CHAPTER FIVE

CHAPTER FIVE
THE COMPANIONS OF THE PROPHET
The hearts of the Sunnis are not burdened in any way for the Companions of the Prophet. They believe that the dignity of the Prophet's Companions places them above all other people in honor. They follow the Prophet's advice for he said, "Do not speak ill of my Companions."1 Allah says in the Qur’ân, {"Allah has already forgiven the Prophet and the Muhâjirûn2 and the Ansâr3…"}4 Following this, no one ever spoke ill of them again. Insults and curses are not characteristic of pious believers. This cannot be said except by the hypocrites who, in the time of the Prophet, used to slander and ridicule the believers, who gave themselves freely to acts of charity. Allah says about such hypocrites, {"Those who criticize the contributors among the believers concerning
---------------------------------------
1 Al-Bukhârî and Muslim.
2 The Emigrants from Mecca to Medina.
3 The Supporters of the Prophet in Medina; the inhabitants of Medina who had accepted Islam and supported the Prophet and all the Muhâjirûn upon their arrival there.
4 Qur’ân 9: 117.
47
[their] charities and [criticize] the ones who find nothing [to spend] except their effort, so they ridicule them - Allah will ridicule them, and they will have a painful punishment."}5

The Shias' Position on the Prophet's Companions
The Shias insist on their opposition to the Prophet's Companions to the point of saying that all but three of them abandoned Islam after the death of the Prophet. The three they redeem are Abû Dharr, Salmân Al-Fârisî, and Al-Miqdâd. According to them, whoever doubts that the Prophet's Companions abandoned Islam is a disbeliever.6 The book Al-Kâfî tells us that "Abû Bakr and `Umar both died without having repented, or regretting for wronging `Alî. Because of this, according to Al-Kulaynî, Allah curses them, and so do the Angels and all mankind.7 Al-Kulaynî explains that the verse, {"Indeed, those who have believed then disbelieved, then believed, then disbelieved, and then increased in disbelief -never will Allah forgive them, nor will He guide them to a way."}8 was revealed about ‘these two fellows’9, who believed in the Messenger, but then disbelieved when they did not swear their allegiance to `Alî. Their disbelief increased when they accepted that others
------------------------------------
5 Qur’ân 9: 79.
6 Al-Kulaynî, Usul Al-Kâfî, 2: 245; Al-Majlisî, Hayâtul-Qulûb, 2: 640; also Al-`Ayashî’sTafsîr, 1: 199; Muhammad Murtadâ Al-Kâshânî, Tafsîr As-Sâfî, 1:389; Al-Sayyid Hâshim Al-Bahrânî, Al-Burhân fî Tafsîr Al-Qur’ân, 1:319; Tafsîr Nûr Ath-Thaqalayn, 1:396; Ja`far Ibn Muhammad Ibn Quluya, Al-Ikhtisâs, 4,5; As-Sarâ’ir (Secrets), 468. Tujjâr Al-Aswâr (Merchants of Walls) 22:345, 352, 44
7 Al-Kulaynî, Usûl Al-Kâfî, 8:246.
8 Qur’ân 4:136. 9 That is to say, Abû Bakr and `Umar according to As-Sâfî in his comment on Al-Kâfî.
48
swear allegiance to them rather than to `Alî. Such people cannot claim even the smallest amount of faith."10
The Shia scholars claim that `Umar was the illegitimate son of a woman named Sihâk and `Abdul-Muttalib.11 As for Abû Bakr, they say he was Satan's companion and that he and his friend `Umar were both hypocrites, unjust and liars; whoever accepted that they were the legitimate successors of the Prophet will be straying and will die as those who died in the Pre-Islamic Period of Ignorance.12 `Uthmân, the Shias say, was a straying and an accursed person.13
To the Shias, these three are the most despised of the Prophet's Companions and they spare no effort to insult them. Al-Majlisî devoted an entire chapter in his book entitled "the Apostasy of the Three, their Alleged Hypocrisy, and the Disgracefulness of their Behavior."14 He also said that whoever believed that `Uthmân was unjustly killed has committed a greater sin than those who worshipped the calf.15 It is a natural tendency of those who believe whatever they please to exaggerate the things they like and the things they dislike. The strange thing is that while the Shias falsely accuse Mu`âwiyah of ordering the cursing of `Alî by preachers on pulpits, and claim that this
----------------------------------------------
10 Al-Kulaynî, Usûl Al-Kâfî, 240.
11 Ibn Tâwûs, At-Tarâ’if fî Ma`rifât At-Tawâ’if, 401; Ni`matul-Lâh Ibn Muhammad Al- Jazâ’irî, Al-Anwâr Al-Nu`mâniyyah fî Bayân Ma`rifat An-Nash’ah Al-Insâniyyah, 1:61; Muhammad Al-Hasan Al-`Alamî, Dâ’irât Al-Ma`ârif Ash-Shî`iyyah, 29:23.
12 At-Tâwûsî, `Abdullâh Ibn Mûsâ Ibn Ja`far Ibn Tâwûs At-Tâwûsî, At-Tarâ’if fî Ma`rifat At-Tawâ’if, p. 401; Al-Majlisî, Haqqul-Yaqîn (Absolute Truth), p. 204.
13 Al-Maqdisî Al-Ardibîlî, Hadîqat Ash-Shî`ah (Garden of the Shias), p. 275.
14 Al-Majlisî, Bihâr Al-Anwâr, 8:208-252.
15 Al-Majlisî, Haqqul-Yaqîn, p. 270.
49
is an example of his evilness, they themselves curse Abû Bakr and `Umar every day and see nothing wrong in it.

A Continuing Tradition
The Iranian Revolution had raised hopes of change, and some people expected that books published more recently in Iran would not be so offensive as the old books were; the books which the scholars of Shia avoid discussing. But it does not seem like the situation has changed, and the books the Shias are publishing today still follow the well established tradition of their old scholars. Books such as Muhammad Ar-Radiyy Ar-Radawî's They Attributed lies to the Shia,16 Muhammad At-Tîjânî As-Samâwî's Then I was Guided,17 and Ask the People of Knowledge,18 and With the Truthful19, and Sheikh Al- Ansârî's book in which he describes the Prophet's Companions as liars and enemies of Allah and His Messenger.
The Shia centers throughout the world have translated the book Then I was Guided and it is now in print in several languages and widely distributed. Its author describes his conversion from Sufism, which he describes as far from the Sunnah of the Prophet.
His road ended with Shiism. A quick glance at his book gives us an idea of how Allah "guided" him to insult the Companions and the wives of the Prophet. He says for example:
---------------------------------------------
16 Muhammad Ar-Radiyy Ar-Radawî, Kadhabû `alâ Ash-Shî`ah.
17 Muhammad At-Tîjânî As-Samâwî, Thumma Ihtadayt.
18 Muhammad At-Tîjânî As-Samâwî, Fas’alû Ahladh-Dhikr 19 Muhammad At-Tîjânî As-Samâwî, Ma`â As-Sâdiqîn.
50
"The Companions angered the Prophet, with their bad manners and forward behavior toward him and because they did not show him proper respect... They were stubborn, and argued with him . . . and challenged the commands of their Lord.
They placed themselves above the Prophet.20
They [the Companions] do not deserve any respect... They took advantage of weak-minded people to spread invented hadîths and reports about their own praiseworthiness."21
He continues, saying "`Umar does not abstain from committing sins nor does he fear Allah," "The Companions turned back on their heels (i.e. apostatized), so they deserve neither Allah's reward nor His forgiveness," "They (i.e. the Companions) were slack in jihad and inclined to worldly pleasures," "They turned back on their heels and innovated freely and shamelessly in religion, saying, 'We hear and disobey.'"22
He also claims that the Companions, including `Â’ishah, had changed the Sunnah of the Prophet and that they admitted doing so.
