The Shia Stance on the Companions

When the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam departed from this world (11 AH/632 CE), the Muslim population was 124 000. The population of the Arabian Peninsula was not more than a million.

When the Islamic scholars took count of the elite and eminent Companions, and compiled their biographies in books like Usd al Ghabah of Ibn al Athir (555–630 AH/1160–1223 CE), al Isabah fi Tamyiz al Sahabah of Ibn Hajar al ‘Asqalani (733–852 AH/1371–1448 CE), al Isti’ab fi al Ma’rifat al Ashab of Ibn ‘Abdul Barr (368–463 AH/978–1071 CE) etc., they enumerated approximately 8000 leaders who were nurtured in the prophetic university. They established Islam, laid the foundation of the state, narrated hadith, led conquests, and laid the foundations for standards and procedures whereupon cities, cultures, and civilisations were established. They were the elite that changed the course of history. The Ahlus Sunnah have accepted these Companions lives with exaltation and reverence, without any infallibility or sacredness.

As for the Shia, they accept only five or six of the Companions of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and are satisfied with them alone. They pass the verdict of disbelief, apostasy, deviation, immorality and disobedience on the remaining Companions. Similar is the case against the wives of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam except Khadijah radiya Llahu ‘anha (68–3 BH/56–620 CE). As a result, they contest the Qur’an, which discusses the majority of the Companions by saying:

أُولٰئِكَ كَتَبَ فِيْ قُلُوْبِهِمُ الْإِيْمَانَ وَأَيَّدَهُمْ بِرُوْحٍ مِّنْهُ ۖ وَيُدْخِلُهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِيْ مِنْ تَحْتِهَا الْأَنْهَارُ خَالِدِيْنَ فِيْهَا ۚ رَضِيَ اللّٰهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُوْا عَنْهُ ۚ أُولٰئِكَ حِزْبُ اللّٰهِ ۚ أَلَا إِنَّ حِزْبَ اللّٰهِ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُوْنَ

For those believers, Allah has instilled faith in their hearts and strengthened them with spirit from Him. He will admit them into Gardens under which rivers flow, to stay there forever. Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with him. They are the party of Allah. Indeed, Allah’s party is bound to succeed.^[1]

The Qur’an describes the Companions by stating:

أُولٰئِكَ هُمْ خَيْرُ الْبَرِيَّةِ

They are the best of all beings.^[2]

The Qur’an gave them the glad tidings of Jannat (Paradise) as a recompense for what they sent forth in the path of Allah; for assisting the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and establishing the Din of Islam.

By contesting the Qur’an, in following their stand point on the Companions, the Shia actually doomed the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to failure. What a failure it is for the person who renounces the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam religion, deviates from his path, moves away from his nurturing, turns away from his vast and extensive knowledge, which took him 23 years to nurture in front of his eyes by moulding them and dyeing them with the dye of Islam?

What a failure it is for that person who renounces the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, his Din, and his bequests concerning his household, who are regarded as the Mothers of the Believers according to the Qur’an and from whom Allah removed all impurities and purified thoroughly.

This is the Shia stance concerning majority of the Companions and members of his Ahlul Bayt (Household). This is the stance, the author of Bayt al ‘Ankabut adopted in his blind adherence. Therefore, he describes the Companions by saying:

صناع التخبط و الهاوية و المأزق الذي بدأ اثناء وجود رسول الله بين اظهرهم … انهم الذين افتتحوا تجارة الدجل و الكذب علي رسول الله

They are the founders of failure; abyss and impasse which started while the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was still in their midst. They are ones who opened the trade of fraud and lies on the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.^[3]

This is a dangerous text which contains:

Announcement of the failure of Prophethood and the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in nurturing the Companions and the disciples.
Refutation of the Qur’an which describes these Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum as:

رَضِيَ اللّٰهُ عَنْهٌمْ وَرَضُوْا عَنْهُ

Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is pleased with them and they are pleased with Allah.

أُولٰئِكَ هُمْ خَيْرُ الْبَرِيَّةِ

They are the best of all beings.

Therefore, the Companions are definitely the best in the universe [after the Prophets].

Refutation of historical facts which bear testimony that these Companions eliminated pagan polytheism, liberated the eastern lands and its people’s minds from Roman and Persian oppressors and established a state and civilisation that enlightened the world and resembled the first world on the planet, whose effulgence expands to the east and west.

These Companions who changed the world, the meaning of civilization, the course of history and ontology, are being described by the author of Bayt al ‘Ankabut as founders of failure and abyss and traders of fraud and lies upon the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

We challenge the author of Bayt al ‘Ankabut to produce such insults, abuse, and accusations towards the companions from the books of Jews, Christians, insolent heretics or atheists.

