The Sins of Muawiyah

By V.A. Mohamad Ashrof, New Age Islam 18 July 2025 Abstract Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan (603-680 CE), the founder of the Umayyad dynasty, remains one of the most polarizing and consequential figures in the annals of Islamic history. His transition from the powerful governor of Syria to the first caliph of a hereditary monarchy represents a critical juncture where the trajectory of Islamic civilization was profoundly altered. While certain modern Islamic movements, particularly those aligned with Wahhabi and Salafi thought, venerate him as a Companion of the Prophet (Sahabi) and a pragmatic unifier of the Muslim Ummah, a substantial body of evidence within classical Sunni historiography itself presents a far more troubled and critical portrait. This paper conducts a deep analysis of the perceived “sins” of Muawiyah, not as a polemical indictment, but as a rigorous academic inquiry into the ethical and political ruptures his reign engendered. Drawing extensively from the foundational chronicles of Sunni historians Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (838-923 CE) and Ismail ibn Kathir (1300-1373), this analysis will argue that Muawiyah’s political project constituted a systematic and deliberate subversion of the nascent Islamic political ethos. His actions will be examined through the modern, yet deeply resonant, interpretive lenses which champion human dignity (karamah); the unity of the Ummah; and the Quranic principle of consultative governance (Shura). The paper will demonstrate that Muawiyah’s cardinal transgressions—the instigation of civil war for political gain, the transformation of the consultative Caliphate (Khilafah) into hereditary monarchy (Mulk), and the violent suppression of dissent coupled with the institutionalization of sectarian hatred—were not mere political miscalculations but profound deviations from the core message of the Quran and the Prophetic model. Ultimately, this historical reckoning serves as a crucial exercise for contemporary Muslims grappling with the enduring legacies of authoritarianism and sectarianism, legacies whose roots can be traced directly back to the political “sins” of the first Umayyad caliph. ----- The Contested Legacy of a Caliph The study of early Islamic history is often a study in navigating profound tensions. No figure embodies these tensions more acutely than Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan. He is at once the Katib Al-Wahi (scribe of the revelation), a Companion of the Prophet Muhammad, among nearly fifty others, an astute administrator who expanded the frontiers of the Muslim empire. Yet, he is also the rebel who defied the legitimate authority of the fourth Caliph, Ali ibn Abi Talib; the autocrat who replaced consultation with coercion; the founder of a dynasty whose rule would culminate in the tragic martyrdom of the Prophet’s own grandson, Hussein ibn Ali; and the ruler who, according to numerous historical accounts, institutionalized the public cursing of Ali from the pulpits of the very faith he claimed to lead. This paradox has created a deep cleavage in Muslim memory. For many traditionalist Sunnis, particularly those influenced by the teachings of Ibn Taymiyyah and later Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, Muawiyah’s status as a Sahabi places him beyond reproach. Any critique is seen as a form of heresy or an attempt to sow division. His actions are typically explained away as a product of ijtihad—independent juristic reasoning—for which he is to be either rewarded or, at worst, forgiven by God. This “hermeneutic of deference” effectively sanitizes the historical record, prioritizing an idealized vision of the first generation of Muslims over a critical engagement with their political and ethical failings (Abou El Fadl, p.35). This paper rejects such a deferential hermeneutic in favour of a critical one, rooted in the foundational ethical principles of the Quran itself. It posits that the status of companionship does not grant a blanket immunity from moral and historical scrutiny, especially when the actions in question fundamentally reshaped the nature of Islamic governance and society. The Quran itself is replete with admonitions to its highest figures, including the Prophet Muhammad (33:1, 80:1-10), establishing a clear precedent that accountability is a universal principle. Therefore, to analyse the “sins of Muawiyah” is not an act of sectarian polemics but an exercise in intellectual honesty, one that is vital for understanding the historical roots of political authoritarianism, sectarianism, and the marginalization of humanistic values within parts of the Muslim world. To undertake this analysis, this paper will utilize three interconnected frameworks: 1. The framework, articulated by thinkers like Fazlur Rahman and Farid Esack, emphasizes the Quran’s profound focus on human dignity (karamah) (17:70), moral agency, free conscience (2:256), and the imperative of justice (‘adl) (5:8). It posits that any form of governance that relies on coercion, suppresses dissent through violence, and debases human life for political gain is fundamentally un-Islamic. Muawiyah’s reign will be measured against this standard of God-given human dignity. 2. The Quranic vision of the Ummah is one of a unified, merciful brotherhood (49:10), bound by faith rather than tribal, ethnic, or political loyalties (49:13). Inclusivism, as a lens, examines the extent to which a leader fosters this unity or, conversely, promotes division, exclusion, and ‘Asabiyyah (tribalism/factionalism). Muawiyah’s policies, particularly towards the partisans of Ali (Shi’at Ali), will be analysed for their impact on the inclusive fabric of the early Muslim community. 3. While the term “democracy” is modern, its core principles of consultation, consent, and accountability are deeply rooted in the Quran and the practice of the Prophet. The principle of Shura (mutual consultation) is a divine injunction (42:38, 3:159), and the early Caliphate (Khilafat-e-Rashida) was, in essence, a system based on communal sanction (Bay’Ah). This paper will use Shura as the benchmark for Islamic democratic practice, evaluating how Muawiyah systematically dismantled this tradition in favour of autocratic, hereditary rule. By filtering the historical data provided by al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir through these ethical and political lenses, a clear and coherent picture emerges. It is a picture of a leader whose political genius was undeniable, but whose legacy is forever marred by the profound and lasting damage he inflicted upon the political and spiritual soul of Islam. This paper will proceed by first establishing the historical record of Muawiyah’s rise and consolidation of power, then conducting a thematic analysis of his three cardinal sins, and finally, exploring the hermeneutical battle over his legacy that continues to this day. The Historical Record: A Chronicle of Subversion The historical accounts of al-Tabari’s Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk (History of the Prophets and Kings) and Ibn Kathir’s Al-Bidaya wa’l-Nihaya (The Beginning and the End) are indispensable for this analysis. Despite being Sunni historians who generally hold the Companions in high regard, their chronicles are remarkably detailed and often unflinching in their presentation of the facts. It is from within these canonical Sunni sources that the case against Muawiyah can be most powerfully constructed. Muawiyah’s political career began long before his conflict with Ali. Appointed as governor of Syria by Caliph Umar and confirmed by Caliph Uthman, he spent two decades consolidating his power base in the province. Unlike other regions of the nascent empire, Syria had a more established, hierarchical social structure inherited from its Byzantine past, and Muawiyah expertly cultivated the loyalty of its powerful Arab tribes, creating a disciplined and fiercely loyal army (Tabari, vol. 15, 215). He ruled his province more like a king than a governor, creating a proto-state that was loyal primarily to him, not to the central authority in Medina. The crisis that propelled him to the forefront was the assassination of his kinsman, the third Caliph, Uthman ibn Affan, in 656 CE. When Ali ibn Abi Talib was acclaimed as the fourth Caliph by the overwhelming consensus of the Companions in Medina, the established capital, Muawiyah made a fateful decision. He refused to offer his oath of allegiance (Bay’Ah). His public pretext was the demand for Qisas (retribution) for Uthman’s murder, accusing Ali of harbouring the assassins (Tabari, vol. 16, 25-30). However, a critical historical analysis reveals this pretext to be a masterstroke of political manipulation. Firstly, as the legitimate Caliph, the responsibility for administering justice fell to Ali, who argued that he first needed to establish stability before pursuing the culprits, who were scattered among various tribal factions. Secondly, Muawiyah’s own record in defending Uthman was questionable. As the powerful governor of a neighbouring province with a formidable army, he failed to send aid to the besieged Caliph despite pleas for help, a point that his critics, including Ali, repeatedly raised (Ibn Kathir, vol. 7, 180). His sudden zeal for justice after Uthman’s death, therefore, appears less a matter of principle and more a convenient casus belli. He used the emotionally charged symbol of Uthman’s blood-stained shirt, which he displayed publicly in the Damascus mosque, to galvanize Syrian sentiment and legitimize his defiance of the central government. This act of rebellion against a duly appointed Caliph is defined in Islamic jurisprudence as Baghy—a grave transgression against the political and social order of the Ummah. The Sin of Instigating Civil War Muawiyah’s rebellion did not remain a war of words. He mobilized his Syrian army, leading to the catastrophic First Fitna. The culmination of this conflict was the Battle of Siffin in 657 CE, a series of protracted and bloody engagements that pitted Muslims against Muslims, Companions against Companions. The sheer scale of the carnage, with casualty estimates running into the tens of thousands, was a tragedy of unprecedented proportions (Tabari, vol. 17, 50-120). From the viewpoint of Enlightenment Islam, which regards human life as sacred (Qur'an 5:32), starting such a destructive conflict for political gain is a grave sin of the utmost severity. The battle reached a climax when Ali’s forces, led by the formidable Malik al-Ashtar, were on the verge of a decisive victory. It was at this moment that Muawiyah’s general, the cunning Amr ibn al-As, executed one of the most infamous stratagems in Islamic history. On his advice, the Syrian soldiers hoisted copies of the Quran on their spears, crying out, "Let the Book of God judge between us!" (Ibn Kathir, vol. 7, 272). This act was a brilliant piece of psychological warfare. It was not a genuine call for divine arbitration but a ploy to halt the battle and save their imminent defeat by appealing to the piety of Ali’s predominantly Iraqi soldiers, many of whom were devout Quran reciters. Ali, recognizing the deception, urged his men to fight on, arguing that he represented the true spirit and just application of God's book against their cynical manipulation of its physical form. However, the dissent sown in his ranks was too great. He was forced to accept a ceasefire and agree to arbitration (Tahkim). This event was a turning point. It fractured Ali’s coalition, leading directly to the secession of the Khawarij (the Seceders), who condemned Ali for "submitting the judgment of God to men." Muawiyah’s cynical manipulation of the sacred text for military and political advantage not only saved his army but also fatally wounded Ali’s authority. This act of using religious symbols to subvert religious principles represents a profound ethical breach, echoing the Quranic condemnation of those who "purchase with God’s revelations a small price" (2:41). The Consolidation of Power and the End of the Rashidun Era The arbitration proved to be a political farce, with Muawiyah’s representative, Amr ibn al-As, outmanoeuvring Ali’s more scrupulous envoy, Abu Musa al-Ash’ari. The inconclusive result further weakened Ali and strengthened Muawiyah, who began to receive pledges of allegiance as a rival caliph. After Ali’s assassination by a Kharijite in 661 CE, his son, Hasan ibn Ali, was acclaimed as his successor in Kufa. Hasan, faced with a war-weary populace and Muawiyah’s unyielding military machine, chose to abdicate in order to prevent further bloodshed. A peace treaty was signed, and its terms are highly significant. According to historical accounts, Hasan agreed to relinquish authority to Muawiyah on several conditions, the most crucial of which was that after Muawiyah’s death, the matter of succession would be returned to the principle of Shura, allowing the Muslim community to choose its own leader (Ibn Kathir, vol. 8, 14-15). Other reported conditions included a halt to the public cursing of his father, Ali, and ensuring the safety of their supporters. With Hasan’s abdication, Muawiyah became the undisputed ruler of the Muslim world, and the year was declared the "Year of Unity." However, this unity was achieved not through consensus but through military superiority and political exhaustion. More importantly, as the subsequent events of his reign would prove, Muawiyah had no intention of honouring the spirit, or even the letter, of his treaty with Hasan. The era of the Khilafat-e-Rashida—the Rightly Guided Caliphate based in Medina and operating on the principles of piety, simplicity, and consultation—was over. The era of Mulk—kingship based in Damascus and operating on the principles of dynastic power, imperial grandeur, and autocracy—had begun. While Muawiyah’s path to power was paved with rebellion and bloodshed, it was his actions as Caliph that institutionalized a new political order, one that stood in stark contrast to the nascent Islamic ideal. These can be categorized into three cardinal sins against the core principles of Islamic governance. The Sin Against Shura: The Transformation of Khilafah into Mulk The most profound and enduring sin of Muawiyah’s reign was the deliberate and systematic destruction of the principle of consultative governance. The Quran makes Shura (mutual consultation) a defining characteristic of the Muslim community (42:38) and commands the Prophet himself to consult his followers (3:159). The first four Caliphs, despite variations in their selection, were all chosen through a process that involved some form of communal sanction and public allegiance (Bay’Ah). This established a powerful precedent that political authority was a trust (Amanah) granted by the community, not a right to be inherited. Muawiyah single-handedly demolished this foundation. In direct violation of his treaty with Hasan, he spent the latter part of his reign engineering the succession of his son, Yazid. This was not a nomination based on merit, but an imposition based on bloodline. Yazid was a controversial figure, known even at the time for a lifestyle that many considered impious and unfit for the leadership of the Ummah (Ibn Kathir, vol. 8, 228). The process of securing allegiance for Yazid was a masterclass in autocratic politics. Al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir both provide detailed accounts of how Muawiyah used a combination of bribery, intimidation, and political manoeuvring to force the issue. He summoned delegations from the provinces to Damascus, showering them with wealth and gifts to buy their loyalty (Tabari, vol. 18, 195-200). When faced with opposition from the senior figures in Medina—the heartland of Islamic tradition—including Hussein ibn Ali, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, and Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr, his methods became more direct. He travelled to Medina himself and, according to several reports, entered the mosque with an armed guard, publicly threatening to kill anyone who dared to speak out against his decision (Ibn Kathir, vol. 8, 79-80). This act represents the formal death of the elective caliphate and the birth of hereditary monarchy. It was a political revolution that transformed the office of Khalifat Rasul Allah (Successor to the Messenger of God) into a kingship modelled on the Byzantine and Persian empires that the early Muslims had conquered. This was not merely a political change; it was a theological one. It severed the sacred link between the ruler and the ruled, replacing communal accountability with dynastic entitlement. From the perspective of Islamic democratic principles, this was the original sin of Islamic political history, creating a precedent for authoritarianism that would haunt the Muslim world for centuries. As one contemporary critic, Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr, reportedly shouted at the governor of Medina, "You are turning it into a Heraclian and a Caesarean matter, that when one king dies, another king takes his place!" (Tabari, vol. 18, 185). The Sin Against Human Dignity: Suppression, Coercion, and Political Violence Drawing from the Quranic assertion of human dignity (Karamah) (17:70), enlightened scholars posit a society where life is sacred and conscience is free. A ruler’s legitimacy is tied to their upholding of justice (‘Adl). Muawiyah’s reign saw a systematic erosion of these principles, as political dissent was increasingly equated with sedition and met with brutal force. The most infamous case is the execution of Hujr ibn Adi in 671 CE. Hujr was a pious Companion of the Prophet and a devout supporter of Ali’s family. He and his followers in Kufa openly protested the tyrannical practices of Muawiyah’s governor, Ziyad ibn Abihi, particularly his enforcement of the official policy of cursing Ali from the pulpit. Hujr’s protest was non-violent; it was an act of public criticism and conscientious objection. For this, he and several of his companions were arrested, shackled, and sent to Damascus. Muawiyah, despite pleas for clemency, ordered their execution (Tabari, vol. 18, 122-155). This event sent a shockwave across the Muslim world. It established a terrifying new precedent: the state could execute a Muslim, even a Companion of the Prophet, not for armed rebellion, but for political speech. Ibn Kathir records that several prominent figures, including Aisha, the Prophet’s widow, strongly condemned Muawiyah for this act. When she later met Muawiyah, she reportedly admonished him, "O Muawiyah, did you not fear that I would have a man waiting to kill you in retaliation for your killing of Hujr?" (Ibn Kathir, vol. 8, 55). The case of Hujr was not an isolated incident. Muawiyah’s reign was characterized by a climate of fear, where loyalty was enforced, and opponents were systematically eliminated. Historical sources contain allegations, though often disputed, that he was involved in the poisoning of several key rivals, including Hasan ibn Ali and the prominent Companion Abd al-Rahman ibn Khalid ibn al-Walid (Safi, p.92). Whether these specific allegations are true or not, they reflect a political environment where such methods were considered plausible. The use of the state treasury (Bayt al-Mal) to bribe tribal leaders and buy allegiance, as extensively documented by al-Tabari, was another tool of his coercive statecraft, corrupting the concept of wealth as a communal trust. This use of violence, intimidation, and financial corruption to crush opposition stands as a grave sin against the Islamic humanist ideal of a just and compassionate society. The Institutionalization of Sectarianism The Quranic ideal of the Ummah is one of a single, unified body of believers, where piety, not lineage or political affiliation, is the sole criterion for honour (49:13). The Prophet’s final sermon famously dismantled the structures of pre-Islamic tribalism. Muawiyah’s reign, however, saw the resurrection of ‘Asabiyyah and the institutionalization of a deeply divisive and sectarian policy. The most egregious example of this was the official, state-sponsored practice of Sabb—the ritual cursing of Ali ibn Abi Talib from the pulpits during Friday prayers. This policy was enforced throughout the Umayyad empire for decades. Al-Tabari records Muawiyah’s instructions to his governors, such as al-Mughira ibn Shu’ba in Kufa, to "not refrain from abusing and insulting Ali" (Tabari, vol. 18, 122). This was not a spontaneous expression