At-Tîjânî's other books, With the Truthful and Ask the People of Knowledge, are written in the same vein. This is because the essence of Shiism is based on insulting the Companions of the Prophet. Without this, their doctrines are without value or purpose.
-------------------------------------------
20 Muhammad At-Tîjânî As-Samâwî, Thumma Ihtadayt, pp. 88-89.
21 Muhammad At-Tîjânî As-Samâwî, Thumma Ihtadayt, pp. 96, 100, 101.
22 Ibid., pp. 104-107.
51
This insolent has lost his way and mistaken bitterness and hatred for guidance. His scant regard for those who bore Islam on their shoulders, and his insults to the wives of the Prophet bear witness to his lack of understanding. Such bitterness has nothing to do with guidance. He has merely left the falsehood of Sufism and exchanged it for the falsehood of Shiism. Being a Sufi, he was already near to Shiism since this is the mother of Sufism. Indeed, Sufism itself is a manifestation of Shiism, as Ibn Khaldûn said in Al-Muqaddimah (The Introduction). Both of them are built on false, distorted, and twisted beliefs. These beliefs led them to bury their dead in mosques, to build spectacular tombs and mausolea, and to sanctify their Imams and spiritual leaders. For them, the Imams are infallible and have absolute control over the universe. The Shias and Sufis believe the dead will come to the aid of the living. It would have been more proper for him to refer to the thousands of books of the Sunnis refuting what the Sufis compiled and judging their deviation, but instead Muhammad At-Tîjânî kept his nose in the dust and followed his desire.
The Shias and the Sufis both defy Allah's Words, {"And [He revealed] that the masjids are for Allah, so do not invoke with Allah anyone."}23 They are both up to their necks in shrines and tombs and frightful innovations. Allah said, {"Indeed, those you [polytheists] call upon besides Allah are servants [i.e. creations] like you. So call upon them and let them respond to you, if you should be truthful."}24 He also said, {"If you invoke them, they do not hear your supplication; and if they heard, they would not respond to you…"} 25
------------------------------------
23 Qur’ân 72:18.
24 Qur’ân 7:193.
25 Qur’ân 35:14.
52
Muhammad At-Tîjânî's book is just another example of the impossibility of reconciling the Sunnis and the Shias as long as the Shias insist on insulting the Companions and Mothers of the Believers (i.e., the wives of the Prophet). Moreover, they slander them and accuse them of perverting religion, distorting the Qur’ân, and conspiring against the Prophet.
The goal of unity is to bind hearts together in mutual affection. But can two hearts, the first of which is filled with love for the Companions, and the second is filled with hatred for them, be reconciled? This book of At-Tîjânî is another proof that the Shias today are not different from their predecessors in this respect and that they still insist on insulting the Companions. Shall the sincere Muslims then become conscious of this?26
History is witness to the Companions of the Prophet, who struggled with their property and their lives and their children. They liberated the oppressed countries and spread Islam far and wide. Who else but the Companions of the Prophet have done such things?
Thoughtful and reasonable Shias recognize the mighty achievements of the Companions of the Prophet. For example, Sheikh Muhammad Hasan Âl Kâshif Al- Ghitâ’ relates that "When `Alî saw that Abû Bakr and `Umar were making a supreme effort to spread the Word of Allah, he saw that they were preparing armies and sending them out in the service of Allah. They were not arrogant and not despotic. So, `Alî swore allegiance to them,27 and submitted himself to their authority."28
--------------------------------------------
26 Not even Khomeini was capable of softening his position toward the Companions. He falsely describes the Companion Samurah Ibn Jundub as a liar who reports narrations that degrades `Alî Ibn Abû Tâlib. (see Al-Hukûmah Al-Islâmiyyah, p. 131).
