Maktabat Minhaaj Al Sunnah stated:
“According to Imami Shi’a doctrine, the vast majority of the Sahaba were liars and apostates” One of the leading scholars of the Shi’a, al-Kashshi, reported that Abu Ja’far said: “The people (including the Sahaba) all became apostates after the Prophet’s death except for three.” When asked who they were, he replied, “Al-Miqdad ibn Aswad, Abu Dharr, and Salman as mentioned in the verse, ‘If he (Muhammad) dies or is killed, will you then turn on your heels.’” (Rijal al-Kashshi pp12-13)”.
This is not a topic that should cause discord and hatred between Muslims. Whilst we acknowledge there is a difference between the way Sunni and Shi’a approach the issue of the Sahaba – it is incorrect to conclude that the Shi’a reject the Sahaba. We should point out that our books are replete with chapters praising the Sahaba of Rasulullah (s). We however do not ascribe to the belief that one should blindly follow and respect an individual because he benefited from Rasulullah’s blessed company, we deem adherence and respect to be based on what we learn about them from the Qur’an, Sunnah and history. We acknowledge the sacrifices that the Sahaba had made, BUT our yardstick for determining the truth is the Qur’an and Sunnah. Hence both schools believe in the Sahaba the only difference being one school examines each individual in relation to their manners / attitude, whilst the other does not deem this to be a necessary component. As Shi’a we look at the character of a companion against the Qur’an, Sunnah and history and then decide on his reliability. The (14th) century, the well known Sunni scholar, Maulana Wahidu ‘z Zaman of Hyderabad Deccan explains the point:
“Those that sat in the company of Rasulullah (s) are true Sahaba. Those deserving of the title ‘Sahaba’ are those that bore love and respect of Rasulullah (s) and his Ahl’ul bayt (as). The title ‘Sahaba’ does not suffice, we shall cite an example:
‘A King has some servants, on account of their love for their king they also love one another. Then one of the servants rebels against the King, he kills the Kings family, relations and friends, and becomes their enemy. In light of such facts should we STILL love the servant, on the sole basis that he was the kings servant?”
Anwaru ‘l-lughah Volume 14 page 20
Earlier on in the same book Zaman states:
“The verses and hadith praising the Sahaba refers to those that sat in the midst of Rasulullah (s) and showed love and respect towards his Ahl’ul bayt and supported them”.
Anwaru ‘l-lughah Volume 14 page 10
Shia scholar Allamah Sayyid Asad Haider writing on the Shi’a aqeedah on the Sahaba states:
“The Shi’a of the Ahl’ul bayt respect Rasulullah’s Sahaba, they do not play down respect for them, but when following the life of Rasulullah (s) they stress that the Shari’a applies equally to Sahaba and non Sahaba – the Sahaba’s position and status is in accordance with their deeds and actions”.
Taken from al Sahabeeyat fi Nazhar Shi’a page 32, printed in Egypt
Let us now present a detailed Shia concept of Sahaba advanced by Shia scholar Sharfuddin al-Mousawi in his famed work Ajwebat Masail Jarallah, pages 14-16:
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 narrate hadith. 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 sahabi hypocrites. Suffices you, for example, Surat al-Tawbah and Surat al-Ahzab.”
To counter the lies of the Nasibi we present the comments of two of our Imams (peace be upon them) that sets out their views on the Sahaba of Rasulullah (s):
We present the will of Imam Ali (as) to his sons on his deathbed. It is recorded in Nahjul Balagha but in far greater detail by Allamah Majlisi in addition to stressing adherence to the Quran, obligations towards ones friends, observing prayers, giving Zakat, tending to the poor and destitute, he also reminded them about the Sahaba with these words
الله الله في اصحاب نبيكم الذين لم يحدثواحدث ولم يا والمحيئًا
"I remind you about those Sahaba (meeting their obligations) who neither said new things nor introduced innovations"
Bihar Al Anwar Volume 42 page 249
Imam Zaynul Abideen (as) our fourth Imam is known in Muslim and non-Muslim circles for his beautiful supplications, some of which have been complied into book format in Sahifa al-Kamilah. One of his (as) specific du’as was for the pious Sahaba of Rasulullah (s) may Allah be well pleased with them:
“O God, and as for the Companions of Muhammad specifically, those who did well in companionship, who stood the good test in helping him, responded to him when he made them hear his messages’ argument, separated from mates and children in manifesting his word, fought against fathers and sons in strengthening his prophecy, and through him gained victory; those who were wrapped in affection for him, hoping for a commerce that comes not to naught in love for him; those who were left by their clans when they clung to his handhold and denied by their kinsfolk when they rested in the shadow of his kinship; forget not, O God, what they abandoned for Thee and in Thee, and make them pleased with Thy good pleasure for the sake of the creatures they drove to Thee while they were with Thy Messenger, summoners to Thee for Thee”.
Imam Zayn al-’Abidin, Sahifa al-Kamilah, (English translation, London, 1988), p. 27
Imam Jafer Sadiq (as) had praised the Sahaba of Rasulullah (s) as follows:
“Allah (swt) from amongst the Sahaba had selected a group, and showered them with respect, they were successful and the blessed lips of Rasulullah (s) praised them for virtues. You should [likewise] love them, extol their virtues and separate from the people of Bidah as sitting with them leads to one’s heart being filled with kufr and hatred”.
Misbah al Shariah page 67
Sheikh Saduq records this narration:
كان أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله اثنى عشر ألف رجل
28-5 حدثنا أحمد بن زياد بن جعفر الهمداني رضي الله عنه قال: حدثنا علي ابن إبراهيم بن هاشم، عن أبيه، عن محمد بن أبي عمير، عن هشام بن سالم، عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال: كان أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله اثني عشر ألفا ثمانية آلاف من المدينة، وألفان من مكة، وألفان من الطلقاء، ولم ير فيهم قدري ولا مرجي ولا حروري ولا معتزلي، ولا صحاب رأي، كانوا يبكون الليل والنهار ويقولون: اقبض أرواحنا من قبل أن نأكل خبز الخمير.
"Ahmad ibn Zyad ibn Ja’far al-Hamedany – may God be pleased with him – narrated that Ali ibn Ibrahim ibn Hashim quoted his father, on the authority of Muhammad ibn Abi Umayr, on the authority of Hisham ibn Salim that Aba Abdullah as-Sadiq (alaihi salam) said, “There were twelve-thousand companions for God’s Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ali). Eight-thousand of them were from Medina, two-thousand of them were from Mecca and another two-thousand of them were (al-tulaqa’a) those who had embraced Islam on the day of the Conquest of Mecca. There were no Qadarites, Marajites, Kharajites, Mo’tazelites, nor any who act according to their own opinions. They cried day and night and said, ‘O God! Please take away our souls before we eat barley bread”.
(al Khisal Volume 2 page 640)
Maktabat Minhaaj Al Sunnah stated:
“One of the leading scholars of the Shi’a, al-Kashshi, reported that Abu Ja’far said: “The people (including the Sahaba) all became apostates after the Prophet’s death except for three.” When asked who they were, he replied, “Al-Miqdad ibn Aswad, Abu Dharr, and Salman as mentioned in the verse, ‘If he (Muhammad) dies or is killed, will you then turn on your heels.’” (Rijal al-Kashshi pp12-13)”.
This is one of the favourite traditions that are cited by the Nasibi against the followers of Ahl’ul bayt (as). We had already cited the comments of Imam Zaynul Abideen (as) and Imam Sadiq (as) where they had set out their admiration and love for the Sahaba of Rasulullah (s). Is it believable that these two Imams were praising just three individuals? Not only do these traditions go against those explicit traditions that we have cited, we should also point out that one of the narrators of this tradition is Muhammad bin Uthman who has not been authenticated by the scholars (see Mu’ajam Rijal al-Hadith, Volume 17 page 294) while another narrator namely Hanaan bin Sudair was a follower of Waqifi sect (see Rijal al-Tusi, page 334).
This tradition clearly conflicts with the Shia narrations we quoted earlier, in particular the narration of Imam al Sadiq (as) who refers to twelve thousand Sahaba. The narration is also historically inaccurate as Imam Ali (as) had the full backing of his own tribe, in this regards Allamah Shibli Numani states:
“it may be observed that the Musalmans could be ranked in three separate groups at that time : (1) Banu Hashim, counting Ali amongst them (2) the Muhajirin, who were headed by Abu Bakr and Omar, and (3) the Ansar whose chief was Obada”
al Faruq page 90
If the Minhajj are still going insist that we adhere to this belief then we would suggest that examine the testimony in Sahih Bukhari your most authentic book:
Narrated ‘Abdullah:
The Prophet said, “I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount”. ‘Abdullah added: The Prophet said, “I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount, and some of you will be brought in front of me till I will see them and then they will be taken away from me and I will say, ‘O Lord, my companions!’ It will be said, ‘you do not know what they did after you had left.’
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8 Hadith 578
Narrated Anas:
The Prophet said, “Some of my companions will come to me at my Lake Fount, and after I recognise them, they will then be taken away from me, whereupon I will say, ‘My companions!’ Then it will be said, ‘You do not know what they innovated (new things) in the religion after you.”
1. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8 Hadith 584
2. Sahih Muslim, part 15, pp 53-54
Narrated Abu Hazim from Sahl bin Sa’d:
The Prophet said, “I am your predecessor (forerunner) at the Lake-Fount, and whoever will pass by there, he will drink from it and whoever will drink from it, he will never be thirsty. There will come to me some people whom I will recognise, and they will recognise me, but a barrier will be placed between me and them.” Abu Hazim added: Nu’man bin Abi ‘Aiyash, on hearing me, said. “Did you hear this from Sahl?” I said, “Yes.” He said, ” I bear witness that I heard Abu Said al-Khudri saying the same, adding that the Prophet said: ‘I will say: They are my companions. Then it will be said to me, ‘You do not know what they innovated (new things) in the religion after you left’. I will say, ‘Far removed, far removed (from mercy), those who changed after me.” Abu Huraira narrated that the Prophet said, “On the Day of Resurrection a group of companions will come to me, but will be driven away from the Lake-Fount, and I will say, ‘O Lord (those are) my companions!’ It will be said, ‘You have no knowledge as to what they innovated after you left; they turned apostate as renegades (reverted from the true Islam)”
Sahih al Bukhari, Volume 8 Hadith 585
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, “While I was sleeping, a group (of my followers were brought close to me), and when I recognized them, a man (an angel) came out from amongst (us) me and them, he said (to them), ‘Come along.’ I asked, ‘Where?’ He said, ‘To the (Hell) Fire, by Allah’ I asked, ‘What is wrong with them?’ He said, ‘They turned apostate as renegades after you left.’ Then behold! (Another) group (of my followers) were brought close to me, and when I recognized them, a man (an angel) came out from (me and them) he said (to them); ‘Come along.’ I asked, ‘Where?’ He said, ‘To the (Hell) Fire, by Allah.’ I asked, ‘What is wrong with them?’ He said, ‘They turned apostate as renegades after you left.’ So I did not see anyone of them escaping except a few who were like camels without a shepherd”.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8 Hadith 587
Faced with such explicit traditions Nasibis try and re-define Sahaba here, namely the words don’t refer to the Sahaba per se but in fact refer to the Ummah i.e. the vast bulk of the Ummah will be in the fire. To counter this we suggest our readers check the Arabic it says the words “Sahaba”. We are yet to find any Arabic dictionary that states Sahaba means Ummah.
Further proofs come from the wording of the traditions. In addition 8: 587 ‘They turned APOSTATE as renegades after you left.’ When you LEAVE somebody, you do so having already BEEN WITH THEM, i.e. he had been amongst them. The words “after you left” clearly indicate that the group being referred to are those who survived the Prophet (S) i.e. the Sahaba. This is absolutely logical, when a parent dies, they leave behind them their children – they have survived their parents.
Moreover in tradition 8: 585 Rasulullah (s) say’s: “There will come to me some people whom I will RECOGNIZE” and in 8: 587 “While I was sleeping, a group (of my followers were brought close to me), and when I RECOGNIZED them”. Now in both hadith our infallible Prophet (S) refers to a group “whom I will recognise” – I can only recognise someone if I have SEEN that person – common sense. Rasulullah (s)’s surprise is because he is seeing those who he sat with (companions) being lead into the fire.
These authentic traditions make it clear that the vast bulk of Sahaba
(1) Innovated
(2) Became Kaffir
(3) Only a few will be saved from the fire!
We read in al Istiab, Volume 3 page 390 and Kanz al Ummal, Volume 6 page 67 that:
Um Salama narrated that the prophet (pbuh) said: ‘Among my companions are some whom I will never see and they will never see me after my death’.
Commenting on this hadith Deobandi scholar Shaykh ul Hadith Maulana Sarfaraz Khan Safdar states;
“These are those individuals that recited the Shahada before Rasulullah (s) and after him became murtad (apostates), this includes later generations that became murtad and the people of Bidah”
Taken from Izalath al Rahab page 398
For further details one can consult Sharh Nawawi Volume 1 page 129.
Maktabat Minhaaj Al Sunnah stated:
Al-Qummi claims that Abu Ja’far said that the following verse was revealed about them; “Verily the doors of Heaven will not open for those who deny Our signs and are arrogant towards them, nor will they enter paradise until a camel passes through the eye of a needle.”(7:40) He also adds that the camel in the verse refers to their camel. Thus, according to Al-Qummi, Talhah (RA) and az-Zubayr (RA), who were both amongst the ten who received glad tidings of paradise from the Prophet SAWS himself, will never enter paradise! (Rijal al-Kashshi pp12-13)”.
Whilst we have not gleamed into the particulars of this narration one should point out to the Minhajj that they have traditions in their beloved Sahih al Bukhari that not only places Talha and Zubayr in the fire, but also the vast bulk of the Sahaba that according their traditions have been guaranteed paradise!
We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 204:
حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْوَهَّابِ، حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادٌ، عَنْ رَجُلٍ، لَمْ يُسَمِّهِ عَنِ الْحَسَنِ، قَالَ خَرَجْتُ بِسِلاَحِي لَيَالِيَ الْفِتْنَةِ فَاسْتَقْبَلَنِي أَبُو بَكْرَةَ فَقَالَ أَيْنَ تُرِيدُ قُلْتُ أُرِيدُ نُصْرَةَ ابْنِ عَمِّ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم. قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم " إِذَا تَوَاجَهَ الْمُسْلِمَانِ بِسَيْفَيْهِمَا فَكِلاَهُمَا مِنْ أَهْلِ النَّارِ ". قِيلَ فَهَذَا الْقَاتِلُ، فَمَا بَالُ الْمَقْتُولِ قَالَ " إِنَّهُ أَرَادَ قَتْلَ صَاحِبِهِ ". قَالَ حَمَّادُ بْنُ زَيْدٍ فَذَكَرْتُ هَذَا الْحَدِيثَ لأَيُّوبَ وَيُونُسَ بْنِ عُبَيْدٍ وَأَنَا أُرِيدُ أَنْ يُحَدِّثَانِي بِهِ فَقَالاَ إِنَّمَا رَوَى هَذَا الْحَدِيثَ الْحَسَنُ عَنِ الأَحْنَفِ بْنِ قَيْسٍ عَنْ أَبِي بَكْرَةَ. حَدَّثَنَا سُلَيْمَانُ حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادٌ بِهَذَا.
Narrated Al-Ahnaf bin Qais:
While I was going to help this man (‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib), Abu Bakra met me and asked, “Where are you going?” I replied, “I am going to help that person.” He said, “Go back for I have heard Allah’s Apostle saying, ‘When two Muslims fight (meet) each other with their swords, both the murderer as well as the murdered will go to the Hell-fire.’ I said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! It is all right for the murderer but what about the murdered one?’ Allah’s Apostle replied, “He surely had the intention to kill his companion.”
We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 204:
حَسَنِ، قَالَ خَرَجْتُ بِسِلاَحِي لَيَالِيَ الْفِتْنَةِ فَاسْتَقْبَلَنِي أَبُو بَكْرَةَ فَقَالَ أَيْنَ تُرِيدُ قُلْتُ أُرِيدُ نُصْرَةَ ابْنِ عَمِّ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم. قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم " إِذَا تَوَاجَهَ الْمُسْلِمَانِ بِسَيْفَيْهِمَا فَكِلاَهُمَا مِنْ أَهْلِ النَّارِ ". قِيلَ فَهَذَا الْقَاتِلُ، فَمَا بَالُ الْمَقْتُولِ قَالَ " إِنَّهُ أَرَادَ قَتْلَ صَاحِبِهِ ". قَالَ حَمَّادُ بْنُ زَيْدٍ فَذَكَرْتُ هَذَا الْحَدِيثَ لأَيُّوبَ وَيُونُسَ بْنِ عُبَيْدٍ وَأَنَا أُرِيدُ أَنْ يُحَدِّثَانِي بِهِ فَقَالاَ إِنَّمَا رَوَى هَذَا الْحَدِيثَ الْحَسَنُ عَنِ الأَحْنَفِ بْنِ قَيْسٍ عَنْ أَبِي بَكْرَةَ. حَدَّثَنَا سُلَيْمَانُ حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادٌ بِهَذَا.
Narrated Al-Hasan:
(Al-Ahnaf said:) I went out carrying my arms during the nights of the affliction (i.e. the war between ‘Ali and ‘Aisha) and Abu Bakra met me and asked, “Where are you going?” I replied, “I intend to help the cousin of Allah’s Apostle (i.e.,’Ali).” Abu Bakra said, “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘If two Muslims take out their swords to fight each other, then both of them will be from amongst the people of the Hell-Fire.’ It was said to the Prophet, ‘It is alright for the killer but what about the killed one?’ He replied, ‘The killed one had the intention to kill his opponent.’”
We would urge our readers to examine these two ‘sahih’ hadith from the Sahih Bukhari. These hadith clearly infer that all those involved in the Battles of Jamal, Sifeen and the tragedy of Karbala are destined for Hell. And among them are Ummul-Momineen Hadhrath Ayesha and the eminent personalities of Hadhrath Imam Ali (AS) & Imam Hussain (AS) and all their martyred companions (AS), and of course Talha & Zubair. What is the fatwa of Minhajj al Nasibi here?
Whilst we will Inshallah refute the collection of fatwas in the final chapter we felt that it would be appropriate for us to reply to three fatwas that had been cited suggesting that the Shi’a are kaffir due to their position on the Sahaba.
Maktabat Minhaaj Al Sunnah stated:
“During one of Imam Malik’s classes, it was mentioned that the Rafidi Shi’a curse the Sahaba. Imam Malik recited the verse, “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and those with him are harsh with the disbelievers and gentle among themselves. So that the disbelievers may become enraged with them.” (48:29) He then said, “Whoever becomes enraged when the Sahaba are mentioned is the one about whom the verse speaks.” (Tafseer al-Qurtubi) 4) Abu Zur’ah ar-Razi: He said of the Rafidi Shi’a doctrine of cursing the Sahaba, “If you see someone degrade any of the companions of the Prophet SAWS know that he is a disbeliever. Because the Prophet SAWS was real, what he brought was the truth and all of it was conveyed to us by way of the Sahaba. What those disbelievers wish to do is cast doubt on the reliability of our narrators in order to invalidate the Qur’an and Sunnah. Thus the disbelievers are the ones most deserving of defamation.” 6) Imam Al-Alusi: He declared the Rafidi Shi’a disbelievers because of their defamation of the Sahaba. His position was based on the rulings of Imam Malik and other scholars. In response to their claim to be followers of the Ahl al-Bayt (the Prophet’s SAWS family) Al-Alusi said, “No, they are really followers of the devils and the Ahl al-Bayt are innocent of them.”(Rijal al-Kashshi pp12-13)”.
It is sad that Nasibi cults such as this group seek to vent maximum emotion amongst actual Sunni’s by highlighting Shi’a criticism of the Sahaba with the sole aim that this will lead to them joining them in the chorus of takfeer against the Shi’a. We will Inshallah address Imam Malik’s Fatwa separately in the final chapter, suffice it to say the Shi’a views on the Sahaba do NOT in any way mean that one can conclude that the Shi’a are kaffir. These Nasibis cannot prove from the Qur’an or hadith that either Allah (SWT) or Rasul (S) ever declared Sahaba who cursed one another to have become Kaffir. This is a fact, they quarreled, fought each other in his blessed presence and he NEVER said that they had become kaffir. In fact Sahaba even criticized him (S) accusing him of being delirious on his deathbed and yet curiously we never hear these Deobandi and Salafi Nasibis ever running to the aid of our Rasul and deeming such individuals as Kaffir.
When a person enters into the fold of Islam, he is required to recite the Kalima tayyiba and Shahada, upon doing so he comes under the umbrella of Islam. It is following this recital that he can be told about the core components of Iman / beliefs that make up this declaration. From the texts of Ahl’ul Sunnah we learn that the declaration of Iman, is as follows:
“I believe in Allah, in his Angels, In his Books, in the Day of Judgment, the fact that everything good and bad is from Allah and that Life exists after death”.
These are the conditions of Iman, there exists no requirement to have faith in the iman of Abu Bakr, Umar or for that matter any other Sahaba. In the absence of this fact, on what basis do these so-called scholars conclude that disrespect of the Sahaba makes you a kaffir?
If one examines the entire contents of the Holy Qur’an there exists no evidence that entry into the fold of Islam is dependent on testifying to the iman of the Sahaba.
Some individuals will seek to cite verses and suggest that these pertain to Abu Bakr, Umar etc, thus concluding that to reject these individuals’ means that one is rejecting the Qur’an. From this view point they will argue that believing in the iman of the Sahaba is a necessity since without them, the link to guidance shall be broken – hence to reject them makes one a kaffir. When debating on the issue of takfeer one needs to recognize that this is such a serious matter that a fatwa can only be issued when there is no doubt whatsoever. There is no arguing that general verses came down with regards to specific individuals, but one needs to appreciate that Abu Lahab and Zaid bin Harith are the only individuals that are mentioned by name in the Qur’an. Even if we are to accept the claim that verses descended with regards to Abu Bakr and Umar, this can not in any way be deemed to proof beyond a doubt, since commentators of the Qur’an interpreted these verses according their knowledge, thoughts and personal viewpoints i.e., they interpreted verses according to their own school of thought. Whilst some for example cite the verse that refers to Abu Bakr in the cave, deeming this as a verse of appraisal, others have criticized his Iman on this particular occasion.
Maktabat Minhaaj Al Sunnah stated:
4) Abu Zur’ah ar-Razi: He said of the Rafidi Shi’a doctrine of cursing the Sahaba, “If you see someone degrade any of the companions of the Prophet SAWS know that he is a disbeliever. Because the Prophet SAWS was real, what he brought was the truth and all of it was conveyed to us by way of the Sahaba. What those disbelievers wish to do is cast doubt on the reliability of our narrators in order to invalidate the Qur’an and Sunnah. Thus the disbelievers are the ones most deserving of defamation.”
This is a very common Nasibi argument. Since the Deen (Qur’an / Sunnah) reached us via the Sahaba, loving them is part of the Deen. We would state that this is matter of personal preference, since it is these Ulema and their neo Nasibi followers that have made the mistake of wrongly deeming this to be a part of Iman, they are now seeking to force the Shi’a to embrace this incorrect notion.
The Ahl’ul Sunnah deem every companion as reliable due to the fact that he professed belief in Rasulullah (s) and had the benefit of seeing him – hence he is a ‘Sahaba’. At the time of the Farewell Pilgrimage there were at least 100,000 Sahaba, is it correct to conclude that every one of these individuals was just? If it is not, then why do the majority school uphold the belief that ALL the Sahaba were just? In addition we are also expected to believe that all the Sahaba are like stars, whoever amongst them you follow will lead you to guidance. We will answer this claim by citing this example:
“If Rasulullah (s) appeared in this present era, and a Shepherd, bus conductor, street cleaner, barber, butcher, Doctor, engineer, Professor and trader all saw Rasulullah (s) and embraced Islam having met him and hence with that were deemed Sahaba, would it be fair to conclude that they ALL developed the same knowledge, sagacity, piety, mental attitude? Can we deem them ALL to be on an equal level BECAUSE they saw Rasulullah (s) and were hence his Sahaba?
On the ‘Stars’ principle you will have a choice to follow a street cleaner or professor, can we conclude that both will be equal in knowledge? The majority school deem all those who saw Rasulullah (s) to be his Sahaba no matter how far away they were from him, when in fact the sad fact is even those that sat close to him, behaved inappropriately as can be vouched for in history.
The books of history testify that on the day of Hudaibiya, one particular Sahaba raised doubts on the Prophethood of Muhammad (s), at Uhud prominent Sahaba fled for the mountains, one fled so far that he returned to Madina after three days. At Khayber the companions led by prominent Sahaba fled in retreat from the enemy. We also know that when Rasulullah (s) asked for writing materials on his deathbed, Sahaba said he was delirious. Rasulullah (s) ordered the army of Usamah to leave Makka, Sahaba refused to go, after the demise of Rasulullah (s) Sahaba were debating over his succession at Saqifa rather than participating in his funeral arrangements. These are clearly historical problems, so whoever’s heart wishes to gleam over these facts then they can choose such personalities as their guides, and whoever accepts these facts is entitled to reject these individuals as guides. If the majority school does indeed want to grasp such individuals would the better approach not be to grasp those individuals with an exemplary character, and declare such persons as the necessary components of the Deen?
The reality is that the necessary parts of Deen are the Ahl’ul Bayt (as) and Rasulullah (s) had told the Sahaba at the Farewell Pilgrimage “I am leaving amongst you two weighty things if you follow them you will never go astray, the Qur’an and my Ahl’ul bayt”. Rasulullah (s) also identified Imam Ali (as) to be the Gate of knowledge, if the Ummah had decided to close the door themselves, grasp the Qur’an and turn their backs on the Ahl’ul bayt (as) then that is their loss, why are they demanding that we do likewise?
If the Minhajj group are seeking to cook up a frenzy citing the fact that the Shi’a are opposed to the Sahaba and certain wives of the Prophet (s), then allow us to cite some traditions and look in to the facts of history. We will cite the treatment of the beloved daughter of Rasulullah (s) Sayyida Fatima (sa). After Rasulullah’s demise she remained alive only for a further six months, during which time her treatment at the hands of Hadhrath ‘Abu Bakr became so bad that not only did she stop talking to him, she left an explicit instruction that he not attend her funeral.
We read in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4 hadith 325 that Ayesha stated:
“After the death of Allah ‘s Apostle Fatima the daughter of Allah’s Apostle asked Abu Bakr As-Siddiq to give her share of inheritance from what Allah’s Apostle had left of the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) which Allah had given him. Abu Bakr said to her, “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity).” Fatima, the daughter of Allah’s Apostle got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude till she died. Fatima remained alive for six months after the death of Allah’s Apostle”.
She died angry with Abu Bakr and Rasulullah (s) warned of the consequences of upsetting Sayyida Fatima, we read in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5 hadith 61
“Allah’s Apostle said, “Fatima is a part of me, and he who makes her angry, makes me angry.”
In relation to Imam Ali (as), He (as) testified to hearing these words of Rasulullah (s) as recorded in Sahih Muslim Book 001, Number 0141:
Zirr reported: ‘Ali observed: By Him Who split up the seed and created something living, the Apostle (may peace and blessings be upon him) gave me a promise that no one but a believer would love me, and none but a hypocrite would nurse grudge against me.
It is little wonder that we have the testimony of Abu Said al Khudri:
“We recognized the hypocrites by their hatred of Ali.”
1. Fada’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p639, Tradition 1086
2. al-Isti’ab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, v3, p47 – al-Riyad al-Nadirah, by al-Muhibb al-Tabari, v3, p242
From these traditions it is clear that Ali (as) was the subject of hatred, and that those that held enmity towards him were in fact only ‘pretending’ to be Muslims. Upon the death of Rasulullah (s) this hatred became more open. Whilst it is difficult to visualize the events with the passage of some 1400 years, it is clear that the situation deteriorated to such an extent that swords were raised against Imam Ali (as), that being the case how difficult can it be to identify and name the enemies of Imam Ali (as)?
Rasulullah (s) declared that a momin would never hate Imam Ali, but Ummul Momineen Ayesha and the Sahaba fought the rightly guided khalifa and in the process were responsible for causing the bloodshed of thousands. In light of these facts what fatwa will Minhajj al Nasibi and their Imams invoke on Hadhrath Ayesha based on these facts?
“Hatred of Ali is such a thing that no good deeds will benefit, whilst love of Ali is such a thing that no bad deeds will harm you”.
al-Nasa’ih al-Kaafiyah page 67
Hatred did not just end there Mu’awiya’s hatred of Imam Ali (as) was such that as Khalifa he made the cursing of Imam Ali (as) a compulsory practice.
Maulana Sayyid Abu’l Ala Maudoodi records this fact in his “Khilafat wa Mulukiyaat”. On page 174 he writes:
“Ibn Kathir in al Bidayah records that one unlawful and outrageous practice started by Mu’awiya was that he and his governors would curse Hadhrath Ali during the Friday sermon from the Imam’s position. This took such an extreme that this practised even took place in the Mosque of the Prophet, in front of the grave of the Prophet (saws), the cursing of the most beloved relative would take place, in the presence of Hadhrath Ali’s family who would hear this abuse with their own ears.”
also:
1.Tabari Volume 4 page 188
2. Ibn Athir Volume 3 page 234
3. al Bidayah Volume 8 page 259 and Volume 9 page 80
So, where were the Minhajj and their Deobandi ancestors at this time? Why did they not take a stand and seek to prevent the cursing of Imam Ali (as)? Why did they not expose Mu’awiya and write eloquent articles like the one that we are refuting here? If despite his being an alleged Sahaba and jurist Minhajj can find it in their hearts to forgive Mu’awiya for cursing Imam Ali (as) the Sahaba and cousin of Rasulullah (s), why can they not forgive the Shi’a likewise? If our sin is that we distance ourselves from one group of Sahaba, it is on account of the fact that we love Rasulullah (s) and his Ahl’ul bayt (as). How can we be forced to have a heart that loves the Ahl’ul bayt (as) and at the same time also professes love for their enemies? It is indeed incredible that these Nasibis like Minhajj have a deep affection for the enemies of Ahl’ul bayt (as) such as Mu’awiya, Marwan and Yazeed. The Shi’a are kaffir because they curse the Sahaba, whilst those that cursed, oppressed and killed them are radhiallah-ta’ala-anho! Take the example of Marwan, ask any Deobandi or Salafi about him, and they will extol him as a pious Sahaba (ra), but Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah, al Muhaddith Shah ‘Abdul Aziz declares:
“Love of the Ahl’ul Bayt is a part of religion it is not a Sunnah, love of Ahl’ul Bayt means hating Marwan, and speaking ill of him. He treated Imam Hussain and the other members of Ahl’ul Bayt badly, and was their enemy. We denounce this Shaytaan”.
Fatwa Azizi, page 225
What is of interest is this article appears on a Deobandi Website, and yet the Minhajj al Nasibi have failed to cite even a single opinion of ‘Abu Hanifa on those that curse the Sahaba? Why is that? This is because this would go against their beliefs.
Allamah Tahavi whilst setting out Abu Hanifa aqeedah states:
We love the Companions of the Messenger of Allah but we do not go to excess in our love for any one individual among them nor do we disown any one of them. We hate anyone who hates them or does not speak well of them.
So here based on the fatwa of Imam Numan one who curses the Sahaba may not be a likeable person BUT he cannot be deemed a kaffir.
We should also point out that Imam Abu Hanifa must have stated this (i.e. not a likeable person) in a context since he had disrespect of Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar in his heart, as we learn of…
In Tarikh Baghdad Volume 13 page 373 we read that:
“Imam Abu Hanifa said that Iblis and The Great Truthful one Abu Bakr were equal in Iman”.
Allamah Shibli Numani in his book “Imam Abu Hanifa” page 76 (English translation) states:
“There lived in the Imam’s lane a miller who was a fanatical Shi’ah and who had, therefore named his two donkeys Abu Bakr and Umar, respectively. One day one of the donkeys kicked the miller so hard in the head that he died. Hearing of this, the Imam said, ‘It must be the donkey who he had named Umar’. On inquiry the guess was found correct”.
Please take note of this reference, one that kicks out is Umar. In addition to his claim that Abu Bakr’s Iman was on par with Iblis, what more can we say? Minhajj al Nasibi can collate as may fatwas of takfeer by their Nasibi Imams as they like, but it will be to no avail – since takfeer due to disrespecting of the Sahaba even ‘Abu Bakr and Umar cannot be proven, and if it can then they should issue takfeer against their beloved Imam Abu Hanifa.
In his book Tarasha page 23 the Deobandi scholar Mufti Taqi Usmani also narrated the said event from Hayaat al Haywaan Volume 1 page 130.
Tarasha page 23
Imams of Ahl’ul Sunnah al-Tabari and bin Qurzcursed the Sahabi Mu’awiyah
Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310 AH) was a Sunni jurist that was so influential he even founded his own school of Fiqh (now extant). His most famed work was his historical chronicle called "Tarikh al-Tabari".
Writing about Jafar ibn Abi Sufyan that died in 80 Hijri he wrote:
"Ja'far died in the middle of the Caliphate of Mu'awiyah May God curse him"
History of Tabari Volume 39 pages 62-63
Imam of Ahul'Sunnah and narrator in the Sahihayn Jarir bin 'Abdul Hameed bin Jarir bin Qurz whose grading from the books of Rijjal: is
(Imam al-‘Ijlī – Thiqah; Imam Ibn Sad – Thiqah; Imam Nasai - Thiqah
Imam of Ahlulsunnah Abu Qasim - Thiqah pursuant to the ijmah of the Ahulsunnah; Imam Hakim - in my opinion he is Thiqah; Imam Khalili - there an absolute ijmah amongst the Ahulsunnah that he is Thiqah)
Regarding the said individual, Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī writes:
وقال قتیبة ثنا جریر الحافظ المقدم لکنی سمعته یشتم معاویة علانیة.
"Qutaybah said "Imam Jurayr bin Hamid bin was an individual that would openly curse Muawiyah"
Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, Volume 1 page 550
We appeal to justice, when such a major Sunni scholar, a Hafidh, Imam and Qadhi (judge) can remain as such despite his abuse open abuse of Mu'awiyah, why does it render the Shi'a kaafirs for doing likewise?
To counter these absurd claims we present the fatwa of Ibn Taymiyyah, the Shaykhul Islam of the Nasibis, who writes:
“And merely abusing some one other than the Prophets does not necessarily make the abuser Kaffir; because some of those who were in the time of the Prophet (i.e. companions) used to abuse one another and none of them was declared kaffir because of this (practice); and (also) because it is not Wajib to have faith particularly in any of the companions; therefore abusing any of them does not detract from the faith in Allah and His books and His messengers and the Last day.
“As Sarimu l masul”, Ibn Taymiyyah, page 579 Published in 1402/1982 by Alam al-Kutub
Mulla Ali Qari in his work of Sharh Fiqh al Akbar whilst setting out Hanafi aqaid on the Sahaba states:
“to abuse Abu Bakr and Umar is NOT Kufr, as Abush Shakur as Salimi has correctly proved in his book, at Tamhid. And it is because the basis of this claim (claim that reviling the Shaykhayn is kufr) is not proven, nor its meaning is confirmed. It is so because certainly abusing a Muslim is fisq (sin) as is proved by a confirmed hadith, and therefore the Shaykhayn (Abu Bakr and Umar) will be equal to the other (Muslims) in this rule; and also if we suppose that some one murdered the Shaykhayn, and even the two sons in law (Ali and Usman), all of them together, even then according to Ahl’ul Sunnah wa al- Jamah, he will not go out of Islam (i.e. will not become kaffir)”
1. Mulla Ali Qari, Sharah al Fiqh al Akbar Matba Uthmaaniyya, Istanbul, 1303 page 130 Matba Mujtabai, Delhi, 1348, page 86 Matba Aftab e Hind, India, No date, page 86) Since this conflicts with the new Nasibi thinking, namely those who curse the Shaykhayn are Kaffir, they have tampered with their texts. The above quote was taken from three (3) editions, printed in India and Turkey. Now a new edition has been printed by Darul Lutubil Ilmiyah, Beirut in 1404/1984, which claims to be the first edition, and from which four pages (including the above text) have been expunged.
Famous Hanafi scholar, Allamah Alaudeen Hanafi in Durr al Mukhthar in his chapter on Imamate page 72 states as follows:
“And whoever turns in the direction of the Kaaba is not a kaffir. Even the Khwaarij are not kaffir, despite the fact that they deem it halaal to take our lives and property. Similarly those that deem it permissible to curse the Sahaba, and deny the concept of seeing Allah (swt), can not be deemed to be kaffir, since their beliefs are based on interpretation and doubt – the fact that they are not held to be kaffirs is proven by the fact that there testimony is accepted whilst those of Non Muslims is not, this proves that they are Muslim”.
Hanafi scholar Maulana Abdu Hai Lucknawi in response to a question regarding the Shi’a position on cursing the Sahaba:
“This is bidah (an innovation) not kufr. They believe Ali to be superior to the Shaykhayn some state that it is a duty to curse the opponents of Ali such as Mu’awiya and Ayesha – this is bidah not kufr, it is based on interpretation, in conclusion to deem the Shi’a kaffir on account of their cursing of the Sahaba contradicts the opinions of the Ulema”.
Mujmoa al Fatawa, Volume 1 pages 3-4
Deobandi scholar Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi in responded to a question on the following topic in this manner:
Q. “Can we deem one that commits the great sin of speaking ill of the Sahaba to be outside the folds of Ahl’ul Sunnah?”
A. Despite this great sin he is not expelled from the Ahl’ul Sunnah wa al Jamaah”.
al Fatawa Rasheedia, Volume 2 pages 140-141
If a Sunni that speaks ill the Sahaba is not a kaffir and remains a member of the Sunni Sect, why is it that the Shi’a by perpetrating this same act become kaffir?
The Shi’a have distanced themselves from those Sahaba that subjected the Ahl’ul bayt (as) to ill treatment. Our position is clear and not negotiable.
Maudoodi states in his “Khilafat wa Mulukiyaat” page 233:
“With regards to those that fought Ali, Ali was more in the right”. At the same time he fails to condemn those that opposed him
He says later on page 338 of the same book:
“The majority scholars commenting on Ali’s stance, deem that he was the rightful Imam, no scholar has said anything different. The Hanafi Ulema agree with the majority scholars that Ali was right and his opponents were rebels”.
Praising the concept of freedom of speech Maudoodi writes in the same book, page 263:
“Abu Hanifa felt that if anyone speaks ill of the rightful Imam, swears or intends to kill him, no action can be taken against him, no one can be indicted nor imprisoned UNTIL he practically implements rebellion”.
We would urge the Minhajj and their fellow Deobandis to contemplate this reference. Allow us to benefit from the freedom of speech that your Imam Abu Hanifa had advocated. The Shi’a do not use foul language nor do we intend on spilling blood BUT we will speak out to defend the truth, why should we be prohibited from condemning Imam Ali (as)’s opponents? We refuse to desist from such an approach; we the Shi’a have separated from such individuals. As far as we are concerned the matter is straightforward. If one party is on the path of truth then the other party is on the path of falsehood. If the Sunni Ulema despite this fact have deemed those in the wrong as worthy of praise since they exercised Ijtihad, for which they shall be forgiven and awarded, ignoring the scores that were killed and failing to apportion blame – then that is their problem not ours. It is indeed regrettable that these ‘Ulema’ have issued takfeer against the Shi’a because we refuse to join them in this approach.
Before we conclude this section, allow us to analyse this matter from another angle. There is no doubt that the Shi’a are the sole Sect that have in light of established facts been highly critical of the Sahaba, that includes Hadhrath Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. If we are to accept the argument advanced by these fatwas that the Shi’a are kaffir on account of their views of the Sahaba then it makes logical sense that the Shi’a will enter the Fire on the Day of Judgement for holding such a belief.
In an authentic tradition found in the texts of Sunni and Shi’a, Rasulullah (s) said that his Ummah would become divided in to 73 Sects, only one would enter paradise all the others would go into the Fire. On the basis of these fatwas let us for arguments sake conclude that the Shi’a due to their condemnation of the Sahaba are one of the 72 Sects that shall enter the Fire. That leaves us with a further 71 Sects that shall also join the Shi’a in Hell. The difficulty for the Nasibi is the fact that of the remaining 71 Sects all revere the Sahaba, and are not critical of any one of them. Despite the fact that they respect all the Sahaba they shall still enter the Fire on the Day of Judgement.
This proves that respecting or disrespecting the Sahaba is NOT that factor that shall determine whether the adherents of a Sect shall enter Hell on the Day of Judgement! This is clear and logical. We would invite those with open minds to ponder this point carefully and to think twice before being taken in by these three illogical fatwas cited by Minhajj al Nasibi.
