It is unfortunate to witness a growing trend questioning the character of Mu‘āwiya (may Allāh be pleased with him) among some proponents of Sunni Islam. Some take the extra step in attempting to excise him from the group of the companions altogether while others go so far as to redefine who the companions themselves are in order to do so. Affirming his virtues, however, is a pillar on which the orthodoxy has been founded and on which it rests.
It is further saddening, though not surprising, that many of these individuals are those whose focus is tied with the science of Ḥadīth. Unlike the traditional scholars of Ḥadīth, many of these people are not grounded in one of the major four schools of thought. It is perhaps this unqualified interaction with Ḥadīth studies, a science traditionally held to have a high barrier of entry, that has led to such aberrant, destructive conclusions on an issue of grave theological importance.
This issue is so grave, in fact, that many of the scholars included this within seminal texts of theology within their respective schools. Here, we will take the Ḥanbalī school as an example.
In Ibn Qudāma’s Lum‘at al-I’tiqād, he provides us with an important statement on the issue. Speaking to the character of Mu‘āwiya (may Allāh be pleased with him), he writes, “and Mu‘āwiya is the uncle of the believers, a scribe of Allāh’s revelation, and one of the leaders of the Muslims–may Allāh be pleased with him.” (al-‘Abd Allāh, Sharḥ Lum‘a. 161-162).
Here, three important qualities are explained about the man. The first is his relationship with the Prophet of Allāh (peace be upon him). Abū Ṭālib, one of the students of Imām Aḥmad, pressed him on the issue asking, “can I state that Mu‘āwiya is the uncle of the believers?” “Yes,” the Imām replied, “Mu‘āwiya is the brother of Umm Ḥabība bint Abū Sufyān, the wife of the Prophet (peace be upon him).” (Ibid).
Abū ‘l-Ḥārith further narrates that a parchment with several questions was placed in front of Imām Aḥmad, asking him about those that refused to recognize Mu‘āwiya (may Allāh be pleased with him) as a scribe of Allāh’s revelation, the uncle of the believers–claiming he forcibly seized [rulership] with the sword. His response was stern. “This position [denying him these attributes] is wicked, [it is] malicious. Those [making the assertion] are to be avoided, they are not to be socialized and associated with, and their [repugnant] state is to be clarified to the people,” he retorted. (Ibid).
It should be recognized here that these individuals in question are simply denying Mu‘āwiya (may Allāh be pleased with him) additional virtues to his companionship, not his companionship itself; an assertion even more absurd as we shall observe later.
In another narration, al-Marrūdhī questions Imām Aḥmad about comparing Mu‘āwiya to ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz (may Allāh be pleased with them both), a caliph on whose virtues there existed virtually no dispute. He replied, “Mu‘āwiya is better. We do not compare anyone to the companions of the Prophet of Allāh (peace be upon him).” (Ibid).
There’s an important point to be noted here. Imām Aḥmad, an early founding father of the Ḥadīth sciences and unlike the modern academicians exclusively focusing on Ḥadīth, affirmed two important qualities for Mu‘āwiya (may Allāh be pleased with him). The first is his virtuous titles, on which the Ummah has collectively gathered in acceptance. The second is his explicit affirmation of Mu‘āwiya’s companionship.
It is important to state at this juncture, before continuing, that the belief of Ahl al-Sunnah is certainly that the virtue of ‘Alī is above that of Mu‘āwiya. The same applies to the ten promised paradise, and the early companions who witnessed Badr, as well as those who pledged to die under the tree at Ḥudaybiyya.
The problem however arises, when people attempt to divide the companions with any intention beyond merely ascribing greater virtue to some over others. When these individuals seek to undermine the character of certain companions, or worse, redefine the qualifications for companionship altogether, they inadvertently open the doors to doubt within the faith itself.
If some of the companions cannot be trusted, then the entire project of Ḥadīth verification becomes arbitrary; our religion becomes a game of whims. The same result occurs when qualification for companionship is taken as an arbitrary limiting measure. Whether it is done intentionally or otherwise, those who embark on such a project skew away from direct edicts of the Qur’ān on the issue, “…Those of you who donated and fought before the victory ˹over Mecca˺ are unparalleled. They are far greater in rank than those who donated and fought afterward. Yet Allah has promised each a fine reward…” (Q. 57:10), indicating all to be companions and blessed by the Almighty. Those undertaking such a task ultimately follow the Shī‘a and the Mu’tazilites before them in creating a religion that is based on limited human intellect as opposed to submission and compliance to the definitive divine decree.
Even from an intellectual, analytical perspective, the contentions raised against Mu‘āwiya (may Allāh be pleased with him) don’t make much sense. The companions themselves, many of whom were senior to Ḥasan and Mu‘āwiya–and whose companionship remains unquestioned by even these same individuals in question–pledged their allegiance to him with consensus, never once questioning his companionship or subsequent leadership.
As Ibn Ḥazm states, “Ḥasan was given the pledge of allegiance. He then surrendered it [the rulership] to Mu‘āwiya. Among the remaining companions, undoubtedly some of whom were from those that “donated and fought before the victory over Mecca,” were those that were better than both of them [Ḥasan and Mu‘āwiya], and all of them–the first and the last–gave the pledge of allegiance to Mu‘āwiya and affirmed his leadership.” (Ibn Ḥazm, Kitāb al-Faṣl. 5/6)
In Lawāmi‘ al-Anwār al-Bahiyya, one of the later works written explaining the orthodox Ḥanbalī creed, the scholar al-Saffārīnī further explains in detail how the Muslims should view the differences of opinion among the companions, and their personalities–including that of Mu‘āwiya–despite these conflicts. He writes that “everything which has authentically been narrated about what transpired between the companions [in conflict], must be understood in a manner that negates any misdeeds or sinfulness from them.” (al-Saffārīnī, Lawāmi‘ al-Anwār. 2/385-389).
Among the examples he includes here are the delay of ‘Alī (may Allāh be pleased with him) in giving the pledge of allegiance to Abū Bakr (may Allāh be pleased with him), his delay in seeking the accountability of those that assassinated ‘Uthmān (may Allāh be pleased with him), and the stance taken by ‘Ā’isha, Ṭalḥa, Ibn al-Zubayr, and Mu‘āwiya (may Allāh be pleased with them all) against ‘Alī (may Allāh be pleased with him) because of this.
In the last matter, though he states that it is to be conceded with all certainty that ‘Alī (may Allāh be pleased with him) was correct in the latter, they all remained–in fact–upright through the conflict. He states, “…the truth, from which there is no concession [to be made], is that they are all–may Allāh be pleased with them–upright. This is because they all possessed valid interpretations in what transpired of the conflicts, [all employing] sound reasoning in the quarrelings. And despite the fact that the official position according to the people of truth is that the truth can only be one, the one who is mistaken [in his or her conclusion] after employing [proper] ability, not lacking therein, is [still] rewarded, not punished. The reason for those wars was the confusion of issues. Due to the intense confusion over these [issues], they differed in their reasonings…” (Ibid).
Where these same individuals, many of them working for and/or funded by various oppressive and tyrannical regimes around the globe, can find numerous excuses by which to justify the crimes of their corrupt patrons, it is seethingly hypocritical for them to refuse to extend the same courtesy in explaining and defending the character of the companions.
Perhaps it is not their unqualified, inept readings of source Ḥadīth literature to blame, and rather more sinister political relationships. It is not surprising to find many such individuals sharing close ties to the Shī‘a and attempting to “build bridges” along with them as part of the broader agenda of their political leadership; bridges built on the backs of the honor of the companions, it would seem. This isn’t a new trait among some of the apparent adherents to the Sunnah. As al-Saffārīnī states, further extending the supplication that Allāh humiliates the Rāfiḍa, “[all those deviants] that concur with them.” (Ibid).
Conclusively placing the discussion to rest, al-Saffārīnī adds that the consensus of the “Adherents to the Sunnah” (Ahl al-Sunna wa ‘l-Jamā‘a) is that affirming the attribute of righteousness to all the companions, each and every single one of them, is a religious obligation. It is something proven from the Qur’ān, the Sunnah, and even from just observing all the sacrifices they placed for this religion.
As for those that refuse to acknowledge this fact, or compromise therein, he narrates from the early Ḥadīth scholar Imām Abū Zur‘a al-‘Irāqī (one of the teachers of Muslim) in harsh terms that, “if you notice a person disparaging even a single individual from the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him), then be aware that he [the one disparaging] is a heretic (zindīq). This is because the Qur’ān is the truth, the Prophet (peace be upon him) is the truth, and what he came with is the truth–and none of that reached us, except through the companions. Whoever calls them into question, he [in fact] intends to invalidate the Qur’ān and the Sunnah and is thus more deserving of disparagement; the ruling of heresy and deviance become more suitable and deserving for him.” (Ibid).
I have rarely ever seen a person lose their reputation and honor quicker among their colleagues and the Ummah as a whole than those that choose to engage in the disparagement of the Prophet’s companions, even if they [those disparaging] be of his own blessed lineage or those who hold expertise in his noble traditions.
In a narration whose authenticity is disputed–yet still widely quoted on the topic, ‘Abd Allāh ibn Mughaffal (may Allāh be pleased with him) relates to us that, “the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “(Fear) Allah! (Fear) Allah regarding my Companions! Do not make them objects of insult after me. Whoever loves them, it is out of love for me that he loves them. And whoever hates them, it is out of hatred for me that he hates them. And whoever harms them, he has harmed me, and whoever harms me, he has offended Allah, and whoever offends Allah, [then] he shall soon be punished.” (al-Tirmidhī 3862). As some scholars note about the tradition, this “soon” punishment may refer to this world, even before it is extended into the hereafter.
When it comes to the issue of Mu‘āwiya, his station in theological and spiritual terms is the same as that of all of the companions. Though their ranks differ among themselves, all within the loftiest stations of virtue and honor, loving them and seeking to preserve their reputation is something through which we seek closeness to Allāh and the preservation of this faith. As al-Daylamī narrates from Anas ibn Mālik (may Allāh be pleased with him) [that the Prophet of Allāh stated], “when Allāh wills good for a man from my nation, He places the love of my companions in his heart.” (al-Saffārīnī, Lawāmi‘ al-Anwār. 2/385-389).
As for those that disparage Mu‘āwiya (may Allāh be pleased with him) in the slightest, then they disparage all the companions. As the great scholar of Ḥadīth ‘Abd Allāh ibn al-Mubārak would eloquently state, “Mu‘āwiya for us is a test [a barometer]. If we notice anyone looking down on him, we would charge him [with looking down] on the [rest] of the people, meaning the companions.” (Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya wa ‘l-Nihāya. 8/139)
The issue of Mu‘āwiya (may Allāh be pleased with him), and the principle of the ‘Collective Probity of the Companions’ (‘adālat al-ṣaḥāba) as an extension, is one of grave importance–lying at the very core of the religion’s theological constitution. While one can take information from any reliable source, we should be careful when taking knowledge imparted by those that disparage Mu‘āwiya and attempt to question the nature of companionship as a result.
The people who promote such heterodoxy may seem apparently diverse at first glance, but many exhibit similar qualities. Some reiterate claims from ignorance based on lineage and tribal values. Others engage the depths of source tradition without a proper grounding in the orthodox schools of thought that holistically incorporate both law and theology. These people fail to grasp the heinous conclusions necessitated by their claims. And finally, some educated, but perhaps more sinister, develop relationships with people of heresy and promote unity at the cost of the principles on which proper unity is even validated in the first place.
While some among those engaging in this despicable disparagement may be doing so out of ignorance or a lack of proper grounding, the consequence of their claims remains far-reaching and severely detrimental to the faith of their followers and students worldwide. The issue extends beyond the academic study of history. It doesn’t engage with history through the incorporative lens of theology that explains the events that transpired through valid juristic reasoning.
At best, these individuals are unaware of the consequences of their actions. It is perhaps then worth reminding them with the words of Allāh in defense of another companion that was disparaged and slandered during the revelation of the Qur’ān. Allāh, reminding people of the weight of their words, states, “[you] said with your mouths what you had no knowledge of, taking it lightly while it is ˹extremely˺ serious in the sight of Allah.” (Q. 24:15)
Echoing similar sentiments by Imām Aḥmad on the issue, and perhaps even more powerfully so prior to his own expression, ‘Abd Allāh ibn al-Mubārak would state when asked to compare between Mu‘āwiya and ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz, “By Allāh! The dust that enters into the nose of Mu‘āwiya with the Prophet of Allāh (peace be upon him) is better than ‘Umar by a thousand times! Mu‘āwiya prayed behind the Prophet of Allāh (peace be upon him). When he [the Prophet of Allāh (peace be upon him)] would state, ‘Allāh hears the one who praises Him,’ Mu‘āwiya would respond, ‘Our Lord, to You be the praise!’ What else remains after this?” (Ibn Khallikān, Wafayāt al-A’yān. 3/33).
And Allāh knows best.
shariahsociety.com 