12. Tijani ridicules some of the Sahabah calling them al Munqalibin (those who turned back on their heels)

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

12. Tijani ridicules some of the Sahabah calling them al Munqalibin (those who turned back on their heels)

 

Tijani says:

 

I have changed the Companions who turned back on their heels, like Muawiah, Amr ibn al As, al Mughira ibn Shu’ba, Abu Hurayra, Ikrima, Ka’b al Ahbar and others, for the grateful Companions who never broke the promise they gave to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, like Ammar ibn Yasir, Salman al Farisi, Abu Dharr al Ghifari, al Miqdad ibn al Aswad. Khuzayma ibn Thabit – Dhu al Shahadetain – and others, and praise be to Allah for this enlightenment.[1]

 

Our comment:

It appears that the ‘infallible’ Imam, Hassan ibn ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhuma handed the Caliphate over to someone who turned back on their heels. Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu rose up against Yazid, but he pledged allegiance to Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu. One ‘infallible’ handed the Caliphate over to a person who turned back on his heels, another ‘infallible’ pledged allegiance to someone who turned back on his heels. Either the ‘infallibles’ were wrong or Tijani is making up history as he goes.

All that ‘Amr ibn al ‘As radiya Llahu ‘anhu could be guilty of was that he supported Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Since it is known that Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu became the khalifah by the nomination of both Hassan and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, whatever applies to Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu applies to ‘Amr radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

One wonders what was the reason for Tijani accusing al Mughirah, ‘Ikrimah, and Ka’b’ al Ahbar (who was not even a companion), of turning back on their heels? Tijani did not mention anything against these three which would indicate why they deserved such callous treatment. Perhaps it could be a case of him having opened the door through which he accuses people of leaving the religion; so he used this opportunity to cast out as many of the Sahabah as he could

Abu Hurairah’s only sin was that he transmitted the merits of the Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. This was sufficient for Tijani to accuse him of going back on his heels.

There is not much more that can be said of Tijani’s self-claimed ‘impartiality’. Instead of refuting him we urge the reader to consider whether Tijani’s views are the result of an academic enquiry; or whether he adopts a view and then searches for anything that could be used to support his preconceived ideas.

 

 
NEXT ⇒ 13. Tijani associates the term Ahlus Sunnah wa l-Jama’ah with Muawiyah


[1]Then I was guided, p. 133.