Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr's Letter to Mu`awiyah

From Muhammad son of Abu Bakr to the sinner Mu`awiyah son of Sakhr:

Peace of Allah unto those who obey Him from one who is peaceful to whoever accepts only Allah as his Master.

In His Omnipotence, Greatness, Power and Might, Allah did not create the creation in vain, nor due to a weakness in Him, nor to a need to what He creates. Rather, He created His beings so that they may worship him. He let some of them sin while keeping others on the right guidance. Some of them He left to suffer, and to some He granted happiness.

Then He knowingly chose from them Muhammad to be the sole bearer of His Message. He selected him to receive His revelation and entrusted him to carry out His commandments. He sent him as His Messenger, bearer of glad tidings, and warner, to testify to the divine Books which were revealed before his time, and to guide people to uphold His injunctions.

So he invited people to accept his mission through wisdom and beautiful exhortation. The first to respond positively to his call, to obey him, to believe in him, to put his all at his disposal, and to be a Muslim, was his brother and cousin Ali ibn Abu Talib (peace be upon him).

He believed him with regard to the knowledge of the unknown; he preferred him over everyone else he loved; he protected him with his own life; he solaced him in every precarious situation; he fought those whom he had fought and sought peace with those to whom he was peaceful. He never fled when death seemed imminent out of his love for his life; he came out as one unmatched in prowess; nobody could ever come close to what he undertook.

I saw how you tried to reach his lofty status, though you are what you are, while he is the one who stood out above the rest as the foremost in the doing of anything good and in embracing Islam. His conviction was most sincere, his offspring the best among all people, his wife the best of all women, whose cousin was the very best, whose brother traded his life on the Day of Mu'ta for the Pleasure of Allah, whose uncle is the master of martyrs on the Day of Uhud, whose father defended the Messenger of Allah and his mission, whereas you are the accursed and the son of the accursed. You and your father have never ceased plotting to undermine the religion of Allah, trying, both of you, to put out the light of Allah, rallying others behind you, spending your wealth and seeking the support of other tribes.

Thus did your father die, and in his footsteps are you now following. Those who testify against you are the very ones whom you seek to please, while those who resort to you are the pariahs from the remnants of parties, the leaders of hypocrisy, those who are the foremost in dissenting from the Messenger of Allah.

Those who testify for Ali, though his virtues are quite obvious and merits eternal, are his supporters whom Allah, the Most Exalted One, mentioned and praised in the Qur'an over all others from the Muhajirs and the Ansars: they are with him battalions and valiant defenders, protecting him with their words, always ready to spill their blood to protect his, finding the truth in following him and perdition in opposing him.

Woe unto you! How dare you set yourself as an equal to Ali while he is the heir of the Messenger of Allah, his wasi, the father of his offspring, the first among the people to follow him, the very closest to him? He shares with him his secrets; he unfolds his affairs before him, while you are his enemy and the son of his enemy!

So enjoy your life as long as you can through the means of your falsehood, and let the son of al-As support your sinning, for your end seems to have come close, and your mischief seems to be waning: soon you will come to know who is to receive the lofty rewards!

And be informed that you are plotting against your own Lord Whose Might you do not fear, from achieving Whose Mercy you have despaired, and He will soon take you by surprise while you remain in the deluge of your conceit. And peace be with whoever follows the right guidance.1

* * *

The above quoted letter written by Muhammad son of [first caliph] Abu Bakr contains irrefutable facts of interest to all seekers of the truth. It describes Mu`awiyah as a misguided and misguiding person, as an accursed and the son of an accursed man, and that he tries by all might and means to put Allah's light out, spending wealth to distort the creed, plotting against Allah's religion, and that he is the enemy of Allah and His Messenger who deals with falsehood assisted by Amr ibn al-As.

This letter also unveils the virtues and merits of Ali (peace be upon him) which nobody else could claim in the past nor can anyone achieve in the future. In fact, Ali ibn Abu Talib (peace be upon him) has more virtues and merits than what Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr has counted here, but what concerns us most in this chapter is the answer he received from Mu`awiyah ibn Abu Sufyan.

Such an answer will acquaint the seeker of the truth with what is hidden and plotted in history. We will uncover, once we read it, the threads of the plot that kept the caliphate out of the reach of its legitimate owner and that caused the nation to deviate; so, let us provide you with his answer.

Note

1. Jamharat Rasaail al-Arab, Vol. 1, p. 475. Al-Mas`udi, Muruj al-Dhahab, Vol. 2, p. 59. Ibn Abul-Hadid, Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 1, p. 283.

Mu`awiyah Answers Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr's Letter

From Mu`awiyah son of Sakhr to the one who faults his own father, Muhammad son of Abu Bakr:

Peace unto those who obey Allah.

I have received your letter wherein you state what Allah has indicated of His Greatness, Might, and Omnipotence, and what He bestowed upon the Messenger of Allah, in addition to a great deal of talk which you authored to your own liking and which faults you and is offensive to your father.

In it you stated the merits of the son of Abu Talib and his age-old feats and kinship to the Messenger of Allah, his having supported and solaced the Prophet in each and every precarious and perilous situation. Your argument against me was produced by you praising someone else rather than demonstrating your own merits; so, you should praise the Lord Who has deprived you of such merits and bestowed them upon someone else.

I and your father used, during the life-time of our Prophet, to recognize the merits of Abu Talib's son, and the fact that his feats were greater than ours. When Allah chose for His Prophet (upon whom be peace and blessings) that which He has with him, completing His promise to him, permitting his mission to supersede that of all others, making his argument the uppermost, Allah caused him (blessings of Allah be upon him) to die.

Your father and his Farooq were the first to snatch his right away from him and dispute with him regarding what rightfully belonged to him. This is something which they both agreed upon and for which they coordinated their efforts. Then they invited him to swear the oath of allegiance to them, but he slackened and was hesitant, so they harbored evil intentions against him and plotted to kill him. He, therefore, swore the oath of allegiance to them later on and yielded.

Then their third person, Uthman, stood up to follow their guidance and walk in their footsteps, whereupon you and your friend faulted him for doing so. You did so to the extent that [you caused] even those who went to extremes in sinning to covet his post. You both harbored evil intentions against him till you achieved your common goal.

So be on your guard, O son of Abu Bakr, for you will see the evil of your affair. And do measure your span according to your own measure: you will then neither equal nor parallel one whose vision weighs as much as a mountain. Do not incline to overpower him, for even the most far-sighted person cannot realize the limits of his patience.

It was your father who paved for him what he paved, building his domain. If our condition is sound, your father is the first to receive credit for it, but if it is oppression, then your father went to extremes in oppressing, and we all are his accomplices: It was his guidance that we followed and whose conduct we emulated.

Had it not been for what your father had done, we would not have disputed with the son of Abu Talib, and we would have surrendered to him. But we found your father doing so before us; therefore, we followed his example and emulated his deeds. Find fault with your father, then, for what he did, or refrain, and peace be with whoever returns to his senses, to the right guidance, and who repents.1

* * *

We conclude from reading this reply that Mu`awiyah does not deny any of the merits and feats of Ali ibn Abu Talib, but he dared to oppose him only to follow the path of Abu Bakr and Umar. Without the latter, he would not have undermined Ali's status, nor would anyone else have. Mu`awiyah also admits that Abu Bakr was the one who had paved for the government of Banu Umayyah and who set the foundations of their authority.

We also understand from this letter that Mu`awiyah did not emulate the Messenger of Allah, nor did he follow his guidance, admitting that Uthman followed the guidance of Abu Bakr and Umar, and that he followed in their footsteps.

Thus does it become quite obvious to us that they all had abandoned the Sunnah of the Prophet, each following the bid`a of the other. Mu`awiyah did not even deny his being a misguided person who traded in falsehood. Nor did he deny the fact that he and his father were cursed by the Prophet...

In order to generalize the benefit for everyone, there is no harm in mentioning the letter sent by Yazid son of Mu`awiyah to Umar's son [Abdullah] which, though brief, drives to the same conclusion.

In his Tarikh, al-Baladhuri states the following:

Once al-Husayn ibn Ali ibn Abu Talib (peace be upon both of them) was killed, Abdullah ibn Umar wrote a letter to Yazid ibn Mu`awiyah saying: “The calamity has surely intensified, and so has the catastrophe. An event of a great import has taken place in the history of Islam. No day can ever be like the day when al-Husayn was killed.”

Yazid answered him saying, “You, fool! We only came to homes improved, beds prepared, and pillows piled up, so we fought over them! If right is on our side, then we simply defended our own right. But if right belongs to others, then your father was the first to start such a tradition, confiscating for himself that which belonged to others.”

* * *

In Mu`awiyah's answer to the letter he received from Abu Bakr's son, as is the case with Yazid's answer to the letter he received from Umar's son, we find the same logic and the same argument. By my life, this is a necessity sanctioned by conscience and realized by any rational person, and it does not need, in truth, any testimony from Mu`awiyah or from his son Yazid.

Had it not been for the usurpation by Abu Bakr and Umar of Ali's right, no such a tragedy would have taken place in the history of the Islamic nation. And had Ali ascended the caliphate following the demise of the Messenger of Allah and ruled the Muslims, his caliphate would have lasted till the year 40 A.H./660 A.D., that is, for thirty years.2

Such a period of time would have been sufficient to set the foundations of Islam in all its roots and branches, and he, peace be upon him, would have been able to implement the injunctions embedded in the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger without anyone's distortion or personal interpretation.

When the caliphate, after Ali's demise, fell to the hands of persons other than the masters of the youth of Paradise, namely Imam al-Hasan and Imam al-Husayn, then to the remaining infallible Imams from his progeny (peace be upon them all), the government of the righteous caliphs would have continued for three full centuries.

After that, the unbelievers, the hypocrites, and the atheists would never have had any influence or existence. The earth would have been a different one, and the servants of Allah would also have been different; so, there is no might nor power except in Allah, the most Exalted One, the Great.

Remains to be discussed is an objection to this hypothesis raised by some “Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`ah” from two different angles:

FIRST: They say that what happened was something chosen by Allah, and that had Allah willed to let Ali and the Imams from his offspring (peace be upon them) lead the Muslims, it would have been so. And they always repeat saying: “Good is whatever Allah wills.”

SECOND: They argue saying that had Ali become the caliph immediately after the Prophet and was followed by al-Hasan and al-Husayn, the caliphate would have turned hereditary, with sons inheriting their fathers, something the religion of Islam, which gave people the right of shura, does not sanction.

In order to respond and to remove the confusion, we would like to state the following:

FIRST: There is not a single proof that what happened was something desired and chosen by Allah; rather, arguments to the contrary are fixed in the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah. The Qur'an, for example says,

“Had the people of the towns believed and feared (their Lord), We would have opened unto them blessings from the heavens and the earth, but they disbelieved, so We overtook them for what they were doing” (Holy Qur'an, 7:96).

The Holy Qur'an also states:

“Had they upheld the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed to them from their Lord, they would have eaten from above them, and from beneath their feet. Some of them keep to the moderate course, while most of them are doers of evil” (Holy Qur'an, 5:66).

The Almighty also says,

“What would Allah do with tormenting you so long as you thank and believe in Him? And Allah is Appreciative, Knowing” (Holy Qur'an, 13:11).

All these clear verses convey the meaning that deviation, be it on an individual basis or on that of groups and nations, is something that comes from the latter, not from Allah.

There are proofs from the Prophet's Sunnah, too. The Messenger of Allah has said, “I have left among you the Book of Allah and my Progeny: so long as you uphold them (simultaneously), you will never stray after me.” He has also said, “Let me write you a book beyond which you will never stray.”

He has also said, “My nation shall be divided into seventy-three sects all of which, with the exception of one, will go to hell.” All these sacred traditions convey the meaning that the nation strays due to its own deviation and reluctance to accept what Allah has chosen for it.

SECOND: Suppose the Islamic caliphate was hereditary, it is not as they conceive it, that is, the ruler oppresses his subjects then prior to his death installs his son and calls him the heir apparent to the throne, even when both the father and his son are sinners. Rather, it is a divine inheritance chosen by the Lord of the World from Whose knowledge nothing is excluded, not even the weight of a mustard seed. And it is concerns a good band selected by Allah Who granted it the Book and the wisdom in order to lead the people; He has said,

“And We made them Imams guiding (people) as We order them, and We inspired to them the doing of good deeds, the upholding of the prayers, and the payment of zakat, and they worshipped Us” (Holy Qur'an, 21:73).

Their claim that Islam does not sanction such a hereditary government, that it lets people apply shura, is false; it is not supported by facts or by history. Ironically, they fell exactly in the abominable hereditary system. Nobody took charge of the nation following the death of Imam Ali except the oppressors and usurpers who handed power over to their sinning offspring despite the will of the nation.

So which party is better: should the sinners who judge according to their own views and who submit only to their desires inherit it, or should the purified Imams whom Allah chose and from whom He removed all uncleanness, bestowing the knowledge of the Book upon them so that they might judge between the people with the truth and guide them to the right path and enable them to enter the Gardens of Eternity? Allah has said,

“And Solomon was David's heir” (Holy Qur'an, 27:16).

I do not doubt that any rational person would choose anything but the second option, provided he is a Muslim! Since we are talking about the status quo, we cannot benefit from sighing over what has passed; so, let us resume the discussion of our topic to state the following:

Having succeeded in distancing the Commander of the Faithful from his post as caliph and in usurping the government for themselves, Abu Bakr and Umar belittled and insulted Ali, Fatima, and Ahlul Bayt, peace be upon all of them. It was then that Mu`awiyah's task, as well as that of Yazid, Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan and their likes, became very easy.

They both facilitated for Mu`awiyah and empowered him in the land till he remained the ruler of Syria for more than twenty years. He was never deposed. He attained power over the people, bending their necks to him and forcing them to do his bidding.

Then he handed the caliphate over to his son who, as he himself admitted (as cited above), found improved homes, spread beds, and pillows piled up; so, it was only natural that he should fight for such largesse and kill the fragrant flower of the Prophet without feeling remorseful. He had suckled the milk of his mother Maysoon which was filled with hatred towards Ahlul Bayt, and he grew up in the lap of his father who was accustomed to cursing and condemning Ahlul Bayt. No wonder, then, that he did what he did. Some poets admitted this same fact; one of them says:

Had it not been for the swords sharpened by the Khaleefa3 ,

I would have announced interesting

Statements about Muhammad's offspring,

And that al-Husayn was killed on the Day of the Saqeefa...

Any researcher investigating the government of Banu Umayyah will find credit for its establishment going to Abu Bakr and Umar. So is the case with the Abbaside and other [“Islamic”] governments as well. This is why we find the Umayyads and the Abbasides doing their best to laud Abu Bakr and Umar and invent virtues and attribute to them in order to prove their being most worthy of the caliphate. The Umayyads and the Abbasides simply realized that their legitimacy could not be justified unless the caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar was legitimized, and unless they both are described as fair and just.

We also find all of them oppressing Ahlul Bayt for no reason except their being the rightful owners of the caliphate. They, and only they, threatened their existence and authority.

This is common knowledge with rational people who know the truth. You can see nowadays some Islamic governments headed by kings who have neither merits nor virtues except their being the offspring of kings, sultans, and emirs just as Yazid was an emir when his father Mu`awiyah was a king who forced his authority on the nation by coercion.

So it is not reasonable to expect the kings and princess of Saudi Arabia to love Ahlul Bayt and those who follow them. And it is not reasonable to expect Saudi kings and princes to hate Mu`awiyah and Yazid and the constitution they set up for the ascension of the throne as well as other institutions.

It is from the constitution established by Mu`awiyah and Yazid and the rest of Umayyad and Abbaside rulers that our contemporary monarchs derive their legitimacy and justify their continuity.

It is from here, too, that the custom of sanctifying and favoring the three caliphs came. They are always described as just, and they are always defended. Nobody is permitted to criticize them or find any fault with them because they are the foundation upon which all governments since the Day of the Saqeefa were and will be established till Allah reigns as the Sole Ruler of the earth and everyone on it.

Upon such a basis do we come to understand why they chose for themselves the title of “Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`ah” while labelling others as Rafizis or atheists. This is so because Ali and his Ahlul Bayt rejected their government, refused to swear the oath of allegiance to them, and argued with them on every occasion. The rulers, therefore, took to belittling and despising, cursing and condemning, killing and expelling them...

It is through loving Ahlul Bayt, according to the Holy Qur'an, that we can express our gratitude to Allah for having blessed us with His Divine Message. So, if they were meted with such insults and killing, no wonder, then, that their Shi`as and those who accept them as the masters and are guided through them are meted with such oppression, persecution, discrimination, insults and excommunication. The outcome: One who is rightful is turned into an antagonized pariah, while followers of misguidance become role models and masters obedience to whom is mandatory on everyone.

Hence, whoever accepted them as the masters and followed Ali is labelled as the follower of bid`a, whereas whoever accepted the mastership of and followed Mu`awiyah is called a follower of the Sunnah and consensus...!

All Praise is due to Allah Who granted us reason whereby we can distinguish between truth and falsehood, light and darkness, black and white, and surely my Lord is on a Straight Path.

“The blind and the seeing are not alike, nor are the darkness and the light, nor are the shade and the heat, nor are the living and the dead. Surely Allah makes whomsoever He pleases hear: you cannot make those in the graves hear.” (Holy Qur'an, 35:19-22)

Surely Allah says the truth.

Notes

1. Jamharat Rasaail al-Arab, Vol. 1, p. 477. Al-Mas`udi, Muruj al-Dhahab, Vol. 2, p. 60. The Mu`tazilite scholar Ibn Abul-Hadid, Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 1, p. 284.

2. Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman died during the life-time of Imam Ali .

3. Arabic original of the loan word “caliph.”

The Sahaba According to the Followers of Ahlul 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 “Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`ah” have done.

Imam Sharaf ad-Din al-Musawi1 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 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.”

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`a invented 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 the sahaba 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 Ahlul 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.2

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 “Ahlul 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.

Notes

1. 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.

2. 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).

The Sahaba According to Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`a

As for “Ahlul 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.”1

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.”2

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.”3

Abu Ya`li, the judge, was asked once about what he thought of one who abused Abu Bakr. He described such a person as kafir, 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.”4

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.”5

Dr. Hamid Hafni Dawood briefly quotes such statements made by “Ahlul 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 a sahabi, 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.6

If the seeker of the truth wishes to further investigate the sahaba to find out who “Ahlul 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.”7

In his book Al-Isaba fi Tamyiz al-Sahaba, Ibn Hajar says, “Anyone who quotes one single 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.”8

The vast majority of “Ahlul 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 sahaba although 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 wrote Al-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 sahaba who were born during the life-time of the Prophet such as Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr...

“Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama`ah,” then, unanimously regard all the sahaba 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 “Ahlul 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.

Notes

1. Muslim, Sahih, Vol. 8, p. 22.

2. Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, Vol. 1, p. 509.

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

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

5. 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).

6. 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).

7. This is stated on p. 51 of Al-Kifaya and also on p. 2 of Talqeeh Fuhum Ahlul Athaar.

8. Ibn Hajar, Al-Isaba, Vol. 1, p. 10.