Saturday, 21 September 2013

THE RULING AND PUNISHMENT OF THOSE WHO ABUSE AND INSULT THE SAHABAS

NOTE: These Punishments are to be carried out in
a Muslim/Islamic nation by the authorities only.


Tabarani narrated in "Dua" (darul kutub al-ilmiyah, 1413) from Anas ibn Malik:

2108 - حدثنا يوسف بن يعقوب بن إسماعيل الأصم البغدادي ثنا رزيق بن السخت ثنا علي بن يزيد الصدائي ثنا ابو شيبة عن أنس بن مالك رضي الله عنه عن رسول الله قال من سب أصحابي فعليه لعنة الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين لا يقبل الله منه صرفا ولا عدل

"Whoever abuses my Companions, upon them is the curse of Allah, the angels and all the people, may Allah don't accept from sarfa and adla".


Same hadith transmitted in "Fadhail ashab" by Abdullah ibn Ahmad (muasasat risala, 1403):

8 - حدثنا عبد الله قثنا عبد الله بن عون قثنا على بن يزيد الصدائي قال حدثني أبو شيبة الجوهري عن أنس بن مالك قال قال أناس من أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم : يا رسول الله أنا نسب فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم من سب أصحابي فعليه لعنة الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين لا يقبل الله منه صرفا ولا عدلا

Hamza ibn Yusuf al-Jurjani narrated in "Tareeh al-jurjan" (alamul kitab, 1401) same from Anas:

456 - عبد الله بن علي بن الحسن أبو محمد القاضي القومسي كان فقيها درس على أبي إسحاق المروزي كان قاضي جرجان روى عن أبيه وعن محمد بن هارون الحضرمي والبغوي وابن صاعد وغيرهم توفي ليلة الأحد لست بقين من شهر ربيع الآخر سنة سبع وستين وثلاثمائة وصلى عليه أبو بكر الإسماعيلي وكان بن ثمان وتسعين سنة سمعت أبا بكر الإسماعيلي يقول توفي أبو محمد القومسي بعده بجرجان يكون قاضي ديب حدثنا القاضي الزاهد أبو محمد عبد الله بن علي بن الحسن بجرجان أخبرنا أبو القاسم المنيعي حدثنا عبد الله بن عون حدثنا علي بن يزيد الصدائي حدثنا أبو شيبة الجوهري عن أنس بن مالك قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم من سب أصحابي فعليه لعنة الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين لا يقبل الله منه صرفا ولا عدل

Albani said in "Silsila as saheeha" (#2340) said it's authentic without ending (may Allah not accept from him).

al-Heythami in "Majmau zawaid" (#16429) from Aisha:

لا تسبوا أصحابي لعن الله من سب أصحابي
رواه الطبراني في الأوسط ورجاله رجال الصحيح غير علي بن سهل وهو ثقة

"Don't abuse my companions, may curse of Allah be upon the one who abuses my companions".

(Al-Heythami said) "Narrated Tabarani in al-Awsat, narrators are narrators of saheeh, except Ali ibn Sakhl, and he's thiqat".

Ibn Abu Aseem narrated in "Sunnan" from Ata:

ثنا أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة ثنا أبو معاوية عن محمد بن خالد عن عطاء قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم
من سب أصحابي فعليه لعنة الله

"Curse of Allah upon those who abuses my companions"

 And same from Ata was narrated in "Musannaf":

32419 - حدثنا أبو معاوية عن محمد بن خالد عن عطاء قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم من سب أصحابي فعليه لعنة الله

 Narration seems mursal. Albani in "Zilalul jannah" (#1001) said it's hasan.

The above paraphrase is taken from brother Effendi 



Imam Bukhari said:

“I don’t see any difference between praying Salah behind a Jahmi or a (Shia) Rafidhi and a Christian or a Jew. They (Jahmis/Rafidhis) are not to be greeted, nor are they to be visited, nor are they to be married, nor is their testimony to be accepted, nor are their sacrifices to be eaten.”


(Khalq Af’aalul-’Ibaad, p.14)

Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal:

“The Companions of the Messenger of Allaah (ﷺ) – after the four caliphs – are the best of the people, and it is not permissible for anyone to …speak ill of any of them, blaming them for deficiencies and shortcomings. It is indeed obligatory upon the ruler to reprimand and punish whoever does that, and he should not be pardoned.”

