Objection :
The major point of disagreement between Shia and Sunni is Respect of
Sunni Sahaba.I call them Sunni sahaba because Shia don’t consider them
Sahaba.But unfortunately this disagreement is becoming violent in many
countries, resulting in the loss of innocent civilian lives.
Is disrespecting or criticizing the Sunni Sahaba part of shia
religion? Can’t they forget the disagreements, if any, that they had
with Ali?
If the Shias started considering Sunni Sahaba as Just and decent,
even if inferior to Aaal e Rasul, Shia and Sunni can live like
brothers.
Reply :
Shia don't 'insult' the Sahaba. They present facts, and offer
academic discussions regarding their personalities. A few individuals
make slanderous, insulting remarks. Just like a few Sunnis do. We don't
punish Sunnis by death though, do we? Are Sunnis that uncomfortable with
the truth, that they must kill anyone who questions the 'Sahaba'?
How can you compare disrespect of the Prophet of Allah (S A W A) to
disrespect of the Sahaba? The Prophet (S A W A) was an infallible being,
sent by Allah (S W T). The Sahaba are fallible men.
Even the Qur'an seriously disrespects the "Sunni Sahaba", you know, the ones who doubted the Prophet, ran from battles, etc..
What , if we were living at the time of Prophet. Would we have been perfect? A lot of us would behave the exact way as the sahaba did.
How can an individual who accused the Prophet (S A W A) of being 'crazy' on his deathbed be considered just? I suggest you look at all the acts committed by the first three in your own books. If you still consider them 'just', then you have an extremely warped sense of justice.
I have a couple of questions for you on the above.
1) How do you determine if the person who remained in the company of the Prophet
died with Imaan? What is the yardstick to judge their imaan?2) There are hadiths which talk of people who even though remained in the company of the prophet
fought each other after his demise. Would they still qualify as Sahabas
and if they do then which one of the group is to be followed?A Shia definition of Sahaba is simple. In my view they are people who remained with the Prophet
during the testing times and remained steadfast if alive post his death
followed his orders and not introduced new bidah. They are the truthful
sahaba. .You mean cursing/abusing those particular names. Whereas the "Sunni" terrorists will martyr any one who even criticizes any of them, including Yazid and Muawiya, regardless of the fact that through history their own most valued books and scholars say far worse about them.
If one who abuses the sahaba is an infidel, why did Caliph Abu Bakr, in the presence of sahaba and a gathering of Muslims, abuse the most exalted sahabi, Ali Bin Abi Talib? You praise the merits of Abu Bakr although you should condemn him
Excuse me! We do not report anything until we have made complete inquiries. Perhaps you should consult Sharhe Nahju'lBalagha, Volume IV, page 80, where it is recorded that Abu Bakr, taunting Ali from the pulpit of the mosque, said: "He (Ali) is a fox, the evidence of which is its tail. He creates disturbances, minimizes the importance of big disturbances, and incites people to make an uproar. He seeks help from the weak and accepts assistance from women. He is like Ummi't-Tahal (an adulteress in the days of ignorance, as explained by Ibn Abi'l-Hadid) with whom the men of his family were fond of committing adultery."
Now you may compare Abu Bakr's abuse of Ali with the criticism made by Shias against the sahaba. If abusing any of the sahaba amounts to infidelity, then Abu Bakr, his daughter, A'yesha, Mu'awiya and his followers should be labelled infidels. If it does not constitute infidelity, then you cannot call the Shias infidels on that score.
CALIPH UMAR HELD THAT CURSING A MUSLIM IS NOT INFIDELITY
Moreover, according to the verdicts of your own great jurists and Caliphs, those who curse the Caliphs are not infidels.
Imam Ahmad Hanbal in his Musnad, Volume III, Ibn Sa'd Katib in his Kitab-e-Tabaqat, Qazi Ayaz in his Shifa, part IV of chapter 1, report that the governor of Caliph Umar, Ibn Abdu'l-Aziz, wrote from Kufa that a man had reviled and abused Umar Ibn Khattab, the second Caliph. The governor sought permission to execute the man. Umar Ibn Khattab replied that it was not permissible to take the life of a Muslim for abusing or cursing any Muslim excepting one who abuses the Prophet.
Excuse me! We do not report anything until we have made complete inquiries. Perhaps you should consult Sharhe Nahju'lBalagha, Volume IV, page 80, where it is recorded that Abu Bakr, taunting Ali from the pulpit of the mosque, said: "He (Ali) is a fox, the evidence of which is its tail. He creates disturbances, minimizes the importance of big disturbances, and incites people to make an uproar. He seeks help from the weak and accepts assistance from women. He is like Ummi't-Tahal (an adulteress in the days of ignorance, as explained by Ibn Abi'l-Hadid) with whom the men of his family were fond of committing adultery."
Now you may compare Abu Bakr's abuse of Ali with the criticism made by Shias against the sahaba. If abusing any of the sahaba amounts to infidelity, then Abu Bakr, his daughter, A'yesha, Mu'awiya and his followers should be labelled infidels. If it does not constitute infidelity, then you cannot call the Shias infidels on that score.
CALIPH UMAR HELD THAT CURSING A MUSLIM IS NOT INFIDELITY
Moreover, according to the verdicts of your own great jurists and Caliphs, those who curse the Caliphs are not infidels.
Imam Ahmad Hanbal in his Musnad, Volume III, Ibn Sa'd Katib in his Kitab-e-Tabaqat, Qazi Ayaz in his Shifa, part IV of chapter 1, report that the governor of Caliph Umar, Ibn Abdu'l-Aziz, wrote from Kufa that a man had reviled and abused Umar Ibn Khattab, the second Caliph. The governor sought permission to execute the man. Umar Ibn Khattab replied that it was not permissible to take the life of a Muslim for abusing or cursing any Muslim excepting one who abuses the Prophet.
Abul Hasan Ashari Views
Some of your prominent ulema, like, Abu'l-Hasan Ash'ari and his followers, believe that if a man has faith in his heart and yet displays infidelity (by practicing Judaism or Christianity, for example) or rises up to fight against the Prophet, or calls Allah or the Prophet evil names, even then he is not an infidel. Faith means belief in the heart and since no one can be aware of another's heart, it cannot be said whether the apparent infidelity was from the heart or not. The Ash'ari ulema have also discussed these issues in their books. Ibn Hazm Andalusi has written in detail about these points in his Kitabu'l-Fazl (Part IV, page 204, 206). In light of these facts what right have you to charge the Shias with infidelity?
MOST COMPANIONS ABUSED ONE ANOTHER BUT NOT REGARDED AS INFIDELS
In your authentic books, like Musnad of Ahmad Hanbal, Volume II, page 236; Sirat-e-Halabiyya, Volume II, page 107, Sahih Bukhari, Volume II, page 74, Sahih Muslim, Kitab-e-Jihad wa Asbabu'n-Nuzul Wahidi, page 118, there are many hadith indicating that most of the companions abused each other in the presence of the Holy Prophet. But the Prophet didn't call these men infidels. He admonished them. (The narrations about these quarrels and mutual enmity are recorded only in the books of the Sunnis, not in Shia books). In view of these remarks, I hope that you are satisfied that cursing or abusing any companion does not constitute infidelity. If we curse someone without any reason, we will be sinners, not infidels. And every sin is forgivable.
HOLY PROPHET OF ISLAM KNEW ALL GOOD AND BAD ACTIONS OF SAHABA
Second, you said that the Prophet respected and honored his companions. This is correct. In addition, all Muslims and men of learning agree that the Holy Prophet knew the good and bad actions of the people. He appreciated their good deeds. Accordingly, he esteemed Nushirwan's justice and Hatim Ta'i's munificence. If he respected someone, it was for his good deeds. But appreciation shown to one for doing a good deed, does not prove that his end will be fortunate. Perhaps he will commit evil deeds in the future. If he does, upbraiding him beforehand, is unjustified, even though it may be known that he will commit the sin in the future. Ali knew of the sin and damned end of Abdu'r-Rahman Ibn Muljim Muradi and repeatedly told him that he was his assassin. At one point he explicitly said: "I want him to live, but he is bent upon killing me, and this treacherous friend belongs to the clan of the Murad." This statement has been recorded by Ibn Hajar Makki towards the end of Part I of Sawa'iq, page 72. Yet Ali did not intend to punish him. Hence, the hadith which indicates that the merit of some particular action or statement is not necessarily influential for all time to come.
Q: ARE THE COMPANIONS INFALLIBLE ???
You claim too much if you insist that they were all just and free from faults since in the authentic books written by your own ulema they argue against it. They tell us that even some of the chief companions sometimes committed faults : Ignoring what they did during the days of ignorance (i.e. before the advent of Islam), they committed many sins after they had embraced Islam. It is enough to mention only one event by way of example.
Your own prominent ulema write in their authentic books that in the year of the conquest of Mecca (8 A.H.) some of the leading companions indulged in festive amusements and gaiety and secretly took wine.
Ibn Hajar writes in his Fathu'l-Bari, v.X, p.30, that Abu Talha Zaid Bin Sahl arranged a wine party at his house and invited ten people. All of them drank wine and Abu Bakr recited some couplets commemorating
some infidels who were killed in the battle of Badr.
The names of the guests also been mentioned:
(1) Abu Bakr Bin Abi Qahafa,
(2) Umar Ibn Khattab,
(3)Abu Ubaida Garra,
(4) Ubai Bin Ka'b,
(5) Sahl Bin Baiza,
(6) Abu AyyubAnsari,
(7) Abu Talha (the host),
(8) Abu Dajjana Samak Bin Kharsa,
(9)Abu Bakr Bin Shaghuls,
(10) Anas Bin Malik, who was 18 years old at that time and who served the wine. Baihaqi in his Sunan, v. VIII, p.29, has also narrated from Anas him self that he said that he was the youngest of them at that time and was serving the wine. (At this there was great commotion in the meeting.)
I am now constrained to explain facts according to the statements of your own ulema. Muhammad Bin Isma'il Bukhari in Sahih (commenting on Ayat-e-Khamr, "verse concerning wine", in the chapter Ma'ida of the Qur'an); Muslim Ibn Hajar in his Sahih (Kitab-e-Ashraba Bab-eTahrimu'l-Khamr); Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal in his Musnad, v.XXX, p.181 and 227; Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir, v.XI, p.93; Jalalu'd-din Suyuti in
his Durru'l-Mansur, v.II, p.321; Tabari in his Tafsir, v.VII, p.24; Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his Isaba, v.IV, p.22 and Fathu'l-Bari, v.X,p.30; Badru'd-din Hanafi in his Umdatu'l-Qari, V.X, p.84; Baihaqi in his Sunan, pp.286 and 290; and others have recorded these facts with detailed explanations.
What we gather from the commentary and history shows that even after the prohibitory verses some Muslims and companions continued taking forbidden wine.
Muhammad Bin Jarir Tabari reports in Tafsir-e-Kabir, v.II, p.203, on the authority of Abil Qamus Zaid Bin Ali, who said that Allah had revealed three times the verses prohibiting the use of wine. In the first verse He says, "They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit." (2:219)
But the Muslims did not immediately give up wine. When two men, being intoxicated, offered their prayers and talked nonsense, another verse was revealed, saying: "O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are intoxicated until you know (well) what you say." (4:43)
Even after this, the drinking of wine continued, but people did not offer prayers while intoxicated. One day a man took wine (according to the report of Bazar, Ibn Hajar, and Ibn Mardawiyya the man was Abu Bakr)
and composed an elegy for the pagans who were killed in the battle of Badr. When the Holy Prophet heard of this, he became angry. He went to the party and wanted to beat him. The man said, "I seek Allah's shelter
from Allah's and His Prophet's wrath. Allah be my witness, I will not take wine again." Then the following verse was revealed: "O you who believe! intoxicants and games of chance and (sacrificing to) stones set up and (divination by) arrows are only an uncleanness, the Shaitan's work; shun it therefore that you may be successful." (5:90)
Among the companions of the Holy Prophet there were good and bad men just as there are among other believers and Muslims. Those of them who tried to obey Allah and His Prophet reached an exalted rank. Those who followed their worldly aspirations were looked down upon by others. So those who fault the worldly companions do so with some reason.
The wicked actions of some of the sahaba which are recorded in the authentic books of your own ulema are also condemnable according to the evidence of the Holy Qur'an. The Shias condemn them on that basis. If there is a logical reply to this argument, we are ready to accept it.
Seriously, how many 12'er Shia does anyone know who openly cursed 1, 2, 3 and the two particular ummahat-al-momineen? Even on ShiaChat, a place other than real life, there is not a single post like that to be found where those are cursed by a Shia.
Some of your prominent ulema, like, Abu'l-Hasan Ash'ari and his followers, believe that if a man has faith in his heart and yet displays infidelity (by practicing Judaism or Christianity, for example) or rises up to fight against the Prophet, or calls Allah or the Prophet evil names, even then he is not an infidel. Faith means belief in the heart and since no one can be aware of another's heart, it cannot be said whether the apparent infidelity was from the heart or not. The Ash'ari ulema have also discussed these issues in their books. Ibn Hazm Andalusi has written in detail about these points in his Kitabu'l-Fazl (Part IV, page 204, 206). In light of these facts what right have you to charge the Shias with infidelity?
MOST COMPANIONS ABUSED ONE ANOTHER BUT NOT REGARDED AS INFIDELS
In your authentic books, like Musnad of Ahmad Hanbal, Volume II, page 236; Sirat-e-Halabiyya, Volume II, page 107, Sahih Bukhari, Volume II, page 74, Sahih Muslim, Kitab-e-Jihad wa Asbabu'n-Nuzul Wahidi, page 118, there are many hadith indicating that most of the companions abused each other in the presence of the Holy Prophet. But the Prophet didn't call these men infidels. He admonished them. (The narrations about these quarrels and mutual enmity are recorded only in the books of the Sunnis, not in Shia books). In view of these remarks, I hope that you are satisfied that cursing or abusing any companion does not constitute infidelity. If we curse someone without any reason, we will be sinners, not infidels. And every sin is forgivable.
HOLY PROPHET OF ISLAM KNEW ALL GOOD AND BAD ACTIONS OF SAHABA
Second, you said that the Prophet respected and honored his companions. This is correct. In addition, all Muslims and men of learning agree that the Holy Prophet knew the good and bad actions of the people. He appreciated their good deeds. Accordingly, he esteemed Nushirwan's justice and Hatim Ta'i's munificence. If he respected someone, it was for his good deeds. But appreciation shown to one for doing a good deed, does not prove that his end will be fortunate. Perhaps he will commit evil deeds in the future. If he does, upbraiding him beforehand, is unjustified, even though it may be known that he will commit the sin in the future. Ali knew of the sin and damned end of Abdu'r-Rahman Ibn Muljim Muradi and repeatedly told him that he was his assassin. At one point he explicitly said: "I want him to live, but he is bent upon killing me, and this treacherous friend belongs to the clan of the Murad." This statement has been recorded by Ibn Hajar Makki towards the end of Part I of Sawa'iq, page 72. Yet Ali did not intend to punish him. Hence, the hadith which indicates that the merit of some particular action or statement is not necessarily influential for all time to come.
Q: ARE THE COMPANIONS INFALLIBLE ???
You claim too much if you insist that they were all just and free from faults since in the authentic books written by your own ulema they argue against it. They tell us that even some of the chief companions sometimes committed faults : Ignoring what they did during the days of ignorance (i.e. before the advent of Islam), they committed many sins after they had embraced Islam. It is enough to mention only one event by way of example.
Your own prominent ulema write in their authentic books that in the year of the conquest of Mecca (8 A.H.) some of the leading companions indulged in festive amusements and gaiety and secretly took wine.
Ibn Hajar writes in his Fathu'l-Bari, v.X, p.30, that Abu Talha Zaid Bin Sahl arranged a wine party at his house and invited ten people. All of them drank wine and Abu Bakr recited some couplets commemorating
some infidels who were killed in the battle of Badr.
The names of the guests also been mentioned:
(1) Abu Bakr Bin Abi Qahafa,
(2) Umar Ibn Khattab,
(3)Abu Ubaida Garra,
(4) Ubai Bin Ka'b,
(5) Sahl Bin Baiza,
(6) Abu AyyubAnsari,
(7) Abu Talha (the host),
(8) Abu Dajjana Samak Bin Kharsa,
(9)Abu Bakr Bin Shaghuls,
(10) Anas Bin Malik, who was 18 years old at that time and who served the wine. Baihaqi in his Sunan, v. VIII, p.29, has also narrated from Anas him self that he said that he was the youngest of them at that time and was serving the wine. (At this there was great commotion in the meeting.)
I am now constrained to explain facts according to the statements of your own ulema. Muhammad Bin Isma'il Bukhari in Sahih (commenting on Ayat-e-Khamr, "verse concerning wine", in the chapter Ma'ida of the Qur'an); Muslim Ibn Hajar in his Sahih (Kitab-e-Ashraba Bab-eTahrimu'l-Khamr); Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal in his Musnad, v.XXX, p.181 and 227; Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir, v.XI, p.93; Jalalu'd-din Suyuti in
his Durru'l-Mansur, v.II, p.321; Tabari in his Tafsir, v.VII, p.24; Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his Isaba, v.IV, p.22 and Fathu'l-Bari, v.X,p.30; Badru'd-din Hanafi in his Umdatu'l-Qari, V.X, p.84; Baihaqi in his Sunan, pp.286 and 290; and others have recorded these facts with detailed explanations.
What we gather from the commentary and history shows that even after the prohibitory verses some Muslims and companions continued taking forbidden wine.
Muhammad Bin Jarir Tabari reports in Tafsir-e-Kabir, v.II, p.203, on the authority of Abil Qamus Zaid Bin Ali, who said that Allah had revealed three times the verses prohibiting the use of wine. In the first verse He says, "They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit." (2:219)
But the Muslims did not immediately give up wine. When two men, being intoxicated, offered their prayers and talked nonsense, another verse was revealed, saying: "O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are intoxicated until you know (well) what you say." (4:43)
Even after this, the drinking of wine continued, but people did not offer prayers while intoxicated. One day a man took wine (according to the report of Bazar, Ibn Hajar, and Ibn Mardawiyya the man was Abu Bakr)
and composed an elegy for the pagans who were killed in the battle of Badr. When the Holy Prophet heard of this, he became angry. He went to the party and wanted to beat him. The man said, "I seek Allah's shelter
from Allah's and His Prophet's wrath. Allah be my witness, I will not take wine again." Then the following verse was revealed: "O you who believe! intoxicants and games of chance and (sacrificing to) stones set up and (divination by) arrows are only an uncleanness, the Shaitan's work; shun it therefore that you may be successful." (5:90)
Among the companions of the Holy Prophet there were good and bad men just as there are among other believers and Muslims. Those of them who tried to obey Allah and His Prophet reached an exalted rank. Those who followed their worldly aspirations were looked down upon by others. So those who fault the worldly companions do so with some reason.
The wicked actions of some of the sahaba which are recorded in the authentic books of your own ulema are also condemnable according to the evidence of the Holy Qur'an. The Shias condemn them on that basis. If there is a logical reply to this argument, we are ready to accept it.
Seriously, how many 12'er Shia does anyone know who openly cursed 1, 2, 3 and the two particular ummahat-al-momineen? Even on ShiaChat, a place other than real life, there is not a single post like that to be found where those are cursed by a Shia.
This whole disrespect to sahaba business is a dark, slippery and
pointless venue that the Wahabi mullah has chosen to hole up in.
- What about their disrespect of Allah of whom they have absolutely no ma'rifah?
- What about their disrespect of Qur'anic commandments when they go
against it in every way and form a fiqh and shariah that is against it?
- What about their disrespect and gross blasphemies against the holy Prophet when they lie about him?
when they lie about him?
- What about their disrespect to all things holy and otherwise that their own books target and slander?
- What about their disrespect of the sahaba even when they exhume their graves and burn them?
- What about their disrespect of the "Sunni sahaba" by their own books? Why don't they burn all the copies of those first?
- What about their disrespect to the ummah which they have ruined?
- What about their disrespect to this world that they destroy with their militancy?
Holding any opinion about a Sunni sahabi based on historical
evidences found in even the Sunni books is not disrespect or reality nor
will it change anything whether they are glorified or demonized. It is
not worth fighting over yet the Wahabi mullah has cleverly managed to
exploit the ignorance of the most ignorant among their followers to sow
sedition. The present day "Sunni" need to understand that if possible.
The only way to achieve unity with (real) Sunni is for them to
recognize the Ja'fari school of thought as, say, the 5th school of
thought beside their own four "Sunni Muslim" schools; Hanbali, Shaafii,
Maliki and Hanafi which are all no less mutually different than the
Shia. It is only logical and rational. And this is the only way forward
for anyone who wishes for unity.
For 14 centuries past the general Sunni and Shia populace has been
carrying on with their lives while the governments have always been busy
committing Shia genocide. But now even some of the Sunni populace,
a.k.a terrorists have become the hands of their governments while the
rest of the Sunni are quiet as is their tradition.
But any way, the reality is that the Sunni are extinct and only Wahabies are left so its too late now.
If you want us to kiss your foreheads and tell you to keep killing away,
then you need a reality check..Why should we when you people never even
stand up against your governments whom are oppressing and slaughtering
the Shias? Why should we when your government funds cockroaches to
behead Shias?No more being nice, being nice is going to get us killed
and backstabbed. I've never seen Sunnis rallying against the
mistreatment of Shias in Iraq, the mistreatments in Bahrain, and Syria.
Look at those Palestinians, how many of them have the Shias armed, and
treated them even better than our brethren. Yet after all that, they go
and join terrorist groups to kill the Shias in Iraq and Syria. LOl its
funny too, now they are allies with Zionist against the Shias. The same
people that once were dancing because the twin towers fell, are now
allies with America....you see how you people cant be trusted?
