Ali رضي الله عنه و أرضاه would have whipped the Shias of today

Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6940:

Salim b. Abdullah reported on the authority of his father that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), while turning his face towards the East, said: “The turmoil would appear from this side; verily, the turmoil would appear from this side; verily, the turmoil would appear from this side–the side where appear the horns of Satan.”

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/041.smt.html#041.6940

Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6941:

Ibn Umar reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) came out from the house of Aisha and said: “It would be from this side (pointing to the East) that there would appear the height of unbelief, viz. where appear the horns of Satan.”

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/041.smt.html#041.6941

Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6942:

Ibn Umar reported: I heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying while pointing his hands towards the East: “The turmoil would appear from this side; verily, the turmoil would appear from this side (he repeated it thrice) where appear the horns of Satan.”

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/041.smt.html#041.6942

Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6943:

Ibn Fudail reported on the authority of his father that he heard Salim b. Abdullah b. Umar as saying: O people of Iraq, how strange it is that you ask about the minor sins but commit major sins? I heard from my father Abdullah b. Umar, narrating that he heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying while pointing his hand towards the East: “Verily, the turmoil would come from this side, from where appear the horns of Satan and you would strike the necks of one another…”

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/041.smt.html#041.6943

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 336:

Narrated Abdullah:

The Prophet stood up and delivered a sermon, and pointing towards Aisha’s house (i.e. Eastwards), he said thrice, “Affliction (will appear from) here,” and, “from where the side of the Satan’s head comes out (i.e. from the East).”

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/088.sbt.html

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 212:

Narrated Salim’s father:

The Prophet stood up beside the pulpit (and pointed with his finger towards the East) and said, “Afflictions are there! Afflictions are there, from where the side of the head of Satan comes out,” or said, “..the side of the sun..” (i.e. the sun emerges from the East)

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/088.sbt.html

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 213:

Narrated Ibn Umar:

I heard Allah’s Apostle while he was facing the East, saying, “Verily! Afflictions are there, from where the side of the head of Satan comes out.”

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/088.sbt.html

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 214:

Narrated Ibn Umar:

The Prophet said, “O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Sham! O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Yemen.” The People said, “And also on our Najd (i.e. Iraq).” He said, “O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Sham (North)! O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Yemen (South).” The people said, “O Allah’s Apostle! And also on our Najd (i.e. Iraq).” I think the third time the Prophet said, “There (in the Najd, i.e. Iraq) is the place of earthquakes and afflictions and from there comes out the side of the head of Satan.”

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/088.sbt.html

Iraq was at that time referred to by the Arabs as the Najd, as stated in “Najd Qarnu ash-Shaytan”. This has been stated by al-Khattabi, al-Kirmani, al-Ayni, an-Nawawi, Ibn Hajr and others. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajr said:

“Al-Khattabi said: ‘For the one who is in Medinah, then his Najd would be the desert of Iraq and its regions (baadiya al-Iraaq wa Nawaaheehaa) for this is to the East of the People of Medinah.”

This is made abundantly clear by the same narration recorded in alternate wording:

Al-Mu’jam al-Kabeer, Compiled by Imam Al-Tabarani:

Narrated by Ibn Abbas:

The Prophet supplicated and said, “O Allah bestow your blessings on our Shaam and Yemen.” A person from amongst the people said, “O Prophet of Allah, and Iraq?” He said, “Indeed there (in Iraq) is the Horn of Satan, and the trials and tribulations will come like mounting waves, and indeed harshness is in the East.”

“Pointed Towards”, Not “Pointed To”

It is Hadith Number 336 of Vol.4, Book 53 of Sahih Bukhari that the Shia propagandists rely on most, namely because the translator used by the USC website (Muhsin Khan) made a mistake in his translation. He translates it as “pointed to Aisha’s house” instead of “pointed towards Aisha’s house.” However, the proper translation is “pointed towards” and not “pointed to.” In the Arabic text of said Hadith, the words are “fa-ashaara nahwa (towards) maskani `a’ishah” and not “fa-ashaara ila (to) maskani `a’ishah”. Therefore, we see that the Prophet was simply pointing towards the direction of Aisha’s house, and not at Aisha’s house specifically.