[Ref: Kitaab As-Sunnah, p. 77-78 & Manaaqibul Imaam Ahmad, of Ibnul Jawzee, p. 170]



وعن محمد بن أبي هارون ومحمد بن أبي جعفر أن أبا الحارث حدثهم قال : وجهنا رقعة إلى أبي عبد الله – أحمد بن حنبل - ما تقول رحمك الله فيمن قال لا أقول إن معاوية كاتب الوحي ولا أقول إنه خال المؤمنين فإنه أخذها بالسيف غصباً ؟ قال أبو عبد الله : هذا قول سوء رديء ، يجانبون هؤلاء القوم ، ولا يجالسون ، ونبين أمرهم للناس .

A man inquired with Imam Ahmad about a person who says he does not believe Mu`awiyah (r.a) to be the scribe of the Prophet (sallalahu `alayhi wa sallam) and neither does he believe him (r.a) to be the uncle of the believers rather he says that he (r.a) unjustly/forcefully occupied the khilafah... Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) then replied : 

هذا قول سوء رديء ، يجانبون هؤلاء القوم ، ولا يجالسون ، ونبين أمرهم للناس 


This is an evil rejected saying and they should be boycotted/exiled from the people, one should not be sit with them and people should be cautioned against them 

[Ref: As-sunnah lil-Khalaal 2/434; Sanad Saheeh by Shaykh Zubayr r.h ; translated from the post of Aijaz Shaikh] 


The best scholars who explained this issue quite well was Sheikh  
Al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah bestow mercy on his soul) in the last  portion of his book, "Al Sarim Al Maslul `Ala Shatim Al Rasul" (3/1055-1113)  where he said: 


"As for those who insult the Companions of the Messenger  
of Allah (Peace be upon him) whether from his family or others,  

Imam Ahmad said: they should be beaten harshly, but he did not declare  their disbelief nor he said they must be killed."

Abu Talib said: "I asked Ahmad about those who insult the Companions of the  Prophet (peacebe upon him)? He said: "Do not kill them, but beat them  harshly."

`Abdullah said: "I asked my father about those who insult a Companion of  the Prophet (peace be upon him)? He said: "They must be beaten. I asked  him: Is it a prescribed penalty? He did not comment on that, but said: They  must be beaten and I do not think they are Muslims.

He also said in the letter that was narrated by Abu Al `Abbas Ahmad ibn Ya`qub Al Istakhry and others: "The best people after the Prophet (peace be upon him): Abu Bakr, `Umar, `Uthman, and Ali. Then he stopped and said: they are rightly guided Caliphs, then the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) after those four people. They are people of good and it is not permissible for anyone to mention any of their faults nor attribute any insult or harm to them, and anyone does that the ruler must punish him and he cannot forgive him. However, if the person repents his fault and sin, it will be accepted from him, but if he sticks to his belief, he should be punished again or detained until he repents or dies."

Imam Ahmad reported the previous saying from the people of knowledge in his time, and the same view was reported by Al Kirmany, Ishaq, Al Humaydy, Sa`id ibn Mansur, and others.


Al Maymouny said: "I heard Imam Ahmad saying: "Why do they speak badly about
Mu`awiyah?! We ask Allah for the good speech. He said to me: "O Abu Al Hasan, if you see
anyone mentions the Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) badly, accuse him with apostatizing from Islam."

Imam Ahmad (may Allah be pleased with him) stated that such a person should be lashed and he should repent his sin, but if he does not cease, he shall be detained until he repents or dies. He also said: I do not think he is a Muslim and do not kill him. 


Ishaq ibn Rahawayh said: "Anyone insults the Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) should be punished and imprisoned. This is the view of the most of our scholars, such as  :

Ibn Abu Musa. He said: "Anyone of the Shi`a insults one of the Predecessor (the Companions) he is not competent and should not be married any of our women. And whoever attributes lies to `A’ishah (may Allah be pleased her) he will not be a Muslim and cannot marry a Muslim woman except if he repents and declare his repentance.

This is the view of `Umar ibn `Abdul-`Aziz, `Asim Al Ahwal, and other Successors.


Al Harith ibn `Utbah narrated: "A man insulted `Uthman was brought to `Umar ibn `Abdul-`Aziz and `Umar asked him: "Why did you do that? He said: I hate him. He said: If you hate someone, would you insult him?! He said: He commanded that the man should be lashed 30 lashes." Ibrahim ibn Maysarah said: "I never saw `Umar ibn `Abdul-`Aziz hit a person but a person insulted Mu`awiyah, he would lash him." Reported by Al Lalika’y.


