Sahabi kaun hai

 

Point-1 : Who is Sahabi??

Nowdays  people whenever discuss any historical facts and point out atrocities done by Muawiya and his regime  The Banu Ummaya Lovers state do not say anything about him as he is sahabi .In this way they Bugz e Ahele Bait ko chupane ke liye Hubb e Sahaba ka slogan use karte hain.

First of all in Hadith there is no proper definition of sahabi but ulema has state on it.There is Fazail of sahabi in hadith we r discussing who is sahabi.There is no ijema on sahabi definition. Hanfi  principles for Hadith collection and testing are different from muhadiseen.Ahele sunnah mein koi aggrement  nahi hai sahabi kaun hoote hain .

Let us first analyze the meaning of the word “Sahaba” by a sahabi himself;

Anas ibn Malik رضي الله عنه , the famous Companion who died between 90-3/708-11, provides perhaps the earliest account of who the first generation of Muslims considered to be Companions. 

Once Musa al-Sayblani asked Anas ibn Malik رضي الله عنه whether there were Companions other than himself who were still aliveTo this question Anas answered that some Arabs who had seen the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم were still alive, but they had not accompanied him (baqiya nas min al-a ‘rab qad ra ‘awhu  fa-amma man sahibahu fa-la)[  Ibn Al- Salah, Ulum Al Hadith, ed Nur Al Din Itr (Beirut: Dar Al Fikr Al Muasir; Damascus: Dar Al Fikr, 1986), Pg 294; Al Iraqi, Al Taqyid wa al Idah Sharh Muqqadimah Ibn Al Salah ed. Abd Al Rahman Muhammad Uthman (Beirut: Dar Al Fikr, 1981), Pg 299; Al Suyuti, Tadrib Al Rawi Fi Sharh Taqrib Al Nawawi, ed. Abdal Wahhab Abd Al Latif (Madina: Al Matba’ah Al Islamiyah, 1959), Pg 398; Ibn Kathir, Al Ba’ith al Hathith fi Ikkhtisar ulum Al Hadith (Damascu: Dar Al Fikr,n.d), Pg 97-98. Another report gives a slightly different wording, “Qad Baqiya Qawm min Al Arab, Fa amma min Ashabihi fa ana Akhir man baqiya,” Al Iraqi, Fath Al Mughith Sharh Fath Alfiyat Al Hadith, ed. Salah Muhammad Uwaydah (Beirut: Dar Al Kutub Al Ilmiyah,n.d), Vol 4, Pg 336.]

Here Anas makes a distinct ion between “to see (ra’a and “to accompany(sahiba).” He clearly considered the name Companion to apply only to those who had been with the Prophet for quite a long time.

The implication of Anas’s رضي الله عنه  statement is that he did not consider those who only saw the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to be Companions. Although he knew that there were many who had seen the Prophet, he still referred to himself when he was asked who the last Companion still alive was. Anas was among the six Companions to receive the most Traditions from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم (aktharu’um hadith or al-mukaththirunmin al-Sahabah ‘an al- Nabi)”[Al Suyuti, Tadrib Al Rawi,Pg 41-43; Al Iraqi, Fath Al Mughith, Vol 4, Pg 342-343.] . He was the Prophet’s servant for the last eight or ten years of the latter’s Life[Ibn Al Athir, Usd Al Ghabah, Vol 1, Pg 151.]. He would surely have known those who had accompanied the Prophet during his lifetime, and as a result he ought to have been aware that he was indeed the last Companion still alive. So there can be no serious objection to his statement.

 The Traditionists, however, did not regard Anas as the last Companion. For them this honor was held by Abu al Tufayl (‘Amir ibn Wâthilah) رضي الله عنه , who died around the year 100/718[Ibn Al Salah, Ulum Al Hadith, Pg 300; Al Iraqi, Fath Al Mughith, Vol 4, Pg 353; Al Sakhawi, Fath Al Mughith Sharh Alfiyat li Al Iraqi, ed. Abd Al Rahman Muhammad Uthman (Madina: Al Maktabah Al Salafiyah,n.d), Vol 3, Pg 127; Al Iraqi, Al Taqyid, Pg 313]. Abu Al Tufayl himself made a statement to this effect, saying.

 I saw the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. There is nobody [who is still alive] on the earth who saw the Prophet except me (ra’aytu Rasul Allah wa-ma ala wajh al-ard rajul ra’ahu ghayri [Al Suyuti, Tadrib Al Rawi, Pg 412, Also Ibn Athir, Usd Al Ghabah, Vol 6, Pg 177])

 The last Companions to die were Anas ibn Malik and then Abu al- Tufayl ‘Amir ibn wathilah  (,”[ Ibn kathir, Al Ba’ith, Pg 102.] or “The last Companion to die was Abu  al-Tufayl, who died in the year 100, whereas the last Companion to die before him was Anas ibn Malik.” [Al Nawawi, Al Taqrib wa Al Taysir li Ta’rifat Sunan Al Bashir Al Nadhir fi Usul Al Hadith, ed. AbdAllah Umar Al Bawardi (Beirut: Dar Al Jinan, 1986), Pg 83.] 

Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab رضي الله عنه (d.94/713)[ He was the most respected scholar at his time in Madina. See Ibn Sa’ad, Al Tabaqat, Vol 3, Pg 381] is reported to have said that he would not regard anyone as a Companion unless he had stayed with the Prophet one or two years and participated in the Prophet’s battles once or twice

 

Asim al-Ahwal (d. 142/759),[ Ibn Hajr Al Asqalani, Tadhib Al Tadhib (Hyderabad: Majlis Da’irat Al Ma’arif al Nizamiyah, 1325-7H), Vol 5, Pg 42-43.] who was responsible for hisbah in Kufa and was a qadi in al-Mada’in for Abu Ja’far, also reserved the name Companion for those who had accompanied the Prophet. Thus he refused to call ‘Abd Allahibn Sarjis a Companion because he had only seen the Prophet and nothing more [Khatib Al Baghdadi, Al Kifayah, Pg 68; Ibn Hajr, Fath Al Bari, Vol 7, Pg 4; Idem, Al Isabah, Vol 2, Pg 308; Al Sakhawi, Fath Al Mughith, Vol 3, Pg 93.].

 

Anas ibn Malik, Abu al-TufayI, Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab and ‘Asim ibn Ahwal represent the early Muslim scholars who defined Companions in a very limited way. Since the intensity of association (the length of the Companionship) counted for so much, the number of the people who deserved the title of Companion was also limited.

 Abu al-Husayn apparently said more or less the same thing:

To be a Companion, a person must have two qualifications: one is to have had long sessions (majalis) with the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, because a person who only saw him, like those who came to him (al-wafidin) and others, and did not stay long, are not to be named Companions; the other is to have prolonged his stay with him, to have followed him (al- tab’lahu), to have taken (Traditions) from him (Al- Akhdh’anhu), and to have placed himself under his authority (al-itba’ anh).[ Abu Al Husayn Al Basri, Al Mu’tamad Fi Usul Al Fiqh (Damascus: Al Ma’had Al Ilmi Al Firansi lil Dirasat Al Arabiyah, 1965), Vol 2, Pg 666.]

 

Kitab jarful amane-by Imam Abdul Hai Lucknavi. There are mini 6 opinion on who is sahabi-defination?

  1. who had spent max time with Prophet-sohbatyafta logon hain
  2. who spent min 6mth or 1yr with Prophet and fought in one ghazwa along Prophet(By Tabie hzrt Saeed bin Musayab r.a)
  3. Iman ki halat mein Prophet ka didaar kiya aur then kafir gaya then after zaman of Rasool on earth then again accept islam and iman ki halat mein hi uski maut ho.(opinion of imam Ahmed ,Ali bin madni,Imam Bukhari later on muhadiseen use it) disagreement on this definition among scholars.in hanfi fiqh it id not sahabi.
  4. Riwayat of one hadith from him.
  5. One time Saw prophet in halat of baligh aqal, and iman:there r disagreement in this point among s cholar’s who accept this definition .case1-That person accept islam before elan e naboowat and died before elan e nabowat  he was on deen e hanif then whether he is sahabi(eg zaid bin amr bin nufail      case 2- many scholar says dekhna shart nahi hai but mulaqaat hona kyunki kuch sahaba nabeena bhi the eg hzt umme makhtum. Case3-Phir kya jinnat sahib mein shamil hai ya nahi well many scholar agree on point that jinnat were sahaba. Case4-kya angel sahabi hai aur imam razi  and other scholar has agreed on that angel not sahabi.but imam sughti aur imam suyuti r.a agree that angel who saw Prophet r sahabi.case 5 kya sahib who hai jisne zahari hayat mein duniya hee mein deedar kiya kyunki ambiya a.s eg Hazrat Issa a.s,Hazrat Idrees a.s,Hazrat Ilyas a.s,Hazrat Khizr a.s ki mulaqat sabit hain then they r sahabi  Zahabi has include them. Case 6 – At wisal of Prophet who has seen prophet r they sahabi now Imam bulkeni and Zahabi include them who after wisal and before tadfeen seen Prophet  while Ibn e Hajar askalani and  zarkashi not include them in sahabi.
  6. If people accept islam in hyaat e Bashri of Rasool whether he/she has or not the deedar of our Prophet.(ibne abdul barr ne kitabul istiyab aur ibne manda ne marfat e sahaba )

 So discussing on this point it to clarify that there is no definition of sahabi .It is also proof that due to so many opinion on this there is no Hadith and Ayat in Quran pak (jo wazw kare)that define who r sahaba and then we can apply Hadith and Ayat on them.

 

1- IbneHumam usoolfiqh mein kitab hai a tahrek fil usool e fiqh

>>sahabi unko khete hain jo mulaqat ki iman ki halat mein aur wisal huwe usme .>>lekin jamoor usooli hai jinki hum fiqh padhte hai who farmate hai sahaba ki def hai jisne taweel company prophet ke sath guzaari.baaz log 6mth/1yr ka criteria is not sensible.

2-tasheel lulilah ul masool by almuhalawi hanfi book

>>sahaba def taweel arsa bitya and follow rightly.

3-Buznul nazaar fiusoolul fiqh allama asmandi samrkandi kitab

 >>Sahabi def is 1) spent long time in company of prophet .2) he is die hard follower.From Prophet taken almost complete ilm.

4-jawahar el madeha fiakbarul hanfia ibne abulwafa kitab

>>MOST usoolih scholar  same def as above

5-fawateherahmooth sharamusalehut sabot kitab usool e fiqh hanafia

spent long time in company of prophet

 

Shia ki definition is also not clear.Hence scholars  Majority has no clear definition on sahaba. Imam Ghazali also stated Sahab r one who spent long time in company of prophet.

Imam barHaq if done rebel then should do taubaa and wisal on taubaa. Ibn salah naqal muqadama that Anas bin Malik  mention Once Musa al-Sayblani asked Anas ibn Malik رضي الله عنه whether there were Companions other than himself who were still aliveTo this question Anas answered that some Arabs who had seen the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم were still alive, but they had not accompanied him (baqiya nas min al-a ‘rab qad ra ‘awhu  fa-amma man sahibahu fa-la)[4]

Conclusion: As a student of Islamic studies my opinion on who a Sahabi is as:

 A Muslim, who meets the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, attend His (at least) few majalis, accompany Him and remain faithful to Him and His Family and passes away in that condition and should not rebel against Khulafa e Rashideen (5 Khalifa )on Haq”

Point2: What_is_the_meaning_of__All_companions_are_Just___الصحابة_كلهم_عدول

 

 

 

 

What_is_the_meaning_of__All_companions_are_Just___الصحابة_كلهم_عدول

Kya Tamam Sahaba Adil hain. Is pen a hadith hai na quran mein hai ye suuni ulema ne phrase  use kiya jis ke bare mein hum log aage discuss karenge.Imam Jamaluddin qasmi r.a ki qitab qawedutahdis ismein Adalat e Sahaba ka bab hai usmein ek Imam Nawawi ka qaul le kea ate hain sare sahabi Adool hai. Aage who qaul leke aate hai’n Allama Maazri (yeh Maliki fiqh mein inki Kitab alBurhan se farmate hain kie Sahab Adeel hai se murad yeh nahi ki Jisni Rasool Allah ko dekha ya milne aate hai ya kisi garaz ya maqasad ke liye nabi s.a.w se milne aai who sare ke sare aadil hai’n balki iss sei murad yeh hai ki jinho ne Rasol Allah ki Ghulami ko lazim jana.Is Baat se yeh pata chalta hai ke jo definition was discuss in Def of sahaba previously had hint in it.

Ek aur Hawala :Tafsir ul Usool ala ilmul usool Allama says that Sahaba are adool applies to whom which were complete loyal to Rasool Allah.

Now we will discuss about Adil meaning which generally we think that they r direct jannati  word adil is use in sunnat qitab with 5 meaning  1 adil means just which opposite zulm. 2adil means muttaki taqwa. 3 Adil means who sakhs jiss koi gunnah ka zahoor na hoo jo khatoo mahfooz  4.adil means ek masoom aur ek mane mahfooz of gunnah 5. Adil mean woh shaks jo nabi S.A.W pe jan bhuj kar jhoot na bhande usko kahte hai adil hai aur Imam Abdul Hai Lucknawi r.a yeh who meaning jab muhadiseen khete hai jo Sahibi Adil hai ke manne yahi hai.Issi murad hai who log galat hadith nahi pesh karte.

Imam Saqhawi kitab fatahul mugees  ka quote hai Sahaba ki riwyaat ko qubol karege without jiraha

According to Ibn e  Tammiya :All Sahaba are Sikka in providing hadith.

Sare SAHABI Adool hai Aqeedeh ka hiss nahi hai.This is just Usool e Hadith ka principal hai.This quote is use when discussing Hadith authenticity Sunnat not in Aqeedah (Faith)

Hazrat Shah Abdul aziz Delhivi r.a quoted same quoted by Imam Abdul Hai Lucknawi r.a in kitab.Hazrat Shah Abdul Aziz Delhvi r.a asked from his father Hazrat Waliullah Haq Muhadis delhvi r.a se sawal kiya  ki Sahaba Adil hai kya aqeedah mei hai? Tu aapne farmaya ki iska use issliye kiya jata hai KI HADITH provided by Sahaba is authentic.

Conclusion: All_companions_are_Just is part of principal of discussing Hadith by Sahaba and not the part of Faith(Aqeedah).

Point3: Analysis_of_the_narration__My_companions_are_like_stars

 

 

Analysis_of_the_narration__My_companions_are_like_stars

“Sahaba is like star “ This hadith come from six sahaba  Hazrat  Abdullah bin umar r.a, Hazrat  Jabir bin abdullah R.A  , Hazrat Umar bin khatab R.A, Hazrat Anas bin malik r.a,Hazrat Abu Hurarira r.a , Hazrat Abdullah bin abbas r.a

1-iss pure sanat ka madar hamza bin abi hamza par hai aur who hadith gadhta (f abrication) tha (Imam Bukhari,Imam Ahmed ) ibn e adi farmate hai jab yeh riyaat jo sirf yeh batata hai tab yeh riyaat bana ke bata hai.

2-Jabir bin Abdullah r.aàisski do’on ke ravee  ka pata nahi hai ke hai kon 1-salam bin sulaman al madaiyene hai jo sache ravee nahi aur ibne hajr askalin ne bhi is pe jahil yah iski bare mein nahi jante hai iski ravyat .When raavi is unknown in hadith and taking rivayat from famous  imam then its fabricated hadith.let keep it at lowest degree of grade of hadith.

3-Hz Au Hurarir à jafar bin abdul wahad hashmi is ravi ibne heban ne kaha hai yeh hadith chori karta tha aur sanad banata tha.Hz Hajar askalini in isse jhuta kaha hai so it is not correct.

4-Hz Umar ibn Khatab r.aà

-from Ibn `Umar by `Abd ibn Humayd in his Musnad as stated by al-Suyuti in Manahil al-Safa (p. 193 #1027) and Ibn `Adi in al-Kamil; al-Suyuti indicated it was weak in his Jami` al-Saghir (#4603).

– from Jabir by al-Daraqutni in Fada’il al-Sahaba and Ibn `Abd al-Barr in Jami` Bayan al-`Ilm (2:924-925 #1759-1760=2:111);

– from Abu Hurayra by al-Quda`i in Musnad al-Shihab with a very weak chain because of Ja`far ibn `Abd al-Wahid al-Hashimi who was declared a liar as stated by Ibn Hajar;

– from `Umar and Ibn `Abbas by al-Bayhaqi in al-Madkhal where he said: “Its matn is well-known (mashhûr) and its chains are weak”; – from `Umar by al-Sajzi in al-Ibana and Ibn `Asakir as stated by al-Suyuti who indicated it was weak in his Jami` al-Saghir (#4603);

– from Anas by al-Bazzar who said of `Abd ibn Humayd’s narration: “It is condemned (munkar) and unsound” as cited by Ibn Hajar in Talkhis al-Habir (4:190-191 #2098).

Verily, my Companions are like the stars (nujum) in the sky; whichever of them you follow, you shall be guided rightly”

Among Sunni authorities those who have considered this tradition as unreliable are:

  1. Naseem al Riyadh, Sharh Shifa, by Qadhi Iyad Volume 3 page 423 Chapter “Fadail Sahaba”
  2. Sharh Shifa by Mullah ‘Ali Qari Volume 4 page 424
  3. Ahmad ibn Hanbal, as quoted in al-Taqrir wa al-tahbir, iii, 99;
  4. Murqat Sharh Mishqat Volume 11 page 280 Chapter “Fadail Sahaba”
  5. Nasa al Kafaya page 145
  6. Lisan al Meezan Volume 2 page 137 Chapter “Dhikr Jameel bin Yazeed”
  7. Jama al Sagheera page 28 the letter Seen
  8. Ibn Taymeeya, Minhaj-us-Sunnah, vol. 4, page 239
  9. al-Mizzi, as quoted in Jami` bayan al-`ilm, ii, 89-90;
  10. al-Bazzaz, as quoted in Jami` bayan al-`ilm, ii, 90;
  11. Ibn al�Qattan, in al-Kamil;
  12. al-Darqutni, as quoted in Lisan al-mizan, ii, 137;
  13. Ibn Hazm, as quoted in al-Bahr al-muhit, v, 528;
  14. al-Bayhaqi, as quoted in al-Hafiz al-`Iraqi, Takhrij ahadith al�Minhaj, MS.;
  15. Ibn `Abd al-Barr in Jami` bayan al-`ilm, ii, 90-91;
  16. Ibn `Asakir as quoted in Fayd al-Qadir, iv, 76;
  17. Ibn al-Jawzi, in A’alam al-Moq’een, page 364, published in Delhi
  18. Ibn Dahiyyah as quoted in Ta`liq Takhrij ahadith al�Minhaj, MS.;
  19. Abu Hayyan al-‘Andlusi, in al-Durr al-laqit min al-Bahr al�muhit published with al-Bahr al-muhit, v, 527-528;
  20. al-Dhahabi in Mizan al-‘i`tidal, i, 413, ii, 102, ii, 605;
  21. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah in I`lam al-muqi`in, ii, 223;
  22. Zayn al-Din al-`Iraqi, in Takhrij ahadith al-Minhaj, MS.;
  23. Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani, in Talkhis al-Khabir, iv, 190-191;
  24. Ibn al-Humam in al-Tahrir bi Sharh Ibn Amir al-Hajj, iii, 99;
  25. Ibn Amir al-Hajj, al-Taqrir wa al-tahrir, iii, 99;
  26. al-Sakhawi in al-Maqasid al-hasanah, 26-27;
  27. Ibn Abi Sharif, as mentioned in Fayd al�Qadir, iv, 76;
  28. al-Suyuti, Itmam al-dirayah and al-Jami` al-saghir, iv, 76;
  29. al�Muttaqi al-Hindi, Kanz al-`ummal, vi, 133;
  30. al-Qari, al-Mirqat, v, 523;
  31. al-Munawi, al-Taysir fi sharh al-Jami` al-saghir, ii, 48 and Fayd al-Qadir, iv, 76;
  32. al-Khafaji, in Nasim al-riyad (sharh of al-Shifa’), iv, 323-324;
  33. al�Sindi, Dirasat al-labib fi al�’uswat al�hasanat al�Habib, 240;
  34. al Qadi Muhibb Allah al-Bihari, in Musallim al�thubut bi sharh `Abd al�`Ali, ii, 510;
  35. Nizam al-Din al-Sahalawi, al�Subh al�sadiq (sharh al�Manar);
  36. al�Mawlawi `Abd al-`Ali, Fawatih al�rahmut (sharh Musallim al�thubut), ii, 510;
  37. al-Shawkani, in Irshad al�fuhul, 83;
  38. Wali Allah ibn Habib Allah al�Lakhnowi in Sharh Musallim al�thubut; and
  39. Siddiq Hasan Khan al�Qannawji, in Husul al�ma’mul, 568.

For the sake of brevity we shall quote some of the specific comments of the Sunni Ulema.

Ibn Taymiyyah Al-Hirani Al-Damishqi

The “Sheikh-ul-Islam” of Salafies and Deobandies, Ibne Taymiyyah writes about this hadith

Briefly, this Hadith of “Sahaba like Stars” is weak. Hadith Masters have declared it weak. Imam Bazaz said, “It is not correct to refer this Hadith to Rasool Allah (saww), and also this Hadith don’t exist in the authentic books of Ahadith.

Minhaj-us-Sunnah, vol. 4, page 239, published in Egypt

Imam Abu Hiyyan Andalasi

“This Hadith of “Sahaba are like Stars” should not be referred to Rasool Allah (saww). This is a fabricated Hadith and in no way that Rasool Allah (saww) said it. Imam Ibn Hazm Andalasi said it to be a lie.

Tafseer-ul-Bahar Al-Muheet, vol. 5, page 527-528, published by Darul Maarifa, Bairut

Hafidh Ibne Qayyim Ibn Jawziyyah

The Isnad (chain of narration) of famous Hadith of “Sahaba are Stars” are not proved. Hafidh Ibn Bar has said with reference to Bazaz that it is not right to refer it to Rasool Allah (saww).

A’alam al-Moq’een, page 364, published in Delhi

Allamah Qazi Muhib Ullah Bihari, in his book “Muslim-us-Suboot” page 510, published in Luknow, did a detail discussion upon the validity ??? of “Ijma on Sheikhain” and refuted the claims of supporters of this idea. He wrote:

“Some people, in order to prove the validity of “Ijma on Sheikhain” bring those Ahadith in support like “Follow Abu Bakr and Umar after me�..” or “Follow the Sunnah of rightly guided Khulafa after me”. The answer to this is that these rightly guided Khulafa are only Ahle-Bait?? and the “Followers”?? are told to follow only Ahle-Bait while Mujhtahideen?? oppose them in their opinions. And as well as the Hadith of “Sahaba are like Stars” and “Ahadith of Humaira?? (Aisha)” are concerned, then both of them are weak and fabricated.

We read in Naseem:

“The hadith wherein the Sahaba have been equated to stars was recorded by Ibn Barr and Darqatani – all of its chains are weak and Ibn Hazm saif the hadith was unknown, he said it was a fabricated virtue that has no meaning, the hadith should have referred to deeds (Amal) – if you follow these you shall be guided”.

Mulla ‘Ali Qari in Sharh Shifa

“Ibn Barr narrated the tradition of stars on the authority of Jabir and passed comment that this Isnad should not be viewed as authority. Abdul ibn Hameed narrated it in his Musnad. Bazaaz said that the hadith is Munkar not Sahih. Ibn Adi narrated this in Kamil with a weak chain. Bayhaqi also narrated oit, commenting that it was well known but weak, Alibi stated that Qadhi Iyad should not have classified this as a correct tradition”

The above tradition is fabricated. Ibn Taymiyyah says that it is weak.

 Bazzaz says that this tradition quoted from the Holy Prophet (S) is inauthentic and it is not found in any authentic book of traditions.

 In the same way, Ibn Kuram says in his journal Kubra, that this tradition is invalid and false. Ahmad Wamzi Zahabi, Wathqi and Abul Hujjaj have all said similar things about this tradition.

 Maulavi Abdul Ali Bahrul Uloom writes in Sharhe Muslim and Mulla
Nizamuddin, his father, in Subhe Sadiq Sharhe Manar consider it invalid and false.

Abdul Hai Lakhnavi also writes in his book, Tohfatul Akhyar, that this tradition is concocted and he does not consider it correct at all.

My Companions are like the stars; whichever of them you follow, you will be rightly guided)) and in ))–17, and in another narration: ((My Companions are like the stars; whichever of them you take his opinion, you will be rightly guided)). Ibn Hazm said: a fabricated void false tradition, that was never found to be authentic “Al-Ihkaam fee Usool Al-Ahkaam” (5/64), and (6/82). Al-Albani said: Fabricated “Al-Da’eefa” (66), and see also “Jami’ Bayan Al-Ilm wa Fadlih” by ibn Abdilbar (2/91)

This hadith never quoted during lifetime of any sahabi.Iska Matan bata raha hai isko forge kiya gaya hai. Ibn Hazm even said: It is forged and forge by fasiq person for there wordly need.

So as per Matan of this hadith is against Quran shareef,against sunnat, against wit, against historical evidences

Point 4: Are_the_Companions_of_Prophet(SAW)beyond_rulings_of_Quran_and_Sunnah

(A)

(B)

Point 5: Hadith:: The Fire shall not touch the Muslim who saw me 

Point 6: Hadith::Do_not_curse_my_Companions

Point 7:Who_used_to_curse_Imam_Ali_AS

 

governors-of-mawiya-cursed-imam-alimuhaddith-shah-abdul-aziz-dehlavi-that-mu_awiya-cursed-imam-alithe-sign-of-a-munafiq-is-hatred-of-imame28098aliwhoever-hurts-ali

Point 8:Who_is_a_Rebel_according_to_Fuqaha

(Fuqaha_k_Nazdeek_Baghi_kon_hota_hay_)

Defining baghi (rebell)

Durr al-Mukhtar, Volume 4 page 448:

البغي لغة الطلب ومنه {ذلك ما كنا نبغي} وعرفا طلب ما لا يحل من جور وظلم ، وشرعا هم الخارجون عن الامام الحق بغير حق

Baghi commonly means “to demand”, it is commonly used to refer to one that “demands unlawfully” such as in terms of injustice and tyranny, from a legal perspective it refers to “one that rebels against the legitimate Imam without having any legal justification for doing so”.

al-Nasa’ih al-Kaafiyah page 16:

“Baghi is one who refuses to obey Imam al-Haqq and opposes him”.

The late scholar Sayyid Abu’l A`la Maudoodi in his ‘Tafhim ul Qur’an’ Volume 5 page 80 collates the opinions of the Ahl’ul Sunnah `ulama about a ‘baghi’. He writes:

“Ibn Humam in Hidaya’s commentary Fatah ul Qadir states that the scholars have declared that a baghi is he who disobeys the rightful Imam. Imam Shafi`i in Kitab ul-Umm states ‘Baghi’ is he who fights the `Adil Imam. Imam Malik declared that it is a duty to fight those who oppose the ‘Adil Imam [al Mudawanna]“.

The Sunni scholars deemed Muawiyah as a baghi, Khariji and tyrant

Lagendry Muhadith of Ahle Sunnah Shah Abul Aziz Dehalvi records in his anti-Shia book ‘Tauhfa Ithna Ashariyyah’ page 181 Chapter 7:

“Should know that there is ijmah of Ahlul Sunah Qutb, that Muawiya bin Abu Sufyan from the beginning of the Imamat of Hazrat Amir till the sulh of Imam Hasan remained a baghi and did not obey the Imam of the time….”
Tauhfa Ithna Ashariyyah, page 181

At another place we also read:

“The original pure Sect was the Ahl’ul Sunnah wa al-Jammah of the Sahaba and Tabieen, these are the Muhajireen and Ansar who were the servants of Ali, they were helpers of the khilafah. Their religion was that Murtaza was the Imam of truth, following the martyrdom of Uthman, and that all mankind was duty bound to obey him. Ali during his times was the most superior, whoever disputed with him on the issue of Khilafah, or opposed his reign is a sinner and a baghi. Whoever deemed him unworthy of khilafah was a sinner mislead on falsehood..”
Tauhfa Ithna Ashariyyah, page 11

Imam of Ahle Sunnah Sa’duddin Taftazani records in his esteemed work ‘Sharh al Maqasid’ page 306:

“The aqeedah in Ahl’ul Sunnah is that the first baghi in Islam was Mu’awiya”
Sharh al Maqasid, Volume 2 page 306

Now let us quote some of the esteemed curriculum Hanafi works wherein Muawiyah has been clearly equated with unjust and rebel ruler. We read ‘al Hidayah’ Volume 3 page 133, Kitab al Adab and the reference has obviously also been quoted in the commentaries of Hidayah such as in ‘Fathul Qadeer Sharah Hidayah’ Volume 16 page 333 and ‘Anayah Sharah Hidayah’ Volume 10 page 217:

“It is permissible to be appointed as a Judge from an unjust ruler, in the same way as it is the case of a just ruler. This is because the Sahaba were appointed Judges under Mu’awiya, even though the truth was with Ali (ra). The Tabieen were appointed as Judges by Hajjaj, even though he was unjust”.

We also read in Fathul Qadeer:

هذا تصريح بجور معاوية

‘This is a declaration of Muawiya’s oppresssion’
Fathul Qadeer Sharah Hidayah. Volume 16 page 333

Imam Alauddin Abi al-Hasan Ali bin Khalil al-Tarabelsi al-Hanafi (d. 844 H) records in ‘Maeen al-Hukam fima yatradad bain al-khasmain min al-ahkam’ as follows:

ويجوز تقلد القضاء من السلطان العادل والجائر ، وأما العادل فلأن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بعث معاذا إلى اليمن قاضياً وولى عثمان بن أسد على مكة أميرا ، وأما الجائر فلأن الصحابة رضي الله عنهم تقلدوا الأعمال من معاوية بعد أن أظهر الخلاف مع علي رضي الله عنه وكان الحق مع علي.

“It is permissible to accept the position of a judge from a just or unjust ruler, the just ruler (is permssible) because the prophet (pbuh) sent Mu’ath to Yemen as a judge and appointed Uthman bin Asad as a governor of Makka, from the unjust ruler (it is permissible) because the companions may Allah be pleased with them assumed the duties from Mu’awiya after he (Mu’awiya) showed disagreement with Ali” 
Maeen al-Hukam, page 3

We read in ‘Tubyeen ul Haqaiq Sharah Kanz ul Daqaiq’ Volume 4 page 177:

(ويجوز تقلد القضاء من السلطان العادل والجائر ومن أهل البغي ) لأن الصحابة رضي الله تعالى عنهم تقلدوه من معاوية في نوبة علي ، وكان الحق بيد علي يومئذ ، وقد قال علي رضي الله تعالى عنه أخواننا بغوا علينا

(It is permissible to be appointed as a judge by a just or unjust ruler or by rebels) because the companions )may Allah be pleased with them( accepted it from Mu’awiya, during Ali’s reign, and the truth was with Ali at that time, Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said: ‘Our brothers are commiting rebellion against us.’
Tubyeen ul Haqaiq Sharah Kanz ul Daqaiq, Volume 4 page 177

We read in ‘Bahar al Raiq’ Volume 6 page 274:

(قوله ويجوز تقلد القضاء من السلطان العادل والجائر وأهل البغي) لأن الصحابة رضي الله تعالى عنهم تقلدوه من معاوية والحق كان بيد علي رضي الله تعالى عنه

“(It is permissible to be appointed as a judge by a just or unjust ruler or by rebels) because the companions may Allah be pleased with them accepted it from Mu’awiya while the truth was with Ali (ra)”
Bahar al Raiq, Volume 6 page 274

Let us now present the views of Imam Muhammad bin Hasan al-Shaybani (d. 189 H) about Muawiyah. Allamah Abdul Qadir Qurshee al-Hanafi Misree while recoding the biography of a Hanafi scholar recorded the statement of Imam Muhammad bin Hasan al-Shaybani as follows:

Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Musa bin Dawoud al-Razi al-Berzali, al-Faqih al-Qazi al-Khazen. He heard (hadith) from his uncle Ali bin Musa and Muhammad bin Ayoub al-Razi. He was appointed as a judge of Samarqand. He heard (hadith) from (Samarqand’s) people. He died in year 361. al-Sam’ani said: ‘He was thiqah and pious’. al-Hakim said: ‘He was jurist of Abu Hanifa’s companions’. He said I heard my uncle Abu Sulaiman al-Jawzjani, who heard Muhammad bin al-Hasan saying: ‘Had Muawiya not fought against Ali and he (Mu’awiya) was an oprressor, aggressor and a rebel, we would not have been able to fight the oppressors.’ 
Jawahir al Muziyah Tabaqat al Hanafiyah by Allamah Abdul Qadir Qurshee al-Hanafi Misree, Volume 2 page 26

The notion of Imam Muhammad bin Hasan al-Shaybani that they would not have the honor of fighting the rebels if Mu’awiya the commander of rebels had not started the war, shall suffcie to shout the mouths of present day Nawasib like Abu Sulaiman. Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Musa bin Dawoud al-Razi not reacting at the statement proves that he also echoed the sentiments of Imam Shaybani.

As for Salafies, their legendry scholar Rasheed Raza in his book Mujalat al-Manar, volume 29 page 671 attested to the fact that:

ولكن السواد الأعظم من أهل السنة سلفهم وخلفهم يعتقدون أن معاوية كان باغيًا على الإمام الحق أمير المؤمنين علي كرم الله وجهه

 The vast majority of the Ahlul sunnah whether the former or the modern (scholars) believe that Mu’awyia rebelled against the true Imam, the Commander of the Faithful Ali (Karam Allah Wajhu).

The same scholar wrote elsewhere in Mujalat al-Manar, volume 33 page 441:

فإن متبع الحق مستقل الفكر فيه بلا هوى ولا تعصب لمذهب يجزم بأن معاوية نفسه كان باغيًا خارجًا على الإمام الحق كالخوارج ، وأنه طالب ملك ، ويؤيد ذلك إكراه الناس على جعل هذا الملك لولده يزيد المشتهر بالفسق

 Anyone delving into the truth with a free mind unclouded by emotion or sectarian affiliation, shall confirm that Mu’awyia was rebel (Baghi) and one that departed (Kharij) against the true Imam, he sought the throne and forced the people to transfer the throne to his son Yazeed who was known for his lechery (Fisq).

Also Imam Showkani records in his authority work Nayl al Autar, Volume 7 page 348:

قوله: أولاهما بالحق فيه دليل على أن عليا ومن معه هم المحقون ، ومعاوية ومن معه هم المبطلون ، وهذا أمر لا يمتري فيه منصف ، ولا يأباه إلا مكابر متعسف

“The hadith about ‘more deserving of rightness’ contain an evidence that Ali and those who were with him are on the truth, and Mu’awiya and those who were with him are on falsehood, and any fair person would not doubt about that and only the stubborn person would deny it.”

Allamah Abdul Kareem Shahrastani in his famed book ‘Al Milal wa al Nihal’ Volume 1 page 103 expressed a clear opinion:

ولا نقول في حق معاوية وعمرو بن العاص الا أنهما بغيا على الامام الحق فقاتلهم مقاتلة أهل البغي وأما أهل النهروان فهم الشراة المارقون عن الدين بخبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ولقد كان رضي الله عنه على الحق في جميع أحواله يدور الحق معه حيث دار

“We don’t say about Mu’awiya and Amro bin al-Aas except that they fought against the rightful Imam, so he (Ali) fought them deeming them as rebels. And the people of Nahrawan, they were evil and apostate as the Prophet (s) had informed, and he (Ali) (ra) was on right path in all of his situations, the truth was turning with him whereever he turned.”

Allamah Muhammad bin Aqeel states in al-Nasa’ih al-Kaafiyah, page 22:

“Mu’awiya and his companions are baghis without a doubt and they are Qasitoon, Allah says Qasithoon are in deepest part of Hell”.

Mu’awiya’s rebellion was in violation of the Qur’an

Allah (swt) says in his Glorious Book:

“O you who believe! Obey Allah and his Apostle and those in authority among you”. (Al-Quran, Surah Nisa, Verse 59)

It is interesting that ‘Abu Sulaiman has failed to comment on this verse in his lengthy article. This is a clear verse that proves beyond a doubt that Mu’awiya’s opposition was one that contravened the Book of Allah (swt). This verse provides no room for manoeuvre. Obedience to those in authority is on par with obedience to Allah (swt) and the Prophet (s). This means that disobeying the Leader amounts to disobeying Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s). The verse is absolutely clear. How can anyone interpret this verse as entitling someone to rebel against a leader. Anyone who does so is a rebel.

Now we ask:

  • Does Imam Ali (as) not come within this verse?
  • Was he not ‘those in authority’?
  • Is he not the fourth rightly guided khalifa?
  • Did Mu’awiya obey him?

In accordance with this verse and the definitions of Ahl’ul Sunnah, Mu’awiya’s disobedience of Imam Ali (as) had made him a rebel. His entire rebellion was baseless since the Qur’an would not support it. He had no text to justify his actions he was on the path of falsehood and had led his supporters down that same slippery road of deviance.

Mu’awiya’s rebellion was in violation to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s)

If this verse of the Qur’an is not a sufficient indictment against Mu’awiya, then we also have this hadith in Sahih Muslim “Kitab al Imara” Book 020, Number 4557:

It has been narrated (through a different chain of transmitters) on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Who defected from obedience (to the Amir) and separated from the main body of the Muslims – then he died in that state-would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahilliyya. And he who is killed under the banner of a man who is blind (to the cause for which he is fighting), who gets flared up with family pride and fights for his tribe-is not from my Umma, and whoso from my followers attacks my followers (indiscriminately) killing the righteous and the wicked of them, sparing not (even) those staunch in faith and fulfilling not his obligation towards them who have been given a pledge (of security), is not from me (i.e. is not my follower).

Mu’awiya openly violated this tradition. He refused to obey Imam ‘Ali (as), he separated from the main body misleading others in the process. The seriousness of this tradition is clear one who separates and died “would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahilliyya” i.e. he would die a kaafir. Rasulullah (s) did not provide any defense for such individuals. He did not say that they would be rewarded having exercised ijtihad, he said that the perpetrators were not his followers.

This is in relation to those that rebel against any Leader, with regards to those that rebel against Imam ‘Ali (as) we read in al-Nasa’ih al-Kaafiyah page 36 that Rasulullah (s) said:

“If anyone fights Ali’s Khilafah, kill him”. Rasulullah offered no excuses for the opponents of Imam ‘Ali (as), all who come against Imam ‘Ali (as) should be killed; clearly Mu’awiya comes within this hadith.

Point 9: Rebellion of Muawiya and Hadith O Ammar! A group of rebels will kill You 

 

Sahih Bukhari Narrated by ‘Ikrima: Ibn ‘Abbas said to me and to his son ‘Ali, “Go to Abu Sa’id and listen to what he narrates.” So we went and found him in a garden looking after it. He picked up his Rida’, wore it and sat down and started narrating till the topic of the construction of the mosque reached. He said, “We were carrying one adobe at a time while ‘Ammar was carrying two. The Prophet saw him and started removing the dust from his body and said, “May Allah be Merciful to ‘Ammar. He will be killed by a rebelliousaggressive group. He will be inviting them (i.e. his murderers, the rebellious group) to Paradise and they will invite him to Hell-fire.” ‘Ammar said, “I seek refuge with Allah from affliction.”

Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 438

Ali (as) was the Imam and rightful caliph of the time

This fact is confirmed by the leading Ahl’ul Sunnah Ulema. We have cited a number of sources for those wishing to delve in to the matter.

  1. Sharah Maqasid, page 24
  2. Al Sawaiq al Muhriqa, page 139
  3. Al Ma’arif, page 90
  4. Riyadh al Nadhira, Vol 3 page 293
  5. Usud ul Ghaba, Vol 4 page 113
  6. al-Isti’ab, Volume 3 page 55
  7. al-Isaba, Vol 2 page 503
  8. al-Bidaya, Vol 7 page 226
  9. Tahdheeb ul Tahdheeb page 338 Volume 7
  10. Nisai al Kaafiya page
  11. al Imama wal Siyasa oage 44 Vol 1
  12. Tarikh ul Khulafa page 174
  13. Al-Akhbar al Tawal page 140
  14. Sharah Aqaid al-Nasfi, page 105

We read in Sharah Maqasid:

والذي اتفق عليه أهل الحق أن المصيب في جميع ذلك علي رضي الله تعالى عنه لما ثبت من إمامته ببيعة أهل الحل والعقد وظهر من تفاوت ما بينه وبين المخالفين سيما معاوية وأحزابه وتكاثر من الأخبار في كون الحق معه وما وقع عليه الاتفاق حتى من الأعداء إلى أنه أفضل زمانه وأنه لا أحق بالإمامة منه والمخالفون بغاة لخروجهم على الإمام الحق

The righteous people agreed that Ali (ra) was right in all those events as his Imamate was correct which was proved through baya and also it’s obvious the difference (in ethics) between him and his opponents particularly Mu’awyia and his party, also there are many traditions which indicate that the truth is with Ali, and also the agreement including the enemies that he was the best person of his time and no body was worthier to be the Imam other than him, his opponents were Baghi for opposing the true Imam.

We read in Al-Bidayah:

وخرج علي إلى المسجد فصعد المنبر وعليه إزار وعمامة خز ونعلاه في يده، توكأ على قوسه، فبايعه عامة الناس،

“At the time of Bayya, Ali approached the mosque, got on the Minbar and the general public gave him bayya”

This refutes Nasibi claims that he didn’t get ijma hence Mu’awiya opposition to Imam e Haqq made him a baghi who could not place conditions

Abu Hainfa Dinwari records in Al-Akhbar al-Tawal:

“After Uthman’s death people were without an Imam for three days. They gave Ali bayya after careful thought and he said whoever opposes me has opposed Islam as this decision was not taken in haste”.

Sharah Aqaid al-Nasfi:

“The grand Muhajireen and Ansar had an ijma in the khilafah of Ali happily. They accepted his khilafat and gave him bayya”

Muawiya faught Ali (as), the Imam and rightful caliph of the time

The books of Ahl’ul Sunnah are replete with references which prove that Mu’awiya’s opposition was an act of rebellion.

  1. Al-Isaba, Volume 1 page 444
  2. Usud al Ghaba, Volume 5 page 211
  3. Al-Isti’ab, Volume 3 page 376
  4. Al-Bidaya, Volume 8 page 23
  5. Tareekh Khamis, Volume 2 page 386
  6. Tarikhul Khulafa, page 173
  7. Nayl al Awtar, Volume 7 page 179
  8. Al-Nisai al-kaafiya, page 16

We read in Al-Istiab and Tareekh Khamis:

فحارب معاوية علياً خمس سنين.

“Mu’awiya fought Ali for five years”

Usud ul Ghaba:

ولم يبايع عليا وأظهر الطلب بدم عثمان فكان وقعة صفين بينه وبين علي

“He didn’t give bayya to Ali, then he advanced the demand of avenging Uthman [‘s murder], thus the battle of Sifeen took a place between him and Ali”

Tarikhul Khulafa:

خرج معاوية على علي كما تقدم و تسمى بالخلافة ثم خرج على الحسن

“Mu’awyia rebelled against Ali and appointed himself as Caliph, then he rebelled against al-Hassan”

We read in Al-Bidayah::

فلما امتنع معاوية من البيعة لعلي حتى يسلمه القتلة، كان من صفين ما قدمنا ذكره

“When Mu’awyia refused to give bayya to Ali until he (Ali) submited him the killer, Sifeen battle took a place due to it.”

The early Sahaba fought alongside Imam Ali (as)

In his attempt to play down the actions of Imam Ali (as), Abu Sulaiman had made this baseless claim:

Moreover, authentic traditions from the prophet peace be upon him says that to leave the fight was better for both parties. The fight was neither mandatory nor preferable. Although Ali was more deserving and closer to right than Mu’awiyah was, if Ali left the fight, a great goodness would happen and the shedding of the blood would be spared. Hence, Omran bin Haseen, may Allah be pleased at him, banned the selling of weapons at the time of afflictions. He says: “Weapons are not supposed to be sold in the affliction.” The same saying was shared by Sa’ad bin Abu Waqqas, Muhammad bin Muslimah, Abdullah bin Omar, Osamah bin Zayd, and many other of the first believers from the muhajireen and Al-Ansar who isolated themselves from the affliction and did not partake in the fight.

With regards to Abu Sulaiman’s claim that “many other of the first believers from the muhajireen and Al-Ansar who isolated themselves from the affliction and did not partake in the fight” – he has no evidence to support this claims and fails to cite even a single source. The fact is that the early converts the Muhajireen and Ansar WERE those that fought with Imam Ali (as) at Sifeen. This has even been admitted by the Sunni scholar Al Muhaddith Shah ‘Abd al-’Aziz Dehlavi who in his book written against the Shi’a states:

“The title Shi’a was first given to those Muhajireen and Ansar who gave allegiance (bay’ah) to Ali (may Allah enlighten his face). They were his steadfast faithful followers during his (Ali’s) caliphate. They remained close to him, they always fought his enemies, and kept on following Ali’s commands and prohibitions. The true Shi’a are these who came in 37 Hijri”
Tauhfa Ithna ‘Ashariyyah, (Gift to the Twelvers) (Farsi edition p 18, publishers Sohail Academy, Lahore, Pakistan).

(NB 37 Hijri -the year Imam Ali (as) fought Mu’awiya at Sifeen).

The Muhajireen and Ansar (Sahaba) were the Shi’a of Ali (as). One wonders how Abu Sulaiman claims that MANY Muhajireen and Ansar did not participate. Amongst those killed fighting alongside Imam ‘Ali (as) were prominent companions including Khuzema bin Thabit (al Isti’ab Volume 1 page 437; Usud ul Ghaba, Volume 2 page 133 – Chapter Dhikr Khuzema), devotee of Rasulullah (s) Uways Qarni (Usud ul Ghaba Volume 1 page 180; al Isti’ab Volume 1 page 123). One prominent Sahabi killed fighting under Maula Ali’s banner was Hashim ibne Utbah. We learn in Usud ul Ghaba, Volume 5 page 277 that when Hashim ibne Utbah was killed, Abu Tufail Amar ibne Waseela said:

“you are a martyr because you fought an enemy of the Sunnah”.
Usud ul Ghaba, Volume 5 page 277

We read in al Istiab, Volume 3 page 229 that:

“Abdur Rahman Ibn Abdi narrates that eight hundred Sahaba who pledged allegiance at Ridwan fought alongside ‘Ali at Sifeen”.
Al Isti’ab, by Ibn `Abd al-Barr, Vol. 3, Page 229

This is a significat figure, particularly when one takes into account that the number of Sahaba who pledged allegiance at Ridhwan totalled 1400. With the passage of thirty yeas there is no doubt that many would have died whether via natural deaths or in the battlefield. Despite this fact, we learn that a significant number stood shoulder to shoulder with Imam ‘Ali (as) at Sifeen.

It is indeed sad to see that the early Muslims knew where the truth lay and fought with ‘Ali (as) whilst we have a defender of Mu’awiya writing some 1400 years later raising question marks on Imam Ali (as)’s position and defending and showering praise on his enemies.

Point 10:Was Muawiya a Mujtahid and Reality of Ijtihad and claim of Ijtihadi mistake and Rebillion in the light of Quran Sunnah and the claim of Ijtihadi mistake

 

The Messenger of Allah, sallallahu ‘alaihi wa alihi, had predicted Mu’awiyah’s insurrection, and had described him and his armies in some very strong terms. Imam al-Bukhari (d. 256 H) records:

حدثنا مسدد قال حدثنا عبد العزيز بن مختار قال حدثنا خالد الحذاء عن عكرمة قال لي ابن عباس ولابنه علي انطلقا إلى أبي سعيد فاسمعا من حديثه فانطلقنا فإذا هو في حائط يصلحه فأخذ رداءه فاحتبى ثم أنشأ يحدثنا حتى أتى ذكر بناء المسجد فقال كنا نحمل لبنة لبنة وعمار لبنتين لبنتين فرآه النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم فينفض التراب عنه ويقول (ويح عمار تقتله الفئة الباغية يدعوهم إلى الجنة ويدعونه إلى النار) . قال يقول عمار أعوذ بالله من الفتن

Musaddad – ‘Abd al-‘Aziz b. Mukhtar – Khalid al-Khudha – ‘Ikrimah:

Ibn ‘Abbas said to me and to his son ‘Ali, “Go to Abu Sa’id and listen to what he narrates.” So we went and found him in a garden looking after it. He picked up his garment, wore it and sat down and started narrating to us until he mentioned the construction of the mosque. Therefore, he said, “We were carrying one adobe at a time while ‘Ammar was carrying two. The Prophet, peace be upon him, saw him and started removing the dust from his body and said, ‘May Allah be merciful to ‘Ammar. He will be murdered by a baghi group. He will be inviting them (i.e. the baghi group) to Paradise and they (i.e. the baghi group) will be inviting him to Hell-fire.’ ‘Ammar said, ‘I seek refuge with Allah from affliction.’”1

This hadith is mutawatir, as Imam Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (d. 463 H) states:

وتواترت الآثار عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه قال تقتل عمار الفئة الباغية وهذا من إخباره بالغيب وأعلام نبوته صلى الله عليه وسلم وهو من أصح الأحاديث

The reports are mutawatir from the Prophet, peace be upon him, stating that he said, “’Ammar will be murdered by a baghi group”. This was one of his prophecies, and one of the proofs of his prophethood, peace be upon him, and it is one of the most authentic ahadith.2

Al-Hafiz (d. 852 H) also submits:

وتواترت الأحاديث عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أن عمارا تقتله الفئة الباغية وأجمعوا على أنه قتل مع علي بصفين

The ahadith are mutawatir from the Prophet, peace be upon him, that ‘Ammar would be murdered by the baghi group, and they (i.e. the scholars) had a consensus that he (‘Ammar) was murdered on the side of ‘Ali at Siffin.3

The battle of Siffin was between Amir al-Muminin ‘Ali and the Syrian rebels commanded by Mu’awiyah. ‘Ammar, radhiyallahu ‘anhu, was in the army of ‘Ali, and was murdered by the troops of Mu’awiyah. As such, Mu’awiyah and his armies were the baghi group. Al-Hafiz Ibn Kathir (d. 774 H) explains further:

وهذا مقتل عمار بن ياسر رضي الله عنه مع أمير المؤمنين علي بن أبي طالب قتله أهل الشام وبان وظهر بذلك سر ما أخبره به الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم من أنه تقتله الفئة الباغية وبان بذلك أن عليا محق وأن معاوية باغ

This was the murder of ‘Ammar b. Yasir, may Allah be pleased with him, on the side of Amir al-Muminin ‘Ali b. Abi Talib. He was murdered by the Syrians. From this, the secret of what the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, had predicted that he (‘Ammar) would be murdered by a baghi group became clear. It became clear from this that ‘Ali was upon the Truth and that Mu’awiyah was a baghi person.4

Al-Hafiz agrees, but with some caution:

وذهب جمهور أهل السنة إلى تصويب من قاتل مع علي لامتثال قوله تعالى وان طائفتان من المؤمنين اقتتلوا الآية ففيها الامر بقتال الفئة الباغية وقد ثبت ان من قاتل عليا كانوا بغاة وهؤلاء مع هذا التصويب متفقون على أنه لا يذم واحد من هؤلاء بل يقولون اجتهدوا فأخطأوا

The majority of the Ahl al-Sunnah are of the opinion that those who fought on the side of ‘Ali were correct, based on His statement, “If two groups from the believers fight each other” and in it is an order to fight the baghi group. It is firmly established that those who fought against ‘Ali were baghipeople. Yet, these people (i.e. Sunnis), despite their commendation (of the troops of ‘Ali) have a consensus that none of these people (i.e. the baghipeople) should be criticized. Rather, they (i.e. Sunnis) say: they did ijtihadand made mistakes.5

In simpler words, the murderers of ‘Ammar were free from blame, according to the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah! Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 H) reiterates this:

قال العلماء هذا الحديث حجة ظاهرة في أن عليا رضي الله عنه كان محقا مصيبا والطائفة الأخرى بغاة لكنهم مجتهدون فلا إثم عليهم لذلك

The scholars said: This hadith is explicit proof that ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, was upon the Truth and was correct, and that the other side were baghi people. However, they (i.e. the baghi people) did ijtihadTherefore, there was no sin upon them due to that.6

Whatever the case, there is Sunni agreement that Mu’awiyah and his troops were the baghi group in the mutawatir hadith. Meanwhile, there are a number of crucial points about Mu’awiyah and his armies in the hadith that need to be looked into in order to deal with their acquittal by the Ahl al-Sunnah. First, we must understand that being a baghi person or group is haram, as Allah has declared:

إن الله يأمر بالعدل والإحسان وإيتاء ذي القربى وينهى عن الفحشاء والمنكر والبغي يعظكم لعلكم تذكرون

Verily, Allah commands you to do justice and kindness, and to give to kith and kin, and forbids corrupt behaviours, evil deeds and al-baghi (i.e. being a baghi person or group). He admonishes you, that you may take heed.7

Therefore, Mu’awiyah and his armies were an illegitimate group. Allah Himself BANNED them. In line with this, it is obligatory for Muslims as a whole to rise in arms against every baghi group within the Ummah:

وإن طائفتان من المؤمنين اقتتلوا فأصلحوا بينهما فإن بغت إحداهما على الأخرى فقاتلوا التي تبغي حتى تفيء إلى أمر الله

If two groups among the believers fight each other, then make peace between them both. But if one of them is the baghi against the other, then fight you against the baghi one till it complies with the Command of Allah.8

This is the case where the baghi group were “believers”. What then about a case where they were haters of ‘Ali, and therefore “hypocrites” according to the Messenger? Apparently, the group of Mu’awiyah were in a far worse situation. In any case, by describing them as a baghi group, the Prophet was indicating that they were a banned group, and that fighting them was compulsory upon all living Muslims at the time of the Battle of Siffin.

Moreover, there is a clear indication in the above verse that the non-baghigroup is upon the Command of Allah, and has not strayed from it in the least. This is another point in the hadith: ‘Ali and his army were upon the Command of Allah in the war. This fact is strengthened even further by the Prophet’s description of ‘Ammar as calling the baghi group to Paradise.

A rather disturbing quality of Mu’awiyah and his armies is that they were callers to Hellfire, according to the mutawatir hadith. Apparently, this nullifies any acquittal or defence of them. In the Sight of Allah, that baghigroup were not a collection of mistaken fellows. Rather, they were full-scale callers to Hellfire, undoubtedly working for Shaytan. We will say more on this below. Meanwhile, even if they had truly been people who made mistakes (as the Ahl al-Sunnah claim), would that have exonerated them from the crimes they committed? The Qur’an says “no”:

إن فرعون وهامان وجنودهما كانوا خاطئين

Verily, Fir’aun and Haman and their soldiers were people who made mistakes.9

Yet, they will fully answer for their crimes on the Day of Resurrection. Moreover, we read this in the Book of Allah:

قالوا يا أبانا استغفر لنا ذنوبنا إنا كنا خاطئين

They said: “O our father! Ask forgiveness for our sins. Indeed, we have been people who made mistakes.”10

This is a similar verse:

إنا آمنا بربنا ليغفر لنا خطايانا

We have believed in our Lord, that He may forgive us our mistakes.11

As such, the defence of mistake can never work as a shield from culpability for crimes. But then, even if we accepted it as a valid excuse (in opposition to the Qur’an), Mu’awiyah and his baghi armies still had a lot to answer for. They murdered ‘Ammar and several other righteous soldiers of Amir al-Muminin. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the baghi group had mistakenly killed those pious people. Still, the Book of Allah has clear provisions concerning such a case:

وما كان لمؤمن أن يقتل مؤمنا إلا خطأ ومن قتل مؤمنا خطأ فتحرير رقبة مؤمنة ودية مسلمة إلى أهله إلا أن يصدقوا … فمن لم يجد فصيام شهرين متتابعين توبة من الله وكان الله عليما حكيما ومن يقتل مؤمنا متعمدا فجزاؤه جهنم خالدا فيها وغضب الله عليه ولعنه وأعد له عذابا عظيما

It is NOT for a believer to kill a believer except by mistake. And whoever kills a believer by mistake, he must set free a believing slave and a compensation be given to the deceased’s family, unless they remit it … And whoever finds this beyond his means, he must fast for two consecutive months IN ORDER TO SEEK REPENTANCE FROM ALLAH. And Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hellfire to abide therein forever, and the Wrath and the Curse of Allah are upon him, and a great punishment is prepared for him.12

So, even if you killed a believer by mistake, you must still seek “repentance from Allah”. To do that, you must set free a slave for each life mistakenly taken, and pay compensation to the families of the deceased. If you were unable to manumit a slave (as in modern times), or you lacked the financial capability to pay the compensation, then you must fast consecutively for two months. Unless you did these, there would be no forgiveness for you for the accidental killing(s), and you would be in serious trouble in the Hereafter. Mu’awiyah and his baghi colleagues never did any of these things! Therefore, they never sought or earned Allah’s forgiveness.

The most important issue for consideration here is that only intentionalmurder has been associated with Hellfire. Interestingly, Mu’awiyah and his troops were also branded callers to it. In other words, they were themselves inmates – in fact, officials – of Hellfire. They were only drawing more people to join them in it. Imagine if the Sunni claim that the baghi group had no blame had been true, would such have been the case? Would Allah and His Messenger have described them as callers to Hellfire if they had solely been killing believers by mistake?

Finally, the fact that they were callers to Hellfire also casts a huge shadow over their Islamic credentials. Whenever anyone is descried as “calling to Hellfire”, it means that he is a kafir. ‘Allamah al-‘Uthaymin (d. 1421 H) states:

)وجعلناهم أئمة يدعون إلى النار (يعني بذلك قادة الكفار

(And We made them leaders inviting to the Fire), He is referring to the leaders of the kuffar.13

In other words, those who invite to Hellfire are the kuffar, and their leaders are the leaders of the kuffar.

Imam al-Alusi (d. 1270 H) also says:

}يدعون إلى النار… { والمراد جعلهم ضالين مضلين

{Inviting to the Fire} … what is intended is: He made them misled misleaders.14

Therefore, those who invite to the Fire are those that have been misled by Shaytan, and who also function as his soldiers, workers and callers.

In any case, Allah Himself has given a clear Verdict about people like them:

ولا تنكحوا المشركين حتى يؤمنوا ولعبد مؤمن خير من مشرك ولو أعجبكم أولئك يدعون إلى النار والله يدعو إلى الجنة والمغفرة بإذنه

And do not marry to idolaters till they believe, and verily a believing slave is better than an idolater, even though he pleases you. Those invite to Hellfire, and Allah invites to Paradise and Forgiveness by His Leave.15

In other words, the army of Amir al-Muminin were soldiers of Allah while the baghi group – led by Mu’awiyah – were kuffar, misled misleaders and idolaters.

  • Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad b. Isma’il b. Ibrahim b. Mughirah al-Bukhari al-Ju’fi, al-Jami’ al-Sahih al-Mukhtasar (Beirut: Dar Ibn Kathir; 3rd edition, 1407 H) [annotator: Dr. Mustafa Dib al-Bagha], vol. 1, p. 172, # 436
  • Abu ‘Umar Yusuf b. ‘Abd Allah b. Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Barr b. ‘Asim al-Nimri al-Qurtubi, al-Isti’ab fi Ma’rifat al-Ashab (Beirut: Dar al-Jil; 1st edition, 1412 H) [annotator: ‘Ali Muhammad al-Bajawi], vol. 3, p. 1140
  • Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Hajar al-‘Asqalani, al-Isabah fi Tamyiz al-Sahabah (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah; 1st edition, 1415 H) [annotators: Shaykh ‘Adil Ahmad b. ‘Abd al-Mawjud and Shaykh ‘Ali Muhammad Ma’udh], vol. 4, p. 474, # 5720
  • Abu al-Fida Isma’il b. Kathir al-Dimashqi, al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah (Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi; 1st edition, 1408 H) [annotator: ‘Ali Shiri], vol. 7, p. 296
  • Shihab al-Din Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari (Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifah li al-Taba’ah wa al-Nashr; 2nd edition), vol. 13, p. 58
  • Muhyi al-Din Abu Zakariyyah Yahya b. Sharaf al-Nawawi, Sahih Muslim bi Sharh al-Nawawi (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabi; 1407 H), vol. 18, p. 40
  • Qur’an 16:90
  • Qur’an 49:9
  • Qur’an 28:8
  • Qur’an 12:97
  • Qur’an 20:73
  • Qur’an 4:92-93
  • Muhammad b. Salih al-‘Uthaymin, Fatawa Nur ‘ala al-Darb (Muasassat Shaykh Muhammad bin Salih b. ‘Uthaymin al-Khayriyyah; 1427 H), vol. 31, p. 111
  • Abu al-Fadhl Mahmud al-Alusi, Ruh al-Ma’ani fi Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim wa Sab’ al-Mathani (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi), vol. 20, p. 83
  • Qur’an 2:221

Mu’awiya’s testimony further proves his real motive was power 

Advocate of Mu’awiya, Ibn Kathir records two interesting references that further exposes the real reason for Mu’awiya’s opposition. One who these references is about Muawiya’s first sermon to the people of Kufa that has also been quoted by Syed Qutub Shaheed in his famous book ‘Social justice in Islam’:

“Men of Kufa, do you think I fought against you on account of prayers or Zakar or pilgrimage? I knew that you said the prayers, that you paid the Zakar and that you performed the pilgrimage. I fought you in order to have control and mastery over you, now Allah has granted me that mastery, though you may not like it. Now, therefore, all the money and all the blood that I have had to expend in this war is still to be repaid, and all the promises that I made in the truce are under my feet here”
1. Social justice in Islam, page 237
2. Al-Bidayah (Urdu), Vol 8 page 974, under the topic of Merits and virtuous of Muawiya

The report has originally been recorded in al-Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah, Volume 6 page 187 No. 3055 that has been graded as ‘Jaiyid’ by Al-Albaani in Irwa al-Ghalil, Volume 3 page 63.

Before the above cited episode, we read in Al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah, Volume 8 page 13 under the topic of Merits and virtuous of Muawiyah:

Ibn Asakir has narrated from Amir Shu’bi that prior to the battle of Siffeen…Ali sent Jareer bin Abdullah al-Bajli to Muawiyah with a letter which contained the text: ‘It is compulsory on you to give allegiance (bayyah) to me since Muhajir and Ansar have already given their allegiance to me and if you don’t give it, I will seek Allah’s help against you…’ Muawiyah read the letter before the public and Jareer got up and addressed the people and in his speech he advised Muawiyah to listen and obey (Ali) and warned him from opposing and prevented him from spreading mischief (fitna) among the people…Muawiyah told Jareer: ‘If Ali makes me Governor over Syria and Egypt, on the condition that after him it will not be obligatory on me to give bayah to someone else, I will give him bayyah.’

Allamah Khawarzami in his “Manaqib” page 255 Chapter “Dhikr Siffeen” states that:

“Mu’awiya wrote a letter to ‘Ali which he sent via the hand of ‘Abdullah bin Uqbah. In the letter he stated ‘I asked you about my ruling Syria, and placed an additional condition that neither I give you bay’a nor do I obey you, but you rejected this. But Allah gave me what you rejected to give me, I continue to hold the same view about what I had invited you before (about Syria and not giving you bay’a).”

This and the previous reference from al Bidaya proves his interest was one – gaining power. Mu’awiya simply used Hazrat Uthman’s r.a murder as an ‘excuse’ not to give bay`a to Imam ‘Ali (as). If he was indeed sincere perhaps Abu Sulaiman can explain why Mu’awiya did not ask for the killers to be handed following arbitration between the two sides at Sifeen? After all as Abu Sulaiman states the Syrians loved him and Mu’awiya was so determined to avenge Hazrat Uthman’s r.a death that he deemed it appropriate to go to war. This was clearly a farce and Deobandi scholar Sayyid Ahmad Raza Bijnori in his commentary of Sahih al Bukhari “Anwar ul Bari” states on Volume 12 page 73:

“Mu’awiya fought out of a personal desire for power and was motivated by his pro Umayya bias”.
Anwar-ul-Bari Sharah Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol. 12 page 73

Moreover Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi in his Fatwa Azizi page 161 Chapter 8 under the chapter “Marwan” in answer to question 5 makes the admission:

“The scholars of Ahl’ul hadith having relied on narration’s have concluded that Mu’awiya’s actions were based on his personal grudge and desire and it was not on account of the enmity that had been borne our between the Quraysh and Banu Umayya following the murder of the possessor of two lights [Uthman], the truth is that he was guilty of a great sin, was a baghi (rebel) and a fasiq (transgressor)”.
Fatwa Azizi page 161 Chapter 8

Point 11:Are the merits of Sahaba mentioned in Quran and Hadith applicable on Muawiya

Mu’awiya’s+Crimes+He+was+the+first+one+to+start+the+system+of+making+Muslim+captive+ladies+as+slaves+in+civil+wars+among+Muslims.

Point 12:Influence of Nasabiyyat on the science of Hadith criticism Jarh o Tadeel

 

Ibn Manzur states in In Lisan al Arab:

والنَّواصِبُ قومٌ يَتَدَيَّنُونَ ببِغْضَةِ عليّ عليه السلام

“Nawasib are those who embrace the hate of Ali (as) as part of their faith”

May Allah’s curse be upon such people!

In Taj al Uroos, we read:

النَّوَاصِبُ والنّاصِبيَّةُ وأَهْلُ النَّصْبِ : وهم المُتَدَيِّنُون بِبغْضَةِ سيّدِنا أَميرِ المُؤْمنينَ ويَعْسُوب المُسْلِمينَ أَبي الحسنِ عَلِيّ بْنِ أَبي طالبٍ رضِيَ الله تعالى عَنْهُ وكَرَّم وجْهَهُ

Nawasib: “Are those who hate the commander of believers and the leader of Muslims Abu al-Hassan Ali bin Abi Talib [ra]“.

Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti states in Tadrib al-Rawi:

بالنصب وهو بغض علي رضي الله عنه وتقديم غيره

“Nasb is hating Ali [ra] preferring the others”

We read the following in the margin of Imam Dhahabi’s famed book Siyar Alam al-Nubala (Vol 4 page 37) by Shaykh Shu’aib al-Arnaout:

من الناصبية وهم المنافقون المتدينون ببغضة علي رضي الله عنه ، سموا بذلك لأنهم نصبوا له وعادوه

“From Nasibiyah, there comes Nasibi and they are hypocrites, they have made the hate of Ali as their religion. This name was given to them because they have made the hate of Ali as their aim of life (Nasbu) and had enmity for him”

In volume 18 page 201 we read:

والنصب هو: بغض علي رضي الله عنه، وموالاة معاوية.

“Nasb means to have grudge against Ali (ra) and love Muawiya”

One of the famous Wahabi scholars from Saudi Arabia namely Shaykh Saleh al-Fawzan stated in his book ‘Al-Talimaat Al-Mukhtasar Ala Matan Al-Aqida al-Tahawiyah’:

وأما النواصب: فيوالون الصحابة، ويبغضون بيت النبي عليه الصلاة والسلام، ولذلك سموا بالنواصب؛ لنصبهم العداوة لأهل بيت النبي عليه الصلاة والسلام.

“The Nawasib, befriend the Sahaba and hate the family of the prophet (pbuh), therefore they have been called Nawasib for hating Ahlulbayt of the prophet (pbuh)”.

Hadiya al Sahil elaborates yet further:

“Nasibi ideology is a type of flawed character that is very bad, in its worst form is has a hatred for the Imam of Guidance Ali, and takes this as part of its Deen / Iman”.

 

Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz makes two interesting comments in his Hidayatul Majeediyah, page 813:

“One who fights Ali [r] with enmity is a kaffir according to the ijma of Ahl’ul Sunnah.”

“Whoever deems Ali [r] to be a kaffir or opposes his khilafath is a kaffir, this trait was evident amongst the Khawaarij at Naharwaan”.
Haddeeya Mujedeeya by Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi page 813

 

Several authoritative Sunni works are being relied on for this section. Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz stated in Tauhfa Ithna Ashari:

Tuhfa Isna Ashriya, Page 97, By Shah Abdul Aziz

“Hadith narrated by M

arwan can be found in al Bukhari, even though he was a Nasibi, in fact he was leader of that wicked cult.”

Maulana Sayyid Lal Shah Bukhari attributes a different name as the actual Imam of the Nasibis, he writes:

“The founder of Nasibi ideology was Mu’awiya”.
Isthakhlaaf ai Yazid by Maulana Sayyid Lal Shah Bukhari page 216

In Al-Bidayah al-Nihayah, Volume 8 page 259 Ibn Kathir states:

ولما كان متوليا على المدينة لمعاوية كان يسب عليا كل جمعة على المنبر،

“When Marwan was a governor of Mu’awiya in Madina, he used to curse Ali on each Friday from the pulpit” .

In Fatwa Azizi by Shah Abdul Aziz we read that::

“Mu’awiya would curse Ali (as)”.
Fatwa Azizi by al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi, page 123

Hence Marwan and Mu’awiya were both Nasibis. They were enemies of Ali and embraced this as part of their faith. Their followers are also Nawasib. 

In Al-Bidayah al Nihayah, Volume 7 page 341, Ibn Kathir records that Saad bin Abi Waqqas said to Mu’awiya:

‘You brought me to your house and made me sit on your sofa and then you began to curse Ali?’

This demonstrates that Mu’awiya used to curse Ali (as).

Allamah Ibn al-Emaad al-Hanbali (d. 1089 H) in his book Shadharat al Dhahab, Volume 1 page 69 quoted Imam Dhahabi:

وقال الذهبي فيه كان ناصبياً فظاً غليظاً يتناول المسكر ويفعل المنكر

“Al-Dhahabi said about him (Yazeed) that he was Nasibi, rude, harsh, used to drink alcohol and committed evil deeds.”

Mu’awiya and Yazid were hence both Nasibi and were the worst enemies of Ali (as) and their adherents follow the same principle; carrying this banner of hypocrisy everywhere they go. The contemporary Nawasib love these characters and praise the Banu Ummayya rule. Relevent are the following words of Ibn Kathir who himself had Nasibi tendencies:

قلت: الناس في يزيد بن معاوية أقسام فمنهم من يحبه ويتولاه، وهم طائفة من أهل الشام، من النواصب

“I say: The people are divided into groups about Yazid bin Mu’awyia, some of them love him and befriend him and they are the Nawasib from the people of Syria”.
Al-Bidayah al Nihayah, Volume 6 page 256

 

Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah Shah Abdul Aziz’s fatwa that the Nasibi ideology is Kufr

Shah Abdul Aziz further writes:Tuhfa Isna Ashriya, Page 227, By Shah Abdul Aziz

“To suggest that there were no objections raised against Hadhrath Ali – by the Nasibis and Khawariji’s is incorrect, because the Khawarij and Nasibi like their black cursed faces have likewise blacked many pages. To make references to their kufr here would be disrespectful; but we have no choice since to quote the kufr matter is not kufr…”.

 

According to Imam Naseemuddin Muhammad bin Merak al-Hanafi the curse of Allah, angels and of all human beings are on Nawasib

Imam of Ahle Sunnah Mulla Ali Qari in his book Jama al-Wasail Sharah al-Shumail, Volume 2 page 211 (Egypt) records the fatwa of Imam Naseemuddin Muhammad bin Merak Shah al-Hanafi (d. 935 H):

Jama Al-Wasail Fi Sharh Al-Shamail, Vol. 2 Page 211, By Ali bin Sultan Mohammad Al-Hanafi

“An individual who has been declared a Nasibi carries no credibility and there is no respect for him, in fact he is an accursed and a lair, may the curse of Allah, his angels and of all human beings be upon such a person”

According to Qadhi Shokani Nawasib are Kafir

Qadhi Shokani states:

وإذا ثبت أن الناصبي من يبغض عليا عليه السلام فقد ثبت بالأحاديث الصحيحة الصريحة في كتب الحديث المعتمدة أن بغضه نفاق وكفر ۔ ۔ ۔ وثبت أن من أبغض عليا فقد أبغض الله ورسوله وبغض الله ورسوله كفر ۔ ۔ ۔ وفي الباب أحاديث كثيرة من طرق عن جماعة من الصحابة.وفي هذا المقدار كفاية فإن به يثبت أن الناصبي كافر، وأن من قال لرجل يا ناصبي! فكأنه قال: له يا كافر ۔

If it is proven that a Nasibi is one who bears a grudge towards Ali (as), then it is proven beyond a doubt throughSahih ahadeeth which clearly state in the book of ahadeeth that bearing a grudge against him (Ali)  is hypocrisy and kufr ….[and then Shokani mentions the books and narrations]…it is hence proven that being jealous of him is tantamount to being jealous of Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s) is kufr …[Shokani again cites the the books]…and in this regard there are many ahadeeth from chains to the Sahaba and that shall suffice to prove that a Nasibi is a Kafir and so if someone calls a person ‘Oh Nasibi’ it means he said ‘Oh Kafir’.
al-Fatah ul Rabbani min Fatawa Imam Shokani, Volume 2 pages 873-876 (published in Yemen) 

Point 13:Philosophy of Usul ul Hadith Insufficiency of Isnad system 

Point 14:Status of Weak Hadith and a Hadith about comparing Hadith with Quran!

 

Point 15:Analysis of_the_narrations on Manaqib of Muawiya

Advertisements