This excerpt is taken from Dr. Hafiz Muhammad Zubair's book "Engineer Muhammad Ali Mirza: Thoughts and Ideas" .
Mirza Sahib, in the fourth chapter of his booklet "The True Background of the Incident of Karbala" titled "The Virtues of the Fourth Rightly Guided Caliph Sayyiduna Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and When and Who Introduced the Innovation of Cursing Him from the Pulpits?" has tried to prove that during the reign of Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him), on his orders, Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was cursed from the pulpits.
Reference: (Muhammad Ali Mirza, The True Background of the Incident of Karbala: In the Light of 72 Authentic Hadiths, pp. 19-23)
This booklet of Mirza Sahib consists of six chapters, of which this is the second largest chapter, while in the largest chapter of this booklet, Mirza Sahib has tried to prove Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) as a rebel and innovator.Both chapters together constitute more than half of the booklet’s content; the booklet is 32 pages long, and these two chapters cover 17 pages. Even in the remaining chapters, a large number of narrations relate to Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him), which Mirza Sahib has distorted by stretching them, sometimes adding derogatory comments in parentheses in the translation, and sometimes attaching cheap footnotes, turning every positive thing about Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) into something negative. The booklet seems less about the background of the incident of Karbala and more like a charge sheet against Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him). In fact, the correct title of this booklet would be "Charge Sheet Against Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him)" because Mirza Sahib has tried to prove that the root cause of every corruption in this Ummah is Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him). So, while explaining the true background of the incident of Karbala, Mirza Sahib has attributed five out of six chapters to Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him), and in the last chapter, he mentioned Yazid. Thus, by narrating this long background of the incident of Karbala, Mirza Sahib seems to want to convey that the main culprit of the great oppression in Karbala was less Yazid and more his respected father, who was not even alive at that time, God forbid, then God forbid. And if you read the entire booklet, the impression you get is that people blame Yazid for Karbala, whereas the real ones deserving this blame were his respected father, who had created all that background which led to the tragedy of Karbala. And if you look more closely, Mirza Sahib’s tone regarding Yazid appears softer compared to that towards Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him), although he kept writing "may Allah be pleased with him" after their names, his expressions clearly reveal his feelings of envy, but that is not my topic at the moment.
Now, regarding the evidence Mirza Sahib has quoted for his claim, we can categorize the narrations into five types based on the reliability of the narrators. The first type of narrations are from Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas (may Allah be pleased with him). In Sahih Muslim, there is a narration:
أمر معاوية بن أبى سفيان سعدا فقال: ما منعك أن تسب أبا التراب؟
Reference: (Sahih Muslim, Book of the Virtues of the Companions, Chapter on the Virtues of Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him), 1870/4)
Mirza Sahib mistranslates this narration by saying that Amir Muawiya ordered Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas to curse Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), but he refused.
Reference: (Muhammad Ali Mirza, The True Background of the Incident of Karbala: In the Light of 72 Authentic Hadiths, p.19)
However, this is nowhere mentioned in the narration. The meaning of أمر معاوية بن أبى سفيان سعدا is that Amir Muawiya appointed Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas (may Allah be pleased with him) as the leader of Hajj. In Arabic, أمر means both to command and to appoint as a leader, and here it means to appoint as a leader because this event took place during Hajj, and Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) had indeed appointed Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas (may Allah be pleased with him) as the leader of Hajj. So, this word’s meaning is derived both from the triliteral root and the form II verb pattern, and in form II, the meaning is very clear. Even if the meaning "to command" is taken, the words in the narration would mean that Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) commanded Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas (may Allah be pleased with him). But commanded what? The narration does not specify. Therefore, "to command" is not the correct meaning; the correct meaning is that Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) appointed Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas (may Allah be pleased with him) as the leader, meaning leader of Hajj, which is detailed in historical books.This explanation applies to the first sentence of the narration, while the second sentence states that Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) asked Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas (may Allah be pleased with him) in a questioning tone: ما منعك أن تسب أبا التراب؟ "What prevents you from cursing Abut-Turab?" This is a question, not a command, as Imam Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) also clarified.
Reference: (An-Nawawi, Yahya ibn Sharaf, Al-Minhaj Sharh Sahih Muslim, Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi, Beirut, 2nd edition, 1392 AH, 175/15)
Secondly, the question clarifies that the first sentence did not mean an order to curse but meant appointment as leader. Thirdly, the word "all" (سب) is used, which means to mention in inappropriate words, as "سبابة" refers to the index finger of testimony, and Arabs used to point with this finger to shame someone.
Reference: (Az-Zabidi, Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Abd al-Razzaq al-Husayni, Taj al-‘Urus min Jawahir al-Qamus, Dar al-Hidayah, Beirut, 35/3)
In Sahih Muslim, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) prayed:
أى عبد من المسلمين سببته أو شتمته أن يكون ذلك له زكاة وأجرا
"O Allah! Whoever among the Muslims I have cursed or criticized, make my action a means of forgiveness of his sins and a reward for him."
Reference: (Sahih Muslim, Book of Righteousness, Kinship, and Etiquette, Chapter on Whom the Prophet (peace be upon him) Cursed, Insulted, or Invoked Against Without Them Being Deserving, It Was a Charity, Reward, and Mercy for Him, 2009/4)
So, cursing and insulting also mean criticism. Now, why did Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) ask Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas (may Allah be pleased with him) why he does not criticize him? There can be various explanations. It could be that Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) had certain special qualities because of which Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas (may Allah be pleased with him) did not consider it permissible to criticize him, while others did. As in a narration in Sunan Ibn Majah, Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) came for Hajj, and Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas (may Allah be pleased with him) came to him. In the gathering, the mention of Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) arose, and Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) criticized him for not taking retribution from the killers of Uthman. This made Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas (may Allah be pleased with him) very angry, and in response, he mentioned three virtues of Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) which made him consider criticism of Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) impermissible.
Reference: (Ibn Majah, Muhammad ibn Yazid al-Qazwini, Sunan Ibn Majah, Chapter on the Virtues of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), Virtue of Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him), Dar al-Risalah al-Alamiyyah, Beirut, 2009, 88/1)
So, the important point is that even among the companions of Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him), there were companions who did not tolerate criticism of Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and defended him. Therefore, it is established that no authentic hadith proves that Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) ever ordered cursing or criticizing Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). Yes, it is true that Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) did criticize Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) for not taking retribution from the killers of Uthman, and this is the meaning of the hadith.The second point is whether all the cursing and insulting that ever happened from any companion of Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) on the pulpit was such. This is clarified by the second type of narrations from Suhail ibn Sa’d (may Allah be pleased with him), as in a narration in Sahih Bukhari, a man came to him and said that the governor of Medina curses Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) from the pulpit. Suhail ibn Sa’d (may Allah be pleased with him) said:
فيقول : ماذا ؟ قال : يقول له أبو تراب فضحك ، قال : " والله ما سماه إلا النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم وما كان له اسم أحب إليه منه "
"What does he say badly?" The man said that he calls Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) Abut-Turab. Suhail ibn Sa’d (may Allah be pleased with him) smiled upon hearing this and said that this name was given to Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) by the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and he loved it very much.
Reference: (Sahih Bukhari 3703)
So, it is true that the governor of Medina used these words as criticism for Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), so this act was completely inappropriate. But the point is that Mirza Sahib seems to give the impression that Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was cursed openly from the pulpit and people imagine Punjabi-style abuses, which is misleading regarding the companions (may Allah be pleased with them). Such incidents did occur where criticism of Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) happened in some gatherings, but there was no state order to curse him from the pulpit, which is a great slander. And even the criticism that did occur did not use inappropriate words but an inappropriate style, such as addressing him as Abut-Turab.
The third type of narrations have as their main narrator Abdullah ibn Zalim, who narrates from Saeed ibn Zaid (may Allah be pleased with him). The summary of Abdullah ibn Zalim’s narrations is that Hazrat Mughirah ibn Shu’bah (may Allah be pleased with him) had appointed preachers who ordered people to curse Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him).
Reference: (Muhammad Ali Mirza, The True Background of the Incident of Karbala: In the Light of 72 Authentic Hadiths, p. 22)
But Abdullah ibn Zalim’s narrations are not acceptable because Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) said:عبد الله بن ظالم، عن سعيد بن زيد، عن النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم، ولا يصح
"Abdullah ibn Zalim’s narrations from Saeed ibn Zaid are not authentic."
Reference: (Al-‘Uqaili, Muhammad ibn ‘Amr ibn Musa, Al-Du’afa’ al-Kabir, Dar al-Maktabah al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 1st edition, 1984, 267/2)
The fourth type of narrations have Abu Abdullah al-Judali as the main narrator.
Reference: (Muhammad Ali Mirza, The True Background of the Incident of Karbala: In the Light of 72 Authentic Hadiths, p. 23)
The summary of his narrations is that during the reign of Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him), it was common to insult Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). Ibn Sa’d (may Allah have mercy on him) writes about Abu Abdullah al-Judali:وكان شديد التشيع
"That is, he is a staunch Shi’a."
Reference: (Ibn Sa’d, Abu Abdullah Muhammad al-Hashimi, Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 1st edition, 1990, 248/6)
Imam adh-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) says about him:
شيعي بغيض
"He is a biased Shi’a."
Reference: (Adh-Dhahabi, Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Uthman, Mizan al-I’tidal fi Naqd al-Rijal, Dar al-Ma’rifah, Beirut, 1st edition, 1963, 544/4)
And if a narrator is an innovator and his narration supports his innovation, then such narration is not acceptable; this is a well-known principle of the muhaddithin. Therefore, the narrations of this narrator are rejected in this matter
Reference: (Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Ahmad ibn Ali, Al-Kifayah fi ‘Ilm al-Riwayah, Dar al-‘Ilmiyyah, Madinah, p. 121)
because he is a Shi’a narrator, indeed a biased Shi’a, and he narrates in a way that supports his belief.The fifth type of narrations are from Qais ibn Abi Hazim (may Allah have mercy on him), which actually contradict Mirza Sahib’s position. According to this narration, a horseman was cursing Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) in a market of Medina, and when Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas (may Allah be pleased with him) passed by, he prayed against him, and his horse threw him to the ground, causing his death.
Reference: (Muhammad Ali Mirza, The True Background of the Incident of Karbala: In the Light of 72 Authentic Hadiths, p. 20)
This narration indicates that the consequence of cursing Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was death as a punishment, so how could anyone dare to curse him openly from the pulpit? As for the logical argument that if they fought among themselves, then why not abuse? This is a useless argument. Does every murderer insult his victim first? No, that is not the case.In summary, all the accusations leveled against Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) — that he drank wine, wore silk, gold, and animal skins as clothing and carpets, abandoned the Sunnah and imposed his own opinion, or issued a state order to curse Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) from the pulpit — none of these accusations are proven. The narrations used as evidence in this matter are weak and unproven. Moreover, the authentic narrations have been misinterpreted and distorted so that they do not convey the meaning that the critics want to extract from them.