It was reported that he wrote a letter in regard of a person had insulted saying: "Nobody shall be killed except a person insults the Prophet (peace be upon him), but lash him over his head, and except I have believed that would be better for him, I would not have done that.


Imam Ahmad reported on the authority of Abu Mu`awiyah that `Asim Al Ahwal said: "A man insulted `Uthman was brought to me and I beat him ten lashes then he repeated what he said, thereupon I lashed him ten more. He kept on repeating his saying until I lashed him 70 lashes."

This is the famous view of Imam Malik. Malik said: "Anyone insults the Prophet (peace be upon him) must be killed, and anyone insults his Companions must be lashed."

`Abdul-Malik ibn Habib said: "Anyone of the Shi`a hates `Uthman or free himself of him must be lashed harshly and anyone hates Abu Bakr and `Umar the punishment will be doubled. He may be beaten again and again or detained until death. He must not be killed except when he insults the Prophet (peace be upon him)."

Ibn Al Mundhir said: "I do not know anyone (of scholars) who passes the verdict of killing the one who insults other than the Prophet (peace be upon him)."

The Abu Ya`la Al Qady said: "The jurists agreed that the one who insults the Companions
believing that is lawful thing to do, he will be a disbeliever and if he does not believe so, he will be a dissolute whether he called them unbelievers or doubted their Islam."

Some jurists of Kufa and others were decisive regarding the killing of those who insult the
Companions and attributing disbelief to the Shi`a."

Muhammad ibn Yusuf Al Firyaby was asked about the person who insults Abu Bakr, he said:
"He is a disbeliever.” He was asked: should we offer Salah on him after his death? He said: No. He was asked: What can we do while he saying “No god but Allah”? He said: "Do not touch him with your hands but push him with a stick until you bury him.”

Ahmad ibn Yunus said: "If a Jew slaughtered a sheep and a Shiite slaughtered a sheep too, I would eat the sheep of the Jew and do not eat the sheep of the Shiite because he is not an apostate."

Abu Bakr ibn Hani’ said: "The slaughtered sheep of the Shi`a and Al Qadariyah (a sect states that everything was inevitable) is not eaten. The slaughtered sheep of the apostate is not eaten although the slaughtered sheep of the people of the Scriptures is not eaten because the Shi`a is treated as apostate, but the people of the Scriptures are approved and the tribute is taken from them."

`Abdullah ibn Idris, one of honorable jurists of Kufa, said: "Pre-emption is not entitled for a Shi`ite because pre-emption is only given to a Muslim."

Al Fudayl ibn Marzouq said: I heard Al Hasan ibn Al Hasan (the son of Ali ibn Abu Talib) (may
Allah be pleased with him) saying to a man from the Shiites: "By Allah, killing you is a pious act to Allah, but I refrain from doing that because of the right of neighborhood."

In another narration, he said: the man said to him: May Allah bless, I knew you were joking.

Al Hasan said: I was not joking, this is the truth, and if Allah gives us permission to kill you,
we will cut off your hands and legs.

A group of our scholars declared freeing themselves from the Kharijites who believe the
disbelief of Ali and `Uthman and declared the disbelief of the Shiite who insulted the
Companions, called them as disbelievers, or called them as dissolute.

Abu Bakr `Abdul-`Aziz said in "Al Muqni`": "As for a Shiite who insults the Companions, he is a disbeliever and should not marry a Muslim woman."

Some of them said, which was approved by Abu Ya`la Al Qady: "If a person insults them in
term of their religion and trustworthiness, he will be a disbeliever. If the insult was in other than the belief or the trustworthiness, such as insulting one of their fathers or insulting them with the intention to tease them, he will not be a disbeliever."

Ahmad commented on the narration of Abu Talib about the man who insulted `Uthman (r.a): "This is hidden atheism."

He commented on the narration of Al Marwadhy: "The one who insults Abu Bakr, `Umar,
`A’ishah is not a Muslim."

He said about the narration of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal: "Anyone insults one of the Prophet's Companions is not a Muslim."

