This excerpt is taken from A Research Review of Mirza Muhammad Ali Engineer's Objections and Criticisms, authored by Haroon bin Shabbir Ahmad, may Allah preserve him, and revised by Fazilat al-Sheikh Maulana Muhammad Rafiq Tahir, may Allah preserve him.
Did Amir al-Mu'minin Muawiyah, may Allah be pleased with him, order unjust killings and looting of people's wealth?
One of Mirza Sahib's major objections is that the government of Muawiyah رضي الله عنه was tyrannical and oppressive monarchy. Among the arguments he presents, some are not proven by authentic chains of narration, some lack explicitness as per Mirza Sahib's claims and are colored by his own interpretations, and some arguments themselves require evidence. The narration under discussion also falls into this third category, where Abdul Rahman bin Abd Rabb Ka'bah رحمه الله says to Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Amr bin Aas رضي الله عنه:
هَذَا ابْنُ عَمِّكَ مُعَاوِيَةُ يَأْمُرُنَا أَنْ نَأْكُلَ أَمْوَالَنَا بَيْنَنَا بِالْبَاطِلِ وَنَقْتُلَ أَنْفُسَنَا وَاللهُ يَقُولُ: أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَأْكُلُوا أَمْوَالَكُمْ بَيْنَكُمْ بِالْبَاطِلِ إِلَّا أَنْ تَكُونَ تِجَارَةً عَنْ تَرَاضٍ مِنْكُمْ وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا أَنْفُسَكُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ بِكُمْ رَحِيمًا
"Your cousin Muawiyah رضي الله عنه commands us to unjustly consume each other's wealth and kill one another, whereas Allah says: 'O believers! Do not consume one another's wealth unjustly, except by mutual consent in trade, and do not kill one another. Indeed, Allah is ever Merciful to you.' Then he (Abdullah bin Amr bin Aas) remained silent for a while and said: 'Obey them in obedience to Allah, and disobey them in disobedience to Allah.'"
Reference: (Sahih Muslim:4776)
Masalah 101-[1:06:00]
Research paper 5b, page:14
This statement is baseless; that is, no incident has been narrated where Sayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه ordered anyone to be unjustly killed or had anyone's wealth unjustly seized, from which it could be concluded that what he calls unjust is indeed unjust or that he misunderstood. The correct view here is that he was mistaken; otherwise, no incident from the era of Muawiyah رضي الله عنه can be presented where he unjustly killed anyone. The most important point is that this statement contradicts the authentic hadiths of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, the sayings of the Companions رضي الله عنهم, and the testimonies of the great Tabi‘in, which are all in favor of Sayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه with authentic chains. Therefore, relying solely on one person's statement while ignoring all others is neither just nor the method of scholarly works. Before presenting details and evidence, consider Mirza Sahib's research style and his fair approach to understand our point better. Engineer Sahib states in one of his videos:
"And it is not necessary to accept someone's criticism; for example, Imam Malik said that Muhammad bin Ishaq is the Dajjal (deceiver). We consider Muhammad bin Ishaq our Imam and discard Imam Malik's statement because 50 hadith scholars have authenticated him. Imam Malik was mistaken. Fine. Now, such a great Imam calls a narrator the Dajjal, and hadith scholars take hadiths from him. So if Imam Malik can be mistaken about someone he calls the Dajjal who is our Imam, then the rest is nothing new."
Mufti Munir Chishti se ilmi Debaute- 28:50
So, is calling someone the Dajjal a major criticism or oppression? Mirza Sahib! Imam Malik رحمه الله called Muhammad bin Ishaq not only the Dajjal but also a liar (a great liar), and this statement is also attributed to Imam Hisham bin Urwah رحمه الله, who is counted among the Tabi‘in! But on what basis? When we study this detail, it becomes clear that these Imams were mistaken in this matter. However, this is not the place for that discussion; for details, see the respected teacher Maulana Irshad-ul-Haq Asri's book:
Reference: (Tawziḥ al-Kalām: pp. 223-226)
Mirza Sahib's principles are only at the level of stating; he says, "An elephant's teeth are for eating and for showing." Here, the obsession with principles and justice was such that the words of a great personality like Imam Malik رحمه الله were discarded, although this could have been done within the bounds of discretion. Anyway, if you are so just and principled about one narrator, then why not for a Companion of the Prophet? The opinions of the Companions and other Tabi‘in should also be considered to determine whether Abdul Rahman bin Abd Rabb Ka'bah was mistaken or if there is another issue.
You present the authentication of Muhammad bin Ishaq by hadith scholars, while the authentication of Sayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه and his government has been established by the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم himself:
عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم: أَوَّلُ هَذَا الْأَمْرِ نُبُوَّةٌ وَرَحْمَةٌ، ثُمَّ يَكُونُ خِلَافَةً وَرَحْمَةً، ثُمَّ يَكُونُ مُلْكًا وَرَحْمَةً......
"Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Abbas رضي الله عنهما narrated that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: 'The first part of this Ummah is prophethood and mercy, then there will be caliphate and mercy, then there will be a kingdom with mercy...'"
Reference: (Al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir: 88/11)
Its chain is Hasan, and it has been declared Sahih by Allama Albani رحمه الله
Reference: (As-Sahihah: 3270)
and Hasan by Allama Ghulam Mustafa Amnpuri حفظه الله
Reference: (Difa‘ as-Sahabah: 504)
.Mirza Sahib himself teaches the division and duration of caliphate and monarchy, stating that the rightly guided caliphate lasted thirty years, covering the blessed eras of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, and Hasan رضي الله عنهم, followed by monarchy, which is the blessed era of Sayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه. And what kind of monarchy does the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم call this monarchy? Now, in the era of governance which the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم calls "mercy," would there be unjust killings and unjust seizure of wealth? After this clear hadith, should the statement of Abdul Rahman bin Abd Rabb Ka'bah be interpreted or the blessed hadith? When the Prophet's testimony contradicts it, and the statement is not from an ordinary person but a Companion, and the claim is without any evidence, no conclusion should be drawn from it except that he was mistaken. Who knows which killing he considered unjust while no incident from Sayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه's government can be presented where anyone was unjustly killed or had their wealth unjustly taken. Regarding this narration in Sahih Muslim, Imam Abu al-Abbas al-Qurtubi رحمه الله said:
وما ذكره عبد الرحمن عن معاوية إغياءٌ في الكلام على حسب ظنه وتأويله، وإلا فمعاوية لم يعرف من حاله ولا من سيرته شيء مما قاله له-
"What Abdul Rahman said about Sayyiduna Muawiyah is only his conjecture and interpretation; otherwise, nothing is proven from Sayyiduna Muawiyah and his conduct that supports what he said about him."
Reference: (Al-Mufham lima Ashkala min Talkhees Kitab Muslim: 53/4)
And there is a hadith where the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said:
......وَأَصْحَابِي أَمَنَةٌ لِأُمَّتِي، فَإِذَا ذَهَبَ أَصْحَابِي أَتَى أُمَّتِي مَا يُوعَدُونَ۔
"My Companions are a source of peace for my Ummah; when they depart, what was promised to my Ummah will come upon them."
Reference: (Sahih Muslim: 2531)
Since Sayyiduna Amir Muawiyah رضي الله عنه is also a Companion, and according to the hadith, all Companions are a source of peace for the Ummah, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did not exclude any Companion. Therefore, from the aforementioned hadith and this hadith, it is far-fetched that Sayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه would order unjust killings or plunder people's wealth. Hence, Abdul Rahman's statement is erroneous because it contradicts the hadith.
This is further supported by the sayings of the Companions and great Tabi‘in. Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Abbas رضي الله عنهما said:
مَا رَأَيْتُ رَجُلًا كَانَ أَخْلَقَ لِلْمُلْكِ مِنْ مُعَاوِيَةَ......
"I did not find anyone more deserving of governance than Sayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه."
