This excerpt is taken from Dr. Hafiz Muhammad Zubair's book "Engineer Muhammad Ali Mirza: Thoughts and Ideas".
Mirza Sahib, in his booklet "The True Background of the Incident of Karbala," repeatedly tries to prove that Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) was striving to abolish the Sunnah and promote his innovations. In the third chapter of this booklet, Mirza Sahib presents two hadiths under numbers 29 and 30, which are as follows:
In a narration from Sahih Muslim, Sayyiduna Abu Saeed Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) says that during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), we used to give one Sa’ as Fitrana. Until Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) came for Hajj or Umrah and said:
"I think that two Mudd of Syrian wheat are equal to one Sa’ of dates." Consequently, people began to act upon this. Then Sayyiduna Abu Saeed (may Allah be pleased with him) said, "As for me, I will continue to give it as I have been giving it all my life."
Reference: (Muhammad Ali Mirza, The True Background of the Incident of Karbala: In the Light of 72 Authentic Hadiths, p. 14)
While translating this narration, Mirza Sahib added bracketed insertions that gave the impression that people abandoned the Sunnah and followed Amir Muawiya’s opinion, although such words as "opinion and Ijtihad" and "Fitrana according to Sunnah is one Sa’ only" do not appear in the Arabic text. Mirza Sahib inserted these words in brackets, thus adding them to the hadith.
Reference: قَالَ: «إِنِّي أَرَى أَنَّ مُدَّيْنِ مِنْ سَمْرَاءِ الشَّامِ، تَعْدِلُ صَاعًا مِنْ تَمْرٍ» فَأَخَذَ النَّاسُ بِذَلِكَ قَالَ أَبُو سَعِيدٍ: «فَأَمَّا أَنَا فَلَا أَزَالُ أَخْرِجُهُ كَمَا كُنتُ أَخْرِجُهُ، أَبَدًا مَا عِشتُ» (Sahih Muslim, Book of Zakat, Chapter on Zakat al-Fitr on Muslims from Dates and Barley, 678/2)
Then, by placing "opinion and Ijtihad" together in brackets, he tried to give the impression that Ijtihad is another name for holding an opinion contrary to the Sunnah.In any case, Amir Muawiya’s (may Allah be pleased with him) approach was not opposition to the Sunnah but rather an Ijtihad to define the meaning of Sunnah, as many jurists and Imams perform Ijtihad to define the meaning of Sunnah. Some other scholars who follow the apparent meaning of Sunnah sometimes accuse them of abandoning the Sunnah, but in reality, they have not abandoned the Sunnah; rather, they define a deeper meaning of Sunnah and invite adherence to it.
Thus, Amir Muawiya’s Ijtihad can be understood as follows: for him, the essence of Fitrana was not the measure but the value. Dates were common and cheap in Medina, while wheat was scarce and expensive, and Syrian wheat was rare. Amir Muawiya said that in his view, if a person pays half a Sa’ of Syrian wheat, since its value equals one Sa’ of dates in Medina, it suffices as Fitrana because the value is the essence, not the measure. Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) gave a fatwa based on this opinion of Amir Muawiya that it is permissible to give the value in Zakat al-Fitr.
Reference: (Al-Nawawi, Yahya bin Sharaf Al-Minhaj Sharh Sahih Muslim, Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi, Beirut, 2nd edition, 1392 AH, 61/7)
In our view, this is the prevailing position that the value can be given in Zakat al-Fitr; it is not necessary to give dates. In ancient times, barter systems were prevalent, so besides dirhams and dinars, one commodity could serve as the price for another, and transactions occurred by paying one commodity in exchange for another as price.Another explanation is that if the measure is considered the essence, Amir Muawiya took into account the difference between the Hijazi and Syrian Sa’ measures, as the Syrian Sa’ was larger than the Hijazi Sa’. He said that half of the Syrian Sa’ would suffice compared to the Hijazi Sa’. Therefore, Amir Muawiya said that the Sa’ mentioned in the hadith refers to the Sa’ of Medina, not that of any other region. If the Sa’ of another region is larger in quantity than the Sa’ of Medina, for example, twice as much, then half of that Sa’ can be given because it equals the full Sa’ of Medina in quantity.
The second narration is also from Sahih Muslim, according to which Ubadah bin Samit (may Allah be pleased with him) says that the Muslims obtained silver vessels in some campaigns. Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) said that these vessels should be sold to the people, i.e., the soldiers, in exchange for their salaries. Ubadah bin Samit (may Allah be pleased with him) opposed this order, saying that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) commanded that gold be exchanged for gold, silver for silver, wheat for wheat, barley for barley, dates for dates, and salt for salt equally, forbidding any deficiency or excess, and that deficiency or excess is considered usury.
Reference: (Sahih Muslim, Book of Transactions, Chapter on Exchange and Selling Gold for Silver for Cash, 1210/3)
In reality, Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) was responsible for the soldiers’ salaries, which were paid in dirhams, silver coins of a specific weight. Amir Muawiya offered the soldiers silver vessels obtained as spoils of war in exchange for their salaries, i.e., silver coins, without considering the equality of weight. Amir Muawiya’s position was that silver coins and silver vessels are two different commodities in which deficiency or excess is permissible and not against the Sunnah. Ubadah bin Samit’s position was that they are the same commodity, so deficiency or excess is not permissible. Simply put, even today, jewelers charge differently for pure gold and gold jewelry, even if the weight is the same, because of making, polishing, etc. So pure silver and silver jewelry are two different commodities, and deficiency or excess is permissible between them; this was Amir Muawiya’s position.
So, if you disagree with Amir Muawiya’s Ijtihads, feel free to do so, as the Companions themselves differed with one another. But do not label their Ijtihadi opinions as violations of the Sunnah and give your readers and followers the impression that the Companions were innovators who implemented their opinions against the Sunnah, God forbid, then God forbid. Our scholars have forbidden such accusations against the Imams, that they be accused of abandoning the Sunnah, let alone such accusations against the Companions when a reasonable interpretation exists.
