Hadith Absurdities and Muslims’ Denial

There are two categories of Muslims. Those who accept the authenticity of the Quran and the Hadith with no ifs or buts, and those who deny the Hadith, partially or totally and try to reinterpret the Quran in ways contrary to its apparent meaning so that it become acceptable to a reasonable mind.

For 1200 years Bukhari’s collection of hadith was regarded (and still is) by the majority of Muslims only second to the Quran. Apart from the Quran, Muslims, especially the Sunnis regard Hadith as the source of guidance. Hadith are stories of the life of Muhammad, collected by scholars in the second and third century after the Hijra. The most famous and revered ones are those of Bukhari and his student Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj. They are called Sahih (correct, sound, authenticated) because they went through a process of authentication called Ilmul Hadith.

However, there is a new trend amongst some Muslims, especially the Submitters, to deny the authenticity of hadith altogether. They would go as far as to call these eminent compilers of the hadith, liars and charlatans. The point is that these writers did not tell these stories to deserve such disparaging insults. They simply collected them and compiled them.

Early Muslim scholars accepted a hadith as Sahih only when its authenticity was established on the basis of both Fann-i-Riwaayat (The art of sequence of narration) andFann-i-Daraayat (The art of logical concordance). Moreover, a Hadith should not have contradicted the Sunnah and the Quran.

I am not interested and none of us is qualified to determine the methodology that was used for accepting or rejecting a Hadith based on Fann-i-Riwaayat. These are old stories. All those who reported them are dead more than a thousand years ago and we have no way to verify their trustworthiness. At this moment the only method left to determine the sihhat(soundness) of a Hadith is Fann-i-Daraayat and its compatibility with the Quran.

The Islamis scholar, Asif Iftikhar writes, “Therefore, a Hadith can be regarded as a source of religious guidance only `if the basis of that Hadith exists in the Quran or the Sunnah or the established principles of human nature and intellect. Moreover, it should not be contradictory to any of these bases” (from The Authenticity of Hadith)
The same author writes “Imam Ibni Ali Jauzee is reported to have said: ‘If you find a Hadith against the dictates of commonsense or contrary to a universal rule, consider it a fabrication; discussions about the trustworthiness of its narrators are needless. Similarly, such Ahadith (plural for hadith) should be suspected as are beyond comprehension to the extent that they leave no room for any possible explanation. Also, a Hadith in which colossal recompense is promised for a minor deed and a Hadith which is absurd in meaning are suspect.”

By examining some of the ahadith in the light of ‘commonsense’, and the recommendations of Ibni Ali Jauzee we find many of them, despite being acknowledged as Sahih do not qualify as such and can be rejected. Take the following Hadith for example:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 43, Number 652
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle said, “While a man was on the way, he found a thorny branch of a tree there on the way and removed it. Allah thanked him for that deed and forgave him.”

Here it seems that the recompense outweighs the good deed and if we were to follow the sound advice of Ibni Ali Jauzee, we must discard this Hadith as false. This may seem something trivial, but the implication is immense. By proving that a hadith that has been categorized as sahih is not sahih, we establish that is prudent to be suspicious of the authenticity of all the ahadith classified as sahih. In fact this proves that despite the fact that 90% of Muslims believe in the Bukhari and in Muslim, and despite the fact that these books were regarded the most infallible books of guidance after the Quran for the last 1200 years, those books are not trustworthy after all.

Now, let us take another hadith and test it with commonsense. Before that we have to define what do we mean by commonsense. I have come to the conclusion that a simple thing like the commonsense, is not common at all and it may have different meaning for a religious person whose senses are flavored by his beliefs.
For example, an unimpaired commonsense dictates that men and women, generally speaking, are at the same level of intelligence. Of course there are stupid people and intelligent people among both sexes, but this has nothing to do with their gender. No real serious scientific study, not marred by religious preconceptions, has ever demonstrated that there is any difference in intelligence between men and women. What has been found is that some part of the brain in women is more advanced than the same parts in men’s brain while in other areas men are more advantageous. This difference is also evident in the comparison between the members of the same sex. Not all men are equal intellectually. Some are more intelligent than others. Yet all men are equal in front of the law. The testimony of Einstein and Joe Bloe, in a court of law has the same weight. Unless Joe Bloe is a certified imbecile his witness is as valid as that of Einstein.

There is no indication that women are less intelligent than men, and even if there was any, there is no justification for them to not have the same voice and rights in a court of law. Therefore science, justice and commonsense all acknowledge that men and women should have the same rights. Religious sense on the other hand defies all that and presents its own criteria. Baffling as it may be, some Muslim women are delighted to fight for their inequality and suppression of their rights and call it “liberation.” They think that hijab elevates their statues. Being rebuked, punished and even beaten by their husbands is good for them. They believe that the majority of them will actually go to hell because Muhammad said so.

So when I talk about commonsense. I am not talking about the commonsense of a religious fanatic, but about the commonsense that is supported by “real” science and approved by “real” scientists. I put the word real between quotation marks because all religions have made their own version of pseudo-science and have their own brand of pseudo-scientists and pseudo-philosophers. What charlatans like Maurice Bucaille and Keith Moore have said about the Quran is not science. It is sheer nonsense made up to fill their bank accounts.
Ok, let us get to the point and see if there is a hadith that does not stand up to the challenge of the real commonsense.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 414
He (Muhammad) said, “First of all, there was nothing but Allah, and (then He created His Throne). His throne was over the water, and He wrote everything in the Book (in the Heaven) and created the Heavens and the Earth.”

How this story can make sense? If there was “nothing”, how could Allah have put his throne over the water? Which water? What was holding that water? There must have been an earth to hold it. Then how is it that he creates the Earth after sitting on the water? How is it that the Heavens and Earth are created after the waters? Don’t you need to have an earth to contain the water, and don’t you have to have heavens to hold the Earth? Beyond the fact that the whole notion expressed in this Hadith is ludicrous and scientific balderdash, there is also an error in the order of creation.

Let us step back and consider what is wrong with this picture! Isn’t the Earth a planet of the solar system, which is an insignificant part of a galaxy that is one of the billions of galaxies of the Universe? Can anyone, including the “genius” Maurice Bucaille who said Quran is scientific and a miracle (yet refused to become a Muslim and rather was content with the money that the Saudi King gave him,) put these two pictures together and solve this puzzle?

So we could say that the above Hadith is a fabrication because it contradicts the commonsense and is contrary to the universal rule. Or can we?

The problem is that this hadith is in conformity with the Quran and as Asif Iftikhar said “a Hadith can be regarded as a source of religious guidance only `if the basis of that Hadith exists in the Quran or the Sunnah.” What if we find something in the Quran that corroborates the above absurdity? Lo and behold that there is more than one verse that does that. See the following for example:

Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: “O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness.”Then followed he (another) way, Until, when he came to the rising of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had provided no covering protection against the sun.

Obviously Sun rises and sets in ALL places, or actually no place at all. One does not have to go “another way” to find it rising. This gives us the clue that Muhammad really believed that the Earth is flat and the Sun moves in the sky rising from one place, setting in another.

But how can we be sure this is what Muhammad thought of the shape of the Earth? The answer can be found in another Hadith.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 421
Narrated Abu Dhar:
The Prophet asked me at sunset, “Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?” I replied, “Allah and His Apostle know better.” He said, “It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah: “And the sun Runs its fixed course For a term (decreed). that is The Decree of (Allah) The Exalted in Might, The All-Knowing.” (Q. 6: 38)

Here we have a case in Hadith that is confirmed by the Quran, which is again ratified by another Hadith and once more demonstrated in the Quran. Is this Hadith against the science and commonsense? It sure is. However, it is not against the Quran. Therefore the message conveyed by the Hadith is wrong, despite the fact that it is an authenticated Hadith.

If we have any doubts about what Muhammad really thought of the shape of the Earth, we can safely put them to rest when we read the following verses.

Q. 78: 6-7
Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse, And the mountains as pegs?

The “expanse” gives an idea of something flat. The Arabic word used in the Quran is mehad, (bed). All the beds that I have seen so far were flat; none of them where spherical. Also the mountains are not pegs keeping the earth from shaking as Muhammad thought.

Don’t these ahadith, backed by the Quran, clearly describe a flat Earth, with the Sun rising from one end and setting in the muddy waters on the opposite end? Is there a Throne somewhere that the Sun goes under it to get permission? What Throne was Muhammad talking about? When and how the Sun prostrates itself? This concept sounds luducrous; yet in the old ages everyone believed in a flat Earth, floating on waters surrounded by high mountains beyond which one could fall into an abyss, etc. and the whole story made perfect sense to those who heard it first.

In fact this story is not an invention of Muhammad. Most of the Prophet’s stories were part of the folklore. In a book entitled The Oldest Stories in the Word, Theodor H. Gaster has compiled the lore of the Babylonian, the Hittite and the Canaanite people of 3500 years ago. These stories were lost for centuries. In mid 20th century they were found and unearthed. They were deciphered and printed in 1952. The similarities of those old stories and the stories in the Quran, including the above Hadith, are astonishing. It helps us understand the origin of the Quran as well as the Bible. The Quran has no divine origin. What Muhammad told people were stories he heard from others, old stories that were part of the tradition of the people of his time.

Miracles in Islam

There are also many ahadith attributing miracles to Muhammad. What should we make of them? Again as Asif Iftikhar indicated a hadith that contradicts the Quran should not be trusted. I suppose this is acceptable by all the Muslims. If there is a controversy between a hadith and the Quran the authority of the Quran overrides that hadith.

What the Quran says in respect of the Miracles? It categorically denies them.

So, according to the Quran Muhammad did not perform any miracles and all those ahadith that report stories about miracles are false. Their falsity also can be proven by logics. The eminent scholar Ali Dashti asked: If Muhammad could really perform miracles, make stones speak, split the moon, multiply the food, visit the hell and the heaven in a night, etc as some of the ahadith suggest, why he did not perform the logical and useful miracle and did not learn how to read and write? Does it make sense that a man who can see the next world, when given a piece of written paper in his own language find it difficult to read? Muslims believe that he could look into one’s eyes and reads their mind. He himself claimed that when he leads the congregational prayer he can see his followers behind him without turning. Yet he could not read a simple letter written in his own language? Among all the miracles that he performed wasn’t reading the most useful of all?

Apart from the Quran, there are many ahadith that also deny any supernatural power or knowledge attributed to Muhammad.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 43, Number 638
(the wife of the Prophet) Allah’s Apostle heard some people quarreling at the door of his dwelling. He came out and said, “I AM ONLY A HUMAN BEING, and opponents come to me (to settle their problems); maybe someone amongst you can present his case more eloquently than the other, whereby I may consider him true and give a verdict in his favor. So, If I give the right of a Muslim to another by mistake, then it is really a portion of (Hell) Fire, he has the option to take or give up (before the Day of resurrection).”

How a man who is aware of this world and the next, who, as Muslims say, predicted all the inventions that has happened since, is capable of splitting the moon and performing any miracle cannot trust his own judgment fearing the eloquence of one party may deceive him and make him err?

Let us examine more ahadith with our own Fann-i-Daraayat, unclogged from preconceived ideas.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 315
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The Prophet said, “At every womb Allah appoints an angel who says, ‘O Lord! A drop of semen, O Lord! A clot. O Lord! A little lump of flesh.” Then if Allah wishes (to complete) its creation, the angel asks, (O Lord!) Will it be a male or female, a wretched or a blessed, and how much will his provision be? And what will his age be?’ So all that is written while the child is still in the mother’s womb.”

This hadith is a joke. Just the thought of this little angel that gets in there and stands in front of the womb each time a man become intimate with his wife watching the whole act and supplicating Allah for a drop of semen right on his face, is hilarious. Shall we discard this hadith as a fabrication? It certainly goes against our commonsense. But it was not against the commonsense of those who used to narrate it to each other 1200 years ago. It does not make sense to us, but it made perfect sense to them. A few hundred years ago, the commonsense dictated that the Earth is flat. All the philosophers and prophets agreed. Today it doesn’t? Can we say that the ahadith that go against our modern commonsense are false now, but they were true then because they were in accordance with the commonsense of the ancient folks?

The point is that we cannot dismiss the authenticity of a Hadith based on our commonsense. Muslims have taken for granted that Muhammad was the messenger of God and therefore he could not be wrong. So they reevaluate the ahadith as time goes by and keep discarding those that their newfound understanding of science proves unsound. This method is highly biased. Of course it is consistent with defendant’s approach and his defense council who (if unscrupulous) would deliberately hide, deny or dismiss all the evidence that would incriminate their client and present only those that find him an alibi and are in his favor. On the other hand, an unbiased jury would weigh all the evidences; the good and the bad, and pass their verdict after taking into account all the facts.

To examine the truth of the claim of Muhammad we have to decide which side we are standing. Are we part of the defense team or are we part of the jury? The majority of Muslims, as you would expect, choose to be part of the defense team. They are not interested to know whether Muhammad was right or he was an impostor. That question does not even arise in their minds. They are already convinced of it. They have accepted Muhammad as the messenger of God. Choosing to remain believers, they naturally would not know the truth and are not in a position to see it.

