TWELVERSHIA.NET REFUTED: AUTHENTIC SUNNI REPORTS AGAINST BANU UMAYYAH CANNOT BE ERASED BY WEAKENING ONE CHAIN
https://www.twelvershia.net/2013/11/14/response-to-the-banu-umayah-were-cursed-and-hated-by-the-holy-prophet-s/
TwelverShia.net published an article attempting to refute reports that the Prophet ﷺ condemned Banu Umayyah.
Its argument is essentially:
1. The “most hated tribes” narration was mistakenly attributed to Abu Dharr instead of Abu Barzah.
2. Al-Hakim was incorrect to call its chain authentic according to the conditions of al-Bukhari and Muslim.
3. Abu Hamzah, the neighbour of Shu‘bah, was allegedly never praised by classical Sunni hadith scholars.
4. Therefore, the narration is weak.
5. Since some Umayyads were considered good people, Banu Umayyah cannot be collectively criticised.
A fair investigation must admit that the first correction is valid:
The narrator is Abu Barzah al-Aslami—not Abu Dharr.
However, correcting the Companion’s name does not refute the narration. More importantly, the entire Sunni evidence concerning Banu Umayyah does not depend upon this one report.
The article examines one chain, declares the entire subject finished, and ignores other Sahih and Hasan Sunni narrations condemning Banu Marwan, Banu al-Hakam and individuals through whom the Umayyad ruling dynasty continued.
THE PRECISE AND HONEST CONCLUSION
No careful researcher should claim:
“The Prophet ﷺ cursed every individual who ever belonged to the wider Banu Umayyah tribe, without any exception.”
That universal claim is not established by an uncontested Sahih narration.
But the opposite claim is equally false:
“There are no authentic Sunni reports in which the Prophet ﷺ condemned Umayyad rulers, Umayyad branches or the family of al-Hakam.”
There are several.
1. THE “MOST HATED TRIBES” REPORT IS DISPUTED—NOT SIMPLY DESTROYED
Arabic:
عَنْ أَبِي بَرْزَةَ قَالَ:
كَانَ أَبْغَضَ الْأَحْيَاءِ إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بَنُو أُمَيَّةَ، وَثَقِيفٌ، وَبَنُو حَنِيفَةَ.
English:
Abu Barzah reported:
“The tribal groups most disliked by the Messenger of Allah ﷺ were Banu Umayyah, Thaqif and Banu Hanifah.”
Sunni references:
Abu Ya‘la, al-Musnad, hadith 7421.
Al-Hakim, al-Mustadrak, hadith 8482.
Al-Ruyani, al-Musnad, hadith 769.
TwelverShia.net is correct that calling the narration “authentic according to the conditions of both al-Bukhari and Muslim” is technically questionable. Abu Hamzah was not used by both al-Bukhari and Muslim in the same manner required for such a claim.
But this does not prove that the narration itself is necessarily weak.
Al-Haythami assessed its narrators:
رِجَالُهُ رِجَالُ الصَّحِيحِ غَيْرُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مُطَرِّفِ بْنِ الشِّخِّيرِ وَهُوَ ثِقَةٌ
“Its narrators are narrators of the Sahih, except Abdullah ibn Mutarrif ibn al-Shikhkhir, and he is trustworthy.”
Reference:
Al-Haythami, Majma‘ al-Zawa’id, vol. 10, p. 74.
The editor of Musnad Abi Ya‘la, Husayn Salim Asad, explicitly graded the chain:
إِسْنَادُهُ حَسَنٌ
“Its chain is Hasan.”
Therefore, the academically correct status is:
Hasan according to some recognised Sunni investigators and weak according to others—not fabricated and not unanimously rejected.
THE CLAIM THAT ABU HAMZAH RECEIVED NO PRAISE IS FALSE
TwelverShia.net states that Abu Hamzah “did not receive any praise or any statements that implied his reliability from the classical hadith scholars.”
That claim is factually inaccurate.
Al-Mizzi records:
ذَكَرَهُ ابْنُ حِبَّانَ فِي كِتَابِ الثِّقَاتِ
“Ibn Hibban mentioned him in his Book of Trustworthy Narrators.”
Al-Mizzi also states:
رَوَى لَهُ مُسْلِمٌ حَدِيثًا
“Muslim narrated one hadith from him.”
