“Those who split up their Religion, and become (mere) Sects,- each party rejoicing in that which is with itself!” (Qur’an 30:32)
﷽
Well, if you haven’t heard of them by now, know that they are coming to a masjid near you!
We suspect Neo-Umayyadism predates the Syrian civil war, but that conflict certainly accelerated it.
We really wanted to be the ones to break the story to you, but it seems we were beaten to the punch.
Although the following article addresses Neo-Umayyadism on a surface level, it doesn’t go much deeper than that.
https://www.syriaintransition.com/en/home/archive/issue-23/the-new-umayyads
First and foremost, what is Neo-Umayyadism? It is a romanticized idea of the ideal Islamic state — a vision of when the so-called “real” and “orthodox” Muslims were at their peak. It is fiercely defensive of anything related to the Umayyads. This includes, but is not limited to, Mu’awiya I, Yazid I, al-Hajjaj bin Yusuf, Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad, Marwan I, etc.
They see the Umayyad dynasty as the peak of Muslim potential — a period when Islam was free of Alidism, esotericism, and Shi’ism in all its forms.
They see the majority of Sunni Muslims as products of the Abbasid dynasty. They strongly believe that a Shi’ification of Sunnism took place under the Abbasids. They firmly believe that “Abbasid Sunnism” is a “gateway drug” that can lead any nominal Sunni into becoming a full-fledged Zaydi or Imami, etc.
There is certainly some underlying truth to their claims.
In our interactions with such people, they have gone so far as to accuse Shu’ayb ibn Muharram al-Albani al-Arna’ut, Ali ʿIzz ad-Din Abū al-Ḥasan ibn Muḥammed ash-Shaybānī, and even Aḥmad ibn Muḥammed ibn Ḥanbal himself of Shi’ism!
They see themselves as a bulwark against any Shi’i-led political influence.
They show young men this map and say to them, in effect:
“At its height, during the years 661 to 750, the caliphate was 11.1 million square kilometers, making it one of the largest contiguous empires in world history. It was an empire where the praise of Ali and his household was not central at all.”
“All that went away when the cursed Abbasids came along! The Ummah to this day is under their grip!”
Whereas a normative Sunni by today’s standards would recoil at being called a “Nasibi,” these people wear it as a badge of honour! They embrace it and wear it as a perfume whose aroma they hope reaches the nostrils of all who have the least favourable thing to say about Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib.
This movement is particularly strong in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq. It has gained traction in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, and Egypt.
Do not think that the reach of this movement is limited to the Middle East. That is a far cry from the truth. As one brother mentioned to us regarding its reach in Indonesia, where a marker of one’s true Sunnism is to name one’s child Yazid or Mu’awiya — or at the very least to have these in their full name.
Abu Bakr and Umar will not do, because the “Abbasid Sunnis” — whom they (the Umayyad Sunnis) see as Crypto-Shi’i — name their children Abu Bakr and Umar.
For the Umayyad Sunni, the Caliphs were four: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Mu’awiya.
From the historical and academic perspective, this is true for the Proto-Sunni.
Whereas in our (Ibāḍī) normal interactions with Sunni Muslims, they recoil and are shocked to find that certain companions of the Blessed Messenger (saw) had a hand in the assassination of Uthman ibn Affan; these Umayyad Sunnis have no problem accepting this.
In fact, one of the arguments against the sincerity of Mu’awiya is that the opponents of the Umayyads ask: “Why didn’t he track down and go after those who killed Uthman ibn Affan, then?”
These Umayyad Sunnis respond: “He did exactly that! Starting with Muhammed ibn Abi Bakr [the son of Abu Bakr], who had his head removed and was desecrated by being stuffed into the carcass of a dead donkey and set on fire!”
They are quite prepared to give a list of all those whom they accuse of having a hand in the assassination of Uthman ibn Affan, and how Mu’awiya and his proxies executed them one by one.
You see, dear reader — and you may want to sit down for this one — in their view, Ali ibn Abu Talib was, and is, a Kharijite, and everyone who supported him was, and is, a Kharijite!
These people, from what we have seen, tend for the most part to follow the Maliki school, the Salafi school, and the Hanbali school. However, there is real tension when the issue of the accusation of Ahmad ibn Hanbal being a Shi’i, or having Shi’i sympathies, comes up.
They have their own shaykhs and teachers, and for the most part these tend to stay in the background (due to some of their more controversial takes), even among Sunnis who share hostility and disdain towards Shi’is.
