Bismillāh-ir-Rahmān-ir-Rahīm, Wal-Hamdu lillaāhi Rabb-il-‘Ālamīn. Was-Salātu Was-Salāmu ‘alā Sayyidinā Muhammadin Khātimin-Nabiyyīna wa Imām-il-Mursalīn.
One thing I will mention here, since a lot of Ash’arīs (associated with AICP and others influenced by them) are under the impression that Imām Abul Hasan al-Ash’arī called Sayyidinā Mu’āwiyah Radiallāhu ‘Anhu and Sayyidatinā ‘Āishah Radiallāhu ‘Anhā a rebel and a fāsiq (Major Sinner). That is not true, Shaykh ‘Abdullāh al-Hararī attributes that position to Imām al-Ash’arī, but that is a fabrication.
The AICP and Ninowites (Some of the followers of Muhammad ibn Yahyā an-Ninowy, however, I haven’t heard Shaykh Yahyā promote any such views himself) are only causing more fitnah by giving opinions contrary to the Jumhūr of Ahlus Sunnah. Imām at-Taftazānī mentions in his Sharh that he doesn’t know of any Sunni scholar in the entire history of Islām who cursed or allowed cursing Mu’āwiyah (Radiallāhu ‘Anhu).
Imām Abū al-Hasan al-Ash’arī said in his Maqālāt:
“The position of Ahlus Sunnah is that ‘Alī (May Allāh be pleased with Him) was correct in the differences that existed between him and Mu’āwiyah (May Allāh be pleased with Him), and that these differences did not occur due to selfish desires or caprice but rather through each excercising their Ijtihād. Mu’āwiyah (MayAllāh be pleased with Him) erred, and thus has the reward of his Ijtihād, and he was not sinful for his error.”
The belief of Ahlus Sunnah is clear and has been codified. We don’t need to turn to AICP or Ninowites for it, as Ahlus Sunnah are complete without them.
“We love the companions of God’s Messenger ﷺ. We are not, however, extreme in our love for any one of them. Nor do we disassociate from any of them. We loathe those who loathe them, and we only mention their merits. Loving them is essential to religion, faith, and spiritual excellence, and hating them amounts to infidelity, hypocrisy and extremism.” It further says, “Whoever speaks well of the companions of the Messenger of God ﷺ, his chaste wives, and his purified progeny is absolved of hypocrisy.”
Imām Ibn Daqīq al-‘Īd said:
“What has been related regarding the conflicts between the Companions and their disagreement, some of it is fabricated and lies and should not be given any notice. That which is true is to be interpreted in the best possible way because the praise of Allāh for them has been revealed. The doubtful or imagined cannot invalidate the firmly established and well-known.”
Imām Mālik ibn Anas said:
“Whoever reviles any of the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ – Abū Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthmān, Mu’āwiyah or ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ās – is killed if he says that they were subject to misguidance or disbelief. If he reviles them in another way as people curse each other, he is given a severe punishment.”
Note: It is not Imām Mālik’s position that the ones who curse the Sahābah are to be executed. They are to be punished by the Ijtihād of the Qādhī.
Lastly, the last chapter of Qādhī Iyādh’s ash-Shifā mentions the ruling against those who curse the Companions (any single companion): “they are to be disciplined”.
2 thoughts on “What do the Ahlus Sunnah say regarding Mu’āwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān?”
I just read this page, and as usual, there is barely a reference. many claims, but no references.
that’s number one. to be more precise, there are three references on this page; book references, unless I missed something. The first is the reference to At-TaHawiyyah. The second is the reference to Ash-Shifaa. The third is a reference to Al-Maqaalaat.
As for TaHawiyyah, his statement does not contradict what we said. It is forbidden to slander and cuss the Companions, but that is a general statement. It does not mean that it is forbidden to mention about a Companion what he did to clarify the rules. There is abundant evidence that I have posted over and over and over again- without a single one of these people responding to any single one of them. If our proofs are wrong, you must explain why, like we explain why yours are. You can’t ignore the evidence and just say its wrong. You must show where the wrong party misunderstood. If you wish, I can post them again. You can choose any single one and tell me where the mistake is on our parts. Brothers and sisters, be honest with yourselves. You cannot ignore the evidence. The wahhabis say, “we dont ask about it, we just accept it without explanation”, and we know where that lead them. I can repost the proofs that we are correct, and I would like an explanation from anyone who can explain why they are misunderstood.
When taHaawiyy said “We do not exaggerate in the love of any one of them,” it means that we do not ascribe to any of them what is not appropriate in reference to glorification. Rather, we describe them with what they deserve. This includes the exaggeration they are making for a Companion who was responsible for the deaths of 20,000 Muslims, among whom were elite Companions and Taabi^oon, scholars and awliyaa’. It is not permissible. We must confirm that he was sinful because what he did is confirmed to him and proven to be sinful by the religious evidence. It is not permissible to ignore the evidence and exempt people from the rules.
In sha’ Allah, I will look into Ash-Shifaa and see what he said for myself and get back to you.
And as for Al-Maqaalaat: (1) It is not Al-Ash^ariyy’s book, it is Ibn Furak’s book in which he transmitted what reached him from Al-Ash^ariyy, because he was the student of the student of Al-Ash^ariyy, so the author of this web page was wrong when he said,”Imām Abū al-Hasan al-Ash’arī said in his Maqālāt.” He should have said, “Ibn Furak said that Al-Ash^ariyy said…” and now he will probably go back and edit his page.
(2) I challenge the author of this web page to provide the publisher of the book he took this claim from, so that we can see if he really has a copy of Al-Maqaalaat that says this, because in Al-Maqaalaat is exactly the opposite of this claim, and I saw that with my own eyes. Those of you who know me can be sure that I’m not lying about that. I read that with my own eyes, so unless there is a contradiction in the book, I tell you that you are lying. Scan the page and the cover of the book so we can refer back to the copy and see if it’s really there.
As for the other quotes, there is oddly no reference provided.
I’d also like to point out that at first they were saying only AICP said this, now its AICP and some ninawites. No, in fact Mu^awiyah himself was upon what we are upon, and so were all of the Companions, including Aliyy.
So for whoever’s posting this -please pardon me- phony webpage, I beg you to scan the page and answer the references that I can give you. Also, give us the references for all of the quotes you gave… scan the pages if possible please.
Thank you for reading and commenting. As for what you have said in your comment, I hope you realise that this is a *blog* (an informal weblog) and not a thesis; which is why I tried to keep it short yet concise. As for references for all the quotes, here they are:
– Sharh ‘Aqāid an-Nasafī Page 195 of at-Taftazānī
– Last Chapter of Qādhī Iyādh’s ash-Shifā
– Kitāb al-Jāmi’ of ibn Abī Zayd
– ‘Aqīdatut Tahāwiyyah (Please don’t give your own commentaries to it, either quote a scholar or who said that or remain silent)
– Ar-Risālatun-Nāfi’ah wal-Hujjatu Qāti’ah fi ‘Ilm at-Tawheed, Shaykh Sālih Farfur
– Maqālāt al-Ilāmiyiyīn wa Ikhtilāf al-Musallin Page 54-58, by Imām Abil-Hasan ‘Alī bin Ismā’īl al-Ash’arī. (I am not talking about the Maqālāt of Ibn Furāk, so I won’t be editing anything).
Some additional references for you to see with your own eyes:
– Tabsaratul Adillah fi Usūlid-Dīn ‘alā tarīqati Imām Abu Mansūr al-Māturīdī, of Imām Abū Mu’īn Maymūn an-Nasafī: Vol. 2 under chapter “Battle of Siffīn”
– Nasāih Dīniyyah of Imām al-Haddād
– Tārīkhul Khulafā of as-Suyūtī
InshāAllāh that should be enough for now.
Please do share all your evidences. However, I will not be answering any of them (I just want to see which scholar said what), you can take them to qualified scholars instead.