The following article is written by a Sunni brother From: mas@Cadence.COM (Masud Khan) Subject: Ahl al-Sunnah and Ibn Taymiya Ibn Taymiya and his writings and those of his students have recently been used by "Wahabbis" and "Reformists" to provide evidence against madhaib and the Aqueedah of Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jamaat (The Four Schools). As can be seen from the following brief biography, taken from "The Reliance of the Traveller" which is an AUTHENTIC book of fiqh, Ibn Taymiya (Rahim-ullah) was considered an innovaitor and a heretic and some scholars went so far as to declare his writings as Kufr. ---- Ibn Taymiya is Ahmad Ibn Abd al-Salaam ibn Abdullah, Abu al-Abbas Taqi al-Din ibn Taymiya al-Harrani, born in Harran, east of Damascus, in 661/1263. A famous Hanbali scholar in Qur'anic exegesis (tafsir), hadith and jurisprudence, Ibn Taymiya was a voracious reader and author of great personal courage who was endowed with a compelling writing style and a keen memory. Dhahabi wrote of him, "I never saw anyone faster at recalling the Qur'anic verses dealing with subjects he was discussing, or anyone who could remember hadith texts more vividly." Dhahabi estimates that his legal opinions on various subjects amount to three-hundred or more volumes. He was imprisoned during much of his life in Cairo, Alexandria, and Damascus for his writings, scholars of his time accusing him of believing Allah to be a corporeal entity because of what he mentioned in his al-aqida al-Hamawiyya and al-Wasitiyya and other works, such as that Allah's 'hand', 'foot', 'shin' and 'face' are literal (haqiqi) attributes, and that He is upon the Throne in person. The error in this is suggesting such attributes are literal is an innovation and unjustifiable inferance from the Qur'anic and hadith texts that mention them, for the way of early Muslims was mere acceptance of such expressions on faith without saying how they are meant, and without additions, subtractions, or substituting meanings imagined to be synonyms, while acknowledging Allah's absolute transcedence beyond the characteristics of created things, in conformity with the Qur'anic verse "There is nothing whatsoever like unto him" [Qur'an 42:11]. As for figurative interpretations that preserve the divine transcendence, scholars of tenents of faith have only had recourse to them in times when men of reprehensible innovation (bid'a), quoting hadiths and Qur'anic verses, have caused confusion in the minds of common Muslims as to whether Allah has attributes like those of His creation or whether He is transcendently beyond any image conceivable to the minds of men. Scholars' firmness in condemning those who have raised such confusions has traditionally been very uncompromising, and this is no doubt the reason that a number of the Imams of the Shafi'i school, among them Taqi al-Din Subki, Ibn Hajar Haytami and al-Izz ibn Jama'a, gave formal legal opinions (fatawa) that Ibn Taymiya was misguided and misguiding in tenents of faith, and warned people from accepting his theories. The Hanafi scholar Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari has written "Whoever thinks that all the scholars of his time joined in a single conspiracy against him from personal envy should rather impugn their own intelligence and understanding, after studying the repugnance of his deviations in beliefs and works, for which he was asked to repent time after time and moved from prison to prison until he passed on to what he'd sent ahead." While few deny that Ibn Taymiya was a copious and eloquent writer and hadith scholar, his career, like that of others, demonstrates that a man may be outstanding in one field and yet suffer from radical deficiencies in another, the most reliable index of which is how a field's Imams regard his work in it. By this measure, indeed, by the standards of all previous Ahl al-Sunnah scholars, it is clear that despite voluminous and influential written legacy, Ibn Taymiya cannot be considered an authority on tenents of faith (aqueeda), a field in which he made mistakes profoundly incompatible with the beliefs of Islam, as also with a number of his legal views that violated the scholarly consensus (ijma) of Sunni Muslims. It should be remembered that such matters are not the province of personal reasoning (ijtihad), whether Ibn Taymiya considered them to be so out of sincere conviction, or whether simply because, as Imam Subki said, "his learning exceeded his intelligence." He died in Damascus in 728/1328. Taken From: English/Arabic Traditional Sunni Manual of Shari`ah _______________________________________________ | Reliance of the Traveller (`Umdat al-Salik): | | A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law (Fiqh) | | By Ahmad ibn al-Naqib al-Misri (d.769/1386) | | Translated by Noah Ha Mim Keller | | English/Arabic (dual columns) | | xxii+1232 pages, Hardcover | | Published by Sunna Books 1991, 1993 | |_______________________________________________| `Umdat al-Salik in Arabic with facing English Text, Commentary, Appendices, Biographical Notes, Bibliography and Index *`Umdat al-Salik is a traditional Fiqh manual by Ibn al-Naqib (d.769/1386). It summerizes the conclusions of Imam al-Nawawi (d.676/1277),the great Hadith scholar and Shafi`i jurisprudent. It is based mainly on al-Nawawi's Fiqh works; al-Majmu` and al-Minhaj. *Reliance of the Traveller contains `Umdat al-Salik in Arabic with facing English translation, Commentary, Appendices, Biographical Notes about every person mentioned (391 biographies), Bibliography of each work mentioned (136 works), and a detailed subject Index (95 pages). The Appendices form an integral part of the book and present readers with original texts and translation from classical works by Imam al-Nawawi, al-Ghazali, al-Dhahabi and other famous scholars on many Islamic topics such as Islamic Law (Fiqh), Principles of Jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh), Faith (Iman/`Aqidah), Spirituality (Tazkiyah/Suluk). Of the 136 works drawn upon in its commentary and appendices, 134 are in the original Arabic. The sections and paragraphs have been numbered to facilitate cross-reference which is utilized extensively. *Noah Ha Mim Keller is an American Muslim who produced this work in Damascus and Amman from 1982 to 1990. He studied the book word by word in the traditional way with two Shaykh-s (teachers) over a period of five years after which they gave him their written warrant (ijazah) to expound the book and translate it into English. *Certificate: "...We certify that the above-mentioned translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community (Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama`a)..." Islamic Research Academy (Majma` al-Buhuth al-Islamiyyah), al-Azhar. al-Azhar is the Muslim world's most prestigious institution of higher Islamic learning, Cairo. _______________________________________________________________________ The following article is written by a Sunni brother From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Walid Dabbous) Subject: Re: Ahl al-Sunnah and Ibn Taymiya Dear brothers, as-Salamou alykum wa rahmatoullahi wa barakatouh, I agree with brother Masud when he says that we can NOT rely on ibn taymiyya in matters os aqueedah in the end part of his posting (I only pur the beginning here above). Someone was defending ibn taymiyya a few weeks, so please find a contribution on this subject taken from the aqueedah of Ahl-es-Sunna wal Jamaa (ashaira wa maturidiyya). In article <email@example.com>, U58369@uicvm.uic.edu writes: |> Assalamo Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatu |> |> Concerning the accusation of Ibn Taymiyyah that he attempted to ascribe human |> qualities to Allah Subhana wa Ta'ala: Some of the people who lived in the same |> era as Ibn Taymiyyah accused him of this and they had no proof to back up their |> accusations whatsoever. The people after them received this information from |> what Ibn Batutah collected. As most of us know, Ibn Batutah was not a scholar |> either of hadith OR aquidah. Besides, he never met nor heard Ibn Taymiyyah |> speak. The biography of Ibn Taymiyyah shows that he always strongly opposed |> those people who attempted to ascribe human qualities to Allah Subhana waTa'ala |> (See Hayat Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah by Muhammad al-Baytar). You can find |> more proofs in Ibn Taymiyyah's book, Sharh Hadith An-Nuzool (Commentary on the |> Hadith of Nuzool). There are many proofs that Ibn Taymiyyah had the same be- |> lief and aquidah as the Sahabah and the scholars of As-Salaf. To show just one |> example: Ibn Taymiyyah says in his book, al-Aquidah al-Wasitiya, pg. 9, ...and |> >from the belief in Allah is the belief in what Allah ascribed for himself in |> the Quran and in the Sunnah without falsifying or denying or "takeef" (ie-to |> question how his attributes are). And he quotes this ayah from the Quran, Sur- |> ah al-Shurah, Ayah 11: |> ...there is nothing whatsoever like unto Him and He is the one |> that hears and sees. |> And Ibn Taymiyyah explains that the Muslims from Ahl al-Sunnah wa Jama'ah |> don't deny |> what Allah ascribed to Himself & don't falsify His words. And they believe |> in all His names and ayat. And they don't make comparisons between Allah and |> his creatures because there is nothing like Him. And Allah knows best about |> everything and about Himself. |> This is one of many examples that proves that Ibn Taymiyyah never claimed |> "tashbeeh" (ie-never attempted to ascribe human qualities to Allah). |> I read many of ibn taymiyya books and the books wrote by other scholars to refute him. It is very clear that ibn taymiyya was refuted by the majority of scholars. he was accused not to belong to the Salafi school. I showed this in a previous message and I will repost this message soon in sha'a Allah. The scholars of Ahl eSunna wal Jamaa from the 4 schools refuted his opinions and ibn taymiyya always tried to escape from punishment by saying the 2 shahadas. ibn taymiyya and his disciple ibn aljawziyya (different from the great hanbali scholar Ibn alJawzi) are not considered to belong to the salafi school. ibn taymiyya was put in jail because of many of his wrong teachings concerning the aqeeda. He was not put in jail by some tyranic ruler. He was put in jail to preserve the people from his ideas. (See Rihlat Ibn Battoutah where ibn battoutah said: when i came to damascus there was a man called ibn taymiyya speaking about religion science, but there was something strange in his mind... Once he was doing "kutbat aljuma'a" and he said yanzilou rabbuna ila assam'a adunya, then he went down two steps on the minbar and he said "kanuzuli hatha" (like my descending). the people of damascus jumped on him and wanted to kill him. al-'imam al-mujtahid asSubkiy wrote many books to refute ibn taymiya. This event of ibn Taymiya is registered by the bokks of history and they are available and may be the Muslims need to read them or some of their contents. Ibn Taymiyah was put in jail by the agreement of the Muslim scholars of Egypt and ashSham. His imprisonment came as a result of the ijma^ of the scholars of his age.. In addition, not only ibn battouta spoke about ibn taymiyya but a lot of scholars wrote books and letters to warn the people from this man. i have a long list of these Ulema and their books. I have a lot of their books also. Among the great Ulemas from ahl es-Sunna wal jama'a who refuted him and decalred that his is out of the right way of islam: 1) "aSubki" in his "aRasae'l aSubkiyya firrad ala ibn taymiyya", 2) ibn hajar alhaytami, in al-Fatawa al-Hadithiyya 3) Abou hayyan alandaloussi in an-Nahr almaadd 4) ibn hajar alaskalani in fath albari page 410 fascicle 13 kitab atawhid. from the 12th hegire century 5) Sheikh ahmad ibn Zayni dihlane in finat alwahhabiyya, 6) sheikh Muhammad ibn darwiche al-Hout from beirut in his book Rasail fi akidat ahl-esunna waljamaa. from the 20th century 7) sheikh muhammad Ouwayss from alAzhar in his book ibn taymiyya laysa salafiyyan, and many others. In fact, there are many sayings of ibn taymiyya related to TAJSIM, in his own books. He pretended in his fatawa, (al-asma'a was-sifat) that the ahl-esSunna wal Jamaa did not refute Mujassima (those who attributed body to Allah). He even said that there isn't any single text from the Salaf to refute mujassima. While in fact, al-'imam Ahmad said that the person commits kufr if he says Allah is a body (jism) even if he says that Allah is a body not like other bodies (jism la kalajsam). He was quoted saying that "The terms are taken from language and al-'Islam and the people of language have put this term (body) on something that has length, width, thickness, image, structure and components and it was not narrated in ash-shari^ah (Islamic law). Therefore, it is invalid and cannot be used" (end of quotation of Imam Ahmad). al-bayhaqiyy narrated that about Ahmad in his book manaqib Ahmad and az-Zarkashiyy narrated the first saying of Ahmad. Notice that Ahmad did not accept the term (body not like other bodies) because it does not befit Allah and the language does not accept that. I also quoted the saying of al-Imam al-Ash^ary from Kitab An-Nawader: "If someone belives that Allah is a body then he ignores Allah and he is a kafir". To be continued.. In sha'a Allah Walid Dabbous ************************************************************************** Ibn Taymiyyah: Ibn Taymiyah (d. 728/1328) was a theologian who was sent to the jail by the consensus (Ijma'a) of prominent Sunni scholars of his time (in Egypt and Damascus) because of his heretical beliefs. He was considered an innovator and a heretic and some Sunni scholars went so far as to declare his writings as Kufr. Now he has become a Muslim scholar for Wahhabis! I don't want to go into the details of the charges against Ibn Taymiyah which was raised by prominent Sunni scholars about his heretical beliefs such as his idea that Allah has limbs and these limbs are physical (Haqiqi) and so on since it needs thousands of lines by itself. Among those Sunni scholars who denounced him, are Taqi al-Din Subki, Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ibn Hajar al- Asqalani, al-Izz ibn Jama'a, Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari, Abu Hayyan al- Andalusi, Shaykh Ahmad Ibn Zayni dihlani, Shaykh Mohammad Ouwayss from al- Azhar, and many others. In their fatwa, they called Ibn Taymiyah as a misguided person who was deserting the Sunni tenets. I refer Sunni brothers to their authentic Fiqh book called "The Reliance of the Traveller" for a biography of Ibn Taymiyah. ************************ Now, as for Ibn Taymiyyah: A number of prominent Muslim scholars of great repute -have- in fact pronounced kufr on Ibn Taymiyyah, although the majority of scholars of ahl-al-Sunnah have not pronounced kufr on him. Many have, however, criticized him for innovation (bid`ah). Among those who criticized him are -Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani (FatH al-Baaree, [Vol 12, p202], [V 13, p 410]), -Ibn Hajar al-Haytami ([al-Fataawaa al-Hadeethiyyah p116, p203], [Haashiyah, p443, p489]) -Taqi al-Deen al-Subki ([al-sayf al-Saqeel], [al-durrah al- maDiyyah] Others include Taj al-Deen al-Subki, al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi, Ibn Daqeeq al-`Eed and Zayn al-Deen al-`Araaqee. Firstly, we should realize that those scholars who pronounced kufr on him based their verdicts on very real evidence from Ibn Taymiyyah's own books. One of the primary contentions of these group of scholars was that Ibn Taymiyyah believed in
- eternity of the universe, which is that he said that some kind of creation always existed. Also a large number of scholars, of both former and latter times, have criticized some of Ibn Taymiyyah's opinions as innovations. It cannot be denied that in some issues, Ibn Taymiyyah (though he may have had good intentions) has contradicted the consensus (ijmaa`) of the Muslim scholars. Some of these issues are doctrinal (e.g. he believed that Allah can be described with (limits), compare this to the mainstream Sunni creed as presented by Imam al-Shafi`ee, for example in , p8, or Abu Haneefah (al-fiqh al-akbar, p57), al-Tahawi (al- `aqeeedah al-TaHaawiyyah), al-Bayhaqi (al-Asmaa' waS-Sifaat, p410), etc), others are related to fiqh (jurisprudence) (e.g. his opinion that three divorces pronounced together do not all take effect - this fatwaa incidentally was the reason that Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali forsook Ibn Taymiyyah). ************************************************************************** The following article is written by a Sunni brother. This also shows the fact that ortodox Sunnis beleive that Allah can be seen but we don't know how? He talks but we don't know how? He is stablished on the trone but we don't know how? On the other hand Wahhabis attribute physical entities to it, while shia do not beleieve Allah has hand at all. Shia also beleive he can not be seen at all, and so on. From: mas@Cadence.COM (Masud Khan) Subject: The Aqeedah of Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l Jamma'ah Date: 3 May 1994 23:13:19 GMT THE AQEEDAH OF AHL AL-SUNNAH WA'L JAMA'AH - in contrast with the Aqueedah of the "Salafi" sect. What follows are some examples of the anthropomorphic nature of the neo- 'Salafite' Aqeedah, and how it varies from the actual Aqeedah transmitted to us by the earliest generations of the Muslim Ummah. Today's 'Salafiyya' claim to have the original and pristine Aqeedah of the first three pious generations of Islam; but in reality it is the Aqeedah of the likes of Ibn Taymiyya and his disciple Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah when it comes to describing Allah and His attributes and so on. The following four points points have derived directly from the works of the "Salafi" scholars (al- Harras and al-Uthaimin) themselves. In comparison to these points I have also quoted from the Aqeedah of Imam Abu Ja'far al-Tahawi's [d. 321 AH; Rahimullah] and others for you to compare and contrast. Imam Tahawi's Aqeedah represents the Aqeedah as transmitted by the scholars of his Madhab (which represents in the main the Aqeedah of the Salaf-us-Salihin) - Imam al-Azam Abu Hanifa, Imam Abu Yusuf and Imam al-Shaybani (Allah mercy be upon them) - three of the greatest Ahl al-Sunnah scholars. 