However, for those who want to dip their toes in the water, you can follow https://x.com/saber_mashhour on X, or see his YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFYxcI3NcbZUKyjtsfgVSiA
We can give you one free sample of one interaction between us (Ibāḍī) and these Umayyad Sunnis. You will not fail to notice a single reply from any other Sunni to this man, even though he is making a strong accusation against a major Sunni scholar.
This was an exchange in which one of our brothers defended the noble companion Hurqus ibn Zuhair (ra) from the vicious attacks of these people!
To read more on Hurqus ibn Zuhair (ra):
@UthmanAbw (notice the name Uthman — why, of course) says:
“Ibn al-Athir is a malicious, resentful Shiite like you, so don’t try to speculate. And he cites al-Tabari, may Allah have mercy on him. Al-Tabari, may Allah have mercy on him, doesn’t speak without a chain of narration and is lenient in transmission. It’s clear that the malicious Ibn al-Athir chose what pleased him and cut the chain so we wouldn’t critique the narration and know its truth.”
Prima Qur’an Comments: What a feral little otter pup! However, these gentlemen would be in for a treat once they read the following:
‘Ali told one of his followers named al-Ashtar: “I told you that I assigned to Muhammed bin Abi Bakr the governorship (of Egypt); (but) these Khawarij have revolted against him.” Thus, according to ‘Ali, Mu’awiya and his followers were the Khawarij.
Ali identifies Mu’awiya as the Khawarij!
Sources: Al-Tabari, Al-Ta’rikh, vol. 6, p. 31; https://www.kalamullah.com/Books/The%20History%20Of%20Tabari/Tabari_Volume_17.pdf
So, maybe now that this post is public, someone will rush to the comment section on X to go and scold UthmanAbw.
Not all Sunni scholars are asleep. Shaykh Al-Diddu has taken notice of this and spoke about it here:
Translation as follows:
“The idea of Nusb (enmity towards Ali and his family) and the innovation of Nusb that has emerged now has led many people in Sham (Syria), for example, to say: ‘We are Umayyads, and our affiliation is entirely to Banu Umayyah; our history began with Abdul Malik bin Marwan, and our allegiance is to Yazid bin Mu’awiyah,’ and so on. There is no doubt that in this there are great exaggerations and excesses. For this Ummah is one Ummah, and its best are the noble Companions, then those who follow them in goodness, and so on. Just as the Rafidah (Shia) slander Mu’awiyah bin Abi Sufyan (may Allah be pleased with him, his father, and his mother), and slander Amr bin al-As (may Allah be pleased with him), and slander a number of the Companions, likewise these Nawasib (those hostile to the Prophet’s family) slander the noble Family of the Prophet (Ahl al-Bayt). Both of these two groups have strayed from the right path.” — Shaykh Al-Diddu
But unfortunately, Shaykh Al-Diddu is a product of Abbasid Sunnism — the very kind that this Neo-Umayyad Sunnism warns about.
Some Sunnis have even gone so far as to disavow certain books altogether!
Like the following, which is not considered a controversial attribution:
“The people of Sham (Syria) sought Abu Musa, so he fled to Mecca; then Amr and the people of Sham headed to Mu’awiyah, so they pledged allegiance to him as Caliph, and Sharik returned to Ibn Abbas. And Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) — when he prayed the morning prayer, he would say in his Qunut: ‘O Allah, curse Mu’awiyah, and Amr, and Abu al-A’war, and Habib, and Abd al-Rahman bin Khalid, and al-Dahhak bin Qais, and al-Walid.’ This reached Mu’awiyah, so when Ali cursed [them]…
[Highlighted Text]
“He (Mu’awiyah) would curse Ali, and Ibn Abbas, and al-Hasan, and al-Hussein, and al-Ash’ath.”
Source: Abu Abdullah Muhammed bin Muslim bin Qutaybah al-Dinawari, Al-Imamah wal-Siyasah (The Imamate and Politics), ed. Dr. Ali Shiri, vol. 1 (Beirut: Dar al-Adwaa al-Haqq), p. 210 (d. 276 AH).
You can research the current controversy surrounding this work yourself. Many scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah have authenticated this book as the work of al-Dinawari. Some scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah have shown disappointment that he spoke about these matters concerning the Companions.
It used to be that many Salafis and Wahhabis would create a huge fuss over this attribution. However, now that the Umayyad Sunnis are in town, they have put their hand over the mouths of the others and told them to quiet down. They see in this work an angle they can utilize to their benefit.
From the Abbasid Sunni (majority Sunni) position, this is not a good look. Ali is said to specifically be cursing Mu’awiyah and Amr and a host of others. That just cannot be, because we need to show the world a highly edited version of past events. Shi’is love this work because it shows Ali cursing Mu’awiyah and Amr. Ironically, the Umayyad Sunnis love it for the same reason that the Shi’is do! Not that they like or approve of the cursing of Mu’awiyah and Amr — no.
Read the text again. It shows Ali as the initiator of such a practice!
This reached Mu’awiyah, so when Ali cursed [them]… “He (Mu’awiyah) would curse Ali, and Ibn Abbas, and…
So when we come to the following hadith, in which Mu’awiyah asks Amir b. Sa’d b. Abi Waqqas why he didn’t curse Abu Turab (Ali), the Umayyad Sunnis will smile and say, “Of course! He is only responding in kind to the curses directed towards him!”
This hadith is found in full here:
https://sunnah.com/muslim:2404d
In the middle of all the sectarian fighting going on, someone had the idea to release a film on the fitna itself!
In this particular moving scene, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to imagine what goes on in the head of some people. The Umayyad Sunnis see themselves as the people of truth. Ali and his supporters are the Kharijites who assassinated Uthman ibn Affan unjustly. So replace Mu’awiyah with Syria, and replace the assassination of Uthman with images of widows and children crying for justice.
Ali and his supporters are seen as the protagonists. Today they could be Iran, or even the Abbasid Sunnis with their perceived esoteric doctrines and love of Ali’s bloodline.
We could be mistaken (someone please correct us), but for dramatic effect we believe the video below has ʿAqīl ibn Abī Ṭālib — who is the full elder brother of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib — and ʿUbayd Allāh ibn ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, the son of Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, or ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ, flanking Mu’awiyah. Both Ali’s brother and Umar’s son fought against Ali.
However, do you know what this @Abu_Sufyan33 or whoever put the Arabic text in the beginning say?
They say this is the fourth commander of the faithful. Mu’awiyah! When it shows Imam Ali do you know what it says? Imam ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib the leader of the Khawarij!
The text in the above clip is translated below:
“We seek nearness to Allah through this war. By Allah, we are not fighting except those who wronged Uthman, and Allah does not love the wrongdoers!!! These people killed their Caliph unjustly and aggressively! They killed the Caliph of the Messenger of Allah, Uthman bin Affan! And they command us not to fight so are you pleased with that?” — Mu’awiyah as depicted in the film.
“Indeed, this day is the day of distinction between truth and falsehood. Those who fight us today reject the pledge of allegiance! They understand [only] wealth and power as the greatest! So will you leave the soldiers of falsehood to rise over you today?” — ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib as depicted in the film.
“O killers of Uthman, if you come out to us, we will fight you to the exclusion of the rest of the Muslims! Come out, O killers! O Allah, bring out the killers! How could you, Ali?! Allah is the Greatest!!! Allah is the Greatest!!! Allah is the Greatest!!! Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest!!! Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest!!! Allah is the Greatest.” — Mu’awiyah as depicted in the film.
Then, of course, the moving nasheed:
Allah’s blessings upon Sham (Syria) through the Banu Umayyah,
They swept away the filth of the tyrants, so it became green and radiant.
When soldiers from the land of Idlib came to it,
They chanted “Allah is the Greatest,” fearing not death.
They blocked its liberation and let all mankind know,
We have returned to Damascus with pride after defeating the arrogant.
They chanted “Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest,” fearing not death.
They took the enemies by surprise at dawn when they attacked fiercely.
They conquered Aleppo [Shahba] at noon, then called out to mankind.
Immediately they found the march, and headed for the land of wine [referring to the Homs/Hama region].
They conquered Hama at night, they conquered Hama at night, then called out, “O my enemy.”
They conquered Hama at night, then called out, “O my enemy.”
They conquered it, then marched on to prostrate in Al-Khalidiya.
They marched towards Sham, marched towards Sham, marched towards Sham,
And they returned it to Umayyad rule, and the era of the regime ended.
So it became free, the era of the regime ended, so it became free.
Allah’s blessings upon Sham through the Banu Umayyah,
Like eagles sweeping away the filth of the tyrants, so it became green and radiant.
May Allah Forgive the Ummah.
May Allah Guide the Ummah.
