In an effort to belittle and malign Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, some Orientalists quote certain ‘ahadith’ which disparage the entire tribe of Banu Umayyah and Yazid ibn Muawiyah. For example:
اهل بيتي سيلقون بعدي من امتي قتلا وتشديدا وان أشد قومنا لنا بغضا بنو أمية وبنو مخزوم . رواه الحاكم
My household will face killing and severe conditions and the Banu Umayyah and Banu Makhzum will hate us the most.
Since the following narration has been reported in Mustadrak al Hakim, they accentuate upon the point that the following narration has been reported by a ‘Sunni’ and not a Shia, the reality of which we will clarify shortly.
It is appropriate that we give the reply to this objection in terms of riwayah (narration) and dirayah (explanation), through which the reality of this narration— which asserts that the Banu Umayyah were the most abhorred tribe— will be clarified. Thereafter it will beg the question, can such a narration be accepted? It should not be that those who quote such a narration are the epitome of the authentic hadith:
He who wilfully attributes a lie to me, should prepare for his abode in the Hell-fire.
Furthermore, does it not contradict historical fact and simple logic? After understanding both these spheres, no objection will remain, Allah willing.
The point has been emphasized that the person who has transmitted it is not a Shia but rather a pure Sunni. However, as much as it may be emphasised, the reality is, regrettably so, that the author of the book (Abu ‘Abdullah al Hakim al Naysaburi) from which this narration was taken (namely Mustadrak al Hakim), was a Shia. If you are not convinced by this then study Lisan al Mizan which states:
هو شيعي مشهور
He is a famous Shia.
Hafiz al Dhahabi rahimahu Llah (d. 748 A.H) comments on al Hakim under one narration:
قلت قبح الله رافضيا افتراه
I say: may Allah destroy the Rafidi who fabricated it.
At this point, we feel it necessary to clarify that it is not sufficient to refute a narration only on the basis of its narrator being termed a Shia. Since according to the terminology of the early and latter day scholars, the definition of being Shia differs. Therefore, a narrator labelled as a Shia by the earlier scholars should not be considered in light of the definitions of the latter day scholars.
Al Hakim was undoubtedly a Shia. However, from his era until today, the scholars of hadith have accepted his narrations. It should also be noted that all the narrations of Mustadrak al Hakim are not of the same level but various types of narrations can be found in it. Therefore, according to the scholars of hadith, only those narrations of Al Hakim will be accepted that have been verified by Hafiz al Dhahabi rahimahu Llah in his Talkhis al Mustadrak. This has been stated by Shah ‘Abdul ‘Aziz Muhaddith Dehlawi rahimahu Llah (d. 1239 A.H):
It is for this reason that the scholars of hadith have explained that we should not rely on the Mustadrak of Al Hakim without the Talkhis of Al Dhahabi.
We have clarified this in order to expose the inaccuracy of such claims that the person who has transmitted it is not a Shia but a pure Sunni.
Now, study the chain of narration as reported in Mustadrak al Hakim. The chain of narration is as follows:
اخبرني محمد بن المؤمل بن الحسن حدثنا الفضل حدثنا نعيم بن حماد ثنا الوليد بن مسلم عن ابي رافع اسماعيل بن رافع عن ابي نضرة قال قال ابو سعيد الخدري قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ان اهل بيتي سيلقون …الخ هذا حديث صحيح الاسناد ولم يخرجاه . مستدرك حاكم ، كتاب الفتن والملاحم
Hafiz al Dhahabi rahimahu Llah writes regarding this hadith:
لا والله ليس بصحيح كيف واسماعيل متروك ثم لم يصح السند اليه . أيضا
By Allah, this narration is not sahih (authentic), how can it be sahih when Ismail is matruk (discarded). Moreover, the chain of narration until Ismail is also not sahih.
We have mentioned above, with reference from Shah ‘Abdul ‘Aziz rahimahu Llah that only those narrations of Mustadrak will be accepted that have been verified by Hafiz al Dhahabi rahimahu Llah. In this case, Hafiz al Dhahabi rahimahu Llah takes an oath in the name of Allah and announces that this narration is not sahih.
Now, let us examine the other narrators:
The chain of narrators has al Fadl ibn Muhammad al Sha’rani. The hadith scholar Al Qitbani says that he is a Kadhab (a great liar). Mizan al I’tidal states that he is an extremist Shia.
How then can the narration of an extremist Shia be accepted? How incorrect is the claim that this has been reported by a pure Sunni.
Nuaim ibn Hammad is in the chain of narration. There is a difference of opinion regarding his reliability and weakness. Ibn Ma’in rahimahu Llah says that he is nothing in hadith. Abu Dawood rahimahu Llah says that he narrated twenty ahadith from the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam that have no basis. (It is possible that this is one of them, author). Imam Nasaʼi rahimahu Llah says that he is weak. Nuaim ibn Hammad would fabricate narrations in order to give strength to the Sunnah and he used to fabricate incidents about Imam Abu Hanifah rahimahu Llah in order to belittle him. All these were false.
The false narrations that this enemy of Imam Abu Hanifah rahimahu Llah fabricated to slander the illustrious Imam should serve as sufficient proof against him. How can any decent follower of the Ahlus Sunnah accept it?
Walid ibn Muslim is also a narrator in this chain of narration. He is a Mudallis.
Abu Mushir rahimahu Llah says that he even omits narrators who lie. Hafiz al Dhahabi rahimahu Llah says that when he narrates using the words “عن” then his hadith cannot be relied upon.
Despite all these flaws, if this narration is still deemed sahih, then no narration in the world can be regarded as weak or even fabricated?
Similarly, Al Hakim reports another narration in his Mustadrak from Sayyidina Abu Barzah al Aslami radiya Llahu ‘anhu:
كان ابغض الاحياء الى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بنو امية و بنو حنيفة وثقيف
The most hated of tribes to the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam were the Banu Umayyah, Banu Hanifah and Banu Thaqif.
Whereas Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal rahimahu Llah has transmitted all the narrations of Sayyidina Abu Barzah al Aslami radiya Llahu ‘anhu in his Musnad, but when reporting the above quoted narration, there was no mention of Banu Umayyah. Only the Banu Hanifah and Banu Thaqif were mentioned.
Even if we were to accept these narrations as sahih, then too it can never mean that every person and every individual of these tribes are disliked and wretched. Similarly, having an affinity to a certain tribe or city can never mean that every person of that city or tribe is deemed beloved. The Quraysh tribe was the most beloved tribe to the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and Makkah Mukarramah and Madinah Munawwarah were the most beloved cities to him. However, the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not love Abu Lahab, Abu Jahal, and others like them, even though they were from the Quraysh and lived in Makkah Mukarramah. In a similar manner, the Jews and hypocrites lived in Madinah Munawwarah but the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam disliked them.
Ibn Hajar al Makki rahimahu Llah (d. 974 A.H) has written:
أن هذا الاستنتاج أعنى قول المعترض فهو الخ دليل على جهل مستنجه وأنه لا دراية له بمبادئ العلوم، فضلا عن غوامضها، لأنه يلزم على هذه النتيجة لو سلمت أن عثمان وعمر بن عبد العزيز كليهما لا أهلية فيهما للخلافة وأنهما من الأشرار، وذلك خرق لإجماع المسلمين، والحاد في الدين… فبطلت تلك النتيجة وبان أن قائلها جاهل أو معاند فلا يرفع إليه رأس ولا يقال له وزن ولا يعبأ بما يلقيه ولا يعتد بما يبديه لقصور فهمه وتحقق كذبه ووهمه
The answer is that drawing a conclusion from this hadith regarding Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu in reality reveals the ignorance of those who draw such a conclusion. It also indicates that he does not have understanding of the primary sciences, let alone the intricate aspects of knowledge. This is because this conclusion necessitates that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz rahimahu Llah were not worthy of caliphate. Also, may Allah save us, that they were from the evil ones. This is contrary to the consensus of the Muslims and is clear heresy. Therefore, this conclusion is baseless and the person who utters it is either ignorant or stubborn. His words need no attention because his understanding is deficient and his falsehood established.
After having scrutinised the chain of narration, we wish to add that if the Banu Umayyah were such an abhorred tribe, then why did the Banu Hashim have so many associations with them; in terms of marriage and other ways as well? Why were they given such a high and grand position? Hereunder, a few marital relations as well as non-marital associations between the Banu Umayyah and the Banu Hashim will be mentioned.
Can such strong bonds of lineage and family relation exist with a tribe one considers to be the most detestable?
ما ضر عثمان ما عمل بعد هذا اليوم
No deed will harm ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu (al Umawi) after this day.
I shall suffice on these twenty-two references and ask: why was the most detested and abhorred tribe to the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam awarded such positions of authority by him? For the sake of brevity, we have deliberately omitted their services and positions during the caliphate of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Ibn Taymiyyah says:
وكان بنو امية اكثر القبائل عمالا للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم
The majority of the governors appointed by the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam were from the Banu Umayyah.
Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al ‘Arabi rahimahu Llah writes:
وعجبا لاستكبار الناس ولاية بني امية ، واول من عقدهم الولاية رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم
It is astonishing to note that people raise their noses regarding the rule of the Banu Umayyah, whereas the first person that appointed them to leadership was the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahu Llah writes:
أن بني امية كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يستعملهم في حياته واستعملهم من بعده من لا يتهم بقرابة فيهم أبو بكر الصديق رضي الله عنه وعمر رضي الله عنه
During his life, the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam appointed the Banu Umayyah as governors, and after him, Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu appointed them to high positions and they were not accused of having any family links to the Banu Umayyah.
The famous historian, Molana Shah Mu’in al Din Nadwi rahimahu Llah, writes in tribute to the Banu Umayyah:
The Banu Umayyah were men in the battlefield, the conquests of the era of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu testify to this. The first to traverse the Roman seas were the Banu Umayyah, the Banu Umayyah were those who conquered Africa, and it was the Banu Umayyah who knocked at the door of Europe. The Banu Umayyah did not go forward because Amir Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu was their family, but they went forward because they were masters of the sword and men of the battlefield. This is the reason why those conquests that took place in the era of the Banu Umayyah could not be seen thereafter in history.
Respected reader, together with the proofs, you have studied the links between the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and the Banu Umayyah. How did the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam deal with the Banu Hashim? Read what Hakim Mahmud Ahmed Zafar has to say:
On the contrary, during his life, the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not appoint any Hashimi to rule over any province, he did not appoint any of them to commanding positions in the army. During the last days of his life, the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam appointed ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu as a collector in Yemen for a short while. However, the highest leadership position was given to Abu Musa al Ash’ari radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Mu’adh ibn Jabal radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
Furthermore, study the entire history of the era of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and you will not find even one governor that was linked to the Banu Hashim by blood. In fact, some of the Banu Hashim had made apparent their desire to be appointed to positions of leadership but the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not accept. This is the very reason why during the last few days of the Messenger of Allah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam life in this world, Sayyidina ‘Abbas rahimahu Llah said to Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu:
O ‘Ali! By Allah, after three days, there will be another ruler over you and you will be his subject. By Allah, I feel that the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam will pass away in this illness. Therefore, it is best that we find out from the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam who will be the khalifah after him. If it is from us, then we will know, otherwise he will make a bequest in our favour.
Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu replied:
It is possible that the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam will refuse us and we will then be deprived forever. By Allah, I shall not say a single word regarding this to him.
In essence, during the era of risalah, it was mostly the Banu Umayyah who held positions as governors and not a single individual among the Banu Hashim was made a governor, whereas the uncle of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his cousin, Sayyidina ‘Aqil ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu, as well as Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and many more were present. The governmental positions are but one matter; the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam left Madinah Munawwarah on twenty-eight occasions for battle but not on a single occasion did he appoint a deputy from the Banu Hashim. In fact, he sometimes appointed a deputy from the Banu Umayyah and sometimes an Ansari of Madinah. He sometimes appointed a Makhzumi as well, sometimes even a Kalbi or Ghifari. On the occasion of the battle of Tabuk, the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam appointed Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu as his deputy but he was not the deputy and governor of Madinah Munawwarah, instead he was left behind to look after the families. The deputy in Madinah Munawwarah on that occasion was Muhammad ibn Maslamah al Ansari radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
Now that the position of the Banu Umayyah has been clarified through narration and explanation, and the historical inaccuracy revealed; we mention a few statements of the Muhaddithin that discusses the status of these types of narrations. Ibn Qayyim rahimahu Llah (d. 751 A.H) writes:
ومن ذلك الاحاديث في ذم معاوية رضي الله عنه وكل حديث في ذمه فهو كذب وكل حديث في ذم بني امية فهو كذب
From among the fabricated narrations are the ahadith that belittle Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and every hadith that denounces him is a lie and every hadith that belittles the Banu Umayyah is also a lie.
Mulla ‘Ali Qari al Hanafi rahimahu Llah (d. 1014 A.H) says:
ومن ذلك الاحاديث في ذم معاوية …وذم بني امية
Study the following statements of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in praise of the Banu Umayyah:
عن ابن سيرين قال قال رجل لعلي أخبرني عن قريش قال ارزننا احلاما اخوتنا بني امية
It is narrated from Ibn Sirin that a person said to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu: “Tell me about the Quraysh.” ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu replied: “In terms of forbearance, our brothers, the Banu Umayyah, are ahead.”
He is also reported to have said:
فقال وأما بنو امية فقادة ، أدبة ذادة
And the Banu Umayyah are leaders, they are generous and they support and defend.
In brief, the statements and deeds of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu clarify that the Banu Umayyah are an accepted, supportive, virtuous and loved tribe. The narrations that state that the Banu Umayyah are detested and disliked are not sahih according to the Muhaddithin. Now, to those who persist in saying that the Banu Umayyah are a hated and rejected tribe, relying upon these fabricated narrations, we say:
From a detailed study, a person that has a balanced nature and intelligence will be able to gauge the status of the Banu Umayyah. If some doubt still arises, whilst we have not said anything of our own opinion, then for those who look at the Banu Umayyah with the eyes of hatred, we supplicate earnestly for their guidance.
 Nam wa Nasab, pg. 512.
 Sahih al Bukhari, vol. 1 pg. 21.
 Lisan al Mizan, vol. 5 pg. 233.
 Mustadrak al Hakim, vol. 3 pg. 32, the person responsible for fabricating it is Fadl ibn Muhammad.
 A’yan al Shia, vol. 9 pg. 391.
 Al Kuna wa l-Alqab, vol. 2 pg. 170.
 Tahdhib al Tahdhib, vol. 1 pg. 118, 119.
 Bustan al Muhaddithin, pg. 113.
 Mizan al I’tidal, vol. 3 pg. 358.
 Tahdhib al Tahdhib, vol. 8 pg. 526, 530.
 The famous Ahl al Hadith scholar, Ibrahim Mir Siyalkoti, states after mentioning the criticism of Nuaim ibn Hammad with reference to Mizan al I’tidal, Tahdhib al Tahdhib and Nihayat al Su’ul:
The summary is that Nuaim is such a personality that a great luminary like Imam Abu Hanifah cannot be censured based on his narrations. A critic of narrators like Hafiz Shams al Din al Dhahabi mentions him (Imam Abu Hanifah) with honourable titles. (Tarikh Ahl al Hadith, pg. 45)
It should he noted that a scholar of the Ahl al Hadith does not accept the narrations of Nuaim ibn Hammad in criticism of Imam Abu Hanifah rahimahu Llah, yet some are willing to declare the entire tribe of Banu Umayyah (which includes personalities such as ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan radiya Llahu ‘anhu and ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz rahimahu Llah) as abhorred and detested.
 One who conceals or omits the person he has narrated from.
 Mizan al I’tidal, vol. 4 pg. 347.
 Musnad Ahmed, vol. 4 pg. 428.
 Tathir al Jinan, pg. 30, 31.
 Usd al Ghabah, vol. 3 pg. 607.
 Tabqat Ibn Sa’d, vol. 8 pg. 30, 31.
 Ibid. vol. 8 pg. 77.
 Mustadrak al Hakim, vol. 3 pg. 96.
 Muruj al Dhahab, vol. 2 pg. 341.
 Al Muhbir, pg. 102.
 Ibn Qutaybah: Al Ma’arif, pg. 90.
 Tabqat Ibn Sa’d, vol. 8 pg. 347.
 Ibid. pg. 346.
 Jamharat al Ansab al ‘Arab, vol. 1 pg. 85.
 Al Isabah, vol. 8 pg. 345.
 Nasab Quraysh, pg. 57.
 Al Muhbir, pg. 441.
 Al Muhbir, pg. 4
 Tabqat Ibn Sa’d, vol. 5 pg. 234.
 Nasab Quraysh, pg. 45.
 Nasab Quraysh, pg. 52.
 Ibid. pg. 171.
 Usd al Ghabah, vol. 3 pg. 376.
 Sahih al Bukhari, vol. 1 pg. 522.
 Mustadrak al Hakim, vol. 3 pg. 102.
 Sahih al Bukhari, vol. 1 pg. 523.
 Sahih al Muslim, vol. 2 pg. 104.
 Musannaf ‘Abdur Razzaq, vol. 5 pg. 381.
 Sunan al Dar Qutni, vol. 4 pg. 16.
 Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, vol. 5 pg. 30-33.
 Jawami’ al Sirah, pg. 26.
 Al Muhbir, pg. 126.
 Al Isabah, vol. 6 pg. 516.
 Tabqat Ibn Sa’d, vol. 7 pg. 149.
 Jawami’ al Sirah, pg. 47.
 Imam Bukhari: al Tarikh al Kabir, vol. 4 pg. 175.
 Minhaj al Sunnah, vol. 3 pg. 175, 176.
 Tahdhib al Tahdhib, vol. 5 pg. 491.
 Minhaj al Sunnah, vol. 2 pg. 145.
 Al ‘Awasim min al Qawasim, pg. 234.
 Minhaj al Sunnah, vol. 3 pg. 175.
 Siyar al Sahabah, vol. 6 pg. 127.
 Hilyat al Auliya’, vol. 1 pg. 354; Madarij al nubuwwah pg. 502; Zurqani vol. 3 pg. 99; Musnad Ahmed vol. 5 pg. 235.
 Sahih al Bukhari, Musnad Ahmed, Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah.
 Tabqat Ibn Sa’d, vol. 1 pg. 119.
 Al Manar al Munif, pg. 110.
 Al Mawdhu’at, pg. 106.
 Ibid. vol. 11 pg. 57.
 Nam wa Nasab, pg. 555.