“Their malice for each other is intense: you think they are united, yet their hearts are divided. That is because they are a people with no understanding.” (Qur’an 59:14)
﷽
“And from those who say, “We are Christians” We took their covenant; but they forgot a portion of that of which they were reminded. So We caused among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allah is going to inform them about what they used to do.” (Qur’an 5:14)
We know via the doctrine of kasb that this is what the Christians brought on themselves.
“I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. I have come so that ‘a son will be against his father, a daughter will be against her mother, a daughter-in-law will be against her mother-in-law. A person’s enemies will be members of his own family.” (Matthew 10:34-39)
“Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I have come to divide people against each other!” (Luke 12:51)
According to Christians, Christ Jesus did not teach the highest love as laying your life down for your enemy.
“Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” (John 15:13)
However, there is a greater love than this. That you lay down your life for your enemies. Anyone would, in the given circumstances, lay down their lives for their friends.
Christianity is extremely carnal. It is very much of the flesh and not of the transformation of the spirit and the heart. Islam teaches that we must have a complete transformation of the spirit, the mind, the body and the heart.
Allah (swt) tells us in the Qur’an. If you do not come to Allah (swt) with a sound heart. Forget about it!
“The day when neither wealth nor sons will avail anyone. Only the one who will come to Allah with a sound heart.” (Qur’an 26:89)
The Church of the Holy Sepulcher Christians will bash each other up because they did not agree on the moving of a chair.
Sometimes a brawl will break out because one monk or priest will brush or move his broom just a little too much for the other’s liking.
In 1776, by order of the Sultan, the Muslims forced the 6 bickering Christian groups to sign a document to try and work out their differences over control over the sanctuaries of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. That document was ratified by the following groups: the Latin Catholic Church, The Greek Orthodox Church, The Armenian Apostolic Church, The Syrian Orthodox Church, The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and the Coptic Orthodox Church.
Prior to this, Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub had entrusted the Keys to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher to a Muslim family. The other Muslim family would then take the key and open the Church. This shared responsibility was a demonstration to Christians about what cooperation might look like.
Here is a Protestant Christian, Rick Wiles, who speaks about this.
Recently, while in Singapore, the Latin Roman Catholic Pope made the following statement:
“Every religion is a way to arrive at God. There are different languages to arrive at God but God is God for all. But my God is more important than your god, is that true? There is only 1 God & each of has a language to arrive at God. Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, they are different paths.”
We say Latin Roman Catholic Pope rather than ‘The Pope’ because to call him ‘The Pope’ means we have taken a side in the intra-Christian schisms over who actually is ‘The Pope’. So he (Jorge Mario Bergoglio) is one of two claimants. The other claimant is Wagih Sobhi Baki Soliman, known as Pope Tawadros II of the Orthodox Coptic Church.
However, his (Jorge Mario Bergoglio) comment already agitated those in the sedevacantist movement. Sedevacantist believe that The Latin Roman Catholic Pope has actually been vacant for a while. So statements made by Jorge Mario Bergoglio did not help matters.
On a side note, there is a renewed curiosity in the Latin Roman Catholic Church, the Various Orthodox Churches and others among Protestant Christians in the West. As the Latin Roman Catholic Church already has a dominant presence in the West, it is the one that has the most to gain from Christians falling out with Protestantism. Yet in recent years a new kid on the block has shown up in the form of the various Eastern Orthodox churches.
It also seems to be a matter of who gets their message out first, as various Eastern Orthodox Churches have now come in with the claim of being ‘The One True Church’. Protestants, Westerners and Christians in general are not aware of the many competing claims as to the One True Church. True, as in it has an authentic historical pedigree and true, as in it has been guided by the Holy Spirit to teach the one true doctrine.
There is a type of predatory behavior among Eastern Orthodox Christians that take advantage of Protestant layman and their general ignorance of history.
For example, most Protestant layman do not know that the Oriental Orthodox Christians consider themselves to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church founded by Christ Jesus, in his Great Commission, and its bishops and the successors of Christ’s apostles.
They would gladly challenge the Eastern Orthodox Christians on their claim, any time, anywhere, any place.
The Assyrian Church of the East can also readily contest the claims of the Eastern Orthodox or anyone else for that matter. They claim lineage and pedigree going back to St. Thomas the Apostle.
The Assyrian Church of the East is not to be confused with the Chaldean Catholic Church — which is in communion with the Latin Roman Catholic Church also can be a claimant to the one true Church of Christ Jesus. In their view, Cyril of Alexandria was a bullied Nestorius. That Nestorius was misrepresented at a council that he wasn’t even present. The Churches of the East refuse to anathematize Nestorius and have traditionally maintained he wasn’t Nestorian.
At least not ‘Nestorian’ as was painted by rivals of the Church.
The issue with other Christians is that they call Mary: Theotokos (mother of God) where as the Assyrian Church of the East maintains that Mary is to be called: Christotokos (mother of Christ).
What is ironic is that older Christian sects, like the Latin Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox Christians would challenge Protestants on the fact that it was church councils that decided the biblical canon. The irony, though, is that when these very churches get into disputes with one another, they go back to their respective biblical canons to quote source text. The other irony is that if you ask who or what gives the Church its authority and where you get that information from, they would also ultimately have to reference their biblical canons. It becomes a type of circular reasoning.
On that note, we would like to take the time to thank the Protestant Christians on behalf of all other Christians for being responsible for mass printing, mass distributing and mass translating the Bible….while the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian Church and Latin Roman Catholic were ya know…..doing…stuff…..sorta.
In fact, if it was not for the work of the Protestant Christians, the other churches would be quoting their respective scholars, bishops, patriarchs, and councils. Now, they (Non-Protestants) can open up text to argue their points with Protestants.
Isn’t history filled with irony?
Christians put plants in each other’s camps to cause destruction and strife?
Yohannan Sulaqa took the name Shimun(Shamoun) and he was seen as a plant by the Latin Roman Catholic Church to split the Assyrian Church of the East and weaken it.
The British-educated Patriarch Shimun (Shamoun) XXI Eshai, traveled through Europe before moving to Chicago in 1940 to join the growing Assyrian diaspora community there. He was assassinated by a fellow Christian by the name of David Malek Ismail.
Interestingly, one of the rumors on the internet is that another Shimun(Sam Shamoun) is, of all things, a Muslim plant to cause strife and discord among the Christian community!
We had already discussed this individual in our article here:
He (Shimun) was masterful in his attacks upon Protestant Christianity. First luring in his audience by going after what are considered by most Protestants to be fringe groups: One-ness Christians, Jehovah’s’ Witnesses,etc. Then many Protestants noted his (Shimun/Shamoun) slow descent into the Latin Roman Catholic Church.
For the following videos we want to give credit to the following YouTube account to which the videos were uploaded:https://x.com/Farid_0v
Warning: There is very and we do mean, very filthy language! As is known: There Is No Hate, Quite Like Christian Love
Here is this guy, Shamoun (Shimun), who used to watch this other Anti-Muslim Christian make mistakes and flawed arguments but would keep this from the Christians! He only now brings it up because of the mutual hatred in their hearts for each other!
Look at the deception, dear Christian truth seekers! We know that you people are fed up with lies and many of you are sincere! There is an emptiness in your heart and a longing for the truth!
@0:36 “There’s a video on YouTube Muslim exposed him they made 100 mistakes, CP does” -Coptic Baldwin Sam Shamoun: “Say it again?” “100 mistakes CP does in Arabic.” -Coptic Baldwin Sam Shamoun: “And you know Arabic! You’ve seen it right?” “yeah yeah!” -Coptic Baldwin Sam Shamoun: “But you didn’t want to say anything out of love for the brethren right?”
Prima Qur’an comments: So Christians have no moral obligation to tell the truth? Is it ok to let other Christians deceive and lie to fellow Christians as long as it makes Islam look bad?
This is as much an admission about Hassamo (Shimun) and his moral ineptitude as it is this guy who goes by the moniker CP. If it was for the sake of not calling out another Christian in front of others, why not take him to the side and discuss privately? Why let this go on and on and for how long?!
However, when Christians have a rift with one another, then is it no longer fine for Christians to deceive other Christians in regard to their competency in the Arabic language, among other matters?! WoW!
Now Hassamo (Shimun) claims those that follow this CP guy are not mentally stable and even says he himself is not mentally stable!
Here is Hassamo (Shimun) exposing this CP guy for not being able to adequately answer a basic fundamental question on the Biblical canon!
Watch as two Christians filled with and guided by the Holy Spirit absolutely tear into each other.
Recently there was a debate held between a Muslim: Mohamed Hijab of the United Kingdom and a Christian: William Lane Craig of the United States.
The Muslim: Mohamed Hijab won that particular debate handedly. After the debate, there was something akin to a CNN or Fox News “Spin Room” session that we see after Presidential Debates. This debate review served as a sort of ‘damage control’. What was truly shocking is that the Christian side, as a guest, was someone who had no background in Christian or Islamic theology or no formal training whatsoever. In fact, that person is a self-identified Atheist!
Which again goes to show you. It is no longer about saving souls for Jesus as it is about attacking Islam.
For those many sincere Christians out there struggling, groping in the darkness and looking for answers, do not be duped by the very people who would be fine with lying to you and fine with others lying to you. May Allah (swt) guide the sincere among you.
“Their malice for each other is intense: you think they are united, yet their hearts are divided. That is because they are a people with no understanding.” (Qur’an 59:14)
“And We have certainly made the Quran easy to remember. So is there anyone who will be mindful?” (Qur’an 54:40)
﷽
Our colleague relates the encounter.
Imagine if you will that you have a son or a daughter that informs you that they wish to get married. You sit down with your son or daughter and ask them the following: “What do you wish for a life partner?” “What are some of the traits or qualities you would like to have in a life partner?” Their response is: “I don’t have any standards, I will just take anything!”
That response is the surest way of knowing that they are not ready for marriage at all!
This Muslim Ummah needs to have some standards. We are talking about elementary standards. We are talking about ‘the bare minimum‘.
If one is going to be acclaimed to be the commander of the faithful, the Imam of the Muslims, the Imam is such that if you do not recognize him you die the death of an unbeliever, then at the very least you had best be able to recite the Qur’an. That is not asking for much. It is, however, asking the Ummah to require some very basic standards.
So, no, we are not talking about theology, we are not talking about jurisprudence, we are not talking about philosophy. We are asking a very basic simple question: “Can you Qur’an tho?”
I do not know about other Muslims, but I would like my commander of the faithful and my Imam to be able to recite the Qur’an at ….the….very…..least.
In fact, this may be a very interesting academic article. When did the Imams of the Nizari Isma’ili community begin to distance themselves from the Qur’an? In other words, when did these phenomena of having an insouciant relationship with the Qur’an begin? Which of the Nizari Isma’ili imams set this off?
So recently, when encountering one of many arguments that took place in the wild world of X (Twitter). I saw some mutual fat shaming going on between Imam Hamza wald Maqbul and Professor Khalil Andani.
So, being mildly agitated by this bickering, I put out a challenge to both men.
It was quite a simple and straight-forward point-blank challenge to Professor Andani and Imam Hamza wald Maqbul. I challenged Professor Andani to produce for us the Aga Khan reciting the Qur’an in public. I also challenged Imam Hamza wald Maqbul to produce an example of him reciting the Qur’an in public.
To be quite honest, I do not doubt that Imam Hamza wald Maqbul can properly recite the Qur’an. Professor Andani, over all, is a guy who can comprehend more than basic English. Thus, his response was puzzling.
Produce for us the Aga Khan reciting the Qur’an in public. Professor Andani did the best he could, so he meekly offered: “Karim Aga Khan led the Ismailis in Eid Namaz twice in the 1940s as a child. Obviously he can recite the Quran, which he did during namaz.”
It was after this comment that I now publicly retract every glowing attribute I gave to Professor Andani during his debate with Jake Brantecella. Do I think Professor Andani won that debate? Absolutely. However, after I am quite dismayed at the response given by Professor Andani.
First there is the matter of plain English. “Produce for us the Aga Khan reciting the Qur’an in public.” That is people in the Julian calendar year of 2024.
Second, to make claims that (Professor Andani) himself did not witness is not “obvious” at all. Claims that he led the Eid prayer twice in the 1940s is not proof that he can properly recite the Qur’an. We want proof that Karim, the son of Joan Yarde-Buller, can properly recite the Qur’an.
Then Professor Andani gave another meek reply: “Quran is part of Namaz.” Indeed, it is. Indeed, it is. One could do the dhur prayer or asr prayer. In many schools of jurisprudence, the Qur’an is not recited out loud. Meaning that one would not be able to ascertain that one could properly recite the Qur’an. I will give the benefit of the doubt and say that it is possible that he may not be aware of this.
However, as the Eid Prayers have parts where the Qur’an is recited out loud, one could assume that a person knows how to properly recite the Qur’an. However, the idea that Karim, the son of Joan Yarde-Buller, did so twice as a child, of which Professor Andani did not witness (as he was not even born then) as being obvious has to be one of the most obtuse statements ever.
Ultimately, it is an admission of being unable to answer the challenge. The man, Karim, the son of Joan Yarde-Buller, became the Imam around/at the age of 20. He is currently 83 years of age. For 60 years on this Earth there is no evidence for us to ascertain whether this man can properly recite the Qur’an. You can turn the internet upside down and inside out, and you will find no evidence of him being able to recite the Qur’an at all.
Professor Andani doesn’t strike me as someone who wouldn’t bring his ‘A’ game. However, he hasn’t been the most forthcoming with Christians when he shows them his chart. You know the one:
The one that leaves out the Virgin birth of Christ Jesus (quite important to every Christian under the sun).
The one that leaves out the second coming of Jesus:
So all you Christians interacting with Professor Andani, open up your eyes and don’t be blind to it!
Thus, the meek response that Professor Khalil Andani is now proof positive for the whole world that it was the best he can do in the way of evidence. Meaning that there was some event that he himself did not witness or partake in which it is said that Karim, the son of Joan Yarde-Buller, twice as a child, led the Eid prayers. No evidence at all that he can properly read the Qur’an.
It is disheartening. If I thought for one moment that Karim, the son of Joan Yarde-Buller, was the commander of the faithful, the Imam of the Muslims how I would love to have his recitation of the Qur’an. How it could console me in dark times! Just to hear the cadence of his voice and the unison of heart and tongue as his holiness brought forth a most sublime and majestic recitation.
Unfortunately, for the Nizari, Isma’ili will never get this experience. Hey! There are always his sons! Perhaps they may take up seriously the learning to read the Qur’an! Or would that be a problem?
Is that the issue? How can someone who is not Allah’s divine representative on Earth possibly teach the divine representative the Qur’an?
*** UPDATE ***
There is an update to this article. Professor Andani thought he would give it one more shot.
First let me start with a major correction to Professor Andani.
Professor Andani states: “Your post is just a slander against me and the Ismaili Imamat.”
First, I do not see how stating the truth about something of which Professor Andani has failed time and again to prove the opposite of is slander.
Second, a major correction. It is more correct and circumspect to say Nizari Ismaili Imamat! It is hubris to think the Nizrari branch represents the entirety of Ismailism. It does not represent the Musta’li Ismai’li branch. A branch which includes the Dawoodi-Taybi as well as the Sulaymani-Tabi.as well as the Sulaymani-Tabi.
In fact, considering the Musta’li Ismai’li consider the Nizari claims null and void, they could very well be delighted to see such challenges. They may even be reading this article with a certain sense of satisfaction. They may be hoping that their Ismai’li brothers, who are following a man who has not been proven to recite the Qur’an with proper recitation, may decide to leave the Nizari and follow them instead!
Ladies and gentlemen. Dear truth seekers. A picture of a boy standing with his hands behind his ears is not proof that he can properly recite the Qur’an.
Imagine if you will there are people who doubted claims that, when I was an eight-year-old little girl I stood in front of the congregation of my church and recited the entire chapter of the book of Acts (King James Version) with perfect memory and no errors.
Then some people doubted this claim. So my mother, driven by emotional attachment to her daughter, rushes to produce a picture of me as an eight-year-old little girl in Church. “Here is your evidence!”
Surely one can see the futility of such.
If you enjoyed the above article you maybe interested in the following:
In this article we did our level best to help the Imami Shi’a solve a dilemma (the Ismaili included) we have not found any contemporary approaches among the Imami Shi’a to approach this dilemma.
” Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an and indeed, We will be its guardian.” (Qur’an 15:9)
﷽
First let us post what the original video clip has to say about Sayyid Ali’s presentation:
“In this video, the Sayyid responds to a questioner who asks whether the Qurʾān that is present between us today has been subject to distortion or not. Instead of going through the traditions related to whether this has indeed been the case, the Sayyid outlines some epistemological points to bear in mind when trying to evaluate this claim. He delineates general historical principles and facts that cause us to deem such an occurrence, as historians, to be extremely far-fetched. He then outlines the possible goals of a distorter and contrasts these objectives to what is found within the Qurʾānic text, whence we find that had these been the objectives of the distorters, then we would not possess certain verses and contents of the Qurʾān that we do today.” –Source:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7y9bstcnXM&t=1453s
We would also like to say that this explanation by Sayyid Ali is one of the best, if not the best we have seen. It answers a lot of questions that are put forward in regard to this.
There are those who claim that the Shi’i themselves make this claim. The claim of tahrif of the Qur’an. Sayyid Ali beautifully responds to these claims.
This is a short and succinct lecture, equal to about 29 minutes of your time. It is absolutely worth it.
Those Orientalists and advocates of the historical critical method are most welcome to put this in their pipes and smoke it. The Imam laid out a very cohesive and cogent argument.
We would highly recommend you listen to the whole of the presentation.
@20:04 “Pay attention with me, in the Glorious Qur’an, now if someone wants to distort, what would they want to distort? What are his objectives hind distortion? I mean, what are the possible objectives of distortion? We will mention objectives, and let’s see if they have any basis.”
@20:18 “It may be said, for example, that among the objectives of distortion: Is the removal of certain criticisms directed towards some of the Companions who ruled. I mean, those who had authority. They are all present in the Qur’an. They are found in Surat al-Tahrim, Surat al-Hujurat, which contains: {Do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet} [Qur’an 49:2]“
@20:40 “And it’s mentioned about whom it was revealed. The issue of fleeing on the day of Uhud, and Hunayn, all these details are mentioned. The details of the events are mentioned. If someone wanted to distort, why would they distort? I mean, if one of the objectives of authorities was distortion, it would have been something related to them.”
@:20:58 “Those who ruled, the criticisms directed at them in the Book of Allah are present. This is a possible objective [for distortion]. Of coruse, I mention these as supporting points, not as evidence. The [main] evidence has concluded. The evidence has concluded, now we’re mentioning supporting [points].
@21:10 “The second objective is, for example, that these individuals want to remove some matters regarding the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) [being portrayed in a negative light].
@21:19 “They love the Prophet, so they try. The Glorious Qur’an, the criticisms made by the polytheist against the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) are present in the harshest articulation. In fact, some addresses in the Qur’anic chapters to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) that contain-where principally one may perceive some sort of harshness and severity within, for example, {And had We not strengthened you, you would have almost inclined to them a little} [Qur’an 17:74], it’s all there.”
@21:49 “Alright? Of course, we say it’s in the sense of “I mean you, and listen O neighbor.” But the address is there.”
@22:17 “Very well. Among the objectives that are mentioned, is removing the names of Ahl al-Bayt (upon them be peace), from the Qur’an. I say—I say, firstly, what’s the meaning of this verse? We’re talking now as Shi’a. {O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not not, then you have not conveyed His message}[Qur’an 5:67]
@22:38 “How do we interpret this? Isn’t it about Wilaya? Isn’t it about Wilaya in the last days of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). And Surat al-Ma’ida is amongst the last [chapters] to be revealed, if not the very last.”
@22:53 “If Wilaya was detailed in previous chapters, then what would be the meaning of: {announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord} [Qur’an 5:67]? We fundamentally believe that it’s natural for the mention of the Commander of the Faithful (peace be upon him) to not be frequent in the Qur’an.“
“This is natural. And this is what we believe. I mean, his mentioned as an Imam. I speak of his mention as an Imam. Clear? Not as a man of virtues. Otherwise if we’re speaking of virtues, then a “a quarter [of the Qur’an] is about us”. Clear?”
@23:23 “We are not speaking for that perspective. We’re speaking from the perspective of those in power. Alright? Concerning those in power, {Announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message} [Qur’an 5:67] Now, this verse, what’s the reason for its revelation? It’s natural that the mention of Imam ‘Ali (upon him be peace) will not be frequent in the Qur’an. As for mentioning the rest of the Imams (upon them be peace), in the Qur’an.”
@23:50 “Fundamentally, we Shi’a do not believe in the necessity of believing in [all] the Imams (upon them be peace) except after the death of the previous Imam.
However the Imam later admits:
@27:25 “The thing that may be brought up is the issue of Wilaya. So it would be problematic only on the Shi’a side. But we explained that the Shi’a, when it comes to revealing all of the Imams’ [names], that is something they have deemed far-fetched. Fundamentally. It’s not something to be expected, that there would be something in the Qur’an about Imamate. And on the other hand, concerning the Commander of the Faithful (upon him be peace), we believe that the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) proclaimed this towards the end of his life. {O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message} [Qur’an 5:67]. So in reality, naturally, if the name of the Commander of the Faithful (upon him be peace) was in the Qur’an, it would have been rare and minimal. For example, had it been the case. Up to this extent, I mean, this degree of speculation.”
@28:14 “This does not outright negate the existence of the name of Imam ‘Ali (upon him be peace). This is a speculative argument. However, I just want to say, that upon reflection on the matter, the degree of distortion will not, some people, I mean, naturally, the name of Imam Ali, had it been in the Qur’an, it would be rare, Had it been there, it would be rare. Had it been there. Clear? According to the Shi’i view. Nothing else. I’m saying this according to the Shi’i Twelver view. Alright?”
Prima Qur’an comments: First and foremost again, the overall explanation by the respected Imam was/is brilliant! It is unfortunate that some people will allow themselves to be clouded by sectarianism and not benefit by what he said.
The only part where he dropped the ball was giving his minor points (because, as he mentioned, the main case has already been established), but in regard to the minor points is concerning the mention of the ahl bayt and/or the mention of the name of Imam Ali (at the very least).
By quoting a vague reference:”Announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message} [Qur’an 5:67] This does little to dissuade anyone from the idea that a redactor or editor wanted to remove explicit mention of the Ahl Bayt or Imam Ali as the leader of Imam of the Muslims.
The Imam was also honest and transparent enough to say:
“@22:38 “How do we interpret this? Isn’t it about Wilaya? Isn’t it about Wilaya in the last days of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family)
“How do we interpret this.”
“I mean, naturally, the name of Imam Ali, had it been in the Qur’an, it would be rare, Had it been there, it would be rare. Had it been there.”
He was also very objective and fair-minded when he stated:
“The thing that may be brought up is the issue of Wilaya. So it would be problematic only on the Shi’a side. But we explained that the Shi’a, when it comes to revealing all of the Imams’ [names], that is something they have deemed far-fetched
That is correct. It would only be a problem for the Shi’a side, as they are the ones who have as a theological foundation the concept of being ruled by the family of the Prophet (saw), a concept we absolutely do not find in the Qur’an at all.
So, for the Sunni or the Ibadi, this is not something we would expect to find in the Qur’an.
“Hikmetle ve güzel öğütle Rabbinin yoluna çağır ve onlarla en güzel biçimde mücadele et. Kuşkusuz Rabbin, işte yolundan sapanları en iyi bilen O’dur ve O, yola gelenleri de en iyi bilendir.” (Qur’an 16:125)
﷽
İslam Mezhepleri Tarihi – İbadilik – DPÜ İslami İlimler Fakültesi
Yrd. Doç. Dr. Abdullah İbn Said AL-MAMARİ “İbadilik ve Günümüzdeki Durumu”
Bunlar kardeşimiz tarafından Türkçe’ye çevrilmiş bazı videolar. Allah onu korusun
“Kabirlerde Kuran okunur mu? – Şeyh Kahlan el-Kharousi cevaplıyor”
Ölmüş olan bir kimse için kesin olarak cennetliktir veya cehennemliktir diyebilir miyiz?
“Tağut kimdir ve nedir? – Şeyh Raşid bin Seyf el-Rabi açıklıyor”
“Cennet sadece Ibadiler için mi? – Şeyh Salim bin Khalfan açıklıyor”
“Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely.” (Qur’an 5:32)
﷽
Please excuse the tired clichés (khawārij). Nevertheless, this material may still be of value to researchers and interested readers.
Summary
Sālim ibn Ḥammūd ibn Shāmis al-Siyābī (1908–1993) was an Omani scholar, poet, historian, and judge. He was born in Ghāla, in the ولاية of Bawshār in eastern Oman. A largely self-taught scholar, al-Siyābī memorized the Qur’an at the age of seven and later studied classical Arabic works, including the Alfiyyah of Ibn Malik, a renowned 1,000-line poem on Arabic grammar.
Al-Siyābī was a prolific author, credited with as many as 84 works. According to Sultān ibn Mubārak al-Shaybānī, his writings can be categorized into prose and treatises, poetry and versified compositions, and research and correspondence.
This manuscript was copied by Yūsuf ibn Sāʻid al-Zakwānī in 1386 AH (1966 CE). Written in black ink with rubricated headings, it contains two works by al-Siyābī.
The first is a theological treatise defending Ibadism against accusations made by other Muslim scholars. The second, titled Wahb al-Samāʾ fī Aḥkām al-Dimāʾ (“The Gift from Heaven on the Rulings of Bloodshed”), is primarily composed in verse and addresses the jurisprudence of bodily injuries. It is organized into short sections, each outlining the legal ruling for injury to a specific part of the body.
In the first work, Aṣdaq al-Manāhij fī Tamyīz al-Ibāḍiyya min al-Khawārij(“The Most Truthful Method for Distinguishing the Ibāḍīs from the Khārijites”), al-Siyābī critiques the prejudices held by some scholars against the Ibāḍīs. Writing in a question-and-answer format, he argues that Ibāḍīs should be understood within the broader Sunni tradition rather than as Khārijites.
In the introduction, he explains that he composed the treatise after consulting numerous works of Islamic theology in which certain scholars expressed outrage at the claim that the Ibāḍīs were responsible for the killings of Ali ibn Abi Talib and Uthman ibn Affan.
This claim relates to the early political conflicts that followed the death of the Prophet (saw) and contributed to divisions within the Muslim community. The Khārijites initially supported ʿAlī but later rejected his leadership after he agreed to arbitration during his conflict with Muawiyah I. Declaring both sides illegitimate, they rebelled and became known as khawārij (“those who seceded” or “rebels”).
A subsequent internal split among the Khārijites—particularly regarding methods of political opposition—led to the emergence of the Ibāḍī movement. Today, Ibāḍī communities are found primarily in Oman, as well as in parts of North and East Africa.
“Do not follow what you have no knowledge of. Indeed, all will be called to account for ˹their˺ hearing, sight, and intellect.” (Qur’an 17:36)
﷽
“To Allah belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth, that He may recompense those who do evil for what they have done, and recompense those who have done good (ahsanu) with the reward most fair (bil-hus’na).” (Qur’an 53:31)
The issue of the companions is a sensitive one among the Muslim ummah. Often one dives right into the subject without taking some time to define terms. For example:
Who actually is a companion (sahaba)? What are the criteria that are used?
Is there a universally agreed upon definition?
All of these preliminary questions would be very helpful in establishing the truth of the matter.
So, for us, we do not deal with emotions. We deal with proof and evidence because this is what ultimately establishes truth from error.
The following verses are those that the Sunni Muslims will use to somehow justify that a certain group of the companions are going to paradise. However, we need to do a tight textual analysis to see if this is actually correct.
“And why do you not spend in the cause of Allah while to Allah belongs the heritage of the heavens and the earth? Not equal among you are those who spent before the conquest [of Makkah] and fought [and those who did so after it]. Those are greater in degree than they who spent afterward and fought. But to all Allah has promised reward (l-husna). And Allah, with what you do, is Acquainted.” (Qur’an 57:10)
“Not equal are those believers remaining [at home] – other than the disabled – and the mujahideen, [who strive and fight] in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred the mujahideen through their wealth and their lives over those who remain [behind], by degrees. And to both Allah has promised reward (l-husna). But Allah has preferred the mujahideen over those who remain [behind] with a greater reward (ajran aziman).” (Qur’an 49:5)
First, neither of these verses are speaking about paradise or promising anyone paradise. Someone will need to show where in the Arabic text it says this.
This is the issue of comparison of deeds. What deeds are more meritorious than the other. This text does not address the issue that all of them will go to paradise.
Allah (swt) differentiates those who do jihad and those who remain at home. Allah (swt) differentiates between those who have spent and fought before and those who came later.
Also, if you juxtapose the two verses together, look at them closely.
The statement: ”With a greater reward (ajran aziman)” cannot mean paradise/heaven.
First, because the Arabic text does not say so.
Second, because it would exclude from paradise those from the statement: “But to all Allah has promised reward (l-husna)” because the verse in 49:5 indicates that ajran aziman is distinct from l-husna.
The only way for Sunni scholars to solve this is for them to use strained interpretative devices to suggest that husna means heaven and ajran aziman means seeing Allah, or that husna means heaven and ajran aziman means greater heaven.
The Qur’an speaks in generality. It speaks in terms of generality. When it speaks of the companions as we see above, it speaks in terms of generality. Thus, Qur’an 57:10 and Qur’an 49:5 speak in generalities and do not explicitly mention paradise. Therefore, we should not read paradise into those general verses simply because we assume that the recipients as a whole were righteous or guaranteed paradise.
This is methodologically sound. A general promise of al-ḥusnā (the best reward) does not, by itself, constitute an explicit guarantee of paradise for every individual within the groups mentioned, especially when:
The Qur’an itself affirms that hypocrites existed among the Muhājirūn and Anṣār (Qur’an 9:101).
The Prophet (saw) explicitly stated that some of his companions would be barred from his Ḥawḍ (Bukhārī, 6582).
Any creedal claim of universal salvation for all companions requires additional evidence beyond these two verses.
Contrast those verses above where no mention of paradise is in the Arabic text with a text that has explicit mention.
“And their Lord responded to them, “Never will I allow to be lost the work of [any] worker among you, whether male or female; you are of one another. So those who emigrated and were evicted from their homes and were harmed in My cause and fought and were killed – I will surely remove from them their misdeeds, and I will surely admit them to gardens (jannatin) beneath which rivers flow as reward from Allah , and Allah has with Him the best reward.” (Qur’an 3:195)
Notice how Allah (swt) describes those, their, them who receive the gardens(janna)? They are those whom: emigrated, were evicted, harmed, fought and were killed.
Qur’an 3:195 describes a specific group with specific qualities and promises them paradise. It does not say others are excluded, but it also does not authorize us to extend its promise beyond those qualities.
Allah does not cause the loss of anyone who does good.
So, certainly, if anyone does good, they will be rewarded with what is better. And whoever does evil will be rewarded for that. So, if this is the ruling for mankind in general, of course, the believers get reward for good, and it is no secret that in Islam some intentions are more noble than other intentions. Some actions are more meritorious than other actions.
Whoever comes with a good deed will be rewarded with what is better. And whoever comes with an evil deed, then the evildoers will only be rewarded for what they used to do.” (Qur’an 28:84)
“Be patient in hard times.(Oh Muhammed) Allah does not fail to repay those who do good.” (Qur’an 11:115)
Also, keep in mind, based upon the verses in the Qur’an, we know that people who die as a shaheed in the path of Allah (swt) will be in paradise. This is also our good opinion and outward perception. However, only Allah (swt) really knows what is in the heart of people.
“It has been narrated on the authority of Sulaiman b. Yasar who said:
People dispersed from around Abu Huraira, and Natil, who was from the Syrians. said to him: O Shaykh, relate (to us) a tradition you have heard from the Messenger of Allah (saw). He said: Yes. I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: The first of men (whose case) will be decided on the Day of Judgment will be a man who died as a martyr. He shall be brought (before the Judgment Seat). Allah will make him recount His blessings (i. e. the blessings which He had bestowed upon him) and he will recount them (and admit having enjoyed them in his life). (Then) will Allah say: What did you do (to requite these blessings)? He will say: I fought for Thee until I died as a martyr. Allah will say: You have told a lie. You fought that you might be called a” brave warrior”. And you were called so. (Then) orders will be passed against him and he will be dragged with his face downward and cast into Hell.”
The principles of interpreting the Qur’an are twofold.
When one text is general and another is specific, the specific is regarded as stronger as evidence.
A clear text is preferable to an interpretation of the text.
An example:
Allah (swt) says in the Qur’an:
“In it are Signs Manifest; (for example), the Station of Ibrahim; whoever enters it attains security; Pilgrimage therefore it is a duty mankind (nas) owe to Allah,- those who are able to perform the journey; but if any deny faith, Allah stands not in need of any of His creatures.” (Qur’an 3:97)
Nass (people/mankind) includes children, women, slaves, the insane; all are included in the word nass (people). When it comes to hadith, some are lifted from the obligation. Children must not go on hajj alone. Women must not go unless they have the company of a mahrim. The mentally challenged are not obligated at all. All of those categories are not obligated unless certain conditions are met—even though they are all nass (people, mankind)
For example the companion/sabaha that Allah (swt) called a fasiq.
“O you who believe! If a Fasiq (liar- evil person) comes to you with any news, verify it, lest you should harm people in ignorance, and afterwards you become regretful for what you have done” (Qur’an 49:6)
“And as for those who are Fasiqun (disbelievers and disobedient to Allah), their abode will be the Fire, every time they wish to get away therefrom, they will be put back thereto, and it will be said to them: “Taste you the torment of the Fire which you used to deny.” (Qur’an 32:20)
I said to ‘Ammar: What is your opinion about that which you have done in case (of your siding with Hadrat ‘Ali)? Is it your personal opinion or something you got from Allah’s Messenger (saw)? ‘Ammar said: We have got nothing from Allah’s Messenger (saw) which people at large did not get, but Hudhaifa told me that Allah’s Apostle (saw) had especially told him amongst his Companion, that there would be twelve hypocrites out of whom eight would not get into Paradise, until a camel would be able to pass through the needle hole. The ulcer would be itself sufficient (to kill) eight. So far as four are concerned, I do not remember what Shu’ba said about them.”
The Prophet (saw) said, “Some of my companions will come to me at my Lake Fount, and after I recognize them, they will then be taken away from me, whereupon I will say, ‘My companions!’ Then it will be said, ‘You do not know what they innovated (new things) in the religion after you.”
If Umar Ibn Al Khattab (ra) understood the verses of 57:10 and 49:5 in the way contemporary Sunni Muslims strenuously interpret them, then Umar(ra) would not go to Hudhayfah ibn Yaman (ra) and ask if he was a hypocrite.
Now someone will reply: “This is a sign of his sincerity.”
Yes, that is true, but it is a sign of nifaq to doubt a promise of Allah (swt)!
Rather, Umar Ibn Al Khattab (ra) did this because of both. He was not certain of his place in paradise, and he had sincerity and true fear of Allah (swt).
As the following verse reminds us:
“Did they feel secure against Allah’s planning? None would feel secure from Allah’s planning except the losers.” (Qur’an 7:99)
The next set of verses to look at:
“And the vanguard among (min’al) the emigrants and the helpers, and those who followed them in goodness, Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him, and He has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, to abide in them forever; that is the mighty achievement.” And among (min’al) those around you of the Bedouins are hypocrites, and also from the people of Madinah. They have become accustomed to hypocrisy. You do not know them, We know them. We will punish them twice, once in this world; then they will be returned to a great punishment.” (Qur’an 9:100-101)
So when we look at this verse in Arabic and in context we realize a few important points.
This verse starts off with words of praise and reward for the vanguard among the emigrants and the helpers, as well as anyone ‘those‘ who followed them in goodness. They are the subject of Allah’s grace and promise.
So, the first part of the verse is not all the companions who immigrated to Madinah. However, the following verse also makes the first verse clear. ‘And among the Bedouins and people of Madinah.’
So is the second verse saying that all the Bedouins are hypocrites?
Is the second verse saying that all the people of Madinah are hypocrites?
So, when we consider that the Bedouins are people who could have migrated with the Blessed Messenger (saw), they could be among the Muhajirun.
When we consider that the Ansar are from Madinah, they could be from among those in Madinah. However, even after these clear points are presented, there are additional points of consideration.
“And those who came after them say: “Our Lord! Forgive us, and our brethren who came before us into the Faith, and leave not, in our hearts, rancour (or sense of injury) against those who have believed. Our Lord! You are indeed Full of Kindness, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 59:10)
This very beautiful revelation was revealed as a reminder to the people of Madinah who were receiving the immigrants, the people who were coming from Mecca to join them. Notice the verse does not say, “all those who came before us”. Rather, the verse says, ‘those who have believed.’.
Now, even though this verse was in the context of the Ansar receiving the Mujahirin, we should see no reason why not to apply this verse today for us as Muslims.
We should certainly harbor no ill will from those who came before us who were believers. No one needs to insert words into the text that is not there. There is no problem with praying, “leave not in our hearts rancour against those who believed”, because Allah (swt) knows those who believed and those who did not.
This is an issue of creed (aqidah) for Sunni Muslims, but it is not for our school, Ahl al-Haqq wa-l istiqama
The Sunni Muslims state in Al-Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah.
“We love the companions of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him. We do not exaggerate in our love for any of them, nor do we disown any of them. We hate those who hate them or who mention them without good, for we do not mention them except with good. Love for them is a part of religion, faith, and spiritual excellence, and hatred for them is unbelief, hypocrisy, and transgression.”
This is the Sunni statement of creed in regards to the companions.
We respond to this with the angels du’a in the Qur’an:
“Those (angels) who bear the Throne and those around it glorify the praises of their Lord, and believe in Him, and ask forgiveness for those who believe (saying): ‘Our Lord! You comprehend all things in mercy and knowledge, so forgive those who repent and follow Your Way, and save them from the torment of the blazing Fire! Our Lord! And make them enter the Paradise which you have promised them, and to the righteous among their fathers, their wives, and their offspring! Verily, You are the All-Mighty, the All-Wise. And save them from the sins, and whomsoever You save from the sins that Day, him verily, You have taken into mercy.” And that is the supreme success.’” (Qur’an 40: 7-9)
The beauty of this du’a is that it says: ‘for those who believe’ and ‘those who repent and follow Your Way’.
Thus, if Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Muaviya, Yazid or anyone else are those people, then the du’a lands on them. And if Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Muaviya, Yazid or anyone else are not them, then the du’a misses them.
The point being that is the purview of Allah (swt).
“That was a nation which has passed on. It will have what it earned, and you will have what you have earned. And you will not be asked about what they used to do.” (Qur’an 2:133-134)
“And those who came after them say: “Our Lord! Forgive us, and our brethren who came before us into the Faith, and leave not, in our hearts, rancor (or sense of injury) against those who have believed. Our Lord! You are indeed Full of Kindness, Most Merciful.” (Quran 59:10)
﷽
So some of those who claim they are upon the way of the Salafiyyah go rampaging through the books and works of our scholars. They will find among them those who disavow Uthman or those who disavow Muaviya or those who disavow Ali. We will bring evidence from the books of the scholars from our brothers from among the Ahl Sunnah to show you the double standards of their claims.
Truth be told, all schools have in their books people they disavow. However, one thing that can be said about us Ibadis is that we do not have the cursing of anyone in our books. The Shi’i and Sunni books are full of so-and-so cursing of companions.
In the Sunni books, these things are not so readily obvious because, under the Abbasid empire, a Shi’ification of Sunnism took place. The form of Sunni Islam that most people are familiar with today is a very sanitized Abbasid Sunnism.
As most are ignorant of history they do not know that for about a century, from 945 to 1055, the Abbasid Caliphs in Baghdad were effectively puppets of the Buyid dynasty.
A Shi’a “Protectorate”: The Buyids were a powerful Shi’i dynasty from Iran. They kept the Abbasid Caliph as a figurehead to appease the majority Sunni population. While they held the real political and military power.
For the astute reader, they are able to catch this.
So, for example, when Urwah ibn al-Zubayr narrated that Zaynab bint Muhammed (ra) was mentioned by the Blessed Prophet (saw) to be his most virtuous and beloved daughter, he (Zubayr) was accosted by Zayn al-Abidin who approached Urwah ibn Al-Zubayr in a very hostile manner demanding why he would put anyone anywhere near the rank of Fatima (ra).
A kind of terrorism and suppression by the Abbasids and Alids towards anyone who would put someone else other than Fatima and Ali first. Here we narrate to you how Ali ibn al-Husayn went after Urwah ibn al-Zubayr (ra) like a raving madman.
Ahmad Abu Bakr ibn Muhammed ibn Hamdan al-Sayrafi in Marw told me, Abu Ismail Muhammed ibn Ismail told us, Saeed ibn Abi Maryam told us, Yahya ibn Ayyub informed us, Ibn al-Had told me, Amr ibn Abdullah ibn Urwah ibn al-Zubayr told me, on the authority of Urwah ibn al-Zubayr, on the authority of Aisha, the wife of the Prophet, (saw) When the Messenger of Allah, (saw), arrived in Medina, his daughter Zaynab left Mecca with Kinanah—or the son of Kinanah—and they went after her. Habbar ibn al-Aswad caught up with her and kept stabbing her camel with his spear until it felled her, and she miscarried and bled. The Banu Hashim and the Banu Umayyah then quarreled over her. She said… The Banu Umayya said: We are more entitled to her, and she was married to their cousin Abu al-As, and she was with Hind bint Utbah ibn Rabi’ah, and Hind used to say to her: This is because of your father. So the Messenger of Allah, (saw), said to Zayd ibn Harithah: “Won’t you go and bring me Zaynab?” He said: Yes, O Messenger of Allah. He said: “Then take my ring.” So he gave it to him. Then Zayd set off and made his camel kneel. He kept being polite until he met a shepherd and said: Whose sheep do you tend? He said: For Abu al-Aas. He said: And whose sheep are these? He said: To Zainab bint Muhammed, so he walked with him for a while, then he said to him: Would you like me to give you something to give to her, and not mention it to anyone? He said: Yes, so he gave him the ring, so the shepherd went and brought his sheep in, and gave them the ring, and they recognized it, so she said: Who gave you this? He said: A man, she said: Where did you leave it? He said: In such and such a place. He said: So she remained silent until night came, then she went out to him. When she came to him, he said to her: Ride in front of me on his camel. She said: No, but you ride in front of me. So he rode and she rode behind him until she came. The Messenger of Allah, (saw), used to say: “She is the best of my daughters, and she was afflicted because of me.”This reached Ali ibn al-Husayn, so he went to Urwah and said: What is this hadith that I heard you narrate in which you diminish Fatimah’s right? He said, “By Allah, I would not wish to possess everything between the East and the West if it meant depriving Fatima of a right that belongs to her. And after that, you have the right to never speak of it again.” Urwah said, “This was before the revelation of the verse: {Call them by their fathers’ names; that is more just in the sight of God} [Al-Ahzab: 5]. This is an authentic hadith according to the criteria of the two Sheikhs (Al-Bukhari and Muslim), but they did not include it in their collections.”
We will say this. For Ibadi and Sunni Muslims, for both of us, we can move forward without going back and deliberating over these conflicts among the companions. Although some among the Salafi want to bring ambiguous from our books looking for firtnah. However, for the Shi’i, it is absolutely paramount for all their sects to belittle companions in order to advance their claims concerning Ali.
They (the shi’i) also have eulogies concerning Karbala. This often whips them up into a frenzy. One of our colleagues recalls how a former Shi’i friend mentioned to him while being in a Mosque commemorating Karbala he wanted to beat up the first Sunni that he saw!
Imagine if Ibadi Muslims held eulogies and mass gatherings concerning Nahrawan every year. Remembering in anguish Ali’s slaughter of the companions at Nahrwan. Our Imams and shuyookh reading poems and recounting in gruesome detail the events that unfolded that day. How would it be possible not to have some deep hatred towards the Shi’i?
Our scholars have pulled us back from this. This is why you see Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (h) support the Taliban or Erdoğan, and he has come out in support of Iran. He supports the causes of Muslims against non-Muslims. When Muslims fight, Muslims like the Shi’i of Azerbaijan fight the Sh’i of Iran. Or when the Sunni of Pakistan and the Sunni of Afghanistan fight each other, Shaykh Khalii (h) remains silent.
“That was a nation which has passed on. It will have what it earned, and you will have what you have earned. And you will not be asked about what they used to do.” (Qur’an 2:133-134)
Ibadi stance on the sahaba: According to the Qur’an.
“Look you see these Ibadites! They disavow certain ones from among the companions! They were all loved by each other and we love them all too! We would never say such things about the companions!”
About that…
It is from the Sunnah to disavow any Muslim (including a companion) when they commit a sin.
First and foremost to disavow any Muslim when they commit a sin is from the Sunnah of the Blessed Prophet (saw). This includes the companions.
Narrated Salim’s father:
The Prophet (saw) sent Khalid bin Al-Walid to the tribe of Jadhima and Khalid invited them to Islam but they could not express themselves by saying, “Aslamna (i.e. we have embraced Islam),” but they started saying “Saba’na! Saba’na (i.e. we have come out of one religion to another).” Khalid kept on killing (some of) them and taking (some of) them as captives and gave every one of us his Captive. When there came the day then Khalid ordered that each man (i.e. Muslim soldier) should kill his captive, I said, “By Allah, I will not kill my captive, and none of my companions will kill his captive.” When we reached the Prophet, we mentioned to him the whole story. On that, the Prophet (saw) raised both his hands and said twice, O Allah, I disavow before You what Khalid has done.” اللَّهُمَّ إِنِّي أَبْرَأُ إِلَيْكَ مِمَّا صَنَعَ خَالِدٌ
Another point. If it was found in the books of the Ibadis that Ali or Uthman or Muaviya that they were kafir. First is that one has to remember that this is not cursing. Second, whereas in other schools, kafir is saying that someone is outside of Islam in our school, we differentiate between Kufr an-Ni’mah and Kufr Ash-Shirk. To be very clear, no one in our school says Ali or Uthman or Muaviya committed kufr-shirk! No one! Someone who follows the Ibadi school but commits a major sin is in a state of kufr an-ni’mah.
You may read about how the concept of kufr as defined by the Qur’an and Sunnah here:
This is describing a condition of the person. No one is insulting people’s mother’s like school yard bullies.
Remember you cannot unsee what you are about to see and you will be held accountable.
Narrated Jarir:
The Prophet (saw) said to me during Hajjat-al-Wida`: Let the people keep quiet and listen. Then he said (addressing the people), “Do not (become infidels) revert to disbelief after me by striking the necks (cutting the throats) of one another (killing each other).
Salih Al-Sheikh, in his explanation of the Tahawi creed, said that the fighting companions fell into minor disbelief, and they entered into the characteristics of disbelief!
Al-Albani says that the fighting companions after the Messenger of Allah have no refuge from calling them infidels!
In the statement of Al-Tahawi: (And their hatred is disbelief and hypocrisy and slander): Firstly: It includes the disbelief of the Companions:
A) If the hatred is due to religion or anger, as we have detailed, then the disbelief here is major disbelief.
B) If the hatred is for worldly reasons—as may occur due to fierce rivalry or hatred for worldly matters—then this is minor disbelief and does not reach the level of major disbelief. For this reason, the Prophet said:
“Do not revert to disbelief after me by hating one another?!”
(1) Narrated by Al-Bukhari (17), Muslim (74), Al-Nasa’i (5019), and others (30/134), from Anas bin Malik, may Allah be pleased with him. (2) Narrated by Al-Bukhari (1116), Muslim (66), Abu Dawood (4186), Al-Nasa’i (4216), and Ibn Majah.
Sheikh Saleh Al-Sheikh
The fighting among the Companions after the Prophet (peace be upon him) is minor disbelief, not major disbelief. And now, whoever declares the Companions to be disbelievers, even if it is minor disbelief.
Explanation of the Theological Punishment
The fact that some Companions fought one another involves characteristics of disbelievers, which is why he said: “Do not revert to disbelief after me.” There is no doubt that the motive behind this may be hatred.
In Al-Sharh al-Wafī ‘alā ‘Aqīdat al-Tahāwiyyah” (الشرح الوافي على عقيدة الطحاوية), a well-known commentary on “Al-‘Aqīdah al-Tahāwiyyah”—a foundational text on Sunni creed attributed to Imam Abu Ja’far al-Tahawi (d. 321 AH)
It states that the Companions fight each other. It may be lesser kufr, or it may be greater kufr (i.e. polytheism) and that depends on the level of hatred!
Shaykh ‘Ubayd bin ‘Abdullah al-Jabri (عُبَيْد بن عبد الله الجابري), a contemporary Salafi scholar from Saudi Arabia, and his book “Imdād al-Qārī bi Sharḥ al-Bukhārī” (إمداد القاري بشرح البخاري), which is a commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari states that the fighting companions fell into blasphemy!
Then it is said, “and we consider it good,” because it indicates that love for them (the Companions) is sound in religion and is a means of drawing closer to Allah through adherence to sincerity and truthfulness in faith. Naturally, “and we declare them free from blame,” and “we consider it good”—all these are not the same. The methodology in loving the Companions is refined, and their status is measured by their sound companionship, righteousness, and understanding of their elevated rank.
Similarly, it is stated, “and we declare them disbelievers”—an additional clarification: “and we affirm.” Hatred toward the Companions is firmly established—whether the hatred is due to religion or personal malice, in which case it constitutes major disbelief. If the hatred is for worldly reasons, as may arise from fierce rivalry or worldly motives, then it is minor disbelief and does not reach the level of major disbelief. Hence, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Do not revert to disbelief after me by striking one another’s necks!”
The fact that some Companions fought one another involves falling into the traits of disbelievers, which is why he said: “Do not revert to disbelief after me.” It is most accurate to say that the motive behind this was hatred and disbelief, because fighting is accompanied by elements of hatred. However, given the mutual relations among the Companions (where some may not have loved others until death, and hatred may exist without clear justification), this disbelief may be minor or may vary based on the nature of the hatred (with further elaboration).
Because the intent is to derive from this the preservation of the religion, the safeguarding of Islam among the people, and striving in the Sunnah with true jihad—as the Companions did under the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). Yet, some later turned into opponents of the Companions and aligned with the disbelievers. Allah described them: “The hypocrite men and hypocrite women are of one another…” (Surah At-Tawbah: 67).
The intent may be major ideological hatred, depending on the condition of the heart, or practical hatred, based on the type of love or its absence, or the type of hatred and its cause. “And we affirm,” and regarding their transgression—this is specific to the one who harbors it and the gravity of the matter. For Allah (Exalted and Majestic) commanded some of them (or the lesser among them) to “be patient,” meaning He commanded some to endure and restrain themselves from those who wronged them, even if they had the power to retaliate. This indicates that whoever swore allegiance (to the truth) had knowledge and insight in this matter.
Shaykh Ibn al-Qayyim Yusri al-Sayyid Muhammad and his work “Jāmi’ al-Fiqh” (جامع الفقه) by Lisr al-Sayyid: States that the fighting companions had fallen intodisbelief by their actions.
The Disbelief of Denial and Stubbornness
The disbelief of denial (كفر الجحود)-kufr al juhud occurs when someone knowingly rejects what the Messenger (peace be upon him) brought from Allah—whether it pertains to Allah’s Lordship, His attributes, His actions, or His rulings—out of sheer arrogance and obstinacy. This type of disbelief completely contradicts faith in every aspect.
As for practical disbeliefby actions (كفر العمل), kufr al amal it is divided into two categories:
That which contradicts faith entirely—such as prostrating to idols, disrespecting the Quran, or killing a prophet.
That which does not entirely negate faith—such as ruling by other than what Allah has revealed or abandoning prayer.
However, ruling by other than what Allah has revealed and abandoning prayer are undoubtedly forms of practical disbelief. It cannot be denied that these carry the label of “disbelief” (كفر) after Allah and His Messenger have explicitly applied it. Thus:
“Whoever rules by other than what Allah has revealed is a disbeliever.”
“Whoever abandons prayer is a disbeliever,” as stated in the explicit texts of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
The Disbelief of Denial and Belief, and His Saying:
“Do not revert to disbelief after me, striking one another’s necks…” This refers to practical disbelief (كفر عمل). Similarly, his saying: “Whoever does so intentionally has disbelieved in what was revealed to Muhammad.” And his saying: “If one of them has indeed earned it…”
This detailed classification is the position of the Companions regarding the relationship between Islam and disbelief. Do not think that they did not understand the implications—rather, they divided into two groups:
A group that considered such people to be eternally in Hellfire.
A group that regarded them as sinful believers (not complete disbelievers).
Allah has guided Ahl al-Sunnah to the moderate path, where:
There is disbelief (كفر) that does not reach polytheism (شرك).
There is sin (فسق) that does not amount to disbelief.
There is oppression (ظلم) that does not constitute apostasy.
(Page: 5)
“Whoever rules by other than what Allah has revealed is a disbeliever.” It is on this basis that many of the salaf had broke ranks with Ali’s decision for arbitration. As the text is explicit fight until. In that sense Ali would have committed (كفر العمل), kufr al amal.
Shaykh Muṣṭafā bin al-ʿAdawī (مصطفى العدوي ) mentioned that the fighting companions are falling into kufr al-Amal!
“Fatḥ al-Bārī bi Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī” (فتح الباري بشرح صحيح البخاري), the legendary commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī by Imam Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī (d. 852 AH) that the companions are considered to be upon blasphemy And that the misfortune of disobedience may lead to greater sins, and it is feared that he will not be sealed with the seal of Islam!
One will note that the warning of the Blessed Messenger (saw) was do not revert to disbelief.
Shaykh Ibn al-Uthaymeen says that the Companions fighting each other is considered kufr, but it does not expel one out of the religion!
Ibn Taymiyyah says that the companions who fought each other are called infidels, and it is a restricted designation!
It was stated in the book, The Masa’il of Imam Ahmad (مسائل الإمام أحمد) that the Sunni hadith scholar: Ali bin Al-Jaad says that Muawiyah died upon other than Islam!!!
The Salafiyah will end up declaring all the Companions to be unbelievers altogether, according to their claim that whoever rejects the Hadith of Ahad is an infidel! Shaykh Al-Ghazali says that none of the companions accept this!
Salafiyah have declared one of the companions who rebelled against Caliph Uthman to be an infidel!
Muhammed bin Abd al-Wahhab describes a group of the Companions as ignorant, evil and rebellious!
Ibn Taymiyya in his book Kitaab Al-‘Arsh (كتاب العرش), says that the Companions did takfir upon one another and this is well known!
Ibn Taymiyya, in his book Iqtidaa al-Sirat al-Mustaqeem Mukhaalafat Ashaab al-Jaheem (اقتضاء الصراط المستقيم مخالفة أصحاب الجحيم) criticizes the honorable companion Abdullah bin Umar (ra), who is one of the strongest people in following the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah! That Abdullah bin Umar (ra) committed bid’ah!
Muhammed bin Abd al-Wahhab had strong criticism for a number of the companions!
“Sharh Al-‘Aqeedah Al-Wasitiyyah” (شرح العقيدة الواسطية), the explanation of Ibn Taymiyyah’s famous creedal work, authored by Shaykh Muhammed ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen.
Uthaymeen states:
“Undoubtedly, some of them committed theft, drank alcohol, engaged in slander, or even committed adultery (whether punishable by hadd or not). Yet, all these misdeeds are overshadowed by their overwhelming virtues and merits. Some of these sins were met with legal punishments (hudud), serving as expiation (kaffarah).”
The misdeeds committed by a few among them are exceedingly few and negligible, which is why the author states: “They are drowned out by the virtues and merits of these people.”
However, if they committed adultery, or theft then they committed acts of kufr ni’mah or what others say is: kufr al amal
If Uthaymeen says the companions committed acts of kufr no one bats an eye. A scholar from the Ibadi schools it and suddenly the emotions overcome the senses.
What about this? It was mentioned in the book Akhbār al-Madīnah al-Munawwarah (أخبار المدينة المنورة) that the blood of Uthman is divided into three. A third on the mother of the believers Aisha (ra), and a third on Talha, and a third on Ali bin Abi Talib! That darkness was over each of them!
Ibn Baz responds to Ibn Hajar and claims that the act of the companion Abdullah bin Umar in seeking blessing from the relics of the saints (tabarruk) leads to polytheism. And here Ibn Baz declared himself more knowledgeable than the great companion Abdullah bin Umar!
Shaykh Ibn Al-Uthaymeen once again says that the Companions are not all just, so whoever is known for an insult is not just! Some of them committed theft, drank wine, committed fornication while married and some outside of marriage!
An explicit accusation and takfir without hinting that Ali did not kill Uthman except that he considered him an infidel!
Narration 1:
Narrated by Al-Humaidi: Abdullah ibn Wahb reported from Sa’id ibn Abi Ayyub, from Abi Sakhr, from Abi Mu’awiyah al-Bahili, from Abi al-Sahba’ al-Mukabbar (1), who said: “We discussed the killing of Uthman, and some of us said: ‘I believe Ali killed him only because he considered Uthman a disbeliever.’ I said: ‘Should we ask Ali about this?’ So they asked him, and he replied: ‘By Allah, Uthman was not the worst among us. But he ruled, became arrogant, and we acted poorly in our impatience. Matters escalated until judgment was passed between us.'”
Narration 2:
Narrated by Ali ibn Muhammad, from Abi Mukhtalif, from Abdulmalik ibn Nawfal ibn Musahiq, from his father, who said: “Ali entered upon Uthman after the people of Egypt found a letter with his servant. Uthman denied writing it, so Ali asked: ‘Whom do you accuse?’ Uthman replied: ‘I accuse you and my scribe.’ Ali became angry, left, and said: ‘By Allah, if he did not write it—or if it was falsely attributed to him—then he bears no blame for the Ummah’s turmoil. But if he did write it, he has brought this upon himself. Yet, I will not abandon him despite his accusation.’ Many people then withdrew their support .”
Narration 3:
Narrated by Amr ibn Mansur, from ibn Sulayman al-Dab’i, from Awf, who said: “Among the Companions, Talhah ibn Ubaydullah was the most severe against Uthman, but he later regretted his stance due to delays in justice.”
Ibn Taymiyya in Majmū’ al-Fatāwā (مجموع الفتاوى) mentioned that the Companions fought and cursed each other and declared each other infidels, and their statements concerning this is well known!
“Moreover, the early predecessors (Salaf) erred in some of these matters—major figures among them—yet they were not excessively criticized for it.” For example:
Some Companions denied that the Blessed Prophet (saw) could hear the call of the dead (e.g., at Badr).
Others denied that a woman could have a ghayrah (rightful jealousy) over her husband.
Some disputed whether the Blessed Prophet (saw) saw his Lord (during the Mi’raj).
There were disagreements among them about the caliphate and the superiority of certain individuals—well-known debates.
Some engaged in fighting one another, while others cursed certain figures—explicit statements are documented.
Similarly, the judge once mentioned a recitation of the Quranic verse ‘Bal ‘Īdu’ (بل عيد) [instead of ‘Bal ‘Īdu’ (بل عيد)] and claimed, ‘Allah does not cause hardship.’ When this reached Ibrahim al-Nakha’i, he said: ‘He has innovated! ‘Abdullah [ibn Mas’ud] was more knowledgeable than him and recited it correctly.’ Here, a confirmed recitation was denied, and an attribute affirmed by the Quran and Sunnah was rejected—yet the Ummah still regards him as one of its imams.
Some criticized Ibn Taymiyya for affirming that certain Companions cursed others—explicitly referring to Mu’awiyah, ‘Amr ibn al-‘As, and those like them who cursed Ali from the pulpits.
This is documented in Tarikh al-Tabari and Al-Sunnah by Ibn Abi ‘Asim.
Accusing The Mother of the Believers Aisha (ra) of killing Caliph Uthman; and that she was responsible for inciting people to kill him! Saying, “Kill Nathla, for he has disbelieved!” (Nathla was a Jew). Accused of likening Uthman to a Jew named Nathla.
In a commentary explaining the aqidah of Tahawi. Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan is blamed for approving the insult of Imam Ali, and by approving it he insulted Ali in Iraq and the Levant!
“The first king in Islam was Mu‘awiyah, and he was the best and most virtuous of their kings because he was righteous, the son of a righteous man, and because his lineage was noble. However, he is criticized because he allowed… due to his stance toward ‘Ali. As a result of his policy, the cursing of ‘Ali became widespread during his rule in Iraq and Syria, leading to this abominable practice, which gave rise to lies about the cursing of the Companions and exaggeration in the praise of ‘Ali.”
“Because of this, the Rafidah (a sect of extremists) harbor intense hatred toward Mu‘awiyah and all of Banu Umayyah, except for ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz (may Allah be pleased with him). This is because the cursing of ‘Ali continued in Iraq and Syria—though not in all places, only in some mosques—throughout the reign of Banu Marwan, until ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz came to power and abolished this practice, putting an end to it.”
Do you know who encouraged ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd Al-‘Aziz to stop the cursing of ‘Ali from the pulpits?
Muawiyah used to curse Ali and ordered him to be cursed on the pulpits and continued to curse him even after the death of Ali!
We have seen and reliably transmitted that Mu’awiyah’s cursing of Ali is recorded in authentic sources—specifically on page 45 of Volume 2 of Al-Fikr al-Sa’bi. Historians like Ibn Jarir al-Tabari and others have unanimously confirmed this.
They would not give anything except after disavowing Imam Ali and testifying against him with hypocrisy!
Al-Awza’i (a renowned scholar) said: “They did not grant us stipends until we testified that Ali was a hypocrite—and I am innocent of such a claim! They forced us into this by threatening to withhold salaries, divorce our wives, and take our children. When I realized the gravity of the matter, I consulted Mak’hul, Yahya ibn Abi Kathir, ‘Ata ibn Abi Rabah, and Abdullah ibn ‘Ubayd ibn ‘Umayr. They all said: ‘You are under duress; there is no sin upon you.’ Yet my conscience remained unsettled until I divorced my wives, freed my slaves, relinquished my wealth, and repented for what I had done under coercion.”
Al-Hakim recorded this narration through Ali al-Hafiz, who cited Mak’hul of Beirut, from Abu Farwah.
It is proven that Mu’awiyah was ordering Sa’d to insult Imam Ali and he explained that in detail and you will find among the Salafiyah those who defend Mu’awiyah and those trying to abuse the text!
Mu’awiyah’s Demand for Cursing ‘Ali
Context:
Mu’awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan pressured Sa’d to curse ‘Ali.
Sa’d had remained neutral during the Fitna (civil strife) but was known to defend ‘Ali.
The Dialogue:
Mu’awiyah: “What prevents you from cursing him?”
Sa’d: “What prevents me? [I refuse.]”
It was stated in the book Sunan Ibn Majah that Muawiyah used to insult and curse Imam Ali, and the reason was due to worldly matters between them!
It was stated in the book on the explanation of Sahih Muslim that Muawiyah ordered Saad to insult Imam Ali! And with all this, you find the Salafiyyah defending and fighting for Muawiya, and it was safer for them to desist from that period in its entirety. But no, not them! One standard for them and one standard for others. They use double standards in sedition and make the common people think that they are the lovers of the Companions!
Banu Umayyah used to insult and curse Imam Ali on their platforms! And the Salafiyyah defend the injustice of the Umayyads and cursing of Imam Ali!
According to Imam Al-Qurtubi’s testimony Muawiyah insults Imam Ali and commands people to insult him! And guess who is defending those who curse and insult the Companions?
The great Companions used to curse the other great Companions, and many are the Salafi who conceal this and pretend to love the Companions, while in reality Companions are innocent of them.
Read below:
“The people of Sham (Syria) departed to Mu’awiyah and pledged their allegiance to him, forsaking and exposing him (a reference to a disputed event). Ibn ‘Abbas and Sharhabeel ibn Hanī’ returned to Ali with the news. Thereafter, whenever Ali would pray the morning prayer (Fajr), he would invoke curses (Qunoot) and say: ‘O Allah, curse Mu’awiyah, ‘Amr (ibn al-‘As), Abū al-A’war, Habīb ibn Maslamah, ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn Khālid ibn al-Walīd, al-Fasaḷ ibn Qays, and al-Walīd ibn ‘Uqbah.’
This reached Mu’awiyah, so he, in turn, began to curse Ali, al-Ashtar, Qays ibn Sa’d, al-Hasan, al-Husayn, Ibn ‘Abbas, and ‘Abdullāh ibn Ja’far, may Allah the Exalted be pleased with them all.
In the text Imam Ali is cursed, yet the one who curses him he is considered trustworthy and honest! Yet look how they assault the Ibadi school. Where is the balance? Where do we insult any of the companions and worse yet where do we call any of them dogs of hellfire?!
Raja’ bin Haywah , considered a man of trust with those who attack us. (Those who attack the Ibadi). He (Raja’ bin Haywah) denounced the just caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz for leaving cursing and cursing of Imam Ali on the pulpits!
Which by the way this was at the urging of the Ibadi delegation. (Thank you Muslim majority for conveniently leaving that tid bit out)
Harir bin ‘Uthman, he is one of the men of Bukhari. This man was cursing and cursing Imam Ali, and despite all this, he is proven trustworthy and has the trust of Ibn Mu’in and Ahmad bin Hanbal!
In Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, Volume 2, page 409-410, Entry No. 852
وَرَوَى الْعَقِيلِيُّ عَنْ يَحْيَى بْنِ مَعِينٍ أَنَّهُ كَانَ يَسُبُّ عَلِيًّا رضي الله عنه كُلَّ يَوْمٍ مِائَةً وَأَرْبَعِينَ مَرَّةً.
“And al-‘Uqaylī narrated from Yaḥyā bin Ma‘īn that he [Ḥarīr] would curse Ali one hundred and forty times every day.”
Ahmad bin ‘Abdullah al-‘Ijli said: “Harir bin ‘Uthman was a Syrian, reliable (thiqah), and he used to bear hostility (yahmil) against ‘Ali.”
Yahya bin Ma’in said: “It was mentioned that Harir used to revile (yashnum) ‘Ali from the pulpit (al-minbar).”
It was narrated from Yazid bin Harun that he said: “I saw the Lord of Might (Rabb al-‘Izzah) in a dream, and He said to me: ‘O Yazid! Do not write from him’—meaning from Harir bin ‘Uthman. I said: ‘O Lord, I have not known anything from him except good.’ He said to me: ‘O Yazid! Do not write from him, for he reviles (‘sabb‘) ‘Ali.'”
‘Ali bin ‘Ayyash narrated, saying: “I heard Harir bin ‘Uthman say to a man: ‘Woe to you! Do you not fear God? You have reported from me that I revile (‘asubbu‘) ‘Ali. By Allah, I do not revile him, and I have never reviled him.'”
Shababah said: “I heard Harir bin ‘Uthman, and a man said to him: ‘O Abu ‘Amr, it has reached me that you do not show mercy upon ‘Ali?’ He said to him: ‘Be quiet! What business is this of yours?’ Then he turned to me and said: ‘May Allah have mercy on him (‘Ali)’ a hundred times.”
Ahmad bin Hanbal and Yahya bin Ma’in considered his narrations to be stopped (waqafuhu – a term in hadith criticism, possibly meaning they did not use his narrations as evidence due to this issue).
Al-Hajjaj beats people who do not curse Imam Ali and punishes them with flogging!
Ibn Abi Layla, and Ibn al-Zubayr, and Al-Mukhtar:
Abu Bakr bin Abi Shaybah narrated from Abu Mu’awiyah from Al-A’mash, who said: “I saw ‘Abd al-Rahman bin Abi Layla. Al-Hajjaj had him beaten and made him stand at the door of the mosque. They began saying to him: ‘Who are the liars?'” He said: “So who are the liars of Allah?” Then he said: “‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, ‘Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, and Al-Mukhtar bin Abi ‘Ubayd.” – [he said it] quietly. So I knew when he fell silent, then he started again and raised his voice, that he did not mean them.
Harir bin ‘Uthman, it was known about him that he insulted Imam Ali, and he was famous for that. However, when Ahmed bin Hanbal was asked about him, he said about him: trustworthy, trustworthy, trustworthy!
A question to the Salafiyyah, On what consistent basis do you attack the Ibadi when some of our past scholars put Ali inBarā’ah, and some practice Wuqoof, while others hold him in Walāyah and yet you keep defending the Umayyads whose Sunnah was to curse Imam Ali in the streets and on the pulpits?!
Now imagine dear readers that we take a time machine back to the Umayyad period. We have those among the companions, the early salaaf who disavow Ali for arbitration and killing the believers at Nahrawan. Meanwhile what will be going on in the Umayyad territories? Cursing Imam Ali on the pulpits as a necessary Sunnah.
Who is reviling who?
Who is disavowing who?
Ibn al-Qayyim criticizes the Companions for masturbating during their battles, and criticizes their women! Certainly these are the ethics of the downward road!
Marwan bin Al-Hakam used to insult and curse Ali as well as his two sons Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein on the pulpits! Marwan would claim that Hassan smelled of donkey urine!
…Narrated by Ishaq bin Rahawayh (1) and Abu ‘Ubayd (2).
[Narration 7566] And from ‘Umayr bin Ishaq who said: “Marwan was our governor for a year, and he would curse [‘Ali] – – for us from the pulpit.” He would address the people, then Marwan was deposed, and Sa’id bin al-‘As was appointed for a year, and he did not curse. Then Sa’id was deposed, and Marwan was reinstated, and he resumed cursing. So it was said to Al-Hasan bin ‘Ali: “Do you not hear what Marwan is saying?” But he would not respond at all. He would prepare on Friday, then enter the pulpit of the Prophet (saw)and it would be there. When the pulpit was brought forward, he would enter the mosque and not prepare, then return to his family. Marwan was not satisfied with that until he sent a message to him in his house, so that when he sat with him, he would address the people. So he sent for him, and he entered. He said: “Your proximity is part of the sultan’s might, and your proximity is a resolution.” He [Al-Hasan] said: “[Say] what you want.” He said: “Marwan has sent me to you with so-and-so and so-and-so, and I have not found anyone like you except the urine of a female mule.
Caliph Uthman begged Ali bin Abi Talib and Talha to defend him when his house was besieged. However, he was not as supported as it should have been. And Marwan was cursing the people and antagonizing them more! Why didn’t the companions support Uthman?!
The Salafiyyah spread lies among the people that Muawiyah loves Ali and takes care of him, to the extent that if the two groups fight, it is because of the excessive longing between the brothers, so if the night comes, they congregate until the morning, then they shed crocodile tears to deceive the common people! Here, their lies are exposed!
The Salaafiyah are deceiving the common people by saying that Muawiyah did not order Sa`d to insult Mu`awiyah, and that his purpose was not to insult, but rather he wanted to test Sa‘d, Yet the deception is clear!
Muawiya used to send his agents to interrogate people and disavow Ali and curse him, and if they did not respond to his request, they would be sentenced to death!
Muawiyah orders Hajr and his companions to disavow Ali and curse him, but they refuse to do so and are killed! This is Muawiyah the one we are supposed to say (May Allah be pleased with his deeds) after his name!
A torrent of insults and cursing of Imam Ali, and this insult remained the Sunna of the Umayyads, and Muawiyah swore that their young ones would grow old and their old ones would grow older (they would be granted prolonged life) because of cursing Imam Ali!
And the Salafiyyah want it to be remained concealing from the common people and defend the Umayyads of the Nawasib! The truth has appeared and revealed the hidden!
Here is is mentioned the killing of Hujr bin Adi al-Kindi and his companions by Muawiyah Al-Baghy and his army of miscreants!
Al-Hajjaj orders the muezzin of Ali to disavow Ali, but he refuses and thus is killed!
Abdullah Al-Jabreen admits that the Umayyads insulted and cursed Ali on the pulpits until the era of Umar bin Abdul Aziz. Then he said that people began to mention the virtues of Ali, but even than he was upset that they alienated the people from the Umayyads!!!
Hence the split that last until today between the Abbasid Sunnis (those who incorporated Ali as the fourth “rightly guided”) and their antagonist, the Umayyad Sunnis (those who have real hate towards Ali).
Shaykh `Abdullah ibn `Abdur-Rahman al-Jibreen was a prominent Saudi Islamic scholar who served on the Council of Senior Scholars and the Permanent Committee for Islamic Research and Issuing Fatwas. Here is what he had to say.
“During the era of the Umayyads, and specifically after the caliphate of Mu’awiyah until the end of the [first] century—from the year sixty-one until the year ninety-nine—some of the Umayyad caliphs would curse Ali from the pulpits and in his absence, and they would accuse him of participating in the killing of Uthman. This continued until the time of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, who put an end to this heinous practice.”
“And there were in Kufa individuals who extreme in their devotion to Ali (yaghulūn fī ‘Alī), from among his ministers and students in Kufa. They were harmed and enraged by what they saw of the public cursing from the pulpits, and it became excessive. So they began to gather in private places for themselves and they would console each other. Then there joined them whoever wished to secede (from the community), so then people began to join them and they became numerous. They would exaggerate in his virtue, inventing many fabricated hadiths about his merits, and they claimed by doing this that they were endearing the people to him and turning the people away from the Umayyads.”
Muawiya’s first act after the death of Al-Hassan bin Ali was to perform Hajj and ascend to the pulpit of the Messenger of Allah in Medina to curse Imam Ali! Imagine the minbar of light and barakah being used to pour out vomit and hate!
The following is from: Al-‘Iqd al-Farid by Ahmad ibn Muhammed ibn Abd Rabbih. A book about adab! Imagine!
“And when Al-Hasan bin Ali died, Mu’awiyah performed Hajj and entered Medina. He wanted to curse Ali from the pulpit of the Messenger of Allah (saw). It was said to him: “Among us is Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas, and we do not think he will be pleased with this at all. So send for him and seek his opinion.” So he sent for him and mentioned that to him. Sa’d said: “If you do that, I will leave the mosque and never return to it!”
So Mu’awiyah refrained from cursing him until Sa’d died. After he (Sa’d) died, he (Mu’awiyah) cursed him (Ali) from the pulpit.
And he wrote to his governors to curse him on the pulpits, and they did so.
The Banu Umayyah, they had the vile practice that if they heard that someone had named his son Ali, they killed him!
Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Aqri said:
“The Banu Umayyah, whenever they heard of a newborn named ‘Ali, they would kill him. This reached Rabah, so he changed his son’s name.”
By the way dear reader many of you may not be aware but a revival of the Umayyad spirit is happening among the Sunni Muslims, in particular Salafist types. They wear the title nawasib as a badge of honour. As an indication of one’s loyalty to Sunnism they will name their kids as Yazid or Mu’awiyah. The fighting in Syria accelerated this movement. Insh’Allah have an article on this coming.
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah al-Harrani states about Ali that many of the companions and followers hated him, insulted him and fought him!
Ahl al-Sunnah excused some of those who killed Ali. And them themselves openly insulted and cursed him!
Ibn Al-Qayyim recounts the story of Al-Hajjaj in cursing Imam Ali and ordering people to curse him in the markets in front of the shops!
Ibn Taymiyyah proves the infighting and killing among the companions, and each group despising the other!
“As for what he mentioned regarding mutual cursing, the cursing was done by both groups, just as the fighting took place. One group would curse the leaders of the other in their supplications, and the other would curse the leaders of the first in their supplications. It is said that each faction would invoke curses upon the other in their prayer (qunut).”
“Fighting with the hand is greater [in sin] than cursing with the tongue. All of this—whether it was a sin, an effort of independent legal judgment (ijtihad), an error, or a correct opinion—is encompassed by the forgiveness and mercy of God through repentance, the erasing of sins by good deeds, great calamities that expiate sin, and other means.”
Source: (“Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah” (منهاج السنة النبوية)
The Salafiyah tell us that the mother of the believers Aisha (May Allah be pleased with her) swears by Allah that Abu Huraira lied! Is this the amount of respect for the Companions have for each other according to the Salafiyah?
In the books of Ahl Sunnah a sahabah is accused of adultery!
A Companion eats the head of another Companion!
Salafiyah claim that what Ahmed bin Hanbal did for Islam was not done by anyone other than him not even Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq! (May Allah be pleased with him!) Are these words said in truth about the best companion of the Blessed Messenger (saw)?!
The sahaba used to drink wine! (After becoming Muslims)
A Companion Drinks Alcohol!(After embracing Islam)
A companion leads the people in the morning prayer, four units while in a state of sloppy drunkenness, and says to the crowd of worshipers, “Shall I add more for you?”
Umar bin Al-Khattab appoints a companion who drinks alcohol in Bahrain and asks the companions to testify to his drunkenness’. This is how the Salafiyah convey to us about the companions challenging and calling each other out like this!
They say the companions were cheaters and that Abu Hurarira was the chief of them in cheating! Imagine! And there are among the Ahl Sunnah who have the audacity to call the People of Truth and Straightness as Non Muslims?!
What does it mean by calling a noble companion a thief?
See what is said about the companions here:
Who were those who persisted in their ignorance and evil, then Muawiyah banished them from the Levant? ! Muhammed bin Abdul Wahhab answers you!
Shaykh Ibn Baz accuses the companions of polytheism!
Shaykh Ibn Baz’s ruling on cursing some of the companions! Surprise Surprise!
Ahl Sunnah say that Abu Hurairah was known for taking bribes! Who attacks the companions?
Shaykh Ibn Al-Uthaymeen, states that not all the Companions are not all just! In them there is rank debauchery!
Ibn Al-Atheer describes the companion Abu Musa as a fool! Who respects the companions?
Yahya Ibn Mu’een insults the companion Ammar bin Yasir and follows up his insults with curses! Who respects the companions?
Umar ibn al-Khattab, May Allah be pleased with him, called the People of the Book al-Faruq. Is this true, ya Salafiyah?
Ahl Sunnah defaming Umar Ibn Al-Khattab! (May Allah be pleased with him), by saying that he was distracted by clapping in the markets!! Who respects the companions? Only the people who have no haya insult Umar (ra)
They imagine that the companions of the Messenger of Allah are flirting with a beautiful woman while they are praying! Is this the state of the companions of the Messenger of Allah with you?
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah accuses Imam Ali that his war was not for Allah and His Messenger, and if it was for Allah and His Messenger, victory would have been for him! One of the positions of the Ibadi is that Ali came short for going against the hukm of Allah (swt) and later slaughtered the Muslims of Nahrawan. Allah knows best his ending. The other is that Ali had realized his wrong, was overwhelmed with grief and turned in repentance to Allah (swt) and met with a good ending. husnal khatimah
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says that Ali deems the blood of Muslims lawful, and thus he is out and out a Kafir.
Al-Waleed bin Juma’ is from the narrators of Sahih Muslim and Ibn Hazm says his hadeeth is defective and Al-Waleed is a doomed man!
Here they are defaming the Prophet of Allah (saw), his honorable companions, and his pure wives!
Another wretched statement!
If Ibn Umar wanted to buy a slave girl, where would he place his hand?! Who honors the companions?
Defaming the great companion Umar Ibn Al-Khattab (May Allah be pleased with him).
They claim the Companion Abdullah bin Umar called Abu Hurairah a flat liar!
Among the terms of the reconciliation between Muawiyah and Al-Hassan, after he was betrayed and almost killed, is that Muawiya stop cursing Imam Ali in Al-Hassan’s presence!
Shi’a tend to think Al Hassan’s reconciliation with Muawiya was wrong but that Ali’s arbitration with Muawiya was fine and dandy!
One of Ahl Sunnah says that the faith of Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq (ra) and the faith of Iblees are one! No one says this except for someone who has left the fold of Islam. And the Sunnis excused those who killed Imam Ali and openly insulted and cursed him!
The claim that Fatima Al-Zahraa was a lying woman and lied to Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq, and his narration was received, then she deserted him until she died!
None other than Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah criticizes the “Rightly Guided Caliphs”!
According to the testimony of Ibn Katheer!
More from Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah!
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says that Ali fought and killed many Muslims who perform the prayers and pay the zakat, and the matter of blood is more severe! Why is if it an Ibadi scholar says it it is an offense but if Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says it is fine?
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says that in Ali’s caliphate there was no mercy, rather people were killed and they curse each other, and they did not have a sword against the infidels, but rather the infidels coveted them and took a country from them and their money.
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says that the time of Ali is a time of sedition, and there was no general imam!
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says that the Companions who fought Ali, vilified him and cursed him were more knowledgeable than those who supported Ali and cursed Uthman. Who is disavowing who here?
The predecessors of the Salafiyah are those who did not consider Imam Ali to be the caliph of the Muslims until the time of Ahmed bin Hanbal! Think about that! Do not get it twisted. The Imami Shi’i never accepted the first three Caliphs. The Ahl Sunnah the fourth until Imam Ahmed rehabilitated the image of Ali among them. Where as the Ibadi are the one’s who recognized all four from the beginning! Learn the truth!
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah defines the Sunnis as the ones who established the succession of the three caliphs! Where is Ali?
The jurists of the Hejaz and Iraq from the two groups of theologians and the people of opinion, including Malik, Al-Shafi’i, Al-Awzai, and the majority of Muslims and theologians, agreed that Ali was right in his war in Siffin and in the Battle of the Camel, and that those who fought him were unjust oppressors ! (i.e. Muawiyah and his army, Our Mother Aisha (ra), Talha and Al-Zubayr)
Muawiyah tempts the child killer Ibn Arta’ah to kill Ali bin Abi Talib and promises him the best of this world and the Hereafter! But remember Ahl Sunnah will tell you they loved each other as brothers! Of course they did!
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says that Umar is less mistaken than Ali, and they found the weakness in Ali’s sayings more, and they found contradiction in Ali’s sayings more than the contradictory sayings of Umar!
Ibn Asakir The Syrian Sunni Islamic scholar says that Marwan Ibn Al-Hakam used to curse Imam Ali on the pulpit every Friday for six years, then he was dismissed and reinstated again, and he did not stop insulting him!
Muawiyah mobilizes the people of Basra to fight Imam Ali.
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says that many of the Companions were known to have slandered Ali!
Ibn Hajar Al Asqalni openly quotes the things Ibn Taymiyyah has said about the companions that Ibn Taymiyyah and his supporters want to hide from people.
Look what the Hanbali Imam Ibn Qudama said about Ibn Muljim killing Imam Ali!
Al-Dhahabi: The Messenger of Muawiyah offers Hajr and his companions the innocence of a man! And the man is Imam Ali However, why amputate and hide the texts?
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah is skeptical whether Imam Ali memorized the Qur’an or not?
Al-Tabari: The Messenger of Muawiyah asks Hujr and his companions to disavow Ali and curse him, and tells them that we have been commanded to do so!
Imam Ali stayed in the caliphate for five years or more, so people ate and drank the blood of the innocent, lived off the sweat of the weak, and the tears of the bereaved, as well as the suffering of the orphans and the miserable!
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah’s opinion laid bare regarding the leadership of Imam Ali and those who fought Imam Ali and those who did not fight with him!
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, the three caliphs agreed upon by the Muslims, and the sword was unsheathed against the infidels and kept from the people of Islam. Ali, the Muslims did not agree to pledge allegiance to him, but rather sedition occurred during his reign, and the sword was kept from the infidels and unleashed on the people of Islam! In fact I (Prima-Qur’an) being non-partisan am inclined to agree with Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah here. It is a point against the Shi’i as the reign of Ali was not one of barakah, but of blood shed of believers and deep divisions that have lasted until this very day. If I say it as an Ibadi I will be called Kharijite where as Ibn Taymiyyah makes a good observation and gets a free pass.
Al-Abbas describes Ali as a treacherous sinner and a traitor; and ask Umar to judge between them? ! Hey Ahl Sunnah what is the ruling on the treacherous, the sinner, the traitor? Where is the love of the Companions?
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah: Hating Ali does not harm faith one bit!
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah: The preachers of Morocco mention Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, and they mention Muawiyah, but they do not mention Ali. It is clear that they hated him and cursed him!
The whole of Banu Umayyah, are a clan of Ali haters, all except for Umar bin Abdul Aziz, the just!
Al-Awza’i: We did not accept the giving until we witnessed Ali’s hypocrisy and disavowed him! Is this the love of the Companions?
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah: Imam Ali did not show the religion of Islam during his caliphate, and their enemies among the infidels and Christians coveted them! If the religion of Islam did not appear during Ali’s caliphate, then what religion did appear during his caliphate?
The Salafi Shaykh Abdel Moneim Al-Shahat states: “The reason for Ali’s defeat was caused by his greed for the caliphate and his love for leadership!”
How does he know what is in Ali ibn Abu Talib’s heart? Rather the reason for Ali’s defeat was going against the Amr of Allah (swt) in the Qur’an and in all my encounters with the Shi’i they Shi’i flee from this point!
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah expresses what is in his heart towards Imam Ali here:
Ibn Hajar in Al-Durar Al-Kamina transmits from Ibn Taymiyyah his visciousness towards Imam Ali!
Here they are – slandering the Mothers of the Believers, the Messenger of Allah, and Umar ibn al-Khattab!!!
The book of Musnad Imam Ahmad: Caliph Uthman directs his words to his companions while he is besieged and says to them: “Why are you killing me?!” A question for the Sunnis, why do you spread rumors among the people that the one who killed Uthman were rabble and bandits who came from Egypt?!
And why are you basically exposing the sedition of the Companions?! These books expose your lies!
They have admitted to fabricating false hadiths about Uthman!
Marwan killed Talha, one of the so called ten promised paradise, and because of him, events unfolded to lead to what what happened to Uthman, and he was severely cursing and abusing Imam Ali. Despite all that the Ahl Sunnah praise him.
Amr Ibn Al-Aas once stabbed the caliph Uthman and once demanded the blood of Uthman. The books of Ahl Sunnah expose their lies!
In The Book of The Comprehensive Explanations on the Tahawi Creed: They Criticize Uthman and Deplore His Killers!
Imam Al-Shafi’i says Imam Ali that he did not take revenge on blood or money! That is, those who participated in the killing of the caliph Uthman, Imam Ali did not take revenge on them because they were not in the wrong! Is this correct?
Ibn Qutayba criticizes Caliph Uthman so is he a kharijite?
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah at it again! This time he slanders both Uthman and Ali!!
The companions in Kufa slander Uthman, some of whom witnessed Badr! Obviously they did not believe the Qur’an teaches that all companions go to paradise.
The companion Abd al-Rahman bin Udays was among those who pledged allegiance under the tree. He was the commander of those coming from Egypt to besiege Uthman! And many are those among the Sunni who enjoy sedition and lie to the people that those coming from Egypt are nothing but rabble and deviants!
Remember the Salafi preacher who went on air and cursed the companion Amr b. al-Hamiq al-Khuzāʿī for stabbing Uthman in the chest 9 times! Even after he found out the man really was a companion he did a 180 but still maintained all the companions are just. Then the conclusion can only be that Uthman was killed with justice. Or the companion killed Uthman without justice with is a major major sin. It is a difficulty no doubt about it.
The Ahl Sunnah scholar says about the companion Al-Walid bin Uqba, Uthman’s brother to his mother, that his beard drips with wine!
Al-Kamil fi at-Tarikh edited to hide the truth from people!!
A complete chapter titled: “Why people denounced Uthman!” Imagine if Ibadi’s wrote a book like that with a title like this!
In the Sunni books the mother of the believers, Aisha (r.a) is stated to have said: “Kill Nathla, for he has committed blasphemy,” Nathla meaning Uthman!
Uthman spoiled the innermost secret of the divorced (freed-slaves)!
With in the book of Ibn Qutayba we find more censures against Caliph Uthman by a number of companions!
Aisha (r.a) the mother of the believers orders the killing of the companion Uthman bin Hanif!
Accusations of the murder of Caliph Uthman distributed among three: Aisha, Talha and Imam Ali!
The honorable companion Abd al-Rahman bin Udays al-Balawi who was among those who witnessed the conquest and was among those who pledged allegiance under the tree, and we see clearly his role in relation to Caliph Uthman!
The Sahabah themselves participated in the revolt against Caliph Uthman, as well as the sons of the Companions! Enough of your one sided views of history and delving into sedition and saying that that the Muslims were so stupid, so unaware, so aloof that Caliph Uthman was taken by surprise by unknown revolutionaries and unknown people!! All the while laughing at the common people and praising Muawiya and the Umayyads and telling the events to fit your lies to serve your agenda!
Al-Dhahabi, himself one of the predecessors of Al-Wahalia, mentions how Muslims resented Uthman! Where is the respect for the Companions and the shedding of crocodile tears to serve your malicious agenda?
A companion of the people of the allegiance of Al-Radwan and the leader of the revolutionaries was against Uthman!
In the Kitab al-Futuh: Aisha calls for the death of Uthman!
Umm Habiba appeals to Ali bin Abi Talib to protect Uthman and respond to her, unless he is dishonorable and miserable, meaning Uthman! And what is the greatest and most grievous attack against the Companions, other than that?
It was asked of the mother of the believers Aisha, “Do you not like a man from among the divorced men who disputes with Muhammed’s companions regarding the caliphate?” So what did Aisha say? !
Musannaf bin Abi Shaybah: Their are kings from the evil of kings, and the first of these kings is Muawiyah!
“Jaafar died in the midst of the caliphate of Muawiyah, may Allah curse him!”
“Yazid bin Muawiyah, may Allah curse them both!” More cursing and curses! Why all this cursing? Wasn’t Mu’awiyah one of the Companions?!
These books expose your hypocrisy!
The books of Ahl Sunnah are filled with it. May Allah (swt) curse so and so.
The Sunnis praise Muawiya and that he is the best of kings, then they add to this by saying that he approves of insulting Imam Ali! Have you gone mad?! Imam Ali is cursed and the one who curses him is said to be the best of kings!? WoW!
Let Imam Al-Suyuti quotes the words of Aisha (r.a) telling us what she really thinks about Muawiyah!
Imam Al-Shafi’i: list four sahabah whose testimony is not accepted! Testimony is taken from the truthful so what is the state of those four sahabah? These books expose their lies.
Marwan bin Al-Hakam, the first man with the caliph Uthman, hits the companion Talha bin Obaidullah with an arrow, and he kills him!
Shocker! Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan and wine! Your books expose your hypocrisy.
Two companions insulted Muawiyah, and Imam Ali declared Muawiyah is upon misguidance!
The cause of the death of Imam al-Nisa’i, May Allah have mercy on him, at the hands of the fanatical Banu Umayyah!
How did Imam Al-Nisa’i die!? The word of truth may cost you your life, but Allah’s promise is true! The curse of hatred, hypocrisy and criminality!
The position of Sunni scholars towards Muawiya!!
The books of the Salafiyah declare Muawiya to be an infidel.
The Insulting and cursing of Muawiya and Uthman in Sunni books.,The Muhajireen and the Ansar did not support Uthman.
Ali bin Al-Jaad swears that Muawiyah died in a state other than Islam! Ali bin Al Ja’ad is a narrator in Bukhari and Imam Bukhari has taken some 13 narrations from him in his Sahih.
A fatal statement that afflicts Muawiya and which breaks those who glorify him!
The ignorant who fabricate hadiths in favour of Muawiya!!
The Companion Hajr bin Uday who witnessed such battles such as the pivotal conflict of Al-Qadisiyah, Al-Jamal, and Siffin, and he was a Shiite of Ali, who was killed by Muawiyah’s order in Damascus!
If Ali Ibn Abu Talib had his hands drenched with the blood of the Muslims there is no doubt that Muawiyah bathed in it!
Muhammed bin Abi Bakr Al-Siddiq was killed on the orders of Muawiya. He was inserted into the stomach of a donkey and then burned! Shall we say “May Allah be pleased with such a man” and expect people to enter into Islam?!
Muawiyah was kind to some of the servants of Al-Hassan, and thus, Al-Hassan died of poisoned! Your books expose your hypocrisy!
The killing of the companion Hajar bin Uday and his companions was mentioned with glee by Muawiya and his army!
Muawiya was the uncle of the believers!? With family like that who needs family!
Question for your Sunni friends: Lil game of trivia. Was Muawiya truthful in accusing Imam Ali?! If so Ali is a brigand that usurps rule without right. If not Muawiya is a bold face liar.
Al-Hassan Al-Basri states: Four qualities were in Muawiyah, if he had only one of them, he would have been disastrous!
Muawiyah drank what? “Then my father handed it to him and he said, “I have not drunk it since the Messenger of Allah (saw) prohibited it!” Drink what? Do not deceive people and say that he used to drink milk, because milk was not prohibited by the Messenger of Allah (saw), so what is the forbidden drink that Muawiyah indulged in according to your books?
Ibn Abbas (r.a) replies to Muawiya after an exchange that your cousin, i.e. Uthman bin Affan, was rebuked by the Muslims, so they killed him! Notice that Ibn Abbas (r.a) doesn’t say rebels or some unknowns killed Uthman but that he was killed by the Muslims!
Who killed Ammar bin Yassir? What did the Blessed Messenger (saw) say about those who would kill Ammar (r.a)?
Muawiyah and the novels of wine! In Sunni books.
Muawiyah was a scribe between the Prophet and the Arabs, not as Sunni’s claim that he was a scribe of the revelation!!
And it came in the book Musnad of Imam Ahmad that he was ordering them to consume money between them unjustly and to kill themselves, confirming the verses “do not consume one another’s wealth unjustly”
When Al-Hassan died, Muawiya said the Takbir and everyone in his council said Takbir! These are your books, so see how you are? Look what your books say!
Muawiya was busy waiting for Al-Hassan’s death, so when the news reached him, he said “Allahu Akbar” and “Allah is the Greatest” for the people of Sham!
Abd al-Razzaq, who has nearly 300 hadiths in al-Sahihayn, says that mentioning Muawiya in gatherings is filthy! Why all this great hatred?
When Al-Hassan bin Ali died, Muawiya went on pilgrimage and wanted to insult Imam Ali on the pulpit of the Messenger of Allah (saw), and wrote to his workers to curse Ali on the pulpits! Imagine! On the Blessed minbar of the Blessed Messenger (saw) cursing the companions!
Ahmed bin Hanbal narrates that Shaykh Al-Bukhari swears that Muawiyah died in a state other than Islam, and he did not narrate from him, and he forbade his son Abdullah to mention him or write about him!
None other than the mountain of knowledge Ishaq bin Rahawayh states: “Nothing narrated from the Prophet (saw) regarding the merits of Muawiyah is authentic!”
Muawiyah removes Saeed bin Al-Aas from the mandate of Medina and appoints Marwan bin Al-Hakam in his place, so what is the reason?
According to the testimony of al-Dhahabi, Muawiyah curses Ali; and al-Hasan stipulated that he should not curse him while he was listening.
The hadith that states Muawiyah is one of the people of Hell, and al-Tabarani hides the name of Muawiyah and puts the word man! These books show your hypocrisy and deceit!
Muawiyah commands batil (falsehood and consumes it). Sunni books.
Muawiya and the novels of wine!
Abdullah bin Umar deeply regretted not fighting the oppressive faction Muawiya and his companions!
Muhammed ibn Abi Bakr’s neck was cut off by order of Mu’awiya, and he was the first head to be cut off in Islam!
The mother of the believers, Aisha (r.a) threatens Muawiya with death for killing her brother. The companions were one big happy family? So we are told.
Amr bin Al-Aas, a well-known companion, was one of the instigators against Uthman!
Insulting the great Companions and defaming an honorable person in the books of the Sunnis.
Defaming the great companion Umar Ibn Al-Khattab! with words that are never befitting of a man like Umar (r.a). Is there no fear of Allah’s wrath in your hearts?!
The noble and honourable Khadija(r.a) made her father drink wine to marry her to the Messenger of Allah (saw), and when her father got drunk, he accepted her marriage!
May Allah suffice you! May Allah guide this ummah!
May Allah guide us! What disaster!
Mujaddid Al-Salafiyah Muhammed bin Abd Al-Wahhab lied and claimed that the Companions unanimously agreed that the Companion Qudama bin Madhu’un had been declared an unbeliever!
Accusing the companion Anas bin Malik of drinking paint, i.e. alcohol! The impression they give of the companions is of people who huff paint and absue whippets!
A companion accused of adultery!
We can lead the horse to the troph but you cannot make it drink.
So what will it be dear Muslim Ummah?
Will your Imam be hiding in occultation waiting to come out…. one day?
Will your Imam be a playboy who goes boating with scantly clad women and tells us the obligation of prayer and fasting has been lifted?
Will you be a Crypto-Sunni (An Abbasid) that holds disdain for Yazid, a little bit for Muaviya when your feeling edgy and none for Uthman because it’s a step too far?
Or do we go with the majority simply because it is convenient and we embrace the Islam of the Imperium and say (May Allah be pleased with the tyrants)? To rebel against the ruler is to be a kharijite?
Or do you just go your own way do it yourself Islam?
In conclusion what we do know is that no matter what happened between they did their job. Islam is here. There has been nothing left out of this deen. Some people want to keep going back and revisiting the past and digging up the graves and create fitna for the Ummah. The rest of us are content with moving on.
Even, I myself do not find benefit in delving into these matters other than it is necessary to get the record straight. What we as Muslims should truly focus on is our relationship with Allah (swt). To do our level best to obey His commands and avoid His prohibitions. To follow, the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
“My Lord, increase me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20:114)
﷽
Recently one of our respected sisters had commented with a question on this blog:
“Asalamu Alaikum, I read somewhere (Reddit) that Ibadis consider the Niqab/ Burqa to be a Zoroastrian innovation, therefore, making it haraam for Muslim women to wear the niqab. Is this true? what are the Ibadi opinions on the niqab? As in Tanzania Ibadi sisters tend to wear the niqab.”
So this is the response from our Shaykh Jumaa Mazruii (May Allah continue to benefit us by him).
Several points to be taken.
None of the Ibadi scholars have ever said that Niqab is a bid’ah or that it came into Islam by way of the Zoroastrians.
One of our biggest living scholars, and Mufti of Oman, Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (hafidullah) says, that it is something preferable for women to wear. Men like to look at the face of the woman and it can become part of fitnah.
Our school does not say it is wajib (obligatory) rather, it is something highly stressed.
Prima Qur’an comments: (To be taken with a pinch of salt).
Our thoughts on the Niqab as a Muslim convert from the West and given the fact that our school has little presence where Muslims are the minority, some things need to be taken on board.
There are people in life that make bad decisions and bad choices. We all make bad choices /decisions from time to time. So imagine a situation where a woman went into a certain entertainment industry and there are, unfortunately, pictures of her all over the internet. That Niqab maybe an extra level of protection and/or anonymity for her.
Might we also add that current cultural dynamics in Western society offer absolutely no dignified approach for a woman who may have regretted such a course of action and wishes to move on with her life in a way that is dignified and anonymous. There is the possibility of changing one’s name. However, hiding the appearance is not part of the cultural norms of the west or most other societies at all.
The Niqab offers her both that dignity and anonymity.
2. We are now in the month of Ramadan. Once the Ramadan festivities have ended, many in Malaysia, Indonesia will practice what we call ‘Jalan Raya’, the walking celebration, albeit taxi, train and driving these days.
We visit our parents, grandparents, aunties, uncles, asking for forgiveness and to reestablish and rekindle familiar ties. What happens now is that many take the opportunity to take pictures at this gathering (very often without even having the courtesy to ask others if they want their pictures to be taken).
In such a situation, a man may feel more comfortable with others taking pictures of his wife, daughter etc. while wearing the niqaab. There is a certain gheerah (protective jealousy) in not having other men sharing and circulating pictures of one’s wife/daughter etc.
Albeit in today’s culture and society, we have shed gheerah like a deciduous forest sheds its leaves during the winter.
3. Often times, Muslims who have proclaimed they have a very “progressive” or “liberal” view of Islam will rail against the Niqab. This is strange because a progressive philosophy should be inclusive, which would include the niqab as part of a woman’s right.
4. Women may be able to get around with more ease in a mixed-sex setting that we find ourselves in very often in places like Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia. Often, men and women can mistake facial ques for something that is not intended. A slight grin, a bright-eyed smile can many times be interpreted by men in ways that a woman never intended for it to mean at all. In this case, the Niqab is a protection for both.
Now, although we find the argument for the Niqaab to be compelling on those grounds, it may not be ideal for Muslims living in the West or places where such customs and understandings of Islam are prevalent.
An example:
Women who teach in kindergarten or schools should have their face visible to children. Children need to be able to form bonds with their teachers and the face conveys many words and feelings that are often conveyed stronger than words. So, whereas as in point 4 above, the Niqab can help facilitate appropriate interaction, in the case of small children it may serve the opposite effect. Again, this is in the context of children who are not used to the niqaab, or it is something alien to them. It may be a source of discomfort for children and Allah (swt) knows best.
May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).
You may also be interested in reading the following:
“Moreover, give full measure when you measure, and weigh with an even balance. That is the best way and the best result.” (Qur’an 17:35)
﷽
Sunni and Shi’i scholars and historians out there telling their people about Siffin and Nahrawan are like: “Gather around children, let grandpa tell you the story of the dragon Smaug, whomlives under the lonely mountain; and a brave lad named Bilbo Baggins.”
When reading “historical” narratives, it is important to bear in mind that often we are reading a redacted telling of the events, or the events as seen through the lenses of those who have a vested interest in telling a particular narrative.
We are quite sure you will want to see the sanaad. Likewise, when we are talking about the events surrounding Siffin and Nahrawan, it is the same. What are the sources that are quoted? Who is relating the information? What motives do they have, if any?
We start with tales from the Shi’i.
Let’s take, for example, the book “Opposing the Imam: The Legacy of the Nawasib in Islamic Literature” by Nebil Husayn. By the way the book over all is very good. There are a few false attributions which we will address in a future article insh’Allah.
Nebil relates to us a wild tale. (Though to his credit/discredit) he admits he is not telling us history.
“According to pro-‘Alid historiography, when Mu’awiya and ‘Amr invited ‘Ali’s army to settle their differences by means of arbitration, the group of soldiers that had coalesced to form the Muhakkima initially supported the initiative with fervor. In their reverence for the Qur’an, these soldiers feared that ignoring Mu’awiya’s calls to have the Qur’an arbitrate between them continued fighting and did not heed such calls. Ali, in turn, argued that Mu’awiya’s invitation was a ruse and that they should not be deceived by it. However, these soldiers eventually compelled ‘Ali and the rest of his army to discontinue fighting. In a few sources, Ali explains that when he saw that his soldiers were willing to murder al-Hasn and al-Husayn, the two grandsons of the Prophet, and other young Hashmids in his ward, he relented.”
So let us get this straight. Ali was against arbitration? Ali states that Mu’awaiya’s invitation was a ruse.
Yet, he went through with it because the people who wanted the arbitration were going to kill his kids! Can you imagine! These companions, and people of the Salaaf, and those who fight with him in the battle of the camel. They wanted to kill his kids!
Yet, on THE….VERY…NEXT….PAGE Nebil Husayn relates to us:
“After the Muhakkim leave Ali’s army, they encamp in a place known as Harura and, according to both Ibadi and non-Ibadi literature, Ali sends Ibn Abbas to their camp to debate with them and convince them to renew their allegiance to Ali. When Ibn Abbas initially arrives at their camp, he cites Qur’an 4:35,and Qur’an 5:95 as evidence of the legality of deferring to arbitration in disputes.”
So, on the one hand, we have Ali, who sees this arbitration as a ruse, and we have the Muhakkima that we are told are so onboard for arbitration to the point that they want to kill Ali’s kids (is that not an embellishment or what folks) and then the very next page we have Ali sending Ibn Abbas, one of Islam’s greatest Mufassir of the early period using some wild and bizarre arguments to convince those very same Muhakkima that arbitration (the ruse) was a good idea!
Why bring your children to war if you are worried about them dying in the first place?
If you are interested to see both sides of the debate between Ibn Abbas (ra) and the companions of the Prophet (saw) at Nahrawan you may wish to read the following:
Checkout this website. They have their own version of the Siffin tales.
Ali takes no responsibility for anything. He gets to wash his hands of it all simply put. He is beset by treachery on all sides. Muawiya is a big man who gets to pick his own representative. Meanwhile, Ali is portrayed as this demure individual who doesn’t even get to pick his own representative! It’s the rebels that do! Because Allah forbid that Ali makes a wrong decision (bad ijtihad) in the choice of representative.
Ali then gets persuaded to allow one of the parties (‘Amr bin Aas) to be an arbitrator, which is a shi’i website admitting that Ali went against the Qur’an in their own words. Because how can ‘Amr bin Aas be just if he was fighting against the ‘Chief of the Believers’ ???
The Blessed Messenger (saw) had knowledge of the ghaib (the unseen) and could tell who were the hypocrites and who were not.
Unfortunately, Ali didn’t have such insights. Ali, who we just learned from Proto-Alid sources, saw that the whole thing was a ruse, and yet goes along with it!
Now, regardless of who, what, when, where and why, all three groups, Shi’i, Sunni & Ibadi agree that Ali bin Abu Talib was the Imam of the Muslims after the death of Uthman. Regardless if we think he should have been the first Caliph or not.
So we ask the Sunni: “Was Ali the commander of the faithful after the death of Uthman?” They respond: “Yes.”
So I ask the Shi’i: “Was Ali the commander of the faithful after the death of Uthman?” They respond:
“Yes”
So I ask the Ibadi: “Was Ali the commander of the faithful after the death of Uthman?” “They respond:
“Yes”
So what is the advice of the Blessed Messenger (saw) when we have two people whom the Muslims have given allegiance to?
“It has been narrated on the authority of Aba Sa’id al-Khudri that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: When oath of allegiance has been taken for two caliphs, kill the one for whom the oath was taken later.”
Those Sahabah, those companions that differed with Ali went against the book of Allah (swt). They were following what Umar bin Al-Khattab (ra) said:
I heard ‘Umar bin Al- Khattab (May Allah be pleased with him) reported saying: “In the lifetime of Messenger of Allah (saw) some people were called to account through Revelation. Now Revelation has discontinued and we shall judge you by your apparent acts. Whoever displays to us good, we shall grant him peace and security, and treat him as a near one. We have nothing to do with his insight. Allah will call him to account for that. But whoever shows evil to us, we shall not grant him security nor shall we believe him, even if he professed that his intention is good.”
So what Umar ibn Al-Khattab (ra) was saying was that in the time of the Blessed Messenger (saw) people were called to account via revelation, the Qur’an and/or guidance directly from the Blessed Messenger (saw). Now with the revelation discontinued, and having the Qur’an and the Sunnah, we shall judge you by your apparent acts!
The Sunnis have to paint a picture that Ali was pro arbitration and that those sahabah who were against it were some type of rebels. Even though Muawiya himself was a Khariji who went out and fought against the ‘Chief of the Believers’.
The Ahl Sunnah are in a real pickle.
After years of rebellion against the Ummayad Imperium, we get all these hadiths about how the Muslims are supposed to obey the tyrants. Now they are stuck with their Madhkali Salafi brand telling them not to rebel against the leader or the Non-Political Sufi, who tell them to put their “focus on the inward, Mahdi will come and fix it.”
So the Sunni spin their tales.
The Shi’a have to paint Ali as anti arbitration and those sahabah as pro arbitration. This is because it is obvious that what Muawiya did was a ruse. The aftermath of Siffin shows that Muawiya didn’t change his ways. However, if we are going to make Ali an infallible Imam, he can’t be seen as being, well, fallible.
There are even reports from the early historian al-Mada’ini that Mu’awiya encouraged systematic forging and circulation of hadiths affirming the virtues of the caliphs and companions at Ali’s expense.”(cited from Al-Mada’ini’s Kitab al-ahdath; Ahmad b Sa’d al-Din al-Miswari, Al Risala al-munqidha min al-ghiwaya fi turuq al riwaya, pp. 51-55)” This citation is found in Dr. Jonathan Browns book: “Hadith Muhammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World page 70“
What Dr. Johnathan Brown does not tell you is that the pro-Alids did the same thing in regard to the Ummayad clan.
So the Shi’i spin their tales. Just like they began to spin their tales about the Blessed Messenger (saw) family. Especially so when infighting about whom the Imam of the time really is.
“My Lord, increase me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20:114)
﷽
The Muslims, (The People of the Truth and Steadfastness) Ahl al Haqq Wal Istiqamah, are not well represented in the books of our opponents.
As with all works that deal with heresiography one should not expect unbiased, impartial and fair treatment of the subject.
Jabir Bin Zaid not Ibadi?
Imam Al Rabi’ ibn Habib unknown?
The Musnad of Imam Al Rabi’i falsified?
May Allah (swt) bless all the brothers who contributed in the making of this post. May Allah (swt) continue to open the eyes and the hearts of the Ummah of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
Prima Quran 