Section 2: The Prophet's Companions, Q's 12-15

Apologies for such a long absence on updating the blog. I will proceed with some further questions about the Holy Prophet's companions.

Q12: What problem do Shias have with Aisha?

This question can be simply answered by another question - why did Aisha go against Imam Ali (as)? Why did she lead an army against Imam Ali (as)? There lies the crux of our problem with Aisha. Take away all the surrounding controversies and disagreements about Aisha and just focus on one main event, the Battle of the Camel. I do not believe that the name of Aisha should be cursed or abused, after all she is highly revered by the Ahle-Sunnah who regard her as Ummul Momineen - the Mother of the Believers and she was the wife of the Holy Prophet. However, she led an army against Imam Ali (as) in the Battle of the Camel and there can be nothing positive about that fact.

The status of Imam Ali (as) is unquestionable. At Ghadeer-e-Khum (which I will be discussing later), the Holy Prophet announced to hundreds of thousands of Muslims "O Allah! Love him who loves Ali, and be enemy of he who is the enemy of Ali; help him who helps Ali, and forsake him who forsakes Ali." This has been narrated in several Sunni and Shia books alike, it is undisputed. So what was Aisha doing, leaving the house of the Holy Prophet to lead an army against Imam Ali (as)?

There is a ludicrous argument made by some that the Battle of the Camel was a difference of opinion and both Imam Ali (as) and Aisha were right. If you take the view that both were right, what do you explain to the 10-20,000 Muslims who were killed in that battle, what will happen to them on the Day of Judgement? Will they all be told that they were fighting for the right side - does that even make sense? We need to be clear about the rights and wrongs of the Battle of Camel, only one side was right - truth was on the side of Imam Ali (as).

Q13: What problem to Shias have with Muawiya?

I really struggle to understand why we even need to explain our enmity towards Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan. His disgraceful acts and deeds are there for all to see and yet he is still revered and praised by many Muslims. One of my first posts on this blog was answering this very question in detail.

Q14: Why don't Shias trust Abu Hurairah?

Again, this is a question I have discussed in some detail earlier in my blog.

Q15: Why don't Shias trust Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and other Sunni books of tradition?

The narrations in both Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are questionable to say the least. There are several narrations which defame the Holy Prophet. I am actually embarrassed at quoting some narrations from Sahih Bukhari which talk about the Holy Prophet's alleged sex life and lewd behaviour, but in order to answer the question, I feel they must be highlighted:

"While Allah's Apostle was carrying stones (along) with the people of Mecca for (the building of) the Ka'ba wearing an Izar (waist-sheet cover), his uncle Al-'Abbas said to him, "O my nephew! (It would be better) if you take off your Izar and put it over your shoulders underneath the stones." So he took off his Izar and put it over his shoulders, but he fell unconscious and since then he had never been seen naked." (Vol 1, Book 8, No. 360) 

"Anas bin Malik said, "The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas, "Had the Prophet the strength for it?" Anas replied, "We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty (men)." And Sa'id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven)." (Vol 1, Book 5, No. 268) 

"Narrated Aisha: The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me. While in Itikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses)." (Vol 1, Book 6, No. 298) 

"Narrated Aisha: We performed Hajj with the Prophet and performed Tawaf-al-ifada on the Day of Nahr (slaughtering). Safiya got her menses and the Prophets desired from her what a husband desires from his wife. I said to him, "O Allah's Apostle! She is having her menses." He said, "Is she going to detain us?" We informed him that she had performed Tawaf-al-Ifada on the Day of Nahr. He said, "(Then you can) depart." (Vol 2, Book 26, No. 789)

Just imagine for a second, an anonymous author made such statements about the Holy Prophet, like the ones you have just read. There would be an uproar across the Muslim world, the author would be hunted down and persecuted - and rightly so. Yet, these outrageous traditions are in Sahih Bukhari and we are meant to believe them to be true? Allah (swt) describes the Holy Prophet as: "And thou (standest) on an exalted standard of character." (Surah 68, Verse 4). How can any of the above traditions be true? If they aren't true then what other traditions in the Sahih Bukhari and Muslim are also questionable?

Bukhari himself famously collected traditions from across the Muslim world, he travelled far and wide to collect traditions and yet when you add them up, whilst he collected over 1100 traditions from the likes of Abu Hurairah and Ibn Umar, 900 from Anas Ibn Malik, he only manages 70 from Imam Ali (as). More importantly, Bukhari lived during the time of the eight, ninth, tenth and eleventh Holy Imams. In all his travels, he failed to get any traditions from the family, the Ahlul-Bayt of the Holy Prophet. How can we accept the traditions of Sahih Bukhari?

That concludes section 2 and next time I move on to discuss some of the questions that revolve around Imam Ali (as) inshallah. 

Section 2: The Prophet's Companions, Q's 10-11

Moving on to a very emotive topic of discussion when it comes to discussing the differences between Shias and Sunnis - the companion's of the Holy Prophet. When I try to engage with Sunnis on various forums on the internet, the usual attacks are around our apparent views on the companions, specifically the first 3 caliphs after the Holy Prophet's death. We are apparently known for repeatedly cursing certain companions and displaying outright hatred towards them. In this section I will answer some of the common questions about our views on the companions.

Q10: Why are Shias against the companions?

Shias are not against the companions per se, but are stricter when it comes to deciding who is a good companion of the Holy Prophet and who is not. Sunnis seem to cast anyone associated with the Holy Prophet as a companion and then go on to describe them as people beyond reproach, sometimes based on the faintest of connections with the Holy Prophet.

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Sunni scholar, in his works on the companions, al-Isaba fi tamyiz al-Sahaba, describes them as: "Every one who has narrated a hadith or a word from the Prophet, or seen him while believing in him, is counted among the Sahabah. Also (of the Sahabah) is any one who has met the Prophet with believing in him, and died as a Muslim, whether his meeting with him being long or short, narrating from him or not... ...or who has seen him without sitting with him, or has not seen him due to an excuse." Taking these criteria, the companions number into the 100,000s, and they are all beyond reproach, criticism and questioning.

Turning to the Quran, Allah separates the companions into three categories. Firstly there are the good companions:

"Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other. Thou wilt see them bow and prostrate themselves (in prayer), seeking Grace from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure. On their faces are their marks, (being) the traces of their prostration." (Surah 48, Verse 29)

These are the companions that no Muslim should have any problem with, people like Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, Salman e-Farsi and Ammar ibn Yasir. Sunni scholer Ibn Hajar al-Haytami in his book Al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah states that the Holy Prophet said "Verily, Allah has commanded me to love four persons and has told me that He loves them." When the people asked who these four persons were, he said: "Ali bin Abu Talib, Abu Dharr, Miqdad, and Salman."

Then the Quran refers to the not so good companions:

"O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter." (Surah 9, Verse 38)

There were many events during the time of the Holy Prophet where various companions doubted his decisions and verdicts. Examples include the signing of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah when certain companions doubted the Holy Prophet and questioned whether signing the treaty was a good move for the Muslims. Then there was the Battle of Uhud when certain companions fled the battlefield in fear of defeat and others stayed behind to defend the Holy Prophet and fight in the name of Islam. We know who these companions are, they are clearly mentioned in all the history books. Are such companions meant to be beyond criticism?

"O ye who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet, nor speak aloud to him in talk, as ye may speak aloud to one another, lest your deeds become vain and ye perceive not." (Surah 49, Verse 2)

As the Holy Prophet lay on his deathbed, nearing the end of his life, he asked some companions for a pen and paper to write his last instructions, his last will. Instead he was shouted down by some companions and said to be delirious! Astagfirullah. "When Allah's Apostle was on his death-bed and in the house there were some people among whom was 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, the Prophet said, "Come, let me write for you a statement after which you will not go astray." 'Umar said, "The Prophet is seriously ill and you have the Qur'an; so the Book of Allah is enough for us." The people present in the house differed and quarrelled. Some said "Go near so that the Prophet may write for you a statement after which you will not go astray," while the others said as Umar said. When they caused a hue and cry before the Prophet, Allah's Apostle said, "Go away!" Narrated 'Ubaidullah: Ibn 'Abbas used to say, "It was very unfortunate that Allah's Apostle was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise." (Sahih Bukhari, Vol 7, Book 70, No. 573)

Lastly, the Quran refers to the hypocrites, those who pretend to be close to the Prophet and Islam. There is a whole Surah in the Quran dedicated to them - Surah 63, The Hypocrites.

"When the Hypocrites come to thee, they say, "We bear witness that thou art indeed the Messenger of Allah." Yea, Allah knoweth that thou art indeed His Messenger, and Allah beareth witness that the Hypocrites are indeed liars. They have made their oaths a screen (for their misdeeds): thus they obstruct (men) from the Path of Allah: truly evil are their deeds." (Surah 63, Verses 1-2)

Some of this hypocrites, even the Holy Prophet was unaware of and their punishment awaits on the Day of Judgement:

"And among those around you of the wandering Arabs there are hypocrites, and among the townspeople of Al-Madinah (there are some who) persist in hypocrisy whom thou (O Muhammad) knowest not. We, We know them, and We shall chastise them twice; then they will be relegated to a painful doom." (Surah 9, Verse 101)

This has been further complimented by Sahih Bukahri, "The companions of the Prophet said, "Some men from my companions will come to my Lake-Fount and they will be driven away from it, and I will say, 'O Lord, my companions!' It will be said, 'You have no knowledge of what they innovated after you left: they turned apostate as renegades (reverted from Islam)." (Vol 8, Book 76, No. 586). So who are these people, who are these companions referenced in the Holy Quran and Sahih Bukhari? Certain companions will be punished according to the Quran and the hadith and yet we are meant to treat every companion as an equal?

We should recognise that the Holy Prophet was surrounded by great men, but he was also surrounded by not so good men and also by rank hypocrites. Not all of them are worthy of praise and blessing. Surely, it makes sense to be more analytical and precise when it comes to deciding which are the suitable companions to follow.

I agree that cursing of certain companions does take place by some Shias, I can't deny that. However, I know many people disagree with such practices and many Shia scholars have criticised such actions. I agree, there is no need for curses and hatred towards some of the companions. Instead, we should focus on dialogue and discussion about the history and why some companions are worthy of much reverence over others.

Q11: For the sake of Islam and unity, shouldn't we just follow all the companions?

There is a hadith in some Sunni books by the Holy Prophet: "My Companions are like the stars; whoever among them you use for guidance, you will be rightly guided." Firstly, this is a highly questionable hadith; its authenticity has been questioned by many Sunni and Shia scholars alike. Secondly, for arguments sake, let's accept the hadith to be true - it doesn't actually make much sense. How can we follow all or any of the companions without question? For example, how can I follow both the third caliph Uthman ibn Affan and the great companion Abu Dharr? Uthman had Abu Dharr whipped and exiled from Madina to the desert where he eventually died alone. How can I follow both of these companions?

There are many examples of such conflicting choices when deciding who to follow amongst the companions. Another example is at the Battle of Jamal, on one side was Imam Ali (as) and the other was Talha and Zubayr, companions of the Holy Prophet. They went to battle against each other. How can we follow both? We have to follow those companions who were on the side of the truth. At the Battle of Jamal who was on the side of truth? It is illogical to try to argue that we should just follow all the companions.

Next time I will continue with section 2 by focusing on some particular companions, those who perhaps attract the most criticism amongst Shias. Still to come after that, will be some questions about the succession to the Holy Prophet and also some about Imam Ali (as).

Who is Abu Hurairah?

First of all, commiserations to Shias and Muslims across the world as we commemorated the Chelum of Imam Hussain (a.s.) this week. Every year we remember his sacrifice that saved Islam in its entirety, forget Shia Islam, all of Islam was under the threat of annihilation. Us Shias are continuously attacked for this commiseration, only two days ago, bomb blasts killed several Shia pilgrims in Kerbala and in Pakistan, suicide blasts targetted Shia processions in Lahore and Karachi, injuring and killing over 50 people. Everytime I hear such news I feel dejected and depressed. We are mourning the brutal killing of the grandson of the Holy Prophet and his companions and instead of joining in the mourning, Shias are killed instead. I pray for the day when Shias can remember the sacrifice of Imam Hussain (a.s.) in peace across the world and especially in so-called Muslim countries such as Iraq, Syria and Pakistan.

The tragedy at Kerbala saw the brutal killings of Imam Hussain (a.s.) and his 72 companions. These were true companions, worthy of the name. They sacrificed themselves for the sake of Islam and are rightly revered. Sunnis seem to have a different outlook when it comes to companions. They are the followers of the sunnah of the Prophet, the majority of which has been relayed by his companions. Companionship is a great virtue but it did not make the Prophet's companions infalliable, amongst them there were many loyal and honest men and women, but there were also those who were hypocrites, who commited sins and crimes under the cover of "companionship:" "...and among the townspeople of Al-Madinah (there are some who) persist in hypocrisy whom thou (O Muhammad) knowest not." (Surah 9, Verse 101) There were some hypocrites that even the Prophet did not know about.

Sunnis follow the sayings of the Prophet, the ahadith, as narrated by his companions sometimes regardless of the accuracy. For Shias, no book is 100% accept the Holy Quran, and perhaps Nahjul Balagha. Today I want to focus on a source of common Sunni misguidance, the companion Abu Hurairah, a key man behind several dodgy and fradulent ahadiths and a person Sunnis seem to follow blindly.

Abu Hurairah was born in Yemen in 603 AD, he was an orphan, with only a mother and no other relatives. His name at birth was Abd al-Shams (servant of the sun) but as a child he used to play with cats and became known as Abu Hurairah - Father of kittens. In 629 AD, he visited Madina with members of his tribe and then spent approximately three years with the Holy Prophet, until his death on 8th June 632 AD. Abu Hurairah died in 681 AD, aged 78, a year after the tragedy of Kerbala.

According to Sunni traditions, his great knowledge came from the Prophet himself: "The Prophet began to ladle knowledge with his hands and put it into the garment saying to Abu Hurayra: “Join it to your chest.” Abu Hurairah joined it to his chest and became infallible from forgetting; therefore he was the best of companions in keeping Sunna in mind and the most aware of it." Having become infallible from forgetting ahadith, he then went onto narrate thousands of sayings from the Prophet.

I want to look at a few examples of these apparent infallible ahadiths and ask whether they appear to make much sense, let alone whether the Holy Prophet could have narrated such sayings. To begin with, the Holy Prophet apparently narrated several ahadith about Prophet Moses. Various Sunni books quote Abu Hurairah talking about Prophet Moses:

• The Angel of Death used to come to people visibly, but when he came to Prophet Moses to take his life, Moses slapped him, gouged his eye, and sent him back to God one-eyed. After this accident, the angel of death went to people invisibly!
• Another wonder of Abu Hurairah's was the competition between Moses and the rock. Moses put his cloths on the rock to swim in the sea away from people. The rock ran away with Moses' cloths in order to force him to follow it nakedly as he was born in front of the Israelites in order to refute the rumor saying that Moses had a hernia. Moses ran after the rock shouting: “O, rock, my cloths. O rock, my cloths.” The rock stopped after ending its task. Moses began beating the rock with his stick severely until he made some scars in the rock.
• And another one about an ant that pinched prophet Moses. Moses ordered his followers to burn the village of the ants. Then Allah inspired to him: “Because of an ant that pinched you, you burnt a nation, which pleased Allah!”

• Another tradition, this time about Prophet Solomon who said: “I will go to bed with a hundred women tonight that every one of them will give birth to a boy, who will fight for the sake of Allah.” The angel asked him to say inshallah. He did not say. So no one of his wives gave birth to a baby save one, who gave birth to half a human being!

• Salim, the freed slave of Nasriyyin, said: I heard Abu Huraira as saying that he heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: O Allah, Muhammad is a human being. I lose my temper just as human beings lose temper, and I have held a covenant with Thee which Thou wouldst not break: For a believer whom I give any trouble or invoke curse or beat, make that an expiation (of his sins and a source of) his nearness to Thee on the Day of Resurrection. (Sahih Muslim, Book 32, Number 6293)

• Allah's Apostle said, "When the Adhan is pronounced Satan takes to his heels and passes wind with noise during his flight in order not to hear the Adhan. When the Adhan is completed he comes back and again takes to his heels when the Iqama is pronounced and after its completion he returns again till he whispers into the heart of the person (to divert his attention from his prayer) and makes him remember things which he does not recall to his mind before the prayer and that causes him to forget how much he has prayed." (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 11, Number 582)

That last ahadith is depressingly sad but amusing at the same time. Satan apparently passes wind, farts, in order not to hear the Adhan and Iqama. Can anyone honestly claim that the Holy Prophet would narrate such events? These are just some of the examples of narrations by Abu Hurairah, there are plenty more which are equally absurd.

Abu Hurairah has narrated over 5,000 ahadiths from the Holy Prophet all in the space of the three years he spent with the Holy Prophet. According to Muhammed Zubayr Siddiqui, in his book "Hadith Literature: It's Origin, Development, & Special Features," Abu Hurairah has narrated 5,374 ahadiths. In comparison, Bibi Aisha has narrated 2,210 ahadiths, Umar al-Khattab has narrated 537 ahadiths, Imam Ali (a.s.) 536 ahadiths and Abu Bakr 142 ahadiths. Abu Hurairah has narrated more from the Holy Prophet than the other four just mentioned, combined and only in the space of three years. Doesn't make any sense.

Beyond the above ahadiths mentioned above, there are then the ahadiths that seem to conrtadict what was happening at the time. For example, Abu Hurairah narrated the story of a conversation with the wife of Uthman, Ruqqaya and the Holy Prophet: He said: “Once I entered the house of Ruqayya, the Prophet's daughter and Uthman's wife. She had a comb in her hand. She said: “The Prophet left just a little ago. I combed his hair. He said to me: “How do you find Abu Abdullah (Uthman)?” I said: “he is good.” He said to me: “Grace him! He is the most similar to me, among my companions, in morals.” Imam al-Hakim, famous Sunni transmitter of ahadith, narrates this and says: “This tradition has a true series of narrators but untrue text, (the content is untrue) because Ruqayya had died in the third year of hijra during the battle of Badr, whereas Abu Hurairah came and became a Muslim after the battle of Khaybar (four years later).” So how did he have this conversation that he claims?

Another such ahadith is when Abu Hurairah boasted "We conquered Khaybar but we didn't gain gold or silver. We gained sheep, cows, camels, wares and houses." Abu Hurairah never participated in the Battle of Khaybar. He became a Muslim after that battle, and so once again, this narration doesn't make much sense.

If he was such a great companion and privy to so much information from the Holy Prophet, surely he would have been revered amongst the other companions. However, this was not the case. The second caliph, Umar al-Khattab, reportedly beat Abu Hurairah on more than one occasion: Ibn Sa'ad in Tabaqat, Volume IV, Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Isaba, and Ibn Abd-e-Rabbih in Iqdu'l-Farid, Volume I, write that the Caliph said: "'When I made you the governor of Bahrain, you had not even shoes on your feet, but now I have heard that you have purchased horses for 1,600 dinars. How did you acquire this wealth?' He replied, 'These were men's gifts which profit has multiplied much.' The Caliph's face grew red with anger, and he lashed him so violently that his back bled. Then he ordered the 10,000 dinars which Abu Huraira had collected in Bahrain be taken from him and deposited in the account of the Baitu'-Mal."

This was not the first time that Umar beat Abu Huraira. In Sahih Muslim it mentions that during the time of the Prophet, Umar Bin Khattab beat Abu Huraira so severely that the latter fell down on the ground. Allama Muttaqi Hindi in his Kanzu'l-Umma reports that Caliph Umar lashed him, rebuked him, and forbade him to narrate hadith from the Holy Prophet. Umar, asked why he did so, said: "Because you narrate hadith in (such) large numbers from the Holy Prophet, you are fit only for attributing lies to him. So you must stop narrating hadith from the Prophet; otherwise, I will send you back to your tribe in Yemen.”

Bibi Aisha was also someone who was not fond of Abu Huraira: Ibn Qutayba, in Ta'wil-e-Mukhtalifu'l-Hadith, and Hakim in Mustadrak, Volume III, and Dhahabi in Talkhisu'l-Mustadrak, reporting about the characteristics of Abu Huraira, all say that Bibi Aisha repeatedly contradicted him and said, "Abu Hurairah is a great liar who fabricates hadith and attributes them to the Holy Prophet." The famous book on hadith by Ibn Qutaiba Al-Dinory, records the story of Bibi Aisha telling Abu Hurairah; "You tell ahadiths about the prophet Muhammed that we never heard them from him" He answered "You (Aisha) were busy with your mirror and make up" She (Aisha) answered him; "It is you who were busy with your stomach and hunger. Your hunger kept you busy, you were running after the people in the alleyways, begging them for food, and they used to avoid you and get away from your way, and finally you would come back and pass out in front of my room and the people think you were crazy and step all over you."

Lastly, Imam Ali (a.s.) famously derided Abu Hurairah: Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, in his commentary on Nahju'l-Balagha, Volume I, reports from his teacher, Imam Abu Ja'far Asqalani, that Ali said, "Beware of the greatest liar among the people, Abu Huraira."

So when we reject the traditions and narrations of Abu Hurairah, we are rejecting the man who Umar, Aisha and Imam Ali (a.s.) rejected. This is not some Shia conspiracy or hate campaign. Yet, the tragedy today is that majority of Muslims accept his words, his traditions, his narrations, his nonsense. His legacy is long-lasting. Sunni Islam is built on the narrations of the companions, many of them on the false, unreliable, odd and offensive narrations of Abu Hurairah. There is nothing wrong with following the Sunnah of the Prophet but it depends on which Sunnah. Abu Hurairah was a fabricator of ahadith and I've hopefully shown how anything narrated by him cannot be trusted.

There are two types of Sunnah, there is the Sunnah defined by the likes of Abu Hurairah and others (Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik ibn-Tayimah) who came long after the Prophet and projected their own prejudices and theological inclinations. Then there is the household of the Holy Prophet as defined by Imam Ali (a.s.) and his children - the Ahlul Bayt. Before people dispute this claim of the household and the value of following them, learning from them, being inspired by them, I end this blog with the following quotes:

"I heard the Prophet saying, "There will be twelve Muslim rulers (who will rule all the Islamic world)." He then said a sentence which I did not hear. My father said, "All of them (those rulers) will be from Quraish." (Sahih Bukhari, Vol 9, Book 89, No. 331)

"It has been reported on the authority of Jabir b. Samura who said: I went with my father to the Messenger of Allah (may peeace be upon him) and I heard him say: This religion would continue to remain powerful and dominant until there have been twelve Caliphs. Then he added something which I couldn't catch on account of the noise of the people. I asked my father: What did he say? My father said: He has said that all of them will be from the Quraish" (Sahih Muslim, Book 20, Nos 4477, 4478, 4480, 4481, 4482, 4483)

Who am I to disagree?

Who is Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan?

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. Imam Hussain (a.s) lost the battle but definitely won the war. 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 Holy Prophet, along with his family and friends and in the second year he attacked the Holy 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.

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 Holy 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 Holy Quran when it was first revealed - 'Writer of the Revelation." Before analysing 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 scholer 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 apostatised 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 Holy 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. When Newsweek claimed in 2005 that soldiers had desecrated copies of the Quran in Guantanamo Bay these same Sunnis were up in arms across the globe and yet they ignore the mistreatment of the Quran by Muawiya centuries ago. 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 Holy Prophet & Imam Ali (a.s.) for which he was responsible. Abu Dharr al-Ghifari was a great companion of the Holy 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 criticise 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 Holy 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 Holy 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 Holy 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 (may peace be upon him) 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 Holy Prophet and sister of Muhammed ibn Abu Bakr, began cursing Muawiya after every salat.

His greatest crime was killing the grandson of the Holy 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. I encourage you to open your eyes and hearts and come to realise who Muawiya really was.