Irresponsible Attitudes of the Companions

By: Ayatullah Sayyid Mujtaba Musavi Lari
Here the following question arises. Given the fact that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, proclaimed 'Ali to be his legatee (wasiyy) and successor (khalifah), emphatically designation him as the leader of the Muslims both at Ghadir Khumm and on other appropriate occasions, how did it happen that after the death of the Most Noble Messenger his Companions (sahabah) ignored God's command and abandoned 'Ali, that noble and precious personage, decided not to obey him, chose someone else to be leader in his place, and entrusted the reins of rule to him?
Was there any ambiguity in the words of the Prophet, or were all those different phrases and expressions establishing 'Ali's rank and designating him leader not enough?
A clear answer to this question can be found by examining the events that took place in the age of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family. We see that there existed among his Companions elements who, whenever his commands ran contrary to their wishes and inclinations, pressed him to change his mind in the hope of preventing him, by whatever means possible, from carrying out his plans. When they despaired of reaching their goal, they would start complaining.
The Qur'an warns these people not to oppose the commands of the Prophet in the verse that reads: "Let those who oppose the commands of the Prophet fear disaster and a painful torment."(24:63)
During the last days of his blessed life, the Messenger of God prepared an army to do battle with the Byzantines and he appointed Usamah b. Zayd to be its commander. This appointment of a young man, despite the availability of older and more experienced men, proved displeasing to some of the Companions, and led to an argument among them. Those who were strongly oppossed to Usamah b. Zayd asked the Prophet to dismiss him, but he paid no attention to their request and commanded Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthman to join the ranks of the Muslim army as it departed from Madinah. However, they not only disregarded military discipline but also disobeyed the categorical command of the Prophet. Instead of proceeding to the front with the army, they split off and returned to Madinah. [1]
The disrespectful mumblings of some of the Companions greatly vexed the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, and with a heart full of pain and concern for his people, he came forth from his house and addressed the people as follows:
"O people, what are these words of yours concerning the appointment of Usamah that have come to my ears? Just as you are criticizing him now, you once objected to the appointment of his father Zayd b. al-Harithah as commander. I answer by God that just as he was worthy of command, so too is his son." [2]
Even after the death of the Prophet, 'Umar came to Abu Bakr and demanded that he should dismiss Usamah. The caliph replied: "The Messenger of God appointed him, and you wish me to dismiss him?" [3]
The Prophet's wish and desire during the final days of his life was to empty Madinah of the leaders of both the Emigrants and the Helpers. He therefore has Usamah's army prepared for battle and gave the command for jihad, ordering the army to advance in the direction of the Syrian border. Insistently he asked the foremost of the Companions to leave Madinah and fight under the banner of Usamah, retaining only 'Ali to stay at his bedside. This remarkable act on the part of the Prophet was very significant. However, those Companions failed to comply with his instructions, and they withdrew from the army commanded by Usamah.
Throughout his life, the Prophet never appointed anyone as commander over the head of 'Ali, peace be upon him; it was always he who was the standard bearer and commander. [4] By contrast, Abu Bakr and 'Umar were to be simple soldiers in the army of Usamah, and the Prophet personally ordered them to serve under him when he appointed him commander at the battle of Mu'ta. Historians are unanimously agreed on this point. Likewise, at the Battle of Dhat al-Salasil, when the army was commanded by Ibn al-'As, Abu Bakr and 'Umar again served as simple soldiers. This contrasts with the case of 'Ali b. Abi Talib, whom the Prophet, from the beginning of his mission until his death, never made subordinate to anyone, an extremely significant point.
History will never forget the time when the Most Noble Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, was on his deathbed, his state becoming progressively more grave. He felt that the last strands of his life were being plucked apart. He therefore decided without further delay to put his final plan into effect and said: "Bring me paper so that I can write for you a document to prevent you from ever going astray." [5]
Just as he had clarified the question of leadership in numerous speeches and utterances, he wished now, one final time, to address this weighty matter, described by the Qur'an as the completion of religion, by enshrining it in an authoritative written document to remain among the Muslims after his death. Thereby the door would be closed on any future deviations from his orders. But those same people who in defiance of his orders had refrained from going to the front were now watching the situation carefully with the intention of implementing their plans at the first possible opportunity. They therefore refused to permit writing utensils to be brought to the Prophet. [6]
Jabir b. Abdullah says:
"When the Messenger of God fell sick with the illness that was to end in his death, he asked for paper in order to write down for his ummah instructions that would prevent them from ever going astray or accusing each other of having gone astray. Words were exchanged among those present in the Prophet's house and an argument ensued in the course of which 'Umar uttered words that caused the Prophet to order him to leave the house." [7]
'Ubaydullah b. Abdullah b. 'Utbah relates Ibn Abbas to have said:
"During the final moments of the life of the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, a number of people were present in this house, including 'Umar b. al-Khattab, The Prophet said: 'Come, let me write for you a document that will prevent you from ever going astray after me.' 'Umar said: 'Sickness has overcome the Prophet; we have the Qur'an, which is enough for us.'
"Then disagreement arose among those present. They began to argue with each other, some saying, 'Quick, have the Prophet write a document for you so that you will never go astray after him,' and others repeating the words of 'Umar.
"When the arguing and nonsensical talk reached its pitch, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, told them all to leave."
Thus it was that, as Ibn Abbas says: "The great misfortune arose when their noisy disputing prevented the Messenger of God from writing his testamentary document." [8] He then adds sorrowfully. "The tribulations of the Muslims began on that very day." [9]
In the discussion that took place between Ibn Abbas and the second caliph concerning the caliphate of 'Ali, the caliph said: "The Prophet wanted to declare 'Ali as his successor, but I did not allow it to happen." [10]
Some Sunni historians and hadith scholars have written that when the Prophet decided to write a document that would prevent the Muslims from going astray 'Umar said: "The Messenger of God has become delirious." Others, however, in order to soften the offensiveness of his words, maintain that he said: "Sickness has overcome the Prophet; you have the Book of God at your disposal, which is enough for us." [11]
It seems that the Most Noble Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, was unaware of the importance of the Book of God and they were better informed than him on this point! Was it necessary to accuse him of mental derangement if he wished to draw up a written document specifying who was to lead the ummah after his death? If indeed the Prophet's decision could be attributed to the failing of his mental powers as a result of illness, why did the second caliph not prevent Abu Bakr from drawing up a comparable document during the last moments of his life, or accuse him of being deranged? 'Umar was present at the side of Abu Bakr and he knew that Abu Bakr intended to designate him as ruler in his testament, so naturally he wanted the document to be signed.
If 'Umar truly thought the Book of God to suffice for the solution of all problems, why did he immediately hasten to the Saqifah after the death of the Prophet, together with Abu Bakr to ensure that the question of the caliphate should be resolved in accordance with their ideas? Why did they not at that point refer exclusively to the Book of God and make no mention of the Qur'an, even though the Qur'an had already settled the matter?
al-Tabari writes the following in his history:
"When Shadid, the emancipated slave of Abu Bakr took into his hand the command Abu Bakr had written for 'Umar to become his successor, 'Umar said to the people, "People, pay heed, and obey the command of the caliph. The caliph says, 'I have not failed you in providing for your welfare.'" [12]
The expression of personal opinions running counter to the orders of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, continued after his death, culminating in the changing of certain divine decrees in the time of the second caliph and on his orders. Instances of this are to be found in reputable books by Sunni authors. [13]
For example, the second caliph said: "Let them never bring before me a man who has married a woman for a set period, for it they do I will stone him." [14] The fact that he prohibited temporary marriage (mut'ah) proves that this type of union was common among the Companions and other Muslims at the time, for otherwise it would not have been necessary for him to order them to desist. Now if the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, had forbidden this form of marriage, the Companions would never have had recourse to it and there would have no need for 'Umar to threaten people with stoning.
The second caliph himself admitted: "There were three things that were permissible in the time of the Prophet which I have forbidden and for which I exact punishment: temporary marriage, the mut'ah pilgrimage, and reciting 'Hasten to the best of deeds' (hayya 'ala khayri 'l-'amal) in the call to prayer."[15]
It was also he ordered that in the call to prayer (adhan) at dawn the phrase, "prayer is better than sleep" (as 'salatu khayrun mina 'n-nawm) should be recited. [16]
According to the Sunan of al-Tirmidhi someone from Syria once asked 'Abdullah b. 'Umar about the mut'ah pilgrimage. He replied that it was permissible. When the man remarked that Abdullah's father had prohibited it, he answered, "If my father has forbidden something which the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, permitted, should we abandon the Sunnah of the Prophet and follow my father?" [17]
Ibn Kathir similarly records in his history: "Abdullah b. 'Umar was told that his father had prohibited the mut'ah pilgrimage. He said in reply: 'I fear that a stone will fall on you from the heavens. Are we to follow the Sunnah of the Prophet or the Sunnah of 'Umar b. al-Khattab?'" [18]
During the time of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, as well as the caliphate of Abu Bakr and the first three years of the caliphate of 'Umar, if anyone were to divorce his wife three times on a single occasion, it counted as a single repudiation, and was not therefore final. However, 'Umar said: "If such a repudiation is made, I will count it as a threefold (and therefore final) repudiation." [19]
The Shi'ah believe that such a repudiation (talaq) counts only as a single repudiation, and Shaykh Mahmud al-Shaltut, erstwhile rector of the Azhar, regarded Shi'i jurisprudence (fiqh) superior in this respect as well as many others. [20]
No one has the right to tamper with revealed ordinances, for they are divine and immutable, not even the Prophet himself. The Qur'an says: "Were Muhammad to attribute lies to Us, with Our powerful hand We would seize him and cut his jugular vein."(69:44)
However, we see that unfortunately some of the Companions awarded themselves the right of exercising independent judgement (ijtihad) with respect to certain ordinances, changing and modifying divine law in accordance with their own notions.
The second caliph introduced class differences into Islamic society during the time of his rule, increasing racial tensions between the Arabs and the Persians. [21] He established a discriminatory system of distributing public monies, awarding more to those who accepted Islam early on than to those who embraced it later; more to Qurayshite Migrants than to non-Qurayshite Migrants; more to the Migrants than to the Helpers; more to the Arabs than to the non-Arabs; and more to masters than to their clients. [22]
Toward the end of his life 'Umar himself came to recognize the negative effects of his policy and he said: "If I remain alive this year, I will establish equality in Islamic society and abolish discrimination. I will act in the way the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, and Abu Bakr both acted." [23]
The foregoing indicates the arbitrary attitude that some of the Companions assumed with respect to the commands of the Prophet. In certain cases where those commands did not correspond to their personal inclinations, they tried either to avoid implementing them or to change them completely. The fact that they ignored the unmistakably authoritative utterances of the Prophet on the day of Ghadir Khumm or that they behaved similarly with respect to other matters after his death, should not be regarded as either surprising or unprecedented, for they had already given an indication of their attitudes during his lifetime.
In addition, it should not be forgotten that in every society most people tend to remain indifferent to political and social matters, choosing to follow their leaders and those who seize the initiative. This is a clear and undeniable fact.
However, there were respectable and independent minded people who did not change their position after the death of the Prophet. They did not approve of the election that took place at the Saqifah, and they separated themselves from the majority in protest against the introduction of the consultative concept into Islamic government. Although they were more or less compelled to remain silent, they remained loyal to 'Ali b. Abi Talib, peace be upon him, as leader. Among the outstanding personalities belonging to this group were Salman al-Farisi, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, Khuzaymah b. Thabit, Miqdad b. al-Aswad, al-Kindi, 'Ammar b. yasir, Ubayy b. Ka'b, Khalid b. Sa'id, Bilal, Qays b. Sa'd, Aban, Buraydah al-Ashami, Abu 'l-Haytham b. al-Tayyihan, as well as many others whose names are recorded in Islamic history. Some scholars have listed two hundred and fifty Companions of the Prophet, complete with names and descriptions, as belonging to this class. [24]
al-Ya'qubi mentions in his history Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, Salman al-Farisi, Miqdad b. al-Aswad, Khalid b. Sa'id, Zubayr, 'Abbas, Bara' b. Azib, Ubayy b. Ka'b, and Fadh b. al-'Abbas as being among those who remained loyal to the cause of 'Ali, peace be upon him.[25] Qays b. Sa'd even went so far as to argue with his father over the question of the caliphate and he swore never to speak to him again because of this views.[26]
These are some of the earliest Shi'is; they supported 'Ali's right to the leadership because of the clear injunctions in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. They remained unswerving in their views until the end. During the period of the first three caliphs the number of Shi'is in fact rose, all of them being outstanding and virtuous personalities, their names being linked to piety and purity in the books of history and biography where they are mentioned. Among them were men such as Muhammad b. Abi Bakr, Sa'sa'ah b. Suhan, Zayd b. Suhan, Hisham b.'Utbah, Abdullah b. Budayl al-Khuza'i, Maytham al-Tammar,' Adiyy b. Hatim, Hujr b. Adiyy, Asbagh b. Nubatah, al-Harith al-A'war al-Hamdani, Amr b. al-Humq al-Khaza'i, Malik al-Ashtar, and Abdullah b. Hashim.
Notes:
[1] Ibn Hisham, al-Sirah, Vol. IV p. 338; al-Ya'qubi, al-Tarikh, Vol. II, p.92; Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil, Vol. II, pp. 120-21.
[2] Ibn Sa'd,al-Tabaqat, Vol. II, p.249.
[3] al-Halabi, al-Sirah, Vol. III, p.336.
[4] Ibn Sa'd, al-Tabaqat, Vol. III, p. 25; al-Hakim, al-Mustadrak, Vol. III, p. 1.
[5] Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Vol. I, p.346; Muslim, al-Sahih, Vol. V, p. 76; al-Tabari, Tarikh, Vol. II, p. 436; Ibn Sa'd, al-Tabaqat, Vol. II, p.242.
[6] al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, Vol. I, p. 22; al-Tabari, al-Tarikh, Vol. II, p. 436; Muslim, al-Sahih ., Vol. V, p. 76; Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Vol. III, p.346.
[7] Ibn Sa'd, al-Tabaqat, Vol. II, p. 243.
[8] Ibn Sa'd, al-Tabaqat, Vol. II, p.242; Muslim, al-Sahih, Vol. XI, p. 95; Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Vol. I, p. 336.
[9] Ibn Kathir, al-Bidayah, Vol. V, pp. 227-28; al-Dhahabi, Tarikh al-Islam, Vol. I, p. 311; al-Diyar Bakri, Tarikh al-Khamis, Vol. I, p. 182; al-Bid'wa al-Tarikh, Vol. V, p. 95; Taysir al-Wusul, Vol. IV, p. 194.
[10] Ibn Abi 'l-Hadid, Sharh ., Vol. III, p.97.
[11] Muslim, al-Sahih, Vol. III, p. 1259; al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, Vol. IV , p. 5; Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, hadith no. 2992.,
[12] al-Tabari, Tarikh, Vol. IV, p. 51.
[13] Ibn Hisham, al-Sirah, Vol. IV, p. 237; Muslim, al-Sahih, Vol. IV, pp. 37-8, 46; al-Tabari, Tarikh, Vol. II, p. 401; Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Vol. III, pp. 304, 380.
[14] Muslim, al-Sahih, Vol. VIII, p. 169.
[15] al-Amini, al-Ghadir, Vol. VI, p.23.
[16] Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Vol. III, p. 408; Muslim, al-Sahih, Vol. III, p. 183; al-Halabi, al-Sirah, Vol. II, p. 105; Ibn Kathir, Vol. III, p.23.
[17] al-Tirmidhi, Jami' al-Sahih, Vol. IV, p.38.
[18] Ibn Kathir, al-Bidayah, Vol. V, p. 141.
[19] Muslim, al-Sahih, Vol. IV, pp. 183-4.
[20] Risalat al-Islam, Vol. XI, no, 1.
[21] al-Ya'qubi, al-Tarikh, Vol. II, p. 107.
[22] Ibn Abi 'l-Hadid, Sharh, Vol. VIII, p. 11; Ibn Sa'd, al-Tabaqat, Vol. III, pp. 296-7.
[23] Taha Husayn, al-Fitnat al-Kubra, Vol. I, p. 108.
[24] al-Sayyid Sharaf al-Din, Fusul al-Muhimmah, pp. 177-92.
[25] al-Ya'qubi, al-Tarikh, Vol. II, p. 103.
[26] Ibn Abi 'l-Hadid, Sharh, Vol. II, p. 18.
Ref: Imam Reza Network

Imam Reza (A.S.) Gives Explanation about Sahaba

Some asked him about the meaning of this tradition: "My companions are like the stars: If you follow any of them, you shall receive guidance," and another one saying, "Leave my companions to me." Both of these traditions are considered by Sunnis as the foundation of their generalization of their judgement regarding all companions of the Prophet (S.A.W.), thus justifying even their acts which contradicted Islamic justice, calling what they could not justify as "an error in ijtihad." But the Imam (A.S.) provides us with the actual explanation of these and other such ahadith with honesty and integrity, outlining in an easy manner their exact meaning. In his answer regarding the first tradition, he said, "Yes; he did say this hadith, meaning thereby the companions who did not make any alteration after him or any change." He was asked, "How can you tell that they altered and changed?" He said, "This is due to what is reported about him (S.A.W.) that he said, `Certain individuals among my companions will be forcibly pushed away from my Pool (of Kawthar) on the Day of Judgement just as strange camels are pushed away from the watering place, and I shall cry, `O Lord! My companions! My companions!' and it shall be said to me, `You do not know what innovations they invented after you,' so they will be pushed away towards the left side (where Hell is), and I shall say, `Away with them; ruined they shall be.'" The Imam continued to say, "Such will be the penalty of those who alter and change (hadith)."
This hadith is narrated, with a minor variation in its wording, by al-Bukhari who quotes Abdullah ibn Mas'ood citing the Prophet (S.A.W.) saying, "I shall be the first to reach the Pool, then the souls of some men among you will be raised and they shall be prohibited from coming near me, and I shall say, `Lord! These are my companions!' And it shall be said to me, `You do not know what they did after you...'"(Bukhari, Vol. 8, p. 119, Amiri edition). A number of huffaz and narrators of hadith reported this tradition in various wordings which maintained the same contextual meaning, proving thus that it is consecutive according to them.
The Imam (A.S.), through his frank and proven answer, saved us the effort to look for lame excuses for the flagrant transgressions in which a number of the sahaba fell, and from far-fetched arificialities to justify the errors of conduct which they deliberately committed with determination and which the same huffaz could not justify except by saying that they were cases of "mistaken ijtihad" which, according to them, did not contradict the justice expected of them, having been pressed by their attempt to attribute absolute justice to the sahabi no matter what he did...
A companion (sahabi) of the Prophet (S.A.W.) who was distinguished with the honour of being so close to the Prophet (S.A.W.) is one who is the custodian over the fruits of the Message and a protector of its structure through his faith and deeds. He is a man who ought to be taken as a model of conduct. He is a man, as the Imam (A.S.) used to say, who does not alter or change any of the statements of the Prophet (S.A.W.). As regarding those who altered and changed, these cannot be awarded a unique distinction, just because they were companions of the Prophet (S.A.W.), which raised them above other Muslims simply because they were not up to par with the level of responsibility of being honest, which is expected of them, to carry out after the demise of the Prophet (S.A.W.) and the cessation of wahi from coming to this world.
The hadith which the Imam (A.S.) narrated about Ibn Mas'ood, and which is recorded by a number of those who learned the Holy Qur'an and hadith by heart in their books is considered as an explanation of this hadith and an explanation of its connotation. Moreover, it puts the sahaba on equal footing with the others in subjecting their behaviour to criticism and discussion, and it shatters the self-immunity which was granted to them in accordance to Prophetic statements manufactured by a number of huffaz and traditionists without permitting themselves or others to discuss but take for granted.
In another hadith, the Imam (A.S.) proves to us, through a clear statement by the Prophet (S.A.W.), that some individuals who were regarded as sahaba were not actually so, which shatters all the excuses used only to justify the mistakes and transgression committed by them. For example, Muhammad ibn Ishaq al-Taliqani reported that a man in Khurasan swore by divorce that Mu'awiya was not among the true companions of the Messenger of God (S.A.W.), and this happened when Imam al-Reza (A.S.) was present there. The jurists there issued their verdict that the man had actually divorced his wife, and the Imam (A.S.) was asked to provide his own opinion in this regard. He decided that that man's wife was not divorced; therefore, those jurists wrote a statement and sent it to him. In it, they asked him, "How did you come to say, O son of the Messenger of God (S.A.W.), that the woman was not to be divorced?" He wrote down on the same sheet saying, "It is so because of what you yourselves narrate from Abu Sa'eed al-Khudri quoting the Messenger of God (S.A.W.) saying about those who accepted Islam on the day of opening Mecca, when he was surrounded by a large number of people, `You are good; my companions are good; and there shall be no migration after this Fath,' without including these (meaning Mu'awiya) among his companions." The jurists had to adopt the decision of the Imam (A.S.).
Thus did the Imam (A.S.) deny that Mu'awiya was a companion of the Prophet (S.A.W.), which claim used to surround the man with a halo of sanctity of his personality and which used to be used to justify the very serious transgressions he committed which left their terrible marks on the structure of the Islamic government since then, and to justify such transgressions by saying that he was a sahabi, and that as such whatever he did or said could not possibly cast a doubt about his justice, adding, "If we see the good aspect of his action missing, we may say that he attempted ijtihad, and he erred," even if such error was at the expense of the Prophetic Message itself...
If we accept this argument, we would be justifying all the transgressions and erroneous behaviour of some companions of the Prophet (S.A.W.) regardless of their motives or horrible consequences. The transgressions of Mu'awiya and his norms of conduct, in which he departed from the line of the Islamic Message, and which agreed with the attitude of animosity towards Islam, and whose motives and impulses were reasons to cast doubts and suspicions, nobody is really obligated to defend and describe as within the Islamic Shari'a simply because they were the result of an erroneous ijtihad wherein the mujtahid is rewarded with one reward, due to his "immunity" which does not include Mu'awiya simply because the latter was not a companion of the Prophet (S.A.W.) but was just like any other Muslim whose conduct was subject to accountability and criticism, and the verdict in his regard is based on the anticipated results of his deeds.
The directive the Imam (A.S.) intended by denying that those who accepted Islam, including Mu'awiya, were not companions of the Prophet on the day when Mecca was conquered is one of the strongest and deepest of his directives, for he drew a line between the Prophet (S.A.W.) and his true companions on one side, and those who accepted Islam after the conquest of Mecca and under the pressure of a superior power and authority on the other hand. Had it not been for their feeling of their precarious situation versus the might of their opponent, realizing that they had no choice except to make asylum and submit to the word of Islam, they would have otherwise dealt with Islam in a quite different manner...
Ref: Imam Reza Network

Ijtihad and the Sahaba

This article is our reply to Ansar's defences of Hadhrath Ayesha and Mu'awiya - namely that their acts of insurgency and rebellion against Imam 'Ali (as) were based on ijtihad for which they shall be rewarded. We decided to write a separate article to highlight the fallacies and contradictions that dog this concept - one that is central to the beliefs of the followers of the Ahl'ul Sunnah wa al Jamaah.
In Islam all people are equal in the eyes of Allah (swt). As Muslims we are required to live our lives in accordance with the dictates of the Qur'an and Sunnah. If we look at the Muslim countries today we see leaders plundering the nations wealth; they commonly put friends and relatives in to positions of power, they likewise plunder the state's wealth. They commit acts that cause revulsion amongst the public, and yet they are 'above the law' you cannot question their actions. We hate this, we believe they should be brought to task, accountability is a key component in Islam. We all must comply with it and we are all responsible if we break it, no matter who you are, who you know, who you are related to. We have the verse in the Qur'an making it clear that we will be judged according to our actions on the Day of Judgement. Furthermore we have the following incident recorded in books of hadith:
"A woman belonging to a high and noble family was arrested in connection with a theft. The case was brought to the Prophet, and it was suggested that she may be spared the punishment of theft. The case was brought to the Prophet, and it was recommended that she may be spared the punishment of theft. The Prophet replied: "The nations that lived before you were destroyed by God because they punished the common man for their offences and their dignitaries go unpunished for their crimes; I swear by him (God) who holds my life in his hand that even of Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad has committed this crime, then I would have amputated her hand".
Human Rights in Islam, by Abul A'la Maudoodi page 35-36, published by the Islamic Foundation, United Kingdom 1976.
This event makes it absolutely clear that:
1. All are accountable for their actions
2. You will be accountable irrespective of nobility
This is the justice of Allah (swt) the justice which Islam proclaims. With this clear evidence how would you feel if legislation were passed stating that you can never question the actions of members of the ruling party, no matter what they do? Would the reasonable person accept such a law? Certainly not, on the contrary this would be a clear violation of the Qur'an and Sunnah. Bearing this in mind it is most unfortunate that the majority sect has formulated an opinion that if the companions perform such violations, they are not in error and hence NOT accountable before Allah (swt), as their actions were due to mistakes in their Ijtihad.
The verdict of Ahl'ul Sunnah on the disputes between the companions
This is the Fatwa of the Wahabie scholar Shaykh Muhammad Al-Saleh Ul-Uthaimin on this matter:
"We believe that the disputes that took place among the Prophet's companions were the result of sincere interpretations they worked hard to reach. Whoever was right among them would be rewarded twice, and whoever was wrong among them would be rewarded once and his mistake would be forgiven"
The Muslim's Belief, by Shaikh Al Saleh Al Uthaimin, translated by Ar Maneh Hammad al Johani, p 23
Is this a plausible concept?
What sort of justice is this? If the companions commit any wrongdoing, not only are they unaccountable they are forgiven and rewarded for it! If the beloved daughter of the Prophet (s) is not above the law, then why are the companions?
In every day life we as fallible human's commit mistakes, we act in a way that does not behove a believer, when we make such mistakes, do we believe that these actions will merit praise from Allah (swt)?
Akbar Shah Najeeb Abadhi expresses a rather curious opinion on the matter:
"Allah (swt) is the Protector of the Deen as he states "We are its revealers and its protectors?with this in mind one needs to understand that the differences that existed between the Sahaba were a means by which Allah (swt) protected the Deen. The Prophet (s) said "Differences of opinion are a mercy for you, the differences between Hadhrath Ali (ra) and Hadhrath Mu'awiya (ra) were on account of mistakes in ijtihad, not due to personal grudges. No one was opposed to the Shariah. Whatever Ali (ra) did was on account of his opinion that he was right as was the case with Mu'awiya (ra) as did the other Sahaba who attached themselves to whoever they felt was right?if the dispute between Mu'awiya and 'Ali had not taken place we would have been deprived of many aspects of the Sharia, why did this happen? Because Allah (swt) is the Protector if the Deen and created the dispute between Ali and Mu'awiya and through this He (swt) accomplished the Law of Sharia - for example in every Government, Kingdom, Society good and bad obstacles exists these obstacles were inherent when one analyses the dispute between Ali (ra) and Mu'awiya (ra). Kingdoms come and go, peoples rise and fall, families succeed and fail this is all a part of the cycle of life and history is replete with such events. No time / Government has been free from mischief, bribery, cheating and deception - all these acts were in existence during the dispute between 'Ali (ra) and Mu'awiya (ra) - with these examples before us making a decision during disputes has been made easy for us - we can make the choice about who to follow".
Tareekhe Islam by Akbar Shah Najeeb Abadhi, Volume 2 page 47
So according to Abadhi:
1. Allah (swt) created the fitna - Allah forbid!
2. It benefited the Deen
3. People can make a choice about who to follow - once they analyse the dispute.
Abadhi states the existence of corruption during the dispute helped later generations to decide whom to follow. This would make sense if the next step would be to condemn those perpetuating such activity. Rather than do so the Ahl'ul Sunnah approach is praise and appreciate both - the corrupt and impeccable are both right, the bribed and upstanding are both right, the Imam and the rebel are both right, and no matter how appalling their actions were, they will be rewarded for them. Is this logical?
It is a basic principle of rationality that if two parties have a dispute both can be wrong, but both can not be right. Applying this to the battles of Jamal and Siffeen, will both the murderers and the murdered be in heaven, because both were right? A Judge for example when hearing a dispute between two parties will not rule that both parties are right and should be compensated for their role in the dispute. An even more absurd conclusion would be if the Judge after ruling that one party was right in its claim and awarding it; then turned to the other side pardoned them and then awarded them for their wrongdoing. Is this a rational concept? If a Judge would never behave in such an unjust way, do you honestly believe that the greatest Judge of all, Allah (swt) would act in this way? If we take this to its logical conclusion then no one is entitled to criticise or resolve any disputes. In politics disputes between two opposing parties is common, and can lead to bitter hatred / political assassinations / demands for independent enquiries etc. If we apply the principle of ijtihad then political disputes should never be resolved, both parties will claim that they are right and hence are entitled to act 'by any means necessary' to achieve their objective, whether that be via bribery, murder or armed rebellion - even if they are not right, they will be forgiven and rewarded for their actions.
Why adhere to such a belief?
The reality is that this concept has been developed by the scholars to in effect provide blanket immunity for those companions who committed major wrongs. Whilst the casual reader would be horrified by their actions his childhood beliefs that the companions actions were mistakes for which they would be rewarded have effectively subdued the majority to not think about what they read.
Never has the desire to believe in mistakes in Ijtihad been more important for the followers of the companions than when looks at the battles of Jamal and Siffeen. Here two groups of companions met each other on battlefield and fought one another. The same companions who had sat with the Prophet (s) were killing one another. As these battles are undeniable facts, and uncomfortable reading for scholars whose attitude has been all the companions are just, the concept of Ijtihad has proved to be a 'protection clause' a means of maintaining beliefs in the presence of facts which would other wise create doubts in those beliefs.
Ibn Khaldun exemplifies this thinking as follows:
"Beware! Do not speak ill of anyone of them. One ought to find some justification for each faction for they deserve to be rated highly by us. They differed on principle and rightly fought the battle. All those who were killed or were slain were fighting in the way of God for upholding truth and justice. Rather, I think that their differences were a blessing for the latter generations so that every one may choose anyone of them as his guide and Imam. Keep this in mind and try to understand the divine wisdom governing the world and the beings".
Tareekhe Islam by Akbar Shah Najeeb Abadhi, Volume 2 page 145. Quoting Muqqadimah, by Ibn Khaldun p. 172
The ijtihad attributed to the companions who rose against Imam 'Ali (as) contradicts the Qur'an, the Sunnah and sheer common sense
It should be pointed out that both Sunni and Shi'a adhere to the concept of ijtihad as a legitimate source of Islamic Law. We however assert that ijtihad can only be exercised when there is no clear ruling within the Qur'an or Sunnah with regards to a particular matter. Ijtihad is therefore essentially the last resort, it cannot be utilised when solutions are evident in the Qur'an and Sunnah, and crucially ijtihad can never be exercised when it is in violation of the Qur'an and Sunnah.
The Qur'an is a binding document for all. Muslims are brothers to one another and yet one group rebels against the leader refuses to submit to him, declares war on him a war which leaves thousands dead and this was all done in the interests of truth and justice, for the betterment of Islam. Do we have evidence of such thinking in the Qur'an or hadith?
What gave one party the right to rebel and behave in this way against a Khalifa whom the vast bulk of Muslims deems rightly guided? Do these actions not therefore set a precedent that if you do not agree with a Khalifa you can mount armed rebellion against him? Would the common man ascribe to the view that ousting a Leader over a difference of opinion through armed rebellion is not only good but will be rewarded even if it is wrong?
The common defence to the actions of Imam Ali (as)'s opponents at Jamal and Siffeen is that they wanted the killers of Hadhrath Uthman to be punished. Individuals are entitled to voice their concerns / opinions to those in authority. Concerns are only permitted to go as far as 'silent protest' not armed rebellion. There exists no verse in the Qur'an or hadith that entitles individuals to rebel and fight the khalifa if their demands are not met. If this was the case then all Governments would be held to ransom, a 'its my way or the highway' approach - leaders would be constantly watching over their shoulders wondering when the next opposition rebellion would take place.
The Holy Qur'an states quite categorically:
"And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense shall be hell, he shall abide therein and God's wrath (Ghazibullaho) shall be on him and his curse (lanato), and is prepared for him a great torment" (Surah Nisa, v 93).
With this verse in mind, history testifies that during the battles of Siffeen and Jamal 70,800 Muslims lost their lives. What is the position of the killers here? Does this verse not applicable to them? If these individuals opposed the Khalifa of the time and were responsible for spreading fitna (dissension) and murder, what will be their position on the Day of Judgement?
If for arguments sake, this concept is indeed correct then why should any disputes be resolved in court? After all if there is a dispute between two groups of Muslims, why should they be punished? Can they not advance a defence that they were following the way of the companions and that whoever was right will receive one reward from Allah (swt) and whoever was wrong will get one reward and be forgiven. Should they not be encouraged to continue to fight and kill one another in the same way that the companions did?
Afghanistan is a land that has been plagued by Civil War between Muslim factions? Each party thinks it is right and the other is wrong and hence should bow to them. Would it be correct to say that they all are working sincerely for Islam, and hence will be rewarded, they should continue killing one another as their actions if wrong will just amount to mistakes in Ijtihad for which they will get one reward? Can any rational person accept such a thinking?
An appeal to rationality
Islam is not a religion of confusion, a religion of truth clear unequivocal truth it has clear rules and regulations. In the same way two wrongs don't make a right how can two parties killing each other both be right! They are either both wrong, or one Party is wrong and the other is right. When the Sunni Ulema acknowledge that Ali (as) was right then they are forced to accept that his opponents were wrong, hence the thinking espoused by the famous Sunni scholar from the Indian Subcontinent Qazi Thana Ullah Panee Puthee:
"Those who disputed with him were in the wrong, but we should not think ill of any Sahaba".
The Essential Hanafi Hand Book of Fiqh, page 29 the English Translation of Mala Budda Minhu, by Qazi Thana Ulla - rendered in to English by Maulana Yusuf Talal Ali Al-Amriki, Kitab Bhavan publishers, India
Apportioning blame to Ali (as)'s opponents is a difficult pill to swallow, hence the development of the thought that the mistake was a mistake in Ijtihad religious interpretation for which they would receive one reward from Allah (swt). It cannot be overstated that this was not a small mistake in Ijtihad which might not be of much significance, this was a mistake that lead to social disorder amongst the Muslims, anarchy and ultimately bloodshed on the battlefield, despite the fact that the Prophet (s) had warned the companions during his pilgrimage:
"Do not revert to disbelief after me by striking (cutting) the necks of one another",
Sahih al Bukhari Arabic-English Volume 9 hadith number 198
will Allah (swt) reward such acts of insurgency? When the Prophet (s) states that he would punish his daughter if she committed theft, what of those who propagated insurgency and caused the deaths of thousands of fellow Muslims, all because they interpreted Islam differently? Would Allah (swt) hold such individuals accountable for their deeds or would he reward them? Is it justifiable to conclude that these actions should not be questioned because the companions committed them? Does Sharia apply to all? Is there one rule for Muslims and another for the Companions - to the extent that there is blanket immunity for them?
In England until recently there used to be the law of 'diplomatic immunity' whereby ambassadors from foreign lands could not be charged with any offences due to their positions. Media coverage following some horrendous behaviour by such individuals created public outrage the law was repealed and rightly why should these people be above the law? Now think how would you have felt if rather than punish such personages a clause was added stating not only are such persons not going to be prosecuted they will receive an order of merit from the Queen for their actions. Would you support such thinking?
The Battle of Siffeen took place when Mu'awiya refused to leave his post as Governor over Syria, following Ali (as)'s appointment as fourth Khalifa. Despite numerous correspondences to Mu'awiya by the Imam (as), he refused to wrest his authority, hence the Imam was forced to wage a war against Mu'awiya and his adherents. Now we should ask, what was the Ijtihad used by Mu'awiya in this case which justified his actions to the extent that the matter had to be resolved through bloodshed? The Ahl'ul Sunnah scholars state that he wanted the killers of Uthman to be punished, what verse of the Qur'an did he interpret which would justify him to rebel and mount a campaign against the Khalifa if he did not get his way? What Ijtihad did Mu'awiya use which would justify his opposition to Ali(as) and hence grant him a reward from Allah (swt)? Despite this, scholars still try to water the episode down by putting it down to religious interpretation; Ghazzali symbolises this thinking as follows:
"As to the struggle between Mu'awiya and Ali, it was the result of differences of opinion to discover truth by Ijtihad"
Ihya Ulum-id-din, by Imam Ghazzali, Volume 1 page 143, English translation by Maulana Fazlul Karim, Publishers Kitab Bhavan, India.
And what a discovery! A journey of discovery inciting hatred and armed opposition to the Khalifa, resulting in a 110-day battle, which left the field of Siffeen strewn with corpses? On what ground will Mu'awiya receive a reward from Allah (swt)? What precisely were these 'differences'? Let us allow the Wahabie scholar Al Aqqad answer this:
"It was not a conflict between two individuals but between two systems, which, on modern phraseology, can be called a conflict between two schools of thought. In fact, the clash between the system of Caliphate (represented by Ali) and the scheme of administration (epitomised by Mu'awiya b. Abi Sufyan"
The life of Caliph Ali, by S. Abul Hasan Nadwi, p 187 quoting Al-Abqariyat al-Islamiyah, by Al Aqqad p 892
So essentially Mu'awiya didn't want to give up his power, this entitled him to rebel against the leader and plague the Ummah with a second civil war! And this was all done for the betterment of Islam, for which Mu'awiya will be awarded on account of him exercising Ijtihad which incidentally was a 'mistake'! Can you really ascribe to such a viewpoint, explaining Siffeen in terms of a mistake for which no one shall be held accountable? It is unlikely that the objective person to support this thinking and yet we see recognised Sunni scholars like Ibn Khaldun doing precisely that:
"The stand taken by Ali in this dispute was undoubtedly correct yet no evil intention can be attributed to Mu'awiya also. He was well intentioned but made a mistake. Thus both groups were justified so far as their motives are concerned, but a peculiarity of the power is that he should wrest it for himself alone from others. It was not possible for Mu'awiya to give up this peculiarity either for himself or for his people. This was a natural trait strengthened by one's own predilections and the support one gets from his family and tribe".
The life of Caliph Ali, by S. Abul Hasan Nadwi, p 145 quoting Muqqadimah, by Ibn Khaldun p 162
So Mu'awiya rebelled against Imam Ali (as) due to his exercise of ijtihad, the ijtihad being he wanted to stay in power, and for this he will be rewarded! One must ask what benefit did Siffeen have for the Muslims that will reap reward from Allah (swt)?
The concept is an attempt to cover up history
This entire thinking has been developed to maintain status quo to continue the thought that the Companions are just and they can never make a mistake for which they will be admonished. The Sunni Ulema are fully aware that history cannot vouch for this and hence seek to urge their adherents to blindly accept this as part of their belief.
The Ulema know better and they know that they are seeking to cover up the truth, this is evident from the comments of the Wahabie scholar Shaykh Naasir al-'Aql:
"The noble companions are all trustworthy ('udool) and they are the best of this Ummah...It is necessary to withhold from entering into the differences that befell them and to abandon discussing the matter so as not to belittle their rank and position".
The General precepts of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, by Shaikh Naasir al-'Aql, page 34 - 35 English translation by 'Abu 'Aaliyah Surkheel ibn Anwar Sharif, published by Message of Islam
What we should ask is, if the companions are indeed trustworthy then what is there to worry about? If they are indeed all trustworthy then there should be no risk of their rank and position being diminished via discussion over their disputes. To abandon discussing something is clear evidence of seeking to cover up something unpleasant. If there is nothing to hide then why insist on not discussing these matters? If the companions are indeed the best of generations then we should investigate both their agreements and disagreements for the sake of learning lessons from those differences. Clearly there is a link in the eyes of the Wahabie scholar between the two, if you discuss the disputes, the high-elevated position of the companions are called in to question. Does this not seem somewhat unusual? This is similar to the blind following attributed by Christians to the Bible.
When the contradictions are brought to their attention, the clergy insist that you should not think about that, rather you should blindly accept the Book to be the word of God free of errors. The Roman Catholic Church likewise follow a similar approach, adherents are taught to blindly believe in the infallibility of the Papal Church, and are forbidden to think about the transgressions of the Pope, past and present. Many reverts broke the shackles of such blind following when they embraced Islam, and yet they are being told to blindly accept something that does not tally up with history. Does the mind really feel at ease with such a belief, 'Do not think or investigate history, do not even think about them just believe what we say because we are Ulema?' What is the difference between this approach and that used by the Catholic hierarchy?
This concept is 'selectively applied' creating clear contradictions
Curiously this concept only applies to the two battles waged during the Caliphate of Imam Ali (as)! During the reign of Hadhrath Abu Bakr, he waged a war against those companions who refused to pat Zakat to him. The Sunni Ulema have never deemed their actions as mistakes in Ijtihad. On the contrary a very different opinion is put forward. The late Wahabie scholar Sayyid Abul A'la Maudoodi, in his book "Murtad ki Saza" (Punishment of the apostate), [page 24 - 25 Karachi edition 1954] states that those who did not pay Zakat became apostates because they rebelled against the Khalifa of the time. Curiously when the companions rebel against Ali (as) and wage war against him the same thinking is not applied. Faced with this problem the same Maudoodi in his later work 'Khilafath aur Mulukiyat' (Caliphate and Monarchy) (see note below) reflects orthodox Ahl'ul Sunnah beliefs putting the rebellions down to mistakes in ijtihad by the companions.
Khilfath aur Mulukiyath, by Sayyid Abul A'la Maudoodi
A mistake in Ijtihad is a concept that was formulated specifically to defend those companions who unsheathed their swords against Ali (as). On the one hand the Ahl'ul Sunnah proudly proclaim the importance of sticking to the Jamaah and not rebelling against a leader, and to do so is a major sin, but if the Companions rebel against Ali who to quote the Wahabie scholar Nadwi "the Ahli-i-Sunnat Sect of the Muslims is unanimous in the view that Ali was lawfully entitled to hold the reigns of caliphate" it is okay it is a mistake for which they will be rewarded!
The life of Caliph Ali, by S. Abul Hasan Nadwi, p 193, quoting Shah Waliyullah 'Izalatul Khifa pages 278-280
In Sahih al-Bukhari we learn that Abdullah Ibne Umar dissuades the Ummah from breaking the oath of allegiance to Yazid, basing his argument on a hadith that such persons will be raised as betrayers on the Day of Judgement(see note below). Curiously, this hadith is put forward to support Yazid, the tyrant after the event oh Harra when he ordered his army free reign to ransack Madina, this lead to the slaughter of the companions and mass rape of the women folk. Those who turn their back on Khalifa Yazeed shall be raised as betrayers on the Day of Judgement for breaking the oath of allegiance; while companions such as Talha and Zubayr who broke the oath of allegiance administered to 'Ali (as) and fought him are not rebels but companions who made mistakes in Ijtihad for which they shall be rewarded. What is worse, rebelling against Yazid or against Hadhrath 'Ali (as)? If those who rebelled against Yazid will be raised as betrayers in the next world why not those who rebelled against Hadhrath 'Ali (as)?
Sahih al Bukhari Arabic - English Volume 9 hadith number 127)
Is this not a clear contradiction, applying a different approach to a different scenario? If Mu'awiya rebels against Hadhrath 'Ali it is a mistake in his ijtihad, if Hadhrath Abu Bakr denies the daughter of the Holy Prophet (s) her inheritance rights in violation of the Qur'an this is not a mistake in ijtihad, but rather can be put down to 'minor matters'(1) and a 'misunderstanding'(2)
1. The life of Caliph Ali, by S. Abul Hasan Nadwi, p 75
2. The life of Caliph Ali, by S. Abul Hasan Nadwi, p 175
What sort of rationale is this? Mistakes in ijtihad are selectively applied to different scenario's, they can be applied here but not here!
This type of inconsistent approach is no different to the different way the West deals with dictatorships. The US for example imposes sanctions and isolation against Burma for its human rights violations, but not against China, when Madelaine Albright the, Secretary of State was asked why this was the case on one occasion in 1998 she answered unequivocally 'Different strokes for different folks'. Do the followers of the companions not follow the same approach when analysing the wars between the companions?
A 'Baghi' (rebel) can never claim ijtihad as a defence for his actions
The Holy Prophet (s) had told Hadhrath Ali (as):
"O Ali! Soon a rebellious group will fight against you, you will be on the truth whoever does not support you on that day will not be from us"
Kanz al Ummal, by Ali Muttaqi al Hind quoting Ibn Asakir, hadith number 32970
Let us now analyse who this rebellious group are. The late Wahaby scholar Sayyid Abu'l Ala Maudoodi in his 'Tafhim ul Qur'an' collates the opinions of the Ahl'ul Sunnah Ulema about a 'baghi'. He writes:
"Ibne Khumman in Hidaya's commentary Fathul Kadheer states that the scholars have declared that a baghi is he who disobeys the rightful Imam. Imam Shaafi in Kitab ul Umm states 'Baghi' is he who fights the Adil Imam. Imam Malik declared that it is a duty to fight the one who rebels against the Adil Imam [al Mudawanna]"
Tafhim ul Qur'an by Sayyid Abu'l Ala Mauddodi, Volume 5 page 80
This point needs to be taken into account. In addition one should also think about this verse of the Qur'an:
"O you who believe! Obey Allah and his Apostle and those in authority among you".
This verse provides no room for manoeuvre obedience to those in authority is on par with obedience to Allah (swt) and the Prophet (s). This means that disobeying the Leader amounts to disobeying Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s). The verse is absolutely clear how can anyone interpret this verse as entitling someone to rebel against a leader. Anyone who does so is a rebel.
Now the question we ask is these questions:
1. Does Imam Ali (as) not come within this verse?
2. Was he not 'those in authority'?
3. Is he not the fourth rightly guided khalifa?
4. Did Mu'awiya obey him?
Under the definitions of Ahl'ul Sunnah his disobedience of Imam Ali (as) makes him a rebel. If this is not clear enough we also have the hadith of Rasulullah (s) about Hadhrath Amar bin Yasir (ra).
Umm Salama narrated that Allah's messenger (may peace be upon him) said: "A band of rebels would kill Ammar"
Sahih Muslim, English version, v4, chapter MCCV, Tradition #6970
Ibn Sa'd also records that the Prophet (s) said to Amar "You will be killed by a rebellious group".
Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa'd Volume 3 page 252
Can there be anything more explicit than this hadith? Amar was martyred during the Battle of Siffeen by the forces of Mu'awiya.
In his discussion of Siffeen Maudoodi writes as follows:
"There were some companions who were reluctant to participate in Jihad as they were unsure which party was that of truth and which party was that of falsehood. After Amar Ibne Yasirs death the matter became clear. It is on this basis that Abu Bakr bin Jasas writes in Ahkam ul Qur'an, Volume 3 page 492: 'Ali ibne Abi Talib (ra) fought a rebellious group accompanying him were recognised Sahaba who had participated in Badr, they were in the right. The Prophet told Amar that a 'baghi group will kill you' this hadith is Mutawatir and Sahih, so much so that when Abdullah bin Umar bin Aas said this to Mu'awiya he did not refute it". Allamah Ibne Abdul Barr in al Istiab Volume 2 page 424 records the hadith 'a baghi group will kill Amar, this is a Mutawatir / Sahih tradition. Allamah Hafidh Ibne Hajar in Isaba writes on Volume 2 page 502 'After Amar's murder it became clear that the truth was with 'Ali and on this the Ahl'ul Sunnah became united when previously there were differing opinions".
Al Khilfath aur Mulukiyath - by Sayyid Abu'l Ala Maudoodi, pages 136-138
The Sahaba Abul Hasan Ashari expressed a clear opinion namely that "Mu'awiya and Amr bin Aas fought against the rightful Imam, Ali fought the rebels, he was with the truth and the truth was with him".
Ma Qa la Ishabal Inabathay fi Mukhathilathai Sahabathay (Urdu) by Sayyid Lal Shah Bukhari quoting Al Mihal wa al Nihal by Allamah Shahrastani Volume 1 page 103
Many Sunni scholars have likewise deemed Mu'awiya a rebel who fought the rightful Imam.
Tumheed ai Abi Shakhoor Ahl'ul Sunnah by Ameer M. Muazzim page 182
The modern day Sunni scholar Muhammad S. El-Awa Associate Professor of Comparative Law at the University of Riyadh makes the point even more explicit. He writes that following the killing of Hadhrath Uthman:
"?'Ali b. Abi Talib assumed the Caliphate by virtue of oath of fealty sworn to him by the Muslims in Madinah. There is no doubt that 'Ali did not confirm Mu'awiya's governorship which ended when Uthman was murdered. Thus although Mu'awiya had ceased to be the de jure (lawful) ruler of Damascus, he remained in de facto (actual) possession of that position. In taking this stand - that of refusing to take the oath of fealty to 'Ali in expectation of the enforcement of Qisas upon the murderers of 'Uthman, and refusing to implement 'Ali's orders in Damascus - Mu'awiya and his Damascene followers became dissidents and rebels against the Caliph 'Ali"
On the political system of the Islamic State, by Muhammad s. El-Awa, page 50 American Trust Publications
The hadith and verdicts of Ahl'ul Sunnah are quite clear that Mu'awiya and his cronies were rebels. This fact is so clear that Abdullah ibne Umar regretted until his dying days his decision to steer away from fighting at Siffeen. Ibn Barr in al Istiab narrates that Un Habeeb ibne Abi Sabith (ra) heard Abdullah ibne Umar say:
"I regret that I did not join Ali and fight the rebellious group". Abi Barr bin Abi Jaham (ra) narrates that he heard Abdullah ibne Umar say "I never regretted anything in my life other than the fact that I did not fight the rebels".
al Istiab, by Ibn Barr Volume 3 page 83
Ibn Sa'd narrates that "Hasan bin Thabit said that Abdullah ibn Umar stated on his deathbed "The biggest regret I have in my life is that I did not fight the rebellious group".
Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa'd Volume 4 page 187
Defending the indefensible
Despite such clear evidence - namely the verdicts of the Qur'an, the Sunnah, the Sahaba and the Ahl'ul Sunnah Ulema themselves, the majority school still maintain the belief that all the companions should be revered and committed mistakes in ijtihad. In doing so they fall deeper into the quagmire of contradiction, inconsistency and absurdity. The perfect example of contradiction is evident if one analyses the rulings of the Wahabie scholar Shaykh Naasir al-'Aql whilst setting out the creed of the Ahl'ul Sunna wa al Jamaah. He proudly proclaims in the preface:
"They are called the Jamaa'ah because they are the ones who gather upon the truth and do not split-up in their Religion; they gather upon the legitimate rulers and do not rebel against them; and they follow the consensus (ijma') of the Pious Predecessors of this ummah".
The General precepts of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, by Shaikh Naasir al-'Aql, page 12 English translation by 'Abu 'Aaliyah Surkheel ibn Anwar Sharif, published by Message of Islam
Perhaps the Shaykh should also answer this question 'was Imam Ali (as) a legitimate ruler?' Clearly he was, he is deemed the fourth rightly guided Khalifa in the eyes of Ahl ul Sunna. To rebel against the legitimate leader according to Al' Aql takes you out of the Jamaa'ah. Did prominent companions not break ranks and rebel against Imam Ali?
Al' Aql illuminates this delicate issue yet further:
"It is not permissible to revolt against the Muslim ruler except in cases where he manifests clear unbelief (kufr buwaah), for which there is decisive proof from Allah concerning it".
The General precepts of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, by Shaikh Naasir al-'Aql, page 34 English translation by 'Abu 'Aaliyah Surkheel ibn Anwar Sharif, published by Message of Islam
Perhaps Al 'Aql should also shed light on whether the companions followed this example, after all according to the Wahabies guidance is by adhering to their way. Did Imam 'Ali (Allah forbid) display any signs of clear unbelief that justified revolt? No Muslim would have the audacity to state this, so on what basis did the companions feel justified to rebel against Imam 'Ali. When Al 'Aql makes this ruling to legitimise his paymasters the Saud family then it should be applied in all circumstances. He makes it clear rebellion is not permissible does this ruling not apply to the companions who rebelled against Imam 'Ali (as) or does it refer to everyone accept those who fought Imam 'Ali (as)?
Al 'Aql is a learned man who is fully aware about the rebellions against Imam 'Ali and the fact that this is in contradiction to what he stipulates as the way of the Ahl'ul Sunna. Rather than raise doubts about the companions he then proceeds to completely rewrite history, stating:
"?the Khawaarji were the first people to split from the ummah with the sword and split from the Jamaa'ah of the Muslims and its leader".
The General precepts of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, by Shaikh Naasir al-'Aql, page 44 English translation by 'Abu 'Aaliyah Surkheel ibn Anwar Sharif, published by Message of Islam
This is a remarkable revision of history since the first group to split from the Jamaa'ah and raised their swords against the Leader were not the Khawaarji. Has the 'learned scholar' had amnesia as to the previous two battles against Imam 'Ali? This being an undeniable fact then why is Al-Aql seeking to deny history? This is because it is necessary to define these battles as 'differences' rather than 'splitting' so as to maintain the belief that the companions had exercised ijtihad when breaking ranks with Imam 'Ali (as) and fighting him. If al-Aql were in fact to apply the verdicts written from his own pen; to the letter - the entire house of 'ijtihad of the companions' built by him and his predecessors will fall down. The Arabic for splitting is 'iftiraaq' and is defined by Al Aql as:
"?Fragmentation, which is disunity, separation, cutting off. It is also derived from the term divergence and aberration. From it comes (the expression): Departure from the fundamental, or from the united body".
The General precepts of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, by Shaikh Naasir al-'Aql, page 42 English translation by 'Abu 'Aaliyah Surkheel ibn Anwar Sharif, published by Message of Islam
Now that Al Aql has defined splitting let us delve further into its significance:
"?opposing Ahlu-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah in any of the fundamental precepts of belief ('aqeedah) is deemed as splitting (iftiraaq) and separating from the Jamaa'ah?and opposing the united body of Muslims and their leader, in what is from the (issues of) welfare is deemed as splitting and separating from the Jammah".
The General precepts of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, by Shaikh Naasir al-'Aql, page 43 English translation by 'Abu 'Aaliyah Surkheel ibn Anwar Sharif, published by Message of Islam
So opposing any of the fundamental beliefs of the Ahl'ul Sunnah constitutes splitting from the Jamaa'ah. One of those fundamental beliefs stated by Al Aql here and earlier (see footnote 22) is that it is not permissible to rise up against your Leaders. Taking this to its logical conclusion if anyone breaches this, they have broken a fundamental precept of the belief of Ahlul-Sunnah and have therefore split from the Jamaa'ah. Applying Al-Aql's own definition of splitting, the very first people to split and draw swords against their Leader were the prominent companions such as Talha, Zubayr and Hadhrath Ayesha at Jamal. Thereafter Mu'awiya did likewise at Siffeen. The Khawarij in rebelling and raising their swords against Hadhrath Ali (as) were hence only following the precedents established by the companions.
Do these actions not therefore suggest that the path of the Salaf (pious predecessors) is not to remain in the ranks of the majority but is in fact to break from it, rebel and fight the legitimate ruler? Those who rebelled against 'Ali (as) cannot be defined as the earliest examples of Ahl'ul Sunnah since they split from the Jamaah and fought the Rightly Guided Khalifa. They acted in opposition to what 'Al Aql states is the way of the Jamaa'ah.
Why does Al-Aql not wish to apply splitting to the first two groups? To do so will mean that he will be unable to maintain the assertion that the companions had made mistakes in ijtihad. This is because Al-Aql himself states that:
"Splitting is never due to ijtihad and good intentions and its proponent is never rewarded, rather he is censured and sinful in all cases. Therefore splitting does not occur except due to innovations, or following whims and desires, or due to the blameworthy type of imitation (taqleed madhmoom)".
The General precepts of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, by Shaikh Naasir al-'Aql, page 47 English translation by 'Abu 'Aaliyah Surkheel ibn Anwar Sharif, published by Message of Islam
What more can we say? If one objectively goes through al-Aql's verdicts it is evident that the companions were indeed guilty of splitting from the Jamaa'ah. As he comments, splitting is a sin and will not be rewarded, the defence of ijtihad can never be raised. If as al-Aql states you can never raise a defence of ijtihad when splitting from the aqeedah of Ahl'ul Sunnah - rebelling against a Leader being one such tenet, on what basis do the Ahl'ul Sunnah scholars maintain that the actions of the companions in splitting from the Imam, rebelling against him and fighting him were mistakes in ijtihad for which they will be rewarded? Is this not a contradiction in belief?
Perhaps the Wahabys should answer each one of these questions in the following order:
1. Can you split from your Leader?
2. Does rebelling against a Leader constitute splitting from the Jamaa'ah?
3. Can you justify splitting from the Leader by relying on Ijtihad for which you will be rewarded?
4. Where does that leave the companions who split and fought battles against Hadhrath Ali (as)?
The first three questions will automatically be a resounding 'No'. Once the fourth question is posed one will automatically witness confusion appear on their faces followed by an explanation of mistakes in ijtihad, an explanation that curiously contradicts / negates the first three answers. It is at that point that the rational minded person will be able to conclude the obvious contradiction that dogs this concept.
Rising against Ahl'ul bayt can never be deemed a mistake in ijtihad
The Prophet (s) had made an explicit instruction during the farewell pilgrimage, namely "I am leaving you two weighty things, if you follow them you will never go astray, they are the Qur'an and my Ahlul'bayt".
Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, page 662-663
This meant that in all circumstances it was incumbent upon Muslims to attach themselves to the Family of the Prophet (s). At no point did he (s) ever say that it would be permissible to fight them, at no time did he state those that fought them would be rewarded because they exercised ijtihad. On the contrary, Hadhrath 'Abu Bakr narrates:
"I saw the Messenger of God pitch a tent in which he placed 'Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Husayn. He then declared: 'O Muslims, I am at war against anyone who wars against the people of this tent, and am at peace with those who show peace toward them. I am a friend to those who befriend them. He who shows love toward them shall be one of a happy ancestry and good birth. Nor would anyone hate them except that he is of miserable ancestry and evil birth".
Abu Ja'far Ahmad al-Muhibb al-Tabari, Al-Riyad al-nadira (Cairo, n.d.), Volume 2, page 199
Is there anything more explicit than this instruction? Those who fight them are fighting the Prophet (s). Can fighting the Prophet (s) ever be deemed as a mistake in ijtihad for which the perpetrators will be rewarded? By Hadhrath 'Abu Bakr's own admission fighting the Ahlul'bayt is on par with fighting the Prophet (s) so how can ijtihad be used as a defence for those that fought Hadhrath 'Ali (as)? There are adherents of the Wahaby school of thought that may seek to place the onus on Hadhrath Ali (as) by alleging that he initiated the war, and hence his opponents were not at war against him per se, rather they were defending themselves. To this our reply is clear, whoever takes a stand against Hadhrath Ali (as) is taking a stand against the Prophet (s). If Imam Ali (as) declares war on a group the Prophet (s) is likewise at war with such individuals, there is no room to excuse their behaviour on account of mistaken ijtihad. In this there is no doubt, the Prophet (s) made this point absolutely clear with these words:
"Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said regarding 'Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn (Allah be pleased with them all): I am at peace with those with whom you make peace and I am at war with those whom you make war"
Sunan Ibn-I-Majah, English translation by Muhammad Tufail Ansari, Volume 1 page 81
Fada'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p767, Tradition #1350
al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p149
Majma' al-Zawa'id, by al-Haythami, v9, p169
al-Kabir, by Tabarani, v3, p30, also in al-Awsat
Jamius Saghir, by al-Ibani, v2, p17
Tarikh, by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, v7, p137
Sawai'q al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p221
Talkhis, by al-Dhahabi, v3, p149
Dhakha'ir al-Uqba, by al-Muhib al-Tabari, p25
Mishkat al-Masabih, by Khatib al-Tabrizi, English Version, Tradition #6145
The Sahaba never proclaimed that they had mad mistakes in ijtihad
This is a very interesting point. There exists no statement from history in which any Sahaba who fought Imam Ali (as) declared that they had exercised ijtihad that was wrong but they would be rewarded for it. Their advocates have only formulated this - years after their departure. If this was true do you not think that they would have advanced this argument to justify their stance? Remember that an advocate in law can only prepare a defence for his client on the basis of legislative tools, s/he is not free to present a defence outside that. The legal statutes in Islamic Jurisprudence are the Qur'an and Sunnah and as we have conclusively proven in this article there exists no evidence in these documents to support the assertion that individuals can rebel against a Leader claiming immunity on grounds of ijtihad.
Rasulullah foretold that a rebellious group would kill Amar, did he say that the group would be exercising ijtihad for which they would be rewarded? He (s) also warned Hadhrath Ayesha that the dogs of Hawab would bark at her (see note below), did he add to the prediction that she would be exercising ijtihad for which she would be rewarded? If the Prophet (s) and the companions never declared this, on what basis have the Sunni Ulema reached this conclusion? Rather than support this viewpoint, Hadhrath Ayesha's own damning confession proves clearly that she did not believe that Allah (swt) would forgive her for her opposition to Ali (as).
History of al-Tabari vol. XVI, pp. 49-50, and p. 68
In the renowned Ahl'ul Sunnah work - "Mawaddathul Qurba" we read the following:
"Hadhrath Ayesha narrates the Prophet said 'Allah asked me 'Whoever doesn't accept Ali's khilafath and rebels and fights him is a kaffir and will perish in the fire" Someone asked her "Why did you rebel and fight him?" She replied "I forgot this Hadith on the Day of the Battle of Jamal, I remembered it again when I returned to Basra and I asked for Allah's forgiveness, I don't think that I will be forgiven for this sin"
Mawaddatul al Qurba page 32 by Sayyid 'Ali Hamdani, Chapter "Mawaddathul Saum"
The Shi'a viewpoint
Alhamdolillah, there is no such confusion for the Shi'a. We believe firmly in Justice, and that no one is beyond reproach of the law. The fact that individuals saw the Prophet (s) does not therefore provide them with any immunity with regards to their future conduct. Why should actions of personalities whose conduct violated the Qur'an and Sunnah and caused fitna in the Ummah be explained in terms of mistakes for which they shall be rewarded?
There is no evidence of such protection in the Qur'an and we find hadith that confirm that the companions will make changes and be punished accordingly. This is what we read Sahih al-Bukhari:
"Some men from my companions will come to my Lake-Fount and they will be driven away from it, and I will say, 'O Lord, my companions!' It will be said, 'You have no knowledge of what they innovated after you left: they turned apostate as renegades (reverted from true Islam)".
Sahih al Bukhari English-Arabic edition Volume 8 hadith number 586
This is an authentic hadith confirming that some of the companions will become apostates, where does that leave the belief that all the companions are just and trustworthy?
There is no doubt that the companions deserve respect having sat in the presence of the Prophet (s). It is however sad that when we see history and the tragic events that took place, the Ahl'ul Sunnah scholars assert that such individuals should be forgiven for their mistakes on account of whom they are and not according to what they did!
The Book of God is the guiding principle for us and yet scholars have abandoned its applicability when faced with the actions of the companions. Ibne Jauzi was indeed correct when he wrote:
"Some people blindly follow their leaders, which is absolutely wrong, because we should follow the principle not the leader. When Harith bin Hauta asked Hadhrath Ali whether Talha and Zubayr could be in the wrong he replied 'Harith you have been deceived, remember the truth is not recognised through people, rather people are recognised by the truth"
The ijtihad of the Sahaba is a concept dogged by inconsistency, contradiction and violates the dictates of the Qur'an, Sunnah and rationality. This is clear to see for any objective reader, the words of Imam Ali (as) indeed ring clear "Truth will always overcome falsehood".
Ref: Imam Reza Network

Hujr ibn Odai, the Holy Prophet’s Companion

Compiled By: Syed Ali Shahbaz
Condolences to you on the shock which the civilized world received recently when a group of Salafi savages, posing as Muslims, desecrated the shrine of Hujr Ibn Odai al-Kindi, the famous companion of Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWA), by exhuming his grave and stealing his body that was remarkably preserved despite the passing of 1353 solar years since his martyrdom.
The tomb of Hujr ibn Odai, in Adra, a small town north of Damascus, was a site of pilgrimage by both Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims ever since his body was laid to rest at this spot in 660 AD. Hujr and his sons were killed by the Omayyad usurper of the caliphate, Mu’awiya ibn Abu Sufyan. Hujr was the victim of his loyalty to the Commander of the Faithful, the Prophet’s divinely-decreed successor, Imam Ali ibn Abi Taleb (AS). The Late prominent Sunni scholar Abu’l-Ala Mawdudi in his book Caliphs and Kings writes: “Hujr ibn Odai was a pious companion of the Holy Prophet (SAWA) and played a vital role in guiding the Islamic Ummah. During Mu’awiyyah’s rule when the custom of cursing Imam Ali from the pulpits of mosques began, hearts of the Muslims were being bled dry but people bit their tongues fearing death. In Kufa (in Iraq), Hujr ibn Odai could not remain silent and he began to praise Imam Ali (AS) and condemn Mu’awiyyah. Until Mughira remained the Governor of Kufa, he adopted a lenient attitude towards this, but when Ziyad ibn Abih’s governorship of Basra was extended to include Kufa, serious altercations arose. He would curse Imam Ali AS (AS) during the sermons and Hujr would refute him. On one occasion, Hujr censured Ziyad for being late for the Friday Prayer. Ziyad then arrested him along with twelve of his companions on false accusations of forming an opposition group to overthrow the Caliph. He also gathered false witnesses to testify against them because of their belief that the caliphate was the exclusive right of the lineage of Ali (AS) and accused them of creating disturbance by sending blessings upon him and hating his enemies.
As the late contemporary Sunni Islamic scholar, Abu’l Ala Mawdid writes in his book, Caliphs and King, in the Chapter on Elimination of Freedom of Speech, the accused were sent to Mu’awiyyah in Damascus, and he sentenced them to death. A condition was placed that if they cursed Imam Ali (AS) and showed their hatred to the Prophet’s cousin and son-in-law, im they would be pardoned. They refused and Hujr ibn Odai said: “I will not say that which would displease Allah.” Finally Hujr, his son Humaan and his seven companions were martyred. From amongst them Abdur-Rahman ibn Hassaan was sent back to return with a written instruction that he be murdered in the worst possible manner, and he was buried alive by Ziyad ibn Abih – which means son of his own father, since no one had any clue as to who the real father of Ziyad was, since he was born out of wedlock in the pre-Islamic days to the prostitute Sumayya. In other reports, it is said that Hujr’s final wish was that his son be killed before him, in fear that his son would be terrified of death and give in to the demands to curse Imam Ali (AS). Hujr patiently saw his son being killed before he too stepped forward for martyrdom, both giving their lives in loyalty to Imam Ali (AS) and for the sake of Allah.
Thus in view of these undeniable facts, the slogans of the Salafis, of love for the Companions of the Prophet, is nothing but a lie. Those who exhumed grave of Hujr Bin Odai today, are no different than the killer of this revered companion, by Mu’awiyyah Ibn Abu Sufyan, who as late as 8 AH, that is, two years before the passing away of Prophet Mohammad (SAWA), was an archenemy of Islam and Muslims. No religion permits the desecration of graves, and may the curse of God be on those who exhumed the body of Hujr, while chanting the deceitful slogan of "freedom", "democracy", "human rights" and “Islamic rule” in Syria. Hujr ibn Odai was testified by Imam Ali (AS) as a Faqih or the one who possesses the highest form of faith, piety and jurisprudential knowledge. After the passing away of Prophet Mohammad (SAWA), Hujr ardently supported Imam Ali (AS), and participated in the Battles of Jamal and Siffeen, where he lost an eye defending Islam. When the Prophet’s elder grandson, Imam Hasan Mojtaba (AS), succeeded Imam Ali (AS), he rallied support for the Prophet’s grandson from the tribe of Kindi. He strongly censured Mu’awiyya for the killing of innocent Muslims, and was eventually martyred. When news of his martyrdom reached Imam Hasan (AS), he protested to Mu’awiyyah by writing a letter and condemning the act.
The desecration of the grave of such a righteous person, whose body God has preserved intact despite the passing a millennium and three-and-a-half centuries, has exposed the Salafis in their true heathen colours. Both Sunnis and Shi’ite Muslims have denounced the sacrilege that is supported by the US, the Zionists, and Saudi Arabia. The Council of European Jamaats (CoEJ) condemns the behaviour of the terrorists who desecrated the shrine of Hujr bin Odai al-Kindi, a companion of the Prophet. It said that with such upsetting news, the Muslim community cannot continue to remain silent as we witness disrespect being extended toward the companion of Prophet Mohammad (SAWA) and Imam Ali (AS) with no just cause. This act once again provides us with understanding as to why great personalities like the Prophet’s Immaculate Daughter, Hazrat Fatemah Zahra (SA) requested being buried in the middle of the night, so that their resting places cannot be desecrated in a similar way. It is our duty as conscious and aware Muslims to raise awareness of this through all sources available. This includes all social media networks including Facebook and Twitter, internet blogs, writing articles in newspapers, sending complaints to the UNESCO World Heritage Centre and through all other means. Let us follow in the footsteps of our beloved Ahl al-Bayt. Let us rally together and raise awareness for the worldwide injustices continually being endorsed by our heavy, meaningful silence. Let us stand up and take ownership of our faith.
The Council of European Jamaats (CoEJ) has already contacted the Muslim Council of Britain to raise awareness about this issue. This is not solely a matter of grave concern for the Shi’ite - it concerns Muslims worldwide. Hujr sacrificed himself to preserve the message of Islam and so it is a duty for all adherents of this faith to honour him. Raising our voices to counter injustice is something promoted vigorously in Islam, and this occurrence is as significant as all other injustices occurring globally. It is clear that the desecration of a shrine is entirely unacceptable on moral grounds, and that this cannot be tolerated, irrespective of the current political strife currently taking place in Syria. We are working toward actions that will ensure that our dissent is heard clearly and that this does not go unnoticed. We also wish to extend our heartfelt support, prayers and thoughts worldwide to everyone who is experiencing political insurgency, perpetuated poverty, modern-day slavery, unjust imprisonment, torture and all other injustices.
Ref: Imam Reza Network

How the Companions Regarded Each Other?

By: Muhammad Tijani Samawi
1. Their testimony that they themselves have changed the tradition of the Prophet
Abu Saeed al-Khudari said: On the first days of 'Id al-Fitr [breaking the fast of Ramadan] and 'Id al-Adha [celebrating the end of the Pilgrimage], the first thing the Messenger of Allah (saw) used to do was to say his prayers in the mosque, then he went to see the people, who sat in rows in front of him, and then he started to deliver advice or orders or even finalize outstanding issues, and after all that he would leave. Abu Saeed added: The situation continued to be like that, until one day, either Fitr or Adha, I went with Marwan, who was the governor of al-Medinah. When we arrived at the mosque, which had a new pulpit built by Kathir ibn al-Salt, Marwan headed for the pulpit (before praying), so I pulled him by his clothes, but he pushed me and went up on to the pulpit. He addressed the people before he prayed, so I said to him, "By Allah you have changed it." He replied, "O Abu Saeed, what you know has gone." I said, "By Allah, what I know is better than what I do not know." Marwan then said, "People did not sit for us after the prayers, so I put [it] before the prayers". [20]
[20]
Sahih, Bukhari, vol 1 p 122 (al Idayn book)
I looked for the reasons which led those Companions to change the Sunnah [the tradition] of the Messenger of Allah (saw), and found that the Umayyads (and most of them were Companions of the Prophet) and Muawiah ibn Abi Sufian (writer of the revelation, as he was called) in particular used to force people to swear at Ali ibn Abi Talib and curse him from the pulpits of the mosques, as most of the historians have mentioned in their books.
Muslim, in his Sahih, wrote in a chapter entitled, "The virtues of Ali ibn Abi Talib", the following: Muawiah ordered his governors everywhere to take the curse [of Ali ibn Abi Talib] as tradition, and that all the speakers must include it in their speeches. When some of the Companions protested very strongly against such a rule, Muawiah ordered their killing and burning. Among the famous Companions who were killed at the order of Muawiah were Hijr ibn Adi al-Kindi and his followers, because they protested and refused to curse Ali, and some of them were buried alive.
Abu al-Aala al-Mawdudi wrote in his book "Caliphate and Kingdom": Abu al-Hasan al-Basri said: Muawiah had four features, and if he had only one of them, it would have been considered a great sin:
1. Making decisions without consulting the Companions, who were the light of virtues.
2. Designating his son as his successor. His son was a drunkard, corrupt and wore silk.
3. He claimed Ziyad [as his son], and the Messenger of Allah said, "There is offspring for the honourable woman, but there is nothing for the whore."
4. His killing of Hijr and his followers. Woe unto him from Hijr and the followers of Hijr. [21]
[21] al Khilafah wa al Mulk, Syed Abul A'la Maududi, p 106
There were some good Companions who used to dash out of the mosque immediately after the prayers so that they did not have to listen to the speeches which always ended with the cursing of Ali. For that reason the Umayyads changed the tradition of the Messenger of Allah. They put the speech before the prayers, so that people listened to it against their will.
What kind of Companions were these people! They were not afraid of changing the tradition of the Messenger of Allah, or even the laws of Allah, in order to reach their wicked and low objectives and to satisfy their sinister desires. They cursed a man whom Allah had kept cleansed and purified, and made it obligatory for people to pray for him in the same way as they prayed for His Messenger. Furthermore, Allah and His Messenger made it obligatory for people to love him, and the Prophet (saw) said, "Loving Ali is believing, and hating him is hypocrisy" [22].
[22]
Sahih, Muslim, vol 1 p 61
But these Companions changed the rules and said, "We heard, but we disobey." And instead of loving him, praying for him and obeying him, they swore at him and cursed him for sixty years, as has been mentioned in the history books.
Whereas the Companions of Moses plotted against Aaron and tried to kill him, some of the Companions of Muhammad killed his Aaron and pursued his sons and followers everywhere. They removed their names from the Diwan (account books of the treasury) and prohibited anyone to be named after them. As if that was not enough for them, they cursed him and forced the faithful Companions to do so unjustly and by force.
By Allah! I stand astonished and perplexed when I read in our Sihahs how much the Messenger of Allah loved his "brother" and cousin Ali and how he put him above all the Companions, and even he said, "You are to me as Aaron was to Moses, but there will be no prophet after me." [23]
He also said the following things about Ali:
"You are from me, and I am from you" [24].
"Loving Ali is believing, and hating him is hypocrisy" [25].
"I am the city of knowledge, and Ali is its gate" [26].
"Ali is the master of all the believers after me"[28].
"Whoever accepted me as his master, then he should also accept Ali as his master. O Allah be friendly with his friends, and be enemy to his enemy" [28]
[23]
Sahih, Bukhari, vol 2 p 305
Sahih, Muslim, vol 2 p 356
Mustadrak, al Hakim, vol 3 p 109
[24]
Sahih, Bukhari, vol 1 p 76
Sahih, Tirmidhi, vol 5 p 300
Sunan, Ibn Majah, vol 1 p 44
[25]
Sahih, Muslim, vol 1 p 61
Sunan, al Nasai, vol 6 p 117
Sahih, al Tirmidhi, vol 8 p 306
[26]
Sahih, Tirmidhi, vol 5 p 201
Mustadrak, al Hakim, vol 3 p 126
[27]
Musnad, Ahmed Hanbal, vol 5 p 25
Mustadrak, Hakim, vol 3 p 134
Sahih, al Tirmidhi, vol 5 p 296
[28]
Sahih, Muslim, vol 2 p 362
Mustadrak, Hakim, vol 3 p 109
Musnad, Ahmed Hanbal, vol 4 p 281
If we study all the virtues that the Prophet (saw) attributed to Ali, which have been mentioned and approved by our scholars in their books, then we would need to write a whole book.
So, how did the Companions ignore all these texts, swear at him, plot against him, curse him from the pulpits of the mosques and then fight against him and finally kill him?
I tried in vain to find a reason for the behaviour of those people, but found nothing except the love of this life and the competition for it, in addition to the tendency to apostatize and turn back on their heels. I have also tried to attach the responsibility to a group of bad Companions and some hypocrites, but regrettably those were only a few among the famous and the important. The first who threatened to burn his house - with its inhabitants - was Umar ibn al-Khattab, and the first who fought him were Talhah, al-Zubayr, Aishah bint Abi Bakr - Umm al-Mumineen, Muawiah ibn Abi Sufian, Amr ibn al-'Aas and many others.
I am astonished, and my astonishment will never end, and any responsible free thinker would agree with me, as to how the Sunni scholars agree on the righteousness of all the Companions and ask for the blessings of Allah to be upon them and pray for all of them without exception, although some of them say: "Curse Yazid, and no further." But where is Yazid amongst all these tragedies which no religion or logic could approve? I appeal to the Sunni people, if they truly follow the Prophet's tradition, to ask themselves how they could accept somebody to be righteous when the laws of the Holy Qur'an and the Prophetic tradition judge him as being corrupt, an apostate and an unbeliever. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, "He who insults Ali, insults me. He who insults me, insults Allah. And he who insults Allah, Allah will throw him into Hell" [29]. If that is the punishment for those who insult Ali, one wonders about the punishment of those who fought him and ultimately killed him. What are our scholars' opinions regarding all these facts, or are their hearts locked solid?! Say, O God please protect us from the tricks of the devil.
[29]
Mustadrak, hakim, vol 3 p 121
Khasais, al Nasai, p 24
Musnad, Ahmed Hanbal, vol 6 p 33
al Manaqib, al Khawarizmi, p 81
al Riyadh al Nadira, Tabari, vol 2 p 219
Tarikh, as Suyuti, p 73
2. The Companions even made changes in Prayers
Anas ibn Malik said: I knew nothing during the lifetime of the Prophet(saw) better than the prayer. He said: Have you not lost what you have lost in it? Al-Zuhri said: I went to see Anas ibn Malik in Damascus, and found him crying, I asked him, "What is making you cry?" He answered, "I have known nothing but these prayers, and they have been lost." [30]
[30]
Sahih, Bukhari, vol 2 p 134
I would like to make it clear that it was not the followers who implemented the changes after all the intrigues and civil wars, rather it was the caliph Uthman who first made changed in the Prophet's tradition regarding the prayers.
Also Umm al-Mumineen Aishah was involved in these changes. Al-Bukhari and Muslim, both stated in their books that the Messenger of Allah (saw) performed two prayers at Mina, and Abu Bakr after him, then Umar and Uthman who later performed four prayers. [31]
[31]
Sahih, Bukhari, vol 2 p 154
Sahih, Muslim, vol 1 p 260
Muslim also stated in his book that al-Zuhri asked 'Urwah, "Why did Aishah complete her prayers during the journey?" He answered, "She improvised in the same way as Uthman did." [32]
[32]
Sahih, Muslim, vol 2 p 134
Umar used to improvise and interpret the clear texts of the Prophet's tradition, and even the Holy Qur'anic texts. Like he used to say: two pleasures were allowed during the life of the Messenger of Allah, but now I disallow them and punish those who commit them, I tell the person who is in a state of ritual impurity, or cannot find water not to pray. That was in spite of the words of Allah - the Most High - in Surat al-Maidah: "If you do not find water, then use clean sand."
Al-Bukhari stated in his book, in a chapter which deals with ritual impurity: I heard Shaqiq ibn Salmah saying: I was with Abdullah and Abu Musa, and Abu Musa asked, "What do you say about a man who is unclean but cannot find water?" Abdullah answered, "He should not pray until he finds water." Abu Musa then asked, "What do you think about what the Prophet said to Ammar [regarding the issue of impurity] when Ammar asked him?" Abdullah said, "For that reason Umar was not satisfied with [that]." Abu Musa said, "Forget about what Ammar said, but what do you say about the Qur'anic verse?" Abdullah did not know what to say, but he justified his stance by saying, "If we let them do that, then whenever the water becomes cold, they avoid using it to clean themselves, and instead they use sand. I said to Shaqiq, "Abdullah is most certainly hated for that." He said, "Yes". [33]
[33]
Sahih, Bukhari, vol 1 p 54
3. The Companions Testify against themselves
Anas ibn Malik said that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said to al-Ansar: You will notice after me some great selfishness, but be patient until you meet Allah and His Messenger by the pool. Anas said: We were not patient. [34]
[34]
Sahih, Bukhari, vol 2 p 135
Al-Ala ibn al-Musayyab heard his father saying: I met al- Bara ibn Azib - may Allah honour them both - and said to him, "Bless you, you accompanied the Prophet (saw) and you voted for him under the tree." He said, "My son, you do not know what we have done after him" [35].
[35]
Sahih, Bukhari, vol 3 p 32
This early Companion, who was one of those who voted for the Prophet under the tree, and who received the blessing of Allah, for Allah knew what was in their hearts, testifies against himself and his companions that they did not keep the tradition. This testimony is confirmation of what the Prophet (saw) talked about and predicted in that his Companions would break with his tradition and fall back on their heels.
How could any sensible person, after all this evidence, believe in the righteousness of all the Companions, as the Sunnis do?
He who believes that, is definitely reversing the order of logic and scholarship, and there will be no intellectual criteria for the researcher to use in his quest for the truth.
4. The testimony of the Shaykhan against themselves
In a chapter entitled "The virtues of Umar ibn al-Khattab", al-Bukhari wrote in his book: "When Umar was stabbed he felt great pain and Ibn Abbas wanted to comfort him, so he said to him, "O Commander of the Believers, you accompanied the Messenger of Allah and you were a good companion to him, and when he left you, he was very pleased with you. Then you accompanied Abu Bakr, and you were a good companion to him, and when he left you, he was pleased with you. Then you accompanied their companions and you were a good companion to them, and if you left them, they would remember you well." He said, "As for the companionship of the Messenger of Allah and his satisfaction with me, that is a gift that Allah- the Most High - has granted to me. As for the companionship of Abu Bakr and his satisfaction with me, that is a gift that Allah - Glory be to Him - has granted to me. But the reason you see me in pain is for you and your companions. By Allah, if I had all the gold on earth I would use it to ransom myself from the torture of Allah - Glory and Majesty be to Him - before I saw Him. [36]
[36]
Sahih, Bukhari, vol 2 p 201
He has also been quoted as saying the following, "I wish I was my family's sheep. They would have fattened me up to the maximum. When they were visited by friends, they would have killed me and roasted part of me, and made qadid (meat cut into strips and dried) from the other part of it, then they would have eaten me, and lastly, they would have relieved me with their bowle evacuation ... I wish I had been all that, rather than a human being." [37]
[37]
Minhaj as Sunnah, Ibn Taymiyya, vol 3 p 131
Hilyat al Awliya, Ibn Abi Nuaym, vol 1 p 52
Abu Bakr apparently said a similar thing to the above. He looked at a bird on a tree, then said, "Well done bird ... You eat the fruits, you stand on the trees and you are not accountable to anybody nor indeed can anybody punish you. I wish I was a tree by the road, and that a camel would come along and eat me. then relieve me with his bowel evacuation ... I wish that I had been all that, rather than a human being." [38]
[38]
Tarikh, Tabari, p 41
al Riyadh al Nadira, vol 1 p 134
Kanz al Ummal, p 361
Minhaj as Sunnah, Ibn Taymiyya, vol 3 p 120 He also said, I wish that my mother had not given birth to me ... I wish I was a straw in the mud. [39] These are some texts that I used just as examples and not for any specific reason.
[39]
Tarikh, Tabari, p 41
al Riyadh al Nadira, Tatabri, vol 1 p 134
Kanz al Ummal, p 361
Minhaj as Sunnah, Ibn Taymiyya, vol 3 p 120
And this is the Book of Allah which gives the good news to the worshippers of Allah who believe in Him: "Now surely the friends of Allah - they shall have no fear, nor shall they grieve. Those who believe and fear (Allah). They shall have good news in this world's life and in the Hereafter, there is no changing in the words of Allah; that is the great achievement" (Holy Qur'an 10:62-64).
Allah also says: "(As for) those who say, our Lord is Allah, then continue in the right way, the angels descend upon them, saying, "Fear not, nor be grieved, and receive good news of the garden which you were promised. We are your guardians in this world's life and in the Hereafter, and you shall have therein what your souls desire and you shall have therein what you ask for. An entertainment by the Forgiving, the Merciful" (Holy Our'an 41:30-32).
How could the two Shaykhs. Abu Bakr and Umar, wish that they were not from the human race, which Allah honoured and put it above all His creation? Even the ordinary believer, who keeps on the straight path during his lifetime, receives the angels to tell him about his place in heaven, and that he should not fear the torture of Allah, nor be depressed about his legacy in life, and that he has the good news while he is in this life before reaching the life Hereafter. Then how could the great Companions, who are the best of creation after the Messenger of Allah (so we have been taught), wish they were excrement or a hair or a straw when the angels had given them the good news that they would go to heaven? They could not have wished to have all the gold on earth to ransom themselves from the torture of Allah before meeting Him.
Allah - the Most High - said: "And if every soul that has done injustice had all that is in the earth, it would offer it for ransom, and they will manifestly regret when they see the chastisement and the matter shall be decided between them with justice and they shall not be dealt unjustly" (Holy Quran 10:54).
Allah also said: "And had those who are unjust all that is in the earth and the like of with it, they would certainly offer it as ransom (to be saved) from the evil of the punishment on the day of resurrection; and what they never thought of shall become plain to them from Allah. And the evil (consequences) of what they wrought shall become plain to them, and the very thing they mocked at shall beset them" (Holy Qur'an 39:47-48).
I wish sincerely that these Qur'anic verses did not involve great Companions like Abu Bakr al-Siddiq and Umar al-Faruq ... But I often pause when I read these texts so that I can look at some interesting aspects of their relations with the Messenger of Allah (saw), and how that relation went through many turmoils. They disobeyed his orders and refused him his wishes, even in the last moments of his blessed and honourable life, which made him so angry that he ordered them all to leave his house and to leave him. I also recall the chain of events that took place after the death of the Messenger of Allah, and the hurt and lack of recognition that afflicted his daughter al-Zahra. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, "Fatimah is part of me, he who angers her angers me" [40].
[40]
Sahih, Bukhari, vol 2 p 206
Fatimah said to Abu Bakr and Umar: I ask you in the name of Allah - the Most High - did you not hear the Messenger of Allah (saw) saying, "The satisfaction of Fatimah is my satisfaction, and the anger of Fatimah is my anger, he who loves my daughter Fatimah loves me, and he who satisfies Fatimah satisfies me, and he who angers Fatimah angers me?" They said, "Yes, we heard it from the Messenger of Allah (saw)." Then she said, "Therefore, I testify before Allah and the angels that you have angered me and did not please me, and if I meet the Prophet I will complain to him about you."[41]
[41]
al Imamah Was Siyasah, Ibn Qutaybah, vol 1 p 20
Muhammad Baqir as Sadr, Fadak in History, p 92
Let us leave this tragic story for the time being, but Ibn Qutaybah, who is considered to be one of the great Sunni scholars, and was an expert in many disciplines and wrote many books on Qur'anic commentary. Hadith Linguistics, grammar and history might well have been converted to Shiism, as somebody I know once claimed when I showed him Ibn Qutaybah's book "History of the Caliphs".
This is the type of propaganda that some of our scholars use when they lose the argument. Similarly al-Tabari was a Shi'ite, and al-Nisa'i, who wrote a book about the various aspects of Imam Ali, was a Shiite, and Taha Husayn, a contemporary scholar who wrote "Al-Fitnah al-Kubra" and other facts, was also a Shi'ite!
The fact is that all of these were not Shiites, and when they talked about the Shia, they said all sorts of dishonourable things about them, and they defended the fairness of the Companions with all their might. But the fact is that whenever a person mentions the virtues of Ali ibn Abi Talib, and admits to the mistakes that were committed by the famous Companions, we say that he has become a Shiite. And if you say in front of them, when you mention the Prophet, "May Allah bless him and his Family" or say, "Ali, may Allah's peace be upon him" then you are branded a Shiite. According to that premise, one day, during a debate, I asked one of our scholars, "What do you think of al-Bukhari?" He said, "He is one of the leading authorities in Hadith (the Prophetic tradition) and we consider his book to be the most correct book after the Book of Allah, as all our scholars agree." I said to him, "He is a Shiite." He laughed and said, "God forbid that Imam al-Bukhari be a Shiite." I said, "Did you not say that whoever says Ali, may Allah's peace be upon him, is Shiite?" He answered, "Yes." Then I showed him and those who were with him al-Bukhari's book, and in many places when Ali's name appears, he put "May Allah's peace be upon him" as well as the names of Fatimah and al-Husayn. The man did not know what to say. [42]
[42]
Sahih, Bukhari, vol 1 p 127, 130, vol 2 p 126, 205
Let us return to the incident mentioned by Ibn Qutaybah in which Fatimah allegedly was angered by Abu Bakr and Umar. If I doubt the authenticity of that story, then I could not doubt the authenticity of al-Bukhari's book, which we consider to be the most correct book after the Book of Allah. As we have committed ourselves to the fact that it is correct, then the Shiites have the right to use it in their protestation against us and force us to keep to our commitment, as is only fair for sensible people. In his book, al-Bukhari writes in a chapter entitled "The virtues of the relatives of the Messenger of Allah" the following: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, "Fatimah is part of me, and whoever angers her angers me." Also in a chapter about "The Khaybar Raid" he wrote: According to Aishah, Fatimah- may Allah's peace be upon her - daughter of the Prophet, sent a message to Abu Bakr asking him for her share of the inheritance of the Messenger of Allah, but he refused to pay Fatimah anything of it. Fatimah became so angry at Abu Bakr that she left him and never spoke to him before her death. [43]
[43]
Sahih, Bukhari, vol 3 p 39
The final result is one, al-Bukhari mentioned it briefly and Ibn Qutaybah talked about it in some detail, and that is: the Messenger of Allah (saw) is angry when Fatimah is angry, and he is satisfied when Fatimah is satisfied, and that she died while she was still angry with Abu Bakr and Umar.
If al-Bukhari said: She died while she was still angry at Abu Bakr, and did not speak to him before she died, then the end result is quite clear. If Fatimah is "the leading lady among all the ladies" as al-Bukhari declared in the section al-Isti'dhan, and if Fatimah is the only lady in this nation whom Allah kept clean and pure, then her anger could not be but just, therefore Allah and His Messenger get angry for her anger. Because of that Abu Bakr said, "May Allah - the Most High - save me from His anger and Fatimah's anger." Then he cried very bitterly when she said, "By Allah, I will curse you in every prayer that I do." He came out crying and said, "I do not need your pledge of allegiance and discharge me from my duties." [44]
[44]
Tarikh al Khulafa, Ibn Qutaybah, vol 1 p 20
Many of our historians and scholars admit that Fatimah - may Allah's peace be upon her - challenged Abu Bakr in many cases such as the donations, the inheritance and the shares of the relatives, but her challenge was dismissed, and she died angry at him. However, our scholars seem to pass over these incidents without having the will to talk about them in some detail, so that they could as usual, preserve the integrity of Abu Bakr. One of the strange things that I have read regarding this subject, is what one of the writers said after he had mentioned the incident in some detail: God forbid that Fatimah should claim something that does not rightly belong to her, and God forbid that Abu Bakr denied her rights.
The writer thought that through this weak reasoning, he would be able to solve the problem and convince the researchers. He appears to be saying something similar to the following: God forbid that the Holy Qur'an should say anything but the truth, and God forbid that the sons of Israel should worship the calf. We have been plagued with scholars who say things that they cannot comprehend, and believe in the object and its antithesis, simultaneously. The point is that Fatimah claimed and Abu Bakr dismissed her claim, so she was either a liar - God forbid - or Abu Bakr treated her unjustly. There could be no third solution for the case, as some of our scholars would wish.
Logical reasoning and traditional proofs prevent the Mistress of Ladies from being accused of lying, due to the confirmation of her father (s) in his saying: "Fatimah is a part of me, and whoever hurts her hurts me." Hence, intuitively, whoever lies does not deserve this kind of statement (of honor) by the Messenger of Allah (saw). Therefore, the saying itself is a clear indication of her infallibility. The purification verse from the Holy Qur'an is another indication of her infallibility, and it was revealed in her honour and the honour of her husband and her two sons, as Aishah herself testified [45]. Hence, there is nothing left for sensible people but to accept the fact that she was unjustly treated, and that she was easy to be branded a liar by somebody who was willing to let her burn unless the remaining people in her house came out to vote for him. [46]
[45]
Sahih, Muslim, vol 7 p 121, 130
[46]
Tarikh al Khulafa, vol 1 p 20
Because of all that, she - may Allah's peace be upon her - refused entry to Abu Bakr and Umar when they asked her permission. Even when Ali allowed them to enter, she turned her face to the wall and refused to look at them [47]. Furthermore, before she died, she asked to be buried secretly, and at night, so that none of them could be present at her funeral [48], and to this day, the grave of the Prophet's daughter is unknown.
[47]
Tarikh al Khulafa, vol 1 p 20
[48]
Sahih, Bukhari, vol 3 p 39
I would like to ask why our scholars remain silent about these facts, and are reluctant to look into them, or even to mention them. They give us the impression that the Companions are like angels, infallible and sinless, and when you ask them why the caliph of the Muslim's Uthman was murdered, they would say: It was the Egyptians - and they were not believers - who came and killed him, thus ends the subject with two words.
When I had the opportunity to carry out research into history, I found that the main figures behind the killing of Uthman were the Companions themselves, and that Aishah led them, calling for his death publicly and saying: "Kill Na'thal (the old fool), for he was not a believer." [49]
[49]
Tarikh, Tabari, vol 4 p 407
Tarikh, Ibn Athir, vol 3 p 206
Lisan al Arab, vol 14 p 193
Taj al Arus, vol 8 p 141
Al Iqd al Farid, vol 4 p 290
Also we know that Talhah, al-Zubayr, Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr and other famous Companions besieged him in his house and prevented him from having a drink of water, so that they could force him to resign. Furthermore, the historians inform us that they did not allow his corpse to be buried in a Muslim cemetery, and that he was finally buried in "Hashsh Kawkab" without washing the corpse and without a shroud.
O Allah, praise be to You, how could they tell us that he was unjustly killed, and that those who killed him were not Muslims. This is another case similar to that of Fatimah and Abu Bakr: Uthman was either unjustly treated, therefore we may pass judgement on those Companions who killed him or those who participated in his killing that they were criminal murderers because they unlawfully killed the caliph of the Muslims, and threw stones at his funeral, and humiliated him when he was alive and then when he was dead; or that the Companions killed him because he committed certain deeds which were not compatible with Islam, as the historical sources tell us.
There is no third option, unless we dismiss the historical facts and accept the distorted picture that the Egyptians, who were not believers, killed Uthman. In both cases there is a definite rejection of the common belief that all the Companions were right and just, without exception, for either Uthman was unjust or his killers were not just, but all of them were Companions, and hence our proposition becomes void. Therefore we are left with the proposition of the followers of Ahl al-Bayt, and that is that some of the Companions were right and some others were wrong.
We may ask a few questions about the war of al-Jamal, which was instigated by Umm al-Mumineen Aishah, who played an important role in it. How could Umm al-Mumineen Aishah leave her house in which Allah had ordered her to stay, when the most High said: "And stay in your houses and do not display your finery like the displaying of the ignorance of yours" (Holy Qur'an 33:33).
We may also ask, how could Aishah allow herself to declare war on the caliph of the Muslims, Ali ibn Abi Talib, who was the master of all Muslims? As usual, our scholars, with some simplicity, answer us that she did not like Imam Ali because he advised the Messenger of Allah to divorce her in the incident of al-Ifk. Seemingly these people are trying to convince us that that incident - if it was true - namely Ali's advice to the Prophet to divorce Aishah, was sufficient for her to disobey the orders of her God and her husband, the Messenger of Allah. She rode a camel that the Messenger of Allah forbade her from riding and warned her about the barking of al-Hawab's dogs [50], she travelled long distances from al-Medinah to Mekka then to Basrah, she permitted the killing of innocent people and started a war against the commander of the believers and the Companions who voted for him, and she caused the deaths of thousands of Muslims, according to the historians [51]. She did all that because she did not like Ali who advised the Prophet to divorce her. Nevertheless the Prophet did not divorce her so why all this hatred towards Imam Ali? History has recorded some aggressive stances against Ali that could not be explained and these are some of them. When she was on her way back from Mekka Aishah was informed that Uthman was killed, so she was delighted, but when she learnt that people had voted for Ali to succeed him she became very angry and said, "I wish the sky would collapse on the earth before Ibn Abi Talib succeeds to the caliphate." Then she said, "Take me back." Thus she started the civil war against Ali, whose name she never liked to mention, as many historians agree.
[50]
al Imamah was Siyasah
[51]
Al Tabari, Ibn al Athir and other historians who wrote about the events in the Year 36 A.H
Had Aishah heard the saying of the Messenger of Allah (saw): Loving Ali is believing, and hating him is hypocrisy? [52]. To the extent that some of the Companions used to say, "We recognized the hypocrites by their hatred of Ali." Had Aishah not heard the saying of the Prophet: Whoever accepts me as his master, then Ali is his master? Undoubtedly she heard all that, but she did not like it, and she did not like mentioning his name, and when she learnt of his death she knelt and thanked Allah. [53]
[52]
Sahih, Muslim, vol 1 p 48
[53]
Al Tabari, Ibn al Athir, who wrote about the events in the Year of 40 Hijri
Let us move on, for I do not want to discuss the life of Umm al-Mumineen Aishah, but I have tried to show how many of the Companions violated the principles of Islam and disobeyed the orders of the Messenger of Allah (saw), and it suffices to mention the following incident which happened to Aishah during the civil war, and on which all historians tend to agree. It has been said that when Aishah passed by the waters of al-Hawab and heard the dogs barking, she remembered the warning of her husband, the Messenger of Allah, and how he prevented her from being the instigator of "al-Jamal" war. She cried, then she said, "Take me back . take me back!" But Talhah and al- Zubayr brought fifty men and bribed them, then made them testify that these waters were not al-Hawab's waters. Later she continued her journey until she reached Basrah. Many historians believe that those fifty men gave the first falsified testimony in the history of Islam. [54]
[54]
Al Tabari, Ibn al Athir and other historians who wrote about the events of the Year 40 A.H
O Muslims! You who have enlightened minds ... assist us in solving this problem. Were these truly the honourable Companions, of whom we were always led to believe in their righteousness, and that they were the best people after the Messenger of Allah (saw)! How could they give a falsified testimony when the Messenger of Allah considered it to be one of the great sins, whose punishment is Hell.
The same question crops up again. Who was right and who was wrong? Either Ali and his followers were wrong, or Aishah and her followers and Talhah and al-Zubayr and their followers were wrong. There is no third possibility. But I have no doubt that the fair researcher would take Ali's side and dismiss Aishah and her followers who instigated the civil war that devastated the nation and left its tragic marks to the present day.
For the sake of further clarification, and for the sake of my own satisfaction I mention here what al-Bukhari had to say in his book about the civil war. When Talhah, al-Zubayr and Aishah travelled to Basrah, Ali sent Ammar ibn Yasir and al-Hasan ibn Ali to al-Kufah. On their arrival, they went to the mosque and addressed the congregation, and we heard Ammar saying, "Aishah had gone to Basrah ... and by Allah she is the wife of your Prophet in this life and the life hereafter, but Allah, the Most High, is testing you to know whom you obey: Him or her." [55]
[55]
Sahih, Bukhari, vol 4 p 161
Also al-Bukhari wrote in his book a chapter about what went on in the houses of the Prophet's wives: Once the Prophet (saw) was giving a speech, and he indicated the house where Aishah was living, then said, "There is the trouble ... there is the trouble ... there is the trouble ... from where the devil's horns come out ..." [56]
[56]
Sahih, Bukhari, vol 2 p 128
Al-Bukhari wrote many strange things in his book about Aishah and her bad manners towards the Prophet to the extent that her father had to beat her until she bled. He also wrote about her pretention towards the Prophet until Allah threatened her with divorce... and there are many other stories but we are limited by space.
After all that I ask how did Aishah deserve all that respect from the Sunnis; is it because she was the Prophet's wife? But he had so many wives, and some of them were better than Aishah, as the Prophet himself declared [57]. Or perhaps because she was Abu Bakr's daughter! Or maybe because she played an important role in the denial of the Prophet's will for Ali, and when she was told that the Prophet recommended Ali, she said, "Who said that? I was with the Prophet (saw) supporting his head on my chest, then he asked me to bring the washbowl, as I bent down he died, so I cannot see how he recommended Ali [58]. Or is it because she fought a total war against him and his sons after him, and even intercepted the funeral procession of al-Hasan - Leader of the Heaven's youth - and prevented his burial beside his grandfather, the Messenger of Allah, and said "Do not allow anybody that I do not like to enter my house."
[57]
Sahih al Tirmidhi
al Istiab, Ibn Abd al Barr, Biography of Safiyya
[58]
Sahih, Bukhari, vol 3 p 68
She forgot, or maybe ignored the Messenger of Allah's sayings about him and his brother, "Allah loves those who love them, and Allah hates those who hate them," Or his saying, "I am at war with those who fight against you, and I am at peace with those who appease you." And there are many other sayings in their honour. No wonder, for they were so dear to him!
She heard many more sayings in honour of Ali, but despite the Prophet's warning, she was determined to fight him and agitate the people against him and deny all his virtues. Because of that, the Umayyads loved her and put her in a high position and filled the books with her virtues and made her the great authority for the Islamic nation because she had half of the religion.
Perhaps they assigned the second half of the religion to Abu Hurayrah, who told them what they wanted to hear, so they bestowed on him various honours: they gave him the governorship of al-Medinah, they gave him al-Aqiq palace and gave him the title of "Rawiat al-lslam" - the transmitter of Islam. He made it easy for the Umayyads to create a completely new religion which took whatever pleased them and supported their interests and power from the Holy Qur'an and the tradition of the Prophet. Inevitably, such a religion lacked any seriousness and became full of contradictions and myths, hence most of the facts were buried and replaced by lies. Then they forced the people to believe in these lies so that the religion of Allah became a mere joke, and no one feared Allah as much as they feared Muawiah. When we ask some of our scholars about Muawiah's war against Ali, who had been acknowledged by al-Muhajireen and al-Ansar, a war which led to the division of Islam into Sunnis and Shiites and left it scarred to this very day, they simply answer by saying, "Ali and Muawiah were both good Companions, and both of them interpreted Islam in his own way. However, Ali was right, therefore he deserves two rewards, but Muawiah got it wrong, therefore, he deserves one reward. It is not within our right to judge for them or against them, Allah- the Most High - said: "This is a people that have passed away, they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did" (Holy Qur'an 2:134).
Regrettably, we provide such weak answers that neither a sensible mind nor a religion, nor indeed a law would accept. O Allah, I am innocent of idle talk and of deviant whims. I beg You to protect me from the devil's touch.
How could a sensible mind accept that Muawiah had worked hard to interpret Islam and give him one reward for his war against the leader of all Muslims, and for his killing of thousands of innocent believers, in addition to all the crimes that he committed? He was known among the historians for killing his opponents through feeding them poisoned honey, and he used to say, "Allah has soldiers made of honey."
How could these people judge him as a man who worked hard to promote Islam and give him a reward for that, when he was the leader of a wrong faction? There is a well known Hadith of the Prophet, and most of the scholars agree its authenticity, "Woe unto Ammar .. he will be killed by the wrong faction." And he was killed by Muawiah and his followers.
How could they judge him as a promoter of Islam when he killed Hijr Ibn Adi and his companions and buried them in Marj Adhra in the Syrian desert because they refused to curse Ali ibn Abi Talib?
How could they judge him a just Companion when he killed al-Hasan, leader of the Heaven's youth, by poisoning him?
How could they judge him as being correct after he had forced the nation to acknowledge him as a caliph and to accept his corrupt son Yazid as his successor, and to change the Shurah [consultative] system to a hereditary one? [59]
[59]
Read Khilafat o Mulukiyat by Syed Abul A'la Maududi
How could they judge him as a man who had worked hard to promote Islam and to reward him, after he forced the people to curse Ali and Ahl al- Bayt, the Family of the chosen Prophet, and killed those Companions who refused to do so, and made the act of cursing Ali a tradition? There is no power but in Allah, the Most High, the Great.
The question crops up over and over again. Which faction was right, and which faction was wrong? Either Ali and his followers were wrong, or Muawiah and his followers were wrong, and the Messenger of Allah (saw) explained everything.
In both cases, the proposition of the righteousness of all the Companions does not hold ground and is incompatible with logic. There are many examples for all these subjects. and if I want to study them in detail and discuss them for all their aspects, then I would need volumes. But I wanted to be brief in this study so I mentioned a few examples, but thank Allah, for they have been enough to refute the claims of my people who froze my mind for a period of time, and prevented me from looking at the Hadith (prophetic tradition) and the historical events with an analytical view, using the intellect and the legal yard-sticks which the Holy Qur'an and the honourable Prophet's tradition taught us to do.
Therefore, I shall rebel against myself and rid myself of the dust of prejudice with which they engulfed me. I shall free myself from all the chains and fetters that I have been tied with for more than twenty years, and say, "I wish my people knew that Allah has granted me forgiveness and made me among the honourable people. I wish my people could discover the world they know nothing about. but nevertheless oppose."
Ref: Imam Reza Network

How do the Shi‘ah view the Sahabah {Companions}?

By: Sayyid Rida' Husayni Nasab
Reply: According to the Shi‘ah, those who happened to meet and accompany the Prophet (S) can be divided into some groups. Before explaining this statement in detail, we had better define the word, “sahabi” {companion}.
There are various definitions of the word “Companion” of the Prophet (S). Below are some of them:
1. Sa‘id ibn Musayb says: “Sahabi is referred to the person who kept company with the Prophet for one or two years and fought alongside him one or two battles.”[1][141]
2. Waqidi says: “Scholars are of the opinion that whoever saw the Prophet, embraced Islam, thought of the religion, and was pleased with it, even if that was for only one hour, is regarded as among the Companions of the Prophet.”[2][142]
3. Muhammad ibn Isma‘il al-Bukhari states: “Any Muslim who accompanied the Prophet and saw him is regarded as one of his Companions.”[3][143]
4. Ahmad ibn Hanbal says: “Anyone, who accompanied the Prophet for a month, a day or an hour, or saw him, is considered among the Companions.”[4][144]
Some of the ‘ulama’ of Ahl as-Sunnah acknowledge that the justice of the Companions is an indisputable principle in the sense that whoever kept companionship with the Prophet (S) is just![5][145]
Now, taking into consideration the explicit verses of the Qur’an, we shall examine this statement to point out the Shi‘ah viewpoint which is derived from the logic of revelation: History has recorded the names and descriptions of more than 12 thousand people as the Companions of the Prophet (S) including people of various personalities. The station of companionship of the Prophet is, without doubt, a great honor granted to a certain group, and the Muslim ummah always holds the Companions in high esteem because they are the first group of Muslims to hoist Islam’s banner of glory and grandeur.
The Holy Qur’an also hails those pioneering standard-bearers (of Islam), stating:
لاَ يَسْتَوِي مِنكُم مَّنْ أَنفَقَ مِن قَبْلِ الْفَتْحِ وَقَاتَلَ أُوْلٰئِكَ أَعْظَمُ دَرَجَةً مِّنَ الَّذِينَ أَنفَقُوا مِن بَعْدُ وَقَاتَلُوا

“Not equal {to others} are those of you who spent and fought before the victory. They are greater in rank than those who have spent and fought afterward.”[6][146]
We should also confess that the companionship of the Prophet of God is not an alchemy that transforms man’s disposition, ensures his piety throughout his life or causes him to be one of the just.
In order to clarify this point, it is worth concentrating on the Qur’an, which is accepted by the Muslims all over the world, and resort to this sacred book for solving this issue:
Sahabi {Companion} from the viewpoint of the Qur’an
In the logic of revelation, those who happened to meet the Holy Prophet (S) and accompany him are divided into two groups:

The first group
The people of this group are hailed and praised by the everlasting verses of the Qur’an and described as the founders of the castle of the glory and grandeur of Islam. The following are some of the Qur’anic verses regarding this group of the Companions:

1. The first followers
مِنَ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَالأَنصَارِ وَالَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوهُم بِإِحْسَانٍ رَّضِيَ اللّهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُواْ عَنْهُ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي تَحْتَهَا الأَنْهَارُ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا أَبَدًا ذَلِكَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيمُ

“The early vanguard of the Emigrants and the Helpers and those who followed them in virtue- Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him, and He has prepared for them gardens with streams running in them, to remain in them forever. That is the great success.”[7][147]

2. Those who swore allegiance under the tree
لَقَدْ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ إِذْ يُبَايِعُونَكَ تَحْتَ الشَّجَرَةِ فَعَلِمَ مَا فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ فَأَنزَلَ السَّكِينَةَ عَلَيْهِمْ وَأَثَابَهُمْ فَتْحًا قَرِيبًا

“Allah was certainly pleased with the faithful when they swore allegiance to you under the tree. He knew what was in their hearts, so He sent down composure on them, and requited them with a victory near at hand.”[8][148]

3. The Muhajirun {Emigrants}
لِلْفُقَرَاء الْمُهَاجِرِينَ الَّذِينَ أُخْرِجُوا مِن دِيارِهِمْ وَأَمْوَالِهِمْ يَبْتَغُونَ فَضْلًا مِّنَ اللَّهِ وَرِضْوَانًا وَيَنصُرُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ أُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ الصَّادِقُونَ

“{They are also} for the poor Emigrants who have been expelled from their homes and {wrested of} their possessions, who seek grace from Allah and {His} pleasure and help Allah and His Apostle. It is they who are the truthful.”[9][149]

4. The Companions who fought alongside the Prophet (S)
مُّحَمَّدٌ رَّسُولُ اللَّهِ وَالَّذِينَ مَعَهُ أَشِدَّاء عَلَى الْكُفَّارِ رُحَمَاء بَيْنَهُمْ تَرَاهُمْ رُكَّعًا سُجَّدًا يَبْتَغُونَ فَضْلًا مِّنَ اللَّهِ وَرِضْوَانًا سِيمَاهُمْ فِي وُجُوهِهِم مِّنْ أَثَرِ السُّجُودِ

“Muhammad, the Apostle of Allah, and those who are with him are hard against the faithless and merciful among themselves. You see them bowing and prostrating {in worship}, seeking Allah’s grace and {His} pleasure. Their mark is {visible} on their faces, from the effect of prostration.”[10][150]

The second group
The other group of those who accompanied the Prophet (S) consist of two-faced and sick-hearted men the reality of whose nature the Holy Qur’an has revealed and of whose danger it has warned the Prophet (S). Here are some examples of this group:

1. Known hypocrites
إِذَا جَاءكَ الْمُنَافِقُونَ قَالُوا نَشْهَدُ إِنَّكَ لَرَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ إِنَّكَ لَرَسُولُهُ وَاللَّهُ يَشْهَدُ إِنَّ الْمُنَافِقِينَ لَكَاذِبُونَ

“When the hypocrites come to you they say, ‘We bear witness that you are indeed the apostle of Allah.’ Allah knows that you are indeed His Apostle, and Allah bears witness that the hypocrites are indeed liars.”[11][151]

2. Unknown hypocrites
وَمِمَّنْ حَوْلَكُم مِّنَ الأَعْرَابِ مُنَافِقُونَ وَمِنْ أَهْلِ الْمَدِينَةِ مَرَدُواْ عَلَى النِّفَاقِ لاَ تَعْلَمُهُمْ نَحْنُ نَعْلَمُهُمْ سَنُعَذِّبُهُم مَّرَّتَيْنِ ثُمَّ يُرَدُّونَ إِلَىٰ عَذَابٍ عَظِيمٍ

“There are hypocrites among the Bedouins around you and among the townspeople of Madinah, steeped in hypocrisy. You do not know them; We know them, and We will punish them twice, then they shall be consigned to a great punishment.”[12][152]

3. Sick-hearted ones
غُرُورًا إِلاَّ وَرَسُولُهُ اللهُ وَعَدَنَا مَّا مَّرَضٌ قُلُوبِهِم فِي وَالَّذِيْنَ المُنَٰفِقُونَ يَقُولُ وَإِذْ

“And when the hypocrites were saying, as well as those in whose hearts is a sickness, ‘Allah and His Apostle did not promise us {anything} except delusion’.”[13][153]

4. Sinners
وَآخَرُونَ اعْتَرَفُواْ بِذُنُوبِهِمْ خَلَطُواْ عَمَلاً صَالِحًا وَآخَرَ سَيِّئًا عَسَى اللّهُ أَن يَتُوبَ عَلَيْهِمْ إِنَّ اللّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ

“{There are} others who have confessed to their sins, having mixed up righteous conduct with other that was evil. Maybe Allah will accept their repentance. Indeed Allah is all-forgiving, all-merciful.”[14][154]
In addition to the noble verses of the Qur’an, many traditions have been narrated regarding the Holy Prophet’s (S) reproaching some of the Companions. We shall cite two examples:
1. Abu Hazim narrates on the authority of Sahl ibn Sa‘d that the Holy Prophet (S) is reported to have said:
يظمأ لم شرب من و شرب ورد من الحوض علىٰ فرطكم أنا .بينهم و بيني يُحال ثمَّ يعرفونني و أعرفهم أقوام عليّ ليردنّ و أبدًا

I will send you toward the Pool; whoever comes upon it will drink from it, and whoever drinks from it will no longer feel thirsty. There will come to me some people; I know them and they know me, but they will be separated from me.
Abu Hazim has said: “While I was narrating this hadith, Nu‘man ibn Abi ‘Ayyash heard it and asked me, ‘Did you hear it from Sahl like that?’ I said, ‘Yes’. He said: ‘I bear witness that Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri says that the Prophet has also said’:
سحقًا فأقول: بعدك أحدثوا ما لاتدري انّك فيقال مِنِّى إنَّهُم . بعدي بدَّل لمن سحقًا

“They are from me.” Then someone says, “You do not know what they did after you!” So I shall say, “Damn those who have changed (the truth) after me.”[15][155]
It is obvious that such words like, “I know them and they know me,” or, “Damn those who have changed (the truth) after me,” refer to the Companions of the Prophet (S) who were in his company for a time. This hadith has also been narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim.
2. Al-Bukhari and Muslim narrate that the Prophet (S) is reported to have said:
ـ أمّتي من قال أو ـ أصحابي من رهطٌ القيامة يوم عليّ يرد لاعلم إنّه فيقول أصحابي ربّ يا فأقول الحوض عن فيحلؤون .القهقري أدبارهم علىٰ ارتدّوا أنّهم بعدك أحدثوا بما لك

On the Day of Resurrection, a group from among my Companions—(or, “my ummah”) shall come to me but they shall be prevented from reaching the Pool (of Kawthar). Then, I shall say, ‘O Lord! They are my Companions.’ Then He shall say, ‘You do not know what they did after you; they returned to their former state (state of jahiliyyah or ignorance)’.”[16][156]
Conclusion
From the Qur’anic verses and Sunnah of the Prophet (S), it is clear that the Companions of the Prophet (S) and those who accompanied him were of more than one type or category; a group of them were refined men at the apex of merit whose valuable services led to the fruition of the nascent bud of Islam and another group composed of individuals who were two-faced, hypocrites, sick-hearted, and sinners from the very beginning.[17][157]
The aforementioned observations make clear that the view of the Shi‘ah regarding the Companions of the Prophet (S) is the same as that of the Book of God and the Sunnah of the Prophet (S).
Ref: Imam Reza Network