The Persian Empire: Wherefrom Satan’s Horns Emerged

At that time in history, Iraq was part of the Persian Empire; the Prophet had dispatched an ambassador to the Persian Chosroes inviting him to Islam. The haughty Persian leader scoffed at the Prophet’s call, rejecting to accept the “lowly” Arab “barbarians” as spiritual leaders over and above the “mighty” Persians. Soon thereafter, the Muslim Ummah would be propelled into an all-out war with the the Persian Empire; Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab blitzed across Iraq and this is when the Fitnah began for the Muslims. The perceptive reader should keep in mind that before the fall of Persia, the Muslim Ummah was united under its Caliph and Dar al-Islam was expanding its borders. Right after the liberation of Iraq from Persian domination, the assassinations of Caliphs began.

The Muslims had indeed defeated the haughty and proud Persian Empire, but the Persians carefully planned their revenge. The Persian governor Harmuzan was pardoned by the Caliph, but he conspired against the Muslims to avenge his humiliating defeat. The conquered Persians plotted against the Muslims, and it was their conspiracy plans which no doubt the Prophet was referring to as “Satan’s horns”. It was from the ashes of the Persian Empire that the Shia sect was formed, a mix between Islam and Zoroastrianism as well as Persian nationalism.

The Persian governor Harmuzan became partners with Jafeena Al-Khalil and Saba bin Shamoon (whose son was Abdullah ibn Saba, founder of the Shia sect); these three men hired Feroz Abu Lulu, a Persian POW from Iraq, to assassinate Caliph Umar. Today, the modern day Persian Shia venerate Abu Lulu, and they call him “Baba Shuja-e-din” which can be translated as “Honored Defender of Religion.” These Shia have a shrine erected for this murderer, located in the Iranian city of Kashan called the Abu Lulu Mausoleum wherein he is buried. The Shia travel from far distances to pray inside this shrine, and many of the Shia fast on the day that Umar was killed, and even pass out sweets. Feroz Abu Lulu is one of the venerated founding figures of Shia ideology; the same people who conspired to kill Umar were the ones who planted the seeds of the Shia movement.

Abu Lulu was hired by three men, and the third of these three was the father of Abdullah ibn Saba, founder of the Shia faith. His intention in creating the Shia faith was to create a sect within Islam that would split its ranks, create disunity, and–quite frankly–to forever be a rebel movement against mainstream Islamic governments. And if we look throughout history, we find that the Shia have always been rebels and turncoats, one of the reasons they are referred to as “Rafidhis” (or turncoats). Not only they were turncoats, but these Shia were Ahl al-Bidah (People of Innovation) for they adultered Islam with their Magian beliefs. This was the Satan’s horn that emerged from the East, and no doubt this is what the Prophet was referring to.

Aisha Did Not Start the Fitnah

The Shia argue that it was Aisha who started the Fitnah in the ranks of the Muslims by organizing an army against Ali. But in fact, this is incorrect. First of all, Aisha did not leave her house with the intention of instigating an armed revolt against Ali. Instead, she left her house only with the intention of Islah (reformation). In Tareekh Al-Tabari, the events precipitating the Battle of the Camel are recorded. Al-Tabari narrates that a man asked Aisha why she had come to visit Ali, saying: “O mother, what moved you and pushed you to this country?” She answered: “O son, to reconcile between people.”

The word “Fitnah” refers to turmoil which causes disunity in the ranks of the Muslim Ummah. Even before the time of the Battle of Camel, the Muslim ranks had become split, so why should the Shia blame this on Aisha? The Fitnah began right after the Persians assassinated the Caliph of the Muslims, which pre-dated the Battle of the Camel. In fact, it was the murder of Umar ibn al-Khattab by the Persians that started the chain reaction which resulted in the Battle of the Camel. Ubaidallah, Umar’s son, avenged the murder of his father by plotting to kill the three men who hired the assassin Abu Lulu. Ubaidallah was successful in killing two of the three men, but the third–Saba bin Shamoon–survived, and he demanded that Ubaidallah be executed for his double murder. Caliph Uthman, however, showed Ubaidallah mercy, despite Ali who advised the Caliph to execute him for his crime of vigilante murder.

