Continued from :
Part 1
Yazid's oppression received a boost when Abdullah ibn Umar supported him and urged people to swear the oath of fealty to him, so he raised an army under the command of Uqbah, one of the leading adulterers of his time, ordering him to assault Medina, the city of the Prophet, permitting him to do whatever he wished in it. Uqbah, therefore, killed ten thousand sahabis and took their wives as captives then confiscated their property. He also killed seven hundred huffaz of the Holy Qur'an according to the prominent Sunni scholar/historian al-Baladhuri, permitting his army to rape many free Muslim women to the extent that the latter gave birth to an estimated one thousand illegitimate babies. Then he forced them to swear that they were all slaves of his master Yazid... Was not Abdullah ibn Umar his accomplice in all of that, since he supported and empowered him? I leave the researchers to derive their own conclusion.
Abdullah ibn Umar was not satisfied with all of that; rather, he went beyond it to swear the oath of allegiance to Marwan ibn al-Hakam, the bedeviled accursed one, the promiscuous adulterer, who fought Ali openly and killed Talhah and did so many horrible things such as burning the House of Allah and shelling it with catapults, demolishing one of its corners and killing in that incident Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, in addition to other shameful actions.
Then Ibn Umar reaches in swearing his oath of allegiance new heights when he swore it to al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf al-Thaqafi, the greatest apostate who used to make fun of the Holy Qur'an and label it as Arab martial poetry, preferring his master Abdul-Malik ibn Marwan over the Messenger of Allah. This al-Hajjaj is the same one who was known by the elite as well as the commoners as having belittled all Islamic tenets.
In his Tarikh, the world famous Sunni Scholar, hafiz Ibn Asakir indicates that two men disputed with one another about al-Hajjaj. One of them said that he was a kafir, an apostate, whereas the other said that he was a daall mu'min, a believer who went astray. When they persisted, they asked al-Sha`bi about his view. Al-Sha`bi said, "He is a mu'min [believer] in as far as oppression and tyranny are concerned, a kafir [disbeliever] in Allah, the Great." [Ref: 230]
This criminal al-Hajjaj is the one who violated everything, which Allah decreed not to be violated. Historians record that he was excessive in killing, torturing and mutilating the corpses of the righteous of the nation, especially Shi`a followers of Muhammad's, for these suffered at his hands more than at the hands of anyone else.
In his Tarikh, Ibn Qutaybah says that in one single day, al-Hajjaj killed more than seventy thousand men to the extent that the blood flow reached the mosque's door as well as the highways. [Ref: 231] And in his Sahih, al-Tirmidhi, having counted those executed by al-Hajjaj, says, "After his [al-Hajjaj's] death, eighty thousand prisoners were found in his jail, including thirty thousand women." [Ref: 232]
Al-Hajjaj used to compare himself to the Lord of Might and Honor: whenever he passed by the jail and heard the prisoners crying of pain and pleading for mercy, he used to say to them [what the Almighty says in the Holy Qur'an]: "Remain in abjection therein, and do not speak to me" (Holy Qur'an, 23:108).
Such is al-Hajjaj who was prophesied by the Messenger of Allah before his demise; he said, "There is in [the tribe of] Thaqeef a liar and an annihilator." What is strange is that the narrator of this tradition is none other Abdullah ibn Umar himself! [Ref: 233]
Yes, Abdullah ibn Umar was reluctant to swear the oath of allegiance to the best of mankind after the Prophet and did not support him, nor did he even prays behind him; therefore, Allah, Glory to Him, humiliated him. He went to al-Hajjaj once and said, "I have heard the Messenger of Allah saying, `Whoever dies owing an oath of allegiance will die the death of jahiliyya.'" Al-Hajjaj the accursed, thereupon, despised him and pointed his foot at him saying, "My hand is busy right now; so, swear your oath of allegiance to this." He used to pray behind al-Hajjaj, the apostate, and behind his wali Najdah ibn Amir, head of the Kharijites. [Ref: 234]
There is no doubt that Abdullah ibn Umar preferred to pray behind these men only because they were famous for cursing and denouncing Ali after the prayers. Ibn Umar used to gratify his hidden grudge and animosity whenever he heard such cursing, feeling very contented at heart and very satisfied therewith. For this reason, we find the sect of "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" enjoining prayers behind the righteous as well as the promiscuous based on what their master and the faqih of their sect Abdullah ibn Umar doing likewise and praying behind the apostate al-Hajjaj and the Kharijite Najdah ibn Amir.
As for the Prophet's statements such as these: "The one who should be the Imam of people is their best in reciting the Book of Allah. If they all recite it equally well, he should be the most knowledgeable of the Sunnah. If they all know the Sunnah equally well, he should be their foremost in having participated in the Hijra. If they had all participated in the Hijra at the same time, he should be the foremost in having accepted Islam...," they surely are discarded...
None of these four merits, namely reciting the Holy Qur'an, safeguarding the Sunnah, early participation in the Hijra, and early acceptance of Islam, applies to those to whom Ibn Umar swore his oath of allegiance and behind whom he prayed: neither in Mu`awiyah, nor in Yazid, nor in Marwan, nor in al-Hajjaj, nor in Najdah, the Kharijite...
This, of course, is only one of the Sunnah injunctions, which Abdullah ibn Umar violated. He discarded them altogether and acted exactly to their contrary. He abandoned the master of the Prophet's purified Progeny, namely Ali, in whom all these and many more merits were combined. Rather, he turned his back to him and went to join the corrupt ones, the Kharijites, the apostates, the enemies of Allah and His Messenger, praying behind them!
How many are the violations of the faqih of "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" Abdullah ibn Umar, violations of both the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger? If we wish, we can gather them in a separate book, but the following examples, which are quoted from their own books and Sahihs, should suffice to back our argument:
Violations of Abdullah ibn Umar of the Book and the Sunnah
Allah, the Most Exalted One, has said in His Glorious Book, "Fight the one [party] that acts wrongfully till it returns to obeying Allah's Command" (Holy Qur'an, 49:9). The Messenger of Allah has said, "O Ali! You shall fight after me the renegades, those who equal others with Allah, and the heretics."
Abdullah ibn Umar violated this text of the Holy Qur'an as well as the above quoted tradition, and he violated the consensus (ijma`) of the nation, of the Muhajirs and the Ansar who fought beside the Commander of the Faithful, following his own view and saying, "I shall not fight in the dissension, and I shall pray behind whoever wins." [Ref: 235] Sunni Historian Ibn Hajar has indicated that Abdullah ibn Umar was of the view that one should avoid fighting during a dissension even if one of the two parties is right and the other is wrong. [Ref: 236]
Truly strange, by Allah, is the case of Abdullah ibn Umar who sees one party being right and the other being wrong yet refraining from supporting the right one or from curbing the wrong party till it returns to obedience to Allah! He performed his prayers behind whoever won, albeit if the winner was a wrong doer! This is exactly what happened to Ibn Umar, for Mu`awiyah won and subdued the nation, forcing his authority on it. Ibn Umar then came and swore the oath of allegiance to Mu`awiyah and prayed behind him despite all the crimes and sins which he had committed and which are beyond one's imagination and with which Ibn Umar was fully familiar.
The wrong doers from the leaders of oppression, due to their numerical superiority, won victory over the leaders of the truth who were the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt. So the latter were excluded from authority, whereas the promiscuous, the adulterers, the straying criminals, came to rule the nation with force and oppression.
Ibn Umar abandoned the truth all of it, so history does not record any friend for him nor any affinity towards Ahl al-Bayt five of whose Imams were his contemporaries. He did not pray behind a single one of them. He did not quote one of their ahadith, and he did not recognize a single virtue or merit of any of them.
We have come to know, while discussing the Twelve Imams in this book, what his view with regard to the ones whom he labelled as the twelve caliphs was. He regarded as authentic the caliphate of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Yazid, al-Saffah, Salam, al-Mansour, Jabir, al-Mahdi, al-Amin, and their team head [Mu`awiyah], saying, "All these twelve are descendants of Banu Ka`b ibn Luayy, and they are all unmatched in righteousness."[Ref: 237]
Do you see among these men any of the Imams of guidance from the Prophet's Progeny who were described by the Messenger of Allah as the ark of salvation and the peers of the Qur'an?
For this reason, you cannot trace any presence for them among "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a," nor is there even one Imam from Ahl al-Bayt on the list of imams and caliphs they emulate. Such is the case of Abdullah ibn Umar in his violation of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger. As for his own ignorance of the same, you may say whatever you wish. Among the indications of such ignorance is his being unaware of the fact that the Prophet permitted women to wear sandals when wearing the ihram garb; Ibn Umar issued fatawa prohibiting it. [Ref: 238]
Another is the leasing of his farms during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah as well as during the reign of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Mu`awiyah to the extent that one of the sahaba talked to him near the end of Mu`awiyah's reign and told him that the Messenger of Allah had prohibited it. [Ref: 239]
Yes; such is the faqih of "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a;" he did not know that it was haram to lease farms, and there is no doubt that he used to issue his verdicts permitting it during that entire period which lasted from the time of the Prophet to the end of Mu`awiyah's reign, a period of about fifty years...
Yet another example is Ayesha denouncing his verdict that a deceased person is tormented because of the weeping of the living over him, and also with regard to morning athan, and his saying that the month is twenty-nine days. She opposed him in several other issues as well.
Other examples are recorded by both shaykhs, namely al-Bukhari and Muslim, in the Sahih of each one of them: Abdullah ibn Umar was told that Abu Hurayra used to say, "I heard the Messenger of Allah saying, `Whoever walks behind a coffin will receive one karat of rewards.'" Ibn Umar responded by [sarcastically] saying, "Abu Hurayra has surely been generous with such karats!" Ayesha, however, testified to the authenticity of Abu Hurayra's tradition saying, "I heard the Messenger of Allah saying so." It was then that Ibn Umar said, "We surely have missed quite a few karats!"[Ref: 240]
Suffices us in this regard the testimony of Umar ibn al-Khattab with regard to his son Abdullah: On his deathbed, Umar was asked by a flatterer, "Why don't you recommend Abdullah ibn Umar to be the next caliph?" Umar said, "Shall I recommend a man who does not know even how to divorce his wife [according to the Shari`a]?"
Such is Abdullah, the son of Umar ibn al-Khattab, and nobody knew him better than his father. As for the false traditions whereby he served his master Mu`awiyah, these are quite numerous indeed. We would like to mention a few of them by way of sampling: He said, "The Messenger of Allah said, `A man from the people of Paradise will soon come to you,' whereupon Mu`awiyah came. Then he said, `Tomorrow, a man from the people of Paradise will come to you;' Mu`awiyah came. Then he repeated the same about the next day, whereupon Mu`awiyah came."
Another is his saying, "When the Ayat al-Kursi was revealed, the Messenger of Allah told Mu`awiyah to write it down. `What shall I get if I do so?' asked Mu`awiyah. He said, `Whenever anyone recites it, you will receive the reward of its recitation.'"
Another is his saying, "Mu`awiyah will surely be resurrected on the Resurrection Day outfitted with a robe of the light of iman."
I do not know why "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" did not add Mu`wiyah's name to the list of the ten men who received the glad tidings of going to Paradise since their master Ibn Umar emphasized thrice, in three consecutive days, that Mu`awiyah was to go to Paradise. Since people on the Resurrection Day will be raised bare-footed, naked, Mu`awiyah will be their very best because he will be outfitted with a robe made of the light of iman! So read such statements and wonder!
Such is Abdullah ibn Umar; such is the extent of his knowledge; such is his fiqh and violation of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Prophet; such is his enmity towards the Commander of the Faithful and the pure Imams from the Progeny of the Prophet, and such is his loyalty and flattery of the enemies of Allah and His Messenger, the enemies of humanity.
The only person who was on clear guidance from his Lord, who never doubted the truth even for the twinkling of an eye, was Ali ibn Abu Talib, Allah's peace be upon him, with whom the truth revolved wherever he revolved, accompanying him wherever he went. So congratulations to whoever follows and emulates him. In fact, the Messenger of Allah himself said, "You, O Ali, and your followers [Shi`as] are surely the victorious on the Day of Judgment." [Ref: 244]
Is He then Who guides to what is right more worthy of being followed, or he who does not guide unless he himself is guided? What is the matter with you? How do you judge? (Holy Qur'an, 10:35)
Surely Allah, the Great, has said the truth.
The Righteous Caliphs According to "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah"
These, according to them, are the four caliphs who ascended the seat of caliphate following the demise of the Messenger of Allah. "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" advocate these caliphs' superiority over all other people with the exception of the Prophet in the same chronological order of their caliphate. This is what we hear even these days. We have, however, come to know from previous researches that Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib, peace be upon him, was not counted among them as one of the caliphs, much less a righteous one; rather, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal added his name at a much later time to the list. Prior to that, he used to be cursed from the pulpits in all Muslim lands and throughout the Umayyad Empire.
In order to shed more light on this subject, and so that the reader may feel comfortable about the truth regarding this regretful fact, his attention is invited to the following:
We have already said that Abdullah ibn Umar is regarded by "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" as one of the most prominent faqihs, and Malik makes him his major authority upon whom he depends in his book Al-Muwatta'. He is also relied upon by both al-Bukhari and Muslim in the Sahih written by each of them. All other transmitters of hadith, without any exception, rely on him.
This man was famous for his open hatred of the Commander of the Faithful Ali ibn Abu Talib. History tells us that he refused to swear the oath of allegiance to Ali, yet he rushed to swear his oath of allegiance to the cursed al-Hajjaj, the enemy of Allah and His Messenger. [Ref: 122]
Abdullah ibn Umar revealed what he was hiding in his chest and disclosed his best-kept secret when he said that he could not count even one single favor or merit or good quality of Ali that warranted placing him in the fourth place after Uthman ibn Affan.
We have already come to know that he favored only Abu Bakr and Umar; as for Ali, peace be upon him, he, in his assessment, was among the commoners, if not the very least important among them.
Let me provide you with another fact which narrators of hadith and historians have recorded, and which openly expresses the hateful and antagonistic nature of Ibn Umar towards Ali and all Imams from the pure Progeny of the Prophet: Abdullah ibn Umar has said the following while trying to explain the tradition of the Prophet in
Which he said, "The caliphs after me shall be twelve; all of them are from Quraysh":
This nation shall have twelve caliphs who are: Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq, Umar al-Farooq, Uthman Thul Noorain, Mu`awiyah and his son as the kings of the holy lands (Mecca and Medina), al-Saffah, Salam, Mansour, Jabir, al-Mahdi, al-Ameen, Ameer al-Asab, who all are from Banu Ka`b ibn Luayy, and they are righteous and peerless. [Ref: 123]
So read this statement, dear reader, again and wonder about such faqih who is so highly respected by "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" and notice how he distorts the facts and turns them upside down, making Mu`awiyah and his son Yazid as well as al-Saffah [a title meaning: the blood-shedder] the best of Allah's servants, further stating that they are peerless! Surely grudge and ignorance have blinded his eye sight just as envy and animosity have blinded his mind [Ref: 124] to the extent that he cannot see any merit or favor for the commander of the Faithful Ali over whom he prefers Mu`awiyah, the morally depraved man, and his atheist, criminal, and blood-thirsty son Yazid.
Abdullah ibn Umar is the son of his father. Whatever comes from its source surprises nobody, and every pot drips of its contents. His father used all possible means to exclude Ali, peace be upon him, from the caliphate, and to make him look insignificant in the eyes of the public. And here we see his [Umar ibn al-Khattab's] spiteful and hateful son, despite Ali's ascension to the caliphate after Uthman's murder and after having received the oath of allegiance from the Muhajirun and Ansar, refusing to swear the oath of allegiance to Ali and trying his best to put his light out and stir people against him in order to cause his downfall. He, therefore, kept making statements and fooling people into thinking that Ali, peace be upon him, had no merits,
and that he was like any other ordinary man.
Abdullah ibn Umar served the Umayyad dynasty and crowned both Mu`awiyah and his son Yazid with the crown of caliphate, telling lies and fabrications about the Prophet, recognizing the caliphate of al-Saffah and al-Mansour and all promiscuous rulers of Banu Umayyah, preferring them over the master of the Muslims and the wali of the believers according to the text of the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah. Yet he did not recognize Ali's caliphate even when it actually took place! How strange!
Enmity of "Ahl al-Sunnah" Towards Ahl ul-Bayt a.s Reveals their Identity
Any researcher stands dumbfounded when he collides with the reality about "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" and comes to know that they were the enemies of the pure Progeny of the Prophet, following those who fought Ahl al-Bayt and cursed them and spared no means to murder them and obliterate their legacy. This is why you find "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" placing the label of "reliable" on all traditionists if they are Kharijites or Nasibi followers of Uthman. They charge and accuse all the traditionists who are loyal to Ahl al-Bayt of being "weak."
You do not find such matters recorded openly in their books. But when they try to challenge the authenticity of accurate traditions recounting the merits of Ali ibn Abu Talib, they label them as "weak," saying, "Among the chain of its narrators is so-and-so who is a Rafidi." [Ref: 126]
And they label as "sahih," authentic, false traditions, which were fabricated in order to raise the status of and glorify the other caliphs even if their narrators were Nasibis. Being a Nasibi, according to them, is indicative of one's zeal about the Sunnah.
Sunni Historian, Ibn Hajar, for example, says the following about Abdullah ibn Idris al-Azdi, a very well known Nasibi, "He was a man who followed the Sunnah and Jama`ah, a zealot with regard to the Sunnah, and a follower of Uthman." [Ref: 127]
About Abdullah ibn Awn al-Basri he says, "He is held as reliable, and he is a man of piety and zeal about the Sunnah and toughness against the people of innovations. Ibn Sa`d has said that Abdullah ibn Awn al-Basri was a follower of Uthman." [Ref: 128]
And about Ibrahim ibn Ya`qub al-Jawzjani, who was famous for hating Ali, peace be upon him, he says that his sect was Hareezi, i.e. a follower of Hareez ibn Uthman of Damascus, the sect known as Nasibism [Ref: 129] Sunni Historian Ibn Hayyan describes Ibrahim as being zealous about the Sunnah, a man who memorized hadith.
It is noteworthy that this same Nasibi whom they praise by saying that he is zealous about the Sunnah and that he memorized hadith used to take the opportunity of other traditionists gathering at his door [asking permission to enter] to send one of his slave-girls with a hen in her hand to tour the town then to go back to her master, Ibrahim ibn Ya`qub al-Jawzjani, to tell him that she could not find anyone to slaughter it for her; he would then cry out: "Subhan-Allah! There is none to slaughter a hen whereas Ali in broad day light slaughters twenty thousand Muslims!"
Through such cunning and conniving, the Nasibis, enemies of Ahl al-Bayt, try to dissuade people from following the truth and mislead them through such false accusations in order to fill the Muslims' hearts, especially those of traditionists [such as the ones who used to meet al-Jawzjani to learn hadith from him] with hatred and animosity towards Ali ibn Abu Talib, peace be upon him, and thus permit cursing, taunting, and condemning him.
You can find such phenomenon even in our time. Despite the claim of contemporary "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" that they love Ahl al-Bayt and seek Allah's Pleasure with our master Ali, karrama-Allahu wajhahu (Allah glorified his countenance), as they say, if you narrate one hadith containing one of the virtues of Ali, peace be upon him, they ridicule you, charge you with Shi`ism, with being an innovator, and with being "extremist."
When you, however, discuss the caliphs Abu Bakr and Umar, and other sahaba they feel very comfortable talking to you. This is exactly the doctrine of their "good predecessors." Historians have transmitted saying
that Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal used to label as "weak" any traditionist who belittled Abu Bakr, Umar, or Uthman, while holding in high esteem Ibrahim al-Jawzjani, the afore-mentioned Nasibi, praising him a great deal. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal corresponded with him, recited his books from the pulpit, and used his works in support of his arguments.
If this is the case with regard to Ahmad ibn Hanbal who forced his contemporaries to recognize the caliphate of Ali, whom he ranked as their fourth, do not ask me about the others who did not admit even one single merit for Ali, or about those who cursed and condemned him from the pulpits during Fridays and Eids. Sunni Historian, Al-Dar Qutni, for example, says, "Ibn Qutaybah, spokesman of Ahl al-Sunnah, inclines to ascribing human characteristics (to Allah) and deviates from the line of the Prophet's `Itrat."
This proves that most "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" deviated from the path of the Progeny of the Messenger of Allah.
Al-Mutawakkil, whom traditionists called muhyi al-Sunnah, the person who revived the Sunnah, and whom Ahmad ibn Hanbal used to respect and hold in high regards and whose orders he endorsed in appointing judges, was one of the most notorious Nasibis who were antagonistic towards Ali and his Ahl al-Bayt, so much so that his grudge prompted him to desecrate the graves of both Ali and his son Husayn, peace be upon them. He used to forbid anyone from visiting their sites and would kill anyone named "Ali." In his dissertation, al-Khawarizmi quotes him saying that he used to generously reward with money only those who cursed the descendants of Abu Talib, peace be upon them, and support the sect of Nasibism. [Ref: 131]
Needless to say, Nasibism is one of the sects of "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a;" therefore, the promoter of Nasibism, namely al-Mutawakkil, is the same one labelled as muhyi al-Sunnah, the person who revived the Sunnah; so, consider. infamous Sunni historian, Ibn Kathir, in his Al-Bidaya wal Nihaya, tells us that when "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" heard al-A`mash narrating the tradition of the roasted bird, which contains a praise of Ali ibn Abu Talib (peace be upon him), they took him out of the mosque then washed the place where he used to sit. [Ref: 132]
They also opposed the burial of Imam Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, author of Al-Tafsir al-Kabir (the great exegesis) and the great historian, for no reason other than his admission of the authenticity of hadith al-Ghadeer in which the Prophet is quoted saying, "Whoever regards me as his/her mawla (master), this Ali is (henceforth) his/her master." He collected its sources from various avenues. Those sources were quite numerous, so they came to be referred to as mutawatir, consecutively reported. Sunni Historian, Ibn Kathir has said, "I have seen one of his books wherein he compiled the traditions relevant to the Ghadeer incident, and it was in two huge volumes, in addition to another book in which he compiles the incidents relevant to the tradition of the roasted bird." [Ref: 133]
Ibn Hajar, another renowned sunni historian, too, has discussed him in his book Lisan al-Mizan, saying, "He is the great Imam and the highly respected interpreter of the Qur'an; he is trustworthy, truthful, and there is a good deal of Shi`ism in him and support (for Ahl al-Bayt, as) which is not detrimental (to his reliability)" [Ref: 134]
When Imam al-Nasa'i, the great traditionist and one of the authors of Al-Sihah al-Sittah (the six books of traditions which the Sunnis regard as sahih, authentic), wrote a book dealing with the merits of the Commander of the Faithful Ali, he was asked about Mu`awiyah's "merits," whereupon he answered: "I do not know of any except that the Messenger of Allah said to him once: `May Allah never satisfy your stomach.'" He was, therefore, beaten on his genitals till he lost consciousness. His body was carried to some place to die of such beating.
Sunni Historian, Ibn Kathir tells us the following in his Tarikh where he describes the violent confrontations that took place in Baghdad in 363 A.H./954 A.D. between the Shi`as and "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" on the anniversary of Ashura:
"A group from "Ahl al-Sunnah" seated a woman on an animal to play the role of Ayesha and brought some of their men to play Talha and al-Zubayr. They expressed their objective thus: "We want to fight the followers of Ali." A large number of people were killed." [Ref: 135]
This is what goes on nowadays, too: "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" attack Shi`as on Ashura in order to prohibit them from participating in the commemorative procession, killing many innocent Muslims.
After having conducted such an expose, it becomes clear to us that the Nasibis who antagonized Ali, peace be upon him, and who fought Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, are the ones who labelled themselves "Ahl al-Sunnah," and we have already come to know what "Sunnah" they mean and to what "consensus" they refer.
It is self-evident that whoever antagonizes the Progeny of the Messenger of Allah is an enemy of their grandfather the Prophet, and whoever antagonizes the Messenger of Allah is an enemy of Allah. It is likewise self-evident that anyone who is an opponent of Allah, His Messenger and Ahl al-Bayt cannot be among the true servants of the Merciful One, nor can he be among the followers of the Sunnah except when such a "Sunnah" is meant to be the "sunnah" of the devil. As for the Sunnah of the Merciful One, it is loving Allah and His Messenger and Ahl al-Bayt, following them and following in their footsteps. The most Exalted One has said, "Say: I do not ask you for any reward for it except to love my near relatives" (Holy Qur'an, 42:23).
So how can one compare Mu`awiyah with Ali, or the "imams" of misguidance with the Imams of guidance?
This is a clear statement for people, and guidance, and admonition, to those who fear their Lord.
(Holy Qur'an, 3:138)
Sunni References to the above article are below in
numerical order:
(Important Note: No Shia hadith or book or personality was used in the discussion above)
[122] Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf al-Thaqafi is the one who is very well known for his promiscuity, apostasy, crimes, and total lack of respect for the faith. Al-Hakim has recorded on p. 556, Vol. 3, of his Al-Mustadrak, and Ibn Asakir has also recorded on p. 69, Vol. 4, of his book, the fact that al-Hajjaj used to say, "Ibn Mas`ud claims that he recited a Qur'an revealed from Allah, and Allah is nothing more than a filth of the Arabs." He also used to say, "Fear Allah as much as you want, for doing so is completely futile, and listen to and obey the commander of the faithful Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan for you will then be generously rewarded." Also Ibn Aqeel records on p. 81 of his book Al-Nasaih al-Kafiya saying that al-Hajjaj delivered a speech once in Kufa and referred to those who were visiting the grave site of the Prophet at Medina thus: "May they perish! They go around sticks and decaying cadaver; why don't they go round the mansion of the commander of the faithful Abd al-Malik? Don't they know that someone's successor is better than his messenger?”
[123] This is stated on p. 140 of al-Suyuti's book Tarikh al-Khualfa, p. 140. Kanz al-Ummal, Vol. 6, p. 67, and also in the history books of Ibn Asakir and al-Dhahabi.
[124] Read it and do not forget the statement of the Prophet which al-Bukhari and Muslim recorded and which says: "Loving Ali ibn Abu Talib is a sign of iman (conviction), and hating him is a sign of hypocrisy," and the hypocrites during the time of the Prophet used to be identified by their hatred towards Ali .
[126] What they mean by "Rafidi" [literally: rejectionist] is someone who follows Ali and rejects the caliphate of those who preceded him in ruling over the Muslims.
[127] Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, Vol. 5, p. 145 and Vol. 1, p. 82.
[128] It is well known that the followers of Uthman are the Nasibis who accused Ali of being kafir, apostate, and they accused him of killing Uthman ibn Affan. They are headed by Mu`awiyah ibn Abu Sufyan, Uthman's cousin; so, he is their chief and leader.
[129] The Nasibis are Ali's enemies and the enemies of his Ahl al-Bayt from among the Kharijites, the Qasitis, and the renegades who antagonized him and fought him. After his martyrdom, they took to cursing and condemning him.
[130] Al-Dhahabi, Lisan al-Mizan, Vol. 3, p. 357.
[131] Refer to p. 135 of al-Khawarizmi's Rasaail (Letters).
[132] [As an act of purification from najasa, uncleanness or filth.] This incident is narrated on p. 147, Vol. 11, of Ibn Kathir's book Al Bidaya wal Nihaya.
[133] Ibid.
[134] This is mentioned when Ibn Hajar, author of Lisan al-Mizan, discusses the biography of Ibn Jarir al-Tabari.
[135] Ibn Kathir, Al-Bidaya wal Nihaya fil Fitan wal Malahim, Vol. 11, p. 275.
[218] Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Vol. 3, p. 158, in a chapter dealing with children reaching the age of adolescence. It is also mentioned in a chapter on adolescence in the Book of Government of Muslim's Sahih.
[219] The tradition of the standard is mentioned by al-Bukhari, Muslim, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa'i, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Abu Dawud, and all other traditionists.
[220] Al-Tabari, Tarikh, Vol. 5, p. 40. Al-Suyuti,, Tarikh al-Khulafa, p. 104. Ibn Qutaybah, Tarikh. Ahmad, Musnad, Vol. 1, p. 75.
[221] This statement was made by Umar ibn al-Khattab at the Prophet's Mosque in Medina shortly before his death. __ Tr.
[222] Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari, Vol. 7, p. 586.
[223] Muslim, Sahih, Vol. 6, p. 23. Al-Hakim, Mustadrak, Vol. 2, p. 156. Al-Bayhaqi, Sunan, Vol. 8, p. 144.
[224] This is recorded in Muslim's Sahih, in al-Bayhaqi's Sunan, and in Ibn Majah's Sunan.
[225] Ibn Sa`d, Tabaqat, Vol. 3, p. 248.
[226] Al-Baladhuri, Ansab al-Ashraf, Vol. 5, p. 31. Ibn Abd al-Birr, Al-Isti`ab, Vol. 2, p. 396. Usd al-Ghabah, Vol. 3, p. 289.
[227] Did Allah and His Messenger enjoin swearing the oath of allegiance to adulterers and criminals? Or did He enjoin swearing it to the righteous when He said, "Surely Allah is your Wali and His Messenger and those who believe who uphold the prayers and who pay the zakat even as they prostrate"?
[228] How we wish Ibn Umar had said the same to Talhah and al-Zubayr who reneged from their oath of allegiance to Ali and fought him, and how we wish "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" acted according to this tradition in classifying men! If violating the oath of allegiance is one of the greatest sins which follow apostasy, what is the fate of Talhah and al-Zubayr who did not only violate their oath of allegiance but also violated people's honor, killed innocent people and confiscated their wealth, and betrayed the promise?
[229] Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Vol. 1, p. 166. Ahmad, Musnad, Vol. 2, p. 96. Al-Bayhaqi, Sunan, Vol. 8,
p. 159.
[230] Ibn Asakir, Tarikh, Vol. 4, p. 81.
[231] Ibn Qutaybah. Tarikh al-Khulafa, Vol. 2, p. 26.
[232] Al-Tirmidhi, Sahih, Vol. 9, p. 64.
[233] Al-Tirmidhi, Sahih, Vol. 9, p. 64. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, Vol. 2, p. 91.
[234] Ibn Sa`d, Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, Vol. 4, p. 110. Ibn Hazm, Al-Muhalla, Vol. 4, p. 213.
[235] Ibn Sa`d, Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, Vol. 4, p. 110.
[236] Ibn Hajar states this fact on p. 39 of his book Al-Fath al-Bari.
[237] Al-Suyuti quotes this statement in his book Kanz al-Ummal, and it is quoted in the history books of both Ibn Asakir and al-Dhahabi. To know the other references with the number of their pages and volumes, refer to the chapter in this book dealing with the twelve successors according to the Sunnis.
[238] Abu Dawud, Sunan, Vol. 1, p. 289. Al-Bayhaqi, Sunan, Vol. 5, p. 25. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, Vol. 2, p. 29.
[239] Al-Bukhari, Sahih. Muslim, Sahih, Vol. 5, p. 21.
[240] This is recorded by al-Bukhari in his Sahih in a chapter dealing with the virtues of walking behind borne coffins in his Kitab al-Janaaiz (Book of Borne Coffins).
