Scholarly Critique Challenges Story of Ibn al-Zubayr and Mu‘āwiyah

Response to the fabricated account of a misunderstanding between two Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him)

By: Huseyn Zakaria

Introduction: The Motivation for the Research and Its Methodology

This investigation arose from a simple everyday moment: a friend sent me a widely circulated video clip recounting a famous story of a sharp verbal dispute conducted through harsh letters between Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and the Caliph Mu‘āwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān – may Allah be pleased with them both – over Mu‘āwiyah’s servants trespassing on Ibn al-Zubayr’s farmland.

Upon viewing the clip, my heart and my faith-based conviction rejected its contents outright. The standards of true belief and a deep awareness of the noble character and exalted status of the Companions make it impossible to accept such vulgar language issuing from “the son of the Prophet’s close companion” directed towards “the maternal uncle of the believers and scribe of revelation”.

I was struck by the renowned asceticism of Ibn al-Zubayr, the celebrated forbearance of Mu‘āwiyah, and the complete detachment from worldly allure that characterised that unique generation. This recollection brought to mind the intricate historical fabrications woven against the Companions, particularly by the Rāfiḍah, who harboured deep enmity towards Mu‘āwiyah and the family of al-Zubayr, using the distortion of their biographies as a tool to diminish the honour of Islam’s first generation. Hence, this research was undertaken to uncover the truth of the story and dispel the doubts surrounding it.

To make the matter more vivid, let us imagine the Companions not as distant, rigid historical figures, but as real human beings who faced the challenges of their time with firm faith and sublime morals. We adopt a precise scholarly methodology: verification of sources, critical analysis of content in the light of established Islamic principles, exploration of ideological motives, and enrichment with reliable historical facts drawn from works such as the History of al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Kathīr’s al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah, alongside contemporary discussions on trusted Islamic platforms such as IslamWeb and Ahl al-Ḥadīth forums (up to January 2026).

This approach renders the study both educational and engaging, teaching the reader the art of distinguishing truth from falsehood in an age dominated by digital information.

First: The Profound Weakness of the Sources (Absence of Authentic Chain of Transmission)

The foundation of any sound scholarly critique is the verification of sources. This story has no basis whatsoever in the noble collections of Sunnah, nor does it appear in the major authenticated historical works such as the History of al-Ṭabarī or Ibn Kathīr’s al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah. Instead, it is found in books of belles-lettres and curiosities, such as al-‘Iqd al-Farīd by Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih (d. 328 AH) and al-Mustaṭraf fī Kull Fann Mustaẓraf by al-Abshīhī (d. 852 AH), where authors gather tales primarily for the elegance of their expression rather than the certainty of their occurrence, thereby rendering them vulnerable to imaginative additions and deliberate fabrications.

For an update: Recent searches (up to 2026) on specialised websites such as fnoor.com, kulalsalafiyeen.com, and Ahl al-Ḥadīth forums classify the report as weak, fabricated, or entirely baseless, lacking any reliable chain of transmission. Specialists affirm that had the story possessed any genuine origin, it would have been recorded in the books of hadith or reliable history, and early hadith scholars would have hastened to include it among the virtues of Mu‘āwiyah.

Certain scholars have issued fatwas stating that it is a weak narration that cannot be authenticated. This teaches us a valuable lesson: in the age of the internet and viral videos, fiction spreads with astonishing speed, yet the chain of transmission remains the key to authenticity, as Ibn Sīrīn (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “They used not to ask about the isnād, but when fitnah arose, they said: Name your narrators to us.”

Second: Critique of the Content (Clear Ethical and Doctrinal Contradictions)

The substance of the story clashes fundamentally with the fixed Islamic principles upon which the Companions were raised. Let us bring this closer to the heart by picturing these great figures as living exemplars who confronted conflict with patience and faith:

Vulgarity of Language: The story attributes to Ibn al-Zubayr – the devout and ascetic worshipper – the description of Mu‘āwiyah as “son of Hind, the liver-eater”. This is name-calling that runs contrary to prophetic ethics and constitutes an attack upon the Companion Hind bint ‘Utbah, who accepted Islam and whose Islam was good. Attacking the Companions is a hallmark of innovators, not of Ahl al-Sunnah, as the Qur’an forbids: {And do not insult those they invoke besides Allah, lest they insult Allah out of hostility and ignorance} (al-An‘ām: 108).

Ibn al-Zubayr, raised in the household of ‘Ā’ishah and Abū Bakr, was a model of piety; the History of al-Ṭabarī portrays him as a fasting warrior at the Battle of the Camel.

Foolishness of the Dispute: It is utterly unbecoming for a Companion such as Ibn al-Zubayr to threaten the Caliph of the Muslims with armies over mere “beasts” or a “farm”. Such a depiction reduces the unique generation to materialism, whereas they sold themselves entirely to Allah.

Recall the historical reality: Ibn al-Zubayr opposed the succession of Yazīd not for personal gain, but to uphold the principle of consultation (shūrā). After Mu‘āwiyah’s death in 60 AH/680 CE, he established a rival caliphate in Mecca, endured a siege during the Second Fitnah, and was martyred in 73 AH/692 CE at the hands of al-Ḥajjāj. Mu‘āwiyah, renowned for his forbearance, governed a vast empire with strategic wisdom, not through petty land disputes. Authentic sources such as al-Ṭabarī highlight political tensions between them – such as Ibn al-Zubayr’s refusal to pledge allegiance to Yazīd – yet make no mention whatsoever of any farm story.

Educational enrichment: Contemporary historians such as Hugh Kennedy in The Armies of the Caliphs observe that the Companions focused on conquests and unity, not worldly quarrels. This teaches us about ethical leadership: genuine forbearance, as demonstrated in Mu‘āwiyah’s handling of rebellions, springs from faith, not from fabricated tales.

Third: Ideological Dimensions (Unveiling Sectarian Fabrication and Poisoned Praise)

Upon reflection, the story emerges as a classic example of “poisoned praise” – a technique perfected by the enemies of the Companions, carrying clear fingerprints that serve sectarian agendas such as those of the Rāfiḍah:

Insulting Mu‘āwiyah under the guise of forbearance: The aim is to cement the label “son of Hind” and link it to the “liver-eating” incident in order to defame him, reminding people of his pre-Islamic past, and portraying him as a worldly king purchasing loyalty with farms. Yet authentic hadiths praise him: the Prophet ﷺ supplicated for his guidance, and he was a scribe of revelation, as recorded in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.

Distorting the image of Ibn al-Zubayr: It serves hostile factions to depict him as foul-mouthed and materialistic, thereby undermining his integrity. Historically, Ibn al-Zubayr was a thorn in the side of the Umayyads, fiercely resisting dynastic succession.

Undermining the unique generation: It seeks to convince Muslims that relations among the leading Companions were characterised by insults and material disputes, thereby shaking confidence in those who transmitted the religion. This pattern aligns with fabrications from the Abbasid era, when sectarian tensions reached their peak. Additional fact: even strongly critical Shia sources such as al-islam.org condemn Mu‘āwiyah but make no reference to the farm story, suggesting it may well be a later literary invention of Sunni origin that was repurposed to sow division.

To humanise this: imagine the Companions as a closely knit family weathering storms; such tales fracture that unity, reminding us of the Qur’anic command: {And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allah, and be not divided among yourselves} (Āl ‘Imrān: 103). Educationally, it trains us in discernment in an age of rumours.

Fourth: The Scholarly and Religious Duty

The principle of Ahl al-Sunnah is to “refrain from what occurred between the Companions” and to interpret their actions in the best possible light, as stated by Imām Aḥmad. When the incident is itself fabricated, refuting it becomes even more obligatory. Allah says: {Our Lord, forgive us and our brothers who preceded us in faith} (al-Ḥashr: 10). Circulating such videos without verification amounts to participating in intrigue against the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ.

Update: In 2026, with the spread of artificial intelligence and fabricated videos, this duty becomes even more pressing – verify before sharing, as the Prophet ﷺ warned: “It is sufficient falsehood for a man that he narrates everything he hears” (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim).

Conclusion: Purifying the Islamic Memory

The story of the “farm letter” is an intruder in authentic history, crafted either by spiteful hands or by pens seeking literary excitement at the expense of creed. Its critique and the cleansing of the heritage from its traces constitute a defence of the honour of the Prophet ﷺ and his Companions, and a closing of the doors through which deviant desires seek entry. By humanising these figures as true living exemplars, we enrich our faith, learning patience, piety, and critical thinking. Let this serve as a reminder: true history illuminates; fabrications darken. May we emulate their unity in our fragmented times.

SPONSORED

SPONSORED