Abu Ya`la Al Qady said: "Anyone insults the Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is not a Muslim and did not comment on the narration of `Abdullah and Abu Talib in regard of killing him. The prescribed penalty and lashing is a proof that they are still Muslims.” He said: It is possible that his saying: “he is not a Muslim” is given when a person believes that insulting the Companions is lawful, in that case he is not a Muslim with one accord. Dropping the killing penalty from the one who insults them while not believing it is lawful to do so because he did it knowingly it is not lawful as the person who commits sins. He said: It is possible that the meaning of “He is not a Muslim” is given when a person insults their  trustworthiness as they said: oppressed and went astray after the Prophet’s death and seized  the caliphate without right. It is also possible that the meaning of “dropping the killing” from the people who do not doubt their Islam, such as to say: they did not have enough knowledge, they had lack of politics and courage, they were misers, or loved the world, and so on. He  said: it is possible that to interpret the narration in two ways:

1- He is not a Muslim.
2- He is a dissolute. This is the view of Al Qady and others who have reported the two
narrations.

Al Qady said: "Anyone insults `A’ishah with committing adultery of which she was free is a
disbeliever with one accord."

We sum up the issue in two chapters:

1- The ruling on insulting them in general.
2- About the details of insult.

As for the first, insulting the Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is unlawful by the Qur'an and the Sunnah, then he mentioned the proofs from the Qur’an and the Sunnah about that and explained the proofs. Then he said:

“Chapter on the views of scholars in their regard”

As for the people who combined their insults with a claim that Ali was a god, was a prophet, or Gabriel has mistaken by revealing on Muhammad, no doubt they are disbelievers with one accord, moreover there is no doubt in the disbelief of those who doubted their disbelief. Likewise, the people who claimed that Ayahs of the Qur’an were concealed or claimed it has inward meanings to drop the permissible ordinances, such as “Al Qaramitah and Al Batiniyyah” and “Al Tanasukhiyyah” who are declared disbelievers by the scholars.

As for those who insult them without insulting their faith or trustworthiness, such as attributing miserliness, cowrdiness, lack of knowledge, loving the world, or something like that, such a person deserves disciplinary and lashing. He is not a disbeliever as some of the scholars said and this is the interpretation of their view.

As for the people who curse and insult absolutely, this is controversial because the matter
ranges between insult as a result of rage or insult based on disbelief.

As for those who claimed that they have apostatized from Islam after the Prophet’s death
except for only a few of them who did not exceed several and ten people or they attributed debauch to the common Companions, no doubt they are disbelievers too because they had contradicted the Qur’an in many positions where they were trustworthy and pious. Anyone doubts that he is surely a disbeliever because the meaning of this statement is: the people of have conveyed the Qur’an and the Sunnah are either disbelievers or dissolute. The nation which has been proven to be the best nations of mankind and the first generation is the best generation of mankind turned up to be the worst nation (as they claim) and their men who conveyed the message of Islam are either disbelievers or dissolute. The people who adopt such view is a disbeliever and most of them conceal their belief and Allah has punished them by turning them into monkeys and pigs during their lifetime or after their death.

Scholars have collected their news, such as Al Hafiz Abu `Abdullah Muhammad ibn `Abdul-Wahed Al Maqdisy in his book “An Nahy `An Sab Al Ashab wa ma Ja’ Fih min Al Ithm wa Al `Iqab” (The forbiddance of insulting the Companions, and the punishment that came in their regard).

In Usool as-Sunnah Lil Humaydi (rahimahullah) a thiqah Imaam of his time, a memo riser of more than 10,000 narrations (turuk), one of the companions of Ash-Sha`fee, the very first narrator mentioned by Bukhaaree and the teacher of Al Bukharee Imaam Abu Bakr 'Abdullah ibn Zubayr ibn 'Isa al-Qurayshi al-Asdi al-Humaydi says that there is no war booty for those who revil and abuse the sahaaba or even those who do not supplicate for them. He took this from :



، حدثنا سوار بن عبدالله العنبري قال: سمعت أبي(1) قال: قال مالك بن أنس: (( من يبغض أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فليس له في الفيء نصيب، ثم قرأ: {للفقراء المهاجرين الذين أخرجوا من ديارهم وأموالهم يبتغون فضلا من الله ورضوانا وينصرون الله ورسوله أولئك هم الصادقون * والذين تبوأوا الدار والإيمان من قبلهم يحبون من هاجر إليهم ولا يجدون في صدورهم حاجة مما أوتوا ويؤثرون على أنفسهم ولو كان بهم خصاصة ومن يوق شح نفسه فأولئك هم المفلحون(2)} ثم قرأ: {والذين جاؤوا من بعدهم يقولون ربنا اغفر لنا ولإخواننا الذين سبقونا بالإيمان ولا تجعل في قلوبنا غلا للذين آمنوا(3)} فمن يبغضهم فلا حق له في فيء المسلمين ))(4)