Historical Roots of the Sahaba's Ultimate Decency Conception

By: Ahmad Husain Yaqub
A. THE CLANS OF QURAISH
The Quraish consist of twenty five clans. The best and the most honorable clan is the sons of Hashim Bin Abd Menaf. They are directly followed by the sons of Abdul-Muttelib Bin Abd Menaf,... Al-Harith Bin Abd Menaf,..., Umaya Bin Abd Shams Bin Abd Menaf and Nawfel Bin Abd Menaf respectively. The Hashemites are the celebrities of Quraish. They succeeded their father in management. They are named ‘Al-Mujebbirun -The healers-’. They are regarded as the foremost in holding peace treaties with the kings of that time. Hashim held a peace treaty with the kings of Syria. Abd Shams held an alike one with Nejashi, the king of Abyssinia. Nawfel held an alike one with the kings of Persia. Abdul-Muttelib held an alike one with the kings of Himyer; Yemen. According to such treaties, people of Quraish could settle in various areas of this world. For the high standing and the mastery of the Hashemites upon the Arabs, they were called ‘Aqdahun-Nedhar -Cups of Gold.-’
B. THE POLITICAL FORM
The Quraishi clans concluded a political form respecting distributing positions, such as the leadership, the pennon, the assemblies, watering the pilgrimages, hosting the guests... etc. This form was the furthest thing the clans could achieve. They, as a whole, were convinced that that had been too satisfactory to abuse any one's rights. The political positions are estimated as the fate of those clans that it is none's benefit to alter or change, since it is impossible to recognize the consequences of such attempts of altering or changing. It might, at least, result in losing what had been achieved. The entire clans, in addition, were pleased to such a form that arranged the affairs of the pilgrimage and the Holy House. Gradually these positions and missions became a significance of a political belief and a heritage of the forefathers. It became impermissible for any to stand against such missions.
C. ENDEAVORS FOR SHAKING THE FORM
In the years of starvation, Hashim was the only individual who committed himself to providing food to people. He was named the master of Bat'ha. His food-tables were spread in times of amenity and distress. He was wont to host the guests and the passers-by and secure the troubled. Umaya Bin Abd Shams feared and envied him. He failed in imitating Hashim; therefore, the other Quraishi people criticized and imputed dishonor to him. Hashim rejected his challenge to argue about the more honorable of them. Owing to Umaya's insistence, he accepted it. They agreed that the loser should undergo fifty she-camels and banished. As the arbiter ruled of Hashim's being more honorable, fifty she-camels of Umaya were slaughtered and he was deported to Syria. This was the first seed of hostility between the sons of Hashim and those of Umaya. It seems that the motive beyond Umaya's challenge was his envying Hashim and the apprehension that he would be a serious danger against the political form according to which the sons of Abd Shams had been the leaders. Furthermore, He might have realized that the fame of Hashim would shake the form as a whole and would, as a result, cause people to follow him.
D. THE AUGURY OF PROPHESY
In Mecca, it was commonly spread that soon there would be a prophet to be assigned by God, and that he would be a successor of Abd Menaf. Abu Sufian was one of those who believed in this foretelling and worked depending on it. He established distinguishable relations with Abdullah Bin Abis-Salt. According to his conception, Abu Sufian was certain that the intended prophet should cancel the political form -of the Quraishi clans-, the leadership of which was in his hand. Hence, this prophet would be forming the most hazardous factor against the sons of Umaya. After a long period of panic and suffering, he could have a term of tranquillity since he believed that the prophet would be a successor of Abd Menaf, and there was none, from among the successors of Abd Menaf, fitter than him in undergoing such a mission. On that account, he should certainly be the very one intended.
E. THE DECLARATION OF PROPHESY
Mohammed, the successor of Hashim, declared his being the anticipated prophet whom had been favored by God for leading the Arabs and the mankind to the right path. He declared that the evidence of his prophesy had been God's words. A little group of eloquent individuals and those who were harshly treated in this world, followed Mohammed.
F. THE HASHIMITES' GUARDING MOHAMMED
With all their forces, the Hashemites embraced Mohammed. The leaders of Quraish threatened that they would kill him. In fact, they spread a rumor of Mohammed's being killed. Abu Talib gathered the Hashemite men and gave each a hard bar. Walking with the sons of Hashim and his, Abu Talib raised his voice at the people of Quraish: “O people of Quraish! Do you realize what I am to do?” “No, we do not.” they answered. Abu Talib ordered his people to show what they were keeping in their hands. Each showed the hard bar he had. Abu Talib commented: “By God I swear, if you kill him -Mohammed- I will never keep any of you alive unless we both are terminated.” Accordingly, people of Quraish were defeated. Abu Jahl countered the largest share of that defeat.
G. NOT FOR THE FAVOR OF THE PAGANS, IT WAS ENVY, AND PRESERVING THE POLITICAL FORM
Led by Abu Sufian, the other clans of Quraish exerted all their efforts for the sake of facing Mohammed. Nevertheless, they could not intercept him. For countering the importunity and the rejection of the Hashemites, the clans of Quraish unanimously agreed on the following decisions:
1. Issuing a total boycott against the Hashemites. The Quraishi clans, including Teim and Edi, ostracized the Hashemites. They restricted them in the cols of Abu Talib for three continuous years. The Hashemites, during that period, had to have from the leaves of the trees due to the starvation they suffered. Their children, likewise, had to suck the sands due to their thirstiness. This is an indisputable fact that is as clear as sunlight. Neither Mohammed nor did the Hashemites submit to the Quraishi people. Finally, God refuted the trickeries of the Quraishi people and leaders. After a three year boycott, the blockade proved its failure.
2. As they realized that Mohammed would soon immigrate to Yathrib, where he could find supporters and could establish a base for his advocacy, the clans of Quraish decided unanimously to kill him. They selected a man from each tribe so that they would strike him together that his blood would be distributed among the entire tribes equally. The purpose beyond such a cabal was obliging the Hashemites to miss out any opportunity to revenge Mohammed. They believed that Mohammed would achieve his goals and, in sequence, divest them from their leadership and authority, if he reached in Yathrib.
They applied this cabal so accurately, but they were astonished when they found Ali Bin Abi Talib sleeping in Mohammed's bed. The leaders of Mecca became so perturbed that they offered big prizes as a remuneration for those who would be able to capture Mohammed, alive or dead.
In the other side, Mohammed, his companion and the guide were pushing their way to Yathrib in safe, by God's will. This is an indiscussible fact that is as clear as sunlight.
H. NOT FOR THE FAVOR OF THE PAGANS, THE WARS WERE DUE TO ENVY AND PRESERVING THE POLITICAL FORM
Neither the Quraishi clans led by the Umayids, nor were the Hashemites, Mohammed and his group despondent from achieving triumph against the adversary party. The Arabs were three parties; one was supporting people of Quraish and their joint commandment. The other, even few, was supporting Mohammed. The third was waiting for the outcome for supporting the victorious. In Badr and Uhud, wars broke up between the two parties. A third war broke out when the leadership of the Quraishis raised armies and allied the Jews forming the multipartite army. They advanced towards Al-Madina, the Prophet's capital. Precisely, these multipartite armies failed. A while later, the Quraishi were surprised by the armies of God in Mecca, their capital. Hence, the leaders of Quraish were submitted and they had to embrace Islam. Owing to this submission, the entire Arabs were dominated by the Prophet's government and, consequently, they embraced Islam in groups.
I. THE HASHEMITE PROPHESY IS AN INESCAPABLE FATE
Sparing no single sort of rejection and resistance, the clans of Quraish, led by the Umayids, opposed the religion established by Mohammed, the Hashemite. Apart from their loyalty to their pagans, the main reason beyond this resistance was their abhorrence that a Hashemite would be the one to whom this religion had been revealed. They disliked the Hashemites’ leadership. The shade of the old political form was another motive towards their resisting this advocacy.
Finally, Abu Sufian was surprised by God's soldiers on the doorsteps of Mecca. Al-Abbas detains him so that he should see God's soldiers with his own eyes. “I have never seen such a domination alike of which is not existed neither at Khosrow, Caesar nor the Romans.” expresses Abu Sufian. Before the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), Abu Sufian is dragged by Al-Abbas. “O Abu Sufian! Woe is you! Is it not the appropriate time to realize that there is no god but Allah?” the Prophet addresses at him. “I do conceive that Allah would not affect me in any sort if there was another god besides Him.” answers Abu Sufian. “O Abu Sufian!” the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) reasks, “Is it not the proper time to realize that I am the messenger of God?” “Regarding this, my soul, by God, cannot receive it completely!” admits Abu Sufian. Al-Abbas shouts: “Woe is you, Abu Sufian! Declare your being Muslim and admit that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is surely the messenger of Allah, lest you shall be beheaded.” Only after mentioning beheading, surrounding and hopelessness, Abu Sufian declares his being Muslim for nothing other than saving his soul. He was gazing at the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) surprisingly when he said to himself: “By which weapon did this man overcome?” God, informed His Apostle of Abu Sufian's wonderment; therefore, he came to him and said: “By Allah I overcame.”
Thus and so, the Quraishi clans realized the following facts:
The Hashemite prophesy is an inescapable and determined fate.
They, as clans, had no role, at all, in this preference. They would never agree upon this option if only they had any role in the operation.
The prophesy is a one time phenomenon.
No single clan of Quraish will be catching or joined to the Hashemites.
The political form was not only shaked, but also was it completely blasted.
Hence, the Quraishi clans worked furtively for occluding this (Hashemite) advancement towards governing the royalty besides the prophesy, the matter which results in gaining the integrity as a whole.
The most enthusiast clan towards occluding the Hashemite advancement: The clans of Quraish, altogether, believed that the Hashemite prophesy had certainly shaked the political form of distributing roles of celebrity among them in an unprecedented form. Saving the Al-Muttelib Bin Abd Menaf who supported the Hashemites, the Quraishi clans, as a whole, rejected this Hashemite prophesy. The Umayids, however, were the most enthusiast and denying against this Hashemite advancement. They did their best for the sake of intercepting the Hashemite from joining headship to the divine prophesy. The following are some of the reasons beyond such an enthusiastic situation:
1. Before Islam, the Umayids were engaged in considerable hostility, enmity and envy against the Hashemites.
2. Owing to the Hashemites' prophesy, the Umayids lost the headship they had enjoyed.
3. It was the Hashemites who killed the chiefs of the Umayids. Utbeh, Al-Waleed and Sheibeh were killed by Hamzeh, Ali and Ubeidullah. In addition to their abhorrence, the Umayids bore malice to the Hashemites. The amount of this malice is evidently reflected by Hind, Muawiya’s mother and Abu Sufian’s wife. Being not sufficed by killing Hamzeh, she corrupted his celibate corpse. On account of the victory and the expansion of Mohammed's prophesy, besides the Umayids retardation to join Islam and their long and famous history in antagonizing, they could not have any opportunity to declare their plan of intercepting the Hashemites from gaining the authority, beside the prophesy, of this nation.
J. THE PREEMINENT TREND
The notion of the unacceptability for the Hashemites to join headship to prophesy became the preeminent trend, although it was stable only in the hidden because of the presence of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), the dominion of legality and the unification of the Prophet's virtuous companions. As soon as any of these three factors is missed, the legality will be shaked and the virtuous companions will be (the like of a single white hair in a black bull's skin) as Muawiya describes. The authority, then, will be the prevailing's.
K. THE IMMACULATE KINSHIP IS THE STATUTORY BASE OF CALIPHATE
The following is the argument of the three Muhajirs -immigrators to Yathrib- in the Saqeefeh of Bani Sa'ideh:
Abu Bakr stated: “We are the Prophet's clan while you are his supporters. Thus, you are our supporters in this religion.”
Omar stated: “Two swords cannot be put in the same seath. Nay, by God. The Arab shall never accept your being the leaders while the Prophet is another clan's. The Arab should never select but those from whom the prophesy came forth. The evident argument and the manifest evidence is ours against our opposers. Who dare to litigate with us about the authority and the heritage of Mohammed while we are his backers and people? None but the wrong, the sinful or the involved in a disaster may do so.”
The Ansar -the supporters; people of Yathrib who supported the Prophet and his followers.- shouted in one voice: “We shall select none other than Ali.” Ali, however, was absent. Some of the Ansar shouted: “We shall select none other than Ali.”
Without any respite, the matter of Mohammed's succession became in the hands of As-Siddiq, Abu Bakr. As he was called for declaring his fealty to Abu Bakr, Ali stated: “I am the most rightful in this affair. I am not to submit to your leadership. It is you whom are to be submitted to my leadership. You seized it from the Ansar claiming of the Prophet's kinship. Now, you intend to seize it from the Prophet's household coercively?! Have you not argued before the Ansar that you are more rightful in holding this affair of leadership due to your relation to the Prophet? And they complied to your claim and gave it to you. Now, I do provide the very same argument before you; we are the most rightful in enjoying the Prophet's authority and heritage in and after his life.. etc.”
L. THE REBELLION AND THE DISSIPATION OF THE PREEMINENT TREND
Bed-ridden, Omar were engaged in planning for the future of Mohammed's nation. Evading no single face, he stated: “Had Abu Ubeideh, Me'ath Bin Jabal, Khalid Bin Al-Waleed or Salim the slave of Abu Hutheifeh been alive, I would have nominated as my successor.
Salim is a non-Arab slave whose lineage is unknown. Me'ath is one of the Ansar whom were impermitted to have the authority in the meeting of Saqeefeh. Khalid is from Bani Makhzum. He is a ten class companion since he immigrated in the period between the Hudeibiyeh peace treaty and the conquest of Mecca.
Once, in his reign, Omar argued Ibn Abbas:
“O Ibn Abbas! Do you realize the reason beyond your people's neglecting your nominating for managing the Islamic state?” Evading the anticipated consequences, Ibn Abbas escaped from the answer. “Well, Ameerul-Mu'mineen! If I ignore the answer, you are definitely in full awareness of it.” commented Ibn Abbas. “Your people disliked the matter that you would have the prophesy and the authority altogether and then, you would have been unjust to them. People of Quraish selected for themselves. Indeed, they succeeded as they opted for the right one.” expressed Omar. “O Ameerul-Mu'mineen!” Ibn Abbas worded, “May I speak provided that you shall not be irate?” “Yes, you may.” permitted Omar. Ibn Abbas signified: “Regarding your saying (People of Quraish selected for themselves. Indeed, they succeeded as they opted for the right one.), they would have been right absolutely and without litigant if only they had clung to what God had opted for. Regarding your saying: (Your people disliked the matter that you would have the prophesy and the authority altogether.), God, the Exalted, described a people who disliked; saying: (That is because they hated what Allah revealed, so he rendered their deeds null.)” “Far it is, Ibn Abbas!” replied Omar, “I have been informed of some news about you, but I do not like to discipline you about so that your status would not be lessened.” Ibn Abbas answered: “O Ameerul-Mu'mineen! My status at you must not have been lessened in case these news were true, otherwise, I am one of those who obviated the ill deeds from approaching towards their entities.” Omar said: “Well, I was informed of your claim that the general authority had been taken away from you, Mohammed's clan, due to envy, aggression and injustice.” “Respecting the injustice,” responded Ibn Abbas, “it had been realized by the level-headed, as well as the ill-minded. Respecting envy, Adam was envied, and we are his envied sons.” “Far it is. Far it is.” expressed Omar, “Your hearts, sons of Hashim, are filled in with an immovable envy.” Ibn Abbas answered: “Slow down, Ameerul-Mu'mineen! Do you impute such a description to hearts that God has (kept away uncleanness from them and purified them a thorough purification?)”
The event recorded by Al-Mas'udi in his Muroujut-Theheb, regarding the conversation of Omar and Ibn Abbas, does reveal the intellectual rebellion and the disclosure of the preeminent trend which was hidden during the Prophet's lifetime before the foundation of the caliphate. The following is a literal quotation of this narrative:
The literal quotation of this narrative:
Ibn Abbas related:
I responded Omar's summon. I was before him when he addressed at me: “O Ibn Abbas! The governor of Hims has just died. He was one of the rare virtuous people. Except for the matter I have against you, I do regard you with those rare virtuous ones. Do you accept my offer to be the governor of Hims?” “I will not work for you unless you tell of the matter you have against me.” I said unto him. “What for are you asking so?” asked Omar. “I do desire to know it. I will be cautious if it is a real thing, and if not, I will realize that I do not have it. Then, I will accept your offer. I noticed you have hardly asked for a matter with respite.” I answered. Omar expressed: “O Ibn Abbas! I anticipate that I will face my fatal chance while you are keeping your position, then you may call people to select you as the new leader. I noticed the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) had neglected assigning you, his household, in any position.” “Yes, by God. I noticed so, too. Do you realize the reason?” I wondered. “I do not know exactly. Was it for the reason that he had been too cautious to give you official positions to which you are certainly authorized, or was it for that he anticipated that you would be elected for the leadership because of your relation to him? Only then, blame would fall. Inevitably, blame shall fall. That is it. What do you see now?” commented Omar. “I see I should not accept this position.” I said. “What for?” questioned Omar. “I shall be a permanent mote in your eyes as long as you bear this opinion...”
Even after his decease, Omar, the excessively careful for the Muslims' interests, must be sure that the Hashemites shall never be having dominion over people, and shall never be ruling Mohammed's nation.
In general, the saying of the abomination of the Hashemites' joining headship to prophesy was changed into a preeminent trend. This trend could find a ground to show and impose itself as a common conception adopted by the authorities and the priority of people. It is considered as the ultimate way against the Hashemite injustice and the apt course that enables the Quraishi clans to enjoy headship respectively as a compensation to be undergone by the authorities of the Hashemite prophesy. As Al-Faruq describes: “This conception is one of the appearances of the divine discrimination of Quraish. By inducing Abu Sufian to the ruling regime, giving him the right to dispose in the alms he had levied, nominating Yazeed, his son, as the commander of the army of Syria and nominating Muawiya, his other son, as a commander and, then, as the governor of Syria; all these procedures resulted in the formation of a factual alliance between the ruling regime and the ‘released.’ Both parties have the same access to intercept the Hashemites from joining headship to prophesy. This alliance eradicated the opposition and worked seriously for rehearsing the conception of the impermissibility of the Hashemites’ joining headship to prophesy.
Thus, the Prophet's immaculate household, besides their having been completely deposed and blocked, lost every thing including the privilege of honorability granted by the political form according to which Mecca was ruled before Islam. This seems clear in Al-Faruq's saying to Ibn Abbas: “By God, we did not refer to you due to need, but we disliked you to object against the matter on which people agreed unanimously. That would cause them, as well as you, suffer catastrophic consequences.”
The degree of humiliating the Prophet's progeny attained such a great level that even Abdullah Bin Az-Zubeir menaced to put the Hashemites' houses on fire with their inhabitants. Without the intercession of some virtuous individuals, this would have happened.
This proposes that every clan among those who imposed a blockade on the Hashemites in the cols of Abu Talib for three continuous years, and participated in the congregational cabal of assassination against the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), became in a state better than that enjoyed by the Hashemites themselves. Likewise, every individual of such clans became more rightful in coming to power than the Hashemites. Headship and authority is practically licit for every one except the Hashemites. All these procedures were taken for one goal only; occluding the Hashemites from joining headship to prophesy. Is the reward of goodness aught but goodness?!
M. STATUTORY GROUND OF INTERCEPTING THE HASHEMITES FROM JOINING HEADSHIP TO PROPHESY CONCEPTION
Totally, the conception is uncivilized. It is completely contradictory to the divine texts and the political regulations derived from the divine beliefs. The Prophet David, was inherited by Solomon, his son. Both joined headship to prophesy. None objected against the prophets and their progenies who had been gifted judiciary, prophesy and divine manuscripts. Privilege is in God's hand. Caliphate is a religious and, in the first place, mundane position. A Caliph is the prophet's representative. Stating arguments and setting forth rules that are completely methodological processes, are the main missions of prophets.
It is effortlessly probationary for the aware of the basic components of the Islamic political strategy, to recognize that the conception of intercepting the Hashemites from joining headship to prophesy has entirely blasted that strategy, as being divine, and has totally extricated its constituents. It is also proved that the conception involved has practically changed it into an ordinary positive strategy that is different from others in the political form only. Moreover, the leadership of the state became a prey obtained exclusively by the prevailing whoever he was. After achieving prevalence, that one occupies the Prophet's chair (reed mat, in fact), attires the cloak of Islam and, hence, becomes the new caliph. In case any one of the ‘released’ who fought against Islam as much as possible till he was surrounded and had to show his being Muslim to save his soul, prevails, he will openly impose his orders upon the Muhajir who participated in every battle supporting the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). Similarly, God's representative who is, according to divine regulations and texts, the president of the Islamic state will become an ordinary citizen under the authority of such a ‘released’. Thus, for the sake of seeking justice of the other clans and intercepting the Hashemites from joining headship to prophesy or, in other words, reviving the old political form of distributing missions in a new dress, the illiterate ruled and the learned's mouth was shut up.
As the old political form distributed missions among the clans, the new one, when applied, ranted such clans to come to power in turn and, in the same time, to share positions of headship. Regarding the divine regulations appertained to the Islamic political strategy, they were reckoned with other irrelevant topics since they were unfitting the political form established before Islam.
N. EFFECTS OF PRACTICING THE CONCEPTION OF INTERCEPTING THE HASHEMITES FROM JOINING HEADSHIP TO PROPHESY
The first effect was the total disappearance of the discrimination between those who fought against Islam and those who fought for its sake till triumph was achieved. From the political side, the two categories are Muslims of the same credit. Consequently, the all shall be in the same Paradise. The Hashemite individual, in a like manner, who was occluded in cols of Abu Talib for three years, is not different from that previously polytheist who imposed this blockade upon him since he declared his being Muslim!! Islam does erase what precedes it! Had Hamzeh been alive again, he should have been as same as Wahshi -his killer-. This is from the practical political side. The killer and his victim are enjoying the very same rank. The Muhajir and the ‘released’ are enjoying the very same rank, too. The same is said about the illiterate and the most learned. Supposing this illiterate predominates, it shall be politically obligatory upon that most learned to obey and comply to. This is not regularly; on the assumption there is a most learned Hashemite, like Ali Bin Abi Talib, to compete with an Ansari with a less degree of knowledge, the latter will certainly be preferred. This is evident from Al-Faruq's following saying: “Had Me'ath Bin Jabal or Khalid Bin Al-Waleed been alive, I would have nominated as the caliph.” This was said with the presence of Ali Bin Abi Talib! Besides the battle of Uhud, Khalid fought against Islam in many positions, while Ali fought for the sake of Islam in all of its positions. Nonetheless, Khalid is preferred. Al-Faruq, also would have opted for Salim, the slave of Abu Hutheifeh, if only he had been alive. He would have made this non-Arab slave the chief of Ali Bin Abi Talib who is “the master of Omar, Abu Ubeideh and every male and female believer,” as Al-Faruq himself had declaratorily confessed.
The second effect was seeding and sheltering the unceasing discrepancy. As long as there is no discrimination between the Muhajir and the ‘released’ or the killer and his victim, and it is rightful for every one to take in Islam according to his idiosyncratic elucidation, this will result in the existence of various sources of jurisconsultance, notions and independent impressions. Hence, every party claims of being the right, and takes a path not taken by others. With the absence of a leading jurisconsult, whose judgments are followed by the all considering it as juristic doubtless evidences, the seed of discrepancies was planted in a fertile land. Supposing Ali and one of the ‘released’ judge in a certain issue, the receiver of these two judgments will be having the full prerogative to opt for any. This is by the reason that practically they, Ali and the ‘released’, are indiscriminately Muslims of the same rank. They both shall be in the same Paradise. So, both are Sahaba. Practically also, there is no statutory preference for Ali's judgment; how, then, is it to make preference between the equal, or how is it to make a distinction between the completely alike? In the same manner, to take any of the two pieces of gold that are having the very same size, shape, amount and value, is practically acceptable. Making any discrimination is a cautioned matter. The harmony involved is external, while the discrepancy is developing under that exterior. Sooner or later, this discrepancy will certainly be grown into a fatal malignancy that shall tear the unification of this nation and pull them out of their frame into mystery and the unknown.
The third effect was excluding the Hashemites particularly from coming to power. This meant that there was no obstacle at all against any Muslim to have the leadership of the Islamic state, provided that this position could be attained by any means including the illegal. This gives the opportunity to come to power using any methods if it becomes liable to subject people. A condition that forms an obstruction against this process is the belongness to the Hashemites, whom were exclusively granted with prophesy. So, they are fully sufficed with prophesy.
This general privilege turned the avarice for authority into a horrible nightmare and an irksome approach that made the nation lose their decision and settlement, and an experimental program for all those who looked forward to coming to power. Owing to such a privilege, the constitutional political strategy of the Islamic state became off. Regarding discerning this new ruler's lineage, knowledgeability, beliefs or preference to Islam; these matters became a second class affairs that are practically valueless and no-good since the predominating ruler has already prevailed, and the prevailed's satisfaction is a matter of an idiosyncratic interest.
Thus, what should prevent Yazeed, the notorious lascivious, from being the head of the state since he is the son of Muawiya, the former chief? What should prevent Al-Hussein Bin Ali Bin Abi Talib who is, according to categorical divine texts, (the master of the youth of the Paradise,) (the dweller of the Paradise,) (the Prophet's basil) and (the constitutional imam of this nation), from being an ordinary citizen in Yazeed's state? Both, Al-Hussein and Yazeed are Muslims of the same rank that shall be in the Paradise. Yazeed, the murderer, and Al-Hussein, the victim, will both be in the same Paradise. Both are Sahabi!! Those who criticize this notion are miscreants whom should be neither shared in food or drink nor offered the funeral Prayer when they perish!!
The fourth effect is confusedness. The good has been confused with the bad, the right with the wrong, the sweet with the bitter. The precedent became as same rank as the tardy, the attacker as same rank as the absconder, the killer as same rank as his victim and the supporter of Islam as same rank as the antagonist. They all embraced Islam and saw or were seen by the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family); therefore, the all are Sahaba, the all are in the Paradise.
The virtuous ones hid themselves in the numerous provinces of the state and became “the like of a single white hair in a black bull's skin”, as Muawiya describes. The Islamic political strategy collapsed. The preferred became tardy and the tardy preferred. (And Allah's is the end of affairs.)
CHAPTER TWO
POLITICAL ROOTS OF THE SAHABA'S ULTIMATE DECENCY CONCEPTION
A. CONTRADICTION BETWEEN IDEALISM AND REALITY
There is a complete difference between the Islamic political system adopted since the Prophet's decease till the period of the last Ottoman caliph, and the divine political system constituted by God's revelation to Mohammed, His slave, for managing Muslims' affairs in every time.
Insisting on the factual existence of such a difference, we, hereby, are to prove that there is a diversity among persons and reigns regarding size of this difference. It is trivial to assert on existence of this difference since it is a matter facilely realized by every sane provided that partisan imitation is abandoned. If the Islamic political system, with its divine form and contents, had been literally applied after the Prophet's decease, the Islamic state would not have collapsed; those seditious matters and massacres would not have occurred; the Islamic nation would not have been engaged in discrepancies; the glorious Islamic extension would not have stopped at this mass and, finally, Islam would have prevailed this whole globe causing a radical changing in the mankind history. In his An Experiment In The General History, the English Philosopher, Wales, one of the most notable thinkers of modern history, says that Islam would have conquered the whole world if only it had been kept on its first procession and the seditious matters avoided. While the Arab scholars -as far as they could conceive- misthink of caliphate system as the factual Islamic political system and, hence, they demand with re applying it. It is proved that the factual Islamic political system is only that applied in the Prophet's reign. This occurred before the formation of the caliphate system, since it means succeeding the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). Considering the Islamic system is caliphate; what was, then, the system applied in the Prophet's reign? Certainly, the political system applied in the Prophet's reign was the actual divine Islamic political system. This was utterly applied before the formation of caliphate. It is the origin and the ideal. Other strategies are not more than branches or forms of that ideal, which can be extended or acclimatized according to remoteness or closeness to the original.
B. THE ISLAMIC POLITICAL SYSTEM
The Islamic political system is that applied by the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) during his divine solicitation for organizing relations with his followers. As this solicitation was developed into a government, the Prophet applied the same system during his leadership which lasted for ten years.
God perfected the religion and completed His grace upon people and explicated absolutely everything before the Prophet's decease. By extrapolating this system, it is believable to describe it as a divine system that is prepared and formulated to be the ideal international system leading to an ideal world. It is indeed divine in its ideal form and ultimate composition.
C. PILLARS OF THE ISLAMIC POLITICAL SYSTEM
The Islamic political system is based upon four pillars connected to each other in such a way that any is impossibly separated from the others. In case any separation occurs, the system entirely loses its Islamic characteristics. This is by the reason that these pillars are the distinguishing feature of the system. Perfection of such pillars is the only method by which fruits of application of the system are given.
FIRST PILLAR- POLITICAL LEADERSHIP
As a matter of fact, political leadership in every divine doctrine, among which is Islam, is nominated or elected directly by God. Applied to this fact is the prophets David, Solomon and Mohammed. It was none but God, the Elevated, who selected them as prophets and presidents of states of God's oneness. This divine decision is notified directly or indirectly. An instance on the indirect notification of God's selection is Saul, when elected as the Israelites’ political leader. One of the Israelite prophets declared God's decision of electing Saul as the assigned king. They protested claiming that Saul had not been fit enough for such a position. God revealed the many reasons owing to which this man was elected. Among these was Saul's superlative objective and physical competence. In addition, preference is God's concern; he, the Elevated, does know to whom He should give. Another example -on the indirect notification of God's selection- is God's nominating Ali Bin Abi Talib as the successor of Mohammed, the leader of the nation. This preference had been widespreadly declared by Mohammed in the sight and hearing of one hundred thousand Muslims. That was in the Prophet's last ritual pilgrimage; the Farewell Pilgrimage.
PURPOSE OF THE DIVINE ELECTION FOR POLITICAL LEADERSHIP
As regard to the question of leadership, the pure impeccable necessity of ordinary people is having the most learned, the most favorable and the fittest in positions of authority. Realizing such an individual with such qualifications, that are hidden for everybody, is an impracticable matter. Hence, God, as a sort of His mercy to His believing creatures, has shown them the very intended individual provided that they are honest in their searching for the most qualified. Leadership, as a matter of fact, is a technical process of specialization. In most cases, it is succession of prophesy. Guidance, advocacy, solicitation, wide-heartedness and decisive judgments parallel to the exact divine purpose beyond the entire rules of the divine juristic policy, are considerable qualifications of prophesy. It is not pertinent to commit these affairs to people's various fancies and tempers.
This pillar, in truth, is the only practical factor that demarcates the Islamic political system among other positive ones. Allowing conjecture and guess, positive strategies decide according to people's intents and humors in matter of electing the fittest for political leadership. This election will not be resulted from perfect precision that is exclusively gained by following the divine approach.
SECOND PILLAR -ORGANIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DIVINE DOCTRINE AND SELECTED LEADERS
Thoroughly every divine manuscript is revealed to an individual, every divine guidance is committed to a director and every divine missive is revealed to selected messenger. Depending on so, relation between the divine manuscripts, guidance and missives, from one side, and the individuals, directors and messengers, from the other side, is organic in such a way that it cannot be incoherent.
It is inevitable to substantiate divine manuscript, explicate guidance and display missive for enabling followers to pursue, as well as altering the space between the beginning and the end result into a calling of interpretation and a field of application of the texts contents. By this operations, a fertile probation that betters and demonstrates the divine missive, manuscript and guidance will be progressed. Unless process of prophesy is technical and specialized, God may convey a copy for each individual. Mohammed, none else, is the qualified skilled in this field. He is the unique expert in field of calling for Islam in such a way that is fully concurrent to the divine intendment of the whole texts. He is the most learned of the divine missive, script and guidance, the superior follower and the fittest political leader who directs his followers pursuant to policies of the divine revelation. He whom is nominated by the Prophet, according to God's divine order, is the unshared authorized for keeping perpetuity of the organic relation between the divine doctrine and its political leadership.
THIRD PILLAR -THE DIVINE JURISPRUDENTIAL FORMULATION
According to the Islamic political system, the imam -political leader- is restricted to the divine jurisprudential formulation. Hence, he does not enjoy any sort of self-determination in the field of issuing judgments. The imam's judgment, however, must be fully and identically concurrent to the divine will in both characterization and components. The jurisprudential formulation is God's making. It is the operative law to which every individual under leadership of the imam -political leader- is submitted. Repeatedly, the jurisprudential formulation is not the constituting of the imam or the mandate people, it is God's making. As a matter of facts, Mohammed's sayings are not more than forms of explicating and expounding upon the divine revelation. This is regarded as another difference between the Islamic political system and positive ones which are issued and organized by some individuals and imposed upon followers. The jurisprudential formulation of the Islamic political system, on the other hand, is made by Allah, and imposed upon both leaders and followers in the same degree under the supervision of the Maker, Allah. Those submitted to, implementing and judging the Islamic system are, on even terms, slaves of God, the Maker. Both are imposed to the system. Both are to submit to God only.
FOURTH PILLAR -THE COMMONALTY'S CONTENTMENT
The public, usually, count on having an ideal jurisprudential formulation that is capable of determining general, as well as private, goals, and capable of delving into the apropos means for attaining such goals. They, as well, look forward to having the most favorable and fittest political leader that is most knowledgeable of constituents of the jurisprudential formulation. In favor of saving people from this grievance, the Divine Care provided the solution by explicating the most agreeing jurisprudential formulation. The solution was Islam with all its components; the Holy Quran and the Prophet's traditions; words, deeds and signature. The leader who is most familiar with that jurisprudential formulation, as well as the most favorable and the fittest, was Mohammed. After Mohammed's decease, the succeeding leader must be the one nominated by Mohammed according to God's command through revelation. The same is repeated after the decease of the current divinely assigned leader.
The public's contentment to this divine characterization of the jurisprudential formulation, as well as the political leadership, shall lead to sublime welfare and guidance to the right path. This result is attained only by accepting the divine characterization which means applying the formulation and acceding to the leadership. In adversary conditions, God shall certainly leave the public for undergoing and suffering penalty of disobedience if they reject the divine mandate, formulation and leadership by opting for one not assigned and decided by Allah.
SIMPLICITY OF THE ISLAMIC SYSTEM
How can one realize that he is on the divine right path? It is an undiscussible rule that he whoever accedes to political leadership assigned by Allah is with Allah. In a like manner, it is logic that those who supported Mohammed are forming the party of Allah, while those antagonizing are the party of the Satan even if they continuously adhere themselves to performing the duties God has imposed. This is by reason that acceding and following the divine leadership is the criterion with respect to which is membership of any of the two previous parties is determined. The very same thing is said about those who pursue or antagonize the divine successor of Mohammed.
Following Mohammed was the exact distinction between the truthful and the liar. There was a great deal of people who performed ritual prayers, established mosques, gave alms and could find excuses for their failing to appear in fields of battles led by the Prophet. Yet, they were decided, by Allah, as hypocrites. This was for nothing other than the fact that their following Mohammed had been incorrect.
POLITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF INVENTING THE SAHABA'S ULTIMATE DECENCY CONCEPTION
Othman Bin Affan held leadership of the Islamic nation after the assassination of Al-Faruq. Othman, as a nature, was fond of caring for his relatives. The Umayids began their journey to throne consecutively. The caliph himself accredited their being his men and consults; so, he gathered them around him. Practically, the entire affairs of the state became in the hands of Marwan Bin Al-Hakam who, later on, issued the orders of assassinating Mohammed Bin Abi Bakr and his associates, using the caliph's seal without seeking permission or authorization. This situation is precisely described in Ali's saying: “After his being old-aged, Othman, the previous companion of the Prophet, handed his sword to Marwan directing it as he liked.”
Who was Marwan? He is one of the ‘released’ and classified with the inclined-hearted group. Those are individuals given a share of the alms for making their hearts attached to Islam. His father, Al-Hakam Bin Al-Aas, was deported out of Al-Madina all over the reigns of the Prophet, Abu Bakr and Omar. When Othman came to power, Al-Hakam was permitted to return to Al-Madina with full respect and dignity. Besides, he was gifted one hundred thousand dirhams as a compensation.
Abdullah Bin Abi Sarh was one of those who played a considerable role in establishing the Umayid state. He was the governor of Egypt; that rich province. Who was Abdullah Bin Abi Sarh? He was the very one who had forged lies against God. Therefore, the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) sentenced him to death penalty in absence. It was fully legally to kill that man whenever found even if he hangs to the Ka'ba's curtains. (This is recorded in As-Seeretul-Halabiya, Section: Mecca Conquest.) On the day of conquest of Mecca, Othman accompanied the man as he was seeking the Prophet's canceling the death penalty. For a considerable period, the Prophet kept silence hoping that the man would be killed by any. None could implement the Prophet's will; thus, he had to secure him. It is not unacceptable to say that the seed; Muawiya, that had been planted by Abu Bakr -by assigning him as the governor of Syria- had been rooted in the land firmly. For twenty years, Muawiya kept the position of governing Syria. He had full authority to do anything in that valuable land. So, he levied and gifted without supervision.
Marwan, Muawiya, Abdullah Bin Abi Sarh and Al-Waleed Bin Aqaba, the governor of Kufa who performed the Fajr prayer with four Rak'as -units of prayer-; those four released’ persons were the best students of Abu Sufian's school. Even Othman, the caliph, was about to be given a graduating certificate from that school.
Al-Jawhari records the following:
When Othman was named for caliphate, Abu Sufian addressed at him: “This affair -authority- was Taim's. They were originally unfitting. Then, it became in the hands of the Edi's. They were more unfitting than the previous. Only then it returned to its proper place and settled for its original people. Yes, like a ball, receive it and hand it to one another.”
On another occasion, Abu Sufian addressed at Othman: “My father and mother I do sacrifice for you! Spend over and do not be the like of Abu Hajar. O sons of Umaya! Hand it one another, just like children's handing a ball one another. By God I swear, there is no Paradise and no Hell.” Az-Zubeir was attendant in this situation; therefore, Othman had to rebuke Abu Sufian. “Is any body else here, my son?” wondered Abu Sufian. Az-Zubeir shouted: “Yes, there is. By God I swear, I will never keep it secret!!”
Precisely, In his Al-Kamilu Fit-Tarikh, part 3, Chapter: Events Preceding Othman's Assassination, Ibnul-Atheer records: (Once, Marwan Bin Al-Hakam shouted: “Deformed be your faces! Do you intend to strip our sovereignty?”)
In the last quarter of Othman's caliphate, authoritarian affairs became absolutely in the hands of the Umayids. It became hardly to see a province ruled by other than the Umayids, if not the ‘released’. Thus, it became reasoning that any who would succeed Othman should certainly be an instrument operated by the Umayids, lest he should engage himself in a lightless night and an uneven mined land.
As a result of large expansion of the Islamic state, owing to the conquests, numbers of the fresh Muslims and pocket beneficiaries of the state became greatly large. In a like manner, number of the honorable Sahaba on whose shoulders the Mohammedan government was established was in continuous deficiency. Thus, the foremost Sahaba became as sparse as a single white hair in a black bull's skin. As Imam Sharafuddin Al-Amili expresses: “Sahaba, in that period, became the like of alarmed sheep in a winter night.” This was because of the abundant catastrophic misfortunes they had to encounter sooner or later. Muawiya, the crafty, had full acquaintance of these matters. Before assassination of Othman, he menaced the Sahaba: “You are as scanty as a black spot in a white bull's skin.”
The situation became in this form; the whole provinces were loyal to or governed by the Umayids. Muawiya Bin Abi Sufian, son of the previous leader of the parties conflicting the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), and the one suckled by Hind Bint Utbeh, became the only leader. He was governor of Syria, centre of the circle and guardian of the Umayids. Besides, he granted himself the right of avenging Othman. In fact, demanding with taking vengeance of Othman was not more than a game plan aimed at guaranteeing continuity of the Umayids' rule. It was certainly a case of continuity of the Umayids' rule which, actually and practically, began on the day when Abu Bakr assigned Yazeed Bin Abi Sufian as a governor. All matters went well after assassination of Omar, and none demanded with taking vengeance. This rule became firmer and firmer till it attained climax in the last of Othman's reign. It was turned into a decided sovereignty. This is the very meaning intended by Marwan's saying: “Deformed be your faces! Do you intend to strip our sovereignty?”
It became proved that Othman's assassination was forming no crux at all. So, insistence on condemning the assassinators was not pivot of the case. This is confirmed by the fact that Muawiya, when became the authoritative caliph, did not demand with condemning Othman's assassinator. As a matter of fact, it was a case of domination! For the Umayids, killing blameless people is not that incompatible matter. Marwan Bin Al-Hakam issued a decision of sentencing Mohammed Bin Abi Bakr and his group to death penalty without being condemned to anything. Muawiya did kill Al-Hadrami whom was accused, by Ibn Ziyad, of acceding to Ali. It was Muawiya who killed Amr Bin Al-Hamq whose face was distorted due to his distinctive worship. It was Muawiya who killed Hijr Bin Edi and his associates; those godly pious groups who enjoined good and forbade evil. It was Muawiya who gave authority to Ibn Ziyad in massacring people and crucified them on trunks of date palm trees. Hence, Muawiya's most important concern is sovereignty and taking revenge for killing his grandfather, maternal uncle, cousin and his brother.
Seizing the opportunity of Al-Jamal battle, Muawiya goaded Talha, Az-Zubeir and A'isheh. He promised Talha and Az-Zubeir to be assigned as rulers of Basra and Kufa. When they were defeated in this conflict, Muawiya enlisted for breaking a war against Ali.
In his Muawiya Bin Abi Sufian Fil-Mizan, Abbas Mahmud Al-Aqqad says: “A certain trickery by which wonderful achievements were attained, was frequently practiced by Muawiya against Muslim, as well as non Muslim, rivals. This trickery was mainly depending upon ceaseless work of creating discrepancies and despondency among the adversary party. This was carried out by throwing seditious matters and arising malice in the lines of the adversary party. The same trickery was actually used against people of his family and relatives. He could not tolerate noticing any concord between any two individuals. The natural competition between his most remarkable enemies could support him in accomplishing the trickery of throwing animosity among them.”
Muawiya went on practicing this easygoing plan. He would spare no effort for creating as much as possible variant trends and parties. He would be surely described as the sower of discord if he was accurately balanced historically. The authentic signification of men and deeds is determined by the straight readers of history especially in matters like some historians’ accounting the year of Muawiya's full domination of the Islamic state as ‘year of congruity’. This was because he had been the direct and main reason beyond Muslim's discrepancies and discord. Owing to so and the like, it is so unfamiliar to constitute forms of agreement with the existence of such claims. Being not sufficed by seeding discrepancies, Muawiya left people in plenteous discrepancies; each follows a definite norm.
He used Bishr Bin Arta'a and sent him to Al-Madina where he terrified and humiliated the Sahaba.
Precisely, by means of killing, destroying, firing, creating discrepancies and reviling at the Prophet's supporters and companions, Muawiya could gain people's swear of allegiance. He used the wealth he had illegally levied and expended in Syria for twenty years, for solidifying his dominion. One of his strategies was naming a definite salary to be given to the military officials of the state at nominating the new caliph.
DISREGARDING THE ANNOUNCED GOAL FOR DISSENTING THE LEGALITY
Muawiya and A'isheh, Ummul-Mu'minin, mutinied against the legitimate caliph demanding with condemning Othman's assassinators. When Muawiya came to power by force, neither Ummul-Mu'minin nor did he practice or demand with this affair.
RENAISSANCE AFTER INADVERTENCE
Although his father and he were among the ‘released’ and they led conflicts against Islam with an unexampled enthusiasm till they had to profess Islam for saving their souls, Muawiya, the son of Abu Sufian, became the authoritative leader, the representative and the successor of Mohammed on people.
How had such a revolution occurred? How had the right been defeated? How had the right become retarded while the wrong advanced? How had the ‘released’ become preferred to the Muhajir? How had those who restricted Islam become favored to those on whom this restriction fell, for the sake of Islam?
The most astonishing matter is that the year in which strength defeated legality has been named ‘year of congruity.’ Thus and so, the virtuous people failed. They were heavily depressed as they felt of deep sorrow and nonsuccess. Anyhow, it was too late to repent. They had matters within their hands. As is they were living in an inadvertence, they wake up on effects of a horrible nightmare. When they opened their eyes and minds, they found the nightmare a reality.
HYPOTHESES SERVING THE FACTUALITY
People were engaged in analyzing what had been occurring. A great deal of variant hypotheses and conception were come forth. For instance, Sufism, the conception of imputing matters -good and evil- to Allah, fatalism and the Sahaba's ultimate decency; these faiths were originated. The Umayids, together with their supporters, were the main incentive beyond emanation of such conceptions. They were used as a high quality weapons for defending the Umayid royalty. Besides, they were used for dispersing the rivals' efforts for the sake of establishing pillars of the Umayid royalty and substantiating its false legality.
CHAPTER THREE
PURPOSE OF INVENTING THE SAHABA'S ULTIMATE DECENCY CONCEPTION
1. SUBSTANTIATION
1. Substantiating the process of the wrongful seizure of power: Muawiya, the ‘released’, the son of the ‘released’ and one of the inclined-hearted category, found himself the president, or the king, of the Islamic state, the representative and, officially, the successor of God's messenger. This is incredible and unbelievable! It is unacceptable according to the entire intellectual, doctrinal and positive criteria. The father, Abu Sufian, was the head of the parties opposing Islam and the director of polytheism during the entire battles. His sons, supporters and he exerted all efforts and used all weapons for resisting Islam. They had to confess Islam only when they had been completely surrounded. Here is his son, Muawiya. He is preceding all those who had preceded him to Islam and whose shoulders were the pillars on which Islam was established.
There should be a justification of this revolution. The best way selected was ruling of decency of all of the Prophet's companions. As long as Muawiya and his faction are reckoned with Sahaba, according to terminological and the lexical meaning of this idiom, who are entirely decent, and shall be in the Paradise, and none of them shall be in the Hell, and there is no difference between them because of the total qualifications they, indistinctly, enjoy, then what should prevent Muawiya from being the caliph and the Muslims' juristic leader? What, in the same manner, should prevent his faction, who are Sahaba terminologically and lexically, from being his close entourage? They are so decent that all of them shall be in the Paradise and none shall be in hell-fire. The far-reaching conception of the Sahaba's ultimate decency is the most ideal substantiation of Muawiya's royalty. This wide-spreadingness shows evidently a real view of Muawiya’s artfulness and evil cunning.
2. Substantiating deeds of Muawiya and his faction: The most catastrophic misfortunes Islam and Muslims had faced were on the hands of Muawiya and his faction. Bishr Bin Arta'a and Muslim Bin Aqaba, for instance, committed the most terrible crimes from which even the heavens complained and the most hard hearts bled. In the Harra collision, the whole warriors of Badr were killed. Seven hundred men of Quraish and the Ansar were killed. From ordinary people, about ten thousand souls were killed in that collision. Nothing intercepted those commanders from killing the children. This crime was perpetrated by Bishr Bin Arta'a when he killed the babies of Ubeidullah Bin Abbas. In addition, battles against Imam Ali prove the criminal conduct of Muawiya and his faction. The most offensive matter, however, was Muawiya's planning for terminating Mohammed's progeny inclusively. In executing so, his faction and he used several devious devices for murdering. He poisoned Al-Hassan Bin Ali (peace be upon him), Abdurrahman Bin Khalid Bin Al-Waleed, as Ibn Abdil-Berr records in his Alisti'ab, and Abdurrahman Bin Abi Bakr As-Siddiq. Malik Al-Ashtar was also poisoned by Muawiya. For this, Amr Bin Al-Aas said: “Allah does have soldiers of honey!” Furthermore, Muawiya made Muslims engaged in various discrepancies and discord. Al-Aqqad says that Mohammed's nation had been absolutely incapable of achieving unanimity whatever they attempted. Certainly, the Islamic jurisprudence was deformed on the hands of Muawiya. (The truth is that the Umayid reign was not Islamic..,), Dr. Ahmed Amin says.
Is there any way of substantiating these ill deeds other than the invention of the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception? As the entire Sahaba are so decent that they shall be in the Paradise, Muawiya and his faction, then, had not committed any mistake. Had they been mistaken, the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), the indisputably authentic and true-tongued who does never speak out of desire, would not have declared the entire Sahaba’s being in the Paradise. Considering him as an elicitor Sahabi, Muawiya is rewarded in all cases. He shall be double rewarded if he kills rightfully, otherwise, he shall be once rewarded. Muawiya is the right, whether he fights or opts for peace, attacks or absconds, takes or gives. This is because he is a Sahabi; and Sahaba are entirely decent.
2. IMMUNITY AGAINST CRITICISM, MALIGNING, REVILING AND IMPUTING DISHONOR
Accompanying substantiation of Muawiya's usurpation of leadership, the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception verifies crimes and offenses committed by his faction and him. Likewise, the conception grants immunity against any sort of criticism, including the constructive, railing, maligning and detracting from the estimate of such individuals since they are Sahaba and, consequently, decent. He whoever criticizes, maligns or rails at any of the Sahaba, especially those who are presidents of the state, is reckoned with the miscreants whom are to be not shared in food and drink and to neglect offering their dead bodies the ritual funeral prayer. This (juristic) rule is recorded in At-Thehbi's Al-Mizan. There is no other conception or plan that can immunize Muawiya such as this Sahaba's ultimate decency conception.
3. CONFRONTING RIVALS OF MUAWIYA AND HIS FACTION
Adopting the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception secures victory, or tie at least, of Muawiya and his faction in any conflict against rivals. For example, if Mohammed's progeny affirm that they are those from whom God has removed -mental and physical- uncleanness and purified them a thorough purification, Muawiya and his faction will immediately submit that simultaneous answer of considering Mohammed's companions -Sahaba- as decent that they do never lie, since they all shall be in the Paradise and none of them shall be sent to the hell-fire. If Mohammed's progeny assert that those who cause harm to them should be reckoned with those who cause harm to God, Muawiya and his faction shall provide that immediate answer that the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) say: “They are harming me those who harm any of my companions..” In such a manner, the right is mixed with the wrong, the obedient with the disobedient and the virtuous with the sinful.
ENGAGING MUSLIMS IN DISCREPANCIES
In case Muawiya obtains the ability of emanating and broadcasting of the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception with its wide-spreading features, a party of Muslims will adopt, and another will contravene. Controversy, accompanied by fanaticism, will arise in each party's convictions. This will lead to discrepancy and that each party record convictions that shall certainly be followed by a great deal of successors pursuing partisan imitation, claiming of defending the right and their own viewpoints. Regarding the conception involved, those who support such a conception are not necessarily supporting Muawiya. They claim of supporting the Prophet's companions. Those who disagree to the conception, on the other hand, are acquitting themselves from the view of dissenting the Prophet's companions, indicating that their aim is divulging trickeries and political cabals hidden for the other party. Practically, each party has actually stood in the face of the other shunning Muawiya who, in that case, is watching the two cheerfully, preparing himself to be the arbiter whenever necessary. This is the very artfulness intended by Al-Aqqad in his Muawiya Bin Abi Sufian Fil-Mizan
GROUNDS OF THE SAHABA'S ULTIMATE DECENCY CONCEPTION
Ibn Arafa -Naftawayih, one of the most notable hadithists- records that most of narratives appertained to merits of the Prophet's companions were forged in the Umayid reign, as the forgers intended attaining the rulers' satisfaction since they conceived that such falsity would submit the Hashemites. These false narratives were formed in such a way that every Sahabi, lexically or terminologically, would be the most virtuous guide in this world and that curses are continuously thrown on those who malign or accuse any of the Sahaba of any matters.
Unanimously, historians assert that the origination of forging lies against the Prophet was in the last of Othman's reign and after occurrence of the revolution that prejudiced the caliph's soul. This falsity was extended and spread after people's swearing allegiance to Ali as he became the legitimate caliph. As soon as Muslims selectively declared their fealty to Ali, the Umayid's devil moved its horn for usurping the affair from its rightful owner. At any rate, events went on and some of declarants of fealty broke their allegiance to the fourth Rashidite caliph. The consequence of such a repeal was a good many battles and conflicts between Muslims, that were ended by the Umayids' dominating power. Due to so, in fact, structure of Muslims' conformity was seceded, ring of the their unification was ruptured, many contradictory sects were originated. besides, the many irreconcilable parties went on advocating their ideas by words and deeds on the account of the other party. Ground of founding the false hadiths and exegesis of the Holy Quran was quite proper. So, each party exaggerated in defending its ideology that discrepancy, in its highest rank, occurred. Nothing was more catastrophic to Islam than forging false sayings and imputing erroneous and heretic matters to its doctrine. These were the elements that spoiled Muslim's intellects and caused others to mistrust fundamentals of Islam. Misfortunes and detriments of such false narratives were chiefly undergone by those who lived under dominion of the Umayids. In that reign, the number of hadithists had recorded a great typical progress, while the number of authentic people had been in gradual retardation. Majority of the moral Sahaba ceased reporting the Prophet's narratives unless they had full acquaintance of decency of the one they were to report to.
Imam Mohammed Abduh referred to the procedures taken by Muawiya for himself. He asserted that Muawiya had used a mass of the Sahaba and their successors for fabricating ill news against Ali (peace be upon him). The composition of such mendacious sayings falsely imputed to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), was referring to maligning and repudiating Ali. As Muawiya set a considerable remunerative prize for forging such lies, those individuals did their best for seeking his satisfaction. Abu Hureira was one of those narrators.
In His Dhuhal-Islam, Dr. Ahmed Amin says: “It is to mention that the Umayids did actually forge or employ people to forge lies against the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) that flow in the service of their policies from various sides. Muawiya gifted Abu Samara Bin Jundub, the Sahabi, with five hundred thousand dirhams for inventing the lie of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) stating that Ali Bin Abi Talib had been the one intended in the Verse: (And among men is he whose speech about the life of this world causes you to wonder, and he calls on Allah to witness as to what is in his heart, yet he is the most violent of adversaries.) In a like manner, Abu Samara forged the lie of the Prophet’s having saying that Abdurrahman Bin Muljim, the assassinator of Ali (peace be upon him), had been the one intended in God's saying: (And among men is he who sells himself to seek the pleasure of Allah; and Allah is affectionate to the servants.)”
NARRATORS
Abu Hureira Ad-Dusi, is one of Muawiya's associates and followers. He imputed 5374 sayings to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). Only 446 sayings of them are recorded by Al-Bukhari. Abu Hureira accompanied the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) for less than 18 months. The Prophet's grand companions who had adhered to him from the first moment of his divine envoy till his being transmitted to the Elevated Associate, reported less than one hundred hadiths -narratives-. The grand Sahaba are Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman, Ali, Abdurrahman Bin Awf, Talha Bin Ubeidillah, Me'ath Bin Jabal, Selman, Zeid Bin Thabit and Ubey Bin Ka'b. This is an evident example.
MUAWIYA'S MERITS
In his Al-Fawa'idul-Majmu'a Fil-Ahadithil-Mawdu'a, Ashawkani, who proves falsity and unauthenticity of the entire (hadiths) regarding praising or mentioning Muawiya's credits, says: “Having reckoned hadiths appertained to Muawiya's virtues with the forged ones, Ibnul-Jawzi excused that Isaaq Bin Rahawayih, Al-Bukhari's most authentic narrator, confessed of the fact that none of the hadiths respecting Muawiya's virtues had been authentic at all.”
An-Nisa'i had that famous story pertaining Muawiya's virtues. Ad-Darqutni relates:
An-Nisa'i's companions asked him about Muawiya's preference. He answered: “How come is it not sufficient for him to be equated with any, that he seeks preference?” For this reason, he was pushed out of the mosque..
ASHAFI'I'S IMPRESSION ON MUAWIYA
Abul-Fida relates that Ashafi'i informed Ar-Rabee, secretly, of the fact that testimonies of four individuals from among the Prophet's companions should not be admitted. Those four are Muawiya, Amr Bin Al-Aas, Al-Mugheera and Ziyad.
This might have been the incentive that made Ibn Muin ruled of dishonesty of Ashafi'i in narrating hadiths.
AL-HASSAN AL-BASRI'S SAYING
At-Tabari mentions that Al-Hassan Al-Basri used to say:
“Four ill deeds, any of which is sufficiently periling, are Muawiya's. They are his using the ill-minded ones -with the existence of the Prophet's companions and virtuous individuals- as rulers of this nation till he could dominate and cancel principal of advisory. His nominating Yazeed, his son, the drunkard who dresses silky clothes and plays on drums, as his successor. His avowing Ziyad as his brother, whereas the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) had said: 'Babies are for the bed, and the prostitutes' share is stones.' His killing Hijr and his companions. Woe will be him due to killing Hijr and his companions. Woe will be him due to killing Hijr and his companions.”
THE ENTIRE SAHABA'S ULTIMATE DECENCY CONCEPTION IS HAVING UMAYID FLAVOR
According to the content of the entire Sahaba's ultimate decency conception, Mohammed's progeny must have been reckoned with the decent. This should definitely make the Umayids stop their maligning and reviling at them.
Nonetheless, it is noticeable that regarding to his situations towards Imam Ali, Muawiya, the chief of the despotic party, adopted the very situation his father had against the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). Yazeed, the son, made no difference in his situation against Al-Hussein Bin Ali. As soon as he came to power, the first procedure Muawiya took was writing missives to his governors and officials, ordering them of declaring cursing Ali during prayers and from pulpits. Furthermore, sessions of sermons, in Syria, were programmatically ended with reviling at Ali. Testimonies of those who accede to Ali or any of his progeny were inadmissible. Names of such individuals, who showed loyalty to Ali or any of his sons, were erased from the general record of the province. Hence, they were discriminated and intercepted from receiving any of the governmental salaries everybody joined.
In his Muawiya Bin Abi Sufian Fil-Mizan, Al-Aqqad records: “Even if only the preponderant reports regarding Muawiya's orders of cursing Ali from pulpits of the Umayid state, are accepted, this will be acceptably sufficient to prove authenticity of the other reports involved in the same topic.”
CHAPTER FOUR
THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ROOTS OF THE SAHABA'S ULTIMATE DECENCY CONCEPTION
The Sahaba's ultimate decency conception was formulated and concluded in such a secure approach that it perfectly ensures the inventors' past, present and future, and deem lawful all their manners. The conception was also prepared so accurately that its effective presence is secured at any matter that might influence the inventors, in any form, or modify their remoteness or closeness to legality, or originate or obliterate discrepant locations in the rivals' camp, or, finally, misguide rivals in the midst of suspicion, mystification and unstability.
The most inexplicable matter, indeed, is that we see the adopters of the conception, nowadays, hold it as their signification to adoring to Mohammed and his companions. Those modern adopters of that false conception take charge of supporting it and engage themselves in discrepancies on behalf of the origin inventors of the conception who kept themselves out of the ring as if the matter does, in no means, not concern them.
Those who demand with adjusting the conception are, in fact, not of less affection of Mohammed and his companions. They only demand with depending upon intellectual and doctrinal grounds for keeping this affection in the frame of Islam, neglecting partisan fanaticism and imitation since these two things do incapacitate the role of intellect and the grace of functional conversation dedicated to the godly elected individuals.
THE JURISPRUDENTIAL AUTHORITY
Previously, we could prove that the majority of hadiths regarding merits of the Prophet's companions was forged in the Umayid reign, seeking their amenity as the forgers considered their ill deeds as helpful factors in submitting the Hashemites. This fact is asserted by Ibn Arafa, one of the most notable hadithists. We could prove also that the historians unanimously agreed upon the fact that invention of forged lies against the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) had been originated in the last stage of Othman's reign and, in a greater size, after the sedition of his assassination. This size of forging lies and false sayings attained its climax when people swore allegiance to Ali Bin Abi Talib (peace be upon him). As soon as the legitimate valid declaration of fealty to Ali was acted, the Umayid devil moved its horn for usurping authority from its owner. As the Umayids came to power, an organized art of forging lies and intriguing false sayings against the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) was officiated. “The Umayid rulers offered rewards so precious that many might hunger for, for those who showed skillfulness in the art of forging lies and intriguing false sayings against the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family).” Mohammed Abduh describes.
Such false and forged sayings, besides the authentic ones related by virtuous Sahaba, were regarded as sources of citation depended on by Sunnis with all of their various sects and trends.
THE TWO AUTHORITIES
1. THE SUNNIS' AUTHORITY IS THE ENTIRE SAHABA
In addition to reports of the virtuous Sahaba, the forged and false sayings originated in the epoch of sedition and perfectly formed in the Umayid reign were depended on by those who believed that the entire Sahaba had been decent of the same rank since they all were to be in the Paradise. Logically, those who should be in the Paradise should never forge lies. Sahaba, then, are source of citation of such people whom were prevalently named Ahlus-Sunneh. So, those Sunnis took and conceived their religion from those who are terminologically and lexically entering under the name of Sahaba. The closest to the Umayid royal palace were those who related the greatest number of false hadiths. Abu Mohammed Bin Hazm mentions that Abu Abdirrahman Bin Mukhelled Al-Andalusi's record of hadiths contained about 5374 sayings narrated by Abu Hureira alone. Not more than 446 sayings of them are recorded by Al-Bukhari. The close relationship between Muawiya and Abu Hureira is a matter too famous to illustrate. It is to mention that the period Abu Hureira spent with the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) extended for less than eighteen months. In brief words, for Sunnis, every (hadith) narrated by any of the Sahaba, in both terminological and lexical meanings, is taken in consideration and highly regarded as reckoned as a part of the religion, since the entire Sahaba are ultimately decent and absolutely not liable to prevarication, as they all are to be in the Paradise. Principally, narrators should be authentic as long as they show no agreeableness to Ali or the Prophet's household, lest they are inauthentic and irreliable.
Yahya Bin Muin records:
As he ruled of authenticity of Sa'eed Bin Khalid Al-Bujeli, they protested against him claiming that Sa'eed had been a Shiite. “Yes, he is Shiite and authentic!!!” He asserted. However, the Jumhour* had never used these two descriptions concurrently since the last years of the first century -A.D-)
WHAT IS THE DOCTRINAL BASE UPON WHICH SUNNIS RELIED IN REFERRING TO THE SAHABA AS
LEGAL AUTHORITY?
Sunnis claim that the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) had said: “My companions' like is the stars; you shall be guided to the right path if you refer to any of them.” or “..if you rest upon the words of any.”
Ibn Teimiyeh, the named ‘Master of Islam’, comments: “The saying ‘My companions' like...’ is ruled as doubtful by the most notable hadithists. Hence, it cannot be regarded as an evidence.” This fact is written down in At-Thehbi's Hujjetul-Munteqa, page 55. The saying, however, is ruled as incorrect according to the unanimity of the hadithists.
2. THE SHIAS' AUTHORITY IS THE IMAMS AND THE AUTHENTIC SAHABA
In addition to the Book of God, Shias rested upon sayings of the Imams of the Prophet's household and narratives related by the virtuous Sahaba as the jurisprudential sources of citation in regarding the entire principal and secondary questions and matters Islam had referred to. Imams of the Prophet's progeny did inherit their entire jurisprudence, fundamentals and instructions in all of its stages and chapters from Ameerul-Mu'minin, their grandfather, about whom the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) had stated: “I am the city of knowledge. Ali is the door to that city. He whoever intends the city, must, first, see the door.” Such an authority enjoyed a constant restraints. Imams (peace be upon him) used to say: “Whatever we say is concordant to the Holy Book of God. You are to shun any saying imputed to us if it is contradictory to the Holy Book of God.” Imam As-Sadiq was wont to say: “My saying is my father's. My father's saying is his father's. His father's saying is the Prophet's. The Prophet's saying is God's.”
WHAT IS THE DOCTRINAL BASE UPON WHICH SHIAS RELIED IN REFERRING TO THE IMAMS AS
LEGAL AUTHORITY?
Decisive doctrinal texts of the holy Quran and the Prophet's traditions, in its three categories; words, deeds and signature, that are unanimously agreeable by both Sunnis and Shias, are the doctrinal base upon which Shias relied in referring to the Imams of the Prophet's household as the legal authority. In Quran, Imams of the Prophet's progeny are those meant in God's saying: (Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the house and to purify you a thorough purifying.) The Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) said: “They -the Prophet's household- are the minor weighty thing as the Quran is the major.” Guidance to the right path cannot be attained unless adherence to these two weighty things is reached. In a like manner, deviation from the right path cannot be avoided unless adherence to the two weighty things is reached. As the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) describes, the Imams' like is Noah's ark. He shall be certainly saved that who takes it, while those who eschew shall certainly sink. They are also Mohammed's nation's secure against discrepancies.
ROLE OF THE TWO AUTHORITIES
Role of the authority at Sunnis: Sahaba, lexically and terminologically, are the authority referred to by Sunnis in questions of understanding the Quranic texts. The entire Sahaba, without citing any discrimination, are intended, since they all are equally decent and, then, to be in the Paradise. In the first stages following the Prophet's decease, the Sahaba's concern was not more than reporting the Prophet's sayings and deeds. When sects became numerous and widespread in various provinces, narrations were including the Prophet's words and deeds, as well as the Sahaba's. The Sahaba's opinions occupied the third position after the Quran and the Prophet's tradition, in sources of Islamic legislation. The Shafi'ite sect was less fanatic than the other three; the Hanbalite, the Malikite and the Hanafite. Although he was so enthusiast to principal of analogy he regarded as the second source of Islamic legislation after the Holy Quran, Abu Haneefeh used to prefer the Sahaba's opinions to the analogy in cases of inconsistency. The following saying is imputed to him: “In case I could not find the text involved in the Quran or the Prophet's traditions, I go straightly to the Sahaba's opinions. Supposing that there were various opinions of various Sahaba, I, then, have full option to adopt any provided that I do not prefer their followers' opinions to theirs.”
In his I'lamil-Muwaqqi'in, Ibnul-Qeyyim writes down: “For Imam Ahmed, principals of legislation are five. The first and the second are the -doctrinal- texts and the Sahaba's verdicts respectively. Hanafites and Hanbalites ruled of allocating the Holy Book of Allah to the Sahaba's deeds. Their argument is that the learned Sahabi would not neglect applying a general text unless he has an evidence. Hence, applying on the contrary of a doctrinal text is an evidence on allocation of such a text. A Sahabi's deeds, however, are as same valuable as his words.
As far as one can see, Sunnis have intensely exaggerated in sanctifying Sahaba. As a matter of fact, this sanctification is identical to principal of sinlessness.
With diffusion of the juristic sects, this intense exaggeration was used as a weapon in the face of assenting Imams of the Prophet's progeny. The Sahaba's sayings were treated as if they were revealed from the heavens; therefore, they were used in allocating general significations of the Holy Book of Allah and generalizing a restricted meaning.
Role of the authority at Shias: The Holy Quran was revealed as an explanation of everything at all. Reports related to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) in such a decisive proved way that no doubt is arisen about, are reckoned with the doctrinal texts. In other cases, it is impermissible to refer contingently to the Prophet's traditions in matters of legislation except traditions supported by a Quranic text. This is by reason that the Quran has an explanation of everything thoroughly. The Quran was revealed in Arabic; the Arabs' tongue, and in a style easily conceived by everyone. The Prophet's tradition is related by ordinary people who might be authentic or dishonest in the same rank. Those individuals were engaged in discrepancies with each other to the degree that some rejected others' reports and each followed his own conclusion. They accused each other of the worst misdeeds and ruled of legality of killing one another.
In brief words, the Holy Quran is decided as the indisputable judge for Shias since it has a manifestation of every thing thoroughly. Secondly, the Prophet's traditions; deeds, words and signature, the authenticity of which is decisively proved in such a way that no doubt is arisen around, is also regarded in authority.
DIFFERENCE IN BASE IS DIFFERENCE IN EFFECTS
1. Sunnis count on the principal that the entire lexical and terminological Sahaba, including babies who saw or was seen by the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) once only, are totally so decent that it is impossible for them to lie or forge lies since they, unexceptionally, shall be in the Paradise and none of them shall be in the hell-fire. By this generalization, Al-Hakam Bin Al-Aas whom, with his two companions, had been banished by the Prophet, and Abdullah Bin Abi Sarh who had forged lies against the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) and Muawiya; they all are decent, impossible to lie and their fate shall, beyond any dispute, be the Paradise. Effect of counting on such a principal is not quite different from the principal itself. Whatever is said by a Sahabi, after proving his having been a Sahabi, is definitely correct that inelegance cannot approach. In case there are various opinions of various Sahaba concerning a certain question, the elicitor -of juristic rules- is fully free to opt for any without any flaw at all. For instance, if Al-Hakam Bin Al-Aas, Abu Hureira, Hutheifeh Bin Al-Yeman and Abu Bakr had different opinions in a certain question, it is perfectly optional to take in any's. This is by reason that they all are decent of the same level as they all are Sahaba. Hence, it is illicit to criticize or malign any of them like Sunnis' conducts towards the narrators of other sects!
A more considerable matter is that Hanafites and Hanbalites ruled of dedicating the Quranic texts to a Sahabi's deed. They claim that a Sahabi would not shun practice decided by the Quran unless he had an evidence. Hence, a Sahabi's deed that is contrary to the Quranic text is an evidence on the dedication of that text. A Sahabi's word, in addition, is ruled as same as his deed.
The most extraordinary matter is that Sunnis mean by Sahaba all those individuals that meet the lexical, as well as the terminological, signification of this term. This means that they rule of sinlessness of the entire Sahaba, that any of them is a legal legislator, if not playing a considerable role in legislation.
From this side, the matter is very different at Shias. They assent Mohammed's companions who did their best for the sake of backing this religion, and strove with their wealths and souls. The well known supplication frequently repeated by Shias for the sake of Mohammed's supporters is a highly considerable evidence on their honest loyalty and sincere tenderness. The following is a piece of that long supplication:
(..O God, and as for the companions of Mohammed especially those who did well in companionship, who stood the good test in helping him, responded to him. When he made them hear his message's argument, separated from mates and children in manifesting his word, fought against fathers and sons in strengthening 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 they good pleasure for the sake of the creatures they drove to Thee while they were with Thy Messenger, summoners to Thee for Thee. Show gratitude to them for leaving the abodes of their people for Thy sake and going out from a plentiful livelihood to a narrow one, and [show gratitude to] those of them who became objects of wrongdoing and whom Thou multiplied in exalting Thy religion..)
Those are Mohammed's companions whom are greatly respected by Shias who believe in loyalty to them and refer to them in their religious beliefs after proving authenticity of the narration.
In brief words, Shias rule of decency only after attaining its probation. The origination of decency of every Sahabi is invalid and lacks evidences. In full freedom of expressing one's own impressions, Shias debate and criticize the ill deeds of such Sahaba, and contemplate each according to his actual importance. They do never befriend those who antagonize God and His messenger. They declare their acquittal from those who betook their oaths as a protection for the sake of occluding the path to Allah. Following such a trend, Shias do not counter the Book of Allah and the Prophet's traditions and norm and the virtuous ancestors' course of discriminating the Sahaba, and garbling the decent from the indecent. This was the exact reason beyond which Shias went on encountering and suffering false accusations.
Because they adopted grounds other than these adopted by Sunnis, Shias could attain different results.
PLURALITY OF AUTHORITIES
NUMEROUS AUTHORITIES :-
Recurrently, during the reign of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), a many opinions about a certain case was provided. And he had been wont to listen to them all before rendering the doctrinal judgment through a Quranic text or his prophetic tradition. The honest acceded to this judgement. Hence, they were united after discrepancy, and taken to the field of certitude after their suspicion. Frequently, occurrences were repeated and settling solutions were rendered. This made the numerous opinions about a certain question an appearance of intellectual enrichment. That was by reason that there was a unique fair and decisive authority the entire people referred to. Identity of authority is the base on which social and doctrinal unity rely. Banned discrepancies fall only when there was more than a unique authority. Since discrepancy is opposite to unity and for the sake of achieving unity, the ruler will be having to confiscate people's rights of expressing their ideas.
Objectively, authorities were copious as a result of establishment of the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception. There were thousands of authorities with various opinions, conceptions and understanding, originated in the Islamic society. Due to such a multiplicity, people were engaged in various sects and parties; each supporting their authority and believing of its being the only rightful and the only path to Allah. Practically, ruling authorities, as they are dominators of mass media of the state, have the capability of focusing lights on a definite authority, or authorities, and regarding them as the only honest and rightful and seeker of the straight path to Allah. Encircling verdicts and conceptions of a selective authority with an aura of respect and esteem, the ruling regime may lead ordinary people, indirectly, to trust that authority apart from considering eligibility. Abu Hureira, for instance, was an unfamiliar Sahabi who lacked any role in the Rashidite reign. His job was serving people. The period he had spent with the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) was not more than eighteen months. Yet, he became an enormous authority whose excessively numerous sayings were regarded as the absolute right, beside which wrong can never approach. This was because of his seeking favors of the Umayid royalty. In that period, Abu Hureira publicized about seven hundred (hadiths) exceeding the entire grand Sahaba twofold. These achievements would not have been progressed if the ruling regime had not adopted and elected that man for being their representative in an authority attracting all the other ones.
THE DOCTRINAL JUDGMENT ABOUT THE VARIETY OF AUTHORITIES
No religion exists without authority. No doctrine exists without authority. Mohammed is the unique authority of Islam and its doctrine. His judgment is decisive. In case there is another authority, according to God's mandate, he should be basically related to the first one considering the most knowledgeability and the most familiarity of the doctrine.
Jewism had a unique authority. Moses (peace be upon him) was the authority and Aaron was his follower. Aaron would be Moses' successor in case the latter was absent. When he returned, Aaron returned to his fellowship.
In a like manner, Christianity has a single authority. He was Jesus (peace be upon him). The Disciples were related and working for the sake of that religion under authority of Jesus (peace be upon him). Just after Mohammed, Moses or Jesus had been transmitted to the Elevated Associate, the existence of a unique authority for each of these doctrines, nominated by the first main one, was necessarily falling. Leaving the religion or the doctrine without an authority is contrary to perfection of the divine religions and an act of disregard that prophets are honorably released from.
As to Islam, the authority of Muslims is the Prophet's household and, markedly, the chief of this dignified clan in every generation. This is proved by many doctrinal decisive texts. Regarding the wonderment why those individuals of the Prophet's clan had been defined; we may say, first, that this is God's grace. He bestows to whomever He wills. Secondly, the Prophet did set them practically. Reciprocally, the Prophet and they embraced and supported each other. God shows us that they have been the best and the most favorable at every period of time. This is one of specifications of authority. After the Prophet's decease, it was so clear that the chief of his household, Ali Bin Abi Talib, would be the authority to whom Muslims should refer. Each individual Muslim was informed of the decision that Ali would be his master and the master of every male and female Muslim. This is obvious in Al-Faruq's saying: “This is my master, your master and the master of every male and female Muslim.” This is the doctrinal authority.
CANCELLATION OF THE DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY NECESSARILY ENTAILS FOUNDING A SURROGATE ONE
It is noticeable that the doctrinal authority was ceased just after the Prophet's decease. The caliph occupied the role of the doctrinal authority. Three decades later, the doctrinal authority could recover his position. Great problems were proceeded till he was assassinated. When Al-Hassan came to power he realized that these problems had been still arisen, and that it would not be stabilized unless he would be assassinated. So, he abandoned that affair. Al-Hussein, together with his immaculate household, was surrounded in Kerbela and terminated. Thus, people lost the doctrinal authority. The Umayid rulers spared no efforts for assigning themselves as the doctrinal authority since authority is an essential pillar of unificating societies. They worked for persuading people of their being the doctrinal authority. It is natural that great numbers of seekers of mundane affairs agreed with them for achieving that purpose.
THE ONLY WAY OF FOUNDING A SURROGATE AUTHORITY WAS FABRICATING THE ENTIRE SAHABA'S ULTIMATE DECENCY CONCEPTION
The entire Sahaba's ultimate decency conception had been lexically and terminologically designed in such a way that it included the Umayid rulers. Thus, decency had been imputed to the entire Sahaba. Like the doctrinal authority, the Sahabi is decent and impossibly forging lies that he should certainly be in the Paradise. That led to the belief that the Umayid rulers are decent and fully legible to be the doctrinal authority of Mohammed's nation. This was the clue to the following events.
THE CONCEPTION WOULD HAVE PROVED ITS FAILURE IF IT HAD BEEN INVENTED BY OTHER THAN THE RULERS
The Sahaba's ultimate decency conception would have been completely frail in case ordinary people had fabricated. With a mental and fiscal support of the ruling authorities, individuals known as the Prophet's companions had argued for the conception. The ruling regime did provide a remuneration for forging false hadiths regarding criticizing the doctrinal authority succeeding the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). They favored the adopters of the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception and conferred them with wealth and credits in addition to utilizing the whole mass media of the state for publicizing their thoughts.
The Virtuous Sahaba could naturally conceive the whole play; yet, they were too short to do anything as their hands were enchained, the nation was engaged in discrepancies and the ruling authorities held fast on every thing. The grand Sahaba, however, denied the whole conspiracy suing their tongues and hands. Unfortunately, these forms of denial were sentenced to death in a dark corner of poor houses as soon as they attempted to arise. On the other side, a remarkable support of the conception was occupying the entire mass media of the state. Courses of maligning, cursing and reviling at the real doctrinal authority of the nation became such a daily activity coercively practiced by people. The fate faced by Hijr Bin Edi would be the same of those whoever object the ruling regime in this regard. The fate, however, was a form of holding up the monthly pays and the earnings, if not killing.
So quietly, the process of founding a surrogate authority was keeping its straight way.
THE SURROGATE AUTHORITY BECAME LEGITIMATE
The generation of the virtuous Sahaba was extinct. The virtuous followers of the Sahaba were deceased. The opposition was terminated. So, argument of all of those categories became null. A very little size of those arguments remained. The thing remaining with all its details was the intact information necessary for imputing legality to the counterfeit surrogate authority. Those details were considered as a part of the preserved documents of the state. By this, the counterfeit surrogate authority became apparently actual and legitimate. This occurred only after the decease of those who realized the truth, and whose arguments and objection had been completely hidden. The current generation, hence, believed that the authority they were noticing through the ruling regimes were identical to that doctrinal one of which God had ordered and founded. In this manner, opposing this conception ware regarded as an opposition to the religion itself, not the founders. Moreover, the conception became an undicussible truth. As a judgment, he whoever disputed, opposed or criticized this conception was ruled as a miscreant and that it was haram -forbidden- for people to share him in a food or a drink, or offer his soul the funeral prayer. The Shias' being forming the main opposition against such a conception, they, led by the Prophet's household, were the field of throwing curses as they were regarded as the principal foes of this religion, disbelievers and evildoers. This is the view planted in the mentality of people including the who had been graduated from institutes adopting the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception. The whole history were re related through this conception.
THE SOLUTION
The solution, in this stage, is nothing other than tolerance. It is the course of Mohammed (peace be upon him and his family) who was opposed by the whole people. Yet; he did not submit. Using wisdom, suitable logical reasoning, legitimate methods, decisive arguments and clear proofs, Mohammed could cleave the curtains of partisan imitation, and purify the truth. In the end, people were convinced. This is the only procedure to be taken by adorers of the doctrinal truth.
IN THE ABSENCE OF THE DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY
People confess that the Islamic nation would indisputably assent to seventy three parties. Saving one, the whole would be sent to hell-fire. Nevertheless, they were divided into various discrepant sects and parties each of whom was claiming of being the right alone. They all believed in the fact that there is only one right which is followed by that saved party. The saved party is that ensuing the doctrinal authority. This division was one of the excuses of the foundation of the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception.
THE JURISPRUDENTIAL DISSENT
In the absence of the doctrinal authority whose mission is explicating the actual intendment of the doctrinal texts and harmonizing such texts with actuality, Muslims were engaged in tens of jurisprudential sects and parties each of which was necessarily showing a political attributes. These jurisprudential parties were mainly concentrated in five powers:
1. Ahlul-Beit sect: It is the foremost Islamic sect. It is the sect of the saved party, as we shall certainly prove. It was called the Jafarite sect in regard to Imam Ja'far As-Sadiq (peace be upon him).
2. The Hanafite sect: It is appended to Abu Haneefeh who had been a student of Imam Ja'far As-Sadiq before he established his own school.
3. The Malikite sect: It is appended to Malik. Before he established his own sect, Malik had been receiving his studies from Abu Haneefeh.
4. The Shafi'ite sect: It is appended to Ashafi'i. In the same manner, Before Ashafi'i had his own school of jurisprudence, he had been receiving his studies from Malik.
5. The Hanbalite sect: It is appended to Ahmed who had received studies of jurisprudence from Ashafi'i before he established his own school.
Pursuant to the previous, it is conspicuous that Imam Ja'far As-Sadiq was the master of the four founders of Islamic sects. They did take pride in this fact. Followers of those four sects ruled of the deviation of the followers of Imam Ja'far As-Sadiq.
ROOTS OF THE AGGRESSIVE PROSECUTION AGAINST THE PROPHET'S HOUSEHOLD
The following are the purposes beyond the permanent aggressive prosecution against the Prophet's household:
1. Insistence of the prosecuting groups on compelling the Prophet's progeny to abandon the mission they are exclusively charged with by Allah.
2. Lexical and functional misrepresentation of properties, the Prophet's household are exclusively granted by Allah.
3. Founding topical properties that are competing the divine property of the Prophet's household for distorting the signification and the functions of their exclusive properties.
4. The entire Sahaba's ultimate decency conception has been established as the topical property confronting the exclusive properties of the Prophet's household.
5. Supposing the infallible Prophet's progeny broke off their divine properties and submitted to the falling matters, they would not be left alone. They would be enduringly prosecuted by ruling regimes.
6. The previous fact is based on the habit that although rulers espoused the attractive beautiful mastery by force after they had robbed from its rightful owners, the spirit, as well as the heart, of that charming mastery is still with the legitimate spouse. Therefore, mastery frequently declared this fact in the face of the usurpers. This matter set fire in the rulers' hearts all that period. This fire incited them to commit shameful misdeeds.
PROPERTY OF THE IMMACULATE KINSHIP TO THE PROPHET
The Hashemite race is the most honorable among all people in general and the Arab in particular. This is proved by doctrinal texts. The house of Abdul-Muttelib is, in the same manner, the most honorable among all people in general and the Arab in particular. This is also supported by doctrinal texts. The Hashemites are sons of Hashim Bin Abdi Menaf Bin Qusay Bin Kelab.
Mohammed's household is the most honorable and the most favorable. God, in His Holy Book, imposed cherishing those individuals upon the all. Likewise, He, the Exalted, rendered blessing them as a pillar part of the ritual obligatory prayers. This meaning is cited in Ashafi'i's poetic verses:
O the household of Allah's prophet! Your affection
Is a mandate of Allah, revealed in the Quran
It is sufficiently a great pride that
He who does not bless you is false performer.
Mohammed's household is indeed the nucleus of this nation, and the tree of healing. They are the Prophet's most favorable individuals.
God has purified the Prophet's household and removed mental and physical uncleanness away from them. The Verse of Tatihir -purification- is obviously visible to every single Muslim. Thanks to God, the Exalted, and due to their hard striving for the sake of Allah, they preceded the all. They are the doctrinal authority of Islam and Muslims. They are the political leadership. These are unattainable glory and untouchable honor and properties of Mohammed's family.
PROSPECT OF THIS PROPERTY
Property of kinship can be looked at as a matter of ennobling. In essence, it is a mandate of definite meaning and functions.
MEANINGS OF PROPERTY OF THE IMMACULATE KINSHIP
This immaculate kinship is the leaning point of Muslims. They are the element that is lonlily able to complete the circle and define its center. They assemble the Islamic nation in cases of discrepancies. By referring to that divine leaning point, Muslims are provided with the proper solution of their discord. Hence, they will not take east or west or any other direction. They will immediately encompass and direct towards the immaculate kinship of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), who are the doctrinal reference of this religion and Muslims. Those immaculate relatives of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) explicate the beliefs so evidently that the whole Muslims, as well as non Muslims, will conceive. As another mission, they may provide the most ideal understanding of the religion, that is absolutely simultaneous to the divine intendment, after they listen to the various viewpoints of Muslims.
FUNCTIONS OF THE IMMACULATE KINSHIP OF THE PROPHET
The following are the main functions of the infallible progeny of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family):
1. They are regarded as a point of leaning and assembling Muslims.
2. They are regarded as authority of the religion who solicit for Islam before other nations and explicate it the Muslims.
3. They are regarded as the minor weighty thing -of this doctrine-, as the Quran is the major. Being guided to the right path cannot be attained unless these two weighty things are clung. Similarly, deviation cannot be avoided unless these two weighty things are held fast. Deviation from the right path shall be certainly falling if people cohere the Holy Quran and shun the Prophet's immaculate progeny. This is by reason that the Quran is the remedy, and the Prophet's progeny are the physician. Physic, however, is a process of specialization.
4. They are prepared to be the political leadership of this nation. People, as a whole, will certainly accede to the leadership of Mohammed's progeny since they are representing radical solutions that abolish any discrepancy or discord. In the same time, the Prophet's progeny stand for the source of settlement and the annihilator of greed and illegal rivalry. The divine doctrine took the charge of nominating the one to whom authority is transmitted, and way of transmission.
REASONS BEYOND GRANTING PROPERTY
Why was it Mohammed, not Abu Sufian, to whom the Divine mission was set forth? This is God's grace; He grants whomever He opts. Why were some prophets preferred to others? This is a matter of God's grace. Why was the Prophet selected from among the Hashemites, not the sons of Teim, Edi or Umaya? It is God Who favors and bestows favor to whomever He opts. A deep look to the history of Islam, we, however, may notice some incentives beyond such an option.
INCENTIVES
1. God, the Elevated, showed that Mohammed's kinsmen had been the most honorable and favorable. It is better for creatures to be led by the most honorable and favorable. This particularity has been previously documented.
2. The warning issued by the Hashemites and addressed at the other Quraishi clans when they attempted to assassinate Mohammed. This warning was declaimed by Abu Talib saying: “By God I swear, if you kill him I will never keep a single one of you alive till you and we shall be entirely terminated.” By this form, Abu Talib asserted that he would slay the entire Quraishi celebrities when it was rumored that Mohammed had been killed.
3. The Quraishi clans decided, in unison, boycotting and ostracizing the Hashemites. They cut the social and commercial relations with them. They agreed upon a covenant containing forbiddingness of espousing, dealing and associating with the Hashemites. Hence, the Hashemites were occluded in Col of Abu Talib for three years. The Quraishis ruptured supplying them with alimonies. During these three years, the Hashemite could leave that Col only once a year. Cries of their babies could be heard a few yards away from that col. The Quraishis, however, had one demand only; the Hashemites would hand them Mohammed for killing, or they might give him up. Importunately, this demand was rejected. The Hashemites sacrificed with their souls, wealth, sons and settlement for Mohammed.
4. With the failure of that blockade, the clans of Quraish planned for a new matter. As they took fright of Mohammed's immaculate relatives, they selected a man from each clan for assassinating Mohammed. In this way, every clan would be a partner in the murder and that the Hashemites would lack the capability of retaliating the entire clans. Practically, those selective men moved for killing him, but God saved him.
5. The Prophet's immaculate kinsmen were the head of Quraish that no step would be taken without their consultance.
6. The Prophet's kinsmen are the single means of safety and the shield. This is proved by decisive doctrinal texts. For these reasons and others, in addition to the divine grace and the heavenly methodical and educational preparation of their heads, the Prophet's kinsmen were treated so exclusively that they were granted this property.
THIS PROPERTY WAS USED AS A POLITICAL ARGUMENT IN VARIOUS AGES
Addressing at the Ansar, Abu Bakr stated: “People are our subordinates. We are the Prophet's kinsmen.”
In the same occasion, Omar Al-Faruq addressed at the Ansar: “It is most surely, by Allah, that the Arab shall never submit to your leadership when their Prophet is of another clan. They should never elect other than those among whom prophesy was arisen. This is our evident argument and bright justification against any of the Arab who may dispute us. Who dares to dispute us in Mohammed's heritage and authority while we are his people and clan?! It is none but the wrong disputant, the sinful seeker or the engaged in a catastrophic affair.”
Commentating on the addresses of As-Siddiq and Al-Faruq, Bashir Bin Sa’d discoursed at the Ansar: “Mohammed, peace be upon him and his progeny, was a man from Quraish. His people is the most meritorious of his heritage and authority. By God I swear, none shall see me in a situation disputing them in this affair. Beware of Allah. Dispute not them. Oppose not them.”
While Ali was engaged in the misfortune of the Prophet's household, the Ansar submitted to the argument, asserting that they would not swear allegiance to anyone other than Ali. The majority of the attendants at the Saqeefeh of Bani Sa'ideh declared their loyalty to Abu Bakr as the caliph. Thus, the meeting of Saqeefeh was closed at selecting Abu Bakr as the Muslims' caliph, Omar as the first councilor of the caliph, Abu Ubeideh as the second councilor and the groups who had just elected Abu Bakr as the caliph's armed forces.
When the heir apparent, Omar Bin Al-Khattab, demanded Ali, who was shocked by these events, with declaring his fealty to the new caliph, Ali addressed at the caliph and his councilor: “I am the most rightful of managing this affair. I do not declare fealty to you. It is you who are to declare fealty to me. You drew this affair from the Ansar claiming of your having been the Prophet's kinsmen. Now, you intend to seize it from us, the Prophet's household. Have you not argued, before the Ansar, that you had been more meritorious of this authority since Mohammed had been one of you. They gave you their submission and handed the authority. I, by now, do use the very same argument you have provided. Whether in his life or after his death, we are the most meritorious of the Prophet's heritage and authority. You should treat us with justice if you are believers, lest, let you live in injustice while you do realize the fact.” “We are not to leave you before you declare allegiance to Abu Bakr.” Omar answered him. Ali, here, orated: “You are milking for gaining half of the product, and strengthening his position so that he will hand it for you in the morrow. By God I ask you, Muhajirs! Do not take Mohammed's sovereignty of the Arab out of his area and his own house, and transmit it to your areas and houses. Do not push his people away from his standing and right among people. O groups of Muhajirs! We, by God, are the most meritorious in him. We are his household and we are the fittest to this position whilst the perceiver of God's Book, the studious of God's religion, the most familiar to traditions of God's Apostle, the well-acquainted of people's affairs, the defender of people in misfortunes and the distributor between them in full justice is among us. He is, by God, among us that who carries such attributes. Follow not your fancies that you shall be certainly deviated and be remoter and remoter from the right.”
As Sa'd Bin Basheer heard Ali's words, he commentated: “O Ali! If only had the Ansar heard your current words, they should never have agreed upon declaring fealty to Abu Bakr and, as a result, no any two of them would have litigated about your meritoriousness in this position.”
Just after the decease of Fatima (peace be upon him), Ali summoned Abu Bakr. The Hashemites were attendant when Ali addressed at Abu Bakr: “Praised and thanked be Allah. O Abu Bakr! It was neither a matter of denying your favor nor was it an envy. We saw that we had been having a privilege in the position, that you tyrannically usurped.” Going on mentioning his relation to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), Ali spoke so detailedly that Abu Bakr wept. “The Prophet's relatives are more adorable to me than my relatives.” Abu Bakr said.
Responding to Al-Mugheera Bin Shu'beh's suggestion of giving Al-Abbas a position in their government for blocking the road of argument repeatedly arisen by Ali and Al-Abbas, Abu Bakr, Omar, Abu Ubeideh and the suggester visited Al-Abbas for providing him a position. In their session, Abu Bakr addressed a long oration in the middle of which he said: “Slow down, sons of Abdul-Muttelib! God's messenger was one of us as same as he was one of you.”
Al-Abbas answered the entire points he had arisen. Regarding the previous, he said: “The Prophet is from the tree we are its branches while you are but neighbors.”
Owing to Abu Bakr's nominating him as his successor besides his being from Quraish, Al-Faruq became the masterful caliph. For the same reasons, Othman came to power after him. Practically, Omar nominated him. In addition, he was indeed from Quraish. For Ali and Al-Hassan (peace be upon him), they came to power because they were the fittest and people elected them. When Muawiya seized power by force, he claimed that he had been from Quraish and one of the Prophet's relatives. Hashim is Abd Shams's brother. For the entire Umayid rulers, they alleged of their being the Prophet's kinsmen although they betook duress as their means of dominating the government. The Abbasids used the same weapon of kinship. They played on the cords of the suffering faced by the Prophet's progeny, such as murders of assassinating Ali, Al-Hassan, Al-Hussein and the immaculate progeny of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). Using force, they dominated and ruled.
One of the pillar sides of coming to power after the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) was depending upon the base that leaders should be Quraishis. Quraishis are the Prophet's relatives. At any rate, it is evidently noticeable that the Prophet's household were continuously deprived of the privilege of the Prophet's kinship, while the far did use it.
THE RULERS' POLITICAL TREATMENT WITH THE PROPHET'S IMMACULATE PEOPLE
A group led by Omar Bin Al-Khattaab (God be pleased to him) went towards Ali's house and took him out neglecting the weeping of Fatima Az-Zahra. They brought him before Abu Bakr.
Abu Bakr - Declare your allegiance to this government.
Ali - What if I do not?
Abu Bakr - We will behead you.
Ali - Then, you are to kill the slave of Allah and the brother of His apostle.
Omar, here, urged Abu Bakr to issue the order of killing him. Abu Bakr answered: “As long as Fatima is next to him, I am not to drive him to any matter.”
Thus, Ali went directly towards the Prophet's tomb weeping and crying: “(Son of my mother! Surely the people reckoned me weak and had well-nigh slain me.)” Fatima arouse his voice with: “O my father! O God's messenger! See what we had suffered after you from son of Al-Khattab and son of Abu Quhafeh!”
Omar, Abu Bakr's emissary to the group who boycotted the ceremony of swearing allegiance, called upon them to come out from Ali's house. As they sheltered at that place, Omar ordered his companions to bring firewood: “By my soul's Prevailing I swear, I will set fire in that house and all of its occupants.” he asserted. “O Abu Hafs! Fatima is there.” some reminded. “So what?!” he answered.
Responding to this menace, the rebellious group left that house, and Omar ceased burning it.
Fatima, however, was dead. She was buried at night underhandedly since she willed that Abu Bakr should never offer the ritual funeral prayer to her soul. Only after Fatima's decease, Ali declared his fealty to Abu Bakr who nominated Omar as his successor. During reigns of those two caliphs, they were wont to precede the Prophet's household at distributing imports of the state. As Al-Belathiri records in his Futouhul-Buldan, Omar began, in distributing imports of the state, with Mohammed’s family, Abu Bakr’s family and Omar’s family respectively. The two caliphs used to seek consultancy of Imam Ali, and refer to him in affairs of the state. In a side, it is acceptable to regard reigns of Abu Bakr and Omar as the golden period of the Prophet's progeny, if it is measured to other reigns.
The Umayids came. They fought against Ali, poisoned Al-Hassan and completely terminated Al-Hussein and his present household. They prevented them from drinking from the Euphrates. This calamity is detailedly recorded in Al-Belathiri's Tarikhul-Ashraf. The Umayids poured their range on those who acceded to Mohammed's family. Just after his coming to power, Muawiya wrote missives to the entire governors of provinces, in which he ordered of declaring reviling at Ali from every pulpit. This fact is recorded by Al-Aqqad in his Muawiya Bin Abi Sufian Fil-Mizan, page 16.
Ibn Asakir, in his At-Tarikh, part 3, page 407, records that in addition to cataclysmic procedures taken by the Umayids against the Prophet's family, every single session of sermons in Syria was ended by reviling at Ali. The Umayids ruled of inadmissibility of testimonies of the acceders to Ali. They canceled names of Ali's family and followers from the general record of the state. Hence, Ali's family and followers were deprived of receiving any of the imports distributed on the entire citizens of the state.
The Umayids were followed by the Abbasids. Abu Bakr Al-Khawarzmi says: “In brief words, Harun did not die before he had reaped the tree of prophesy and uprooted the plant of Imamate.”
As he intended to kill Imam Ja'far As-Sadiq, Al-Mansur expressed his hidden while he was meticulously furious: “A thousand or more individuals I had killed from Fatima's progeny. Yet, I left their head and master; Ja'far Bin Mohammed.” Orally, he addressed at Imam As-Sadiq: “I will certainly kill you, and kill your people so completely that none of you I will keep on this earth. I will surely abolish Al-Madina so thoroughly that no single wall I will keep.”
In his book of history, At-Tabari writes down: “A cabinet full of heads of Alawid individuals was within the heritage of Al-Mansur to Al-Mahdi; his crown prince. Hanged to each of these heads, there was a sheet of paper on which name of that head's owner had been written. In addition to old-aged ones, there were heads of young and children individuals in that cabinet.” Al-Mansur used to locate the Alawids in cylinders used for stabilizing walls of building. As a means of torture, he used to stabilize them to the walls with hooks. These methods of physical torture adopted by Al-Mansur is recorded in Al-Ya'qubi's book of history. Other methods of physical torture were leaving those Alawids without food till they die due to starvation, and leaving them in places too malodorous to be tolerated. The tortured were detained in a single narrow place that they had no place special for defecation. They were kept in small underground cells that after a period of that detention those cells were collapsed on their enchained occupants that some of them might have been dead some weeks ago, but left without burying.
Ar-Rasheed took a bond on himself of eradicating Mohammed's progeny and their followers. In this regard, he says: “Till when should I bear the progeny of Abu Talib? I, by God, will massacre them and massacre their followers in an unparalleled ways of killing.” He, however, was so cruel to the Alawids that he pursued them everywhere for killing.
Al-Mansur sent a missive to Imam As-Sadiq inviting him to visit him often like other people. “We do not have what we should fear you for. You do not have what we want you for, from affairs of the Hereafter. You are neither in an elegance that we should congratulate on, nor are you in a misfortune that we should console you for. What do we have at you, then?” the Imam answered. “We mean that you associate us for advice.” Al-Mansur commented. Imam As-Sadiq answered: “Seekers of mundane affairs do never advise you, and seekers of heavenly affairs do never associate you.”
CATEGORIES OF THE PROPHET'S KINSHIP
1. The close relatives. They are Fatima, Ali, Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein. Their progeny is attached to this property of close relation. Those individuals did suffer the entire sorts of agonies and calamities. This is the reward of Abu Talib's attitudes to Islam and its Prophet, and Ali's situations during battles of Islam. They endured the entire difficulties and, as a result, results went to their enemies.
2. The remote relatives. Those relatives were the rulers for the claim that they had been the Prophet's clan (Quraish.) So, they received the whole prizes, while the close relatives suffered the whole distress.
DISMISSAL OF THE IMMACULATE PROGENY
As a logical result, Imam Ali was dismissed after the decease of Fatima. As an appearance of the ruling authorities' aspiration of dismissing the Imam was their endeavors to attract Al-Abbas, as well as his descendants, to take a part in their authorities, and urge him on accepting a good position in their government. Al-Abbas rejected this offers so definitively that he used decisive words in showing his situation towards their efforts. Gradually, the close relatives of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) were isolated from the Hashemites, the Prophet's clan and people. Pursuant to topical criterion, supposing following either the ruling authorities or their rivals, the earlier should be naturally opted regarding their capability of dominating the whole affairs. This was the reason beyond the fact that most of people followed the ruling regime, while a minority followed the Prophet's close relatives. In other words, a poet expressed this meaning by saying: “Hearts are in the side of the Prophet's household, while swords are in the other.”
As he accomplished the Fajr prayer during which he obligatorily had to say (O Allah! Bless Mohammed and Mohammed's household.), Omar Bin Sa'd Bin Abi Waqqas, the commander of the caliph's army against Al-Hussein's, went straightly for massacring all of Mohammed's household and progeny present at that place. Being not sufficed by killing them, the caliph's army beheaded the Prophet's household's dead bodies and robbed their clothes. In addition, horsemen spurred their horses to step on Al-Hussein's dead body as well as the other individuals of Mohammed's progeny. This was for seeking the good will of Ibn Ziyad and Yazeed Bin Muawiya. God, however, had His own affairs in his creatures. This was one of the fruits of the impracitcability of the Hashemites’ joining leadership to prophecy.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PROPHET'S PROGENY'S PROPERTY
No human can shiver what God has stabilized. No creature can change what the Creator has cited. Rulers have already realized that the exclusive property of the Prophet's progeny cannot be changed whatever they do to those individuals. Blessing them is an obligatory ritual precept. Their purity is mentioned in a candid text of the Holy Quran. Their leadership of this nation is authentically proved. The divine texts regarding their merits are imposing. Even if the Prophet's progeny are completely terminated, their divine property shall remain as the nightmare that chases rulers permanently. Hence, there is no substitute for the divine property of the Prophet's progeny.
CHAPTER FIVE
PROSPECTS ATTACHED TO THE SAHABA'S ULTIMATE DECENCY CONCEPTION
The innovators of the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception attached the following prospects to their fabrication:
1. Misrepresenting the divine property of the Prophet's progeny in such a way that it would lose its content and function.
2. Descrying a surrogate property competing the Prophet's progeny's one and backing affairs of the rulers by imitating functions of the Prophet's progeny.
3. Inventing confused matters and giving rise to states of perplexity and suspicion among people for keeping them away from affairs of the ruling authorities, by finding a subordinate discrepancies that, gradually, would be deep, menacing and perpetual.
FINDING COMPETITIVE SPECIFICATIONS
God has removed squalor away from the virtuous household of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) and purified them thoroughly. Fatima, Ali, Hassan and Hussein are, according to all criteria, within the Prophet's household at least. God has purified those individuals mentally and physically and foretold of their being in the Paradise before those definite individuals foretold of their being in the Paradise. According to divine texts, the Prophet's household are masters of occupants of the Paradise. They are, by the logic rule of the less is gained by gaining the more, indisputably decent.
The most honorable Sahaba, who had showed honesty to God, are dignified people who had been decided, by God, as decent. Rulers were not among those honorable Sahaba. Most of them were classified as ‘released’ who declared their Islam only after they had been surrounded by Muslims. There is no single policy in the whole world that has the techniques of regarding those ‘released’ individuals as same honorable as the Prophet's household, except the invention of the entire Sahaba's ultimate decency conception, with regard to looking upon the lexical, as well as the terminological, meaning of Sahaba. According to this conception, there is no difference at all between a Muslim who embraced Islam before conquest of Mecca and fought, and another who declared his being Muslim only after the conquest. This conception equates the killer with his victim; the applicant of the blockade with that upon whom the blockade had been imposed; the Muhajir with the ‘released’ and the faithful believer with the hypocrite. Those individuals, as a whole, are enjoying the very same qualification; decency. Ali Bin Abi Talib, one of the Prophet's household, is a Sahabi in the same weight of Muawiya, the Sahabi. Both are decent. Both are legislators. Both are to be in the Paradise. Both are infallible. Ali is the foremost to Islam. He is God's devotee in the divine texts.. the carrier of the Prophet's pennon during the whole battles. He is the headmost knight of Islam during the entire battles. This man is not different from Muawiya who, accompanied by his father, fought against Islam in the entire battles, and embraced Islam only after they had been surrounded.
Topical justice does reject such a characterization. The divine justice, with stronger reason, rejects it, too. Allah and His Apostle and deeds did differentiate between the two. Who, then, did order us of regarding the two as equal? Saving the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception, which was originally invented for eradicating distinction between the foremost and the tardy; the fighters and the absconders and the first and the last, what is the evidence on such an equalization?
Invention of the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception and allegation of the entire Sahaba's decency were originally founded for competing property of purification exclusively gifted the Prophet's household.
A FACTUAL EXAMPLE
With respect to divine texts, Ali is the head of the Prophet's household, the disciple of this nation, the foremost to Islam and the pursued by the right. Loyalty to Ali is regarded as same as loyalty to God, and antagonizing him is as same as antagonizing God. Moreover, he is a Sahabi admitted by inventors of the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception. He is foretold of being in the Paradise.
Regarding Ali as a Sahabi, for what reason, then, did you, originators of the Sahaba's ultimate decency conceptions, impose people to curse him from pulpits in the entire provinces of the Islamic state? For what reason did you curse and revile at him actually? Was it not you who decided the penalization of reviling at Sahaba? You decided that the revilers at Sahaba are miscreant whom should be not shared in a food or a drink, and that the ritual funeral prayer should not be offered to their souls.
Does the entire Sahaba's decency work for benefit of the whole except Ali and his household? Does it stop when it reaches Ali and his household in order that characteristic of decency should not be ascribed to them?
ANOTHER FACTUAL EXAMPLE
Al-Hassan Bin Ali and Al-Hussein Bin Ali are, according to divine texts, the masters of the youth of the Paradise. They are basils and sons of God's messenger. According to divine texts, God made the offspring of every prophet from his own backbone, while Mohammed's was made from Ali's. At any rate, Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein are decent since they are Sahaba. It is illicit for any to malign, criticize or revile at any of Sahaba. He whoever commits such a thing is decided as a miscreant that he should not be shared in a food or a drink or offered the ritual funeral prayer. What about, then, those who poisoned Al-Hassan Bin Ali, the Sahabi? What is your judgment about those who murdered Al-Hussein and occluded his household and him from having a single drop from water of the Euphrates, the river from which beasts, birds and animals including dogs, drink freely? Is it not to reckon murdering with maligning? What do you say about those who killed the entire progeny of Mohammed and robbed their luggage while they were dead, and captured the harem of Mohammed's progeny and the Sahaba's progeny?
EXPOUNDING UPON THE PREVIOUS STATES
Lexically and terminologically, those who poisoned Al-Hassan were Sahaba. Those who assassinated Ali were Sahaba. Those who murdered Al-Hussein were Sahaba. Those who terminated the Prophet's progeny in Kerbela were Sahaba. Those who cursed and reviled at Ali and his associates were Sahaba. Those who ruled of inadmissibility of testimonies of Ali's assenters were Sahaba.
A STRIKING SURPRISING AND A WONDERMENT
Al-Hassan Bin Ali, the Sahabi, is one of the decent. Those who poisoned him to death are decent because of their being Sahaba. Al-Hussein Bin Ali, the Sahabi, is decent. Those who murdered him are decent because of their being Sahaba. Mohammed's progeny who were completely terminated in Kerbela were decent. Those who practiced termination against them were decent because of their being Sahaba.
The poisoner and the poisoned are equally in the Paradise since both are decent Sahaba! The killer and his victim are both in the Paradise since they are decent Sahaba! The robber and the robbed are in the Paradise since both are decent Sahaba!
This equalization raises a real flouting of mankind intellect. It is forming an appearance of shameful slavery of imitation.
FULFILLMENT OF THE MISSION
The mission intended by the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception was fully accomplished. Ali became as same as Muawiya since both were decent Sahaba who should be in the Paradise. Both are rightful with the difference that the victorious should be the legitimate ruler of the nation. The year of victory had been named ‘year of congruity.’
FINDING COMPETITIVE PROTECTION
The saying that he whoever hurt the Prophet's household would be hurting the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) himself, is faced by the one that he whoever hurt the Sahaba would be hurting the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). In a like manner, he whoever bears malice against Mohammed's household is one of people of the Hell, is faced by the saying that he whoever bears malice against any of the Sahaba extensively is one of people of the Hell. Exceeding the protection given exclusively to the Prophet's household, it was ruled that those who defame any of Sahaba is reckoned with the miscreant, and that it is obligatory to avoid sharing him in a food or a drink and avoid offering his soul the ritual funeral prayer. Just like a carcass, such an individual should be cast aside. Thus, the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception granted the Sahaba a protection identical to that given exclusively to the Prophet's household, but with a little higher degree.
IN RESPECT OF PROCLAMATION
The Quran is the major weighty thing. Mohammed's family is the minor. Being guided to the right path cannot be attained unless these two weighty things are adhered. Deviations cannot be eluded unless these two weighty things are cohered. This fact is decided by incontrovertible divine texts. The Prophet's household are the Ark of Noah; he shall be most surely saved that who takes it, while that who lags behind shall be certainly drowned. This fact is documented by conclusive divine texts. They are the door to acquittal of sins; he shall be certainly forgiven that whoever passes through that door. They are the shelter of this nation. Stars are the shelter of people of this earth, and Mohammed's household are the protection against discrepancies of this nation. This is also quoted from undiscussible divine texts. Without them, this nation shall be like a donkey the backbone of which is broken. The head of the Prophet's household takes that task of settling discrepancies established in this nation after the decease of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). These facts are documented by indisputable divine texts.
EXAMPLES ON WHAT THE SAHABA GAIN FROM THE ENTIRE SAHABA'S ULTIMATE DECENCY CONCEPTION
(The like of my companions is salt. Food is valueless without salt.) This (hadith) is recorded in Alisti'ab, in the margin of Ibn Hajar's Al-Isabetu Fi Tamyizis-Sahaba, part 1, page 7.
In the (hadith) numbered 33792, of Kenzul-Ummal, part 12, page 22, the following is recorded: (Quraish is means of amending people. People cannot be amended by other that Quraish. Except them, none should be referred to. Their like is salt. Food cannot be accepted by anything other than salt.) This (hadith) is related to A'isheh. Ibn Edi, in his Al-Kamil, relates it to A'isheh.
The (hadith) numbered 33807, of Kenzul-Ummal, part 12, page 25, is the following: (Quraish is security from drowning for all people of this earth. Loyalty to Quraish is security of people against being engaged in discrepancies. Quraish is people of God. People of Iblis -the Satan- are the Arab tribes who confront them.) This (hadith) is quoted from At-Tabarani's Al-Kabeer and Al-Hakim's Al-Mustedrak.
In his Al-Issabeh, page 19, Ibn Hajar, as At-Tirmithi and Ibn Hebban quotes, records the following (hadith): The Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) said: “I ask you by God to take care of my Sahaba. Betake not them as an advantage. It is just for my cherishing, they are cherished, and it is just for my hatred, they are hated. He whoever hurts them, shall be hurting me. He whoever hurts me shall be hurting God. He whoever hurts God shall be taken in an unexpected time.”
TEXTS FOR REFLECTING ON
The Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) stated: “O Ali! He is departing God that whoever departs me. He is departing me that whoever departs you.” “He whoever hurts Ali shall be hurting me.” “He whoever cherished Ali is cherishing me. He whoever bears malice against Ali is bearing malice against me.” “Your adherent is adherent to me. My adherent is adherent to Allah. Your enemy is an enemy to me. My enemy is an enemy to Allah. Woe is those who will bear malice against you after my departure.” “Blessedness is those who cherish and accept you. Woe is those who bear malice against you and belie you.” “I do counsel every one who believed and confided in me to cling to leadership of Ali Bin Abi Talib. He whoever accedes to him shall be acceding to me. He shall be acceding to Allah that who accedes to me. He whoever cherishes him shall be cherishing me. He is cherishing Allah that who cherishes me. He whoever bears malice against him shall be bearing malice against me. He is bearing malice against Allah that who bears malice against me.” “Stars are shields of people of this earth against drowning. My household are shelters of my people against discrepancies. Any Arab tribe who confront my people shall be the party of the Satan.”
See the Prophet's saying: “Stars are shelters of occupants of the heavens. My household are the shelters of my people.”
WONDERMENT
Supposing a Sahabi hurt or bore malice against Ali, or Ali hurt or bore malice against a Sahabi; what should the situation be? Whom should we follow? Who should be the right, and who should be the wrong?!
Supposing Quraish and the Prophet's household each claimed of being shelter of this nation; how should the situation be? Whom should we confide on?!
Supposing a party of this nation followed Quraish and another followed the Prophet's household, and both claimed of being the right; what should the situation be? Which party should be regarded as the right and the bearer of the truth?!
Hint at the false saying spuriously imputed to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family): “Stars are the like of my companions. Guidance to the right path is concluded by following any of them.” This false saying is deceitfully arisen.
In At-Thehbi's Al-Munteqa, page 551, the following saying of Ibn Teimiyeh is recorded: “The hadith is ruled, by the most learned hadithists, as doubtful. Hence, it cannot be taken as an evidence.”
Providing a group of Sahaba supported Ali, another supported Muawiya, a third were non-partisan and a fourth were waiting for results so that they would follow the victorious. Is it rationally and conventionally acceptable that the followers of any of these four groups would be rightful? Who would be the wrong, then?!
On condition a Sahabi claims that the right is in the east, and another Sahabi claims, in the same time, that the right is in the west, and a third claims that the right is in the south, and a fourth claims that the right is in the north and so on that the nation is divided into seventy three parties each with a definite argument, as we are foretold by the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). Will it be rationally and conventionally acceptable that the entire parties are rightful and following the right although there is only one right?! Contrariety is a crime. Unification is a matter of seeking God's favor. Is it, then, rational that the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) engages his nation in discrepancies?!
IMPARTING THE ARGUMENT BY A MEDIUM
The Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) said unto Ali: “After me, you convey my mission and make them hear my voice and explicate for them matters they will be discrepant about.”
Despite the fact that he was enthusiast to Al-Abbas, Abu Haneefeh was wont to prefer any Sahabi's opinion to Al-Abbas's when being variant in a certain question. It is recorded that Abu Haneefeh used to say: “I will refer to the Sahaba's opinions if I lack the ability to infer from the Quran and the Prophet's traditions. In case there are different opinions of different Sahaba, I will take from any indiscriminately, in order not to neglect their opinions and opt for the followers'.” In his A'lamul-Muwaqqi'in, Ibnul-Qeyyim mentions the following: “For Imam Ahmed, sources of legislation are five: 1. The text. 2. The Shaba's verdicts.. Hahafites and Hanbalites ruled of allocating the Quran's judgments to the Sahaba's deeds. This is for the reason that the Sahaba would not neglect applying the Quran's judgments unless they had an evidence. Hence, whenever the Sahaba contradicted the Quran, this item must have been allocated for a specific state or manner. The Sahaba's deeds, however, are as same as their words.”
By the way, the Prophet's traditions are his words, deeds and signature. Regarding the saying that the Sahaba's deeds are as same as their words, this means that lexical and terminological Sahabi's words allocate the Quran's judgment and generalize the Quran's specific situations. This reckons the Sahaba's words with the heavenly revelations that wrong does never approach from any side. The main catastrophe, here, is that every Sahabi, whether in lexical or terminological meaning, is included in this (rule). As a matter of fact, the entire Sahaba's ultimate decency conception granted the Sahaba's what the Doctrine has not granted to the Prophet's household.
Ibn Khuldoun says: “Not the entire Sahaba were juriscounsults. Doctrinal laws were not taken from all of them. This task was private to the Quranists, who had full knowledge of positions of repealing and repealed Verses, decisive and allegorical Verses and other evidences elicited from the Quran that they had received from the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) directly or indirectly. For this reason, such individuals were named ‘Qurra -reciters-’ since the Arab were generally illiterate. For a considerable period, this concern was preserved.”
Mohammed Bin Sehl Bin Abi Kheithemeh, related the following saying to his father: “Three from the Muhajirs and three from the Ansar were the only individuals who had authority of issuing judgments and rulings in the Prophet's reign. They were Omar, Othman, Ali, Ubey Bin Ka'b, Me'ath Bin Jabal and Zeid Bin Thabit.”
Abdurrahman Bin Qasim relates the following saying to his father: “A number of Muhajirs and Ansar were usually summoned by Abu Bakr whenever he had a question to seek advisory about. He used to summon Omar, Othman, Ali, Abdurrahman Bin Awf, Me'ath Bin Jabal, Ubey Bin Ka'b and Zeid Bin Thabit. Those individuals had authority of issuing verdicts in the reign of Abu Bakr. People received rulings and verdicts from those individuals only. When Omar became the caliph, he followed the same policy.”
EXPANSION IN ISSUING VERDICTS
It is noticeable that the entire Sahaba's ultimate decency conception collapsed the whole traditions relied upon in reigns of Abu Bakr and Omar and mutinied against the whole conceptions familiar in reign of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). According to this conception, every Sahabi, in lexical and terminological meaning, had the opportunity of expressing his own opinion towards any question. In the same manner, it became lawful for every researchist or scholar of jurisprudence to refer to the idea of any Sahabi at all in any question. This was by reason that the entire Sahaba were equally decent. They all shall be in the Paradise. It is impossible for them to forge lies. Hence; matters were commingled so heavily that it became impossible to discriminate. The foremost to Islam became of the same rank of the tardy. The ‘released’ became as same as the Muhajir. The whole enjoyed the same attribute of decency. A Sahabi is flawless. It is impermissible to comment on verdicts, words and deeds of the Sahaba. These rulings are deduced from the general frame of the entire Sahaba's ultimate decency conception. What is authentically related to the Sahaba is the right that wrong does never approach from any side. This is because it was traditions of the decent who had the capability of restricting a general rule frankly mentioned in the Holy Quran and, similarly, generalize a restricted Quranic rule. Consequently, efforts were exceedingly exerted for the sake of surveying and detecting the life account of the narrators from many sides like the good general behavior, honesty of their believing and authenticity of their sayings. As soon as such attributes are available in personality of a narrator and the saying is truly ascribed to that Sahabi, then such a text shall be considered as the indisputable right since it had been issued by a decent Sahabi.
A PRINCIPAL RESTRAINT ON THE NARRATORS
It is fully acceptable for any narrator to accede to Abu Bakr, Omar or any other Sahabi at all. This loyalty will not injure honesty and authenticity. It also does not occupy any position of confusedness. Confusedness falls only on those who show any sort of loyalty to Ali and the Prophet's household. It is impracticable to regard such narrators who accede to Ali or the Prophet's household as authentic and then, it is impossible to accept narratives of such individuals. As a rule, it is to neglect totally the hadith among the authentic narrators of which there is an individual who shows loyalty to the Prophet's household. The acceptable narratives are only those related by authentic men. Authenticity and loyalty to the Prophet's household do never concur.
Abu Amr Bin Abdil-Berr says: “Mohammed Bin Waddah related that Yahya Bin Mu'in ruled of the unauthenticity of Mohammed Bin Idris Ashafi'i.” Yahya Bin Mu'in is one of the most remarkable hadithists whose decision about a person is undiscussibly regarded. Ashafi'i, the founder of a notable sect, is not authentic narrator in the opinion of Ibn Mu'in. This is an unimaginable matter! This judgment of Ibn Mu'in was issued because of Ashafi'i's carrying a little loyalty to the Prophet's household. Realizing the unacceptability of this ruling, At-Thehbi commented: “Ibn Mu'in's words about Ashafi'i were mere a flaw of the tongue due to following whim and fanaticism.”
Imam Ja'far As-Sadiq, however, is the tutor of founders of the four sects. He is the director of a four thousand graduate school. He is the founder of the sect of the Prophet's household and an elevated name in the sky of the Prophet's people. Although Al-Bukhari, who had recorded narratives related by Marwan Bin Al-Hakam, neglected regarding Imam As-Sadiq's narratives as an evidence on authenticity of a hadith, Abu Hatem and An-Nisa'i ruled of the Imam's authenticity (in narrating hadiths.)
Yahya Bin Mu'in: (As he ruled of authenticity of Sa'eed Bin Khalid Al-Bujeli, they protested against him claiming that Sa'eed had been a Shiite. “Yes, he is Shiite and authentic!!!” He asserted. However, the Jumhour had never used these two descriptions concurrently.)
Authentic people are only those disloyal and remote from the Prophet's progeny. As for Omar Bin Sa'd Bin Abi Waqqas, the commander of Yazeed's army who massacred Imam Al-Hussein and his household in Kerbela, Al-Ujeli decides him as (one of the Sahaba’s followers. He is honest. People reported his narratives.)
Imran Bin Hattan was decided as an honest by Al-Ujeli. This Imran composed a number of poetic verses praising Ibn Muljim (Cursed be him), the murderer of Imam Ali for his murder.
Ref: Imam Reza Network

Hamza b. Abdul Muttalib

With Abu-Jahl
Al-Hamza set off for the hills overlooking Makkah. His strong horse was going up the sand hills. It was galloping along the valleys. Al-Hamza was looking carefully at the lovely scenery.
The sky was blue and clear. The hills were covered with sunshine. So the grains of sand were glittering in the sun.
Al-Hamza was thinking about our Master Muhammad's mission. His heart was with Allah's Apostle. He was repeating to himself:
Really there's no god but Allah. Al-Lat, al-Uzza and Munat are rocks. Man has made them with his hand. So why does he worship them?
The horse was roaming through the desert. The horse ran away when it saw a man holding a bow and looking for the lions.
Our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) sat on a rock on the road to al-Masa between al-Safa Mount and al-Marwa Mount. As usual, he was absorbed in thinking.
He was always thinking about his people and those who disbelieved in him and Allah's mission.
There was a house near the road to al-Masa. The house had a balcony overlooking the road. Two young girls were sitting in the balcony. They saw our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) thinking and looking at the sky and the mountains.
At that moment, Abu Jahal and some foolish persons from Makkah appeared. They were laughing loudly.
Abu Jahal looked at our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.). His eyes glittered out of spite. He wanted to sneer at him. So, he shouted:
Look at this magician! Look at this madman! He doesn't laugh as we do! He's silent!
The foolish persons laughed. Their satanic laughter filled the space.
Ha, Ha, Ha!
The two girls sadly watched what was happening. They saw Abu Jahal going round and round our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) laughing and being silly.
Abu Jahal took a handful of dust. He put the dust on the Prophet's head. The dust fell on the Prophet's face and clothing.
Abu Jahal and his foolish friends laughed. But our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) kept silent. He was sad.
The two young girls felt pain and sadness for our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.). Abu Jahal and his foolish friends went away. So, our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) stood up. He dusted his head and face and clothing. Then he went home.
The two girls decided to tell al-Hamza. So, they waited for him.
In the distance, al-Hamza appeared. He was coming down the hills riding his horse.
The girl shouted:
Hamza, come back!
The girl said to her sister:
Come on! Let's tell him!
The girl shouted:
Aba Amara!
Al-Hamza stopped and looked at the girl. The girl sadly said:
Aba Amara, Abu Jahal mistreated your nephew Muhammad.
Al-Hamza asked:
Did he mistreated him?
The girl said:
He came across him on the road. He abused him and put some dust on his head.
Al-Hamza was filled with anger. He hit his horse with the bow. The horse jumped angrily. Al-Hamza headed for the Ka'aba. He used to pass by the men and greet them when he came back from hunting. This time, he was angry for our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.). So, he did not greet anyone and went directly to Abu Jahal.
Al-Hamza jumped off his horse like the lion. He raised his bow and hit Abu Jahal on the head. Abu Jahal was afraid when he saw al-Hamza angry. So, he said humbly:
Aba Amara, he has abused our gods and stultified our thoughts.
Al-Hamza shouted angrily:
Answer me if you can!
The outcry of truth sounded in the yard of the Ka'aba. Al-Hamza said loudly:
I confess that there's no god but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle.
Al-Hamza angrily looked at Abu Jahal and said:
Why did you abuse him? Don't you know that I follow his religion.
Abu Jahal bent his head humbly and kept silent. The foolish persons escaped with alarm.
While al-Hamza was in tears, he embraced our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.). Our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) became happy when his uncle al-Hamza became Muslim. So, he named him the Lion of Allah and the Lion of His Apostle.

The Birthday
Al-Hamza was born in 570 AD., namely in the year of the Elephant. He was our Master Muhammad's foster brother, for a woman called Thwaibah suckled them.
Al-Hamza was brave and strong. He became Muslim in the second year of our Master Muhammad's mission.
The men knew that al-Hamza believed in Islam. So, the Muslims became happy. But the polytheists became sad.
Some Muslims hid their belief in Islam because they were afraid of Quraish. When al-Hamza became Muslim, a new time began - our Master Muhammad's followers became strong, so the Quraish were afraid of them and had a thousand apprehensions about them.

The Ninth Year after the Mission
Nine years after our Master Muhammad's mission passed. The number of the Muslims increased.
Umar bin al-Khattab was very sensitive. One day, he took his sword to kill our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.). He asked about him. It was said to him:
He's with his Companions in a house near al-Safa Mount.
So, Umar headed for him. On the way to al-Safa Mount, a man belonging to the tribe of Umar named Naeem came across and asked him:
Umar, where are you going?
Umar rudely answered:
I want to kill Muhammad because this boy has abused our religion.
Naeem believed in Islam secretly So, he said to him:
If you hurt Muhammad, Bani Hashim won't leave you alive. Besides your sister and her husband have believed in Islam.
Umar shouted angrily:
What? My sister Fatimah?
Umar went to his sister's house. when he stopped at the door, he heard a man reading the Qur'an. The Divine Words were impressive:
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. Taha, we have not revealed the Qur'an to you so that you may be unsuccessful.
Umar knocked at the door and entered. His sister hid the page of the Qur'an for he wanted to tear it up. He hit his sister. So, blood flowed out of her face.
Umar felt regret, So, he went out.
Our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) and some Companions were in a house near al-Safa Mount. He was teaching them the Qur'an and wisdom. He was reading to them of the Divine verses.
In the meantime, they heard a man knocking loudly at the door. One of the Muslims got up. He looked through a hole in the door.
Al-Hamza asked:
Who is it?
The Muslim answered
It's Umar holding a sword.
Al-Hamza said:
Do not be afraid. Open the door. If he wants good we'll give it to him. If he wants evil, we'll kill him with his sword!
Al-Hamza stood up to receive the newcomer. He opened the door and asked:
Bin al-Khattab, what do you want?
Umar answered:
I've come to confess that there's no god but Allah and Muhammad is Allah's Apostle!
Our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) said:
Allah is great!

The Migration
The people of Yathrib belonged to the tribe of al-Khazraj and the tribe of al-Aus. They promised our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) to support Islam with their lives and money.
When the Quraish harmed the Muslims severely, our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) ordered them to immigrate Yathrib.
So, the Muslims began leaving Makkah secretly, one by one, or group by group. Al-Hamza bin Abdul Muttalib immigrated, too.
The immigrants and the supporters in Yathrib were eagerly waiting for our Master Muhammad's immigration. They were looking forward to his arrival.

The Sacrifice
The polytheists decided to kill our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.). Jibreel came down from the sky to tell him about the plot of the polytheists.
So, Allah's Apostle asked his cousin Ali bin Abu Talib (A.S.) to sleep in his bed so that he would be able to immigrate to Yathrib safely.
Ali(A.S.) asked our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.):
Allah's Apostle, will you be safe?
Our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) answered:Yes.
Ali(A.S.) rejoiced when the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) immigrated safely. He was not thinking about himself when the polytheists attacked our Master Muhammad's house.
Jibreel came down from the heavens reading the following holy verse:
And among them men is he who sells himself to seek the pleasure of Allah.
This verse meant there was a person who sacrificed his life to please Allah, the Glorified. Besides this verse has praised the attitude of Imam Ali (A.S.) and his sacrifice.
Our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) arrived in Yathrib. After the Prophet (S.A.W.) arrived, the Muslims named it al-Madina al-Munawwara (the Illuminated City).

In Makkah
The polytheists in Makkah attacked the Muslims houses and robbed them. The immigrants were sad to hear that.
So, our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) decided to send some groups of the Muslims to face the Quraishi trading caravans to punish them.
In Ramadhan, the first year after Hijra, our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) called al-Hamza, the Lion of Allah, and gave him the first banner in the history of Islam.
Our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) ordered al-Hamza to take his group, thirty immigrants, to the seaside were the caravans passed.
Al-Hamza found Abu Jahal at a district called al-Ais.
Three hundred fighters went with Abu Jahal, namely, ten times as many as the Muslims.
But al-Hamza, may Allah be pleased with him, and his group were not afraid of the Quraish. They were ready to clash with them.
But Majdy bin Amru al-Jahny, who had good with the Quraish and the Muslims, came between them to prevent them from clashing.
Al-Hamza was proud that he was the first to receive the banner of Islam from Allah's Apostle. Concerning this, he said pretty lines of poetry (the meaning only):
By the order of Allah's Apostle, a banner waved over me.
It had not waved before me.
The banner has victory from the owner of dignity,
The dear Allah whose action is the best action.
Then he referred to his clashing with Abu Jahal:
On the night when they (the polytheists marched, they were many.
And we all were his boilers that boiled because of the anger of his friends.
And when we saw one another, they made their camels kneel down and fettered them.
And we understood the range of the arrows target. And we said to them:
Our supporter is the robe of Allah. But you have not any robe but misguidance.
There Abu Jahal became stirred up unjustly.
So, he became unsuccessful.
And Allah drove back Abu Jahal's plot.
We were only thirty riders,
And they were over three hundred.

With Our Master Muhammad(S.A.W.)
In the Assault of al-Asheera, our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) led, Hamza bin Abdul Muttalib was holding the banner.
The Muslim Army's companies and patrols succeeded to threaten the trade of the Quraish.
The Quraish announced the economic war against the Muslims. So, they attacked the Muslims' houses who immigrated from Makkah to Madina. They intensified their war against the Muslims everywhere.
In the meantime, the Quraish urged the Arab tribes to attack Yathrib.
Our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) wanted to punish the Quraish. He thought that the best way to punish them was to threaten their trading caravans going to Shaam.
Al-Hamza went with our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) on each assault.

The Battle of Badr
Our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) heard that a trading caravan headed by Abu Sufyan was coming back from Shaam to Makkah. So, our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) asked the Muslims to face the caravan.
On Ramadhan 12th, 2 A.H., our Master Muhammad(S.A.W.) with 313 immigrants and supporters went outside Madina.
Abu Sufayn heard about the movement and the aim of the Muslims who wanted to face the caravan. So, he quickly sent man to the Quraish to tell them about the dangerous situation.
Abu Jahal found that action a suitable chance to destroy Islam and the Muslims. So he began urging the Quraish to fight the Muslims. He and the Quraishi leaders called up nine hundred and fifty fighters. Abu Jahal headed the fighters and marched towards the springs of Badr, where the Muslims had camped.
On Ramadhan 17th, the two armies came together. The polytheists were beating the war drums. But the Muslims were remembering and glorifying Allah.
Jibreel came down from the heavens. He read him this verse:
And if they incline to peace, then incline to it
The Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) asked the Quraish to make peace but Abu Jahal refused. He thought that he would destroy Islam, for his army was three times as many as the Muslim Army.
The two armies got ready to clash. One of the polytheists shouted:
Muhammad, let your brave men come out to fight us!
So, our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) said:
Ubaidah bin al-Harith, al-Hamza bin Abdul Muttalib, and Ali bin Abu Talib, stand up.
They moved briskly. They were ready to die for Allah's way. Ubaidah stood before his opponent Utbah bin Rabeeah.
Ali stood before al-Waleed bin Utbah.
Hamza stood before Shaiba bin Rabeeah. So, the first battle in the history of Islam broke out.
Immediately, al-Hamza hit and knocked down his opponent. Ali hit the enemy of Islam and killed him.
Ubaidah hit his opponent, but his opponent hit him too. He fell to the ground. Al-Hamza and Ali killed Utbah. Then they took Ubaidah to the camp to tend to him.
When the polytheistic heroes fell over the ground one by one, Abu Jahal ordered his fighters to launch a general attack.
The Muslims faced the attack with spirits filled with belief confidence in Allah. So, Allah granted the Muslims a victory.
Abu Jahal and the polytheistic leaders fell over the ground. So, the other polytheists escaped with alarm.

The Revenge
The people of Makkah heard about the news of the defeat. So, the women wept over the killed polytheists. But Hind, Abu Sufyan's wife, kept silent.
The people said to Hind:
Why don't you weep over your brother, your father and your uncle?
She said:
I don't weep over them lest Muhammad and his companions rejoice at our misfortune!
Hind thought about a way to get her revenge on our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) or Ali bin Abu Talib (A.S.) or al-Hamza bin Abdul Muttalib.
Hind urged the polytheists to get their revenge on them. Three thousand polytheistic fighters got ready. Hind bint Utbah, Abu Sufyan's wife, was with them. There were fourteen women around her. They were beating drums.
In Makkah there was a strong slave called Wahshy. Hind went to him. She promised to give him a lot of gold and money if he killed our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) or Ali bin Abu Talib (A.S.) or al-Hamza (May Allah be pleased with him).
Wahshy said:
I can't hit Muhammad because his companions surround him. I can't kill Ali because he is very alert. I may kill al-Hamza because anger makes him see nothing.
Hind gave Wahshy some gold before hand. She was always looking at the spear Wahshy prepared to kill al-Hamza.
The polytheistic army arrived at al-Abwaa (an area near Madina where Aminah, our Master Muhammad's mother was buried fifty years ago).
Hind wanted to dig up Aminah and insisted on that. But the Quraishi leaders refused her action so that the Arabs would not dig out their dead.
Our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) headed the Muslims. Abu Sufyan headed the polytheists.
Our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) ordered fifty skilled bow men to stay at the foot of al-Ainain Mount to protect the Muslims' back troops. He ordered them not to leave their places under any circumstance.
The polytheists began attacking the Muslims. Uthman bin Abi-Talha, the banner holder, was in advance.
Hind and some women were surrounding him. They were beating the drums, and encouraging the fighters to fight.
They were singing the following lines of poetry (the meaning only):
We, Tariq's daughters, walk on the cushions.
Like the walking of bright sand grouse,
Musk is in the partings.
The pearls are round the necks.
If you advance, we'll embrace you.
And if you escape, we'll abandon you.
And the abandonment will be sorrowful.
Hamza shouted with enthusiasm:
I'm the son of the water carriers of pilgrims!
He attacked the banner holder. He hit him and cut off his hand. So the banner holder retreated. Then, his brother took the banner.
The Muslims were attacking them intensely. The banner holders were falling over the ground one by one.
When the banner fell to the ground, the polytheists became dismayed. So, they ran away. The great idol, which they took to grant them a victory fell off the camel!
The Muslims chased the runaway. The archers forgot the Holy Prophet's orders and left the foot of the mountain to collect booty. So, the lines of the Muslim Army was subjected to being surrounded and attacked.
Khalid bin al-Waleed, a polytheist then, took the Muslims aback. The surprise left the Muslim Army in chaos.
Wahshy, a slave from Makkah, was holding a long spear and looking for al-Hamza. He was thinking about nothing but to kill al-Hamza.
During the strong clashes, Wahshy was behind a big rock looking at al-Hamza.
While al-Hamza was busy fighting, Wahshy aimed his spear and threw it at the Prophet's uncle. The spear hit al-Hamza on the belly.
Al-Hamza tried to attack Wahshy. But he fell to the ground and became a martyr.
Wahshy ran fast to tell Hind about his action.
Hind rejoiced. She took off her gold and gave it to Wahshy and said:
I'll give you ten Dinars when we go back to Makkah.
Hind hurried to al-Hamza's body. She cut off his ears and nose to make a necklace. Then she drew a dagger and cut open the martyr's belly She took out his liver savagely and bit it like the dog.
Then Abu Sufyan came and tore al-Hamza's body with his spear.

The Master of Martyrs
The polytheists withdrew from the battlefield. Our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) and his companions came down the mountain to bury the martyrs.
The Prophet (S.A.W.) asked his companions about the place of al-Hamza.
Al-Harith said:I know his place.
Our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) asked al-Harith to show him al-Hamza's body
The man went about looking for him. He found his body torn. So, he hated to tell the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) about it.
Our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) ordered Ali(A.S.) to look for al-Hamza's body. He found him. He did not tell the Holy Prophet because he did not want to hurt him.
So, our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) himself went to look for him. He found him in a sorrowful condition.
Our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) wept very much when he saw what they had done to al-Hamza's body.
The wolves did not do what Hind and Abu Sufyan did.
Our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) was very angry. So, he said:
Uncle, may Allah have mercy upon you. You had done good deeds and maintained close relations with your relatives! If Allah grants me a victory, I'll maim seventy persons of the Quraish.
The Muslims swore by Allah to do that. So, Jibreel came down and read this verse:
And if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that which you were afflicted; but if you are patient it will certainly be best for those who are patient.
So Allah's Apostle forgave them. He was patient. And he prevented the Muslims from maiming.
Our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) took off his gown and covered the martyr and said to him:
Uncle, The Lion of Allah, the Lion of His Apostle, doer of good deeds, remover of worries, defender of Allah's Apostle, and saver of his face.
Safiyah, al-Hamza's sister and our Master Muhammad's aunt, went with Fatima aI-Zahra(A.S.) to make sure of the Holy Prophet's safety.
Ali bin Abi Talib (A.S..) came across Safiyah and said to her:
Aunt, come back!
He did not want her to see her brother in that condition. But she said:
I won't came back till I see Allah's Apostle.
In the distance, the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) saw her. So, he ordered her son al-Zubair not to allow her to see her martyred brother.
Al-Zubair received her and said:
Mother, come back.
She said:Till I see Allah's Apostle.
When she saw our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) and made sure of his safety, she asked him about al-Hamza:
Where's my brother?
The Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) kept silent. So, Safiyah knew that her brother became a martyr. So, she and Fatima al-Zahra(A.S.) wept over their martyred brother and uncle.
So, our Master Muhammad (S.A.W.) condoled them:
Be cheerful! Jibreel told me that Hamza has been regarded as the Lion of Allah and the Lion of His Apostle in the Heavens!
Uhud Mount stands as evidence for al-Hamza's bravery, the Master of the Martyrs, and the polytheists' savageness.
Ref: Imam Reza Network

Maitham al-Tammar

It was dawn. As usual, Maitham went to the date-palm trunk. He splashed it with water. The good ground sent out a sweat smell. Maitham said two Rakaas. Then he put his back against the date palm trunk.
Maitham had visited the date palm for more than twenty years. It had not been a mere dry trunk. It had been a tall date palm before twenty years. Days, months, and years passed. Maitham said two Rikaas near the date palm. Then he addressed it:
"Allah has created you for me. And He has created me for you." Maitham liked that date palm. He watered it when it was green. One day, he came to the date palm. He found it a dry trunk. He cut the top of the trunk. That tall date palm became a mere short trunk. Still Maitham went on visiting that dry trunk. Who was Maitham? What was the relationship between him and that date palm?

Maitham's Origin
Maitham was born at Nihrawan near Kufa. He belonged to Iran. A woman from bani Asad bought him. One day, Imam Ali (A.S.) bought and gave him his freedom. Maitham became free. He sold dates in Kufa Market. Maitham lived a simple life.
Two things grew in his heart: faith in Islam and love for Imam Ali (A.S.). Imam Ali (A.S.) taught him that Islam was the only way to freedom. Imam Ali (A.S.) liked Maitham because he was a good man. The Imam went to Maitham's shop. He taught him about Islam.

The Real Name
Imam Ali (A.S.) bought Maitham from a woman belonged to bani-Asad. The Imam asked Maitham:
"What is your name"? "Saalim",
he replied.
The Imam said:
"Allah's Apostle (P.B.U.H.) has told me that the Iranians call you Maitham."
Maitham was astonished because no one knew his real name. So, he said:
"Allah and His Apostle are truthful."
Since that day, Maitham had not left the Imam.

In the Desert
Whoever goes to the desert at night will see the sky full of stars. His heart will be afraid of Allah. Imam Ali (A.S.) went to the desert at night to say his prayers. He took a friend of his to that desert to teach him a lesson about Islam.
Sometimes, Imam Ali (AS.) took Maitham to the desert. He told him about future matters. The Imam did not know the unseen. He learnt future matters from our master Muhammad (P.B.U.H.). Maitham listened to Imam Ali's words. The Imam said his prayers. Maitham said them behind him. He listened with awe to the Imam's prayers.

At al-Tammar's Shop
Imam Ali (A.S.) went to the market to meet Maitham al Tammar. He sat and talked with him. Some people passed by them. They did not know the Imam. And some knew him. They were astonished to see the Imam sitting with a dates-seller.
One day Imam Ali (A.S.) went to the market. He sat with Maitham. After a while, Maitham wanted to go to by something. He asked the Imam's permission and went away. The Imam stayed behind to sell dates. In the meantime, a man came to buy some dates for four dirhams. The man took the dates and went away. Maitham came back. He was astonished to see the Dirhams because they were false. The Imam smiled and said:
"The owner of the Dirhams will come back."
Again Maitham became astonished. He wondered: The man bought the dates by false Dirhams! How will he come back? After an hour, the owner of the Dirhams came back. He said with annoy: "I do not want these dates! They are bitter! Why are they bitter"? The Imam said:
"Because your Dirhams are false."
The man was full of astonishment. He took the Dirhams and went away.

The Nation's Scholar
Maitham was a brilliant. He learnt his knowledge from Imam Ali (A.S.). One day he said to Abdullah bin Abbas, the nation scholar: "Ask me whatever you want to know about the Koran explanation. I've learnt everything from Imam Ali (A.S.)."
So, bin Abbas sat before Maitham to learn lessons about the Quran's explanation.
Amru bin Huraith Amru bin Huraith was a leader from Kufa. Maitham said to him:
"I'll be your neighbour. Treat me kindly."
Amru said:
"Do you want to buy bin Masoud's house or bin al-Hakim's"? Maitham kept silent. Amru bin Huraith was puzzled. He wondered: What does Maitham mean? Days and years passed. Unjust rulers succeeded each other over Kufa. They treated people rudely.

The Market
Zyyad bin Abeeh became a ruler over Kufa. He began killing Imam Ali's companions. He carried out Mu'awiyah's orders. Mu'awiyah was full of spite.
He ordered people to abuse Imam Ali (A.S.). The ruler appointed a man to look after the market. The man was unjust. The people complained of his bad treatment. The people were afraid of the man. Thus, they went to Maitham.
They asked Maitham to go with them to the Prince. They said to him:
"Maitham, come with us to the prince."
Maitham went with them. He met the Prince and told him about the rude treatment in the market. A policeman in the Palace was displeased with Maitham's words. He said to the Prince:
"Your Highness, the Prince, do you know this man?"
The Prince said:
"No"
He's a liar! The supporter of the liar! said the policeman. The policeman meant that Maitham was one of Imam Ali's companion. Maitham said:
"Surely, I'm truthful! I'm supporter of the truthful man. Really, he's Amirul-Momineen! (The Commander of the faithful)."

A Meeting on the Road
Habeeb bin Muzahir was a good companion. After our master Mohammed's demise, Habeeb had a close relationship with Imam Ali (A.S.).
One day, Maitham was riding a horse. Habeeb bin Muzahir was riding a horse, too. They met each other before bani-Asad. They had a short talk. Bani-Asad listened to their talk. Habeeb said with a smile:
"I predict that a bald man with a big belly will sell melons at Dar al-Rizk. The man will be killed for the love of his Prophet's family." Maitham said:
"I know that a red man with two plaits would appear. The man will support the son of the daughter of his Prophet. The man will be beheaded. His head will be carried through the streets of Kufa." The two friends saw off each other. Bani Asad said:
"They are liars."
In the meantime, Rasheed al-Hajry passed by bani-Asad. He asked them about Habeeb and Maitham. Bani-Asad said:
"They have just gone away."
Then bani Asad told Rasheed about Habeeb and Maitham's predictions. Rasheed said with a smile:
"May Allah have mercy on Maitham. He's forgotten who brings the head will be given an extra hundred dirhams."
Rasheed went away. Bani Asad were astonished at his words. Then they said:
"Rasheed is a liar too."
Days passed. In Muharram, 61 A.H., bani Asad saw Habeeb's head. It was tied to a long spear. They saw bin Zyyad's policeman carrying the head and walking through the streets of Kufa.

The Caravan
Mu'awiyah bin Abu-Sufyan died. His son Yazeed succeeded him. Yazeed was a young man aged thirty. He drank alcohol. He amused himself with dogs and the monkeys. So, Imam Hussein (A.S.) refused to pay Yazeed homage. Meanwhile, the Kufians were tired of Mu'awiyah's persecution.
Thus, they sent Imam Hussein (A.S.) many letters. In their letters, they asked the Imam to come to save them from Umayyad persecution. The spies told Yazeed about the situation in Kufa. Yazeed had a spiteful Christian doctor called Sergon. He asked the advice of the doctor. Sergon advised him to appoint Ubaidullah bin Zyyad a ruler over Kufa.

The Prison
Many companions of Imam Ali (A.S.) supported Imam Hussein (A.S.). Many Muslims supported him too. Ubaidullah bin Zyyad arrived in Kufa. He began arresting and imprisoning Imam Hussein's supporters.
Maitham, al-Mukhtar al-Thaqafy, and Abdullah bin al-Harith were in the same prison. Imam Hussein (A.S.) died a martyr for Islam. The prisoners felt pain for him. Al-Mukhtar said to his two friends: "Be ready to meet Allah! After Imam Hussein's killing, Ubaidullah bin Zyyad will kill the Imam's supporters."
Abdullah bin al-Harith said:
"Yes, he will kill us sooner or later."
Maitham said:
"No, he won't kill you. My dear Imam Ali (A.S.) has told me that you (al-Mukhtar) will get revenge of Imam Hussein's killers. And you will kick Ubaidullah's head with your foot."
Then Maitham said to Abdullah bin al-Harith:
"You'll rule Basra."
Faith Maitham deeply believed in Allah. He was not afraid of the unjust. People were afraid of bin Zyyad. They shook with fear when they saw him. But Maitham did not pay attention to him. He knew that Ubaidullah's death was certain.
He knew that the unjust would not stay alive forever. Mu'awiyah and his son Yazeed prevented people from loving Imam Ali (A.S.). The police arrested and killed the Imam's companions. Imam Ali (A.S.) had told his companions about the Umayyad police. One day he said to Maitham:
"The Umayyads will order you to disown me. Will you do that"? Maitham said
"No."
Maitham thought that to disown Imam Ali (A.S.) meant to disown Islam. And to disown Islam meant to disown Allah. The Imam said: "Surely, you'll be killed."
Maitham said:
"I'll be patient! Death is little for Allah."
The Imam said:
"You'll be with me in the Paradise."

The Martyrdom
Ubaidullah bin Zyyad ordered the police to bring Maitham. He said to him:
"I've heard that you're a companion of Ali's."
Maitham said:
"Yes."
Ubaidullah bin Zyyad said to Maitham:
"Will you disown him"?
Maitham said:
"By Allah, Imam Ali (A.S.) has told me that you will kill me! He has told me that you will cut my hands, legs, and tongue."
Ubaidullah bin Zyyad angrily said:
"Your Imam is a liar."
Maitham jeered at that foolish person (Ubaidullah bin Zyyad). Ubaidullah bin Zyyad ordered the police to tie Maitham to the date palm trunk near the house of Amru bin Huraith. Besides, he ordered them to cut off his hands and legs.

The Neighbour
Maitham was tied to the date palm trunk. Amru bin Huraith saw him. Amru remembered Maitham's words:
"I'll be you neighbour. Treat me kindly."
So, Amru bin Huraith ordered one of his daughters to sweep the ground around the date palm trunk. He also ordered her to splash it with water. A person looked at Maitham and said:
"Disown Ali to save your soul."
Maitham said with a smile.
"By Allah, this date palm has been created for me! And I've been created for it."
Thus, the people knew the secret of Maitham's visit to the date palm throughout the long years.

People
Maitham addressed the people:
"People, If you want to hear some information about Ali bin Abu-Talib, then come to me."
The people crowded around Maitham. He began teaching them various kinds of knowledge. The spies told Ubaidullah bin Zyyad about Maitham's words.
Ubaidullah bin Zyyad ordered a policeman to cut off Maitham's tongue.
Maitham said:
"Amirul-Momineen has told me about that
Then the policeman cut off Maitham's tongue. Another policeman stabbed him with a sword. Thus this Mujahid's life put out as the candles did!

Maitham's Body
Maitham did a lot good for the people. The people loved him very much. They wanted to take Maitham's body to bury it, but the police strictly prevented them from approaching it.
One night, seven dates-sellers came. They saw the policeman burning a fire. Two of them sawed the trunk. The seven dates-sellers carried Maitham's body outside Kufa. They buried it at a known place. Then they came back home. Six years passed. Al-Mukhtar announced his revolution in Kufa. His army met Ubaidullah's on Al-Khazir Riverbank.
Ibraheem al-Ashtar could behead Ubaidullah bin Zyyad. Some fighters brought al-Mukhtar Ubaidullah's head. He stood up and kicked Ubaidullah's head. He remembered Maitham's words in the prison:
"Al-Mukhtar, you'll get out of prison. You'll get revenge on Imam Hussein's killers."
Days passed. Imam Hussein's killers parished. People have cursed them throughout history. Today, the visitor leaves the Holy Najaf City. He goes to see Kufa ruins. On the way he sees a beautiful dome. The dome decorates Maitham's shrine
Ref: Imam Reza Network

The Famous Sahaba of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAWA)

Compiled By: Syed Ali Shahbaz
Martyrdom of Ammar Yasser
On 9th of the Islamic month of Safar in 37 AH, Ammar Yasser, one of the close disciples of Prophet Mohammad (SAWA), attained martyrdom at the age of 93 during a battle in the War of Siffin, in defence of Islam, while fighting hypocrisy and sedition in the company of the Prophet ’s First Infallible Successor, Imam Ali (AS). He was killed in cowardly manner from behind by one of the commanders of the Omayyad rebel, Mu’awiyah ibn Abu Sufyan, and thus the Prophet’s prediction that Ammar will be martyred by a heretical group came true. His parents, Yasser and Somayyah, were the first martyrs of Islam.
They were tortured to death by the pagan Arabs of Mecca, such as Abu Sufyan, for believing in the monotheist message of Prophet Mohammad (SAWA). Ammar stood firm against the persecutions of disbelievers and on several occasions accompanied the Prophet in the expeditions against the pagan Arabs. After the passing away of the Prophet, he stood firmly beside Imam Ali (AS) and refused to accept the regime in Medina that had usurped political power through the coup at Saqifa Bani Sa'da, and among whose ranks were many of the same pagan Arabs such as Abu Sufyan and Mu’awiyah who now hypocritically claimed to be Muslim. Ammar’s mausoleum is situated in Reqqa, Syria, at the site of his martyrdom, and is visited by pilgrims.
Owais Qarani, the devout follower of Prophet Mohammad (SAWA) from Yemen
On 18th of of the Islamic month of Safar in 37 AH, Owais Qarani, the devout follower of Prophet Mohammad (SAWA) from Yemen, who personally did not meet the Prophet, attained martyrdom during a battle of the War of Siffin in defence of the cause of the Prophet's First Infallible Successor, Imam Ali ibn Abil Taleb (AS). He was a victim of the treachery of the Omayyad rebel, Mu'awiyah ibn Abu Sufyan, who had incited civil war amongst Muslims.
Owais was born in Qaran in Yemen and lived a life of piety. On hearing of the message of Islam, he became a Muslim and journeyed to Medina to meet the Prophet who was not in Medina, and Owais had to return to Yemen without meeting him since his mother was very sick. When the Prophet heard about this he blessed Owais and prayed for him. After the passing away of the Prophet, the devout Owais gave his pledge of allegiance to Imam Ali (AS), and was an ardent supporter of the cause of the Ahl al-Bayt. When seditionists started civil wars amongst Muslims, he stood steadfastly beside the Imam, until he attained martyrdom. His tomb in Reqqa near the Syrian city of Aleppo is a site of pilgrimage today.
Ref: Imam Reza Network