27 Arabic: bâya` [trans].
53
Differences among the Companions
Allah spared our hands from the conflict that arose between the Companions, so why should we not spare our tongues from it? Allah will not ask us about what happened between them. Thus, we read in the Qur’ân: {"That was a nation which has passed on. It will have [the consequence of] what it earned, and you will have what you have earned. And you will not be asked about what they used to do."}
The root of the conflict between the Shias and the Sunnis lies in the Shias' abuse of the Companions. This led them to insult the wives of the Prophet, to claim that the Qur’ân was distorted, and to claim the notion of Returning29. Once they arrived at this point, they could refuse to accept any hadîth reported on the authority of a Companion [claiming that they had apostatized after the Prophet]. When they said the legitimate succession of `Alî and his descendants to the caliphate is supported by the Qur’ân, they were asked to produce this evidence. They could not do this, so they accused the Companions of removing these verses from the Qur’ân.
----------------------------------------
28 Muhammad Hasan Âl Kâshif, Asl Ash-Shî`ah wa Usûluhâ (The Origin of the Shias and their Sources), p. 91. 29 Some of the Shia claim that Muhammad Ibnul-Hasan Al-`Askarî, the Twelfth Imam, is hiding in a cave in Samara and will return by the end of this world while others claim that `Alî himself will return.
54
So long as this obstacle to unity remains, no reconciliation will ever be possible between these two groups. Any attempt to bring them closer must fail; it does not matter how many conferences are held, or how many fine words are spoken. The Shias' hatred for the Companions of the Prophet, and their insistence on insulting them, proves the falsehood of their doctrines.

Who Started Insulting the Companions?
According to An-Nûbakhtî, one of the most respected of the Shia scholars, the first person to insult the Companions was a former Jew called `Abdullâh Ibn Saba’. An- Nûbakhtî said that `Abdullâh Ibn Saba’ started abusing the Prophet's Companions, especially Abû Bakr, `Umar and `Uthmân. Covering himself with a pretense of Islam, he started conspiring against them. An-Nûbakhtî adds, "`Abdullâh Ibn Saba’ was one of those who openly insulted Abû Bakr, `Umar and `Uthmân and other Companions. He disassociated himself from them and claimed that `Alî had ordered him to do so. When `Alî heard this, he sent for Ibn Saba’, who Saba’ admitted saying this. Thereon, `Alî ordered him to be killed, but people objected to this and said, 'Would you kill a man because he calls people to love you?'"
According to An-Nûbakhtî, "Ibn Saba’, while still a Jew, used to say that Yûsha` Ibn Nûn (Joshua) was the rightful successor of Mûsâ (Moses). When he converted to Islam, he started saying that `Alî was the rightful successor of Prophet Muhammad. He was the first to say that it was a religious obligation to support the Imamate of `Alî. It was because of Ibn Saba’ that the opposers of the Shia say that Shiism comes from the Judaism."30
-------------------------------------
30 An-Nûbakhtî, Firaq Ash-Shî`ah, (An-Najaf, Iraq), pp. 44-45.
55
There is another account to explain why the Shias are called Râfidah (Rejectionists). Mirzâ Taqî relates, Zayd Ibn `Alî, a member of the Prophet's Household, disapproved of the Shias’ insulting Abû Bakr and `Umar. They asked him, "What is your opinion of them?"
"I only think well of them," He said.
"Then you are not one of us," they told Zayd, and rejected him.
"Today they rejected us." Zayd said, and ever since, they have been called "râfidah" [those who reject]. Since then, Imam Zayd called all Shia fanatics who insulted the Companions râfidah.31
Once `Abdullâh Ibn Saba’ came to `Alî instigating him against Abû Bakr and `Umar, but `Alî scolded him, saying, "Have you dedicated yourself to such things?"
Do the Shias then follow the example of `Alî who wanted to kill `Abdullâh Ibn Saba’ for insulting the Companions? On whose side are the Shias today? On the side of `Alî, who was willing to kill a man for hating Abû Bakr, `Umar and `Uthmân, or are they on the side of Ibn Saba’ who set the example for those who insult the Companions of the Prophet, his relatives by marriage, and his wives?
-----------------------------------------
31 Mirza Taqî, Nâsikh At-Twârîkh, 3:590.