Ibn Hajar classified him as:
مَقْبُولٌ
“Acceptable.”
It is legitimate for a strict critic to argue that Ibn Hibban’s tawthiq alone is insufficient or that a maqbul narrator needs corroboration.
But it is not legitimate to claim that Abu Hamzah received no classical recognition whatsoever.
The accurate statement is:
His reliability is not established at the highest uncontested level, but he was included in Ibn Hibban’s al-Thiqat, used by Muslim and classified as maqbul by Ibn Hajar.
So the original Abu Barzah report should be presented with its grading dispute disclosed.
But even if we completely set that narration aside, the wider authentic Sunni evidence remains.
2. SAHIH AL-BUKHARI CONNECTS THE DESTRUCTION OF THE UMMAH WITH BANU MARWAN
Abu Hurayrah reported:
Arabic:
سَمِعْتُ الصَّادِقَ الْمَصْدُوقَ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ:
هَلَكَةُ أُمَّتِي عَلَى يَدَيْ غِلْمَةٍ مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ.
فَقَالَ مَرْوَانُ:
لَعْنَةُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِمْ غِلْمَةً!
فَقَالَ أَبُو هُرَيْرَةَ:
لَوْ شِئْتُ أَنْ أَقُولَ بَنِي فُلَانٍ وَبَنِي فُلَانٍ لَفَعَلْتُ.
فَكُنْتُ أَخْرُجُ مَعَ جَدِّي إِلَى بَنِي مَرْوَانَ حِينَ مُلِّكُوا بِالشَّامِ، فَإِذَا رَآهُمْ غِلْمَانًا أَحْدَاثًا قَالَ لَنَا:
عَسَى هَؤُلَاءِ أَنْ يَكُونُوا مِنْهُمْ؟
English:
“I heard the truthful and confirmed Messenger of Allah ﷺ say:
‘The destruction of my Ummah will be at the hands of young men from Quraysh.’
Marwan said:
‘May Allah curse those young men!’
Abu Hurayrah replied:
‘Had I wished, I could have named the sons of such-and-such and the sons of such-and-such.’
The narrator continued:
‘I used to accompany my grandfather to Banu Marwan after they gained power in Syria. Whenever he saw them as young rulers, he would say:
“Perhaps these are among them?”’”
Reference:
Sahih al-Bukhari, hadith 7058.
Supporting wording:
Sahih al-Bukhari, hadith 3605.
Sahih Muslim, hadith 2917.
Status:
Sahih.
Important precision:
The Prophet’s direct wording says:
غِلْمَةٌ مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ
“Young men from Quraysh.”
It does not explicitly name Banu Umayyah in the Prophetic sentence.
However, the same Sahih al-Bukhari narration preserves the early identification of these rulers with Banu Marwan—the Marwanid ruling branch descending through Marwan ibn al-Hakam ibn Abi al-‘As ibn Umayyah.
The Sunni explanation of the hadith states that these rulers would acquire political power, act tyrannically, fight for kingship, monopolise wealth and damage the people’s religious and worldly affairs.
Therefore, the careful conclusion is:
Sahih al-Bukhari contains a Prophetic warning that foolish young Qurayshi rulers would cause the destruction of the Ummah, and its own transmitted historical context applies that warning to Banu Marwan.
This alone proves that authentic Sunni literature contains an extremely serious warning connected with an Umayyad ruling branch.
3. THE PROPHET IDENTIFIED AL-HAKAM IBN ABI AL-‘AS AS “A CURSED MAN”
Abdullah ibn Amr reported:
Arabic:
كُنَّا جُلُوسًا عِنْدَ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَقَالَ:
لَيَدْخُلَنَّ عَلَيْكُمْ رَجُلٌ لَعِينٌ.
قَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَمْرٍو:
فَوَاللَّهِ مَا زِلْتُ وَجِلًا أَتَشَوَّفُ دَاخِلًا وَخَارِجًا حَتَّى دَخَلَ الْحَكَمُ بْنُ أَبِي الْعَاصِ.
English:
“We were sitting with the Prophet ﷺ when he said:
‘A cursed man will certainly enter upon you.’
Abdullah ibn Amr said:
‘By Allah, I continued looking anxiously at everyone entering and leaving until al-Hakam ibn Abi al-‘As entered.’”
Sunni references:
Musnad Ahmad, hadith 6520.
Musnad al-Bazzar, hadith 2352.
Al-Tabarani, al-Mu‘jam al-Awsat, hadith 7155.
Grading:
Al-Albani:
إِسْنَادُهُ صَحِيحٌ عَلَى شَرْطِ مُسْلِمٍ
“Its chain is authentic according to the standard of Muslim.”
Reference:
Al-Albani, al-Silsilah al-Sahihah, no. 3240.
Al-Haythami also stated that its narrators are narrators of the Sahih.
Al-Hakam ibn Abi al-‘As was the father of Marwan ibn al-Hakam and the ancestor of the later Marwanid Umayyad rulers.
Therefore, even if someone disputes the general Abu Barzah report, a Sahih Sunni chain directly identifies the ancestor of the Marwanid Umayyad dynasty as:
رَجُلٌ لَعِينٌ
“A cursed man.”
This cannot be refuted by saying:
“But some other Umayyads performed good services.”
That is irrelevant to what the Prophet ﷺ said about al-Hakam.
4. AN AUTHENTIC REPORT CURSES AL-HAKAM AND HIS OFFSPRING
Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr stood while leaning against the Ka‘bah and said:
Arabic:
وَرَبِّ هَذَا الْبَيْتِ، لَقَدْ لَعَنَ اللَّهُ الْحَكَمَ وَمَا وَلَدَ عَلَى لِسَانِ نَبِيِّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ.
English:
“By the Lord of this House, Allah cursed al-Hakam and what he fathered upon the tongue of His Prophet ﷺ.”
Sunni references:
Musnad al-Bazzar, hadith 2197.
Musnad Ahmad, hadith 16128, with related wording.
Al-Tabarani.
Al-Haythami’s grading:
رِجَالُهُ رِجَالُ الصَّحِيحِ
“Its narrators are narrators of the Sahih.”
The narration is transmitted through:
Sufyan ibn Uyaynah → Isma‘il ibn Abi Khalid → al-Sha‘bi → Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr.
Al-Bazzar also records corroboration through Muhammad ibn Fudayl from Isma‘il ibn Abi Khalid.
Important precision:
These are the words of Companion Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr reporting a curse that occurred “upon the tongue of the Prophet.”
This narration concerns al-Hakam and his offspring. It does not necessarily include every individual belonging to the much wider Banu Umayyah tribe.
But it directly destroys the suggestion that the authentic Sunni corpus contains no Prophetic curse connected with the Umayyad ruling family.
Al-Hakam’s offspring included Marwan, and through Marwan came the ruling Marwanid dynasty.
The article’s argument does not even address this Sahih-level material.
5. A HASAN SUNNI REPORT: THE FIRST PERSON TO ALTER THE PROPHET’S SUNNAH WOULD BE FROM BANU UMAYYAH
Abu Dharr reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
Arabic:
أَوَّلُ مَنْ يُغَيِّرُ سُنَّتِي رَجُلٌ مِنْ بَنِي أُمَيَّةَ.
Variant:
أَوَّلُ مَنْ يُبَدِّلُ سُنَّتِي رَجُلٌ مِنْ بَنِي أُمَيَّةَ.
English:
“The first person to alter my Sunnah will be a man from Banu Umayyah.”
Sunni references:
Ibn Abi Shaybah, al-Musannaf, hadith 35877/37027 depending upon edition.
Ibn Abi ‘Asim, al-Awa’il, report 63.
Al-Dulabi, al-Kuna wa al-Asma’, report 922.
Abu Nu‘aym, Tarikh Isbahan.
Al-Albani graded it:
إِسْنَادُهُ حَسَنٌ، رِجَالُهُ ثِقَاتٌ
“Its chain is Hasan; its narrators are trustworthy.”
References:
Al-Albani, al-Silsilah al-Sahihah, no. 1749.
Sahih al-Jami‘, no. 2582.
Complete honesty requires mentioning that al-Bayhaqi and earlier critics questioned whether Abu al-‘Aliyah directly heard from Abu Dharr. Ibn Kathir therefore regarded the route as defective.
So this report is not completely undisputed.
The fair wording is:
“Hasan according to al-Albani, but weakened by other scholars because of a possible disconnection.”
It should be used as supporting evidence—not as the sole foundation.
Nevertheless, it remains another Sunni narration whose text explicitly names Banu Umayyah.
