Question: Was there enmity between Banu Hashim and Banu Umayya? And was the era of Muawiya (RA) an era of kingship? Also, did the Caliphate only last for thirty years?
Answer..!
الحمدللہ:
In today’s series, Insha’Allah, we will study:
This objection is raised against Hazrat Muawiya (RA) that he held malice against Banu Hashim in his heart, and because of this, he suppressed Banu Hashim and strengthened the rule of Banu Umayya in their place. In this way, the Caliphate turned into kingship (Mulukiyat). In this regard, we will examine these same objections.
Before answering this accusation, it would be appropriate to present a review of the mutual relations between Banu Umayya and Banu Hashim. Umayya and Hashim were not strangers but were uncle and nephew, and lamps of the same family.
From Abd Manaf:
1-Abd Shams 2-Hashim, were
Further, from Abd Shams: Umayya
And from Hashim: Abd al-Muttalib,
Then from Umayya further were Arab and Abu al-Aas
1_Arab -> Abu Sufyan -> Muawiya -> Yazid
2_Abu al-Aas -> Hakam -> Affan
And then from Affan: Usman
And from Hakam: Marwan, Abd al-Malik, and from them were most of the Caliphs of Banu Umayya.
And from the family of Abd al-Muttalib further were Abdullah, Abu Talib, and Abbas
1_Abdullah -> Muhammad (PBUH)
2_Abu Talib -> Ali, Hassan, and Hussain
3_Abbas -> Abdullah, Ubaidullah, Ali, and from them were the Caliphs of Banu Abbas.
All the people of Banu Umayya and Banu Hashim were cousins to each other. Due to early marriages among Arabs, a situation would arise where sometimes an uncle and nephew were the same age, and sometimes the nephew was older than the uncle. It is clear that Hazrat Usman, Ali, and Muawiya (RA) were all cousins. The only difference was that some relationships were close and some were distant, but these relationships were brought even closer when these gentlemen married their daughters to each other’s offspring. Details of this will follow.
This tradition from the era of ignorance (Jahiliyyah) is narrated that there was some friction between Hashim and Umayya over the issue of leadership, which was transferred to their descendants.
This is not correct. All these gentlemen considered themselves one family even in Jahiliyyah, and the term “Banu Abd Manaf” was used for this, who was the father of Hashim and the grandfather of Umayya. Later, Islam made them all one soul in many bodies. Thus, we see that Hazrat Abu Sufyan and Hazrat Abbas (RA) were close friends before and after accepting Islam, and [Abu Sufyan] accepted Islam at the urging of Hazrat Abbas. When the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) invited to Islam, in the very early years, along with Banu Hashim, the righteous people of Banu Umayya also believed in this call. Among the Sabiqoon al-Awwaloon (the first and foremost) Sahaba from Banu Umayya, the names of Hazrat Usman, Umm Habiba, Khalid bin Saeed, and Amr bin Saeed (RA) can be presented. Many of these gentlemen migrated to Abyssinia. If there had been enmity between Banu Umayya and Banu Hashim, so many people from Banu Umayya would not have believed in a Hashmi Prophet.
The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) faced opposition from the leadership of Quraysh during his Meccan life. Among them, Abu Jahl and Walid bin Mughira from Banu Makhzoom were prominent. In Banu Hashim, Abu Lahab, who was the Prophet’s own uncle, was a severe opponent of his call. In contrast, we do not see such a character in Banu Umayya. Abu Sufyan, against whom every effort is made to prove him anti-Islam, never caused any harm to the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) during the Meccan life. During that time, Islam had entered his house, and his esteemed daughter Umm Habiba (RA) had accepted Islam. According to one narration, he met the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) on the road. At that time, [the Prophet] was on foot while Abu Sufyan, his wife Hind, and son Muawiya were riding. Abu Sufyan ordered Muawiya to dismount and walk, and the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) rode with him. During this, the Prophet presented his invitation to him, which he listened to seriously.
Opposition to Islam from Abu Sufyan first appeared three years after the Hijrah, on the occasion of the Battle of Uhud. In it, he was the leader of the Quraysh army. Then, in the Battle of the Trench, he led the united army that attacked Medina. After that, when the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) married Sayyida Umm Habiba (RA), the world of Abu Sufyan’s heart changed, and the opposition from his side ended. He accepted Islam on the occasion of the Conquest of Mecca and remained a sincere Muslim afterward.
After this, we see that the people whom the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) gave positions mostly belonged to Banu Umayya. After the Conquest of Mecca, the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) also appointed an Umayyad youth, Hazrat Attab bin Asid (RA), as the governor of Mecca. Hazrat Abu Sufyan (RA) was appointed governor of Najran and his son Yazid as governor of Tayma. Hazrat Abu Bakr and Umar (RA), who were from Banu Taym and Banu Adi (other families of Quraysh) respectively, also gave more positions to the people of Banu Umayya. This shows that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) himself had complete trust in these Umayyad companions. The reason for giving more positions to Banu Umayya was that their family possessed administrative talent. This is why they ruled the Islamic world excellently for 130 years, and no fitna (sedition) or corruption spread. Then, when the Banu Abbas ended their rule, these same Banu Umayya continued to rule in Spain for another 300 years.
The greatest proof of mutual love between Banu Umayya and Banu Hashim is the conduct of Banu Hashim during the early Umayyad period:
In this way, we find no trace of any conflict between Banu Umayya and Banu Hashim in the first century Hijri. The enmity between some individuals (not all) of these two families actually began in the second century Hijri when some great-grandsons and great-great-grandsons of Hazrat Abbas and Hazrat Ali (RA) wanted to remove Banu Umayya and come to power in their place. These people came five or six generations after Hazrat Abbas and Ali (RA). Among them, the Abbasids were more successful than the Alids and overthrew the Umayyads. The Abbasids first allied with the Alids and rebelled. After that, they refused to give the Alids a share in the government. Even at that time, a large part of the descendants of Hazrat Abbas and Ali (RA) stayed away from mutual conflicts. Prominent among them were Hazrat Muhammad Baqir and Jafar al-Sadiq (Rahimahumullah). Obviously, no responsibility for this entire policy falls on Hazrat Abbas, Ali, and Muawiya (RA), as these gentlemen had passed away seventy or eighty years before these events.
Exaggerating (Ghali) historians Abu Mikhnaf and Hisham Kalbi have greatly exaggerated the differences between Banu Umayya and Banu Hashim, although their own narrations contradict this. A few examples are presented:
What was Hazrat Ali’s (RA) opinion about Banu Umayya, please note:
أخبرنا عبد الرزاق، قال أخبرنا معمر بن أيوب عن ابن سيرين:
Ibn Sirin says that a person asked Ali: “Tell me about the Quraysh?” He replied: “Among us, the most intelligent and tolerant are our brothers, Banu Umayya; and Banu Hashim are the bravest in times of war, and the most generous with what they possess. The flower of Quraysh is Banu Mughira, from whom we obtain fragrance.”
(Abdur Razzaq. Al-Musannaf. Narration No. 9768, 5/451. Beirut: Maktab Islami)
From this detail, it is known that there were no differences between Banu Umayya and Banu Hashim during the era of the Sahaba. It is possible that a spirit of competition existed among some people of these families, but there was no such thing among the esteemed elders of the Sahaba. Yes, at the end of the Umayyad period (beginning of the second century Hijri), a reaction against them did arise within Banu Hashim. Its reasons were also more political than religious. But all this happened much later. In the era of the Sahaba, Banu Umayya and Banu Hashim were like one soul in two bodies. The righteous people of both families accepted Islam in the very beginning and endured hardships for the sake of Islam.
Some people have placed this strange, baseless accusation on Hazrat Muawiya (RA) that in the Battle of Badr, Hazrat Hamza (RA) killed Hazrat Muawiya’s (RA) maternal grandfather, Utbah bin Rabiah, while his maternal uncle Walid was killed by Hazrat Ali (RA). His mother, Hind (RA), took revenge for her father at the Battle of Uhud by having Hazrat Hamza (RA) martyred and chewed his liver. She kept the revenge against Hazrat Ali (RA) hidden in her heart and transferred it to her son Muawiya. This is the reason why Hazrat Muawiya fought him, and after him, his son Yazid completed this revenge by having Hazrat Hussain (RA) martyred.
The weakness of this accusation is apparent from the fact that Hazrat Ali (RA) himself never made this accusation against Hazrat Muawiya (RA) during his era. If there was such enmity between these gentlemen, they would have expressed it themselves. Similarly, Hazrat Zain al-Abidin (RA), an eyewitness to the martyrdom of Hazrat Hussain (RA), never took it in this light. The interesting point is that even after the Battle of Siffin and the tragedy of Karbala, marriages continued between the families of Hazrat Ali and Muawiya (RA). If there was such enmity between these gentlemen, how could they intermarry? Even in today’s world, can anyone marry into the homes of their permanent enemies?
This narration is transmitted by Ibn Kathir, according to which when the blessed head of Hazrat Hussain (RA) was brought before Yazid, he recited poems that declared the Karbala tragedy as revenge for the Battle of Badr. Ibn Kathir, at the same location, has also provided the sanad (chain of narration) for this narration and has also mentioned its source. He stated this chain: قال محمد بن حميد الرازي، وهو شيعي، ثنا محمد بن يحيي الأحمري، ثنا ليث، عن مجاهد۔ This clarifies that this narration is an invention of Muhammad Hamid al-Razi, who held a particular grudge against the Banu Umayya.
(Ibn Kathir 11/558)
Many historians start the era of Banu Umayya’s power from Hazrat Muawiya (RA) and end it with the last Umayyad king, Marwan al-Himar. However, if the government of Banu Umayya is just the name for an Umayyad being the caliph, then this series starts from Hazrat Usman (RA). Some people have also accused Hazrat Muawiya of strengthening the government of Banu Umayya. To answer this, it would be appropriate to prepare a list of important officials from Hazrat Muawiya’s era and see how many of them belonged to Banu Umayya:
Here we make a list, mentioning the official’s name, then the region, and then their tribe, to see how many people from Banu Umayya held high positions during Muawiya’s (RA) era:
You can see the details of the officials mentioned above in (Tabari. 4/1, pages 128 to 129)
(And the details of the tribes are mostly taken from Dhahabi’s Siyar A’lam al-Nubala)
Among these key officials, you can see for yourself how many people are from Banu Umayya. Even among those who are from Banu Umayya, most of them had been governors during the time of the previous caliphs and had achieved this position rightly on merit. The most prominent among them is Ziyad bin Abi Sufyan (RA), who had also been a governor during the time of Hazrat Ali (RA).
This phrase is commonplace that Hazrat Muawiya (RA) was the first “Sultan” among the Muslims and that the Rashidun Caliphate (Khilafat Rashida) ended with Hazrat Hassan (RA). It would be appropriate at this point to first compare the era of Hazrat Muawiya’s (RA) rule with the Rightly Guided Caliphs before him and the non-standard sultans after him. It should be clear that even after Hazrat Muawiya (RA), many good sultans came, whose era was very close to the ideal of the Rashidun Caliphate. Instead of them, we are comparing with those sultans whose conduct is not considered very standard. The reason for this is that it will help us understand the correct position of Hazrat Muawiya’s era of rule.
We are detailing this below in a brief written chart of questions. In preparing this chart, we have disregarded the narrations of Abu Mikhnaf, etc., and have used other impartial historical narrations and Hadiths as the standard. Otherwise, if the narrations of Abu Mikhnaf, Hisham Kalbi, Waqidi, and Sayf bin Umar are taken, then it would be difficult to call not just Hazrat Muawiya, but even Hazrat Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman, and Ali (RA) as Rightly Guided Caliphs. Here, the characteristics we have used as the basis for this comparison are generally agreed upon by Muslims, with perhaps one or two exceptions.
Here we make three groups to compare the eras of governments.
First will be the question, and below it, an assessment of the conditions of all three eras will be presented.
Here, in the first question, we will write all three names sequentially, and in the next questions, for brevity, we will not write the names but use their shortcut letters so you know whose era of government it was. For this, (Kh) for the Four Caliphs, (M) for Muawiya, and (Gh) for later non-standard Sultans. Please read carefully to understand.
1_ What was the basis of the government’s law?
Kh: In the government of the Four Caliphs, the Quran and Sunnah were the basis of law.
M: In the era of Amir Muawiya, the Quran and Sunnah were also the basis.
Gh: In the era of later non-standard sultans, the Quran and Sunnah were also the basis.
2_ Basis of government decisions?
Kh: By mutual consultation
M: By mutual consultation
Gh: Interest of the ruling class
3_ Distribution of wealth?
Kh: Wealth was distributed throughout society
M: Wealth was distributed throughout society
Gh: Concentration in a few hands, but the poor still received a lot
4_ Freedom of expression?
Kh: Complete permission
M: Complete permission
Gh: Restrictions on criticizing the government
5_ System of prayer (Salah)?
Kh: Caliph and governors led the prayer themselves
M: Caliph and governors led the prayer themselves
Gh: Imams appointed by the government led the prayer
6_ System of Zakat?
Kh: Taken from the rich and distributed to the poor
M: Taken from the rich and distributed to the poor
Gh: Taken from the rich and distributed to the poor
7_ Protection of human life, property, and honor?
Kh: Complete protection
M: Complete protection
Gh: Complete protection for common people, but rulers sometimes killed for trivial matters
8- Respect for treaties?
Kh: Complete respect
M: Complete respect
Gh: Mostly respected, sometimes violated
9_ Status of ethics?
Kh: Politics was subordinate to ethics
M: Politics was subordinate to ethics
Gh: Ethics was subordinate to politics
10_ Enjoining good and forbidding evil?
Kh: Arranged at the government level
M: Arranged at the government level
Gh: Arranged at the government level, but sometimes violations occurred
11_ Basis of appointments?
Kh: Merit
M: Merit
Gh: Nepotism
12_ Moral character of the ruling class?
Kh: Extremely high
M: Extremely high
Gh: Low
13_ Justice and avoidance of oppression?
Kh: Top priority
M: Top priority
Gh: Subordinate to politics
14_ Equality?
Kh: Every citizen is equal
M: Every citizen is equal
Gh: The ruling class is superior to the common people
15_ Accountability?
Kh: Government is accountable
M: Government is accountable
Gh: Government is not accountable
16_ Concept of Bayt al-Mal (Treasury)?
Kh: It is a trust from Allah and then the people
M: It is a trust from Allah and then the people
Gh: The personal treasury of the ruler
17_ Participation of Sahaba in government?
Kh: Very high
M: Relatively less
Gh: ….
18_ Personal lifestyle of the ruler?
Kh: Extremely simple
M: A somewhat higher standard of living
Gh: Lavish to the point of extravagance
Let us reiterate regarding this chart: in its preparation, we have disregarded the narrations of unreliable narrators and instead, used only authentic Hadiths and impartial historical narrations as the standard. The objections raised against the era of Hazrat Muawiya (RA), we have discussed in detail in previous series, showing that these objections are based on the statements of narrators who hold a highly biased attitude towards Hazrat Muawiya.
Looking at this chart, if a comparison is made between the eras of the Four Caliphs and Hazrat Muawiya (RA), it becomes clear that the very same standard was maintained in Muawiya’s era as that of the first four Rightly Guided Caliphs. There were only a few matters in which some difference had occurred, and they were:
In that era, the difference in lifestyle between the rich and the poor was not as vast as it is today. The only difference was that the rich lived in slightly larger houses, wore better clothes, and their dastarkhwan (dining spread) was more extensive. During the time of Hazrat Usman and Muawiya (RA), there was an abundance of wealth, and it was distributed in such a way that the needs of every single person were met. In the entire Islamic world, there was not a single person who lacked access to food, clothing, housing, education, and medical facilities. In this situation, these caliphs did not feel the need to lower their own standard of living.
Setting aside these two matters, the era of Hazrat Muawiya (RA) was also a direct continuation of the Rashidun Caliphate. This continuity persisted among many later caliphs as well. Most caliphs of Banu Umayya and Banu Abbas implemented Sharia and distributed wealth in society. It is true that corruption and luxury arose among some sultans of the Banu Umayya and Banu Abbas, but as a whole, their entire history was a continuation of the Rashidun Caliphate.
To remove Hazrat Muawiya (RA) from the list of Caliphs, a Hadith is generally presented, which mentions the Rashidun Caliphate lasting for thirty years. The Hadith is:
Translation: The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: “The Caliphate of Prophethood (Khilafat Nabuwwat) will last for thirty years. Then Allah Ta’ala will grant this government to whomever He wills.” Saeed says that Safinah told me: “Hold fast to this. Abu Bakr’s caliphate was two years, Umar’s ten years, Usman’s twelve years, and Ali’s likewise (four and a half years).” Saeed says: I said to Safinah: “These people (Banu Zarqa) think that Ali was not a caliph.” He replied: “This is a lie which these Banu Zarqa have fabricated from their backsides.”
(The narrator says Banu Zarqa means Banu Marwan.)
(Sunan Abu Dawood, Kitab al-Sunnah. Hadith 4646)
This Hadith appears in Tirmidhi, Abu Dawood, and countless books of Hadith.
(The takhrij (narration analysis) of this Hadith is as follows)
اخرجہ الترمذی فی سننہ 4/ 503 من طریق سريج بن النعمان۔
واخرجہ ابوداؤ الطیالسی فی مسندہ (2/ 430) ومن طریقہ اخرجہ ابونعیم الاصبھانی فی تثبيت الإمامة (ص: 358) وفی فضائل الخلفاء (ص: 168) وفی معرفة الصحابة (1/ 29) والبیہقی فی المدخل (ص: 116)۔واخرجہ احمد فی مسند ہ (36/ 256)من طریق ابی النضر ۔واخرجہ الطبرانی فی المعجم الكبير (7/ 83) وابونعیم الاصبھانی فی فضائل الخلفاء (ص: 169) کلاھما من طریق ابی نعیم ۔واخرجہ الطبری فی صريح السنة (ص: 24) والبیھقی فی دلائل النبوة (6/ 342) کلاھما من طریق عبيد الله بن موسى۔واخرجہ ابونعیم الاصبھانی فی فضائل الخلفاء (ص: 169) من طریق منيع بن حشرج۔کلھم (سریج بن النعمان وابوداؤد الطیالسی وابونعیم و عبیداللہ بن موسی ومنیع بن حشرج ) عن حشرج بن نباتة۔
واخرجہ ایضا ابوداؤد فی سننہ (4/ 211) والطبرانی فی المعجم الكبير (7/ 84) و ابونعیم فی فضائل الخلفاء (ص: 170) والبیھقی فی دلائل النبوة (6/ 341) کلھم من طریق سوار بن عبد الله ۔واخرجہ ابن حبان فی صحيحہ (15/ 34) وابویعلی فی المفاريد (ص: 103) کلاھما من طریق إبراهيم بن الحجاج۔واخرجہ الحاکم فی المستدرك (3/ 156) من طریق عبدالصمد بن عبدالوارث ۔واخرجہ البیھقی فی دلائل النبوة (6/ 341) من طریق قیس بن حفص ۔کلھم (سواربن عبداللہ و ابراھیم بن الحجاج وعبدالصمد بن عبدالوارث وقیس بن حفص) عن عبدالوارث بن سعد۔
واخرجہ ایضا نعیم بن حماد فی الفتن (1/ 104) و ابوداؤد فی سننہ (4/ 211) وعبداللہ فی السنة (2/ 591) والطبرانی فی المعجم الكبير (7/ 83) و ابونعیم الاصبھانی فی فضائل الخلفاء (ص: 169) وفی تاريخ أصبهان (1/ 295) والآجری فی الشريعة (4/ 1705) کلھم من طریق ھشیم ۔واخرجہ النسائی فی السنن الكبرى (7/ 313) و فی فضائل الصحابة ص: 17 وعبداللہ فی السنة (2/ 591) وابن ابی عاصم فی السنة (2/ 564) وفی الآحاد والمثاني (1/ 129) والطبرانی فی المعجم الكبير (1/ 89) والآجری فی الشريعة (4/ 1705) الرویانی فی مسندہ (1/ 439) کلھم من طریق یزید بن ھارون۔واخرجہ نعیم بن حماد فی الفتن (1/ 104 ، 2/ 687) من طریق محمدبن یزید الواسطی ۔واخرجہ عبداللہ فی السنة (2/ 591) من طریق الحجاج بن فروخ ۔کلھم (ھشیم و یزید بن ھارون ومحمدبن یzید الواسطی و الحجاج بن فروخ ) عن العوام بن حوشب۔
واخرجہ ایضا علي بن الجعد فی مسند ہ (ص: 479) ومن طریقہ ابن حبان فی صحيحہ (15/ 392) وفی ثقاتہ (2/ 304) والآجری فی الشريعة (4/ 1703) واللالکائی فی شرح أصول اعتقاد أهل السنة (8/ 1469) ابن عبدالبرفی جامع بيان العلم وفضله (الزهيري): 2/ 1169 والبغوی فی شرح السنہ 14/ 74 وفی تفسرہ 6/ 59۔واخرجہ احمد فی مسندہ ( 36/ 248) من طریق عبدالصمد۔واخرجہ احمد فی مسند ہ (36/ 248) وفی فضائل الصحابة (2/ 601) و من طریقہ عبداللہ فی فضائل عثمان بن عفان (ص: 129) من طریق بھز بن اسد۔واخرجہ احمد وابنہ فی فضائل الصحابة (1/ 488) و ابن ابی عاصم فی الآحاد والمثاني لابن أبي عاصم (1/ 116، 1/ 129) و فی السنة (2/ 562) و عبداللہ فی السنة (2/ 591) و فی فضائل عثمان بن عفان (ص: 130) کلھم من طریق هدبة بن خالد۔واخرجہ الرویانی فی مسندہ (1/ 439) و الطبرانی فی المعجم الكبير (1/ 55) واللالکائی فی شرح أصول اعتقاد أهل (8/ 1469) کلھم من طریق حجاج بن المهال۔واخرجہ ابونعیم فی معرفة الصحابة (1/ 29، 1/ 82) من طریق حوثرة بن أشرس۔واخرجہ إسحاق بن راهويه فی مسندہ (4/ 163) من طریق النضر بن شميل۔واخرجہ الحاکم فی المستدرك ( 3/ 75) والبزار فی مسندہ (9/ 280) من طریق مؤمل واخرجہ البزار فی مسندہ (9/ 280) من طریق طالوت ۔واخرجہ الطحاوی فی شرح مشكل الآثار (8/ 414) من طریق عبد الرحمن بن زياد ۔واخرجہ الطبرانی فی المعجم الكبير (1/ 55) من طریق أسد بن موسى۔واخرجہ الالکائی فی شرح أصول اعتقاد أهل السنة (8/ 1469) من طریق وداود بن شبيب۔کلھم (علی ابن الجعد وعبدالصمد و بھزبن اسد وهدبة بن خالدوحجاج بن المهال وحوثرة بن أشرس والنضر بن شميل ومؤمل وطالوت وعبد الرحمن بن زيادوأسد بن موسى وداود بن شبيب) عن حماد بن سلمة۔
واخرجہ ایضا الرویانی فی مسندہ (1/ 438) وابوبکربن الخلال فی السنة (2/ 427) و اللالکائی فی شرح أصول اعتقاد أهل السنة (8/ 1469) من طریق ابی طلحہ یحیی بن طلحہ ۔
واخرجہ ایضا ابونعیم فی فضائل الخلفاء (ص: 169) من طریق حجاج ۔
جمیعھم (حشرج بن نباتة و عبدالوارث بن سعد و العوام بن حوشب و حماد بن سلمة و ابو طلحہ یحیی بن طلحہ و الحجاج ) عن سعيد بن جمهان عن سفینہ رضی اللہ عنہ۔
From this takhrij it is clear that many people narrated this Hadith from Saeed bin Jumhan, and likewise, many people narrate from Saeed bin Jumhan’s students. However, Saeed bin Jumhan is unique (munfarid) in narrating this Hadith from Safinah. No reliable narrator has provided a valid mutaba’at (corroborating narration) for Saeed bin Jumhan. Similarly, no authentic or valid shahid (witnessing narration) exists for this Hadith from Safinah (RA).
After extensive research, we found approximately 75 turuq (versions) of this Hadith, and the interesting point is that in all 75 versions, the chain of this Hadith begins with these two gentlemen: Hazrat Safinah (RA) and Saeed bin Jumhan. If so many versions of a Hadith are available, many people should have narrated it, and its chain should be diversified, but this is not the case.
Now the question arises, why is such an important matter, which according to some chains was stated during a sermon, narrated by only one companion, Hazrat Safinah (RA)? No other companion narrates this Hadith besides him.
Then, among those who heard this narration from Hazrat Safinah, there is only one, Saeed bin Jumhan (d. 136/754), who narrates it. Whereas, hearing it from Saeed, dozens of individuals narrate it, and its chains reach 75.
There is disagreement among the Muhadditheen (Hadith scholars) regarding Saeed bin Jumhan as to what level of reliability he has. His fame is due to this one Hadith.
Among the experts of Jarh wa Ta’deel (Criticism and Praise), Ibn Ma’in and Abu Dawood consider him reliable. Ibn ‘Adi says: “I hope there is no harm in him.” In contrast, Abu Hatim does not consider him reliable.
(Dhahabi. Mizan al-I’tidal. Narrator No. 3152)
Abu Dawood says: “A group of Muhadditheen considers him weak (da’eef), however, I hope that, Insha’Allah, he is reliable.” This Saeed was not a regular student of Hazrat Safinah; rather, he stayed with him for eight days during Hajj and obtained Hadiths from him.
(Mizzi. Tahdhib al-Kamal. Narrator No. 2246)
The commentator of Sunan Tirmidhi, Allama Al-Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi (d. 543H) (Rahimahullah) writes:
(وهذا حديث لا يصح)
“And this Hadith (Hadith of Safinah) is not authentic (sahih).”
[Al-Awasim min al-Qawasim, p. 201]
Allama Ibn Khaldun al-Ishbili (d. 808H) (Rahimahullah) states:
ولا ينظر في ذلك إلى حديث الخلافة بعدي ثلاثون سنة فإنه لم يصحّ، والحق أنّ معاوية في عداد الخلفاء
“And in this regard, the Hadith ‘The Caliphate after me is thirty years’ should not be considered, because it has not been authenticated (sahih). The truth is that Muawiya is counted among the Caliphs.”
[Tarikh Ibn Khaldun 2/650]
Allama Muhibb al-Din al-Khatib (d. 1389H) (Rahimahullah) also declared it weak (da’eef) in the annotation of Al-Awasim.
[Footnote (4) Al-Awasim min al-Qawasim, p. 201]
In our view, this Hadith is generally correct in summary (ijmali taur par), meaning that the Caliphate will remain for some time, after which kingship will come. What happens after that, this Hadith is silent about. This much is correct in essence.
However, two things in this Hadith are not correct:
A: The determination of the caliphate period after the Prophet (PBUH) as 30 years is not correct.
B: The condemnation of the Banu Umayya found at the end of some chains of this Hadith is also not correct.
Allama Albani (Rahimahullah) has also declared the second point weak (da’eef). See:
(Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Sahihah (1/821))
As for the first point, that it specifies the duration of the caliphate period after the Prophet (PBUH), this part is also weak in this narration. There are two reasons for this:
We mention one or two narrations here:
Hadith of Abdullah bin Abbas (RA):
[المعجم الكبير للطبراني 11/ 88 واسنادہ صحیح وانظر : الصحیحہ برقم 3270]
(Imam Tabarani (d. 360H) said… Ibn Abbas (RA) narrated that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: “The first period of this matter will be Prophethood and Mercy. Then it will be Caliphate and Mercy. Then it will be Kingship and Mercy. Then it will be Emirate and Mercy. Then people will pounce on it like donkeys… “)
Hadith of Hudhayfah bin al-Yaman (RA):
[مسند ابن ابی شیبہ بحوالہ المطالب العالية بزوائد المسانيد الثمانية 4/ 372 واسنادہ صحیح وصححہ البوصیری فی إتحاف الخيرة المهرة : 8/ 93 واخرجہ من طریق ابن ابی شیبہ الطبرانی فی المعجم الأوسط 6/ 345 و اخرجہ ابن الأعرابي في المعجم 2/ 803 ، والمستغفري في دلائل النبوة 1/ 370 من طریق زید بہ]
(Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah (d. 235H) said… Hudhayfah (RA) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: “You are in the era of Prophethood and Mercy, after that will be Caliphate and Mercy, after that will be such-and-such era… After that will be biting kingship (mulukiyat ‘aaddah)…”)
These Hadiths mention the Caliphate after the prophetic era, but none specify the duration. Only Saeed bin Jumhan reports this, and he is mutakallam fih (a criticized narrator), so his statement is unreliable.
The Hadith in question suggests the Prophet (PBUH) mentioned only four or five caliphs after him. Whereas, according to the narration of the Sahihain (Bukhari and Muslim), the Prophet (PBUH) explicitly mentioned twelve caliphs after him.
[صحيح مسلم 3/ 1453 رقم 1821 واللفظ لہ ، صحيح البخاري 9/ 81 رقم 7222]
(Imam Muslim (d. 261H) said… Jabir bin Samura (RA) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: “Islam will remain dominant and lofty… until twelve caliphs.” … [My father] said: “All of them (the twelve caliphs) will be from Quraysh.”)
The Hadith in question suggests… four or five caliphs. Whereas, in the Hadith of Sahih Bukhari, the Prophet (PBUH) mentioned many caliphs after him.
(Imam Bukhari (d. 256H) said… Abu Hazim said… I heard [Abu Hurayrah (RA)]… narrate… “The Prophets of Bani Israel used to manage their political affairs… but remember, there is no Prophet after me. Yes, there will be Caliphs, and many Caliphs…” [Sahih Bukhari 4/169 No. 3455])
The Prophet (PBUH) mentioned many caliphs after him, and obviously, the term “many” (bikatrath) cannot be applied to only four or five caliphs.
In the era of Amir Muawiya (RA), not a single thing has been noted based on which it can be said that kingship (mulukiyat) began in his time.
Rather, the fitna (sedition) that began after the martyrdom of Usman (RA) was not extinguished until Amir Muawiya (RA) became Caliph. But after Amir Muawiya (RA) became Caliph, the entire Ummah agreed on his caliphate, and after that, until his death, no fitna raised its head in the Islamic world.
Against such a blessed era, the unique narration of the mutakallam fih (criticized) Saeed bin Jumhan cannot be accepted, in which this entire era is cut off from the Caliphate and labeled as kingship.
Therefore, the just view is that this unique narration of the mutakallam fih Saeed bin Jumhan is rejected (mardud), and the era of Amir Muawiya (RA) is also the era of Caliphate.
Furthermore, the fifth caliph of the Ummah was Hassan (RA), but the narration describes everyone after Ali (RA) as a king. Saeed’s claim, quoting Safinah (RA), that Muawiya (RA) was the first king is against history. According to the calculation in this narration, the first king would be Hassan (RA). Ali (RA) appointed Hassan (RA) as Caliph before his death.
Al-Dhahabi writes:
بويع الحسن ، فوليها سبعة أشهر وأحد عشر يوما ، ثم سلم الأمر إلى معاوية
“Hassan was given allegiance (bay’ah), he ruled for seven months and 11 days, then he handed over the matter (Caliphate) to Muawiya (RA).”
(Siyar A’lam al-Nubala: Hassan bin Ali bin Abi Talib)
And the authentic Hadith says that Hassan (RA) will make peace between two great groups of Muslims, but according to this 30-year narration, Hassan (RA) did wrong by abdicating in favor of Muawiya (RA). If Hassan (RA) was not a caliph, what did he abdicate from??
All the blame falls on Hassan (RA) for imposing kings on the Ummah??
In reality, this narration is tabarra (dissociation/condemnaton) not only of Muawiya (RA) but also of Hassan (RA).
Al-Dhahabi writes:
قال النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم – في الحسن : إن ابني هذا سيد وسيصلح الله به بين فئتين عظيمتين من المسلمين ثم إن معاوية أجاب إلى الصلح ، وسر بذلك ، ودخل هو والحسن الكوفة راكبين ، وتسلم معاوية الخلافة في آخر ربيع الآخر ، وسمي عام الجماعة لاجتماعهم على إimam ، وهو عام أحد وأربعين
“The Prophet (PBUH) said about Hassan: ‘This son of mine is a Sayyid (leader), and Allah will make peace through him between two great groups of Muslims.’ … when Muawiya agreed to the peace… he and Hassan entered Kufa riding, and Muawiya took charge of the Caliphate… and it was named the Year of the Community (Aam al-Jama’ah) because of their unity upon one Imam, and this was the year 41 H.”
(Siyar A’lam al-Nubala: Muawiya bin Abi Sufyan)
The year that is famous among the Sahaba as the ‘Year of the Community’ (Aam al-Jama’ah) should, in light of this Hadith, have been called the ‘Year of the Kings’ (Aam al-Muluk).
And then, Hussain (RA) also participated in the Jihad (military campaigns) that took place during Muawiya’s (RA) era. Was he strengthening a system that was fundamentally wrong??
Did he not do wrong by participating in Jihad to conquer lands only to impose an un-Islamic system upon them?
Although some modern Muhadditheen have graded this Hadith as ‘Hasan’ (good), the details provided about Saeed bin Jumhan show that this Hadith’s attribution to the Prophet (PBUH) is doubtful because experts of Jarh wa Ta’deel disagree on whether he is reliable or not. If Hazrat Safinah had narrated this Hadith, then many of his other students would also be narrating it. Not only Hazrat Safinah, but other companions would also narrate it. The nature of the bad language and vulgarity attributed to Hazrat Safinah (RA) in the last part of the narration suggests that the creator of these sentences held intense hatred for the Banu Umayya and the progeny of Marwan; otherwise, we cannot suspect Hazrat Safinah of such foul language.
What we have written regarding the weakness of the narration is not our opinion alone but also the opinion of earlier scholars.
As Ibn Khaldun writes:
“It was appropriate that the conditions of Hazrat Muawiya be mentioned along with the conditions of the previous Caliphs, because he was their follower in virtue, trustworthiness, and companionship (Sahabiyyat). The Hadith ‘The Caliphate after me is thirty years’ should not be paid attention to, because its authenticity has not been established. The truth is that Hazrat Muawiya is counted among the Caliphs.” (Ibn Khaldun. Diwan al-Mubtada wa al-Khabar. Chapter on the Caliphate of Hassan. 2/650)
The fundamental proof for those who call Amir Muawiya (RA) the first king is the same unique narration by Saeed bin Jumhan, the reality of which has been presented above.
If someone, even after the reality of Saeed bin Jumhan’s uniqueness (tafarrud) has been exposed, still stubbornly insists, demonstrating sheer literalism (Zahir-parasti), that Saeed bin Jumhan, despite being controversial and mutakallam fih, is saduq (truthful) and thiqah (reliable), and his narration is acceptable; therefore, based on his narration, Amir Muawiya (RA) is the first king…
…then it is submitted to such a person that, based on this literalism in Hadith principles, Ali (RA) will be proven to be the first king before Amir Muawiya (RA), because a Hadith regarding him being the first king has also been narrated through the exact same chain of Saeed bin Jumhan from Safinah. Note:
Imam Bazzar (d. 292H) (Rahimahullah) said:
حدثنا رزق الله بن موسى ، قال : حدثنا مؤمل ، قال : حدثنا حماد بن سلمة ، عن سعيد بن جمهان ، عن سفينة ، رضي الله عنه ، أن رجلا قال : يا رسول الله ، رأيت كأن ميزانا دلي من السماء فوزنت بأبي بكر فرجحت بأبي بكر ، ثم وزن أبو بكر بعمر فرجح أبو بكر بعمر ، ثم وزن عمر بعثمان فرجح عمر بعثمان ، ثم رفع الميزان ، فاستهلها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم خلافة نبوة ثم يؤتي الله الملك من يشاء،
Safinah (RA) narrated that a man said: “O Messenger of Allah! I saw (in a dream) as if a scale descended from the sky. You and Abu Bakr (RA) were weighed, and you were heavier… Then Abu Bakr (RA) and Umar (RA) were weighed, and Abu Bakr (RA) was heavier… Then Umar (RA) and Usman (RA) were weighed, and Umar (RA) was heavier. Then the scale was lifted.” The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) interpreted this: “This is the Caliphate of Prophethood, then Allah will give Mulk (kingship) to whomever He wills.”
[Musnad al-Bazzar: 9/281]
This Hadith is also narrated from Safinah (RA). And here too, the one narrating it from Safinah (RA) is Saeed bin Jumhan, and the complete chain below him is authentic (sahih).
Imam al-Busiri (d. 840H) (Rahimahullah), after quoting this same Hadith with this chain and text, said:
هذا إسناد صحيح.
“This chain is authentic.”
[Ithaf al-Khayarah al-Maharah lil-Busiri: 5/11]
Now reflect on this Hadith. In it, the Prophet (PBUH), interpreting a companion’s dream, mentioned Abu Bakr, Umar, and Usman (RA), declared their era as the Caliphate of Prophethood, and then mentioned mulukiyat (kingship) after that.
Now the question is: Based on this Hadith, should it be started to say that Ali (RA) is the first king?
Remember, shawahid (witnessing narrations) for this Hadith also exist. In fact, one shahid is from the exact same chain (Ali bin Zaid) that Allama Albani presented as the first shahid for the 30-year Hadith. Note:
Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (d. 241H) (Rahimahullah) said:
حدثنا عفان ، حدثنا حماد بن سلمة ، أخبرنا علي بن زيد ، عن عبد الرحمن بن أبي بكرة ، قال : وفدنا مع زياد إلى معاوية بن أبي سفيان ، وفينا أبو بكرة ،… فقال : يا أبا بكرة حدثنا بشيء سمعته من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ،… فقال رجل : أنا رأيت ، كأن ميزانا دلي من السماء ، فوزنت أنت وأبو بكر ، فرجحت بأبي بكر ، ثم وزن أبو بكر وعمر ، فرجح أبو بكر بعمر ، ثم وزن عمر بعثمان ، فرجح عمر بعثمان ، ثم رفع الميزان ، فاستاء لها… ثم قال : خلافة نبوة ، ثم يؤتي الله الملك من يشاء
(Abdur Rahman bin Abi Bakrah said… Abu Bakrah (RA)… narrated [a dream a man saw]… “A scale descended from the sky… You and Abu Bakr were weighed… Abu Bakr and Umar… Umar and Usman… then the scale was lifted.” The Prophet (PBUH) was displeased by this… Then he said: “Caliphate of Prophethood, then Allah will give Mulk (kingship) to whomever He wills.”)
[Musnad Ahmad: 5/50]
(Graded Sahih by Albani, Hasan by Shuaib al-Arnaut).
And just as some scholars have called Muawiya’s (RA) era kingship, similarly, a statement from a Sahabi is found regarding Ali’s (RA) era, in which he called that era kingship, rather, forced kingship (mulukiyat jabri).
Thus:
Imam Bukhari (d. 256H) (Rahimahullah) said:
(Abu al-Ash’ath narrates that the companion of the Prophet, Thumamah al-Qurashi (RA), was in Sana’a. When the news of Usman’s (RA) martyrdom reached him, he wept… then said: “Today, the Caliphate has been taken from the Ummah of Muhammad, and now the era of forced kingship (mulukiyat jabri) has begun…”)
[Al-Tarikh al-Awsat lil-Bukhari: 1/600, chain is Sahih on the condition of Muslim]
(Dr. Akram Diya al-Umari also called its chain Sahih)
Now, based on these narrations, will it be said that Ali’s (RA) era was also kingship, rather forced kingship? In our view, this narration regarding Ali’s (RA) era is weak, just as the narration calling Amir Muawiya’s (RA) era kingship is weak. Therefore, we do not accept Ali’s (RA) era as kingship, nor Amir Muawiya’s (RA) era. Rather, in our view, the eras of both Sahaba are eras of Caliphate. However, we believe that Ali (RA) is superior in virtue and status to Amir Muawiya (RA).
If, hypothetically, to avoid disagreement, this Hadith (30 years) is accepted as sahih (authentic), then at most it can be said that the first thirty-year caliphate was “Caliphate upon the methodology of Prophethood” (Khilafat ala Minhaj al-Nabuwwah)… and the later caliphs will be called an “absolute caliphate” (mutlaq khilafat).
Just as in many Hadiths, the Prophet (PBUH) also mentioned twelve caliphs after him.
(The Hadith of Jabir bin Samura (RA) is repeated: “Islam will remain dominant… until twelve caliphs… all of them… from Quraysh.”) [Sahih Muslim 1821, Sahih Bukhari 7222]
He (PBUH) said: “This matter (Caliphate) will remain with the Quraysh… as long as they establish the Deen.” (Bukhari)
Jabir bin Samura (RA) narrated: “Islam will not decline until twelve caliphs.” (Muslim)
This counts twelve caliphs from Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA) to Sulaiman bin Abd al-Malik, and during these eras, Islam was dominant in the world, and its borders reached India and Europe. It is a separate matter that civil wars occurred… but overall, these eras were very successful for Islamic governance…
Imam Bayhaqi says this number (twelve) with the mentioned attributes is found until the era of Walid bin Yazid bin Abd al-Malik, after which great turmoil and corruption erupted… (Ibn Kathir, Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, 6:249).
Here, one final question arises: was the system established by the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), God forbid, so weak that it failed in just forty or fifty years?
The reality is that history does not support this. When we hear the word Malik (king), Sultan, or Badshah, our mind immediately goes to a 20th-century, pleasure-seeking, absolute dictator… This is not correct for Muslim sultans. These sultans, whether good or bad, were nonetheless bound by a law and code…
It is also true that when the Caliphate later changed to kingship, it diverted from its ideal to an extent, but it did not happen that the entire system was corrupted. During the golden age of Muslims, the Umayad, Abbasid, and Ottoman sultans kept scholars with them who would admonish them for their mistakes and continue to reform them. If one studies Abd al-Malik bin Marwan and all the sultans after him, it is clear that every caliph and sultan tried to be as close as possible to the standard of the Rashidun Caliphs…
And the true statement is that the era of Hazrat Muawiya (RA) should be called a continuation of the Rashidun Caliphate.
(And Allah Ta’ala knows what is correct.)
Refernce: https://alfurqan.info/problems/808
Understand the Shari'ah stance on Muslim men/women marrying disbelievers (Kafir) or polytheists (Mushrik), with Quranic evidence, Hadith, and scholarly views… Read More
Learn the Sunnah way of wiping the head during Wudu for men and women with long hair, plus rulings on… Read More
Discover the Shari'ah status of sprinkling water on private parts post-Wudu, its Sunnah basis from Hadith, and whether Wudu remains… Read More
Detailed Shariah ruling: Praying bareheaded is completely valid and permissible for men; covering the head is Mustahab in daily life… Read More
Explore Sharia rulings on head shaving for men and women during Hajj/Umrah (Sunnah for men, trimming for women) and whether… Read More
Explore the Islamic perspective on Jahez (dowry), its permissible and impermissible forms, and whether Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) gave dowry to… Read More