 'Ali not be reviled in his hearing." (The History of al Tabari, Between Civil Wars: The Caliphate of Muawiyah, Section: The Rendering of Allegiance to al Hasan b. Ali).

3) "Marwan the architect of Umayyad dynastic rule, clearly recognized the importance of cursing as a tool of the government. He told 'Ali's grandson Ali b. al Husayn privately: 'No one [among the Islamic nobility] was more temperate (akaff) towards our master than your master'. The harmless son of al Husayn asked him: 'Why do you curse him then from the pulpits? 'He answered: 'Our reign would not be sound without that (la yastaqimu l-amru illa bi-dhalik)". (Baladhuri, AnsabII, 184-5 and ; Ibn Asakir, 'Ali, III, 98-9).

4) "Particularly useful for Muawiyas purpose was the public cursing of Ali in Kufa where he hoped it would bring out into the open the latent opposition of the Umayyad rule, thus facilitating his measures of repression. When he appointed al Mughira b Shuba governer of Kufa in Jumada 41/September-October 661, he instructed him: 'Never desist from abusing and censuring 'Ali, from praying for God's mercy and forgiveness for Uthman from disgracing the followers of Ali, from removing them and refusing to listen to them, and never cease praising the partisans of Uthman, may God be pleased with him, bringing them close to you and listening to them". (Tabari, II, 112).

May allah reward you for your help.

Wasalaam.

Answer:

When believers fight against each other, Allah did not call that act as "disbelieve" if the two warring factions had somehow valid arguments.
Allah says in Surat Al-Hujurat, verse 9, “If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the Command of Allah; but if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just).”

Allah called the two warring factions as believers although they fought each other. Therefore, Muslim scholars had concluded that a Muslim is not a disbeliever if he committed a sin as the Khawarij did when they attributed disbelieve to Muslims when they commit a sin. However, to fight against a Muslim is a major sin, but it does not lead to disbelief. If affliction and different interpretation to events lead to the fighting, then it’s not disbelief.

If fighting is not disbelief, then how could slander and libeling is considered to be disbelief?

In Saheeh Al-Bukhari, the Prophet was giving a sermon while Al-Hasan was with him on the pulpit. Then the Prophet was looking to Al-Hasan, then to the listeners, and said, “My son (Al-Hasan) is a noble man, and perhaps Allah may establish peace between two great factions of Muslims through him.” And it happened as the Prophet predicted; Allah made peace between the people of Sham and people of Iraq after exhaustive years of wars and afflictions.

All of the above is on the occasion that Mu’awiyah did really slander and libel Ali bin Abi Talib. However, the truth is that Mu’awiyah never slandered Ali, and no one is able to prove otherwise with a valid argument.

History books are full of unbelievable stories. They contain both; true and false stories. These stories are examined by studying their narrators to distinguish the true stories from the false ones.

Most of history scholars who came after Al-Tabari like Ibn Katheer and Ibn Al-Atheer relied on Tareekh Al-Tabari as a source for their stories. The latter scholars narrate the stories without their chain of attribution. Thus, to know the authentic stories, we should refer back to Tareekh Al-Tabari because Al-Tabari is the one who narrated the stories by writing down the names of the narrators.

Let us look at the course of Al-Tabari in his books. Al-Tabari did not take an oath to write down only authentic stories, but he took an oath to write down the stories with their chain of narrators, false or true stories. Al-Tabari had handed over the task of examining the stories to the scholars. Al-Tabari says in his introduction, “Let the reader be aware that whatever I mention in my book is relied on the news that were narrated by some men. I had attributed these stories to their narrators, without inferring anything from their incidents …” [Tareekh Al-Tabari, 1/7-8]

The history of the affliction between the Companions is a very sensitive issue. Historical incidents relating to these times were filled with emotions and differences in political theories. Hence, it became difficult for historians to authenticate a particular story. Then, to issue a final judgment on a certain incident would be a very complex matter.

Therefore, Al-Tabari went on collecting all the different views of different stories, but he had mentioned the names of the people who narrated the stories. Al-Tabari says, “If a certain man gets horrified by a certain incident that we reported in our book, then let him know that it did not come from us, but we only wrote down what we received from the narrators.” [Tareekh Al-Tabari, 1/8]

Al-Astath Al-Mowdawi is an Islamic “thinker” (mufakir) and a mujahid. It had not known that he was a scholar in the fundamental of Islam, however. Hence, it is inappropriate to take him as a valid argument in these sensitive scholastic subjects. Al-Mowdawi did not authenticate the relevant stories; perhaps he was not aware of the course of the historians in narration.

The Peace stories between Mu’awiyah and Al-Hasan contain both authentic and false stories. The peace that occurred between Mu’awiyah and Al-Hasan is of great importance in the history of Islam due to the following reasons:

· Al-Hasan was a grand scholar.
· As a result of this treaty, Muslim bloods had been spared and Muslims united under one leader after years of disunity.
· That Al-Hasan became the first caliphate to relinquish his position without force and at the same time being on a strong foothold just to make peace between Muslims.
· That Al-Hasan believes in Mu’awiyah's faith and in his Islam. Otherwise, he would have not given him the leadership of Islam. This is a refutation to Shia’s claims.

However, the Umayyad caliph that slandered and libeled Ali from the pulpits was Al-Marwan bin Al-Hakam. He had also many sins. May Allah keep us away from sin.