THE ARTICLE’S LOGICAL ERROR
TwelverShia.net concludes by saying that some members of Banu Umayyah were praised or provided services to Islam.
But this is not an answer to the narrations.
Suppose, for argument’s sake, that particular Umayyad individuals were righteous.
That would not negate:
The Sahih warning regarding Banu Marwan’s young rulers.
The Sahih identification of al-Hakam as “a cursed man.”
The authentic testimony that al-Hakam and his offspring were cursed upon the Prophet’s tongue.
The Hasan report that the first person to alter the Sunnah would be from Banu Umayyah.
A family, tribe or political dynasty may contain individual exceptions while still receiving a collective warning because of its dominant rulers and historical conduct.
The Qur’an repeatedly criticises communities collectively without requiring that every individual member be identical.
Therefore:
“Some Umayyads were good”
does not logically mean:
“No Umayyad branch or ruling family was condemned.”
THE STRAW-MAN DISTINCTION
There are two separate claims:
Claim One:
“The Prophet ﷺ cursed every single Umayyad individual, past and future, without exception.”
This universal formulation is not established by an uncontested Sahih narration.
Claim Two:
“The Prophet ﷺ condemned Umayyad rulers and branches, including Banu Marwan and the family of al-Hakam.”
This is established in authentic and Hasan Sunni reports.
TwelverShia.net attacks Claim One and then behaves as if Claim Two has also been disproved.
It has not.
THE COMPLETE SUNNI RECORD
From Sahih al-Bukhari:
The destruction of the Ummah would occur through foolish young Qurayshi rulers, with the narration itself placing Banu Marwan in the position of the likely fulfilment.
From Musnad Ahmad, al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani:
Al-Hakam ibn Abi al-‘As was identified as:
رَجُلٌ لَعِينٌ
“A cursed man.”
Its chain was graded authentic according to Muslim’s standard.
From Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr through an authentic Sunni chain:
لَعَنَ اللَّهُ الْحَكَمَ وَمَا وَلَدَ عَلَى لِسَانِ نَبِيِّهِ
“Allah cursed al-Hakam and his offspring upon the tongue of His Prophet.”
From the Abu Dharr report, graded Hasan by al-Albani:
أَوَّلُ مَنْ يُغَيِّرُ سُنَّتِي رَجُلٌ مِنْ بَنِي أُمَيَّةَ
“The first person to alter my Sunnah will be a man from Banu Umayyah.”
And concerning the general Abu Barzah report:
It was graded Hasan by the editor of Musnad Abi Ya‘la.
Al-Haythami gave its narrators a favourable assessment.
Abu Hamzah was included by Ibn Hibban in al-Thiqat, used by Muslim and classified as maqbul by Ibn Hajar.
Therefore, its status is disputed—not unanimously weak and certainly not fabricated.
THE FINAL VERDICT
TwelverShia.net correctly identified one translation error:
The Companion was Abu Barzah, not Abu Dharr.
It also has a legitimate technical objection to al-Hakim’s claim that the report met the precise conditions of both al-Bukhari and Muslim.
But its remaining conclusion is selective and misleading.
It falsely claims that Abu Hamzah received no classical recognition.
It ignores the Hasan grading of the Abu Ya‘la chain.
It ignores al-Haythami’s favourable assessment.
Most importantly, it ignores independent Sahih and Hasan Sunni reports concerning Banu Marwan, al-Hakam ibn Abi al-‘As and his offspring.
The most accurate conclusion is:
There is no need to claim that every individual Umayyad was cursed without exception.
The authentic Sunni evidence is already powerful enough:
The Prophet ﷺ warned of the Ummah’s destruction through rulers connected in Sahih al-Bukhari’s narration to Banu Marwan.
He identified al-Hakam ibn Abi al-‘As as a cursed man.
An authentic Companion report states that al-Hakam and his offspring were cursed upon the Prophet’s tongue.
A Hasan Sunni report states that the first person to alter the Prophetic Sunnah would be from Banu Umayyah.
Therefore, the claim that authentic Sunni literature contains no serious Prophetic condemnation of the Umayyad ruling house is demonstrably false.
Weakening one disputed narration does not erase all the other authentic evidence.
Did the Prophet ﷺ Condemn Banu Umayyah?
Primary Category :
Secondary Category :
Loading comments...