Reference: (Al-Amali fi Athar as-Sahabah li Abd ar-Razzaq: 97, As-Sunnah lil Khallal: 677)
Sheikh Zubair Ali Zai رحمه الله authenticated its chain
Reference: (Fada'il as-Sahabah: 129)
, and Maulana Ghulam Mustafa Zaheer Amnpuri حفظه الله also declared it authentic.
Reference: (Difa‘ as-Sahabah: 503)
This is clear evidence that Sayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه's government was in accordance with Shariah rulings because, according to the Companions رضي الله عنهم, only a person who is righteous, adheres to Shariah, and is extremely just can be more deserving of governance. So after Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Abbas رضي الله عنهما's statement, how is it possible that in such a government people were unjustly killed and wealth was seized? Ibn Abbas's authentication negates this!
Sayyiduna Saad bin Abi Waqqas رضي الله عنه said:
ما رأيت أحدا بعد عثمان أقضى بحق من صاحب هذا الباب يعني معاوية۔
"After Sayyiduna Uthman رضي الله عنه, I did not see anyone more just in judgment than this gatekeeper, i.e., Sayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه."
Reference: (Tarikh Dimashq li Ibn Asakir: 161/59)
Sheikh Ghulam Mustafa Amnpuri حفظه الله declared its chain Hasan
Reference: (Difa‘ as-Sahabah: 504)
.One of its narrators is Bakr bin Suhail, who was the teacher of Imam Abu al-Qasim al-Tabarani رحمه الله. Imam adh-Dhahabi رحمه الله classified him as a middle-level narrator
Reference: (Al-Mughni: 978)
and referred to him with titles like "Imam" and "Muhaddith."
Reference: (Siyar A‘lam an-Nubala: 425/13)
Imam Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Ishaq (Ibn Manda) said about a narration transmitted through Bakr bin Suhail:
هذا إسناد صحيح عند الجماعة ولم يخرجه مسلم ولا علة له۔
"This chain is authentic according to the consensus of hadith scholars; Imam Muslim رحمه الله did not mention it in his compilation, and there is no defect in it."
Reference: (Al-Iman li Ibn Manda: 538/1)
Allama Ibn Hajar رحمه الله wrote about a narration: "رواته ثقات"
Reference: (Muwafaqat al-Khabar: 315/1)
, and about a chain: "إسناده صحيح إلى الزهري"
Reference: (Itḥaf al-Muharrir: 411/4)
, which includes Bakr bin Suhail as a narrator.Allama Abu al-Khair Ibn al-Jazari رحمه الله said about Bakr: "A famous Imam."
Reference: (Ghayat an-Nihayah: 178/1)
Imam Nur ad-Din Haithami رحمه الله said about a narration of al-Tabarani transmitted through Bakr bin Suhail: "His narrators are trustworthy."
Reference: (Majma‘ az-Zawa’id: 3916, Al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir li al-Tabarani: 254/12)
He said the same about another narration of al-Tabarani, also transmitted through Bakr bin Suhail.
Reference: (Majma‘ az-Zawa’id: 8616, Al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir li al-Tabarani: 438/19)
Imam Hakim رحمه الله and Imam Ziya ad-Din al-Maqdisi رحمه الله declared his narration authentic.
Reference: (Mustadrak li al-Hakim: 8785, 8776, 7279, 2237, 1637, 1471, Al-Ahadith al-Mukhtarah: 147/8, 304/5)
Imam Abdul Azim al-Mundhiri رحمه الله said about Bakr bin Suhail's hadith: "لا بأس به"
Reference: (At-Targhib wa At-Tarhib: 1465, Al-Mu‘jam al-Awsat li al-Tabarani: 3249)
.Sheikh Zubair Ali Zai رحمه الله also considers him Hasan al-Hadith and trustworthy according to the majority.
Reference: (Fada'il Darood wa Salam: 22)
The criticism of Bakr bin Suhail by Muslimah bin Qasim is rejected; she herself is a criticized personality.
Reference: (Mizan al-I‘tidal: 112/1, Lisan al-Mizan: 35/6)
Even if Imam Nasai's criticism is proven "with an authentic chain," it is unacceptable due to being unexplained criticism, and on the other hand, the majority authenticate this narrator, so he is Hasan al-Hadith!
Now tell me, according to a venerable Companion of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم who was the most just in judgment, can it be imagined that such a person would order unjust killings and plundering of wealth? Absolutely not! Then why do our truth-speaking scholars never mention these sayings of the Companions?
Sayyiduna Urwah bin Zubair رحمه الله narrates:
أَنَّ الْمِسْوَرَ بْنَ مَخْرَمَةَ أَخْبَرَهُ أَنَّهُ قَدِمَ وَافِدًا عَلَى مُعَاوِيَةَ بْنِ أَبِي سُفْيَانَ فَقَضَى حَاجَتَهُ، ثُمَّ دَعَاهُ فَأَخْلَاهُ، فَقَالَ: يَا مِسْوَرُ، مَا فَعَلَ طَعْنُكَ عَلَى الْأَئِمَّةِ؟ فَقَالَ الْمِسْوَرُ: دَعْنَا مِنْ هَذَا وَأَحْسِنْ فِيمَا قَدِمْنَا لَهُ. قَالَ مُعَاوِيَةُ: لَا، وَاللهِ لَتُكَلِّمَنَّ بِذَاتِ نَفْسِكَ، وَالَّذِي تَعِيبُ عَلَيَّ۔
قَالَ الْمِسْوَرُ: فَلَمْ أَتْرُكْ شَيْئًا أَعِيبُهُ عَلَيْهِ إِلَّا بَيَّنْتُهُ لَهُ. قَالَ مُعَاوِيَةُ: لَا بَرِيءَ مِنَ الذَّنْبِ. فَهَلْ تَعُدُّ يَا مِسْوَرُ مَا لِي مِنَ الْإِصْلَاحِ فِي أَمْرِ الْعَامَّةِ، فَإِنَّ الْحَسَنَةَ بِعَشْرِ أَمْثَالِهَا؟ أَمْ تَعُدُّ الذُّنُوبَ وَتَتْرُكُ الْحَسَنَاتِ؟ قَالَ الْمِسْوَرُ: لَا، وَاللهِ مَا نَذْكُرُ إِلَّا مَا تَرَى مِنْ هَذِهِ الذُّنُوبِ۔
قَالَ مُعَاوِيَةُ: فَإِنَّا نَعْتَرِفُ لِلهِ بِكُلِّ ذَنْبٍ أَذْنَبْنَاهُ، فَهَلْ لَكَ يَا مِسْوَرُ ذُنُوبٌ فِي خَاصَّتِكَ تَخْشَى أَنْ تُهْلِكَكَ إِنْ لَمْ يَغْفِرْهَا اللهُ؟ قَالَ مِسْوَرٌ: نَعَمْ۔
قَالَ مُعَاوِيَةُ: فَمَا يَجْعَلُكَ أَحَقَّ أَنْ تَرْجُو الْمَغْفِرَةَ مِنِّي؟ فَوَاللهِ لَمَا أَلِي مِنَ الْإِصْلَاحِ أَكْثَرُ مِمَّا تَلِي، وَلَكِنْ وَاللهِ لَا أُخَيَّرُ بَيْنَ أَمْرَيْنِ، بَيْنَ اللهِ وَبَيْنَ غَيْرِهِ إِلَّا اخْتَرْتُ اللهَ تَعَالَى عَلَى مَا سِوَاهُ، وَإِنَّا عَلَى دِينٍ يَقْبَلُ اللهُ فِيهِ الْعَمَلَ، وَيُجْزِي فِيهِ بِالْحَسَنَاتِ، وَيُجْزِي فِيهِ بِالذُّنُوبِ، إِلَّا أَنْ يَعْفُوَ عَمَّنْ يَشَاءُ، فَأَنَا أَحْتَسِبُ كُلَّ حَسَنَةٍ عَمِلْتُهَا بِأَضْعَافِهَا، وَأُوَازِي أُمُورًا عِظَامًا لَا أُحْصِيهَا وَلَا تُحْصِيهَا مِنْ عَمَلٍ لِلهِ فِي إِقَامَةِ صَلَوَاتِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ، وَالْجِهَادِ فِي سَبِيلِ اللهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ وَالْحُكْمِ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللهُ تَعَالَى، وَالْأُمُورِ الَّتِي لَسْتَ تُحْصِيهَا وَإِنْ عَدَدْتُهَا لَكَ فَتَفَكَّرْ فِي ذَلِكَ۔
قَالَ الْمِسْوَرُ: فَعَرَفْتُ أَنَّ مُعَاوِيَةَ قَدْ خَصَمَنِي حِينَ ذَكَرَ لِي مَا ذَكَرَ. قَالَ عُرْوَةُ: فَلَمْ يَسْمَعِ الْمِسْوَرُ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ يَذْكُرُ مُعَاوِيَةَ إِلَّا صَلَّى عَلَيْهِ۔
"Sayyiduna Mas‘ur bin Mukhramah رضي الله عنه said that he came to Sayyiduna Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan رضي الله عنه with a delegation, and he fulfilled my needs. Then he called me aside and said: Mas‘ur! What about criticizing rulers? He replied: Leave that matter and treat us well based on our current conduct. Muawiyah رضي الله عنه said: No, by Allah, you must speak about the faults on which you criticize me. Sayyiduna Mas‘ur رضي الله عنه said that upon his insistence, I enumerated all the faults I used to attribute to him. Muawiyah رضي الله عنه said: No one is worse than a sinner, but can you also count the reformative actions I have done for the people? Because the reward for good deeds is tenfold, or will you keep counting my sins and ignore my good deeds? Sayyiduna Mas‘ur رضي الله عنه said: We mention only those sins which you yourself know. Muawiyah رضي الله عنه said: We confess all our sins before Allah, but have you not committed sins that if Allah did not forgive, would destroy you? Sayyiduna Mas‘ur رضي الله عنه said: Yes. Muawiyah رضي الله عنه said: Then on what basis do you consider yourself more hopeful of forgiveness than me? By Allah, I strive more than you for reform. By Allah, I choose only Allah between myself and others, and I am on the religion in which Allah accepts deeds, rewards good, punishes sins, but forgives whom He wills. I hope Allah will reward every good deed manifold, and I am doing great deeds that neither you can count nor I. I have established the system of prayer, jihad in the way of Allah, and the implementation of Allah's revealed commands, and many other matters you cannot count. So reflect on this."
Sayyiduna Mas‘ur رضي الله عنه said: I realized that Muawiyah رضي الله عنه had overcome me with what he mentioned. (Narrator) Urwah bin Zubair said that thereafter whenever Sayyiduna Mas‘ur رضي الله عنه remembered Muawiyah رضي الله عنه, he prayed for his safety."
Reference: (Tarikh Baghdad: 577, 576/1)
Muhaddith al-Asr Sheikh Zubair Ali Zai رحمه الله authenticated its chain
Reference: (Fada'il as-Sahabah: 128)
, and Maulana Ghulam Mustafa Zaheer حفظه الله also declared it authentic
Reference: (Difa‘ as-Sahabah: 523)
.Consider the nature of the objections of the Companion Sayyiduna Mas‘ur رضي الله عنه: they were faults that occur in any human being due to human limitations, and no one is free from them. So if there were any such things as Abdul Rahman bin Abd Rabb Ka'bah claimed, then Sayyiduna Mas‘ur رضي الله عنه should have objected to Muawiyah رضي الله عنه's statement that "I am striving to implement Allah's revealed commands" by saying: Sir! How can unjust killing and plundering be considered human faults? Are these mistakes that occur naturally in humans? And what does Sayyiduna Mas‘ur رضي الله عنه's silence on Muawiyah رضي الله عنه's statement mean? If there was anything in his conduct or government as you allege, should he not have said that Allah forbids unjust killing and plundering, so what commands are you enforcing? But Sayyiduna Mas‘ur رضي الله عنه did not object but remained silent and always remembered Muawiyah رضي الله عنه in prayers. This indicates that no such incident occurred in Muawiyah رضي الله عنه's government, and Abdul Rahman bin Abd Rabb Ka'bah misunderstood something.
Muawiyah رضي الله عنه's claim of mutual reform and enforcing Shariah rulings also negates this. Would someone who strives for reform and governs according to Shariah order unjust killing and plundering? Which statement is more reliable: the news given by a person about himself or that given by someone else about him?
This narration also reveals a major deception and falsehood in Mirza Sahib's claim that Muawiyah رضي الله عنه's government was tyrannical, and those who spoke the truth or objected to him were treated badly and silenced by the sword. Here, Muawiyah رضي الله عنه's temperament and attitude are clear: he sought to know his faults for reform and did not mistreat opponents but rewarded them generously.
Now let the objectors decide: was Abdul Rahman bin Abd Rabb Ka'bah رحمه الله mistaken, or were the Companions? Whose testimony should be considered authentic here?
Let's ask Engineer Sahib this question as well. While discussing Yazid's character, he often quotes Muhammad bin Hanfiya رحمه الله as saying that Yazid was very strict in following the Sunnah, but Mirza Sahib says: "They present this narration partially; the complete narration is that Abdullah bin Muti‘, a Companion, said that Yazid had these faults: a drinker, a meat-eater, and a non-prayer person, etc." Then Mirza Sahib says: "Abdullah bin Muti‘ is a Companion, and Muhammad bin Hanfiya is a Tabi‘i, so when there is a conflict between a Companion and a Tabi‘i, whose statement is accepted? The Sunni consensus is that the Companion's statement is preferred."
157 b Mas’alah Part 2 – 30:00
But as always, Mirza Sahib maintains his principle-breaking and double standards because when a Tabi‘i makes a claim based on his misunderstanding that contradicts the Companions' statements, Mirza Sahib should publish the Companions' statements and consider them authentic, but here the opposite happens.
Warning: Based on a comment by Hazrat Safinah رضي الله عنه in Hadith Safinah, Engineer Sahib's labeling of Sayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه as a tyrannical king is also incorrect because firstly, the comment is not about Muawiyah رضي الله عنه, and secondly, the narration is weak, and Allama Albani رحمه الله also declared it weak:
Reference: (As-Sahihah: 821/1)
. Details will be presented in their place (Volume 2, InshaAllah). Meanwhile, consider the opposing statements from other Tabi‘in:Imam Ibn Shihab az-Zuhri رحمه الله said:
عَمِلَ مُعَاوِيَةُ بِسِيرَةِ عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ سِنِينَ لَا يَخْرِمُ مِنْهَا شَيْئًا۔
"Sayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه followed the conduct of Sayyiduna Umar bin Khattab رضي الله عنه for many years without any negligence."
Reference: (As-Sunnah lil Khallal: 683)
Its chain is authentic, and Allama Ghulam Mustafa Zaheer حفظه الله authenticated it.
Reference: (Difa‘ as-Sahabah: 500)
So, Engineer Sahib, did you find any trace of unjust killing or plundering in Sayyiduna Umar رضي الله عنه's conduct? If not, then what will you say about the Companion Sayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه who adhered to Umar's conduct?
Hazrat Abu Muslim Khulani رحمه الله, whom Imam adh-Dhahabi رحمه الله called "Sayyid at-Tabi‘in of Sham," said:
......ثُمَّ قَامَ الْمُنَادِي فَنَادَى أَيْنَ أَبُو مُسْلِمٍ الْخَوْلَانِيُّ فَقَامَ فَحَمِدَ اللهَ وَأَثْنَى عَلَيْهِ ثُمَّ قَالَ أما بعد فلا والله ما أبغضناك مُنْذُ أَحْبَبْنَاكَ وَلَا عَصَيْنَاكَ مُنْذُ أطعناك وَلَا فارقناك مُنْذُ جامعناك وَلَا نكثنا بيعتنا مُنْذُ بايعناك سُيُوفُنَا على عواتقنا إن أمرتنا أطعناك وَإن دعوتنا أجبناك وَإن سبقتنا أدركناك وَإن سبقناك نظرناك......
"Then the caller stood up and called out: Where is Abu Muslim Khulani? You رحمه الله stood up and after praising Allah addressed Sayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه: By Allah, since we loved you, we never hated you; since we obeyed you, we never disobeyed you; since we joined you, we never left; since we pledged allegiance to you, we never broke it. Our swords are on our shoulders; if you command us, we will obey; if you call us, we will respond; if you go ahead, we will follow; if we go ahead, we will wait for you."
Reference: (Masa'il Imam Ahmad Riwayat Abi al-Fadl Salih: 330/2, Tarikh Dimashq: 224/12)
Maulana Ghulam Mustafa Zaheer Amnpuri حفظه الله declared its chain Hasan.
Reference: (Difa‘ as-Sahabah: 501)
After such a comprehensive and beautiful statement, Sayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه and his governmental affairs become as clear as daylight. He says that we never became angry with you nor disobeyed you. So if Sayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه ordered unjust killing and plundering, would a Tabi‘i like Abu Muslim Khulani behave like this? Would he be pleased or displeased? Would he obey or disobey? Surely, he would be displeased and disobey. But he says we always loved you and never disobeyed you. Hence, it is clear that Sayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه never gave such orders. Therefore, the testimony of Sayyid at-Tabi‘in outweighs and is authentic and weighty compared to Abdul Rahman bin Abd Rabb Ka'bah, who is a Kufan and whose meeting with Muawiyah رضي الله عنه and the incident of unjust killing or plundering ordered by him is not known. So the testimony of a witness without evidence cannot override authentic testimony.
Also, in terms of knowledge and rank, Sayyiduna Abu Muslim Khulani رحمه الله is many times greater than Abdul Rahman رحمه الله. He is the leader of the Tabi‘in and met and heard many great Companions رضي الله عنهم, whereas Abdul Rahman رحمه الله is not like that. The books of Asma al-Rijal mention that he only heard hadith from Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Amr bin Aas رضي الله عنه or at most from Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Mas‘ud رضي الله عنه.
Now where is Mirza Sahib's principle that it is not correct to rely on one person's statement alone but other testimonies should also be examined? Here, he ignores all other statements and opinions under the pretext of one baseless and unsupported claim. Why?
Now listen to what the consensus says about Sayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه's government: Imam Ibn Taymiyyah رحمه الله said:
وَاتَّفَقَ الْعُلَمَاءُ عَلَى أَنَّ مُعَاوِيَةَ أَفْضَلُ مُلُوكِ هَذِهِ الْأُمَّةِ............وَكَانَ فِي مُلْكِهِ مِنَ الرَّحْمَةِ وَالْحِلْمِ وَنَفْعِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ مَا يُعْلَمُ أَنَّهُ كَانَ خَيْرًا مِنْ مُلْكِ غَيْرِهِ۔
"And the scholars agree that Sayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه was the best king of this Ummah... and his monarchy was so merciful and forbearing and beneficial for the Muslims that it is evident that his monarchy was better than all others."
Reference: (Majmu‘ al-Fatawa: 478/4)
Many just rulers passed in this Ummah, so when there is a consensus that Sayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه's monarchy was the best, would such a monarchy order unjust killings and plundering? On one side is the consensus of all scholars, and on the other side is only Abdul Rahman bin Abd Rabb Ka'bah! According to Mirza Sahib's own principle, decide who should be preferred? The authentication comes not only from 50 hadith scholars but from all the Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah!
- قَالَ فَسَكَتَ سَاعَةً ثُمَّ قَالَ: أَطِعْهُ فِي طَاعَةِ اللهِ وَاعْصِهِ فِي مَعْصِيَةِ اللهِ-
