Refuting the Shīa

Refuting the Shīa 1000 681 devWebb77786213

On the illicit views regarding Hadhrath Amīr Muāwiyah y

by Shaykh Faheem (Islamic Lifestyle Solutions)


The following refutation is based on some illegitimate claims by ‘anonymous’ Shīa sources on the internet. These radical comments made against Hadhrath Amīr Muāwiyah y were brought to the attention of Moulana Uzayr Soofie by one of the local musallees of the Musjid Soofie Subhani in Newlands West. The objections were tabled as part of the monthly ILS Ulama study group which was attended and sanctioned by;

  1. Muftī Moin Moeeni (Assistant Researcher on article)
  2. Shaykh Faheem
  3. Moulana Saleh Joosab Arbee
  4. Moulana Uzayr Soofie
  5. Moulana Dawood Fickra
  6. Moulana Tabrez Noori
  7. Hafez Abdul Azeem
  8. Moulana Habib Milanzi
  9. Hafez Talha Kazi

The following Ulama had missed the meeting but have concurred with the information;

  1. Moulana Feroz Osman
  2. Moulana Tahir Janghi
  3. Hafez Riaz Hoosen
  4. Moulana Nadeem Misbahi
  5. Moulana Abdul Qadir Ansari

The standpoint of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamā’ah in relation to the merit of the Ahlul Bayt (Noble Household of the Prophet r) and the Sahābas (Illustrious Companions of the Prophet r) is to love and honor both accordingly as elucidated in the Qur’ān and Sunnah. We do not ridicule members of either grouping, be it individually or collectively. We acknowledge the erudite members of each category to be praiseworthy after the Prophets u of Allāh Y. We further affirm that whilst this article is in defense of a prominent Sahābī viz. Hadhrath Amīr Muāwiyah y, that we will endeavor to maintain the same stance of defense should anyone ridicule any member of the Household of the Prophet r. The I.L.S has already demonstrated this position with our 2015 publication entitled ‘Tragedy at Karbalā[1].

The Problem

Some mischief makers who have too much of time on their hands spread their toxic mentality to the ignorant surfers of the internet to create doubt in the minds of the Muslims. We will demonstrate from these ‘so-called’ objections that they are baseless and are the rants of an emotionally-driven smear campaign on the name of a famous companion whose rule was foretold indirectly by the Prophet r, and whose supplication for his was direct. They are well aware that the general Sunnī public is not well-versed in the in-depth analysis of hadīth and history. This allows them the necessary scope to exploit such a weakness. A contributing factor to this is the undeniable fact that the 21st century Muslim pays no heed to the strategic importance of the acquisition of Islamic knowledge. Hence the objections from the Shīa can lead even a knowledgeable man to a cul-de-sac of doubt and a possible exiting from the fold of Islām.


Since these objections are immensely immoral on the part of Hadhrath Amīr Muāwiyah y, we will progress to quote the objections verbatim so as to display to the reader the depths of hatred displayed by these wayward people.

In some instances, we will delve into citing Naql (textual evidences) to disprove the objections and in other cases we will only refute it by the use of Aql (intellectual evidences) as the rational faculty will suffice to any sane person.

To think….or not to think?

This is a fundamental question which must be acknowledged in the subject. It seems as though the arguments has evolved to become a debate of Emotion VS Reason. Those who lean on the subject merely by emotion tend to become blinded to the rational faculty dictating the premise of the subject.

Any thinking person will realize that the mere fact that the Shīa who raise objections upon Hadhrath Amīr Muāwiyah y, is proof that there is no thought process behind their entire argument. Why? Well, when we realize that all the Shīa all accept the Prophecy located in Bukhārī regarding Imām Hasan[2] y which states,

عَنْ أَبِي بَكْرَةَ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ أَخْرَجَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم ذَاتَ يَوْمٍ الْحَسَنَ فَصَعِدَ بِهِ عَلَى الْمِنْبَرِ، فَقَالَ ‏ ابْنِي هَذَا سَيِّدٌ، وَلَعَلَّ اللَّهَ أَنْ يُصْلِحَ بِهِ بَيْنَ فِئَتَيْنِ مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ ‏”

Narrated by Hadhrath Abū Bakrah y, “Once the Prophet r brought out Al-Hasan and took him up the pulpit along with him and said, “This son of mine is a Sayyid (i.e. chieftain) and I hope that Allāh Y will help him bring about reconciliation between two Muslim groups.”[3]

