Defending Sahaba and those who were guided, From the lies and attacks of the Rafidhi “misguided”: PART-1
و الصلاة و السلام عَلَى رسول الله
I recently came across counter refutation of “Misguided” Rafidhi to my article at wilayat.net. After reading it one can easily realize the mental status of the Rafidhi. I wouldn’t have wasted my time on this ridiculous Rafidhi but it gives me platform to clarify sunni views.
In the whole response Rafidhi showed his colour which is something expected from these Rafidhis. He followed his predecessor in this regard, hence he filled this with lies and deceptions. In fact he wants us to believe that Abu Bakr and Umar were hypocrites based on a report which doesn’t exist anywhere except that Ibn Hazm found it somewhere, but he couldn’t provide the Isnad and text of the report. This is there proof to convince us. It is like how Shaykh Al-Islam describe them, “the best thing they have as proof is disconnected historical reports”. The fact is that they can go to any extant just to prove their point, and that is why our scholars always remind us of the lies of Rafidha. Imam Malik said, “Do not talk with them, nor narrate from them, because they keep on lying”. Imam Shafi’i said, “I do not know of any group more blatant in their lies than Rafidha”. Likewise it has been narrated through Yazeed bin Harun, Shuraik, A’mash etc that Rafidha are worse liar among all sects. [Refer to “Al-Muntaqa min Minhaj Al-E’itedal” by Adh-Dhahabi]
Let me explain why I assume this Rafidhi is mentally unstable. He said regarding Ibn Katheer’s statement, “He claims that whoever condemns any of the Sahabah is an infidel”. However Ibn Katheer has only reported views of some scholars, and none of them said that condemning Sahaba makes one infidel. Rafidhi also said, “But he has made some crucial points! Some of the Sahabah were evil-doers! Fine! This is exactly what we have been arguing with Sunnis about: that some of them were evil-doing hypocrites!” Someone needs to explain this Rafidhi that sinning doesn’t make someone hypocrite. It seem the Rafidhi is now leaning toward Kharijism. Also, he said, “Of course, Moin rejects Allah’s (عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ) verdict and upholds that both were righteous people and will be in Paradise! He even sends blessings upon both of them, for their mass murders!” So I send blessings upon them for their mass murder.
Another ridiculous statement, “He is arguing here that people like al-Walid ibn Uqba are no longer Sahabah!!! Yet, it was him who brought Walid ibn Uqba at the beginning of his “refutation” as an example of an evil-doing Sahabi?!”
One might have realized the mental state of that “misguided” Rafidhi. I’ll expose more of his ignorance and blunders during course of this refutation, Insha Allah.
We wrote an article to expose Ibn Kathir’s fatal contradiction concerning the Sahabah. He claims that whoever condemns any of the Sahabah is an infidel. Yet, he himself goes ahead to narrate how some of the Sahabah attempted to assassinate the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), and how the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) literally identified them as being part of his Sahabah.
This is what he said, but nowhere did Ibn Katheer declared those who condemn Sahaba to be Infidel. All what he said is,
ومن هذه الآية انتزع الإمام مالك -رحمه الله، في رواية عنه-بتكفير الروافض الذين يبغضون الصحابة، قال: لأنهم يغيظونهم، ومن غاظ الصحابة فهو كافر لهذه الآية. ووافقه طائفة من العلماء على ذلك
“And from this verse [48:29] Imam Malik, rahimahullah, in a report from him, concluded the takfeer of Rawafidh who hate the companions. He said, “this is because they hate them, and one who hate the companions is infidel based on this verse”. And a group of scholars agreed with him [Imam Malik].” [Tafseer Ibn Katheer (7/362)]
So from this we conclude:
- None of the above scholars, in fact none of Sunni authority, declare anyone kafir just for condemning any of the Sahaba.
- Some scholars, including Imam Malik in a report from him, thinks that HATING sahaba is kufr based on a verse [48:29] which states, “that He may enrage the unbelievers on account of them [Sahaba]”. And a group of scholar agreed with him.
- Condemning is not same thing as hating. Allah himself condemns some Sahaba in Quran for some of their acts, but still He loves them and praises their Iman, excluding hypocrites who were not actually Muslims.
This clarifies the lie and deception of “misguided” Rafidhi. Indeed lying and deceiving are the characteristics of Munafiq and Rafidhi. As for his saying:
Yet, he himself goes ahead to narrate how some of the Sahabah attempted to assassinate the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), and how the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) literally identified them as being part of his Sahabah. Then he declared them hypocrites till Doomsday.
The concept of Sahaba has already been clarified in the previous article. In short, these Munafiqs are not included amongst Sahaba according to sunni terminology, even though they can be referred to as such in linguistic sense, and this include anyone who lived besides Prophet [s].
By mentioning the phrase “de facto”, we had indicated that Sunnis never openly proclaim the infallibility of the Sahabah. Rather, their attitude is tantamount to such belief. They hate it when anyone criticizes any of the Sahabah. It is like the Sahabah are above criticism, and all of them will be in Paradise. This is what we called Sunni belief in the “de facto” infallibility of the Sahabah. Above, Moin has only attacked a strawman.
Now this is another masterpiece. So basically this Rafidhi is saying that believing that some is in paradise and one should not criticize him, amounts to belief in infallibility of that person. This would make anyone of his beloved shi’i scholars whom he does not criticize, infallible. As for us, then we stop people from talking negative of them because it is the command of Allah.
وَلاَ يَغْتَبْ بَعضُكُمْ بَعْضاً أَيُحِبُّ أَحَدُكُمْ أنْ يَأْكُلَ لَحْمَ أَخِيهِ مَيْتاً فَكَرِهْتُمُوهُ وَاتَّقُوا اللهَ إنَّ اللهَ تَوَّابٌ رَحِيمٌ
“And do not backbite one another” [49:12]
The Messenger of Allah, pbuh, said:
عن أَبي موسى – رضي الله عنه – قَالَ : قُلْتُ : يَا رسولَ اللهِ أَيُّ المُسْلمِينَ أفْضَلُ ؟ قَالَ : (( مَنْ سَلِمَ المُسْلِمُونَ مِنْ لِسَانِهِ وَيَدِهِ )) متفق عَلَيْه
Abu Musa [ra] said: I asked, “O Messenger of Allah! Which of the Muslims is best?” He replied, “That from whose tongue and hands Muslims are safe”. [Bukhari and Muslim]
أنَّ رسُولَ الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – ، قَالَ : (( أَتَدْرُونَ مَا الْغِيبَةُ ؟ )) قالوا : اللهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أعْلَمُ ، قَالَ : (( ذِكْرُكَ أخَاكَ بِما يَكْرَهُ )) قِيلَ : أفَرَأيْتَ إنْ كَانَ في أخِي مَا أقُولُ ؟ قَالَ : (( إنْ كَانَ فِيهِ مَا تَقُولُ ، فقد اغْتَبْتَهُ ، وإنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ فِيهِ مَا تَقُولُ فَقَدْ بَهَتَّهُ ))
The Messenger of Allah [pbuh] said, “do you know what is Al-Gheebah [backbiting]”. They [the people] replied, “Allah and His Messenger know best”. He [pbuh] then said, “you mentioning [something] regarding your brother which he doesn’t like”. It was thus asked, “What if the thing which I have said could be found in my brother”? He [pbuh] replied, “If indeed it exists in him then you have done Gheebah, if that [characteristic] which you said could not be found in him then you have slandered on him”. [Sahih Muslim]
So we feel there is no good reason to talk negative of them, even if we realize that they were fallible and some sins might have happened from them.
But he has made some crucial points! Some of the Sahabah were evil-doers! Fine! This is exactly what we have been arguing with Sunnis about: that some of them were evil-doing hypocrites! Now, by agreeing that some of the Sahabah were alcohol drinkers and criminals, Moin brings himself under the careless Takfir of Ibn Kathir!
As said before, the Rafidhi has lost his mind. Sinning doesn’t make someone kaffir or hypocrite except in the madhhab of Khawarij.
Moin has used two of the Sahabah as examples: Walid ibn Uqbah and Marwan ibn al-Hakam. He agrees that both of them are Sahabah, which is good for our discussion here.
I myself never said Marwan bin Al-Hakam was a Sahabi. His case is disputed upon. I only mentioned him there because he was a good example for my argument and to some he was a Sahabi. Then on this Rafidhi goes on to remind us history:
You know what? Marwan ibn al-Hakam was one of those who murdered Muslims simply for the sake of the world! Al-Bukhari records:
Narrated Abu Al-Minhal:
When Ibn Ziyad and Marwan were in Sham and Ibn Az-Zubair took over the authority in Mecca and Qurra’ (the Kharijites) revolted in Basra, I went out with my father to Abu Barza Al-Aslami till we entered upon him in his house while he was sitting in the shade of a room built of cane. So we sat with him and my father started talking to him saying, “O Abu Barza! Don’t you see in what dilemma the people has fallen?” The first thing heard him saying “I seek reward from Allah for myself because of being angry and scornful at the Quraish tribe. O you Arabs! You know very well that you were in misery and were few in number and misguided, and that Allah has brought you out of all that with Islam and with Muhammad till He brought you to this state (of prosperity and happiness) which you see now; and it is this worldly wealth and pleasures which has caused mischief to appear among you. The one who is in Sham (i.e., Marwan), by Allah, is not fighting except for the sake of worldly gain: and those who are among you, by Allah, are not fighting except for the sake of worldly gain; and that one who is in Mecca (i.e., Ibn Az-Zubair) by Allah, is not fighting except for the sake of worldly gain.“
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 228
Both Marwan and Ibn al-Zubayr, who mere murdering people for the sake of worldly gain, were Sahabah!
We don’t judge people based on what other person thinks about him. Allah knows what they fought for. It doesn’t concern us. “Those are a people who have passed away” [2:141]. Allah knows their heart and He will judge between them. We know for instance that Sahaba and early Salaf accused each other for some sins but we don’t take it seriously, like the accusation on Talha and Ali of murdering Uthman, may Allah be pleased with them. What we say is, there is not any proof of these except some claims by people against each other, therefore it doesn’t actually concern us.
Now, this is Allah’s (عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ) verdict on what they did:
[al-hilali and khan 4:93] And whoever kills a believer intentionally, HIS RECOMPENSE IS HELL TO ABIDE THEREIN; and the Wrath AND THE CURSE OF ALLAH ARE UPON HIM, and a great punishment is prepared for him.
The question to Moin is this: do you agree with Allah’s (عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ) judgment that both Marwan and Ibn al-Zubayr were eternally accursed on account of their crimes, and will be eternally in Hellfire?
This is general verdict on those who kill a Muslim intentionally, making it permitted. We don’t know what were the condition of said people. It could be that they, by their understanding, were fighting for the cause of religion. Besides one should differentiate between cases when the killing happened during war, where the opponent come to kill or to be killed, and other normal cases. In any case, Rafidhi is jumping from one issue to another issue so as to find something with which he feel some comfort, which is not going to happen, Insha Allah. I mean, there wasn’t any reason for Rafidhi to get into the detail of the issue, while I myself have accepted in my previous article that Sahaba were fallible and some of them might have done some crimes.
Then Rafidhi goes into the discussion of Waleed bin Uqbah and why he was Fasiq. My reply to him, in short, is Waleed bin Uqbah was a Muslim and has all the rights a muslim have. So backbiting him is not permitted, and there is no need to reach a conclusion regarding him. However, as the misguided has asked some questions, so here is my reply. He said:
So, we put these questions to Moin:
1. Was Walid ibn Uqba one of the Sahabah?
2. Was Walid a Fasiq (evil doer, liar)?
3. Was Walid a hypocrite?
4. Are there hypocrites among the Sahabah?
5. Are there liars among the Sahabah?
- Fasiq is not the same as liar. The word fasiq applies to those who has done sins, and not all sinners are liars. I must appreciate deceptive way of Rafidhi, after all he is following his predecessors.
- No, he was not.
- Linguistically, yes. But in Sunni terminology ‘Sahaba’ do not include Hypocrites. This was clarified in previous article, but Rafidhi’s undeveloped mind doesn’t seem to get it.
- We have yet to come across Sahaba who had lied upon Prophet [pbuh], however there were those who did mistakes, and they used to forget as a human being.
Then the Rafidhi Misguided went on to prove that Waleed bin Uqbah was a Hypocrite Munafiq. He said:
Also, Allah (عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ) has promised Hellfire to Walid ibn Uqba and everyone like him, in the verse that immediately follows the one above:
[Shakir 32:18-22] Is he then who is a believer like him who is a transgressor? They are not equal. As for those who believe and do good, the gardens are their abiding-place; an entertainment for what they did. AND AS FOR THOSE WHO TRANSGRESS (FASIQUN, PLURAL OF FASIQ), THEIR ABODE IS THE FIRE; whenever they desire to go forth from it they shall be brought back into it, and it will be said to them: Taste the chastisement of the fire which you called a lie. And most certainly We will make them taste of the nearer chastisement before the greater chastisement that haply they may turn. And who is more unjust than he who is reminded of the communications of his Lord, then he turns away from them? Surely We will give punishment to the guilty.