1 The Vision of Allah in the Hereafter Imam al-Tahawi (Rahimullah) said with regard to this issue in "al-Aqeedah at-Tahaweeah" [English trans. by I.A. A'zami, under the title 'Islamic Belief'], "Belief of a man in the 'seeing of Allah by the people of the Garden' is not correct if he imagines what it is like, or interprets it according to his own understanding, since the interpretation of his 'seeing' or indeed, the meaning of any subtle phenomena which are in the realm of Lordship, is by avoiding its interpretation and strictly adhering to the submission. This is the din of Muslims. Anyone who does not guard himself against negating the attributes of Allah, or likening Allah to something else (anthropomorphism), has gone astray and has failed to understand Allah's glory, because our Lord, the Glorified and the Exhalted, can only possibly be described in terms of Oneness and Absolute Singularity and no creation is in anyway like Him." In contrast, Muhammad Khalil Harras (a 'Salafi' scholar) said in his "Sharh- ul-Aqeedat-il-Wasitiyyah (of Ibn Taymiyya, pg. 73): "The Mutazila deny the vision. This denial is based on refusing to accept Allah in any direction for it is necessary for a thing being seen to be in the direction of the seer.." Thus, al- Harras claims that for Allah to be seen in the Hereafter, He (Allah) must have a direction!! In comparison, Imam al-Shahrastani [d. 1153 CE; Rahimullah] said in his "Kitab al-Milal wa'l Nihal (Muslim Sects and Division, trans. by A,K, Kazi and J.G. Flynn, pg. 85): "Imam Ash'ari (Rahimullah) says, however, that the vision of God does not entail direction, place, form, or face to face encounter either by impingement of rays or by impression, all of which are impossible." 2 The Speech of Allah Imam al-Tahawi (Ramimullah) said: "The Qur'an is the word of Allah. It came from Him as speech without it being possible to say how...(next ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ paragraph): It is not created, as is the speech of human beings, and anyone who hears it and claims that it is human speech has become an unbeliever. Allah warns him and censures him and threatens him with Fire when He says, Exalted is He: 'I will burn him in the Fire.' [al-Muddaththir 74:26] When Allah threatens with the Fire those who say 'This is just human speech' [al- Muddaththir 74:25] we know for certain that it is speech of the Creator of mankind and it is totally unlike the speech of mankind." In contrast al-Harras stated in "Sharh-ul-aqeedat-il-wasitiyyah of Ibn Taymiyya" [pg. 87]: "His statement, voice and speech take place with letters and sounds. One to whom He (ie Allah) speaks he hears. This includes the refutation of the stand taken by the Ash'aria (e.g. Imam al-Ghazali, Rahimullah, in his 'Ihya 'ulum al-din') that speech of Allah is primeval and is without letter or sound." NB- Imam ibn Tahir al-Baghdadi (d. 429/1037; Rahimullah) said with regards to this issue: "Another group (of anthropomorphists) is represented by those who draw a resemblance between God's Word and the word of His creatures. They hold thatGod's speech consists of sounds and letters belonging to the same species as the sounds and letters which are ascribed to mankind." (vide: 'al-Farq bayn al-firaq', English trans. by A.Halkin: as 'Moslem Schisms and Sects', v2, p35) 3 Allah's Hands al -Harras stated without any definite proof (pg. 44, above reference): "How can 'hand' be interpreted to mean power when the text proves mentioning of palm, fingers, right and left, closing, opening, etc. which can happen only in the case of a real hand." Imam al-Tahawi said [no.34 in his above mentioned book]: "Anyone who describes Allah as being in anyway the same as a human being has become an ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ unbeliever. All those who grasp this will take heed and refrain from saying things such as unbelievers say, and they will know that He, in His attributes, is not like human beings." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 4 Allah's establishment on the Throne Imam Malik (Rahimullah) was asked about Allah's establishment on the Throne; he said: "Establishment (Istiwa) is known, the how of it is ^^^^^^^^^^ unknown, belief in it is obligatory, and questions about it are reprehensible innovation (bid'ah)." (see Reliance of the Traveller, pg. 854). In contrast, Muhammad as- Saleh al-'Uthaimin (a leading 'Saudi' scholar) said in 'The Muslim's Belief' (pg.11, this work was heard and approved by the foremost 'Saudi' Mufti - Abd al-Aziz ibn B'az, trans. M.H. al-Johani): "'His (Allah's) settling on the Throne' means that He is sitting in person on his Throne in a way that is becoming His majesty and Greatness. Nobody except He knows exactly how He is sitting." Imam al- Shahrastani (Rahimullah) stated that the leader of the heretical sect called the 'Karramites - Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Karram declared: "God is firmly seated on the Throne and that he is sitting in person on the upper side of it..." (Muslim Sects and Divisions, pg. 92 trans. A.Kazi and J.Flynn). The above are CLEAR proofs that the 'Salafi/Wahabi' interpretation of Allah (swt) is in essence athropomorphic, the claim that indivduals like Ibn Taymiyya, Bin Ba'z and al-Albani have the same Aqeedah as Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l Jama'ah is blatantly untrue and misleading to Muslims in genral.
Friday, April 20, 2012
In their pamphlet, to which we have responded hereby, the Wahabis have criticized Sunni Imams of Mombasa for conducting lectures in the Konzi Mosque on the first ten days of the month of Muharram. This is because, in accordance with Wahabi philosophy, by so doing the Sunni Imams will have “misled the Sunnis by imitating Shias”!
Before responding to this aversion, we need to let our readers note two important things. First, at their gatherings, the Sunni Imams, customarily, do not discuss the same subjects that Shias do at their Muharram gatherings. As a matter of fact, the Sunni Imams say exactly the opposite of what the Shias do! How then do they mislead their congregation, and in what way do they imitate the Shias?
Second, let the Sunnis not be fooled by such statements into believing that the Wahabis are one with them. For those Sunnis who do not, according to what Wahabis say and believe, concur with them, are no different from the Shias. All are not believers, but polytheists, and “therefore spilling their blood and confiscating their wealth is legitimate, despite the fact that they declare LA ILAHA ILLALLAH, say their prayers, fast and proclaim themselves to be Muslims” In other words, to Wahabis, all of us -- Shias and Sunnis alike -- are unbelievers! This is not a mere accusation, but has been categorically stated on page 179 of the book on the life of their Imam, calledMuhammad Bin Abdilwahhab: Muswlihun Madhluum wa Muftaraa Alayh, written by Ustadh Mas’ud An-Nadawii.
Has this Wahabi outcry regarding “imitating Shias” a recent practice, or has it been there before? The truth of the matter is that such propaganda was there before, though our Wahabis in Mombasa have come out with yet another inventive strategy that criticizes the Sunni Imams for not only imitating Shias, but also indulging in an activity that was not performed by the Prophet (S), and as such it is an innovation (bid’a).
At first sight, one would think that the Wahabis are genuinely out to do what the Prophet (S) practiced, and condemn what the Prophet abstained from. However, those who have a deep insight of Wahabism know that this is far from being the truth. Under the guise of love for the Prophet (S) the Wahabis promote their hatred toward the believers even if the latter truly abide by what the Prophet (S) used to do.
As a way of illustration, let us see what Ibn Taymiyya has said on this matter. Ibn Taymiyya is from their school of thought.; he lived for 67 years and died in the year 728 A.H. His thoughts had a deep influence on Muhammad bin Abdilwahhab who, with the help of King Saud’s wealth, succeeded in spreading this sect, more than Ibn Taymiyya himself. Ironically, during his life time, Ibn Taymiyya had failed to promote his sect because of the heavy opposition that he faced from his fellow sheikhs, who went to the extent of declaring him apostate!
In his book, Minhaajus Sunnah (Volume Two, page143), he says, “It is appropriate to discard those recommended acts(mustahabaat) when they are their (Shias’) trademark!” One such act that non-Shias have been urged to discard is the wearing of a ring in the right hand finger, despite the fact that the Prophet (S) himself used to do so. Why so? Simply because this tradition is customarily observed by Shias!
O my brothers! If Wahabis brand those who do things that the Prophet (S) did notdo as the innovators (ahlul bid’a), what title do we give to them for preventing people from doing what the Prophet (S) used to do merely because such deeds are observed faithfully by those whom the Wahabis do not like (i.e. the Shias)? You be the judges to decide between the Shias and the Wahabis as to who are the strict followers of the ways of theProphet (S) (ahlul sunna), and who are the innovators(ahlul bid’a).
All said and done, the motive behind Wahhabis’ demand to the Sunni Imams not to emulate Shias should be evaluated in light of what has been said so far. Perhaps, in conclusion, we may pause this question: Since Shias use their left hand to clean themselves after relieving their bowels, should Sunnis therefore stop using their left hands and, instead, use their right hands to clean themselves in the bathroom, just not to emulate Shias? One wonders how the Wahabis make their judgments!
The belief that the Prophet was infallible is a topic about which Muslims differ with one another. It is, however, the only factor that makes it compulsory on the Muslims to accept the Prophet's injunctions without any discussion or argument, especially since they believe that he does not speak out of his own desire but conveys the revelation from His Lord. They, otherwise, would not believe that the Prophet's statements and injunctions, beyond the text of the Holy Qur'an, are binding; instead, they are matters relevant to his own ijtihad.
But if they do uphold such a belief, feeling convinced that all affairs are referred to Allah, and that the Prophet is only a means to convey and to explain such affairs, they would then be Shi`as. Many sahaba came to be widely recognized as having adopted such a conviction. These are headed by Imam Ali, peace be upon him, who would not alter the Sunnah of the Prophet in the least, who regarded it as Allah's revelation; so, nobody can resort to his own personal view and ijtihad in the presence of the injunctions of Allah, Glory and Exaltation are His.
But if they believe that the Prophet is not infallible in his statements and actions, that infallibility is relevant only to the Holy Qur'an, and that besides all of that the Prophet is not different from any other human being: once he is right and once he is wrong. If they uphold such a belief, they would be belonging to "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" who say that it was alright for the sahaba and scholars to employ itjihad, even in the presence of the Prophet's statements and injunctions, and according to the dictates of the public interest, in the light of the circumstances, and according to the views of the ruler.
It needs no explanation that the righteous caliphs (with the exception of Imam Ali) did, indeed, follow their own personal views despite the presence of the Prophet's Sunnah. Then they went beyond that to apply the principle of ijtihad even in the presence of relevant Qur'anic texts. Their views, hence, came to be identified by "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" as binding injunctions (ahkam) which they require all Muslims to abide by them.
We have already discussed the ijtihad of Abu Bakr and Umar in our book With The Truthful and also in Ask Those Who Know, and we may write a book dedicated in its entirety to this subject, if Allah pleases.
We have also come to know that "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" add other types of ijtihad to the two major sources of Islamic legislation, namely the Qur'an and the Sunnah, including the "sunnah" of both shaykhs (Abu Bakr and Umar), and thesahabi's ijtihad. All of this is the result of their belief that the Prophet was not infallible, that he used to use his own judgment, and that some sahaba used to correct his views and make amends for his mistakes [Astaghfirullah!].
This clearly shows that "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" allege that the Prophet was a faulty person... Whether they know it or not, they, therefore, permit anyone to contradict or disobey him. Neither the Shari`a nor reason obligates anyone to obey a faulty person. In other words, as long as we think that such an individual is liable to err, we do not have to obey him. How can we obey what is wrong?
It also becomes clear to us, in contrast, that the Shi`as believe in the absolute infallibility of the Prophet, enforcing obedience to him because he is, from their viewpoint, is infallible. It is not permissible, the Shi`as advocate, to disobey him under any circumstance. Whoever contradicts and disobeys him does, in fact, contradict and disobey his Lord. It is to this principle that the Holy Qur'an refers in many verses such as these:
Say: If you love Allah, follow me: Allah will (then) love you and forgive your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (Holy Qur'an, 3:31)
This by necessity proves the fact that Shi`as are the ones who uphold the Prophet's Sunnah because of their belief that the Prophet is infallible and that following him is incumbent upon each and every Muslim. It also proves that "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" are distant from the Prophet's Sunnah due to their belief that the Prophet is fallible and that disobeying him is permissible.
In this chapter, we have to unveil to the researcher, in general terms, how "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" practically contradict most of the Prophet's traditions. In contrast, we will explain how only the Shi`as are the ones who uphold the Sunnah of the Prophet. This is why we justify our use of the title of this book as The Shi`as are Ahl al-Sunnah.
In this chapter, we wish to discuss the main issues which clarify for the researchers, more convincingly, the fact that "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" violated the teachings of Islam with regard to all what the Qur'an decrees and what the Messenger decided in his sacred Sunnah. This caused the misguidance of those of this nation and the setback that befell the Muslims leading, in the end, to their backwardness and suffering.
In my belief, the reason for the misguidance is rendered to one major factor: love for this world. Did not the Messenger of Allah say, "Loving this world tops every sin"? Loving this world is characterized by loving power and authority: for the sake of achieving political power, nations have been ruined, countries and lands have been reduced to rubble, rendering man more dangerous than wild beasts. It is the same meaning to which the Prophet refers when he said to his companions, "I do not fear for you that you will associate someone with Allah; rather, I fear for you that you dispute with one another."
This is why there is a need to study the subjects of caliphate and Imamate, or what we call nowadays the Islamic government system. It led to the worst calamity and catastrophe for Islam and its followers, bringing them peril and agony, misguidance and annihilation.
1) Islam's Government System
"Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" are of the view that the Messenger of Allah did not specify who to succeed him, leaving this issue subject to mutual consultation among people to choose whoever they wanted. This is their belief with regard to the issue of caliphate. They have insisted upon it since the day the Prophet died till our time.
"Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" supposedly act upon this principle in which they believe and which they defend with all their might. But the research will reveal to us the fact that they did exactly the opposite. Regardless of the allegiance to Abu Bakr, which they themselves called a mistake the evil of which Allah spared them, it was Abu Bakr who invented the notion of the succession to the post of caliph, appointing, prior to his death, his friend Umar ibn al-Khattab as his successor.
At the time of his death, Umar ibn al-Khattab appointed Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf to choose one of five persons whom he recommended for the post of caliph, and to kill anyone who refused to accept the selected one.
When Mu`awiyah secured the post of caliph for himself, he put this principle of succession into practice, appointing his son Yazid ibn Mu`awiyah. Thus, the caliphate remained since that time being handed over from one promiscuous person to another, from one generation to another, each caliph appointing his son, brother, or relative, to succeed him. So did the caliph since the inception of the Abbaside government till its dissolution. And so did the Ottoman caliphs from the time it was established till the period when the caliphate weakened and waned during the time of Kemal Ataturk in the present century.
"Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" represent such caliphate, or, say, those successive governments represented "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" in all parts of the world, and throughout the Islamic history. This is why you can now see in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, and all Gulf states rulers who act upon the theory of succession which they inherited from their "good posterity" who all belong to "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a." Even if we suppose that the theory they uphold, the one saying that the Prophet left the issue for mutual consultation, and that the Qur'an endorses the concept of consultation, were accurate, they still opposed the Qur'an and the Sunnah. They turned the system of "democratic" consultation into a dictatorial monarchic hereditary system of succession.
But if we suppose that the Prophet had appointed Ali ibn Abu Talib to succeed him, as the Shi`as argue, "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" would then be in clear violation of many texts of the Sunnah and contradict the Qur'an. This is so because the Messenger of Allah never did anything without the permission of his Lord. For this reason, you find them aware of the fact that this issue of mutual consultation is erroneous because the early caliphs did not implement it, nor did they act upon it. They also feel the inaccuracy of the theory of succession to the caliphate, so you find them justifying it through ahadith such as the one saying, "Caliphate after me shall last for thirty years followed by a government of oppression," as if they want to convince others of their own conviction that government is for Allah to grant it to whomsoever He pleases, and that the kings and sultans were appointed by Allah, the most Exalted One, to rule people; so, obedience to them is obligatory.
This is a lengthy topic which drags us to the issue of destiny and predestination which we discussed in our book So Let us be with the Truthful, a topic we do not wish now to return to. Suffices us here to bear in mind that "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" are also called "Qadaris," believers in destiny, as they espouse.
The end result is that "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" believe in the system of succession which they regard as conducive with the Shari`a not because the Messenger of Allah mandated it, or because he appointed his own successor, for they very strongly deny any such things, but only because Abu Bakr appointed Umar, and Umar appointed six persons, then Mu`awiyah appointed Yazid, and so on. None of their scholars or Imams of the four sects ever claimed that the Umayyad or the Abbaside or the Ottoman government was in agreement with the Shari`a. Yet we find them rushing to swear their oath of allegiance, to support and brand their caliphs as "legitimate." Even most of them went as far as claiming that caliphate is legitimate for anyone who attains it by force or oppression, and they are not concerned whether he is righteous, a sinner, or a promiscuous, or whether he is an Arab, a member of Quraysh, a Turk, or a Kurd.
Dr. Ahmad Mahmud Subhi says the following in this regard, "The stand adopted by Ahl al-Sunnah with regard to the issue of caliphate is to accept the status quo without endorsing or opposing it." In reality, however, "Ahl al-Sunnah" do support it. Abu Ya`li al-Farraa quotes Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal saying, "The caliphate is fixed by winning, or by force, and it does not lack a contract."
According to Abdoos ibn Malik al-Attar, "If one wins by the sword and becomes caliph and is referred to as Commander of the Faithful, it is not legal for anyone who believes in Allah and the Last Day to spend his night without recognizing him as the Imam, be he a righteous man or a sinner." He builds this view on a statement made by Abdullah ibn Umar saying, "We are with whoever wins." Thus, "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" become a pawn to this bid`a, the innovation of the issue of succession. They swear their allegiance to the winner and the oppressor regardless of the extent of his fear of Allah, piety, or knowledge, be he righteous or a sinner. This is proven by the fact that mostsahaba who fought on the side of the Prophet against Mu`awiyah ibn Abu Sufyan in many battles ended up swearing allegiance to Mu`awiyah as the "commander of the faithful" after the Prophet's demise. They also accepted the caliphate of Marwan ibn al-Hakam whom the Messenger of Allah called al-wazgh (the shiner), and whom he banished from Medina saying, "He shall not reside where I reside, whether alive or dead."
They even accepted the caliphate of Yazid son of Mu`awiyah to whom they swore the oath of allegiance and whom they called "commander of the faithful." When al-Husayn, grandson of the Prophet, revolted against him, they killed al-Husayn and his Ahl al-Bayt in order to solidify the foundations of Yazid's government and to label it as legal. Their scholars went as far as saying that al-Husayn was killed by the sword of his grandfather. Some of them write, even in this time and age, books dealing with the "facts" relevant to "the commander of the faithful Yazid ibn Mu`awiyah." All of this is done out of their support for Yazid's caliphate and as an indictment of al-Husayn who revolted against him.
If we know all of this, we have no choice except to admit that "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" contradicted the Sunnah which they attributed to the Prophet and which they say mandated leaving the issue [of caliphate] for discussion and consultation among the Muslims.
As for the Shi`as, these upheld the concept of Imamate with one single view which is: "Allah and His Messenger appoint the caliph." Imamate according to them cannot be legitimate except through a text, and it cannot be legitimate except for one who is infallible, whose knowledge is the highest, who is the most pious, and who is the best. They do not prefer one who is good over another who is better. This is why we find them first rejecting the caliphate of the sahaba, then rejecting the concept of the caliphate as envisioned by "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a."
Since the texts which the Shi`as produce with regard to the issue of caliphate enjoy a practical presence and a true authenticity even in the Sahih books of "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a," we have no choice except to admit that the Shi`as are the ones who actually upheld the authentic Sunnah of the Prophet.
Whether we say that the issue is to be resolved by mutual consultation (shura) or through texts referring to the issue of caliphate, only the Shi`as are right because the only person who stands out as the one who was appointed by such texts as well as by the shura is Ali ibn Abu Talib. Nobody among the Muslims, be he a Shi`a or a Sunni, claims that the Messenger of Allah made any reference, even remotely, to the issue of hereditary succession. Nor does any Muslim, be he Sunni or Shi`a, claims that the Messenger of Allah said to his companions, "I have left your affair for shura; so, choose whoever you wish to succeed me."
We call upon them to produce even one single such hadith. So if they cannot do so, and they most surely cannot, they must go back to the confirmed Sunnah of the Prophet and to accurate Islamic history to derive guidance therefrom. Or do they claim that the Messenger of Allah neglected to deal with this very important issue and did not clarify its features so that his nation might enter into a never-ending struggle and a blind dissension that all tear its unity apart and disunite it and cause it to deviate from Allah's Straight Path? We see in our times how corrupt and oppressive rulers take into very serious consideration the fate of their peoples after their own authority is over, so they appoint their successors whenever there is a vacancy; what, then, would you say about the one whom Allah sent as mercy for the whole world?!
2) To Call the "Sahaba" Equitable is to Contradict the Clear Sunnah
If we take a look at the way the Prophet dealt with his companion and what he said about them, we will find him giving credit where credit is due. He is angered when Allah is angered and is pleased when He is pleased. The Prophet dissociated himself from any companion who went against the commandments of Allah, Glory to Him, as was the case when Khalid ibn al-Waleed killed Banu Juthaymah. He also became angry with Usamah when the latter came to him seeking favor on behalf of a high class lady who stole something. It was then when he made his famous statement, "Woe unto you! Do you intercede regarding the trespassing over one of the boundaries set by Allah? By Allah! Had Fatima daughter of Muhammad stolen, I would have cut off her hand. Nations before you were annihilated because whenever a dignitary among them stole, they left him alone, but when a simple person stole, they would carry out the appropriate penalty."
We also find him sometimes blessing and seeking the Pleasure of Allah for some of his sincere companions, supplicating for them, seeking Allah's forgiveness for them. And we also find him cursing some of them, those who insisted not to carry out his orders or simply took them lightly. For example, he said once, "The curse of Allah be on all those who lag behind Usamah's army" when they cast doubts about his nomination of Usamah to be their leader and who refused to join his army because he was too young.
We also find him explaining to people and not leaving them to be dazzled by some of the fake sahaba, saying about one of them, "He has companions if one of you were to compare his prayers with theirs, he would find it inferior, and he would find his fast as well to be inferior to theirs; they recite the Qur'an which does not go beyond their throats. They leave the creed as swiftly as the arrow leaves the bow." He may even stop short of performing the funeral prayers for one of the sahaba who was martyred during the campaign of Khaybar on the side of the Muslims, revealing the truth about him and saying, "He fell short of discharging his responsibility in the cause of Allah." When they searched the belongings of that person, [stolen] Jewish beads were found among his items.
Al-Maroodi narrates to us saying that the Prophet felt very thirsty once during the campaign of Tabuk, whereupon the hypocrites said, "Muhammad tells the news of the heavens but does not know the way to water!" It was then that Gabriel descended to tell him the names of those who said so. The Prophet named them to Sa`d ibn Abadah who said to him, "If you wish, you can have them killed." The Prophet said, "I do not wish people to say that Muhammad kills his own companions. Rather, we will deal with them beautifully as long as they are in our company."
The Messenger of Allah dealt with them just as the Holy Qur'an tells us. Allah was pleased with the truthful among them and wrathful with the hypocrites, renegades, and those who violated their oaths. And the Almighty cursed them in many sacred verses. We have dealt with this subject in full detail in our bookAsk Those Who Know in a chapter titled "The Holy Qur'an Reveals Facts about some of the Sahaba." If anyone wishes to research this subject further, he should refer to the said book.
We will be satisfied by producing one example of what some hypocritical companions had done and which was exposed by Allah Who shamed those involved. They were twelve sahabiswho sought to be excused [from meeting with the Prophet] due to their living far away, saying that they had no time to meet with the Prophet. They, therefore, built a mosque so that they could perform the prayers on time. Can you see sincerity and loyalty greater than that? A servant of Allah spends huge sums of money to build a mosque out of his concern for performing the prayers on time, and a group of brethren united together under the roof of one mosque? But Allah, Glory to Him, from Whom nothing is hidden in the earth or in the heavens, and Who knows where the eyes trespass and what the chests conceal, knew their innermost thoughts and what they were hiding, so He inspired to His Messenger about them and acquainted him with their hypocrisy saying,
So how can "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" convince us that all the sahaba were just and fair and that they all are in Paradise, that their injunctions are binding upon us, that their views and innovations have to be followed, and that anyone who discredits any of them abandons the creed and should be killed?!
It is a statement which even insane people reject, let alone the wise. It is a false statement, a calumny, something said to please the rulers, monarchs, by the evil and intruding scholars who follow them suit. As for us, we cannot accept such a statement at all so long as we have reason because that would be going against what Allah and His Messenger tell us. Anyone who does the opposite of what Allah and His Messenger decree is an apostate. It also clashes with reason and conscience.
We do not force "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" to abandon or reject it, for they are free in believing whatever they want to believe, and they are the only ones who will be held responsible for the results and terrible outcomes of so doing. But they must not label as kafir those who follow the Qur'an and the Sunnah in as far as the justice of the sahaba is concerned. They should say to the sahaba who do good: "You have done well," and to the ones who fell into error, "You committed something wrong and made a mistake." They ought to befriend the friends of Allah and His Messenger and dissociate themselves from the enemies of Allah and His Messenger.
Thus does it become clear that "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" violated clear Qur'anic texts as well as clear texts of the Sunnah and followed the dictates of the Umayyad and Abbaside governments, discarding all juristic and rational criteria.
3) The Prophet Orders the Muslims to Emulate His `ItratWhile Sunnis Oppose Him
In our past researches, we proved the authenticity of the Prophet's hadith known as hadith al-thaqalain, that is, hadithof the two weighty things. It states the following:
If we wish to elaborate on this topic, we can say that "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" are the ones who, led by Umayyad and Abbaside rulers, fought the household of Prophethood. If you, therefore, sift through their beliefs and books of hadith, you will find no traces whatsoever for the fiqh of Ahl al-Bayt. You will find all their fiqh and ahadith attributed to the Nasibis who were the enemies of Ahl al-Bayt and who fought them, such as Abdullah ibn Umar, Ayesha, Abu Hurayra, and others.
They derive half of their creed from Ayesha, the lady with the reddish complexion, while the major Sunni faqih is Abdullah son of Umar [ibn al-Khattab]. Islam's narrator, according to them, is Abu Hurayra, mentor of al-Mudeera, while the taleeqs and their sons constituted their judges and the legislators of Allah's creed.
What proves this fact is that "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" were not identified as such but were, as a whole, opponents of Ahl al-Bayt since the day of the Saqeefa, and they are the ones who conspired to usurp the caliphate from Ahl al-Bayt and did their best to distance them from the nation's political stage.
The party known as "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" was then formed to counter the Shi`as who rallied behind, supported, and followed the Imamate of Ahl al-Bayt in obedience to the Qur'an and the Sunnah.
It is only natural that those who opposed the truth were the vast majority of the nation especially in the aftermath of dissensions and wars. Moreover, Ahl al-Bayt could not rule the Muslims except for only four years, the period of Imam Ali's caliphate during which they distracted him with bloody wars.
As for "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" who opposed Ahl al-Bayt, they ruled for hundreds of years, and their government and authority spread far and wide to the east and the west. They had their say, their gold and silver. "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a," hence, are the "winners" because they are the rulers. The Shi`as, led by Ahl al-Bayt, became the vanquished because they are the subjects, the oppressed, the displaced, the murdered.
We do not wish to prolong the discussion of this subject beyond our desire to reveal the secrets of "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" who opposed the Prophet's will and legacy which guaranteed guidance and protected against straying, whereas the Shi`as upheld the will of the Prophet, followed in the footsteps of his pure Progeny and tolerated in so doing a great deal of hardship and pain.
The fact is that such dissension and rebellion from the part of "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" with regard to al-thaqalain,versus the acceptance of the Shi`as of the same and their adherence thereto, surfaced from that particular Thursday which came to be known as the Day of Infamy when the Messenger of Allah asked them to bring him some writing material to write them something that would protect them against misguidance. It was then that Umar took his most serious stand and refused the Prophet's request claiming that the Book of Allah sufficed them, and that they had no need for his `itrat. It was as though the Prophet was saying, "Uphold both thaqalain: the Qur'an and the `Itrat," whereas Umar answered him with, "We are satisfied with only one of them: the Qur'an, and we have no need for the other." This is exactly the meaning of Umar's statement: "The Book of Allah suffices us."
Umar's statement represented the stand adopted by "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" because prominent Qurayshi heads, represented by Abu Bakr, Uthman, Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf, Abu Ubaydah, Khalid ibn al-Waleed, Talhah ibn Ubaydullah, all stood up to support Umar's stand. Ibn Abbas said, "Some of them kept repeating what Umar said, while some others said, `Bring writing material to the Prophet so that he may write you something."
It was only natural that Ali and his followers, since that day, upheld the Prophet's will even though it was not written down, acting upon both the Qur'an and the Sunnah simultaneously. Their enemies, on the other hand, did not act even upon the Qur'an which they agreed to do in the beginning and whose injunctions they idled when they attained power and authority, following their own views, leaving the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger behind their backs.
4) "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" and Love for Ahl al-Bayt
No Muslim doubts that Allah, Glory and Exaltation to Him, has imposed love for Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, as a the dues the Muslims have to pay in return for granting them Muhammad's Message and the blessings such Message contains for them. He has said, "Say: I do not ask you for any reward for it except love for my kinsfolk" (Holy Qur'an, 42:23). This sacred verse was revealed to require the Muslims to love the purified `Itrat of the Prophet who are: Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan and al-Husayn, according to the testimony of more than thirty references all of which are authored by "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a," so much so that Imam al-Shafi`i composed the following in this regard:
Loving them is mandated by the Holy Qur'an; it is an obligation on all followers of Islam, as Imam al-Shafi`i admits. Loving them is the price we have to pay for receiving Muhammad's Message, as the text clearly indicates. Loving them is a form of worship whereby nearness to Allah, the Most Exalted One, is sought. Since the case is as such, why do not "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" have any regard for Ahl al-Bayt ? Why do they respect them less than they respect the sahaba?
We have the right to ask "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" this question. Rather, we challenge them to bring about one Qur'anic verse, or one hadith, making it compulsory on the Muslims to love Abu Bakr or Umar or Uthman or any other sahabi! No, they will never be able to do that. Never! On the contrary; the Qur'an contains numerous verses which point out to the lofty status preserved for Ahl al-Bayt, thus preferring them over all other servants of Allah. And the Prophet's Sunnah contains many ahadith favoring Ahl al-Bayt and placing them ahead of all other Muslims just as the leading Imam is preferred over those whom he leads, and just as a scholar is preferred over an ignorant person.
The Qur'an suffices us with this verse, the one mandating love for Ahl al-Bayt discussed here, in addition to the Mubahala verse, the verse mandating the invoking of Allah's blessings unto the Prophet and his Progeny, the verse referring to the removal of all abomination from and the purification of Ahl al-Bayt, the verse mandating their wilayat (mastership), the verse referring to their being chosen by Allah to receive His favors and to inherit the knowledge of the Book.
From the Prophet's Sunnah, we content ourselves with hadithal-thaqalain (tradition of the two weighty things), the hadithcomparing Ahl al-Bayt to the ark of salvation, the status hadith, the hadith referring to the complete prayers unto them, thehadith of the guiding stars, the hadith describing Imam Ali as the gate of knowledge, and the hadith numbering the Imams after the Prophet as twelve.
We do not wish to say that one third of the Qur'an was revealed in praise and counting the merits of Ahl al-Bayt, as some companions, such as Ibn Abbas, say, nor do we claim that one third of the Prophet's Sunnah praises and lauds Ahl al-Bayt and attracts the attention of people to their virtues and merits as Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal points out.
Suffices us from the Qur'an and the Sunnah what we have quoted from the Sahih books of "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" to prove the preference of Ahl al-Bayt over all other people.
After casting a quick look at the beliefs of "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a," at their books and behavior towards Ahl al-Bayt throughout history, we will realize without any doubt that Sunnis opposed and antagonized Ahl al-Bayt, that they unsheathed their swords to fight them, utilized their pens to belittle and abuse them. They have been doing so in order to raise the status of the enemies of Ahl al-Bayt and of those who fought them.
One evidence should suffice to give us the convincing proof. As we have indicated above, "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" were not identified by this name except during the second Hijri century. That was their reaction to the Shi`as who became loyal to and who followed the line of Ahl al-Bayt. There is no trace or clue whatsoever in Sunni fiqh or rituals or beliefs indicating that they make any reference at all to the Prophet's Sunnah as narrated by Ahl al-Bayt.
This happens despite the fact that the people of the house know best what their house contains, for they are the offspring and the progeny of the Prophet. Nobody could ever surpass them in their knowledge or deeds. For three centuries, they were present among the people. They held the reins of spiritual and religious leadership through their Twelve Imams who never differed in any issue with one another. Despite all of that, we find "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" adhering to the four sects which were not created except in the third Hijri century, the sects wherein each Imam contradicts that of the other. Despite that, they left Ahl al-Bayt behind their backs, antagonized them and fought all those who followed them. And they are still fighting them even in our day and time...
If we need another proof, we only have to analyze the stand of "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" vis-a-vis the commemoration of the Day of Ashura, the ominous day when a corner of Islam was demolished, when the master of the youths of Paradise [and all the residents of Paradise are youths] and of the purified Progeny, offspring of the Prophet, and of the selected band of righteous from his believing companions were martyred:
FIRST: We will find them pleased with and supportive of those who killed al-Husayn. This must not surprise us, for all those who killed al-Husayn belonged to "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a." It is sufficient for us to know that the leader of the army appointed by Ibn Ziyad to kill Imam al-Husayn was none other than Umar ibn Sa`d ibn Abu Waqqas. "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a," therefore, invoke Allah to be pleased with all thesahaba, including those who killed and who were accomplices in the killing of Imam al-Husayn. They accept their ahadithwhich they label as "authentic." Nay! Some of them even consider Imam Husayn as a Kharijite because he revolted against the authority of "the commander of the faithful Yazid ibn Mu`awiyah"!
We have already indicated that the faqih of "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" Abdullah ibn Umar had sworn his oath of allegiance to Yazid ibn Mu`awiyah and decreed disobedience to Yazid asharam. He said, "We are with whoever wins."
SECOND: We find "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" throughout history, from the Day of Ashura till our time, celebrating the Day of Ashura and considering it as an Eid when they take out thezakat of their wealth to distribute to their children, regarding it as a day for blessings and mercy.
As if all this does not satisfy them, they now scandalize the Shi`as and criticize them for mourning al-Husayn. In some Muslim countries, they prohibit them from conducting the commemorative ceremonies of this tragic epic and attack them with their weapons, beating or killing some of them in the pretext of fighting innovations.
In reality, they do not fight innovations as much as they re-enact the roles played by Umayyad and Abbaside rulers who tried their best to obliterate the memory of Ashura and who went as far as desecrating and defacing the grave of Imam al-Husayn, prohibiting people from visiting it. They still want to put an end to that memory for fear people would come to know, and so would those who are ignorant, of the truth about Ahl al-Bayt. These would come to know what really happened, and the faults of these folks as well as of those of their masters and leaders would then be unveiled. People will then come to know the difference between right and wrong, between a believer and a sinner.
Thus do we once again come to know that the Shi`as are, indeed, the ones who actually adhere to the Prophet's Sunnah because they have followed the Sunnah of the Prophet even with regard to grieving for and mourning the father of Abdullah, Imam Husayn. Confirmed traditions testify that the Prophet of Islam himself wept over the martyrdom of his grandson al-Husayn before it happened when Gabriel told him of al-Husayn's future martyrdom at Karbala. That was exactly fifty years before its occurrence.
We also clearly come to know that "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" celebrate the Day of Ashura because they followed the "sunnah" of Yazid ibn Mu`awiyah and of Banu Umayyah who used to celebrate that day as the day when they achieved "victory" over al-Husayn. They celebrate putting out Imam al-Husayn's revolution which threatened their very existence. They regarded their "victory" as putting an end to anarchy, as they claim.
History tells us that Yazid and Banu Umayyah celebrated that day with a great deal of festivities when the severed head of al-Husayn and those of Ahl al-Bayt who were taken captives reached them. They rejoiced and cursed the family of the Messenger of Allah and composed poetry.
The evil scholars among "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" sought to please them, so they fabricated for them a number of "traditions" praising that Day. They told them that Ashura was the day when Allah accepted Adam's repentance, when the ark of Noah landed on the Jodi mountain, when the fire turned cool and peaceful unto Abraham, when Joseph was released from prison and when Jacob recovered his vision, when Moses obtained victory over Pharaoh, when a table of viands descended upon Jesus..., etc.!!!
All these are fabricated "traditions" which "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" and their scholars and Imams have been repeating from the pulpits even in our day and time on the occasion of Ashura. All these are "traditions" which were manufactured by swindlers who put on the garb of scholars and tried to please their rulers by all means, selling their hereafter for the price of this short life, so their trade did not earn them any profit, and they shall be in the hereafter among the losers.
They went to extremes in telling lies, claiming that the Prophet migrated to Medina, and it so happened that the day when he reached it was the tenth of Muharram (Ashura). He found the Jews of Medina fasting, so he asked them why. They said, "This is the day when Moses won victory over Pharaoh," whereupon the Prophet, according to this fabrication, said, "We are more worthy of Moses than you." Then he supposedly ordered the Muslims to fast the ninth and the tenth of Muharram. This is nothing but a flagrant lie. The Jews live among us and we never heard that they have an Eid during which they fast and which they call Ashura!
We may even wonder why our Lord made that day a blessed Eid for all His prophets and messengers, from Adam to Moses, with the exception of Muhammad for whom it was a day of tragedy, a day of mourning, a day of bad omen, a day when his offspring, his Progeny, were slaughtered as animals are slaughtered, when his daughters were taken captive... The answer is: "He is not asked about what He does, while they shall be asked" (Holy Qur'an, 21:23).
In a previous chapter, we quoted a verse referring to invoking Allah's prayers unto the Prophet and his progeny, and we also quoted its explanation as provided by the Prophet himself and how he taught people how to make a complete invocation, prohibiting them from using the curtailed one which Allah, the most Exalted One, rejects. Yet we find a great deal of stubbornness from the side of "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" who insist on eliminating any reference to Muhammad's Progeny from such an invocation. If they do reluctantly mention them, they include with them (in the invocation) the sahaba all of them. If you say before any of them: Salla Allahu alaihi wa aalih (Allah blesses him and his progeny), he will immediately understand that you are a Shi`a. This is so due to the fact that the complete invocation unto Muhammad and the progeny of Muhammad has become the identifying mark of only the Shi`as.
This is a fact which cannot be refuted. I employed it at the inception of my research, identifying each writer as a Shi`a whenever I find him saying Salla Allahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam (Allah blesses him and his progeny and greets them all) after making a reference to Muhammad. In its absence, I conclude that the writer is a Sunni. I also conclude that a certain writer is a Shi`a when he says: Ali alaihis-salam "Ali, peace be upon him," rather than Ali karrama Allahu wajhah, as is the case with Sunni writers.
From the complete invocation, I see how the Shi`as have followed the sacred Prophet's Sunnah versus "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" who disobeyed the orders of the Prophet and did not honor them in the least. You find them all uttering the curtailed invocation, and when they feel obligated to add to it the reference to Muhammad's Progeny, they add to them the companions all of them without any exception so that they do not leave any merit or exclusive feat for Ahl al-Bayt whatsoever.
All this has resulted from the stand adopted by the Umayyadsversus Ahl al-Bayt and to the enmity which they had against them, the one that in the end caused them to substitute the invocation to Allah to bless Ahl al-Bayt with one invoking Him to curse them. They kept doing so even from the pulpits, forcing people to do so by all means.
But "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" did not follow the Umayyads' custom of cursing Ahl al-Bayt. Had they done so, the truth about them would have been revealed to the Muslims, and they would have been known as they are, and people would have dissociated themselves from them. So they abandoned the custom of cursing and abusing Ahl al-Bayt, keeping to themselves the animosity and hatred towards Ahl al-Bayt. They tried their best to put their light out by raising the status of their enemies from the sahaba. For the latter they invented imaginary feats which have no relevance at all to the truth.
What proves this fact is that you can find "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a," even in our time, refraining from saying anything against Mu`awiyah and the sahaba who cursed Ahl al-Bayt for eighty years. Rather, they invoke Allah to be pleased with all of them. At the same time, they label as kafir any Muslim who discredits any of the sahaba, issuing fatawa permitting his murder...
Some fabricators tried to add something else to the complete invocation, the one which the Messenger of Allah taught to his companions, another part, thinking that it would further undermine the status of Ahl al-Bayt. One narrator quoted the Prophet saying, "Say: O Allah! Bless Muhammad, the Progeny of Muhammad, his wives and offspring." The researcher is of the view that this part was added in order to include Ayesha among Ahl al-Bayt.
We say to them: If we, for the sake of argument, suppose that this "tradition" is authentic and that it implies the inclusion of the mothers of the faithful, the sahaba still have nothing to do with Ahl al-Bayt! I personally challenge any Muslim to produce one proof from the Qur'an or from the Sunnah backing his view, for surely the heaven are more within his reach than that.
Both the Qur'an and the Sunnah have mandated all the companions as well as all other Muslims who follow thosesahaba till the Day of Judgment to send blessings unto Muhammad and the Progeny of Muhammad. This by itself is a great status compared to which any other status falls short, and compared to which nothing else comes close.
Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and all the companions of the Prophet, as well as all the Muslims of the world who are counted by the billions, do, indeed, invoke Allah to bless Muhammad and his Progeny whenever they make theirtashahhud; otherwise, their prayers will be rejected by Allah, Glory to Him.
This is exactly the meaning of a verse of poetry Imam al-Shafi`i composed and the rough translation of which is as follows:
At any rate, researching this subject is quite exhaustive, and it may be dealt with repeatedly in many books. There is no harm in repetition so long as it benefits the reader.
What is important is that we have come to know from this chapter that the Shi`as are the ones who follow the Prophet's Sunnah and that their prayers are complete and accepted even according to the views of those who oppose them. "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a," on the other hand, have violated in this regard the clear Sunnah of the Prophet, and their prayers are curtailed and are not accepted even according to the views of their own Imams and scholars.
 He says so on p. 23 of his book Al-Imama.
 His statement , "I do not wish people to say that Muhammad kills his companions. Rather, we will deal with them beautifully, etc." contains an evident proof that the hypocrites were, indeed, among the sahaba. The claim put forth by "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" that the hypocrites were not among the sahaba is rejected because this claim is contradicted by the statement of the Messenger of Allah who refers to them as his companions.
 In Arabic, she is called al-humayraa which means: the woman the color of whose complexion is slightly red. __ Tr.
 These were the Meccans who remained heathen till the conquest of Mecca.
 Refer to the book Ma`a al-Sadiqeen (With the Truthful) by the same author.
 This is so because all "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" favor Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman over Ali ibn Abu Talib . Since the latter is the master of the `Itrat and the best of Ahl al-Bayt after the Prophet , "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" place Ahl al-Bayt in the second place in their esteem. They prefer over them the first sahaba to whom they refer as the "righteous caliphs."
 Nowadays, they claim saying, "We are more worthy of Ali and Ahl al-Bayt from the Shi`as." If so, why did their scholars and the Imams of their sects abandon the fiqh of Ahl al-Bayt and forgot it completely? They, instead, followed sects which they invented and for which Allah sent no proof. The Most Exalted One has said, "The most worthy among people of Ibrahim are those who followed him." As for those who did not follow him, they clearly are not worthy of him.
 The author is from Tunisia where a good number of Jews have been living for centuries. __ Tr.
As for "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a," these have exaggerated the "infallibility" of the sahaba, attributing justice and equity to all of them without any exception. They, thus, went beyond reason and recorded documentation in their resentment of anyone who criticized them or charged them with being unfair, let alone of their being sinners. Let us provide you with some of their statements so that you may realize how far they are from Qur'anic precepts and confirmed authentic Sunnah of the Prophet as well as what reason and common sense have already proven:
Imam al-Nawawi is quoted in Sharh Muslim's Sahih says, "The sahaba, may Allah be pleased with them, are all the best of people, the masters of the nation, and are better than those who succeed them. They are all equitable and are role models in whom there is no blemish at all. Delirium is what those who followed them articulated, and residue are those besides them."
Yahya ibn Ma`een says, "Anyone who vilifies Uthman or Talhah or any companion of the Messenger of Allah is an imposter who should not be quoted and who is cursed by Allah, the angels, and all mankind."
Al-Dhahabi says, "A major sin is to abuse any of the sahaba; whoever discredits or abuses them forsakes the creed and reneges from the religion of Islam."
Abu Ya`li, the judge, was asked once about what he thought of one who abused Abu Bakr. He described such a person askafir, apostate. "Should funeral prayers be performed for him?" he was asked. He answered in the negative. "How will it be dealt with his corpse, then," he was asked again, "especially since he used to testify that: There is no god except Allah?" His answer was: "Do not touch his corpse; just push it with wooden rods till you bury him in his hole."
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal says, "The best of the nation after the Prophet are: Abu Bakr, then Umar, then Uthman, then Ali: they are all righteous caliphs who guided others to righteousness. Then come the sahaba of the Messenger of Allah next to these four men in being the best of the nation. It is not permissible for anybody to mention any of their faults, nor should anyone discredit any of them by pointing out his shortcomings or defects. Whoever does any of that has to be disciplined and punished. He must not be forgiven; rather, he must be penalized and required to repent. So, if he repents, his repentance must be accepted, but if he persisted, he should be punished again then confined till he dies or retracts what he had said."
The Hanafi Shaykh Alaaud-Din al-Tarabulsi has said, "Whoever abuses any of the Prophet's sahaba: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Mu`awiyah, or Amr ibn al-As, by saying that they were misguided and apostates, must be killed. If he otherwise abuses them as people abuse one another, he should be severely punished."
Dr. Hamid Hafni Dawood briefly quotes such statements made by "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" then comments thus:
The vast majority of "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" share this view. They label as sahabi anyone who saw the Prophet or was born during his life-time even if he had not reached the age of distinguishing right from wrong. There is no better proof than their counting Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr as one of the sahabaalthough when the Messenger of Allah died, Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr was only three months old...!
This is why we find Ibn Sa`d classifying the sahaba into five categories or, as he calls them, classes (tabaqat) in his renown book Tabaqat ibn Sa`d. The Naisapuri governor who wroteAl-Mustadrak, however, categorizes them into twelve classes as follows:
First Class includes those who accepted Islam prior to the Hijra, such as the righteous caliphs.
Second Class includes those who attended Dar al-Nadwa.
Third Class includes those who migrated to Abyssinia (Ethiopia).
Fourth Class includes those who attended the First Aqaba [allegiance swearing].
Fifth Class includes those who attended the Second Aqaba.
Sixth Class includes those who migrated to Medina following the Prophet's migration thereto.
Seventh Class includes those who participated in the Battle of Badr.
Eighth Class includes those who migrated after Badr and prior to the [treaty signing at] al-Hudaybiya.
Ninth Class includes those who participated in Bay`at al-Ridwan.
Tenth Class includes those who migrated after the Hudaybiya and prior to the conquest of Mecca such as Khalid ibn al-Waleed, Amr ibn al-As, and others.
Eleventh Class includes those who were called "taleeqs" by the Prophet.
Twelfth Class includes the youths and children of the sahabawho were born during the life-time of the Prophet such as Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr...
"Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah," then, unanimously regard all thesahaba and the Imams of their four sects as just and fair. They unhesitatingly accept their traditions, and they do not permit anyone to criticize or discredit them.
Critics and verifiers of hadith have taken upon themselves to subject the traditionists and narrators to their own critique in order to classify their traditions and purify them from any impurity. Yet when they arrive at a sahabi, regardless of his "class" or age at the time of the death of the Prophet, they halt there and fall short of discrediting the traditions he narrates no matter how many doubts arise about them, and no matter to what extent they contradict reason and documentation, saying that the sahaba are not subject to criticism or discrediting, and that they are all just and fair!
This, by my life, is obviously the bending of the rules, something which reason and nature find as contemptible; it is not endorsed by scholarship, and I seriously doubt that today's educated youths accept such ludicrous innovations.
I do not know, nor does anyone else, where "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" derived such views from. They certainly are foreign to Islam, a religion based on scientific evidence and convincing proofs. I wish I knew, and I wish one of them can bring me one single proof from the Book of Allah or the Sunnah, or even from logic, which convinces me that each and every sahabi was fair and just!
We, by the Grace of Allah, have come to know the solution of the mystery of such false views, and this we will explain in the forthcoming section. Seekers of the truth have, in turn, to uncover some secrets.
 Muslim, Sahih, Vol. 8, p. 22.
 Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, Vol. 1, p. 509.
 Both pages 233 and 235 of al-Dhahabi's book Al-Kabaair (major sins) record this statement.
 This is recorded on p. 275 of the book titled Al-Sarim al-Maslool.
 This is recorded on p. 187 of Mu`een al-Hukkam feema Yataraddadu baynal Khasmayn min al-Ahkam (rulers' aid with regard to injunctions relevant to opponents).
 This statements continues from p. 8 to p. 9 of the author's book Al-Sahaba fe Nadar al-Shi`a al-Imamiyya (the companions as viewed by Imamite Shi`as).
 This is stated on p. 51 of Al-Kifaya and also on p. 2 of Talqeeh Fuhum Ahl al-Athaar.
 Ibn Hajar, Al-Isaba, Vol. 1, p. 10.