Western secular people (non-Muslims) have written about the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. They put him at the summit of the luminaries of history, amongst the prophets, leaders, and reformers. The solitary reason for this is that his invitation and message shaped and formed such a nation, in this world, that produced a unique state and city; which revived the legacies of ancient civilization and changed the course of history.^[4]

However, the miserable Shia opinion claims that the leader of the Ulu al ‘Azm Ambiya’ (Prophets of firm resolve) failed socially, religiously, and even in his own family.

There is no power or strength accept with Allah, the High, the Great.

The author of Bayt al ‘Ankabut quotes a number of pages from Ibn Abi al Hadid (586–655 AH/1190–1257 CE), wherein he is insolent towards the Companions, claiming that they hate ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Similar is his insolence towards senior jurists of Islam, like Said ibn al Musayyab (13–94 AH/634–713 CE) and Ibn Shihab al Zuhri. Through this, the author of Bayt al ‘Ankabut distorts the image of Islamic history and sows distress and despair in the minds and hearts of the present generation, by making them loose confidence in its history, which is one of the weapons of awareness and upliftment.

Similarly, this book Bayt al ‘Ankabut, comprises of many pages concerning the battle between ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He treads a path which distorts the image of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum who did not join the army of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He taints their integrity. Consequently, he criticises the Sunni hadith books for narrating from them.

As for the battle, which is known as al Fitnah al Kubra (the great trial), it should be dealt with, within its subject matter and nature, which is politics and not religion. Therefore, contradictions and differences in it, are not discriminatory in religion, i.e., from both sides. Hence, political differences cannot be discriminatory against its parties in religious integrity (as politics is from the secondary laws).

If those who slandered the integrity of the Companions who differed with ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu were really loyal to the Islamic truth, which ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu himself announced, they would not have fallen into this contaminated swamp.

‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu had declared that the differences between him and his brothers in Islam, those that opposed and fought with him, were political and jurisprudential, specifically with regards to the killing of ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan (48 BH–35 AH/577–656 CE), and the timing of the punishment for his killers. These differences are not regarding Islam and religious integrity.

‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was asked about those who took up arms and rebelled against him. This was at the peak of the battle between him and Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan radiya Llahu ‘anhu, who was with the people of Syria, during the Battle of Siffin. The Khawarij had already passed a verdict of kufr (disbelief) against Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the people of Syria. ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu replied, “By Allah, we have clashed, but our Lord is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one. We do not claim more than them with regards to belief in Allah and ratification of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and vice versa. The matter is one. Except that we differ in the matter of ‘Uthman’s killing. We are innocent of it.^[5] By Allah, we did not fight the people of Syria because of what these people (the Khawarij) think, which is disbelief and difference in Din. We only fought them to return them to the community. They are our brothers in Islam. Our Qiblah is one. We regard ourselves to be on the truth and not them.^[6] We fight our brothers in Islam on account of deviation, blunder, doubt, and misinterpretation that has crept upon us. When we desire any trait which Allah has bestowed, we satiate ourselves with it, and use it to get closer in that which we differ. We covet it and despise anything besides it.”^[7]

‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was asked concerning the salvation of those that were killed from both sides in the Battle of Siffin. He said, “I have the expectation that whoever is killed, from amongst us or them and his heart is pure, Allah will enter him into Jannat.”^[8]

‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu supplicated for entry into Jannat, for those who were killed while fighting against him, if their fighting was through Ijtihad (independent judgment), even though it was incorrect.

‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was asked about the companions that fought against him in the Battle of the Camel 36 AH (656 CE), “Are they polytheist?”

He replied, “They ran away from polytheism.”

He was asked, “Are they hypocrites?”

He replied, “Hypocrites are those who remember Allah very little.”

He was asked, “Then who are they?”

He replied, “Our brothers who rebelled against us.”

During the Battle of Siffin, when ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu heard some of his followers abusing the people of Syria (Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his followers), he said, “I detest you to be abusers.”^[9]

This was the method of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in determining the manner of dispute which arose between him and his opposition in the great trial. It was a political dispute, in secondary matters, which arose between people of one Qiblah and one religion. The criterion here is whether it is right or wrong and not belief and disbelief. Therefore, it does not take a person out of his religion nor does it taint his religious integrity.

The Ahlus Sunnah have adopted this method of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Hence, they say, as narrated by al Nawawi:

إن عليا كان هو المصيب المحقق والطائفة الأخرى أصحاب معاوية رضي الله عنه كانوا بغاة متأولين… والجميع مؤمنون لا يخرجون باقتال عن الإيمان ولا يفسقون

Indeed, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was correct and on the truth whilst the other party, the followers of Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu were rebellious through interpretation… All were believers. They do not come out of the fold of Islam because of the fighting nor do they become sinners.^[10]

The Ahlus Sunnah are unanimous on this stance in determining the manner of disputes and battles, from al Ash’ari (260–324 AH/874–936 CE) to Ibn Kathir (700–774 AH/1301–1377 CE); Ibn Hazm al Andalusi (384–456 AH/994–1064 CE); Ibn Taymiyyah (661-768 AH/1263–1338 CE), and al Qadi ‘Iyad (476–544 AH/1083-1149 CE).

As for the Shia, Oh! What a strange situation! They turned away from the method of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. They adopted the stance of the Khawarij. As a result, they fell together with the Khawarij into the swamp of declaring disbelief, misguidance, and deviation against majority of the Companions who differed with ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and tainted their religious integrity because of this corrupt method upon which they and the Khawarij united.

This is in contrast to the stance of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in regard to Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, the people of Syria, and those who participated in the Battle of the Camel. We have mentioned the precious excerpt which reflects his method regarding the manner of dispute which arose between the Companions. Accordingly, he refused to declare disbelief, expulsion, and tainting religious integrity. Likewise, is his stance regarding the Khawarij, who refuted and fought against him. Despite this, he did not taint their integrity. He advised his followers to perform salah behind them. He did not cut off stipends to them, as long as they did not fight against him. Because, when rebels fight against any Shar’i leader, their rebellion and fighting does not take them out of the fold of Islam or from the integrity that Islam demands. This is because rebellion is an error of judgement. The criteria for judging this is whether it is right or wrong and not whether it is belief or disbelief.

وَإِنْ طَآئِفَتَانِ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِيْنَ اقْتَتَلُوْا فَأَصْلِحُوْا بَيْنَهُمَا ۖ فَإِنْۢ بَغَتْ إِحْدَاهُمَا عَلَى الْأُخْرٰى فَقَاتِلُوا الَّتِيْ تَبْغِيْ حَتّٰى تَفِيْٓءَ إِلٰى أَمْرِ اللّٰهِ ۚ فَإِنْ فَآءَتْ فَأَصْلِحُوْا بَيْنَهُمَا بِالْعَدْلِ وَأَقْسِطُوْا ۖ إِنَّ اللّٰهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِيْنَ إِنَّمَا الْمُؤْمِنُوْنَ إِخْوَةٌ فَأَصْلِحُوْا بَيْنَ أَخَوَيْكُمْ ۚ وَاتَّقُوا اللّٰهَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُوْنَ

And if two groups of believers fight each other, then make peace between them. But if one of them transgresses against the other, then fight against the transgressing group until they [are willing to] submit to the rule of Allah. If they do so, then make peace between both [groups] in all fairness and act justly. Surely Allah loves those who uphold justice. The believers are but one brotherhood, so make peace between your brothers. And be mindful of Allah so you may be shown mercy.^[11]

Therefore, rebellion and fighting, in politics and jurisprudence, does not take a person out of the fold of Islam nor from the integrity that was established through Islamic brotherhood.

If the Shia understood the method of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in this matter, which is the method of Islam, they would not have fallen in the swamp of the Khawarij, the swamp of refuting the Companions of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and they would not have denied their integrity in narrating hadith.

The scholars of hadith, from the Ahlus Sunnah, have distinguished between which Shia narration of hadith is accepted and which one is not. Hence, they accepted the narrations of the truthful ones. However, those who regard lies, by calling it Taqiyyah, as Din which they practice upon, the scholars reject narrations of these liars. These people declare Taqiyyah, i.e., lies and to display contrary to what they hide, as Din and fabricate ahadith about it which they attribute to their Imams, who say:

التقية ديني و دين آبائي

Taqiyyah is my religion and the religion of my forefathers.

من لا تقية له لا دين له

He who does not practice Taqiyyah has no religion.

The scholars of hadith did not disregard the integrity of Shia narrators completely.

NEXT⇒ The Prophet for the Universe or the Ahlul Bayt Only?

^[1] Surah al Mujadalah: 22.

^[2] Surah al Bayyinah: 7.

^[3] Bayt al ‘Ankabut, pg. 19.

^[4] Michael Hart: al Khalidun Mi’ah A’zamuhum Muhammad Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, pg. 13 – 20, Anis Mansur translation, al Maktab al Misri al Hadith, Cairo, 1997.

^[5] Ibn Abi al Hadid: Sharh Nahj al Balaghah, 17/141, researched by Muhammad Abu al Fadl Ibrahim, Cairo, 1959.

^[6] Al Baqillani: al Tamhid fi al Radd ‘ala al Mulhidah wa al Mu’attilah wa al Rafidah wa al Khawarij wa al Mu’tazilah, pg. 237, 238, researched by Muhammad al Khudayri, Muhammad ‘Abdul Hadi Abu Raydah, Cairo, 1947.

^[7] Al Imam ‘Ali: Nahj al Balaghah, pg. 237,238, Dar al Shu’ab, Cairo.

^[8] Al Baqillani: al Tamhid, pg. 237.

^[9] Nahj al Balaghah, pg. 206.

^[10] Al Nawawi: Sharh Sahih Muslim, 7/168, Mahmud Tawfiq, Cairo.

^[11] Haqa’iq wa Shubuhat Hawl al Sunnah wa al Shia, pg. 154–159.

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents