Who Diverted From The Prophet's Sunnah?

An Event That Led to their Divergence from the Prophet's Sunnah 

---

That was their refusal to join Usamah's army which was personally raised by the Messenger of Allah who ordered them, two days before his demise, to enlist under Usamah's leadership. They went as far as casting doubt about the wisdom of the Messenger of Allah and criticizing him for having appointed a 17-year old young man, who did not even grow a beard, as the army's leader. Abu Bakr and Umar, as well as many other sahaba, refused to join the army in the pretext of taking care of the issue of caliphate despite the Prophet's curse upon all those who would not join Usamah.[14] 

As for Ali and his followers, they were not assigned by the Messenger of Allah to join Usamah's army in order to circumvent dissension, and in order to thus remove the obstacle of the presence of the stubborn ones who opposed Allah's Commandment, so that they might not come back from Mu'ta before Ali was in full control of the reins of government, as Allah and His Messenger wanted him to, as a successor to the Prophet. 

But the shrewd Arabs among Quraysh anticipated the Prophet's plan and refused to get out of Medina. They waited till the Messenger went back to his Lord. It was then that they carried out their own scheme as they had planned, going against what Allah and the Messenger of Allah had willed; in other words, they rejected the Prophet's Sunnah. 

Thus does it become obvious to us, and to all researchers, that Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf, and Abu Ubaydah Amir al-Jarrah always refused to be bound by the Prophet's Sunnah, preferring to follow their own views. They always pursued their worldly interests and desired to attain political dominance even if the price of doing so was transgression against Allah and His Messenger. 

As for Ali and the sahaba who followed him, they always upheld the Prophet's Sunnah and acted upon implementing it to the letter as much as they could. We have seen how Ali during that crisis carried out the Prophet's will to give him his funeral bath, prepare the coffin, perform the funeral prayers for him, and to lay him to rest in his grave. Ali carried out all these orders without being diverted by anything even though he knew that the others were racing to Banu Sa`ida's saqeefa (shed) in order to promote one of them as the caliph. He could do the same and sabotage their plan, but his respect for the Prophet's Sunnah, and his implementation thereof, dictated thae he remain by the side of the Prophet. 

Here we have to pause, though for a short while, to observe such great manners which Ali had learned from the Prophet. While sacrificing his position as the caliph in order to carry out the injunctions of the Sunnah, he witnessed the others rejecting the Sunnah as they sought the caliphate.  

---

[14] Read on p. 29, Vol. 1, of al-Shahristani's book Kitab al-milal wal nihal the Prophet's statement: "Allah curses whoever lags behind Usamah's army."  

The First Incident that Led to Dividing the Muslim Ummah into Shi`as and Sunnis

The First Incident that Led to Dividing the Muslim Ummah into Shi`as and Sunnis 

---

It is the stunningly sad stand taken by Umar ibn al-Khattab and a number of other sahaba against an order by the Messenger of Allah to bring him something to record a testament for them. He promised that this would prevent their backsliding into error.[11] 

This Thursday Calamity is, indeed, a most tragic one. It is narrated by all authors of sahihs and sunan and is documented by all traditionists and historians. In a section dealing with the statement of the ailing Messenger (pbuh): "Get away from me," al-Bukhari records it in his Sahih,[12] relying on the authority of `Ubaydullah ibn Abdullah ibn `Utbah ibn Mas`ud. Abdullah quotes Ibn `Abbas saying that when death approached the Messenger of Allah, his house became full of men including Umar ibn al-Khattab. The Messenger of Allah said: "Let me write you something that will forever protect you against straying after me." Umar said: "The Prophet is in a state of delirium, and you have with you the Qur'an; so, the Book of Allah suffices us." Those who were present there argued among themselves, and their argument developed into a dispute. Some of them said: "Come close to the Prophet so that he may write you something that will safeguard you against straying after him," while others repeated what Umar had said. When the argument and dispute intensified in the presence of the Prophet, the Messenger of Allah said to them: "Get away from me." Ibn Abbas used to say: "The calamity, the real calamity, is what discouraged the Messenger of Allah from writing what he wished to write on account of their argument and dispute." 

The authenticity of this hadith is not questioned, nor is the occasion whereupon it came to be. Al-Bukhari quotes it in his treatise on knowledge on page 22, Vol. 1, of his Sahih, and it is recorded in many other books. He quotes it in several places of his Sahih. Muslim, too, quotes it at the conclusion of the Prophet's will in his Sahih on page 14, Vol. 2. Ahmad narrates Ibn Abbas's hadith on p. 325, Vol. 1, of his Musnad. It is narrated by all authors of traditions and books of history, each writer editing it yet retaining its gist, reiterating the fact that the Prophet was described as "hallucinating," or "delirious." But they also mentioned that Umar had said: "The Prophet has been delirious" just to sanitize the statement and undermine the sentiments of those who found it abominable. Supporting this fact is what Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Abdul-Aziz al-Jawhari has said in his book Al-Saqifa where he relies on the authority of Ibn Abbas. 

Ibn Abbas has said, 

When death approached the Messenger of Allah, there were many men present at his house. One of them was Umar ibn al-Khattab. The Messenger of Allah said: "Bring me ink and a tablet so that I may write you something that will safeguard you against straying after me." Those present at his house disputed among themselves. Some of them said, "Come close and watch the Prophet write you something," while others repeated what Umar had said. When the argument and dispute intensified, the Messenger of Allah, became crossed and said: "Get away from me."[13]This proves that the traditionists who did not wish to state the name of the person who went against the Prophet's wish had nontheless quoted his statement verbatim. In a chapter on rewarding the envoys, in his book Al-Jihad wal Siyar, page 118, Vol. 2, al-Bukhari states: Qabsah narrated a tradition to us from Ibn Ayeenah, Salman al-Ahwal, and Saeed ibn Jubayr. They consecutively quote Ibn Abbas saying: "On a Thursday^__what a day that Thursday was...." He burst sobbing then went on to say, "...the pain of the Messenger of Allah intensified; so, he ordered us to bring him some writing material so that he might write us something whereby we would be protected against straying after him, but people disputed, knowing that nobody should dispute in the presence of any Prophe. They said: `The Messenger of Allah is delirious.' He, therefore, said: `Leave me alone, for the pain I am suffering is more tolerable than what you are attributing to me.' He left in his will three orders: to get the polytheists out of the Arab land, to reward the envoys the same way whereby he used to reward them,' and I forgot the third one."The same hadith is narrated by Muslim at the conclusion of a chapter dealing with the will in his Sahih, and by Ahmad in Ibn Abbas's ahadith on page 222, Vol. 1, of his work, and by all other traditionists. It is obvious from this incident that Umar ibn al-Khattab was of the view that he was not bound by the Prophet's Sunnah. This explains the edicts which he issued when he became the caliph and in which he employed his own view even when it contradicted the Prophet's statements. Actually, he followed his own personal views when he contradicted clear divine texts. He thus prohibited what Allah had permitted, andvice versa. 

It is only natural to see that all his supporters among the sahabaharbor the same attitude with regard to the Prophet's Sunnah. The next chapters will prove to the reader that those sahabahhad in fact, and to the great misfortune of the Islamic Ummah, forsaken the Sunnah of the Prophet and adopted the Sunnah of Umar ibn al-Khattab instead.  

---

[11] It is the famous "Thursday Calamity" recorded in both al-Bukhari's and Muslim's Sahih books. 

[12] Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Vol. 4, p. 4. 

[13] Ibn Abul-Hadid, Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 2, p. 20. 

Identifying "Ahl al-Sunnah"

Identifying "Ahl al-Sunnah" 

---

These are members of the largest Muslim community; they represent three-quarters of the total population of the Muslims of the world, and they are the ones who refer for religious verdicts (fatawa) and for religious following of the Imams of the four sects, namely Abu Hanifah, Malik, al-Shafi`i, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Later in time, those called Salafis branched out of them; the characteristics of their beliefs were later revived by Ibn Taymiyyah whom they call "the one who revived the Sunnah," then by the Wahhabis whose ideology was invented by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab; theirs is the sect of the present rulers of Saudi Arabia.[9] 

All these call themselves "Ahl al-Sunnah," sometimes adding the word "Jama`ah" so they may be identified as "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah." 

Were one to research history, it will become evident to him that anyone who belonged to what they term as "al-khilafa al-rashida," the righteous caliphate, or "al-khulafa al-rashidoon," the righteous caliphs, namely Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali[10], and who recognized their Imamate during their life-time, or in our contemporary time, such person belongs to "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah." Anyone who rejects the said caliphate or considers it illegitimate, advocating the texts which prove that only Ali ibn Abu Talib was worthy of it, is a Shi`a. 

It will also become clear to us that the rulers, starting from Abu Bakr and ending with the last Abbaside ruler, were pleased with the "followers of the Sunnah" and in total agreement with them, and that they were angry with, and were seeking revenge against, all those who opted to follow the leadership of Ali ibn Abu Talib as well as those who swore the oath of allegiance to him and to his offspring thereafter. 

Based on these premises, Ali ibn Abu Talib and his followers, according to them, were not counted among "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah," as if this term, i.e. "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah," was coined to confront and juxtapose Ali and his followers. This is the major reason for the division which afflicted the Islamic Ummah following the demise of the Messenger of Allah into Sunnis and Shi`as. 

If we go back to analyze the underlying factors and remove the curtains, relying on the authentic historical references, we will then find out that such a distinction surfaced immediately after the death of the Messenger of Allah. Abu Bakr soon took control, having ascended to the seat of government with the help of the vast majority of the sahaba. Ali ibn Abu Talib and Banu Hashim in addition to a very small number of the sahaba who were politically weak did not accept him. 

It goes without saying that the ruling authority expelled the latter and banished them, regarding them as dissenting from the Islamic mainstream. It did its best to paralyze their opposition by all economic, social, and political means. 

It is also a well known fact that our contemporary followers of "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" do not realize the political dimensions of the roles played during those periods and the extent of enmity and hatred those vicious periods brought forth to isolate and expel the greatest personality in the history of humanity after the Messenger of Allah Muhammad. Our contemporary "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" believe that everything went in the very best possible way, and that everything still revolves in full agreement with the Book of Allah (the Holy Qur'an) and the Sunnah since the time of the "righteous caliphs," and that the latter were like angels; therefore, they respected one another, and there were no ill feelings among them nor ambition nor bad intentions. For this reason, you find them refusing all what the Shi`as say about thesahaba in general and the "righteous caliphs" in particular. 

It is as if "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" never read the history books written by their own scholars, feeling satisfied with only the praise, compliments, and admiration their ancestors lavished on the sahaba in general and on the "righteous caliphs" in particular. Had they opened their minds and vision and turned the pages of their history books, as well as the books of hadith(traditions of the Prophet [P]) available with them, seeking the truth and getting to know who is right and who is wrong, they would have changed their mind not only about the sahaba, but also about many injunctions which they regard as correct while they are not. 

Through this humble effort, I am trying to clarify for my brethren among "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" some facts which fill the books of history, and to briefly highlight for them the clear texts which refute falsehood and show the truth, hoping that doing so may heal the Muslims' disunity and division and bring about their unity. 

Contemporary "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah," as I know them, are not fanatics, nor are they against Imam Ali or Ahl al-Bayt; rather, they love and respect them, but they, at the same time, also love and respect the enemies of Ahl al-Bayt and follow in their footsteps, thinking that "they all sought nearness to the Messenger of Allah." 

"Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" do not act upon the principle of befriending the friends of Allah and dissociating themselves from the enemies of Allah; rather, they love everyone and seek nearness to Mu`awiyah ibn Abu Sufyan just as they seek nearness to Ali ibn Abu Talib. 

The shiny term "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" has dazzled them, and they are not familiar with the implications and insinuations which the most shrewd Arabs had embedded therein. If they one day come to know that Ali ibn Abu Talib is the personification of Muhammad's Sunnah, and that he is the gate leading to such Sunnah, and that they have contradicted him and he has contradicted them..., they will surely renounce their stand and research this issue very seriously, and there will be no "Ahl al-Sunnah" except those who followed Muhammad's and Ali's Sunnah. In order to come to such a conclusion, we have to unravel for them the greatest plot which played the most serious role in setting Muhammad's Sunnah aside, and in substituting it with Jahili innovations which caused the Muslims' setback and their deviation from al-Sirat al-Mustaqeem (the Straight Path), and their disunity and dissension. It also caused them at a later time to call each other apostate, and even fight one another. It thus caused their scientific and technological backwardness which led to their being invaded and occupied then subjugated, humiliated, and assimilated. 

Having concluded this brief survey identifying the Shi`as and the Sunnis, we have to take note of the fact that the proper noun "Shi`a" (or Shi`ites) does not imply that its adherents oppose the Sunnah, as most people are misled into thinking when they brag and say: "We are the followers of the Sunnah," implying that others are opponents of the Sunnah. This is something which the Shi`as do not accept at all; rather, the Shi`as are convinced that they, and only they, are the ones who uphold the authentic Sunnah of the Prophet especially since they have approached such Sunnah through its gate, namely Ali ibn Abu Talib; there is no gate to it other than his and, according to them, nobody can reach the Prophet except through him. 

We, as usual, seek neutrality in order to reach the truth while taking the dear reader from one stage to another so that we may together review some historical events. We will thus provide him with the proof and argument showing the Shi`as to be the true followers of the Sunnah as this book's title suggests, leaving to him after that the freedom to make up his mind and to comment as he pleases.  

---

[9] According to informed Saudi citizens, the population of Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia does not exceed 8%, whereas the majority are Maliki Sunnis. __ Tr. 

[10] It will become evident to us from forthcoming researches that "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" did not add the name of Ali ibn Abu Talib to the three "righteous caliphs" except at a very late period in history.  

Identifying the Shi`as

Identifying the Shi`as 

---

If we wish to discuss the Shi`as without fanaticism or affectation, we would say that they are the adherents of the Islamic School of Thought which respects and follows the twelve Imams from the family (Ahl al-Bayt) of the Prophet. They are Ali and eleven of his offspring. The Shi`as refer to the Prophet and the Twelve Imams regarding all fiqh(jurisprudence) issues and public dealings. They do not prefer anyone over the Twelve Imams with the exception of their grandfather, the bearer of the Message, Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah. This is briefly the true definition of the Shi`as. Disregard the allegations circulated by scandal mongers and fanatics who claim that the Shi`as are the enemies of Islam, that they believe in the "prophethood" of Ali, and that he is the one who bears the prophetic Message, or that they belong to Abdullah ibn Saba, the Jew, and that they are this and that... 

I have read many books and articles written by those who try very hard to "prove" that the Shi`as are kafirs (apostates), trying to excommunicate them from the Islamic creed altogether. Yet their statements are no more than sheer calumnies and obvious lies which they cannot prove or document except by quoting what their predecessors among the enemies of Ahl al-Bayt have said, in addition to the statements of the Nasibis who forced their authority on the Islamic world and ruled it by force and intimidation, pursuing the Prophet's progeny as well as those who follow them, killing and expelling them, calling them by all bad names. 

Among such bad names, which are often repeated in books written by the enemies of the Shi`as, is the misnomer "Rafidis," rejectionists. Any uninformed reader will instantly consider the possibility that they are the ones who rejected the Islamic principles and who did not act upon them, or that they rejected the Message of Prophet Muhammad. But the truth of the matter is quite different. They were called "Rafidis" simply because early Umayyad and Abbaside rulers, as well as evil scholars who always tried to please them, wanted to misrepresent them by attaching such a misnomer to them. Early Shi`as preferred to remain loyal to Ali, rejecting the caliphate of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman, and they rejected the caliphate of all other Umayyad and Abbaside rulers. 

Such folks may have misled the Islamic Ummah through the help of a number of fabricators from the sahaba (companions of the Holy Prophet), claiming that their caliphate was legitimate because it was mandated by Allah, Praise be to Him. Thus did they promote the allegation that the verse saying: "O you who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger and those charged with authority among you" (Holy Qur'an, 4:59) was revealed in their regard, especially since they were the ones charged with the authority of government and obedience to them, hence, was the obligation of all Muslims. They hired those who attributed to the Messenger of Allah the following tradition: "None abandons the authority of the ruler even in as little as an inch then dies except that he dies the death of jahiliyya (pre-Islamic period of ignorance)." 

We thus come to realize that the Shi`as were oppressed by the rulers because they refused to pay allegiance to them and rejected their authority, regarding it as the usurpation of the right which belonged to Ahl al-Bayt. Hence, rulers across many centuries duped their commoners into believing that the Shi`as rejected Islam and desired no less than its annihilation and demise, as stated by some past and present writers and historians who claim to be men of knowledge. 

If we return to the game of making wrong look right, we will realize that there is a difference between those who wished to annihilate Islam and those who tried to put an end to the oppressive and corrupt governments whose norm of conduct is anti-Islamic. Shi`as never abandoned Islam; rather, they opposed unjust rulers, and their objective has always been the returning of the trust to its rightful people and thus erect the foundations of the type of Islam that rules with justice and equity. Anyway, the conclusion we reached in our past researches, as outlined in Then I was Guided, With the Truthful, and Ask Those Who Know, is that Shi`as are the ones who will attain salvation because they are the ones who have always upheld the Two Weighty Things: the Book of Allah, and the Progeny of His Messenger. 

For the sake of fairness, some scholars from those referred to as "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" (followers of the Sunnah and consensus) admit this same fact. For example, Ibn Manzur says the following in his lexicon Lisan al-Arab where he defines the Shi`as: 

The Shi`as are the people who love what the Prophet's Progeny loves, and they are loyal to such Progeny.[6]Commenting on this statement, Dr. Sa`id Abd al-Fattah `Ashoor says, "If the Shi`as love whatever the Prophet's Progeny loves and are loyal to such Progeny, who among the Muslims would refuse to be a Shi`a?!" 

The age of fanaticism and hereditary enmity has gone by, and the age of enlightenment and intellectual freedom has dawned; therefore, the educated youths have to open their eyes and read the literature published by the Shi`as. They ought to contact them and talk to their scholars in order to know the truth first-hand, for how often have we been deceived by honey sweet talk and by calumnies which do not withstand any proof or argument? 

The world nowadays is accessible to everyone, and Shi`as are present in all parts of the world. It is not fair that a researchers studying the Shi`as should ask their enemies and opponents, those who hold different religious views from the Shi`as, about them. And what does an inquirer expect other than being told by such opponents what has always been said since the beginning of the Islamic history? Shi`as are not a secretive cult that does not reveal its beliefs except to its members; rather, their books and beliefs are published throughout the world, their schools and religious circles are open to all seekers of knowledge, their scholars hold public discussions, lectures, debates, and conferences, and they call for common grounds and try to unite the Islamic Ummah. I am convinced that fair-minded individuals in the Islamic nation who seriously research this subject will find out the truth beyond which there is nothing but falsehood. Nothing stops them from reaching such truth except biased propaganda media, false rumors circulated by the enemies of the Shi`as, or a particular erroneous practice by some Shi`a commoners.[7] Sometimes it suffices an enemy of the Shi`as to remove one false claim, or wipe out one erroneous myth, to join their ranks.[8] 

I recollect in this regard the incident of a Syrian man who was misled by the propaganda machine of that time. Having entered Medina to visit the grave site of the greatest Messenger of Allah, he happened to see a rider on horseback whose dignity and awe were captivating, and who was accompanied by some of his followers surrounding him from all directions, eagerly awaiting his commands. The Syrian man was quite astonished to find a man besides Mu`awiyah surrounded with such a halo of reverence. He was told that the rider was al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abu Talib. "Is he the son of Abu Turab, the Kharijite?!" asked he. Then he went to extremes in cursing and taunting al-Hasan, his father, and his Ahl al-Bayt. Al-Hasan's companions took their swords out of their scabbards and rushed to kill that Syrian, but they were stopped by Imam al-Hasan who alighted from his horse, welcomed the Syrian, and with noble manners asked him, "It seems to me that you are a stranger in these quarters, O brother of the Arabs, are you?" "Yes," the Syrian answered, "I am from Syria, and I am a follower of the commander of the faithful and the master of the Muslims Mu`awiyah ibn Abu Sufyan." Al-Hasan again welcomed him and said to him, "You are my guest," but the Syrian rejected the invitation, yet al-Hasan kept insisting to host him till he agreed. The Imam, and for the entire (three-day customary) hospitality period, kept serving him in person and being extremely nice to him. On the fourth day, the Syrian showed signs of regret and repentance on account of his past conduct towards al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abu Talib; he remembered how he had cursed and taunted him, while here he was so kind to him and so generous. He asked al-Hasan and pleaded to him to forgive his past conduct, and the following dialogue resulted in the presence of some of al-Hasan's companions: 

AL-HASAN: "Have you recited the Qur'an, O brother of the Arabs?" 

SYRIAN: "I have memorized the entire text of the Qur'an."

AL-HASAN: "Do you know who Ahl al-Bayt from whom Allah removed all abomination and whom He purified with a perfect purification are?"

SYRIAN: "They are Mu`awiyah and the family of Abu Sufyan."
Those present there were very surprised to hear such an answer. 

Al-Hasan smiled and said to the man, "I am al-Hasan ibn Ali; my father is the cousin and brother of the Messenger of Allah; my mother is Fatima, Mistress of the ladies of all mankind; my grandfather is the Messenger of Allah and the master of all prophets and messengers. My uncle is al-Hamza, master of martyrs, and so is Ja`far al-Tayyar. We are Ahl al-Bayt whom Allah, Praise to Him, has purified and kindness to whom He required of the Muslims. We are the ones whom Allah and His angels blessed, ordering the Muslims to bless us. I and my brother al-Husayn are the masters of the youths of Paradise." 

Then Imam al-Hasan enumerated some virtues of Ahl al-Bayt, acquainting him with the truth, whereupon the Syrian could see the light, so he wept and kept kissing al-Hasan's hands and face, profusely apologizing to him for his misconduct, saying, "By Allah Who is the One and Only God! I entered Medina and none on the face of earth I hated more than you, while now I seek nearness to Allah, Praise to Him, through loving you, obedience to you, and dissociation from those who antagonize you." 

It was then that Imam al-Hasan turned to his companions and said, "And you wanted to kill him though he was innocent! Had he known the truth, he would not have been our opponent. Most Muslims in Syria are like him. Were they to know the truth, they would follow it." Then he recited the verse saying, "The good deeds and the bad deeds are not alike; repel (evil) with what is best, so one between whom and you there is enmity will be as if he were a warm friend" (Holy Qur'an, 41:34). 

Yes, this is the reality with which most people, unfortunately, are not familiar. How many are those who oppose the truth and reject it for a good portion of their lives till one day they find out that they were wrong, so they rush to repent and seek forgiveness? Everyone is obligated to seek the truth: it is said that reverting to the truth is a virtue. 

The problem is with those who see the truth with their very eyes and who touch it with their very hands, yet they still stand in its face and fight it for the achievement of low ends, for the sake of a fleeting life, and because of hidden grudges. About such people has the Lord of Honors and Dignity said, "It is the same whether you warn them or not; they will never believe" (Holy Qur'an, 36:10). So there is no sense in wasting time with them; rather, it is our obligation to sacrifice everything for those who are fair-minded and who truly seek the truth and exert a genuine effort to reach it. Such are the ones about whom the Lord of Honor and Dignity has said, "You can only warn one who follows the Reminder and fears the Beneficent God in secret; so announce to him forgiveness and an honorable reward" (Holy Qur'an, 36:11). 

Those endowed with awareness from the Shi`as everywhere are obligated to spend their time and wealth to introduce the truth to all members of the Islamic Ummah. The Imams from Ahl al-Bayt are not the exclusive privilege of the Shi`as; rather, they are the Imams of guidance of everybody. They are the light that shatter for all Muslims the darkness of ignorance. If the Imams from Ahl al-Bayt remain unknown to most Muslims, especially the educated among the "followers of the Sunnah and consensus," the Shi`as will bear the burden of such a responsibility before Allah. 

If there are still among people those who are apostates or atheists who are not familiar with the straight religion of Allah as brought by Muhammad, the master of all messengers, the responsibility falls upon the shoulders of all Muslims.  

---

[6] Refer to p. 189, Vol. 8, of Lisan al-Arab lexicon by Abul-Fadl Jamal ad-Din Muhammad Ibn Manzur (630 - 711 A.H./1233 - 1311 A.D.). 

[7] We will conclude, when we come to the end of this book, that the conduct of some Shi`a commoners discourages educated Sunni youths from continuing their research to discover the truth. 

[8] As did, indeed, happen to the author of this book and to many others. __ Tr.  

The Final Word in Evaluating the Sahaba

The Final Word in Evaluating the Sahaba   

---

The sahaba are undoubtedly fallible human beings. Like all other humans, they have obligations and rights. Surely they are honored with being the companions of the Prophet so long as they respect and safeguard such companionship; otherwise, their penalty will be doubled because Allah's justice mandates that someone distant [from the Prophet] is not to be tormented as one who is near. One who has heard the Prophet directly, saw the light of Prophethood, witnessed the miracles with conviction and was fortunate to be taught by the Prophet himself is not like one who lives in the post-Prophet period and who neither saw nor directly heard him. 

Reason and conscience prefer a man who lives in our time and who respects the Book of Allah and the Sunnah and carries out their instructions over a sahabi who was contemporary to the Messenger of Allah, who kept him company, yet conviction did not penetrate his heart; he accepted Islam only to yield to the dictates of the time. He did not keep the Prophet company in righteousness and piety as long as the Prophet lived. Once the Prophet died, such a sahabi reneged and reverted. 

This is what the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger sanction, in addition to what is sanctioned by reason and conscience, and by anyone who has some knowledge of the Holy Qur'an and the sacred Sunnah of the Prophet. Such a person does not doubt this fact, nor does he find any alternative for it. 

One proof for this argument is the verse saying, "O wives of the Prophet! Whoever of you commits an open indecency, its punishment will be increased doubly, and this is easy for Allah" (Holy Qur'an, 33:30). 

The Prophet's companions included believers who perfected their conviction as well as those whose conviction was quite feeble. Among them were those whose hearts did not surrender to conviction. Among them were pious ascetics as well as reckless individuals who sought only their self-interests. Among them were gracious and equitable persons as well as mean oppressors. Some of them were the believers who upheld righteousness as well as sinning transgressors. They included scholars who implemented what they learned as well as ignorant ones who invented bid`as. Among them were sincere companions as well as hypocrites. Among them were those who violated their oaths, who strayed from the path, and who reneged. 

Since the Holy Qur'an, the sacred Sunnah of the Prophet, and history stated all these facts and clearly explained them, the claim put forth by "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" that all thesahaba were fair and just becomes nonsense which has no face value whatsoever because it contradicts the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah. It contradicts history, reason, and conscience. It is nothing but fanaticism and a claim which cannot be proven, an illogical statement. 

One who researches these matters may wonder about the mentality of "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah," one which contradicts reason, facts, and history. But when he reads about the roles the Umayyads played, and the methods the Abbasides employed, to firmly fix the foundations of this doctrine, I mean respecting all the sahaba and avoiding criticizing them or doubting their integrity, his amazement will then disappear. He will no longer have the least doubt that the latter deliberately prohibited anyone from criticizing the sahaba so that those Umayyads would not be criticized or discredited, and so that the horrible actions they committed against Islam, the Prophet of Islam, and the nation of Islam, would not be revealed. 

Abu Sufyan, Mu`awiyah, Yazid, Amr ibn al-As, Marwan ibn al-Hakam, al-Mughirah ibn Shu`bah, and Bisr ibn Arta'ah were allsahabis who ruled the Muslims. How could they, then, not prohibit any criticism of the sahaba? How could they not fabricate about them false traditions that label each and every one of them as just and fair so that such virtues would include them, too, and so that nobody would dare to criticize them or discuss their actions? 

They label anyone among the Muslims who does so as kafir, apostate, sinner, issuing religious verdicts permitting his murder. They prohibit the washing and shrouding of his corpse which should be pushed with wooden pieces into the grave, as we have said above. Whenever they wanted to kill the Shi`as, they would accuse them of verbally abusing the sahaba. What they mean by that is criticizing them and discrediting some of their actions, a reason which they deem suffices to kill and annihilate them. 

They even went beyond that. Suffices one to ask about the meaning of hadith to be killed, and here is the proof: 

In his Tarikh, the Baghdadi khateeb (orator) states the following: 

One hadith narrated by Abu Hurayra was once mentioned in the presence of Haroun al-Rasheed. It said, "Moses met Adam once whereupon he asked him, `Are you the one who had us dismissed from Paradise?'" A man from Quraysh who was present then asked, "When did Adam meet Moses?!" Al-Rasheed became very angry and said, "Saying too much and the sword go hand in hand; kill this atheist who doubts the hadith of the Messenger of Allah."[284]When a man such as this one, who must have been a highly respected dignitary because he attended the meetings set up by al-Rasheed, was beheaded simply because he inquired about the place where Adam met Moses, do not ask me about a Shi`a who charges Abu Hurayra of being a liar based on the fact that the sahaba, headed by Umar ibn al-Khattab, falsify his hadith. Thus does the researcher understand the contradictions that crept into many ahadith as well as the many abominable and impossible matters and the obvious blasphemy. 

All this happened because criticism or discrediting were taboo: they would lead one to perdition. Even if someone asked for an explanation so that he could reach the truth, and who is detected as inquisitive and researching, was undoubtedly put to death in order to serve as a lesson for others, so that nobody after him would dare to speak his mind. 

They fooled people into thinking that anyone who raised doubt about the hadith narrated by Abu Hurayra or any other sahabi, be he a commoner among them, would be regarded as having discredited the Messenger of Allah. Thus did they place a halo on fabricated ahadith which a number of the sahaba invented after the death of the Prophet, so they became accepted facts. 

Quite often, I used to argue with some of our scholars[285] that the sahaba did not adopt such sanctifying; rather, they themselves used to doubt each other's hadith whenever there is a contradiction with the Qur'an, and that Umar ibn al-Khattab had beaten Abu Hurayra with his cane, prohibited him from narrating hadith, and even accused him of lying. These scholars used to always answer me by saying: "The sahaba had the right to say to one another whatever they pleased; as far as we are concerned, we are not on their level to respond to them or criticize them." I would say: "But, O servants of Allah! They [the said sahaba] fought one another, called each other kafir, and killed one another!" They would respond by saying: "They all are mujtahids: if one of them is right in his ijtihad, he receives two blessings, whereas if he errs, he receives only one. It does not befit us to discuss their affairs." 

Certainly these scholars must have inherited such a doctrine from their fathers and forefathers, one generation from the other, so they were repeating it like parrots without contemplation or scrutiny. 

Their Imam, al-Ghazali, had adopted such a view, one which he propagated among people, making himself the ultimate authority for Islam and Muslims. In his books Al-Mustafa, he says, "What is accepted by the ancestors and the posterity is that the justice of the sahaba is well known due to the fact that Allah, the most Exalted One, the most Great, has called them just and has praised them in His Book, and this is our conviction in their regard." 

I wonder about al-Ghazali in particular and about "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" in general when I read about their seeking from the Qur'an testimonies regarding the sahaba being fair and just, knowing that there is not a single verse in the Holy Qur'an which backs this claim. On the contrary, there are many Qur'anic verses which deny the justice of the sahaba, which reveal their secrets, and which expose their hypocrisy. We have dedicated an entire chapter to discuss this topic in our bookAsk Those Who Know from pp. 113 - 172; so, whoever wishes to research this subject further in order to become familiar with such facts should refer to this book. He will know what Allah and the Messenger say about them. 

So that the researcher may come to know that the sahabanever dreamt one day of the status invented for them by "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah," he has only to read modern books as well as history books which overflow with their horrible deeds. They tell tales of how they called each other kafir, and how so many of them used to wonder whether they were among themunafiqoon, hypocrites. 

Al-Bukhari, for example, states in his Sahih that Ibn Maleeka met thirty of the companions of the Prophet who all dreaded being counted among the hypocrites, and none of them ever said that his conviction was to be compared with that of [arch-angel] Gabriel.[286] Al-Ghazali himself indicates in his book that Umar ibn al-Khattab used to ask Huthayfah of Yemen whether the Messenger of Allah mentioned his [Umar's] own name among the hypocrites of whose names he informed him.[287] 

The statement of those who claim that there are no hypocrites among the sahaba is completely worthless when we come to know that the definition of a sahabi is the one we have already discussed above, that is, anyone who saw and believed in the Messenger of Allah, whether he met him or not. 

Their phrase "and believed in" the Prophet, too, contains an exaggeration simply because all those who kept the Prophet company had articulated the shahada, and the Prophet accepted their superficial admission of faith, saying, "I have been ordered to judge what is apparent, and Allah will deal with one's innermost." As long as he lived, he never said to any of them, "You are a hypocrite, so I shall not accept your declaration of faith!" 

This is why we find the Prophet calling the hypocrites "my companions" even while knowing their hypocrisy! Here is the proof: 

Al-Bukhari states that Umar ibn al-Khattab asked the Prophet to have Abdullah ibn Ubayy, the hypocrite, beheaded. He said to him, "O Messenger of Allah! Let me strike the neck of this hypocrite with the sword!" The Prophet said, "Leave him alone; I do not want people to say that Muhammad kills his own companions."[288] 

Some scholars among "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" may try to convince us that the hypocrites used to be well known; so, we should not confuse them with the sahaba. This is impossible. Contrariwise, the hypocrites are among the sahaba with whose secrets only Allah, Glory to Him, is familiar. They may perform their prayers and they may fast, worship Allah and seek nearness to the Prophet through all means. Let us provide you with the proof: 

In his Sahih, al-Bukhari indicates that Umar ibn al-Khattab on another occasion asked the Messenger of Allah to permit him to kill Thul Khuwaysara when the latter said to the Prophet: "Be fair!" But the Prophet said to Umar, "Leave him alone, for he has companions if one of you were to compare his prayers with that of theirs, he would find it inferior and would find his fast as well 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."[289] 

I do not exaggerate if I say that most companions were not far from hypocrisy according to what is determined by many verses of the Holy Qur'an and according to the decisions of the Messenger of Allah embedded in many of his ahadith. In the Book of Allah, we come across verses such as these: 

He has brought them the truth, yet most of them are averse from the truth. (Holy Qur'an, 23:70) The dwellers of the desert are more [fierce] in disbelief and hypocrisy. (Holy Qur'an, 9:97)
And from those who are round about you of the dwellers of the desert there are hypocrites, and from the people of Medina (too); they are stubborn in hypocrisy; you do not know them; We know them. (Holy Qur'an, 9:101)It is noteworthy here that some scholars among "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" try very hard to cover the truth. They interpret "dwellers of the desert" to mean that they were not among thesahaba but are meant to be the residents of the desert and the outskirts of the Arabian peninsula. Yet we have found how Umar ibn al-Khattab, shortly before drawing his last breath, left his will to the caliph who would succeed him saying: "I urge you to be good to the dwellers of the desert, for they are the origins of the Arabs and the substance of Islam."[290] So, if the Arabs' kinsfolk and the substance of Islam are the worst in disbelief and hypocrisy and it is best that they should not know the limits of what Allah revealed to His Messenger, then there is no value attached to the statement made by "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" claiming that the sahaba were all just and fair. 

In order to shed more light, and so that the researcher may be convinced that the phrase referring to the dwellers of the desert, that is, bedouin Arabs, was meant to refer to the sahaba in general, the Holy Qur'an, after describing the bedouin Arabs as the worst in disbelief and hypocrisy, goes on to say: "And of the dwellers of the desert are those who believe in Allah and the latter day and take what they spend to be (means of) nearness to Allah and the Prophet's prayers; surely it shall be for them means of nearness (to Allah); Allah will permit them to enter into His mercy; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful" (Holy Qur'an, 9:99). 

As for what the Messenger of Allah had decided in the Prophet's sacred Sunnah, it is his following statement: 

My sahaba will be taken to the fire [of hell], whereupon I shall plead: "O Lord! But these are my sahaba!" It will be said to me, "You do not know what they brought forth after you." I will say, "Then perdition should be the lot of all those who altered after me."[291]Traditions like this one are numerous, and we have avoided quoting them seeking to be brief. Our objective, after all, is not to research the biographies of the Prophet's companions in order to cast doubts about their justice, for history has spared us such an undertaking. It testifies against some of them as having committed adultery, drunk wine, made a false oath, reneged from the creed, committed crimes against innocent people and betrayed the nation. We only wish to bring into focus the fact that to say that each and every sahabi was fair and just is a legendary myth invented by "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" in order to cover the faults of their masters and heads from the sahaba who made many alterations to the religion of Allah, changing its injunctions with innovations which they themselves had invented. We also wish again to prove that by embracing the doctrine of the sahaba being all just and fair, "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" unveiled their real identity, the identity of seeking to please the hypocrites and to follow thebid`as they had invented in order to bring people back to the period of jahiliyya. 

Since "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" banned their followers from criticizing or discrediting the sahaba, closing the doors ofijtihad in their faces since the time of the Umayyad rulers and the period of inventing sects, the said followers inherited such a doctrine which they passed down to their offspring, one generation after another. Hence, 

"Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" remained till this day prohibiting any discussion of the sahaba for whom they seek Allah's Pleasure, labelling as kafir whoever criticizes any of them. 

The summary of this chapter is that the Shi`as, followers of the creed of Ahl al-Bayt, place the sahaba in perspective; they pray Allah to be pleased with the righteous among them, and they dissociate themselves from the hypocrites and the sinners, the enemies of Allah and His Messenger, from them. They, hence, are the only ones who follow the true Sunnah because they loved those whom Allah love and the sahaba who are loved by the Messenger of Allah. They dissociate themselves from the enemies of Allah and of His Messenger who were the primary cause of the misguidance of the vast majority of Muslims.  

---

[284] Tarikh Baghdad, Vol. 14, p. 7. 

[285] The author here is referred to Sunni scholars with whom he used to argue before accepting Shi`a Islam. __ Tr. 

[286] Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Vol. 1, p. 17. 

[287] Al-Ghazali, Ihyaa `Uloom al-Din, Vol. 1, p. 129. Al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Kanz al-Ummal, Vol. 7, p. 24. 

[288] Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Vol. 6, p. 65, where the merits of the Qur'an and Surat al-Munafiqoon are discussed. Ibn Asakir, Tarikh, Vol. 4, p. 97. 

[289] Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Vol. 4, p. 179. 

[290] Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Vol. 4, p. 206. 

[291] Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Vol. 7, p. 209, in a chapter dealing with the Pool [of al-Kawthar].  

The Sahaba According to "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a"

The Sahaba According to "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a"  

---

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."[276] 

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."[277] 

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."[278] 

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."[279] 

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."[280] 

Dr. Hamid Hafni Dawood briefly quotes such statements made by "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" then comments thus: 

Sunnis are of the view that all the sahaba are just and fair, that all are accepted as equitable even if their degree of equity varies from one person to another. Whoever labels a sahabi as apostate commits apostasy himself, and whoever labels him as a sinner sins. Whoever discredits a sahabi does, in fact, discredit the Messenger of Allah himself. The most critical Sunnis are of the view that whatever historical events went on between Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and Mu`awiyah must not be discussed. There are among the sahaba those who exerted ijtihad of their own and were accurate: these include Ali and those who follow his line. There are others among them who followed their own views and fell into error such as Mu`awiyah and Ayesha (may Allah be pleased with her) as well as those who followed in their footsteps. Sunnis think that we ought to draw the line here and not discuss anyone's defects. They [Sunnis] were prohibited from abusing Mu`awiyah, since he was asahabi, and they were quite strict in denouncing anyone who abused Ayesha, since she was the second mother of the faithful after Khadija and since the Prophet loved her most. Anything beyond this ought not to be discussed but must be referred to Allah, Glory to Him. In this regard, al-Hasan al-Basri and Sa`id ibn al-Musayyab say, "Such were issues from which Allah kept our hands and swords clean; so, we have to purify our tongues as well." This is the summary of the views held by the Sunnis with regard to the sahaba being just and equitable and what our stand should be.[281]If the seeker of the truth wishes to further investigate the sahabato find out who "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" imply in the word "sahabi," he will realize that they grant this badge of honor to anyone who had seen the Prophet ! In his Sahih, al-Bukhari says, "Whoever kept company with the Messenger of Allah or saw him is one of his sahaba." Ahmad ibn Hanbal says, "The best of people, barring those who accompanied the Messenger of Allah during the Battle of Badr, is whoever kept him company for a year, a month, or a day, or who even saw him. He is respected proportionately according to the length of time he accompanied the Prophet."[282] In his book Al-Isaba fi Tamyiz al-Sahaba, Ibn Hajar says, "Anyone who quotes onesingle hadith of the Prophet or even one word, or who has seen him and is a believer in him, is a sahabi. So is anyone who has met the Prophet believing in him then dies as a Muslim, whether he kept him company for a long or a short period of time, whether he quotes him or not, whether he has participated in a campaign with him or not, whether he saw him but did not meet him, or whether he could not see him due to certain obstacles."[283] 

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.  

---

[276] Muslim, Sahih, Vol. 8, p. 22. 

[277] Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, Vol. 1, p. 509. 

[278] Both pages 233 and 235 of al-Dhahabi's book Al-Kabaair (major sins) record this statement. 

[279] This is recorded on p. 275 of the book titled Al-Sarim al-Maslool. 

[280] 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). 

[281] 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). 

[282] This is stated on p. 51 of Al-Kifaya and also on p. 2 of Talqeeh Fuhum Ahl al-Athaar. 

[283] Ibn Hajar, Al-Isaba, Vol. 1, p. 10.  

The Sahaba According to the Followers of Ahl al-Bayt

The Sahaba According to the Followers of Ahl al-Bayt  

---

If we research the subject of the sahaba without prejudice or sensationalism, we will find the Shi`as viewing them as the Holy Qur'an, the Prophet's Sunnah, and reason view them. They neither regard all of them as unbelievers, as some extremists have done, nor do they accept all of them as equitable, as "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" have done. 

Imam Sharaf ad-Din al-Musawi[274] says the following in this regard: 

"Whoever researches our view with regard to the sahaba will find it the most moderate of views. We neither go to extremes in this regard as the ghulat have done, labelling them all as apostates, nor do we go to extremes in accepting them as trusted authorities as most [Sunni] Muslims have done. Those who attribute their perfection, as well as those who go to the opposite extreme and label them as apostates, are all in the same box. Sunnis are of the view that anyone who heard or saw the Prophet is absolutely equitable. They support their view from the tradition saying, `... whoever traversed or walked on the earth from them without any exception.' But as far as we are concerned, although we regard keeping company with the Prophet as a great honor, it, as is, does not render one infallible. Like all other men, the sahaba included equitable persons who are their scholars and greatest men, whereas some of them are hypocrites who committed crimes. The condition of some of them is unknown; so, we rely on the equitable ones among them and accept them as our masters in the life of this world as well as in the life to come. As for those who oppressed the wasi and the Prophet's brother, as well as all those who committed crimes such as Hind's son [Abu Sufyan], the son of the genius, the son of "the blue woman," the son of Uqbah, the son of Arta'a, etc., and their likes, these have nothing to be honored for, nor does their hadith hold water. It is of an undecided nature, and we have to carefully scrutinize it. 

"Such is our view with regard to the sahaba who narratehadith. The Qur'an and the Sunnah are our argument to pack this view as explained wherever appropriate in our books that deal with the basics of jurisprudence. But the majority of Muslims have gone too far in sanctifying the hadith they hear from any sahabi, so much so that they swayed from moderation and sought their arguments from those who are good as well as from those who are bad, blindly emulating every Muslim individual who had heard or seen the Prophet. They resented others who differed from them in going to such extremes and went beyond all limits in denouncing them. 

"How intense their denunciation of us when they find us rejecting the hadith of many sahaba whose integrity we publicly challenge or whose condition is not fully ascertained! While doing so, we simply follow the binding legislative obligation in verifying religious facts and looking for authentic Prophetic legacy. 

"It is for this reason that they cast doubt about us, piling their accusations on us, charging us with unfounded charges, vying with one another to remain in ignorance about us. Had they recalled their wisdom and consulted the bases of knowledge and scholarship, they would have come to know that equity as a basic ingredient in all the sahaba cannot be proven. Had they delved in depth into the meanings of the Qur'an, they would have found it full of references to a number of sahabihypocrites. Suffices you, for example, Surat al-Tawbah and Surat al-Ahzab." 

Dr. Hamid Hafni Dawood, Professor of Arabic Literature and Head of the Department of Arabic at Ayn Shams University in Cairo says, "As for the Shi`as, they view the sahaba as they view others: they do not distinguish between them and between the Muslims who came later till the Day of Judgment." 

The reason for that is their application of one set of rules whereby the deeds of the sahaba, as well as those of other generations that followed them, are measured. The mere quality of being a sahabi does not award anyone a particular merit except when one qualifies himself for such a merit and demonstrates his readiness to carry out the injunctions set by the one who introduced the Shari`a. Among the sahaba are those who are divinely protected against sinning, such as the Imams who were blessed to be in the company of the one who introduced the Shari`a. These include Ali and his sons (peace be upon them). And among them are the men of equity who maintain a beautiful company with Ali following the demise of the Messenger of Allah. 

Among the sahaba are those who are accurate in their ijtihad, while others among them erred in their ijtihad. Among them are those who sinned, those who turned atheists and whose views are uglier and more dangerous than those of the latter group. The circle of atheists includes the hypocrites and those who worshipped Allah only marginally. And among them were the disbelievers who never repented, as well as those who reneged after having embraced the Islamic creed. 

This means that the Shi`as, who constitute a great portion of the Muslim population, place all Muslims in one balance without differentiating between a sahabi, a tabi`i, or anyone else. To be a sahabi is not to have immunity against wrong beliefs. 

It is upon this strong foundation that they allowed themselves, out of their own ijtihad, to criticize the sahaba and to research the extent of their equity. They also permitted themselves to cast doubt about a number of sahaba who violated the conditions of such companionship and who deviated from the path of loving the Progeny of Muhammad. 

Why not? The greatest Messenger, after all, has said, "I am leaving among you that which, so long as you adhere to them both, you shall never stray: the Book of Allah and my `itra, my Progeny. They shall never part from one another till they rejoin me at the Pool [of Kawthar]; so, see how you succeed me in faring with them." 

Upon this and similar hadith, they find many sahaba as having violated this hadith by oppressing Muhammad's Progeny, and by cursing some members of such Progeny; so, how can the honor of companionship be sound for such violators, and how can they be branded as equitable? 

This is the summary of the view held by Shi`as in rejecting the equity of some sahaba, and these are the factual scholarly proofs whereupon they built their arguments. 

Dr. Hamid Hafni Dawood admits somewhere else that to criticize the sahaba and to find fault with them is not a bid`ainvented by the Shi`as alone. He goes further to say, "Since the beginning, the Mu`tazilites dealt with the same while discussing the issues relevant to the creed. They did not only criticize thesahaba in general, they even criticized the caliphs themselves. In doing so, they won supporters and opponents." 

The subject of criticizing the sahaba used to be confined, during the first centuries, to those who were deeply immersed in knowledge, especially Mu`tazilite scholars who were preceded in going in such a direction by the heads of the Shi`as and by the leaders who were enthusiastically supporting the Progeny of Muhammad. 

I have already pointed out somewhere else that the scholars of Arabic, and Mu`tazilite mentors, were a burden on Shi`a leaders from the first Hijri century. Thereupon, the issue of criticizing the sahaba is the child-birth of following Muhammad's Progeny. It was the result, not the nature, of Shi`ism. Those who followed the Progeny of Muhammad came to recognize the latter as having studied in depth all the branches of knowledge relevant to the creed due to their enjoyment of the sources of knowledge provided by the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt who are the pristine source and the over-flowing spring from which Islamic scholarship is derived since the inception of Islam and till our time.[275] 

I personally think that one who seeks the truth has to open the door for criticism and fault-finding; otherwise, he will remain veiled from such faults. This is exactly what "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" have done: They have exaggerated in their belief in the equity of all the sahaba without researching the latter's conditions; they, therefore, remained to our time distant from the truth.  

---

[274] His full name is Sharaf ad-Din Sadr ad-Din al-Musawi. He is author of the celebrated book Al-Muraja`at. The translator of this book has translated it into English under the title: Al-Muraja`at: A Shi`i-Sunni Dialogue. It was published (hard cover edition only) in 1995 by Imam Hussain Foundation, P.O. Box 25/114, Beirut, Lebanon. __ Tr. 

[275] This text was published on p. 8 and its following pages of the book titled Al-Sahaba fi Nadar al-Shi`a al-Imamiyya (the Prophet's companions as seen by Imamite Shi`as).