His argument is based on some traditions which states that the verse was revealed for Ali bin Abi Talib and Waleed bin Uqbah. Firstly he quotes a report from Ibn Abbas present in “Siyar A’alam An-Nubala” (3/415) through the way of Ibn Abi Layla from Al-Hakam bin Utaibah from Sa’eed bin Jubair from Ibn Abbas. Dhahabi said, and Rafidhi quoted this as well, the chain of this is strong. This is what Dhahabi said but Ibn Abi Layla in the Isnad, although an Imam and a Qadhi, but he was weak due to his bad memory. Dhahabi himself listed him in “Deewan Ad-Dhu’afa wa Al-Matrukeen” (pg. 360) and in “Al-Mughni fi Ad-Dhu’afa” (2/227) both of which are compilations listing weak and rejected narrators. In the former he said, “Muhammad bin Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Laylah, Jurist, truthful (Saduq), with bad memory”. Ibn Hajar said in “At-Taqreeb” (2/105), “truthful with very bad memory”. Detail of criticism on him could be read in “Tahdheeb At-Tahdheeb” (9/268,269). Hafiz Ibn Katheer did not mention this report in his tafseer, this may be due to the weakness in its chain.
This was also reported by Khateeb (13/321) and Ibn ‘Adi (6/118), through Muhammad bin Saa’ib Al-Kalbi from Abu Saleh from Ibn Abbas. However, Al-Kalbi is matrook abandoned. [See, Tahdheeb At-Tahdheeb (9/157-159)]
This tafseer has also come through ‘Ata bin Yasaar, but in it Ibn Ishaq narrates from some unknown person. This was reported by Ibn Jareer in his commentary (20/188). The misguided Rafidhi even quoted Ibn Jareer At-Tabari as a supporter of said tafseer. Rafidhi quoted him as saying, “This verse was revealed about Ali ibn Abi Talib, the pleasure of Allah be upon him, and al-Walid ibn Uqba”, but he missed a word before. In reality, At-Tabari said, “And it was said (or mentioned) that this verse was revealed…”. The statement “dhukira” (it was mentioned) indicates doubt or weakness, as is known. But Rafidhi chopped the important word from Imam Tabari’s statement. Reader may have realized the reason for chopping off a single word from a sentence. Their religion is based on deception.
Other things he quoted are just same report discussed above. There is another tafsir of the verse which indicates that the argument had happened between Ali bin Abi Talib (ra) and ‘Uqba bin Abi Mu’eet, the father of Waleed bin ‘Uqbah. This was reported by Ibn Asakir(63/235), and Suyuti attributed it to Khateeb and Ibn Mardwayh as well, through the way of Ibn Lahee’ah from ‘Amr bin Deenar from Ibn Abbas. However its Isnad is not much better than the report by Ibn Abi Layla, because of Ibn Lahee’ah who was weak. Ibn Katheer only mentioned this explanation and attributed it to ‘Ata bin Yasaar and Suddi, which is wrong as far as I know. Qurtubi attributed this to Az-Zajaaj and An-Nahhaas. This later tafseer is much strong than earlier one because the context of Quran speaks of it. I mean Waleed bin Uqbah was nobody during that time, while his father Uqba was from among the devils of Qureish and an enemy of Islam. Secondly, the tradition states that Waleed bin Uqbah was older than Ali (ra), which is hard to digest. As a whole there is no proof for Rafidhi in the verse as all of what has been reported contain weakness.
Then the Rafidhi quoted verses talking about hypocrites and applied it to Ibn Zubair, Marwan and Waleed. There would have been any point in using those verses, if they have been proven hypocrites through established evidence. Further “misguided” states:
Now, read the next words of Moin al-Nasibi:
Firstly, the term “Sahaba” linguistically includes all those who met him [SAW].
Secondly, in Islamic (or better say Sunni) terminology it means “the one who meet our Prophet (S) while he was a muslim, and he died as muslim” [refer to the books of Mustaleh]. So by this is is clear there are three condition for someone to be included among companions:
1. He must have found [including blind] Prophet (S) alive [this exclude all those who saw him in dream].
2. And that should be in state of belief [THIS EXCLUDE ALL THOSE DISBELIEVERS AND HYPOCRITES WHO SAW HIM WHILE THEY WERE NOT ACTUALLY MUSLIM].
3. He must have died in the state of Islam [this exclude all those who became apostate later on]
Hence this definition excludes all those who were hypocrites, including all those who tried to kill Prophet [SAW], during his return from Tabuk. So how does it destroy the sunni concept of “infallibity” of Sahaba? But this type of deception isn’t only restricted to this Najis Rafidhi, rather it is the characteristic of most of their scholars.
He is arguing here that people like al-Walid ibn Uqba are no longer Sahabah!!! Yet, it was him who brought Walid ibn Uqba at the beginning of his “refutation” as an example of an evil-doing Sahabi?!
No sane person would conclude from my writing that I excluded them from the category of Sahaba. Yes, an insane person like “misguided” Rafidhi aka toyib-offline can do that.
Then the Rafidhi said:
But, we will open his eyes farther now. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, in his al-Matalib al-Aliya, “Kitab al-Tafsir”, Number 3718, records:
وقال : مسدد : ، ثنا : يحيى ، عن الأعمش ، عن زيد بن وهب قال : سمعت حذيفة ، يقول : مات رجل من المنافقين فلم أصل عليه ، فقال عمر : ما منعك أن تصلي عليه ؟ ، قلت : إنه منهم ، فقال : أبالله منهم أنا ؟ ، قلت : لا ، قال : فبكى عمر
One of the hypocrites died, and I did not pray over him. So, Umar asked me, “What stopped you from praying over him?” I said, “He was one of them (i.e. hypocrites).” Umar then asked, “I beg you by Allah, am I one of them?” I said, “No”. Then, Umar wept.
Ibn Hajar says:
Its chain is sahih
Although Hudhayfah (رضي الله عنه) had told Umar that Umar was not a hypocrite, he could have said that in Taqiyyah. Allah’s Apostle (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) had kept the names of the hypocrites as a secret with Hudhayfah (رضي الله عنه). Would you have told Umar, if you were Hudhayfah (رضي الله عنه), that he was one of the hypocrites if he really was?
The narration quoted by “misguided” is sufficient to destroy his own claim, but the way he is behaving is laughable. Hudhayfa in this report deny Umar being a hypocrite.
This Rafidhi has attributed a ridiculous hypocrisy to Hudhayfah bin Al-Yaman. However Hudhayfah (ra) was free from Taqiyyah, and he did not consider Umar to be among hypocrites because of the following reports he narrates:
- Hudhayfah considered Umar to be a closed gate against the Fitnah. [Bukhari (no.502, 1368,1796), Musnad Ahmed (no.23412) etc]
- He reported a Hadith in which Prophet (pbuh) instructed us to follow Abu Bakr and Umar after him.
- The claim of Rafidhi is based on assumption,i.e., Hudhayfa might have said that out of Taqiyyah.
So, the report quoted by the Rafidhi is a proof against him and what he brought up from Ibn Hazm. Related to the above report, the Rafidhi has some question for me. He said:
Whatever the case, we ask Moin al-Nasibi: why did Umar suspect that he could be a hypocrite?
As for why did Umar feared Nifaq for himself, that is because it is sign of a believer that he fear from Nifaq. It is like Ibn Abi Mulaika’s statement, “I found 30 of the companions of the Prophet (pbuh), all of whom used to fear from Nifaq”. And Hasan Al-Basari said, “No one fear from it except a believer, and no one feel secure from it except a hypocrite”. Both of these statements are mentioned by Bukhari in his Saheeh in Mu’allaq form.
Also, it has been recorded in “Sifat An-Nifaq” (no.68, 69) of Al-Firyabi that Abu Darda used to seek refuge of Allah (SWT) from Nifaq.
Narrated from Abu Idrees Al-Khawlani that he said, “there is no one on the face of the earth who does not fear for his Iman that it will left, except it will left (in reality)”. Likewise it is narrated through Abu Raja Al-Utaridi, a Taba’i, that senior companions used to fear from Nifaq. And there are many reports which could be read in “Sifat Al-Nifaq” of Abu Bakr Al-Firyabi.
Similarly, there is famous incident of Hanzalah [RA], reported in Saheeh Muslim (2750), is quite famous. [See pt.151 of this]
This is Moin’s logic:
1. A Sahabi can never be a hypocrite
2. Umar was a Sahabi
3. Therefore Umar was not a hypocrite
But, it did not work with Umar! Umar knew that he was a Sahabi. Yet, he positively considered the possibility of him being a hypocrite! THIS MEANS THAT A SAHABI CAN BE A HYPOCRITE! OTHERWISE, UMAR WOULD NEVER HAVE ASKED THAT QUESTION!!!
A sahabi could never be a hypocrite but a Sahabi could become a hypocrite. Calling someone a Sahabi and hypocrite at the same time is like an oxymoron. The condition of Sahabi is that he must not be a hypocrite, and if a Sahabi turns out to be a hypocrite then the term ‘Sahabi’, according to sunni terminology, no longer applies to him. This was clarified in the previous article.
Here ends the first part of Rafidhi’s counter rebuttle.