Examining King Muawiyah’s True Role In Muslim History

Zafar Bangash

Safar 07, 1447 2025-08-01

News & Analysis

by Zafar Bangash (News & Analysis, Crescent International Vol. 55, No. 6, Safar, 1447)

Opinion about king Muawiyah is sharply divided among Muslims. One group, commonly referred to as “Sunnis”, elevates him to the rank of a ‘Sahabi’—companion of the Prophet (ﷺ)—and mention his name with great reverence followed by radi Allaho anho (may Allah be pleased with him). They also claim that he was a katib-e wahy (scribe of the revelation that the Prophet (ﷺ) received from on high).

Not all “Sunnis” share this view of Muawiyah. Those inclined toward tassawuf among the Sunnis have a largely negative view of the Umayyad dynasty. They also express deep love for the Ahlul Bayt (the Prophet’s family).

Another group of Muslims, commonly referred to as “Shi‘as”, see him and the umayyads negatively for the role they played in undermining the khilafah of Imam Ali, creating fitna in society and executing leading Sahaba such as Hujr ibn Adi. Muawiyah’s son Yazid was not only imposed on the Muslims as ruler but he was also responsible for the brutal murder of Imam Husain (ra) and his companions at Karbala.

The tragedy of Karbala is an extremely painful episode in Islamic history that has left an indelible mark on Muslims. Apart from a small group of fanatical Sunnis, the vast majority see the events of Karbala not only as a great tragedy but a gross injustice and an unforgiveable crime.

With this in mind, let us see whether Muawiyah qualifies to be called a ‘Sahabi’. Opinion among Muslims about who qualifies as a Sahabi varies. The vast majority of Sunnis take a very broad definition of a Sahabi. It includes those who saw the Prophet (ﷺ) briefly to those who spoke to him or spent some time with him.

These broad definitions are clearly problematic. After all, for 13 years the Prophet (ﷺ) delivered the message of Islam in Makkah. The clan chiefs not only saw him but also spoke and interacted with him (of course in a hostile manner). In Madinah, there was a large group of munafiqoon (dual loyalists who had little attachment to or sympathy with Islam) as well as the Yahud. Thus, seeing the Prophet (ﷺ) or interacting with him cannot be accepted as a valid basis to call someone a Sahabi.

The word Sahabi means companion. It reflects friendship and loyalty to the Prophet (ﷺ). The Qur’an does not mention the word ‘Sahabi’ or the expression ‘As’hab ar-Rasool’ (companions of the Prophet) at all. Instead, words like Muhajirun and Ansar, referring to the immigrants from Makkah and the hosts of Madinah respectively, are used.

And the expression, radi Allaho anhum (plural, meaning may Allah be pleased with them) was used in Surat al-Fath when 1400 Muslims had accompanied the Prophet (ﷺ) to perform Umrah in the 6^th year of the Hijrah. They were stopped at Hudaybiyah and prevented from entering Makkah to perform the Umrah by the mushrik chiefs of Makkah.

The Prophet (ﷺ) sent his son-in-law ‘Uthman to negotiate with them. Belonging to the powerful Umayyad clan, it was felt that ‘Uthman would not be harmed. When his return was delayed, a rumour spread that ‘Uthman had been martyred.

It was clearly seen as a declaration of war. The Prophet (ﷺ) assembled his 1400 companions and took a pledge, referred to as Bayt ar-Ridwan in the noble Qur’an (Surat al-Fath, ayat 18) that they would fight to the end to avenge ‘Uthman’s death. It was at this stage that the expression radi Allaho unhum was used for those Muslims with the Prophet (ﷺ).

Some Muslims might argue that the Prophet (ﷺ) had used the word ‘Sahaba’ (plural of Sahabi) many times. True, but the Prophet (ﷺ) did not and could not transcend the Qur’anic definition of a companion. The Qur’an has only used the words Muhajirun (immigrants from Makkah) and the Ansar (the helpers of Madinah).

Against this backdrop, Muawiyah and his father Abu Sufyan became Muslims when they were left with no choice after the liberation of Makkah in 8 AH. It is also important to keep in mind that while the Prophet (ﷺ) did not exact revenge from his long-time Makkan foes, he called them ‘tulaqa’, meaning amnestied prisoners, not Sahaba.

One other point is worth mentioning. When Hind, the mother of Muawiyah, came to make bay‘ah (pledge of allegiance) to the Prophet (ﷺ), he told her not to appear before him again because she reminded him of the mutilated body of Hamza (ra). He was martyred in the Battle of Uhud and Hind had ripped his body open and chewed his liver in a fit of rage and revenge. This was because Hamza had killed her father in the Battle of Badr.

What is the reality of Muawiyah being katib-e wahy (scribe of revelation)? While it is true that Muawiyah could read and write, after the liberation of Makkah, Abu Sufyan had asked the Prophet (ﷺ) to give his family some responsibilities to maintain their high status in society. Becoming Muslim was not considered sufficient honour, clearly indicating their attachment to the jahili past.

The Prophet (ﷺ) consented and said he would utilize Muawiyah’s skills to write the Prophet’s letters to various people or tribal chiefs. Neither Abu Sufyan nor Muawiyah migrated to Madinah. Thus, the claim that Muawiyah was a scribe of revelation is untenable. After all, a basic condition for being a scribe is to be in the company of the Prophet (ﷺ).

There is an episode narrated by Abdullah ibn Abbas when the Prophet (ﷺ) was visiting Makkah. This was probably in the 10^th year of the Hijrah when he (ﷺ) performed his only Hajj.

The Prophet (ﷺ) sent Abdullah ibn Abbas to call Muawiyah. He came back and said Muawiyah was having a meal and could not come. The Prophet (ﷺ) sent Abdullah ibn Abbas back to Muawiyah to call him. Again, Muawiyah refused to come because he was eating. This happened three times. On his third refusal, the Prophet (ﷺ) said “May his stomach never be filled” (Sahih Muslim, Book 45, Hadith 125).

Thereafter, Muawiyah would eat seven or eight meals a day consisting of a large bowl of meat and other food items but his stomach would not fill up. He himself reportedly said that I get tired of eating but my stomach does not fill up. He misinterpreted this and said I now live like kings, i.e., over-indulge myself (Al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, Vol. 7-8. (aka Tareekh Ibn Kathir), Nafees Academy, Karachi, 1989, pp. 951-952).

Can any Muslim imagine that a companion would refuse to come when called by the Prophet (ﷺ)? The only comparable example was at the time of the Tabuk expedition in 9 AH. The munafiqoon made excuses that they could not join the campaign because their crops were ripe and would be destroyed if they did not tend to them. The Prophet (ﷺ) let them stay because they would have been of little help to the Muslims anyway. Muawiyah’s refusal to heed the Prophet’s (ﷺ) call puts him in the same category as the munafiqoon during the Tabuk expedition.

Muawiyah’s other sin was that he ordered his governors to vilify Imam Ali and the Ahlul Bayt from the minbar during Jumuah khutbah. This was a major sin. Ziyad, an illegitimate son of Abu Sufyan, was accepted by Muawiyah as his real brother and appointed the governor of Kufa. This was two crimes rolled into one.

When Ziyad uttered profanities against the Ahlul Bayt during Jumuah khutbah, some companions, among them Hujr ibn Idi, objected. As the objections continued despite Ziyad’s threats, he sent them to Damascus. Muawiyah ordered their execution.

Umm al-mumineen A‘isha (ra) was so anguished to learn about these killings that she sent a letter to Muawiyah asking him, did he have no fear of Allah killing a senior Sahabi like Hujr ibn Idi? Some time later, Muawiyah went for Hajj and on his back to Damascus, he went to see A‘isha (ra) in Madinah.

When confronted about the killing of Hujr ibn Idi, Muawiyah said, I did not kill him, it was the people who testified against him! (Tareekh-e Tabari, Vol. 4-5. Nafees Academy, Karachi, 1974. pp. 117).

Shaykh Hasan al-Basri said that Muawiyah committed four sins, each of which would consign him to hell. First, while leading Sahaba were present, he imposed himself on the Muslims. Second, he appointed his son Yazid, an alcoholic and a womanizer who played musical instruments, as his successor. Third, he accepted Ziyad, an illegitimate child of his father, as his brother. And finally, he killed a leading Sahabi, Hujr ibn Idi (Tareekh-e Tabari, pp. 117-118).

Based on the above, committed Muslims should be able to make a more realistic determination of Mauwiyah’s role in Muslim history and understand why the Muslim world is full of tyrants and dictators today.