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