of political animosity; it was a calculated policy designed to posthumously delegitimize his great rival and entrench hatred for Ali and his family (Ahl al-Bayt) in the public consciousness. This act was a sin of immense proportions. Theologically, it was an attack on a figure whom the Prophet himself held in the highest esteem, a man promised Paradise and loved by God and His Messenger, according to numerous authentic hadith. To turn the pulpit (minbar)—a sacred space for reminding believers of God—into a platform for political slander and character assassination was a desecration of the very heart of Islamic worship. From the perspective of Islamic inclusivism, this policy was a catastrophe. It created a deep and lasting wound in the body of the Ummah. It alienated a massive segment of the population—the Shi’at Ali—and transformed a political disagreement into an intractable theological and identity-based schism. The Sunni-Shia divide, which had its roots in the political conflicts after the Prophet’s death, was cemented and institutionalized by this Umayyad policy of state-sponsored hate. It was the antithesis of the Quranic command to "hold firmly to the rope of God all together and do not become divided" (3:103). Instead of fostering the "brotherhood" of believers (49:10), Muawiyah’s rule was built upon a foundation of exclusion, factionalism, and the public vilification of a significant portion of the Muslim community. Hermeneutics of Principle The historical facts of Muawiyah’s reign, as documented by classical Sunni sources, are stark. The debate, therefore, is not primarily about what happened, but about how to interpret it. The legacy of Muawiyah is a battlefield of competing hermeneutics—different ways of reading and making sense of the past. The primary defence of Muawiyah, both in his own time and later, rests on a hermeneutic of pragmatism and deference. His supporters argue that all his actions, including his rebellion against Ali and his execution of Hujr, were the result of ijtihad. In this view, he was a legitimate interpreter of the faith who believed he was acting in the best interests of the state. His conflict with Ali was not a rebellion for power (Baghy) but a legitimate difference of opinion over a point of law (Qisas for Uthman). His establishment of monarchy was a political necessity to prevent the Ummah from descending back into the chaos of civil war. The stability and vast expansion of the empire under his rule are presented as proof of his success and divine favour. This line of reasoning is a classic "ends justify the means" argument. It prioritizes state stability and imperial power over the ethical and political principles enshrined in the Quran and Sunnah. It is a hermeneutic of power, which judges actions by their political efficacy rather than their moral substance. The Wahhabi/Salafi Hermeneutic: The Sanctification of a Companion Modern Wahhabi and Salafi thought takes this defence a step further by enveloping Muawiyah in an aura of untouchable sanctity. This hermeneutic is built on the theological doctrine that all who saw the Prophet and died as Muslims (Sahaba) are fundamentally just and beyond reproach. Criticizing any of them, especially one as prominent as Muawiyah, is considered a grave sin, often equated with the heresy of the Shia. This position requires a highly selective and sanitized reading of history. The deeply troubling accounts in al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir are either ignored, dismissed as weak or fabricated narrations (despite their presence in canonical works), or reinterpreted in the most charitable light possible. The murder of Hujr becomes a regrettable but necessary act to quell sedition. The transformation of the caliphate into kingship is downplayed. The cursing of Ali is often denied outright, despite overwhelming historical evidence. This hermeneutic is not just a theological stance; it is profoundly political. By valorising Muawiyah, the founder of the first Islamic dynasty, it provides historical and theological legitimacy for modern authoritarian rulers and monarchies in the Muslim world, particularly in the Arabian Peninsula where Wahhabism is the state ideology. The emphasis on absolute obedience to the ruler (Wali Al-Amr), even if they are unjust, uses the "Year of Unity" under Muawiyah as a key precedent. It is a hermeneutic designed to quell dissent and legitimize power structures that stand in direct opposition to the Quranic ideals of justice and consultation. Reading History through Islamic Enlightenment This paper champions a counter-hermeneutic, one that insists on reading history through the ethical prism of the Quran itself. This approach does not deny Muawiyah’s status as a Companion or his political skills. Instead, it argues that these do not exempt him from accountability to the timeless principles of his own faith. From this perspective, the "sins of Muawiyah" are clear and undeniable: • His rebellion against a Caliph chosen by the community, his violation of the treaty with Hasan, and his coercive imposition of his son Yazid were a direct assault on the principle of Shura (42:38). He replaced a government based on consent with one based on force and heredity. • His execution of Hujr ibn Adi for political criticism and the climate of fear he fostered were a violation of the God-given dignity (Karamah) of the human being (17:70) and the Quranic command for justice (4:135). • His institutionalization of the cursing of Ali and his promotion of Umayyad tribalism were a flagrant betrayal of the Quranic ideal of a unified and merciful Ummah (3:103, 49:10). He sowed the seeds of sectarianism that have plagued the Muslim world ever since. This critical hermeneutic is not an anachronistic application of modern values. On the contrary, it is an attempt to recover the original, radical egalitarianism and ethical rigor of the Quranic message. It argues that a critical engagement with the failures of the past is not an act of creating Fitna, but a necessary precondition for healing the Ummah and reclaiming the true spirit of Islam. It is an act of intellectual and spiritual courage, following the Quranic injunction to be "witnesses for God in justice" (5:8), even if it is against oneself or one’s own received traditions. The Enduring Relevance of Muawiyah's Sins Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan was, without doubt, a pivotal figure who shaped the course of Islamic history. His political acumen, administrative skill, and success in expanding the empire are a matter of historical record. However, the price of that success was the soul of the early Islamic political project. The historical evidence, drawn from the heart of the Sunni tradition itself, paints a damning picture of a ruler who prioritized power over principle, empire over Ummah, and dynasty over divinity. His reign marked a tragic rupture, a turning point where the revolutionary Islamic ideals of a just, consultative, and inclusive community were eclipsed by the familiar patterns of worldly kingship (Mulk). The “sins” of Muawiyah were not personal moral failings but systemic transgressions that created new and damaging precedents. The destruction of Shura gave birth to a long tradition of Islamic autocracy. The violent suppression of dissent provided a template for future tyrants. The institutionalization of sectarian hatred created a schism that has never fully healed. The contemporary reverence for Muawiyah in certain circles, particularly within the Wahhabi-Salafi movement, is therefore deeply problematic. It is a historical revisionism that serves to legitimize modern authoritarianism and silence calls for democratic reform and pluralism. It forces a choice between historical honesty and theological dogma, and too often, dogma wins. For contemporary Muslims seeking to build societies rooted in justice, human rights, and democratic participation, an honest reckoning with the legacy of Muawiyah is not optional; it is essential. His story is a powerful cautionary tale about the corrupting nature of absolute power and the dangers of allowing political pragmatism to hollow out the ethical core of faith. Analysing his sins is not merely an academic exercise; it is a profound act of rediscovery. It is about clearing away the debris of centuries of imperial history to reclaim the foundational principles of Islamic humanism, inclusivism, and democracy that were so tragically subverted at the very dawn of the Umayyad dynasty. The lessons of Muawiyah's reign are a stark reminder that the struggle for the soul of Islam is a perennial one, fought between a hermeneutics of power and a hermeneutics of principle. Bibliography Abou El Fadl, Khaled. Islam and the Challenge of Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004. Esack, Farid. Qur’an, Liberation and Pluralism: An Islamic Perspective of Interreligious Solidarity against Oppression. London: Oneworld Publications, 1997. Ibn Kathir, Ismail. Al-Bidaya wa’l-Nihaya (The Beginning and the End). Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi, 1988. (Note: Specific volume and page numbers are referenced throughout the text, corresponding to standard Arabic editions). Rahman, Fazlur. Major Themes of the Qur’an. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009. Sachedina, Abdulaziz. The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Safi, LM. Islam and Democracy: The Challenge of Political Islam. London and New York: Routledge, 2022. Tabari, Muhammad ibn Jarir al-. The History of al-Tabari (Ta'rikh al-rusul wa'l-muluk). 40 vols. Translated by various scholars. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1985-2007. ----- V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an independent Indian scholar specializing in Islamic humanism. With a deep commitment to advancing Quranic hermeneutics that prioritize human well-being, peace, and progress, his work aims to foster a just society, encourage critical thinking, and promote inclusive discourse and peaceful coexistence. He is dedicated to creating pathways for meaningful social change and intellectual growth through his scholarship. URL: https://www.newageislam.com/the-war-within-islam/sins-muawiyah/d/136209 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism