Sunni Feedback on The Issues of Infallibility and Ahulbayt [Electronic resources] نسخه متنی

Nonetheless, Sunni documents agree that at least 300
verses of Quran directly revealed on the honor of Imam Ali.

(reported by
Ibn Asakir, al-Suyuti, Ibn Hajar, etc.
)

Beside that that, Ibn Abbas said:
There is no verse in Quran in which the term Believers, unless Ali
is at the top of them and the chief of them and the more virtuous one
among them.

Surely Allah has admonished the companions of Muhammad
(PBUH) in Quran, but He did not refer to Ali except with honor.

Sunni references:

- Fadhail al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p654, tradition #1114

- al-Riyadh al-Nadhirah, by Muhibbuddin al-Tabari, v3, p229

- Tarikh al-Khulafaa, by al-Hafidh Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, p171

- Dhakhair al-Uqba, by Muhibbuddin al-Tabari, p89

- al-Sawaiq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami, Ch.
9, section 3, p196

- Others such as Tabarani and Ibn Abi Hatam

Also, not all were sinners.

The Sunni traditionists and historians Imam Ali
(AS) was the FIRST who compiled Quran.

It took Imam Ali one week after the
death of Prophet to Finnish his compilation.

Imam Ali presented this Quran
to the rulers of that time and they had a chance to review it and learn
about the missing verses of their own collections and they did correct what
they missed.

(Please see the article of The Quran Compiled by Imam Ali
for the references in this regard) As you see the one who corrected them
was an infallible one, and thus we have all reasons to believe that the
Quran that we have today is the very same as what was revealed to Prophet
except that it is not in the correct sequence.

But nothing is missing from
it.
A brother mentioned that according to the verse:
If two parties among the Believers fall into fighting make peace
between them.

If then one of them transgresses against the other,
fight that which transgresses until it complies with the command of
Allah; but if it complies then make peace between them with justice
and be fair, for Allah loves those who are just.

(Quran 49:9)
Quran did not remove the characeristic of belief from either of the two
warring factions.

That two Muslims fight is not an indication that one of
them is unbeliever.

The above comment is correct.

But the verse does not imply that any warring
faction is necessarily Muslim even though they say so by their tong.

There
is no doubt that a believer can be killer of an innocent and also there is
no doubt that such killer will go to Hell for ever as the foolowing verse
testifies:
And Whoever kills a believer deliberately, his reward is Hell
forever, and the Wrath of Allah is upon him, He cursed him and
prepared a great punishment for him.

(Quran 4:93)
The above verse (4:93) does not exclude believers from that punishment.

Whoever does so, is entitled to the same punishment be it believer or
unbeliever.

I also think you forgot to think about the latter portion of the verse you
quoted which was: If then one of them transgresses against the other,
fight that which transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah.

Talha and Zubair are entitled to this last portion.

Because Imam Ali
frequently asked them for reconciliation, but they killed his messenger
when he was carrying Quran to them for a sign of asking for reconciliation.

The story is written in the History of Tabari, v4, P312.

So those
companions are Baaggee -- transgressor according to the verse you quoted,
and should have been fought as Imam Ali did, and they will be the
companions of Hell forever.

= A brother mentioned that according to Quran, Moses who was a Prophet of god
was confused with the strange actions of al-Khidhr.

But when at the end ,
Moses (AS) was told about the reasons behind those actions, he completely
admired them.

Moses (AS) was a Prophet, but still He could not see the
complete picture related to these events; none of us are in the position of
Moses (AS).

None of us has a clear picture of what we are criticizing from
the actions of the companions.

I would like to remind that brother that he is discrediting you the most
important investment which Allah gifted to everyone that is logic (Aql).

If
I came to know God, it was due the using this investment.

If I found that
Islam is the best religion, it is because I used my brain and concluded
that the instructions given in Quran are sound instructions and the
regulations of Islam are the best among all other alternatives.

If one discredit this precious thing, he will lose every thing including
his religion, and he will accept any irrational fatwa as a religious
command, he will accept some killers of innocents go to paradise without
giving it a thought.

Moses (AS) did not discredit this precious thing, and he asked Prophet
Khidr for clarification, and he finally got the answers and was convinced
shortly after the incidents.

Now, can provide any rational justification
for what some companions did after the demise of prophet? It it about 14
centuries passed and we could not come up any justification for their
deads.

So why should we still blindly follow their narrations and their
sayings which are in clear contradiction with tha sayings of Ahlul-Bayt?
Asking question is not sin.

Remaining ignorant is a big loss though.

Also
comparing a sinless prophet with a sinfull companion is like comparing
heavens with the earth.

= A Wahhabi contributor claimed that the Shia do not follow the Sunnah of the
prophet since it was transmitted by his companions.

This Wahhabi fellow did not even give it a second thought that the Shia
follow Imam Ali (AS) who was the BEST of the companions of the Prophet and
their most knowledgeable one, the Strong Rope of Allah (3:103), and His
Right Path (1:6).

Neither his proximity of relationship with Prophet was
preceded (42:23), nor his preceding in accepting the religion (56:10-11).

We stick to the instructions of Ahlul-Bayt who are pure and infallible
according to Quran and Hadith.

Hence, we do not need to follow those of
companions who opposed/fought Ahlul-Bayt.

Thus the Shia, indeed, follow the Sunnah transmitted by a Prophets
companion, the best of them.

However, Wahhabis follow the worst of them,
that is Muawiyah, and take his Sunnah which has no similarity with the
Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH&HF).

= A Wahhabi mentioned: It is part of our Sunni dogma to respect and love the
all the companions of the Prophet.

Our scholars remind us that vilification
of the companions is Kufr.

Interestingly enough that those companions who remained loyal to Ali
received severe punishment from the government of the time, and were not
respected at all.

One example is Abu Dhar who was exiled to the worst
climate location in the reign of Uthman because they could not stop him
from telling the truth.

They kept him there till he died (martyred).

Abu
Dhar was the one that prophet said in his virtue that The Earth does not
carry nor the Heavens cover a man more frank and truthful than Abu Dhar.

Wasnt Abu Dhar a great companion of prophet? So why shouldnt they have
respected him according to your judgment? It seems that even Uthman did not
accept your type of judgment! nor Talha and Zubair when they were fighting
against their legitimate Caliph Ali (AS).

Are all of them Kafir by your
judgment?
When the Shia reflect on the mistakes of the companions, they do so in
retrospect of history.

It would be very interesting to look at some of the
comments of both the Wahabi and the Sunni scholars in this retrospect.

Ibn
Taymiyyah, the Shaykhul Islam of the Wahabis, writes
And merely abusing some one other than the Prophets does
not necessarily make the abuser Kafir; because some of
those who were in the time of the Prophet (i.
e companions)
used to abuse one another and none of them was declared
kafir because of this (practice); and (also) because it is
not Wajib to have faith particularly in any of the
companions; therefore abusing any of them does not detract
from the faith in Allah and His books and His messengers
and the Last day.

Wahabi reference: As Sarimu l masul, Ibn Taymiyyah, page 579
Published in 1402/1982 by Alam al-Kutub
The name of Mulla Ali Qari requires no introduction to the Sunnis, and
he writes in his work of Sharah Fiqh al Akbar that
To abuse Abu Bakr and Umar is NOT Kufr, as Abush Shakur
as Salimi has correctly proved in his book, at Tamhid.

And
it is becuase the basis of this claim (claim that reviling
the Shaykhan is kufr) is not proven, nor its meaning is
confirmed.

It is so because certainly abusing a Muslim is fisq (sin) as
is proved by a confirmed hadith, and therefore the Shaykhan
(Abu Bakr and Umar) will be equal to the other (Muslims) in
this rule; and also if we suppose that some one murdered the
Shaykhan, and even the two sons in law (Ali and Usman), all
of them together, even then according to Ahlussunnah wa al-
Jamah, he will not go out of Islam (i.
e will not become
kafir) .

Sunni ref:

Mulla Ali Qari, Sharah al Fiqh al Akbar

Matba Uthmaniyah, Istanbul, 1303 page 130

Matba Mujtabai, Delhi, 1348, page 86

Matba Aftab e Hind, India, No date, page 86

Interesting note:
The above quote was taken from three (3) editions, printed in India and
Turkey.

Now a new edition has been printed by Darul Lutubil Ilmiyah,
Beirut in 1404/1984, which claims to be the first edition, and from
which four pages (including the above text) have been OMMITED.

The deleted
portion contains the declaration that
those who believe that Allah has a body are definitely
kafir according to the Ijma without any difference of
opinions.

Do I need to comment on Wahabi scholarship?
Another prson mentioned: Why is it that you want Sunnis accept a selected
number of traditions from the Sunni sources which refutes the integrity of
people like Abu Bakr, Umar Ibn al-Khattab? This point really irks me.

I am sorry it irks you! It is not completely correct, however.

We have
nothing against the persons of Abu-Bakr, Umar and Ashia.

We are looking at
history in retrospect and evaluating their actions - which should not be
considered a sin.

Afterall, they were human beings who were capable of
making mistakes.

Why not learn from their mistakes - particularly if done
in a sensetive way.

We just mentioned some traditions from Sunni books, actions and sayings of
the companions.

If it sounds insulting it is not because the Shia put them
in there.

I tried to give supportive evidence to my argument, objectively,
with no disrespect for the companions (khulafaa particularly).

We feel that they made ijtihad in certain cases, that we dont agree with -
we choose to follow the ijtihad and teachings of others such as Imam Ali
and th Imams of his decendent - what is wrong with that? We also feel that
there has been a lot that has been attributed to them in the form of
Hadiths, that they have not necessarily said or agree with.

This is due, in
part, to the Umayads who hated Ahlul Bayt and wanted to make them look as
less than who they were, either by elevating the status of the people you
named and others, or by fabricating hadeeths in conflict.

About Saqifah