“But whoever kills a believer intentionally – his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally, and Allah has become angry with him and has cursed him and has prepared for him a great punishment.” (Qur’an 4:93)
﷽
Praise be to Allah (swt) for the noble and truthful companion Ikrima (ra). He is the one who informed us that Ali Ibn Abu Talib had errors in his ijtihad. That a senior member of the Ahl Bayt Ibn Abbas (ra) corrected Ali Ibn Abu Talib.
This noble and truthful companion Ikrima (ra) also informed us that the Ammar bin Yasir (ra) would be killed by the rebel group.
- Ikrima (ra) informs us that Ali had errors in his ijtihad that would go against the Qur’an & Sunnah. That he would get corrected by a senior member of the Ahl Bayt.
Narrated `Ikrima:
“Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to `Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event reached Ibn Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’”
Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6922)
2. Ikrima (ra) informs us that Ammar bin Yasir (ra) would be killed by the rebel group.
Narrated `Ikrima:
“That Ibn Abbas told him and `Ali bin `Abdullah to go to Abu Sa`id and listen to some of his narrations; So they both went (and saw) Abu Sa`id and his brother irrigating a garden belonging to them. When he saw them, he came up to them and sat down with his legs drawn up and wrapped in his garment and said, “(During the construction of the mosque of the Prophet) we carried the adobe of the mosque, one brick at a time while `Ammar used to carry two at a time. The Prophet (saw) passed by `Ammar and removed the dust off his head and said, “May Allah be merciful to `Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious aggressive group. `Ammar will invite them to (obey) Allah and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire.”
Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2812)
Such a problem is the above sahih hadith that the Hanbali Ibn Taymiyyah al Harrani tried to come up with all kinds of crafty ways of dealing with the impact of the statement from the Blessed Messenger (saw).
“Some have said that it is not authentic, and others have interpreted it. People have had different statements on the tradition of ‘Ammaar; of them are those who have criticized it.” He goes on: “But the people who have knowledge of this tradition have had three different statements. One group of them regards it to be inauthentic because to them, it has been narrated through a weak chain of transmitters!”
Source: (Ibn Taymiyyah Minhaju Al-Sunna Vol. 2, p. 204, 208-209 & 212)
So Ibn Tamiyyah has two claims.
- The tradition itself despite being in Bukhari is actually daif.
- It has a suitable interpretation.
The Imam of the Muslims, the People of The Truth and Steadfastness, Al-Imamu Al-Qannubi says: “We do not know whom Ibn Taymiyyah means by his claim “Some (have said that it is not authentic)….” There will come explanation that many have classified this tradition as authentic….”
Source: (Al-Qannubi Al-Tufan Al-Jarif Vol. 3, section two, p. 625)
But this interpretation has been objected to by even Ibn Taymiyyah himself!
Source: (Ibn Taymiyyah Minhaju Al-Sunna Vol. 2, p. 210-211)
But – all of a sudden – we, finally, find Ibn Taymiyyah himself turns around to clearly state that the said tradition is authentic. “The tradition is proved and it is authentic, being from the Prophet (saw)”.
Source: (Ibn Taymiyyah Minhaju Al-Sunna Vol. 2, p. 211)
Yet, surprisingly, he has misinterpreted it saying: “His killers were those who held weapons and killed him.” Which he means to say not Mu’awiya!!! He says again: “The word “killer” if loosely or absolutely used, means the one that has killed: not the one that has issued the order (of killing).”
This bizarre philosophy of Ibn Taymiyyah indicates that if he were to live in the present age, he would – of course – agree with the claim that presidents are not responsible for the crime of the illegal, haphazard bloodshed committed by their armies in different Muslim and non-Muslim countries, but rather their troops are the ones responsible for that! Indeed, while Ibn Taymiyyah defends Mu’awiya in that way, we find that Mu’awiya himself proves him wrong as he says: “Ali had two right hands (two strong assistants and supporters), one of which I cut on the day of Siffin, meaning ‘Ammaar bin Yasir; and the other I cut today, meaning Al-ashtar”
Source: (Al-Tabari Al-Taarikh Vol. 3, p. 133. Ibn Al-Athir Al-Kamil Vol. 2, p. 705.)
Check mate!
Not only this but here is a tradition that contradicts Ibn Taymiyyah’s bizarre idea. The tradition says:
“He who assists with a half-uttered word in the killing of a Muslim, he will come on the day of judgment between his two eyes there has been written “He has despaired of the Mercy of Allah.”
Source: (Al-Rabi’u bin Habib Al-Jami’u Al-Sahih p. 368, tradition no. 960. Ibn Majah Al-Sunan p. 444, tradition no. 2620. )
How does it come, then, that Ibn Taymiyyah excludes the one from whose order the killing is carried out from being responsible for it?!
Typically many from the Sunni have used these tactics to get around this hadith. Even some of the early proto-Ummayad-proto-Sunni saying that the one’s who slew Ammar ibn Yasir were the one’s who brought him to the battlefield, meaning Ali ibn Abu Talib himself!
However, pro Alid groups have tried to cast aspersions on this narrator ‘Ikrima as well! You can’t have your cake and eat it too! You can’t use ‘Ikrima as an evidence against Muaviya and than say his evidence is not good when it comes to Ibn Abbas (ra) disagreeing with Ali burning people alive.
For those of you interested in reading more you are invited to read:
May Allah (swt) open the eyes and the hearts of this ummah! May Allah (swt) unite us upon the truth!
Prima Quran 