The fact that Uthman showed mercy upon Ubaidallah angered Saba bin Shamoon and his son, Abdullah ibn Saba. These two men looked sympathetically towards Ali, due to the fact that Ali had taken a harsh stance towards Ubaidallah’s actions. It was thus that Abdullah ibn Saba “converted” to Islam and founded the Shia sect, calling the masses to adore Ali and agitating them against Uthman. It was Abdullah ibn Saba’s propaganda against Uthman that helped fan the flames of civil discontent and caused the people to rise against the Caliph. And so it was that the Saba’ites (followers of Abdullah ibn Saba) assassinated Uthman.

This murder of Uthman led to the rise of Ali as Caliph; the people demanded of Ali that he apprehend the killers of Uthman and this was the cause of the Battle of Camel. The people were upset with Ali for failing to apprehend the killers of Uthman–who happened to be in his own party, but Ali chose to delay apprehending them due to the fact that he did not want to alienate his own supporters in this time of civil discontent when he needed them the most. So Ali decided to delay on apprehending the killers until after he consolidated his power as Caliph, but the people were threatening to revolt against and even kill Ali, who was even wrongfully implicated in the murder of Uthman. And so it was that some of the people appealed to the Prophet’s wife to go talk to the Caliph on their behalf. Aisha agreed to do this, only to prevent bloodshed and furnish Islah (reformation) between the ranks of the Muslims. Aisha was hopeful that she could convince Ali to find the killers and apprehend them posthaste.

When the Saba’ite killers of Uthman found out that Aisha was on her way to meet the Caliph in order to urge him to apprehend the assassins, this naturally made them antsy and fear for their lives. So it was they who attacked Aisha’s contingent and thus began the Battle of the Camel, a result of the chain reaction that began with the Persian murder of Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab. It was thus that the Persians were the cause of the Fitnah, and Aisha was innocent of that. Today, we find that the modern day Shia are soft towards the Persian conspirators but harsh towards the Mother of the Believers! The truth is that the Shia propagandists will be raised with those they love, and they will be raised up with the likes of the Persian Abu Lulu, whereas the Muslims will be raised with the blessed Ahlel Bayt including the Prophet’s wives. The Shia of today are the remnants of the Magian Persian Empire, and they are from where Satan’s horns emerged.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar said:

“The People of the East were disbelievers at that time and the Messenger of Allah informed us that the trials and tribulations would arise from that direction and it was as he said. And the first of the trials that arose, arose from the direction of the East and they were the reason for the splitting of the Muslim ranks, and this is what Satan loves and delights in. Likewise the innovations appeared from that direction.” (Fath al-Bari 13/58)

Conclusion

The Prophet was not at all referring to his own wife. If that were the case, then nothing prevented him from simply pointing to his wife, instead of pointing towards Aisha’s house in the direction of the East. In fact, although this Hadith is abused by the Shia propagandists, in reality this same Hadith is a damnation of the Shia themselves for it was they who the Prophet was warning against us. May Allah save us from Shi’ism, the horn of Satan.

It is inconceivable that the Prophet of Islam would be buried at the spot wherefrom Satan’s horns emerged. May Allah bless the Prophet’s Ahlel Bayt including his wives, the Mother of the Believers.

Article Written By: Ibn al-Hashimi  (abriged)

Who are the Naasibis and what is the ruling on them?

November 30, 2009 at 6:38 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

Rate This

Praise be to Allaah.

Nasb in Arabic refers to setting something up or raising it. Mukhtaar al-Sihaah, 1/275.

In al-Qaamoos it says that the Naasibis (al-nawaasib, al-naasibah and ahl al-nasb) are those whose religious beliefs include hating ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) because they set themselves up against him, i.e. took a hostile stance against him.

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The Naasibis are those who set themselves up against Ahl al-Bayt (the members of the Prophet’s household) and hated them and slandered them. They are diametrically opposed to the Raafidis (Shi’ah). Sharh al-Waasitiyyah, 2/283.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said, explaining the ‘aqeedah of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah: They (i.e., the Sunnis) love the people of the household of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him); they regard them with love and loyalty, and they heed the command of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) concerning them… but they reject the way of the Raafidis who hate the Sahaabah and slander them, and they reject the way of the Naasibis who insult Ahl al-Bayt in words and deed. Ahl al-Sunnah do not indulge in discussions about the disputes that took place among the Sahaabah.

Al-‘Aqeedah al-Waasitiyyah, Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 3/154.

So the Naasibis are those who hate Ahl al-Bayt, especially ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him), and some of them slander him and some accuse him of being a rebellious evildoer, and some of them regard him as a kaafir, as was referred to by Shaykh al-Islam (Manhaaj al-Sunnah, 7/339).

One of the most well-known groups who emerged from among the Naasibis were the Khaarijis who rebelled against ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) and regarded him as a kaafir, and they added other innovations to that.

Undoubtedly rebelling and hating the Ahl al-Bayt and other Sahaabah is a serious kind of bid’ah (innovation) that implies slandering this religion which was transmitted to us via the Sahaabah, the Ahl al-Bayt and others.

With regard to whether they are to be regarded as kaafirs, this varies according to the level of hatred for the Sahaabah, and their motives. In brief, if they hate them for some worldly reason then that does not mean that they are kaafirs or hypocrites, but if it is for a religious reason, because they are the companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then this is kufr. Anything in between that is an area of scholarly dispute in general.  See question no;45563

With regard to the ruling on the Khaarijis – who have a similar mentality to the Shi’ah and added to that hatred of the Sahaabah, regarding the one who commits a major sin as a kaafir, and other kinds of bid’ah – there is some difference of opinion among the scholars. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said:

The ummah is agreed on condemning of the Khaarijis and regarding them as having gone astray, but they dispute as to whether they are to be regarded as kaafirs. There are two well-known views in the Madhhabs of Maalik and Ahmad. In the madhhab of al-Shaafa’i there is also a dispute as to whether they are kaafirs. Hence there are two views in the madhhab of Ahmad.

The first is that they are wrongdoers, and the second is that they are kaafirs like the apostates, so it is permissible to kill them first, to kill those taken prisoner, and to pursue those who run away. If possible they should be asked to repent as in the case of apostates: if they repent all well and good, otherwise they are to be executed.

Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 28/518.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: With regard to viewing them as kaafirs and stating that they will abide in Hell for eternity, there are also two well-known scholarly views, which were both narrated from Ahmad. The two views apply to the Khaarijis and those who went astray such as the Harooris, Raafidis and others. The most correct of these views is that their beliefs which are well known to go against what the Messenger brought constitute kufr. Similarly their actions which are like the actions of the kuffaar against the Muslims are also kufr. I have mentioned the evidence for that elsewhere. But to declare a specific individual among them to be a kaafir and to judge that he will abide in Hell forever is dependent upon the conditions for declaring a person to be a kaafir being met and the impediments to so doing being absent.

When we quote the verses and reports which speak of promises and warnings, and who is a kaafir and a faasiq, we should quote them in a general sense. We cannot judge that any specific individual is included in the general meaning of those texts, unless one of the conditions is met with no impediment.  We have already discussed this principle in Qaa’idat al-Takfeer. (Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 28/500). And Allaah knows best.

