In continuation of the discussions on the conspiracy against Imam Ali immediately after the death of the Messenger of Allah (PBUHH), we shall focus on other aspects of the topic in this article.
This Wahhabi fellow did not even give it a second thought that the Shia follow Imam Ali (AS) who was the BEST of the companions of the Prophet and their most knowledgeable one, the Strong Rope of Allah,(1) and His Right Path. (2) Neither his proximity of relationship with Prophet was preceded,(3) nor his preceding in accepting the religion. (4) We stick to the instructions of Ahlul-Bayt who are pure and infallible according to The Quran and Hadith. Hence, we do not need to follow those of our companions who opposed/fought Ahlul-Bayt.
Thus the Shia, indeed, follow the Sunnah transmitted by a Prophet’s companion, the best of them. However, Wahhabis follow the worst of them, that is Muawiyah, and take his Sunnah which has no similarity with the Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH&HF). A Wahhabi mentioned: It is part of our Sunni dogma to respect and love all the companions of the Prophet. Our scholars remind us that vilification of the companions is Kufr.
Interestingly enough that those companions who remained loyal to Ali received severe punishment from the government of the time, and were not respected at all. One example is Abu Dhar who was exiled to the worst climate location in the reign of Uthman because they could not stop him from telling the truth. They kept him there till he died (martyred). Abu Dhar was the one that prophet said in his virtue that “The Earth does not carry nor the Heavens cover a man more frank and truthful than Abu Dhar”.
Wasn’t Abu Dhar a great companion of the prophet? So why shouldn’t they have respected him according to your judgment? It seems that even Uthman did not accept your type of judgment! nor Talha and Zubair when they were fighting against their legitimate Caliph Ali (AS). Are all of them Kafir by your judgment?
When the Shia reflect on the mistakes of their companions, they do so in retrospect of history. It would be very interesting to look at some of the comments of both the Wahabi and the Sunni scholars in this retrospect. Ibn Taymiyyah, the Shaykhul Islam of the Wahabis, writes And merely abusing someone other than the Prophets does not necessarily make the abuser Kafir; 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 kafir 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. (5)
The name of Mulla Ali Qari requires no introduction to the Sunnis, and he writes in his work of Sharah Fiqh al Akbar that 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 (a claim that reviling the Shaykhan is kufr) is not proven, nor is its meaning confirmed.
It is so because certainly abusing a Muslim is a sin as is proved by a confirmed hadith, and therefore the Shaykhan (Abu Bakr and Umar) will be equal to the other (Muslims) in this rule; and also if we suppose that someone murdered the Shaykhan, and even the two sons in law (Ali and Usman), all of them together, even then according to Ahlussunnah wa al- Jamah, he will not go out of Islam (i.e will not become kafir). (6)
Interesting note:
The above quote was taken from three 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 omitted. The deleted portion contains the declaration that … those who believe that Allah has a body are definitely kafir according to the Ijma without any difference of opinions.
Do I need to comment on the Wahhabi scholarship?
Another person mentioned: Why is it that you want Sunnis to accept a selected number of traditions from the Sunni sources which refute the integrity of people like Abu Bakr, and Umar Ibn al-Khattab? This point really irks me. I am sorry it irks you! It is not completely correct, however. We have nothing against the persons of Abu-Bakr, Umar and Ashia. We are looking at history in retrospect and evaluating their actions – which should not be considered a sin. After all, they were human beings who were capable of making mistakes. Why not learn from their mistakes – particularly if done in a sensitive way?
We just mentioned some traditions from Sunni books, actions and sayings of the companions. If it sounds insulting it is not because the Shia put them in there. I tried to give supportive evidence to my argument, objectively, with no disrespect for the companions (khulafa particularly).
We feel that they made ijtihad in certain cases that we don’t agree with – we choose to follow the ijtihad and teachings of others such as Imam Ali and the Imams of his decedent – what is wrong with that? We also feel that there has been a lot that has been attributed to them in the form of Hadiths that they have not necessarily said or agreed with. This is due, in part, to the Umayyads who hated Ahlul Bayt and wanted to make them look as less than who they were, either by elevating the status of the people you named and others or by fabricating hadeeths in conflict.
NOTES:
_________________________________________________
1. The Quran 3:103
2. The Quran 1:6
3. The Quran 42:23
4. The Quran 56:10-11
5. Wahabi reference: As Sarimu l masul, Ibn Taymiyyah, page 579 Published in 1402/1982 by Alam al-Kutub
6. Sunni references:
a) Matba Uthmaniyah, Istanbul, 1303 page 130
b) Matba Mujtabai, Delhi, 1348, page 86
c) Matba Aftab e Hind, India, No date, page 86