The Shīa count this narration as part of the virtues of Imām Hassan y which the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamā’ah have no qualms with whatsoever. The two points of discussion here are,

  1. The Prophet r mentioned that Imām Al-Hasan y restore equilibrium to the Ummah by bring two quarrelling groups of ‘Muslims’ together. It is unanimously agreed that by Imām Hasan y relinquishing his claim to the Khilāfah at that time, that he handed it over to a ‘Muslim’. Hence the Shīa who curse and claim that Muāwiyah y was out of the fold of Islām must also acknowledge that in order for the prophecy to be fulfilled, that ‘Muslim’ man ( Hadhrath Muāwiyah y) must also be acknowledged, otherwise the prophecy remains unfulfilled!
  2. The fact Imām Hasan y gave the Khilāfah over to Hadhrath Muāwiyah y willingly, is proof that Imām Hasan y held him in high esteem. Furthermore, he acknowledged Hadhrath Muāwiyah y as the Emir of the believers. If Hadhrath Muāwiyah y was as bad as they make him out to be, certainly a Noble member of the household like that of Imām Hasan y would never acknowledge the leadership of such a man? The fact that he did so, and now the Shīas don’t, is proof of how far they have strayed from the teachings of their own ‘Imāms’.

The Objections

Some of this information may be difficult for anyone who holds the Sahābas in esteem, but we assure you that our citation of these objections is only exhibit the lengths that these extremists will take in order to justify their position.

Objection 1:

The first objections is headlined, ‘Rasulullah (s) made three Dua’s, one that was rejected’. As further corroboratory evidence to support this ‘misguided’ view, the anonymous author states,

Amongst Ahl’ul Sunnah’s traditions in praise of Hadhrath Umar, they commonly cite this one that we have taken from Riyadh ul Nadira Volume 2 page 13:

“Rasulullah made a dua, O Allah Strengthen Islam by either Umar bin Khattab or Abu Jahil, whoever you prefer more”.

Here Rasulullah made a du’a for Abu Jahil to be guided to the truth but this never transpired, and his example is very much like Mu’awiya’s.”

Rebuttal 1:

In their blind hatred for Hadrath Amīr Muāwiyah y, these fanatics attack the duā of Rasūlullāh r because he r supplicated for Hadhrath Amīr Muāwiyah y. This is a killer mistake on their part. The proof cited by the anonymous fanatic is probably the weakest proof I have ever seen.  He quotes the famous supplication of the Prophet r which resulted in the Islām of Sayyidunā Umar bin Al-Khattāb y. The duā clearly has a ‘choice’. The Prophet r supplicated for ‘either’ Umar y ‘or’ Abū Jahl. He did not ask for both. Furthermore, the excerpt which he cited explains that the Prophet r asked Allāh to bring into Islām the ‘preferable’ choice ‘between’ the two aforementioned people. It is no secret that Abū Jahl did not accept Islām, whilst Hadhrath Umar y did accept Islām and progressed to be the ‘accepted’ Caliph of the Muslims. Hence the duā for Abū Jahl was not rejected because there was a choice between the two and Allāh Y accepted the supplication in favour of Hadhrath Umar y.

In retrospect, this anonymous Shīa writer has affirmed that Sayyidunā Umar y was Allāh’s Y choice! Hence he must accept the fact that Allāh Y would not choose the Islām of a man who, as they claim is a ‘usurper’ of Sayyindunā Alī’s right to rule! He has indirectly accepted Sayyinunā Umar y as being a divine choice by Allāh Y, and must now accept him too!

Objection 2:

“Not only is this hadith contrary to logic and historical facts (We will quote that hadīth in the rebuttal) The narrator of this ‘Hadi’ hadith is not a reliable authority The narrator of the tradition in which Rasulullah (s) allegedly called Mu’awiya a Hadi is Abdul Rahman Abi Ameera Qurshee. About him we read in al Istiab Volume 3 page 399:

“Abdul Rahman Abi Ameera Qurshee is not proven to be a Sahabi. He was a Qurshee and a Syrian, his hadith are not deemed as authority and some have rejected this hadith”

Rebuttal 2:

The anonymous hater of the Sahabas has only questioned the supplication of the Prophet r because of a narration whereby he r prayed for the guidance of Hadhrath Muāwiyah y. Such are the levels they are willing to stoop down to, even at the expense of weakening the duā od Rasūlullāh r!

That narration is as follows and is presented as it is found in the text of the Imām Tirmizhī y;

عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ أَبِي عَمِيرَةَ، وَكَانَ، مِنْ أَصْحَابِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَنَّهُ قَالَ لِمُعَاوِيَةَ ‏‏ اللَّهُمَّ اجْعَلْهُ هَادِيًا مَهْدِيًّا وَاهْدِ بِهِ ‏

“Narrated by Abdur-Rahmān bin Abī ‘Umairah – and he was one of the Companions of the Messenger r of Allāh Y- from the Prophet r, that he said to Muāwiyah, “O Allāh, make him a Hādī (guiding one), and guide (others) by him.”[4]

Imām Tirmizhī y himself adds that the narrator in question is in fact a Sahābī of the Prophet r. The objector seems to believe that his own understanding of hadīth and the subject of Ilmur-Rijāl[5] is superior to that of the erudite Imām Tirmizhī y, who went on to state that the abovementioned narration is not even weak, let alone rejected. after quoting the narration he added,

هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ غَرِيبٌ

“this hadīth is Hasan Gharīb”

Hence according to Imām Tirmizhī y, the narration was not even considered weak. In relation to his status of not being a companion of the Prophet r -as claimed by this nameless accuser- he has cited an isolated source to justify his view. Allāmah ibn Hajr Al-Asqalānī y states regarding Abdur-Rahmān bin Abī ‘Umairah y,

قال أبو حاتم وابن السكن له صحبة ذكره البخاري وابن سعد وابن البرقي وابن حبان وعبد الصمد بن سعيد في الصحابة وذكره أبو الحسن بن سميع في الطبقة الأولى من الصحابة الذين نزلوا حمص

“Abū Hātim and Ibn As-Sakn that he attained the companionship (of the Prophet r). Ibn Sa’d, Ibn Al-Barqī and Abdus Samad bin Saīd counted him as a companion (of the Prophet r). Abul Hasan bin Samī’ counted him amongst the forerunners of the companions who resided at Hims”[6]

Ibn Hajr Al-Asqalānī y has mentioned numerous scholars who accepted Abdur Rahmān bin Abī Umayrah y as a companion of Rasūlullāh r.

Furthermore, Ibn Sa’d mentions,

عن عبد الرحمن بن أبي عميرة وكان من أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه قال في معاوية اللهم اجعله هاديا مهديا اهده واهد به

Abdur Rahmān bin Abī Umayrah was of the companions of the Prophet r who said about Muāwiyah, “O Allāh, make him a Hādī (guiding one), and guide (others) by him”[7]

The above information ought to suffice in the case of the companionship of Hadhrath Abdur Rahmān bin Abī Umayrah y. In order to reject the virtue of Hadrath Amīr Muāwiyah y, the Shīa have,

  1. Attempted to weaken the power of the supplication of the Prophet r
  2. Robbed a companion of his noble rank
  3. In hind side, resulting in the questioning of the virtue of Hadhrath Muāwiyah y

These are the extreme measures they are willing to endure in order to create hatred against Hadhrath Muāwiyah y.

Objection 3:

“Sadly for the advocates of Mu’awiya the embarrassment does not just end there Not a single hadith in praise of Mu’awiya is Sahih The leading ‘Ulama of Ahl al-Sunnah have declared all hadith praising Mu’awiya as fabricated.”

Refutation 3:

Whilst the first part of his statement may have some validity, the statement declaring that the leading Ulama of the Ahlus Sunnah have declared all hadīth in praise of Muāwiyah as ‘fabricated’ is a blatant lie!!!

Regarding the issue of no sahīh hadith from the Prophet r in praise of Hadhrath Muāwiyah y, let us commence by appealing to the rational faculty and remain on the intellectual evidences as it will suffice.

The absence of a sahīh report does not mean that all other reports are fabricated? There are numerous narrations about him located in the ‘major’ books of hadīth. The scholars of rijāl have all included him in the rank of the Companion. In fact he was the personal writer of the Messenger r and some have cited his hand in writing the revelation as a scribe.

We do not deny that there are some fabricated narrations in praise of both Sayyidunā Alī y as well as Hadrath Muāwiyah y. The existence of such fabrications in praise of either of them does not negate their virtue which has been transmitted by numerous sources.

Regarding all narrations in his praise as being fabricated, the anonymous writer has contradicted himself in the document. If ‘all’ praise in favour of Hadhrath Amīr Muāwiyah y was indeed fabrication, why did he not deem the hadīth in Tirmizhī (from objection 2) as a fabricated narration? Why did he find the need to scrutinize the narrator, yet not declare it as a fabrication? This is not because he knows that it is not fabricated, nor is it weak! In fact, the principle of hadīth has always allowed a ‘weak’ narration to be cited as evidence virtue. We invite them to study the teachings of the principles of hadīth as elucidated by the giants of the field for centuries. A Dha’īf (weak) hadith is not to be equated with a Maudhū’ (fabricated) narration. On the contrary, scholars have always held that a weak hadīth is acceptable in matters of Fadhā’il (virtue) such as,

  • Imām Abū Zakariyya Yahyā bin Sharaf An-Nawāwī Ad-Dimashqī t
  • Imām Jalāluddīn As-Suyūtī t
  • Mullā Alī Qāri Al-Hanafī t
  • Shaykh Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dehlvī t

Others have opined that at certain instances, a weak may even reach the status of Hasan Li-ghayrihi. This sort of equation has been unheard of for almost 1300 years, that is, until the emergence of the Saudi Wahhabi / Salafi ideology. Hence, for the Shīa to now adopt the same methodology, but by even more extremist ways, is shocking to say the least! If there was indeed nothing virtuous about Hadrath Muāwiyah y, would Sayyidunā Umar y have appointed him as governor? Were those companions of the Prophet r who remained loyal to him all blind? Was the Mother of the Believers, Sayyidah Āishah y uneducated? We seek refuge with Allāh Y lest we feel the wrath of Allāh Y for cursing His beloveds!

Objection 4:

“Imam Bukhari on the topic of Mu’awiya wrote a Chapter Bab ai Dhikr Mu’awiya because no hadith in praise of Mu’awiya are proven”

Refutation 4:

Yes there is a chapter in Sahīh Bukhārī titled, ‘Bāb Zhikri Muāwiyah’ (Chapter on Muāwiyah), whilst other chapters for other companions mention them as ‘Bāb Fadhli Falaan’ (Chapter on the Virtue of so and so). This devious person then chooses certain excerpts and quotes them out of context to justify his stance. He famously quotes Ibn Hajr Al-Asqalānī y from his famed work ‘Fathul Bārī’ as means to justify his stance. However, a cursory reading of the named chapter reveals,

عبر البخاري في هذه الترجمة بقوله : ذكر ولم يقل فضيلة ولا منقبة لكون الفضيلة لا تؤخذ من حديث الباب ؛ لأن ظاهر شهادة ابن عباس له بالفقه والصحبة دالة على الفضل الكثير ، وقد صنف ابن أبي عاصم جزءا في مناقبه ، وكذلك أبو عمر غلام ثعلب ، وأبو بكر النقاش

“Bukhāri mentioned ‘zhikr’ rather than Manaqib or Fadhīlah (virtue) because there is no fadhīlah in this (specific) hadith (quoted by Bukhāri) but the apparent testimony of Ibn Abbās is evidence of his (Muāwiyah’s) great virtue (i.e. the words Ibn Abbās y used for Muāwiyah u stating that ) he is a faqīh (Jurist) and he was sahābī of Prophet r. Ibn Abī Āsim wrote a (separate) section in his (Muāwiyah’s y) manāqib, Abū Umar Ghulām Tha’lab and Abū Bakr Naqqāsh also (wrote a section in Manaqib)”[8]

Then Ibn Hajr y says,

لَكِنْ بدقيق نظره استنبط مَا يدْفع بِهِ رُؤُوس الرَّوَافِضِ

“But with his (Bukhāri’s) deep understanding, He deduced the ruling (from the āthār of Ibn Abbās y where he said Muāwiyah y was a faqīh and sahābī), due to which the heads of Rawafidh (Shīa) falls down low”[9]

Yet again, this anonymous hater of the Sahābas ‘forgot’ to mention those points (as illustrated above) which are not in conformity with his wayward understanding of the subject.

Objection 5:

“Rasulullah (s) ordered the killing of Mu’awiya in the event of him becoming Khalifa

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

Rebuttal 5:

At this point, the reader may wonder how can we even form a rebuttal for such a clear-cut command of the Prophet r?

The rational faculty once again causes us to immediately reject such nonsensical claims. Hadhrath Muāwiyah y accepted Islām during the lifetime of the Prophet r. What would be a need for him to issue such a statement for the latter period after his demise when he could have prevented all that from happening in his lifetime? Surely there must have been something else to it? What about the thousands of illustrious companions and members of the Noble Household, including Imāam Hasan y who actually placed Muāwiyah y in the unified seat of authority? Surely there must be something else to it? How is it possible for so many of the greatest people of this Ummah to pass a blind eye to the command of the Prophet r? By the Grace of Allāh Y, a cursory study of this ‘supposed’ command to kill Hadhrath Muāwiyah y reveals the deception of these insolent hater. The narration in Mīzān Al-I’tidāl is as follows,

حدثنا عباد بن يعقوب، حدثنا الحكم بن ظهير، عن عاصم، عن ذر، عن عبد الله – مرفوعاً: إذا رأيتم معاوية على منبرى فاقتلوه

“Abdullāh narrated, ‘When you see Muāwiyah on my pulpit then kill him”

Imām Zhahabī y then states further regarding the narrator of this narration ‘Hakam bin Zhahīr’,

قال ابن معين: ليس بثقة

“Yahyā bin Maīn y stated that he not trustworthy”

He then states,

وقال البخاري: منكر الحديث

“Bukhārī stated that his narrations are rejected”

Imām Zhahabī y mentions another chain in which a Amr bin Ubayd is a narrator. He then states that Amr bin Ubayd used to call towards Shīasm.[10]

Imām Jalāluddīn As-Suyūtī y in his famous work documenting numerous fabricated narrations explains,

إذا رأيتم مُعَاويَة عَلَى منبري ، فاقتلوه  . هذا مُعَاويَة بْن تابوت رأس المنافقين ، وكان حلف أن يبول ويتغوط عَلَى منبره ، وليس هُوَ مُعَاويَة بْن سُفْيَان

“When you see Muāwiyah on my pulpit then kill him, this is Muāwiyah bin Tābūt who vowed to urinate and excrete on the mimbar, and this was not Muāwiyah bin Abī Sufyān”[11]


We have demonstrated that none of the accusations made by this anonymous Shīa person possess the necessary scholarship to even make for a valid argument. The claims are based mainly on calculated misinformation in order to create doubt and justify the beating of their chests to their own. Such monstrous behaviour is indicative of a vendetta that knows no bounds. We can only request these extremists to change their ways whilst the clock of life still ticks.

If anything good has been achieved by this work, then the praise belongs to Allāh j and the faults belong to me!

Shaykh Faheem

Head of Education and Publications Depts

Islamic Lifestyle Solutions

Durban, South Africa

[1] Translation of the famous book by Allāmah Shafī O’Karvī y

[2] Whilst we undoubtedly differ with the Shīa on the concept of Imāmat, the do not deprive our Sunnī brethren from the undeniable status of the Noble Household u of the Prophet r. We address our scholars of past and present with the title of Imām, and if non-descendants of the Prophet r do not need justification for that title, then of course the Ahlul Bayt u of the Prophet r are more worthy!

[3]  Sahīh Al-Bukhārī – Book of Virtues and Merits of the Prophet r and his Companions y, Chapter on the Signs of Prophethood in Islām, Hadīth 3629

[4]  Jāmi` At-Tirmizhi – Chapters on Virtues, Book 49, Hadith 4213

[5] Ilmur-Rijāl literally meaning ‘Knowledge of Men’ but more commonly understood as the Science of Narration, refers to a discipline of Islamic religious studies within hadith terminology in which the narrators of hadith are evaluated. Its goal is to distinguish authentic and reliable hadiths from unreliable hadiths in establishing the credibility of the narrators, using both historic and religious knowledge

[6] Al-Isābah Fī Tamyīzis Sahābah by Ibn Hajr Al-Asqalānī, Volume 3, Page 355,  Published by Dar-el-Fikr, Beirut.

[7] Tabqāt Al-Kubrā of Ibn Sa’d. Online version

[8] Fathul Bārī, Bāb Zhikri Muāwiyah y, Hadīth no. 3555

[9] Fathul Bārī, Bāb Zhikri Muāwiyah y, Hadīth no. 3555

[10] Mīzāb Al-I’tidāl by Imām Zhahabī under Amr bin Ubayd

[11] Al-La’ālil Masnū’ah fil Ahādīth Al-Maudhū’ah by Imām Suyūtī