The questioner should note that in their books the Raafidis who go to extremes with regard to ‘Ali and the Ahl al-Bayt, and slander the Sahaabah and regard them as kaafirs, often accuse those who disagreed with their falsehood of being Naasibis, but by Naasibis they mean Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah. They do this to express their dislike of them for going against their falsehood and following the way of truth. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: “With regard to Ahl al-Sunnah, they regard as friends all the believers. When they speak it is on the basis of knowledge and fairness, unlike those who are ignorant or follow their whims and desires; they reject the way of both the Raafidis and the Naasibis and they hold all of the early generations in high esteem, and they recognize status and virtue of the Sahaabah and respect the rights of Ahl al-Bayt as prescribed by Allaah.  They also recognize the varying status of members of the early generation, and they recognize that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar enjoyed precedence and had virtues that were not shared by anyone else among the Sahaabah. Manhaaj al-Sunnah, 2/71

Based on this, we have to know who uses this word and who they are referring to by that, lest we reject the truth, because of their describing the people of truth in an incorrect manner. Because one of the characteristics of the people who follow innovation is to attack  Ahl al-Sunnah and describe them in offputting terms. What counts is that which is in accordance with the Qur’aan and Sunnah and the way of the earliest generations of this ummah, no matter how much the followers of falsehood try to distort it.

Among the books which speak of the Naasibis and refute them and their ideas, and discussed those who went to the other extreme, namely the Raafidis, is Manhaaj al-Sunnah by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah. You can refer to this book or some of its abridged editions.

We ask Allaah to guide us and you to follow His Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and to protect us from misguidance and temptations both obvious and subtle.

Islam Q&A

Ruling on hating the Sahaabah

November 30, 2009 at 6:37 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

Rate This

Praise be to Allaah.

Undoubtedly it is a sign of great misfortune and misguidance if a person’s faith is based on slandering the companions of the best of mankind (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or arguing about the disputes that arose among them, instead of occupying himself with doing that which will benefit him in both his worldly and spiritual affairs.

No one should have any reason to slander or hate or bear grudges against the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Their virtues are many, for they are the ones who supported Islam and spread the faith; they are the ones who fought the mushrikeen; they are the ones who transmitted the Qur’aan, Sunnah and rulings. They sacrificed themselves, their blood and their wealth for the sake of Allaah. Allaah chose them to be the companions of His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), so no one slanders them or hates them except a hypocrite whose does not love Islam or believe in it.

It was narrated that al-Bara’ (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “The Ansaar: no one loves them but a believer and no one hates them but a hypocrite. Whoever loves them, Allaah will love him, and whoever hates them, Allaah will hate him.”

Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3672; Muslim, 75.

If a man who hates the Ansaar cannot be a believer and that makes him a hypocrite, then how about one who hates the Ansaar and Muhaajireen and those who followed them in truth, and slanders them, curses them and denounces them and those who love them as kaafirs – as the Raafidis do? Undoubtedly they deserve more to be regarded as kaafirs and hypocrites, and of not being believers.

Al-Tahhaawi said, discussing the beliefs of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah:

We love the companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and we do not neglect to love any one of them, nor do we disavow any one of them. We hate those who hate them and who criticize them, and we only mention them in good terms. Loving them is part of religious commitment, faith and ihsaan, and hating them is kufr, hypocrisy and wrongdoing.

Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan said:

The way of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah is to love the family (ahl al-bayt) of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

The Naasibis love the Sahaabah but hate the family of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), hence they were called Naasibis because they set themselves up (nasb) as enemies of the family of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

The Raafidis are the opposite: they love the Prophet’s family (ahl al-bayt) – or so they claim, but they hate the Sahaabah, whom they curse, denounce as kaafirs and criticize.

Whoever hates the Sahaabah hates Islam, because they are the bearers of Islam and the followers of the Chosen Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). So whoever hates them hates Islam, and this indicates that there is no faith in the hearts of such people and that they do not love Islam.

This is an important basic principle which the Muslims should understand, namely loving and respecting the Sahaabah, because that is part of faith. Hating them or hating one of them is kufr and hypocrisy, because loving them is part of loving the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and hating them is part of hating the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

Sharh al-‘Aqeedah al-Waasitiyyah.

Some of the scholars explained in detail what is meant by hating the Sahaabah. They said: If a person hates some of them for some worldly reason, then that is not kufr and hypocrisy, but if it is for a religious reason, because they were the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then undoubtedly this is hypocrisy.

This is a good explanation which does not contradict what we have mentioned above, rather it explains it further and reinforces it.

Abu Zar’ah al-Raazi said: If you see a man criticizing one of the companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then know that he is a heretic.

Imam Ahmad said: If you see a man mentioning one of the companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in a bad way, then call his Islam into question.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said:

If a person slanders them in a way that does not impugn their good character or religious commitment, such as describing one of them as being stingy or cowardly or lacking in knowledge or not being an ascetic and so on, then he deserves to be rebuked and disciplined, but we do not rule him to be a kaafir because of that. This is how the words of those who were not regarded as kaafirs by the scholars are to be understood.

If a person curses them and slanders them in general terms, this is an area of scholarly dispute, depending on whether this cursing is motivated by mere feelings or religious doctrines. If a person goes beyond that and claims that they apostatized after the death of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), apart from a small group of no more than ten or so individuals, or that most of them rebelled and did evil, then there is no doubt that such a person is a kaafir, because he has denied what is stated in more than one place in the Qur’aan, that Allaah was pleased with them and praised them. Indeed whoever doubts that such a person is a kaafir is himself a kaafir, because this implies that those who transmitted the Qur’aan and Sunnah were kaafirs or evildoers and that the best of this ummah which is described in the verse “You are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:110 – interpretation of the meaning] – the first generation – were mostly kaafirs and hypocrites. It implies that this ummah is the worst of nations, and that the first generations of this ummah are the most evil. No doubt this is blatant kufr, the evidence for which is quite clear.

Hence you will find that most of those who proclaim such views will sooner or later be shown to be heretics. Heretics usually conceal their views, but Allaah has punished some of them to make an example of them, and there are many reports that they were turned into pigs in life and in death. The scholars have compiled such reports, such as al-Haafiz al-Saalih Abu ‘Abd-Allaah Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Waahid al-Maqdisi, in his book al-Nahi ‘an Sabb al-Ashaab in which he narrated the punishments that befell such heretics.

In conclusion, there are some groups of those who slander the Sahaabah concerning who them is no doubt that they are kaafirs, others who cannot be judged to be kaafirs, and others concerning whom there is some doubt regarding that.

Al-Saarim al-Maslool ‘ala Shaatim al-Rasool, p. 590-591.

Taqiy al-Deen al-Subki said:

… This refers to one who slanders some of the Sahaabah. But if a person slanders all of the Sahaabah, then he is undoubtedly a kaafir. The same applies if he slanders one of the Sahaabah just because he is a Sahaabi, because this is demeaning the virtue of the Sahaabah and indirectly slandering the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). So undoubtedly the person who does this is a kaafir. Based on this, the words of al-Tahhaawi, “and hating them is kufr” should be understood as meaning that hating all of the Sahaabah is undoubtedly kufr, but if a person slanders a Sahaabi not because he is a Sahaabi but for some personal reason, and that Sahaabi was, for example, one of those who became Muslim before the Conquest of Makkah and of whose virtue we are certain – such as the Raafidis who slander the two Shaykhs [Abu Bakr and ‘Umar] – then al-Qaadi Husayn stated that the one who slanders the two Shaykhs is a kaafir.

The reason for the scholarly dispute on this issue is if a person slanders a specific person it may be for some personal reason, or he may hate someone for a worldly reason etc. This does not imply that he is a kaafir. But undoubtedly if he hates one of the two Shaykhs because he was a companion of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then this is kufr, and indeed hating any of the Sahaabah who was lower in status than two Shaykhs just because he was a companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is also definitely kufr.

Fataawa al-Subki, 2/575.

And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A

Death of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her)

November 26, 2009 at 2:27 am | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

4 Votes

Salam alaikum.

Shia as a proffesional liars spreading materials as if sayidina Aisha (r.a) was killed by Moawiyah (r.a) by getting into the ditch.May Allah disfigure all rafidha in this world as they are going to be in hereafter!

Here is the narration which answer to that iftira (in Arabic). I got an English translation, but slightly edited it: