Chapter Six - The logical reason for the practice of Tabarra

Our reasoning is based on logic.  We have evidenced elsewhere that the Shi’a do not deem all the Companions as just and truthful.  Whilst this might be a useful mechanism with which to suppress discussion about their actions after the death of Messenger of Allah (pbuh) the fact is they were not infallible beings. Sunni belief that Some of the Sahabah were thiefs, adulterers and drunkards.

Salafi authority Shaykh Al-Uthaymeen in his book ‘Sharh al-Aqyda al-Tahawyia’ under the chapter ‘The stance of Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama’ah in relation to the Sahabah’ stated:

ولا شك أنه حصل من بعضهم سرقة وشرب خمر وقذف وزني بإحصان وزني بغير إحصان، لكن كل هذه الأشياء تكون مغمورة في جنب

فضائل القوم ومحاسنهم، وبعضها أقيم فيه الحدود، فيكون كفارة‏.

“There is no doubting that some of them stole, drank alcohol, launched a charge against chaste women, performed adultery whilst being married and performed adultery whilst being single, but all these are forgivable on account of their virtues and good deeds, and some of them were punished so as to purify them.”

(Source: Sharh al-'Aqidah al-Wasitiyyah ,Volume 2,page 292)

Whilst these are examples of sins that impacted on their piety, far greater sins can be evidenced of their conduct after the death of Messenger of Allah (s) who had left the Quran and the Ahulbayt (as) a source of guidance for his Ummah and placed an obligation upon the Companions to profess love and reverence to them. As such, our assessment of which individuals we admire or disassociate ourselves from has a direct nexus with their relationship with the Ahlubayt (as) meaning Pious Fatima (a), Imam Ali (as and their two sons (a).

If the argument is advanced that one should remain silent and show reverence to all such individuals because of the fact that they merely used to sit with Messenger of Allah (s) we will argue that such an approach is hypocrisy and contrary to human nature. Human beings are naturally inclined on deciphering good from bad and the mind is geared towards standing up for what is right and opposing what is wrong. 

For centuries schools were taught about the merits of Colonialism with school textbooks expounding the benefits it brought to indigenous peoples.  It is only over time that an analysis and re-evaluation of history has exposed the fact colonisation was conducted under cover of religion (the propagation of Christianity) and was drenched in the blood of the indigenous with European colonisation heavily linked to the West African Slave Trade.  This was known as the “doctrine of discovery” and in 2012 the World Council of Churches (WCC) Executive Committee denounced the “Doctrine of Discovery” calling the nature of the doctrine “completely opposed to the gospel of Jesus”. This is a clear example of disowning (doing Bara) from those that partook in evil deeds in the name of religion.  In the United Kingdom evils of Colonialism have led to a forced re-evaluation of the said era with regards to attitudes towards certain hitherto revered personalities. The celebrated philanthropist Edward Colston who supported and endowed schools, houses for the poor, alms houses, hospitals and Anglican churches in Bristol, London and elsewhere had his statue pulled down by an angry crowd once it emerged that he was a slave trader. This was due to public outcry over what he had done, the toppling of the statue symbolised people disassociating from him – 21st century Tabarra. Would the correct approach have been to remain silent considering Colston's charitable work? Should Britain’s violent colonial past that included the violent suppression of local people, their interment in camps and starvation be glossed over because they improved transport infrastructure whilst there? Clearly if historical analysis brings out uncomfortable truths / unknown realities – opposing discussion on it is counter-productive and unfair.

If today's Sunni Muslims are happy to dissociate themselves from dead slavers or the leaders of oppressive regimes that partake in acts of oppression such as annexing people’s homes, slaughtering innocent people, threatening innocent folk and raping women why can't the same approach be applied when the many Companions committed such crimes? What is wrong if we as Shia Muslims dissociate ourselves from those that perpetuated injustices towards the immaculate household of the Prophet (s)? 

1. If Messenger of Allah (s) objected over questions raised over his sanity when he requested writing materials on his death bed why is it an issue if we disassociate ourselves from the individual that declared that he was delirious and insulted his wives earning his severe reprimand for his conduct? 

2. If pious Fatima (as) was angered over her being denied her inheritance rights and Imam Ali (as) deemed those that did so as dishonest, treacherous, sinful, liars what is wrong if we disassociate ourselves from such individuals?

3. If we distance ourselves from those that compelled Imam Ali (as) as Head of State to partake in three bloody civil wars from different factions including those led by individuals revered as companions of the Prophet (s) by Sunni Islam? Allah (swt) says in his Glorious Book; Surah Jinn verse 14:

وَأَنَّا مِنَّا الْمُسْلِمُونَ وَمِنَّا الْقَاسِطُونَ فَمَنْ أَسْلَمَ فَأُولَـٰئِكَ تَحَرَّوْا رَشَدًا وَأَمَّا الْقَاسِطُونَ فَكَانُوا لِجَهَنَّمَ حَطَبًا

 'And of us some are Muslims (who have submitted to Allah, after listening to this Quran), and of us some are Al-Qasitun (disbelievers those who have deviated from the Right Path)'. And whosoever has embraced Islam (i.e. has become a Muslim by submitting to Allah), then such have sought the Right Path." 

Ibn Hajar Asqalani states :

قوله: ثبت أن أهل الجمل وصفين والنهروان بغا.

هو كما قال، ويدل عليه:

 حديث علي: أمرت بقتال الناكثين، والقاسطين، والمارقين.

رواه النسائي في "الخصائص"  والبزار  والطبراني 

والناكثين: أهل الجمل؛ لأنهم نكثوا بيعته، والقاسطين: أهل الشام؛ لأنهم جاروا عن الحق في عدم مبايعته. والمارقين: أهل النهروان؛ لثبوت الخبر الصحيح فيهم أنهم: "يمرقون من الدين كما يمرق السهم من الرمية 

وثبت في أهل الشام حديث: "عمار تقتله الفئة الباغية"، وقد تقدم، وغير ذلك من الأحاديث

His (Al-Rafi'ee) statement {It is firmly established that the people of Al-Jamal (under Aishah), and Siffin (under Muawiyah) and Al-Nahrawan (i.e. the Khawarij) were rebels} is true. What further proves this is the hadith in which he (Imam Ali) says “I was COMMANDED to fight the oath-breakers, the Qasitin and the apostates”.

Al-Nisai recorded it in al-Khasais, as well as al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani. The people of Al-Jamal (under Aishah) were the oath-breakers because they broke their bayah to him (i.e. Imam Ali), and the Qasitin were the people of Syria (under Muawiyah) because they left the haq (truth) in their refusal to give him bayah. The apostates were the people of al-Nahrawan (i.e. the Khawarii) due to the establishment of the sahih report about them that “they apostasized from the religion as the arrow leaves the bow (i.e. completely)”. 

The hadith that ‘Ammar would be killed by a rebellious group is also established about the Syrians (i.e. they murdered him)

(Source: Talkhis Al Habeer – Ibn Hajr Asqalani, Volune 4, page 84, Edn. Mousasah Al Qurtuba)

All those who waged war against Imam Ali's (as) army were called oath-breakers by the Prophet (saw) that places them at serious peril in the next world. Why can't we disassociate ourselves from these individuals whose actions clearly violated the Qur’an? When will this quintessentially Sunni fallacy end of reverence for both the murderer and the murdered?

1. Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal records : 

حدثنا إبراهيم بن عبد الله قثنا سليمان بن أحمد قال نا مروان بن معاوية نا قنان بن عبد الله سمعت مصعب بن سعد يحدث عن أبيه قال قال رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم من آذي عليا فقد آذاني.

Saad bin Abi Waqas said : 

Rasulullah (s) said : Whoever hurts Ali has infact hurt me.

(Source: Kitab Fadhail Sahabah – Ahmad bin Hanbal, Volume 2,page 98 Hadith number 1078, publisher Dar Ibn Jawzi Riyadh Saudi Arabia)

Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal also records: 

حدثنا عبد اللَّهِ حدثني أَبِي ثنا يحيي بن أَبِي بُكَيْرٍ قال ثنا إِسْرَائِيلُ عن أَبِي إِسْحَاقَ عن عبد اللَّهِ الجدلي قال دَخَلْتُ علي أُمِّ سَلَمَةَ فقالت لي أَيُسَبُّ رسول اللَّهِ (ص) فِيكُمْ قلت مَعَاذَ اللَّهِ أو سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ أو كَلِمَةً نَحْوَهَا قالت سمعت رَسُولَ اللَّهِ (ص) يقول من سَبَّ عَلِياًّ فَقَدْ سبني

Abu Abdullah Jadali narrated:

I came to Um Salma and she said to me : Messenger of Allah (pbuh) is being abused among you. I said to her “I asked pardon from Allah, how come I do that. Um Salma said to me “I heard from the Messenger of Allah (s) saying that one who abused Ali has infact abused me.

The investigator of this book Allamah Shouib Al-Arna’ut said : This Hadith is Authentic.

(Source: Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal – Ahmad bin Hanbal, Volume 44, Page 329 Hadith number 26791 publisher Risalah Al Alamiyyah Beriut Lebanon)

If Mu'awiyah cursed Imam Ali (as) and  instructed his Governors to do likewise why can't we disassociate ourselves from those that were de facto cursing Messenger of Allah (s) ?

We appeal to justice, If an individual can be proven to be a bad individual why can he not be referred to as such? Why should one remain silent on this matter? It’s like those in the West that disapprove of slavery and colonialism being taught in schools. They are worried it will undermine some of the foundations of their nation. When you know a person was a debauched individual who partook in heinous acts isn't adopting silence about the said individual or worse, protecting/ defending him not hypocrisy? 

 The Shia position albeit an unpopular one in the eyes of Ahlul Sunnah is very clear and stay aloof from such blatant hypocrisy and double standards, when Rasulullah (s) made love for the Ahlulbayt (as) obligatory and deemed their enemies his enemies we do not seek to offer explanations arch as ijtihaad to offer mitigation for those Sahaba the oppressed whether through their deeds or actions. It for this reason that we find this narration recorded by Shaykh Saduq (ra): 

Narrated from Imam Jafar bin Muhammad (ع)

as part of a long narration:

"And to love the friends (Awliya) of Allah is obligatory and (accepting) their Mastership (Wilayat) is obligatory. And disavow/staying away (Bara'at) from their enemies is obligatory and from those who oppressed Aal-e-Mohammad (ع) and tore their veil and took away Fadak from Fatima (ع) and deprived Her of Her inheritance and illegally snatched (Gasb) her rights and rights of Her Husband and intended/started to burn Her house and laid the foundation of oppression and changed the traditions (Sunnah) of the Prophet of Allah (ص)."

[Source:al-Khisal, Shaikh Sadooq, Pg.607]

Let us conclude with an example:

A poor destitute man is lying in the street, dying of hunger. Person A walks past, he has pity on him, he buys him a meal and gives him some money.  As he walks off Person B comes along and he kicks the poor man's food from his hand and snatches the money that Person A gave him. This entire episode was watched by Person C who personally knows Person A and Person B. 

How does Person C assess what has transpired?  His natural inclination will be to be supportive of Person A's actions and he will have a positive opinion of him and will greet him and converse with him in a positive manner.  As for Person B, having witnessed this appalling episode Person C will bear revulsion towards him over what he had done and he will hold a negative perception of Person B and will disassociate himself from him. 

We are sure that any reasonable rational minded person would react in the same manner that Person C has done. The problem for the Ahlul Sunnah is when Person B is a Sahabi they will resist the natural inclination to oppose his wrongdoing and will instead adopt silence/ and in some instances seek to offer mitigation with regards to why Person B had acted in the manner that he had. If the Ahlul Sunnah are happy to toe that line we cannot compel them to re-evaluate their doctrine in light of what is recorded in their hadith literature and historical works.  It would however be unfair to insist that the followers of the Ahl’ulbayt (as) do likewise. Our doctrine of Tabarra enables us to assess the Sahaba from historical data against the criteria, namely their dealings with the Ahulbayt (as) - it is on this basis we deduce whether such individuals are / or not worthy of our respect. If any Sahabi does not meet this criterion, then we disassociate ourselves from the said individual.