Today more educated Muslims find many absurdities in the hadith and their first reaction is to deny them. However, since the majority of the ahadith are nonsensical, the growing consensus is to deny all of them and vilify the unfortunate Bukhari and Muslim who were revered for over a millennium. This is unfair. Bukhari and Muslim, along with other Muhaditheen (collectors of hadith) did not invent these ahadith, but recorded them as they were told. It is not right to shoot the messenger if the message in unpleasing. And it is highly unethical to defile these scholars and deny what they painstakingly collected, because what they reported blemish Muhammad. Some of these reports are fabricated and false but many of them are true. Because many of these ahadith are of dubious nature, we should not rely on them as religious source of guidance, but to dismiss them as historic sources is committing a grave mistake. These ahadith are all we have about the life of Muhammad. They should not be taken as a substitute to the Quran (assuming that this is a revealed book) but they are the only biography of the Prophet where Muslims can learn his sunnah. If you deny the hadith how can you prove the historicity of the Prophet? If all those stories are false and someone with a diabolic wit has forged them all, then perhaps someone equally malignant has fabricated the Quran and the whole Islam is nothing but a fanciful tale. Without the hadith, we know nothing of Muhammad, his life and his history. Without them, Muslims have no way to know how to perform their prayers or fast. These are pillars of Islam.

Absurdities of Quran

To deny the authenticity of ahadith on the ground of their logical absurdity poses another yet bigger problem and that is: what to do with the equally absurd verses of the Quran? Can we dismiss the Quran as fabricated and forged because it is as absurd as the ahadith? This is a line Muslims would never cross. So what would they do when confronted with quranic verses that are absurd and nonsensical? The common reaction is to reinterpret the meanings of the verses esoterically.

The desire to interpret the Holy Scriptures and assign esoteric meanings to them is born out of the fact that these scriptures are crude and lack meaning. The Mu’tazelits (early Islamic rationalistsa) were first to notice the inadequacy of the Quran and Sufism is entirely based on giving esoteric meanings to the revealed book. Sufism is, par exultance, the effort to “interiorize” the quranic revelation, to break away with the purely legalistic religion and experience the mystical significance of the encounter of Muhammad with Allah in the night of Mi’raj, which to the Sufis was also spiritual in nature.

Imam Ja’far Sadiq is reported to have said. “Our cause is a secret (serr) within other secret. The secret of something that remains hidden; a secret that only another secret can reveal. It is a secret about a secret that is based on a secret. [Henri Corbin, Historia de la Filosofia Siglo XXI editores. V.3 p.253] (My translation).

Apart from the fact that when you crack that sentence it becomes yet another absurdity, it also contradicts the Quran’s repeated claims of being a “clear book” (5:15) “easy to understand” (44:58 , 54:22 , 54:32, 54:40) “explained in detail” (6:114), ”conveyed clearly”, (5:16, 10:15) and with “no doubt in it” (2:1). Nonetheless it justifies the Imamat and Ja’far’s own raison d’être as an Imam. Of course he had to convince the Shiites that the Quran is a secret that needs to be interpreted. And no one could do that except someone vested with authority and ismat (infallibility). Therefore Imamat was necessary if one wants to understand Islam.

The question is what would they do when there are no more Imam? Who would interpret the obtuse secrets of the Quran and the Sharia? That is when they came up with another institution called velayat. Vali is the guardian of the Faith. He is the intermediary between the Imam Qayeb (hidden Imam) and the Ummah. Wherefrom Ayatullah Khamanei of Iran gets his authority, whose rule overrides the decision of the entire nation.

But who gave authority to the Imams and the valis? No one! These institutions are not mentioned in the Quran. Few ahadith that support them are dubious and most likely were forged by the Shiites to justify their version of the religion.

Why whould God send a message of guidance to mankind in the form of a secret? What kind of prank is that? How much he wants to toy with us?

Imam Ja’far was not entirely wrong. The secret is that Imamat and Shiism are lies. This is the secret within another secret that Muhammad was also a lie. The big secret that hides these two secrets is that Allah was nothing but Muhammad’s own fabrication. Today this secret is revealed and consequently the secrets that it contains are exposed.

As I said elsewhere, there are two categories of Muslims. The first are those that defend Muhammad and whatever he did irrespective of any consideration for decency, rightness or justice. They do not deny his marriage to a 9-year-old child, his assassination of his opponents, the massacring of his prisoners of war, his genocide of the Jews of Arabia, raping his war captives, sleeping with the maids of his wives and other his less than admirable deeds. The second group, are those that deny part or all of these facts about Muhammad and try to twist the evidence to make him acceptable by the modern morality and values. These are called moderate Muslims.

I certainly admire the honesty of the first group, which the second group lacks. Many so called moderate Muslims try hard to hide the brutalities of the Quran and present it in a different light. They would quote the earlier verses of Quran when Muhammad was weak and his preaching was sugary. But they would play down the harsher verses that were dictated in Medina when he had became a chieftain and did not need to humbug the Quraish, the Jews or the Christians for support.

Interpreting the Quran with a different meaning than its obvious meaning plays also a great role in explaining the scientific absurdities of that book. The majority of Muslims prefer to live in denial. Denial of the authenticity of Hadith is easy, but to deny the authenticity of the Quran is not something they would like to think about. So reinterpretation is the only option.

The Submitters

During 1970s an Egyptian Muslim scholar came up with his brilliant solution that would entice many educated Muslims and renew their faith in Islam. His name was Rashed Khalifa. At first he claimed to have found the mathematical miracle of the Quran. This claim was refuted by several thinkers as a “lie-free deception.”

However, because of this claim he gained respect and fame amongst Muslims, until he decided to start his own messenger business, a decision that angered the established clergy and finally cost him his life. But his contribution was important as by his complete denial of the Hadith and his serious effort to translate the Quran reinterpreting it in a way that would downplay its harsh and intolerant message, he started a new movement amongst the pseudo-intellectual Muslims who now could cling to the primitive Quran while pretend to promote a gentler Islam that does not advocate killing the apostates and instigating holy wars. Their denial of the hadith goes as far as denying everything about the history of Muhammad. They deny all his wars, all his assassinations, and the genocides that he committed against the Jews of Medina, his killings and his robberies. They deny his raids, they young age of Ayesha and Muhammad’s licentious lifestyle reported in thousands of ahadith narrated by his followers. Their zest to present the Quran as a logical book of miracles has made them bend every rule of reason to the extent that they would misrepresent deliberately the Quran and interpret it in the most silly ways to rationalize its absurdity.

One submitter went as far as to assure me that the mistake in the addition of the inheritance in the Quran is not actually a mistake but a misunderstanding and that the share of 1/3 for the parents + 2/3 for the daughters + 1/8 for the wife, commanded in the Quran equals one. He explained that the 1/8 share of the wife must come out of 2/3 of the daughters. The Quran does not say such thing but Muslims’ eagerness to justify the errors of the Quran goes beyond any reason.

Those who deny the ahadith use these verses of Quran to prop up their claims.

Q. 12: 111
In their history verily there is a lesson for men of understanding. It is no invented story but a confirmation of the existing (Scripture) and a detailed explanation of everything, and a guidance and a mercy for folk who believe.


Q. 31: 6
And of mankind is he who payeth for mere pastime of discourse, that he may mislead from Allah’s way without knowledge, and maketh it the butt of mockery. For such there is a shameful doom.

As the above verse reveal, Muhammad was ridiculed by his contemporaries and his Quran was called non-sense stories and idle tales. The word story or tale in Arabic is hadith. So in these verses Muhammad is defending his revelation, arguing that it is not a tale (hadith) invented or a frivolous discourse. He compares his words to the idle tales of the people of his time and claims that they will mislead men while the Quran guides them.

In the above verse, Muhammad is rejecting the tales of the unbelievers not the stories of his own life. But since in referring to the idle stories of his contemporaries he used the word hadith, which in Arabic means story, tale or tradition the zealot deniers of the hadith have taken it as the proof that Muhammad was against hadith. What confusion!





27 thoughts on “Hadith Absurdities and Muslims’ Denial


    Mauweyah invited Ayesha for dinner, and he got a ditch dug in the ground, filling it up with sharp knives and swords, with their blades facing upwards. According to Alama Ibn Khaldoon, Mauweyah masked that ditch with lanky pieces of wood, and spread a carpet on top of it all to camouflage it. He placed a wooden chair over it for Ayesha to sit. No sooner Ayesha sat on the chair, the whole set up retrieved and she fell in the pit, injuring herself from head to toe, and breaking a lot of bones. To hide his felony, Mauweyah got the ditched filled up with lime. That is how he murdered Ayesha; she was sixty four years old when Mauweyah murdered her towards the end of 57 Hijri. This proves, with out a doubt, that Mauweyah was an enemy of Prophet Mohammed (p), and he proved his enmity towards the Prophet (p) by murdering his (p) wife. The only reason that Mauweyah performed this heinous act was that Ayesha stopped him from making fun of Islam from the pulpit of Masjid-e-Nabvi.. This is why no one knows the exact location of Ayesha’s grave in Medina.”

    He killed the Mother of the Believers Ayesha in cold blood after ordering the killing of her brother Muhammad bin Abu Bakar. He was also responsible for the killings of many other companions of the Prophet (p) including Hajar bin Adi and Ammar Yasir.

    Following the death of Muhammad bin ‘Abu Bakr the people of Egypt gave bayya to Muaweyah. It was following this (event) that Ummul Mu’mineen Ayesha would curse Muaweyah and Amr bin Aas after every Salaat.

    Tadhkira ul Khawass page 62

    Sunni References:

    Musharriful Mahbubin by Hazrat Khuwaja Mehboob Qasim Chishti Mushrrafi Qadri Pages 216-218

    Kokab wa Rifi Fazal-e-Ali Karam Allah Wajhu, Page 484, By Syed Mohammed Subh-e-Kashaf AlTirmidhi, Urdu translation by Syed Sharif Hussein Sherwani Sabzawari, Published by Aloom AlMuhammed, number B12 Shadbagh, Lahore, 1st January 1963.

    Habib Alseer Rabiyah AlAbrar, Volume 1, Alama JarulAllah Zamik (530 Hijri),

    Hadoiqa Sanai, by Hakim Sanai (Died 525 Hijri, at Ghazni), Page 65-67,

    Namoos Islam, by Agha Hashim Sialkoti, Published Lahore, 1939 – Pages 66-67

    Tazkarah Tul-Aikram Tarikh-e-Khulafa Arab-Wa-Islam by Syed Shah Mohamed Kabir Abu Alalaiyi Dana Puri, Published Le Kishwar Press, Lakhnow, April 1924/ 1346 H
    Sipah e Sahaba and other Wahabi scum have introduced Muaweyah as a companion of the Prophet using narrations fabricated by Muaweyah and his filthy descendants.

    One very clever move by the Wahabis was to declare Muaweyah a scribe (katib e Wahi) who wrote down the revelations of Allah’s Messenger.

    All praise be to Allah swt, the leading Sunni scholars realising this conspiracy of the Wahabis, have declared all hadith praising Muaweyah as fabricated.

    Not a single hadith in praise of Muaweyah is Sahih (authentic)

    Many classical Sunni scholars whilst listing those individuals honored as writer of the revelation did not count Mu’awiya. For evidence see the following texts:

    Fathul Bari page 450 Volume 2
    Irshad Saneed Volume 9 page 22
    Umdhathul Qari Volume 9 page 307
    Nasa al Kafiya page 170
    Iqd al Fareed Volume 2 page 197
    al Isaba Volume 3 page 413


    The story of Ashura and the great sacrifice made by Imam Hussain (a.s.) to save the religion of Islam was a classic tale of good versus evil. The evil in these events was personified by Yazid ibn Muawiya (may Allah curse him), a man who was simply a despicable human, let alone a so-called Muslim.

    His reign as “caliph” was short but painful. In his first year of rule he commanded his forces to kill the grandson of the Prophet, along with his family and friends and in the second year he attacked the Kaa’ba and set fire to it. He was a power-hungry, selfish and arrogant man but tracing through history, he was not the real brains behind the attempt to destroy Islam, the real brains was his father – Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan. Of the trio of the founding Umayyad fathers, Abu Sufyan, Muawiya and Yazid, Muawiya is the most significant, the most influential and most cunning.

    Sunnis lay a lot of credit on Muawiya’s door. They have a lot invested in him. They don’t really take note of Abu Sufyan and condemn the actions of Yazid, on the whole (apart from fools like Dr. Zakir Naik). Muawiya on the other hand is treated with a lot of respect. They call him Hazrat Muawiya – rasiallahu-anhu (may Allah be pleased with him) amongst other respectful titles. He has been bizarrely sanctified by the Ahle Sunnah over the centuries, his reputation has been shrouded in myths, legends and propaganda.

    During Muharrum I heard an excellent lecture about Muawiya. From my notes and further research on the man, I want to explore who Muawiya was, we need to be aware of who he was and what he represented. The lecturer carefully explored his real record, the truth about his life and deeds and ambitions. We have to know who these people are in order to represent our faith in a better light and even enlighten our brethren in the Ahle Sunnah about the truth behind Muawiya.

    The Ahle Sunnah like to give him three main claims to fame. Firstly, he was a great companion of the Holy Prophet. Looking at history, he was in the Holy Prophet’s midst only for the last 2 years of the Prophet’s life. Any hadith claiming words of praise about Muawiya from the Holy Prophet have been fabricated by Muawiya himself. He was a great propaganda machine and spent much of his time in power creating new hadiths about himself and Bani Ummaya. He also created other hadiths trying to discredit Imam Ali (a.s.) and Bani Hashim in an attempt to legitimise his rule.

    The reality is that he was not a great companion of the Prophet, and the Prophet enunciated not one word of praise or merit about Muawiya. Many Sunni scholars have come to this conclusion in their research, including Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Jalaluddin Al-Suyuti and Abdul-Haqq Dehlavi who all attest to there being no hadiths in praise of Muawiya in their books.

    The Ahle-Sunnah also believe Muawiya to have been a legitimate ruler, caliph of the Muslims. He obtained the Caliphate by ousting the 2nd Holy Imam, Imam Hasan (a.s.) through bribery and blackmail of Imam Hasan’s supporters. He negotiated a peace treaty with Imam Hasan (a.s.) and then systematically broke every single article of the treaty. He broke the central condition of the treaty – regarding succession to his rule, by appointing his cursed son Yazid as Caliph.

    He is, in effect, Islam’s first tyrant. He was the man who created structures of kinship and autocracy. He dug the roots of tyranny, terror and totalitarianism that defaces Islam today. Famous Sunni scholar, Abul Ala Maududi, in his 1973 book “Caliphate and Kingship”, outlines in detail the numerous ways in which Muawiya enriched himself at the expense of the people, how corrupt he was, how many companions and innocent Muslims he killed and how he amassed both power and wealth. He turned the Caliphate into a Kingship. (After all that criticism, Maududi still managed to end the book with “Hazrat Muawiya, (r.a.)”!!)


    If he is a true Caliph and deserved the title, why is he not one of the Khulafa-e-Rashideen – the four rightly guided Caliphs? Why does it end with Imam Ali (a.s.), why wasn’t Muawiya added to this list? They know the truth, but cannot bring themselves to admit as much. The irony is that how could he be a great Caliph when some of his own companions refused to pray behind him? A companion of Abu Huraira, no friend of the Shia, claims in Sirat-e-Halabiya that “On the plains of Siffin, Abu Huraira would pray Salat behind Ali, but would go and eat with Muawiya. Someone asked why he did this, to which he replied
    “Food with Muawiya is better, but Salat under Ali is better.””

    In fact, Muawiya himself made it obvious that he was only interested in power and material gain. He didn’t even pretend to have any inclination towards the spiritual, the moral and the Islamic aspects of caliphate and leadership of the Muslim community. Sunni scholar Sibt ibn al-Jawzi writes in his book, Mir’at al-Zaman that Muawiya openly claims

    “I did not fight you to pray, fast and pay charity, but rather to be your leader and to control you!”

    From the horses mouth himself.

    His last claim to ‘fame’, say the Ahle-Sunnah, was that he was a writer of the Quran when it was first revealed – ‘Writer of the Revelation.” Before analyzing this claim further, in and of itself it’s not that big a deal to be the Writer – one of the writers became an apostate in later life, as claimed by Sunni scholar Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani who writes in his book “Fath al-Bari”:

    “The first man from the Quraysh who was the writer of the revelation was Abdullah bin Saad. After this he apostatized and became a kaffir.”

    Was Muawiya a Writer of the Revelation? As I mentioned earlier, he converted to Islam in 630 AD, just 2 years before the death of the Prophet. How could he be the writer, when most of the Quran had already been revealed and transcribed by the companions of the Prophet? Sunni scholar Allama Zahabi in his book “Tareekh ul Islam” states that “Muawiya was the writer of the Prophet’s correspondence, his letters between the Prophet and the Arabs.” I guess “Writer of Letters” doesn’t quite have the same ring to it. This is further backed up by notorious Egyptian Sunni scholar Sayyid Qutb, the forefather of Al-Qaeda, who writes in his book “Social Justice in Islam”

    “The erroneous fable still persists that Mu’awiya was a scribe who wrote down the revelations of Allah’s Messenger. The truth is that when Abu Sufyan embraced Islam, he besought the Prophet to give Mu’awiya some measure of position in the eyes of the Arabs; thus he would be compensated of being slow to embrace Islam and of being one of those who had no precedence in the new religion. So the Prophet used Mu’awiya for writing letters and contracts and agreements. But none of the companions ever said that he wrote down any of the Prophet’s revelations, as was asserted by Mu’awiyas partisans after he had assumed the throne. But this is what happens in all such cases.”

    So Muawiya was not the man who wrote down the Quran. He was however the man who made his army place 500 copies of the Quran on spears and lances during the Battle of Siffin when he was losing and yet he is still praised by Sunnis today. He’s not the writer of the Quran, he is an abuser of the Quran.
    Setting the path for many Muslim leaders today, he was the first ruler to publicly drink alcohol.


    Sunni scholar Ahmad ibn Hanbal writes in his famous collection of Hadtih: “Musnad” “”Abdullah bin Buraida said:

    ‘I entered on Muawiya with my father, then he (Mu’awiya) made us sit on a mattress then he brought food to us and we ate, then he brought a drink to us, Muawiya drank it and then he offered that to my father, thus (my father) said:

    ‘I never drank it since the messenger of Allah made it [that drink] Haram’….”

    However, his greatest claims to infamy are the harsh treatment and even the killings of several companions of the Prophet & Imam Ali (a.s.) for which he was responsible. Abu Dharr al-Ghifari was a great companion of the Prophet, who stated that:

    “The earth has not borne nor has the sky covered, a man more truthful than Abu Dharr”- as narrated by Sunni scholar Allama Muhammed ibn Saad in his book Tabqat Ibn-e-Saad.

    He goes on to narrate how Abu Dharr constantly used to criticize the corrupt and lavish rule of the third caliph, Uthman ibn Affan. On Muawiya’s say so, Uthman had him flogged and whipped and then exiled outside Madina, to Al-Rabathah, where he died alone a few years later.

    Muawiya was responsible for the death of the great companion of the Prophet, Ammar ibn Yasir. There are many Sunni narrations praising the status of Ammar ibn Yasir. According to the Sunni book Sunan ibn Majah (one of the Sunni six major Hadith collections), the Prophet said:

    “Ammar is filled with faith, with imaan, from the crown of his head, to the soles of his feet.”

    He was the son of Yasir and Sumaya, who were amongst the first people that were martyred in the name of Islam.

    When it came to his death, it was prophesied by the Prophet and is mentioned in both Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim (the 2 most important Sunni books of hadith). Sahih Bukhari narrates:

    “Ibn ‘Abbas said to me and to his son ‘Ali, “Go to Abu Sa’id and listen to what he narrates.” So we went and found him in a garden looking after it. He picked up his Rida’, wore it and sat down and started narrating till the topic of the construction of the mosque reached. He said, “We were carrying one adobe at a time while ‘Ammar was carrying two. The Prophet saw him and started removing the dust from his body and said, “May Allah be Merciful to ‘Ammar. He will be inviting them (i.e. his murderers, the rebellious group) to Paradise and they will invite him to Hell-fire.” ‘Ammar said, “I seek refuge with Allah from affliction.” (Volume 1, Book 8, Number 438). And in Sahih Muslim: “This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Umm Salama that Allah’s Messenger said to ‘Ammar: A group of rebels would kill you.” (Book 041, Number 6968).

    Who were these rebels that would kill Ammar ibn Yasir? History is clear when it records the death of Ammar in the Battle of Siffin. He fought in the ranks of Imam Ali (a.s.) and was killed by the army of Muawiya. The famous English translator of Sahih Muslim, Abd-al-Hamid Siddiqui goes on to add a footnote to the above hadith about Ammar:

    “This narration is clearly indicative of the fact that in the conflict between Hadrat Ali and his opponents, Hadrat Ali was on the right as Ammar Ibn Yasir was killed in the Battle of Siffin fighting in the camp of Hadrat Ali.” It does not, therefore, make much sense to say that both Imam Ali (a.s.) and Muawiya were in the right.

    Muawiya then went on to have Ammar ibn-Yasir beheaded and mutilated. It was Muawiya who first introduced such immoral and un-Islamic practices that his cursed son Yazid would then continue at Karbala and that so many Muslim terrorists continue around the world today – with their beheadings of hostages and mutilations of the bodies of their enemies.

    Muawiya was also responsible for the deaths of other Muslims such as Hujr ibn Adi. Abul Ala Maududi writes in “Caliphate and Kingship” that Muawiya had Hujr ibn Adi buried alive for refusing to curse Imam Ali (a.s.). He also killed Muhammed ibn Abu Bakr – son of the first caliph and foster son of Imam Ali (a.s.), and then wrapped him in the carcass of a dead donkey and burned it to ashes. It was following this incident as narrated by Allama ibn Athir, in his book Tarikh-e-Kamil, that Ayesha, wife of the Prophet and sister of Muhammed ibn Abu Bakr, began cursing Muawiya after every salat.

    His greatest crime was killing the grandson of the Prophet – Imam Hasan (a.s.). Muawiya paid Imam Hasan’s wife, Jada 100,000 dirhams and his son, Yazid’s hand in marriage if she would kill her husband. She poisoned his water, causing him to suffer for 40 days before dying. This has been reported in many major Sunni hadith books, including works by Abul Fida, Abdul Rahmān bin Abd Rabbāh, Ibne Shahnah and Ibne Abdul Birr. Muawiya went on to pay Jida the money, but refused to marry his son to her – if she could kill one husband, what would stop her killing her next husband?

    Muawiya is arguably the greatest contributor to the Sunni-Shia split that exists today. His hatred of Imam Ali (a.s.) and the Ahlul Bayt continues to this day from his followers, from those Sunnis who ignorantly respect him. The Sunnis who try to build up Muawiya are living in denial. Muawiya was a corrupt, greedy and un-Islamic leader and should be treated as such. The lecturer covered a lot of detail and discussed the truth behind Muawiya and some of his hideous actions. I hope I’ve been able to explain what I’ve learnt from the lecture and further research in a clear manner. I encourage you to open your eyes and hearts and come to realize who Muawiya really was.

    Reference: http://truthaboutshias.blogspot.com/search/label/Muawiya

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s