Malik, and al-Lalika'i who reported it in his As-Sunnah (no. 2400) by way of Ma'in ibn 'Isa who said, "I heard Malik ibn Anas saying, 'Whoever reviles the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, he does not have a right to the booty. Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, says, 'For the poor emigrants who were expelled from their homes and their properties, seeking bounties from Allah and His Approval ... ' to the end of the verse. These were the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, who migrated with him. Then He said, 'And those who were settled in their homes and adopted faith', these were the Ansaar (helpers). Then He said, 'And those who came after them saying: 'Our Lord, forgive us and our brothers who preceded us in faith.' ' So the booty is for these three. So whoever reviles the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, upon whom be peace, he is not from these three, and he does not have a right to the booty.' " its chain of narrators is authentic. Shaykh ul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah said, "This is known from Malik, and other than Malik from the people of knowledge such as, Abu 'Ubayd Qasim ibn Sallam" [Minhajus Sunnah (2/20)]. it is also reported from Abu 'Ubayd by Abu Bakr al-Khallal in his As-Sunnah (no. 792) 


[Ref: This fatwa of Imam Malik is also recorded in  الطيوريات (1/89- 90 and hadeeth 69)  with a saheeh sanad ; and Hilyatul Awliyah 6/327; Sunan al-Kubra lil Bayhaqi 6/372 with an authentic chain Footnotes from the `arabic text taken from الطيوريات : 


(1) هو عبد الله بن سوار ـ بتشديد الواو ـ ابن عبد الله العنبري، أبو السوار. التقريب (307/ت3376).
(2) سورة الحشر الآية رقم (8-9).
(3) سورة الحشر الآية رقم (10).
(4) صحيح.
وأخرجه أبو نعيم في الحلية (6/327) من طريق محمد بن إسحاق، ثنا سوار بن عبد الله العنبري به.

وأخرجه البيهقي في "الكبرى" (7/1)، وابن عبد البر في "الانتقاء" (ص36) من طريق معن بن عيسى قال: سمعت مالك ابن أنس يقول: "من سب أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فليس له في الفيء نصيب، يقول الله عز وجل: {للفقراء المهاجرين...ورضوانا } الآية، هؤلاء أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم الذين هاجروا معه، ثم قال: {والذين تبوأوا الدار والإيمان ... } الآية، هؤلاء الأنصار، ثم قال: {والذين جاؤوا من بعدهم} قال مالك: فاستثنى الله عز وجل فقال: {يقولون ربنا اغفرلنا ... بالإيمان } الآية، فالفيء لهؤلاء الثلاثة، فمن سب أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فليس هو من هؤلاء الثلاثة، ولا حق له في الفيء".
وذكره ابن كثير في تفسيره (4/340).
وذكر أبو نعيم في الحلية (9/112) عن الشافعي أن مالكا قال: "لست أرى لأحد سب أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في الفيء سهما" ـ مختصرا ـ. End ]

To sum up: Some of those who insult the Companions is judged to be a disbeliever, some are not disbelievers, and others whose matter is controversial. This is not the right place to elaborate in this issue but we have mentioned these matters to explain the issue the we mentioned. This is some of what has been said in this issue, We ask Allah to make it solely for His Sake, benefit Muslims with it, and to use us in things that please Him in actions and speech.

Badruddin az-Zarkashi said:

 After Quran clearly stated her purity, the one who accuse her becoming kaafir. The Hawarezmi (568/1172) from scholars of our school in his book “al-Kafi”, chapter on apostasy says: “If anyone would accuse Aisha in adultery he becomes kaafir. Because Quran revealed her purity. Stance of other women isn’t like this”.

Imam Malik (179/795) said: “The one who would abuse her should be killed”. Abul Hattab ibn Dihye (633/1235) in “Ajwibatul masail” says: “The book of Allah testifies this view of imaam Malik. Because when Allah mentioned in the Quran that mushrikeen attributed a child to Him, He praised Himself and  He said: “(21:26) And they say: The Beneficent Allah has taken to Himself a ! son. Glory be to Him”. And when He mentioned Aisha, He said: “(24:16) And why did you not, when you heard it, say: It does not befit us that we should talk of it (the false gossip against `Aisha) ; glory be to Thee! this is a great calumny?” So you see the similarity? How He praised (tanzih) Himself when the musrikeen attributed something that was false (i.e a child) to him , similarly when he (s.w.t) praised `Aisha or defended `Aisha he again praised himself by saying in both the different situations “Glory be to Thee”  , . This was mentioned by Qadi Abu Bakr ibnut-Tayiib

 Whoever would reject that her father Abu Bakr wa sahabi, becomes kaafir. This was mentioned by imam Shafi (204/819).

[Abu Abdullah Badruddin az-Zarkashi (d 794) “Al-Ijaba li iradi mastadrakahu Aisha alas sahaba” p 146]


Miscellaneous - Attitude of the salaf towards those belittled or abused the Sahaba even if be unintentional 




1) Imaam Al-Bayhaqi rahimahullah (D. 458) said after mentioning the ayaat and ahadeeth affirming the Love of all Sahaabah and that it is a part of Eemaan:

وَإِذَا ظَهَرَ أَنَّ حُبَّ الصَّحَابَةِ مِنَ الْإِيمَانِ فَحُبُّهُمْ أَنْ يَعْتَقِدَ فَضَائِلَهُمْ، وَيَعْتَرِفَ لَهُمْ بِهَا، وَيَعْرِفَ لِكُلِّ ذِي حَقٍّ مِنْهُمْ حَقَّهُ، وَلِكُلِّ ذِي غِنَاءٍ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ مِنْهُمْ غِنَاؤُهُ، وَلِكُلِّ ذِي مَنْزِلَةٍ عِنْدَ الرَّسُولِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مَنْزِلَتَهُ، وَيَنْشُرَ مَحَاسِنَهُمْ، وَيَدْعُوَ بِالْخَيْرِ لَهُمْ، وَيَقْتَدِيَ بِمَا جَاءَ فِي أَبْوَابِ الدِّينِ عَنْهُمْ وَلَا يَتْبَعُ زلَّاتِهِمْ وَهَفَوَاتِهِمْ، وَلَا يَتَعَمَّدُ تَهْجِينَ أَحَدٍ مِنْهُمْ بَبَثِّ مَا لَا يَحْسُنُ عَنْهُ وَيَسْكُتَ عَمَّا لَا يَقَعُ ضَرُورَةٌ إِلَى الْخَوْضِ فِيهِ فيِما كَانَ بَيْنَهُمْ

“And when it has become clear that the love of Sahaabah is the part of Eemaan then (it is incumbent to know that) their love is to believe in their fadhaa’il (virtues) and acknowledging them for it, and to give everyone his rights, and for each of them possessing virtue has his value in Islaam, and for every possessor of status has his position near the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). And (it is the requisite of their love that) their good characteristics are spread and only the good is sought for them (in Du’aa), and that which was brought to the doors of the deen from them is followed and whatever faults and slips (may have occurred from them in History) are not to be followed, nor should any of them be given precedence from one’s own self, and one should remain silent without any need to get involved into what mutual fights and disagreements occurred between them.”

[Shu’b al-Eemaan by Al-Bayhaqi (3/93); Translated by Ibn abi raza]

2) Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal

وأخبرنا عبد الله بن أحمد ، قال : سمعت أبي يقول : سلام بن أبي مطيع من الثقات من أصحاب أيوب ، وكان رجلا صالحا ، حدثنا عنه عبد الرحمن بن مهدي ، ثم قال أبي : كان أبو عوانةوضع كتابا فيه معايب أصحاب النبي وفيه بلايا ، فجاء إليه سلام بن أبي مطيع ، فقال : يا أبا عوانة ، أعطني ذلك الكتاب ، فأعطاه ، فأخذه سلام فأحرقه

Abu bakr al-Khallal (rahimahullah) narrated from `Abdullah ibn Ahmad who heard his father (Imam Ahmad) say : “…….. (Imam) Abu `Awanah had compiled a book (for the purpose which the muhadditheen usually wrote the books) enlisting the flaws of the sahaaba and it had other calamities (of that type) in it (too).  So (Imam) Sallam ibn Abi Mu`ti came to him and said : “ Oh Abu `Awanah, give me that book (of yours)”. So he gave him and Sallam took it and then burnt it (lest it gets into the hands of the people or fussaq)

as it comes in another narration Abdullah ibn Ahmad said after this " i hope Sallam will not be subject to criticism for doing this " Imam Ahmad replied " rather he will be rewarded "

[Ref: Sunan abu bakr al-Khalal 3/510. Imam Abu `Awanah’s name was الوضاح بن عبد الله اليشكري about whom Ibn Hajar said ثقة ثبت، ومرة: أحد المشاهير وثقه الجماهير واعتمده الأئمة كلهم | that he was thiqah thabt and the majority of imams relied authenticated him and relied upon him. The chain of this narration is as the sun for Abu Bakr al-Khallal the widely known contributor of the formation of Hanbali madhab studied directly under 5 students of Ahmad and he was also always in dispute with the other Hanbali imam - al-Barbaharee (saahibe sharh us-sunnah) who was well known to be harsh against the ahlul hawa but also was a supporter of forbidding evil by breaking and punishing people of fahaasha (such as wine sellers etc.) as is known from his biography. ] 



أَخْبَرَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ مُوسَى، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ أَبَا بَكْرِ بْنَ سِنْدِيٍّ قَرَابَةَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ الْحَرْبِيِّ قَالَ: كُنْتُ، أَوْ حَضَرْتُ، أَوْ سَمِعْتُ أَبَا عَبْدِ اللَّهِ وَسَأَلَهُ رَجُلٌ: يَا أَبَا عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، لِي خَالٌ ذَكَرَ أَنَّهُ يَنْتَقِصُ مُعَاوِيَةَ، وَرُبَّمَا أَكَلْتُ مَعَهُ، فَقَالَ أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ مُبَادِرًا: «لَا تَأْكُلْ مَعَهُ»

Ibrahim al-Harbiy said i heard a man ask Abu `Abdullah (Ahmad ibn Hambal) : Oh aba abdillah my khalu (uncle) criticises and taunts mu`awiyah (r.a) and i at times eat with him so Ahmad ibn Hanbal immediately said : Do not eat with him 

[Ref: as-sunnah of khallal the muhaqqiq of the kitab said isnadu saheeh (693) (السنة للخلال 693 و قال محقق الکتاب اسنادہ صحیح)۔]


3)

Imam aba ahwas salaam bin sulaim al hanafi r.h nay said 

ُ أَبَا الْأَحْوَصِ يَقُولُ لَوْ أَنَّ الرُّومَ أَقْبَلَتْ مِنْ مَوْضِعِهَا يَعْنِي تَقْتُلُ مَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهَا وَتُقْبِلُ حَتَّى تَبْلُغَ النُّخَيْلَةَ ثُمَّ خَرَجَ رَجُلٌ بِسَيْفِهِ فَاسْتَنْقَذَ مَا فِي أَيْدِيهَا وَرَدَّهَا إِلَى مَوْضِعَهَا وَلَقِيَ اللَّهَ وَفِي قَلْبِهِ شَيْءٌ عَلَى بَعْضِ أَصْحَابِ مُحَمَّدٍ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مَا رَأَيْنَا أَنَّ ذَلِكَ يَنْفَعُهُ.


If the (christian) romans were to start Attacking Muslims within their region and reach as far as (the region inside Kufa called) Nukheela , killing muslims and everyone (inside the muslim lands) and then if a man were to brand a sward and fight them and free the regions of Muslims and push back the romans back to their own lands and when he dies and meets Allah and IF HIS HEART BORE HATRED AGAINST THE SAHAABA OF THE PROPHET THEN WE (taba`een and atba` taba`een) believe that he will not benefit from his (remarkable feat of) killing (and fighting in defense of Muslims) 

[النهي عن سب الأصحاب للضياء المقدسي page 82; Sanad Hasan by sh zubair in al-hadees 82]



Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds. Peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and his Companions. And Allah knows best!


Also see : THE FATAAWA OF SOME SCHOLARS REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE SAHAABAS AND UPON THOSE WHO REVILE THEM

Link : http://the-finalrevelation.blogspot.in/2012/12/some-virtues-of-sahaabas-companions-of.html

No comments:

Blogger Tricks And TipsComment here

To contact us, Please do so from the "Contact us" tab on the top of this page