Universal Guardianship (Qur’an 5:55)

Some people say: ‘If you (Shi’ah of Ali (as)) claim Imamate and Leadership is a doctrine of faith, then why hasn’t it been mentioned in the Qur’an?’

Those that ask this question are ignorant of the teachings of the Qur’an, since itself clearly states that:

إِنَّمَا وَلِيُّكُمُ اللّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ الَّذِينَ يُقِيمُونَ الصَّلاَةَ وَيُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ وَهُمْ رَاكِعُونَ – وَمَن يَتَوَلَّ اللّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ فَإِنَّ حِزْبَ اللّهِ هُمُ الْغَالِبُونَ

Only Allah is your Guardian and His Messenger and those who believe, those who keep up prayers and pay zakat while they bow. {56} And whoever takes Allah and His Messenger and those who believe for a Guardian, then surely the party of Allah are they that shall be triumphant.[5:55]

No one (from the esteemed scholars in either school of thought) in their right frame of mind could possibly argue that waliy (guardian) means ‘aiding to victory’, as we’ll see later.

And:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ أَطِيعُواْ اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُواْ الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ فَإِن تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ ذَلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلاً

0 you who believe! obey Allah and the Messenger and those vested with authority from among you; then if you quarrel about any thing, refer it to Allah and the Messenger if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end. [4:59]

and:

وَإِذَا جَاءَهُمْ أَمْرٌ مِّنَ الأَمْنِ أَوِ الْخَوْفِ أَذَاعُواْ بِهِ وَلَوْ رَدُّوهُ إِلَى الرَّسُولِ وَإِلَى أُولِي الأَمْرِ مِنْهُمْ لَعَلِمَهُ الَّذِينَ يَسْتَنبِطُونَهُ مِنْهُمْ وَلَوْلاَ فَضْلُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ وَرَحْمَتُهُ لاَتَّبَعْتُمُ الشَّيْطَانَ إِلاَّ قَلِيلاً

And when there comes to them news of security or fear, they spread it; and if they had referred it to the Messenger and to those in authority among them, those among them who (can) draw out the truth in it would have known it, and were it not for the grace of Allah upon you and His mercy, you would have certainly followed the Satan, save a few.[4:83]

Since the matter of Imamate has been the greatest disputed matter in the history of the Islamic ummah, we need to refer it to Allah and the Messenger. Now, let’s assume for the sake of argument, that the doctrine of Imamate has not been mentioned in the Qur’an (I’ve refuted that in an earlier post in the section on Imamate), we should refer our dispute to the Prophetic Traditions (hadith), as ordered by this holy verse.

First though, Allamah Tabataba’i [1] says on the matter of wilayah (guardianship), in the verse 5:55:

‘Ar-Raghib [2] has said in his Mufradatu’l-Quran: "alwilayah" and "at-tawallah" denote that two or more things are so positioned as nothing extraneous comes between them. Metaphorically it is used to indicate proximity in place, or affinity, or friendship, and in help, or in belief al-wilayah is help, and/or management of affairs. It has been said that al-walayah and al-wilayah both are one like al-dalalah and al-dilalah and it really means management of affairs; and al-waliyy addal-mawla denote this meaning, and both are used as nomen agentis, i.e. guardian/manager; and as nomen patientis, i.e. one whose affairs are managed. A believer is called waliyy of Allah, but nowhere is he referred to as mawla of Allah; while Allah is called waliyy of the believers, as well as their mawla.

Further he says: "They say, tawalli when used without any preposition, gives the meaning of wilayah, indicating that it is related to the nearest objective; they say, ‘I turned my ears/eyes/face to so and so. Allah says: …so We shall surely turn thee to a qiblah which thou shall be pleased with; turn then thy face towards the Sacred Mosque; and wherever you are, turn your faces towards it,…. (2:144); but when it is followed by preposition min (from) clearly or implied, it means turning away and leaving the proximity."

So Allah is the Guardian of the believers, inasmuch as He manages the affairs of their religion through guiding, calling, and helping them and so on. And the Prophet is the Guardian of the believers inasmuch as he has the authority to decide between them, for them and against them through legislation and judgment. Likewise, the hakim (ruler, judge) is the guardian of the people over whom he rules within his jurisdiction. The same is the case with other examples of wilayah, like that of emancipation, covenant, protection, neighbourhood and divorce; similarly, the wilayah of a cousin, of love and of a designated successor, and so on. In short, looking at wilayah in its different usages, we get the meaning of a sort of proximity that gives its subject some authority of management and possession of planning.

Looking at the context of the verse under discussion: "Only Allah is your Guardian and His Messenger and those who believe", we find that the meaning of wilayah (guardianship) for all the guardians is the same, because "Allah, His Messenger and the believers", have all been ascribed to one word: "your Guardian", and clearly guardianship of each has the same meaning. This is also supported by the clause at the end of the second verse: then surely the party of Allah are they that shall be triumphant, as it indicates or clearly shows that all the guardians are the party of Allah, because they are under His Guardianship; thus the guardianship of the Messenger and of those who believe sprout from the root of Allah’s Guardianship.

In short, the Prophet (s.a.w.) has the wilayah over the ummah, inasmuch as he leads them to Allah, rules over them, judges and decides in all their affairs. It is incumbent on them to obey him unconditionally. In this way, his wilayah springs from Allah’s wilayah, in the meaning of the authority of legislation. In other words, the Prophet (s.a.w.) has precedence over them as they are bound to obey him, because his obedience is Allah’s obedience. Thus, his wilayah is the wilayah of Allah, as some previously quoted verses prove, for example: …obey Allah and obey the Messenger… (4:59); And it is not for a believing man, nor for a believing woman to have any choice in their affairs when Alldh and His Messenger have decided a matter;… (33:36), apart from other such verses.

It is this meaning of wilayah as ascribed to Allah and His Messenger, which is bestowed on the believers in the verse under discussion, when it says: "Only Allah is your Guardian and His Messenger and those who believe." You have seen that the context proves that it is only one wilayah, and it belongs to Allah directly and to the Messenger and to those who believe indirectly by permission of Allah. Had the wilayah ascribed to Allah in this verse, been different from that ascribed to those who believe, it was more appropriate, in order to avoid any confusion, to bring another word of wilayah before mentioning "those who believe", as Allah has done in similar situations. For example, He says: Say: "A hearer of good for you (who) believes in Allah and believes the faithful…" (9:6 1). The word: "believes", has been repeated because its connotations in the two clauses are different. A similar style was used in the verse: …obey Allah and obey the Messenger… (4:59.

Moreover, the word: "Your Guardian", is singular and is ascribed to, "those who believe", i.e. plural. According to the exegetes, it is because wilayah here has a single meaning, and it directly belongs to Allah and as for the Messenger and the believers, it is indirectly, through Allah. It is clear from above that the restriction in "Only" aims at confining the wilayah to those mentioned in the verse. It removes the possible misunderstanding that it might cover those who are mentioned and also the others. There is another possibility that this restriction negates the wilayah of all persons other than those mentioned therein.’

So bearing the above in mind, let’s look at what the (clear and correct and accepted by all) prophet tradition has to say in this matter:

In Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, vol. 16, pg.497, H.22908 [3]:

حدثنا ابن نمير حدثني أجلح الكندي عن عبد الله بن بريدة عن أبيه بريدة قال بعث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بعثين إلى اليمن على أحدهما علي بن أبي طالب وعلى الآخر خالد بن الوليد فقال إذا التقيتم فعلي على الناس وإن افترقتما فكل واحد منكما على جنده قال فلقينا بني زيد من أهل اليمن فاقتتلنا فظهر المسلمون على المشركين فقتلنا المقاتلة وسبينا الذرية فاصطفى علي امرأة من السبي لنفسه قال بريدة فكتب معي خالد بن الوليد إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يخبره بذلك فلما أتيت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم دفعت الكتاب فقرئ عليه فرأيت الغضب في وجه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقلت يا رسول الله هذا مكان العائذ بعثتني مع رجل وأمرتني أن أطيعه ففعلت ما أرسلت به فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لا تقع في علي فإنه مني وأنا منه وهو وليكم بعدي وإنه مني وأنا منه وهو وليكم بعدي

‘Ibn Namir has narrated, through Ajlah Al Kindi and Abd-Allaah ibn Buraydah from his father, said that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) sent two missionaries to Yemen, one of them, Ali ibn Abi Talib and the other Khalid ibn al-Walid. Then he said, if you meet, then Ali will lead over (both)groups (of soldiers), if you separate, then every one of you leads his (own) soldiers. He said, we saw Bani Zeid of the people of Yemen, whom we fought, and the Muslims overcame the infidels, so we killed the fighters and captured the others (women, children and elderly), and Ali kept a woman to himself, said Buraidah: I and Khalid ibn al-Walid wrote to the Messenger of Allah peace be upon him, telling him so (of this incident). Then when I came to the Prophet peace be upon him, I gave him the letter and I saw anger in the face of the Messenger of Allah peace be upon him and I said, O Messenger of God, you sent me with a man and asked me to obey him, so I did (i.e. I’m just the messenger of this letter). The Messenger of Allah peace be upon him said: Do not produce falsehoods about Ali, he is from me and I am of him, and he is your guardian after me, he is from me and I am of him, and he is your guardian after me.’

You be the judge on the meaning of this narration.

Here’s the clip from the the episode of Mutarahat in arabic talking about this narration.

—————————————————————————————————

[1] Allamah Muhammad Hussein Tabataba’i, Al Mizan fi Tafsir Al Qur’an; 20 volume quranic exegesis.

[2] Ar Raghib Al Isfahani – Mufradat Al Qur’an; famous arabic dictionary on quranic words.

[3] This narration can also be fond in the following sources –

المحدث: الألباني المصدر: السلسلة الصحيحة – الصفحة أو الرقم: 5/262 

Al Silsillah Al Sahiha, Al Albani

المحدث: ابن كثير – المصدر: البداية والنهاية – الصفحة أو الرقم: 7/356

Al Bidayah wa Al Nihayah, Ibn Kathir

الهيثمي – المصدر: مجمع الزوائد – الصفحة أو الرقم: 9/130

Majma’ Al Zawa’id, Al Haithami

Advertisements

Imam of our time–Part 3

Continued from last post:

It is true that in the view of Ibn Umar, political power is the determinant of Imamate! Muslim records:

It has been reported on the authority of Nafi, that ‘Abdullah b. Umar paid a visit to Abdullah b. Muti’ in the days (when atrocities were perpetrated on the people of Medina) at Harra in the time of Yazid b. Mu’awiya. Ibn Muti’ said: Place a pillow for Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman (family name of ‘Abdullah b. Umar). But the latter said: I have not come to visit with you. I have come to you to tell you a tradition I heard from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). I heard him say: One who withdraws his hand from obedience (to the Amir) will find no argument (in hid defence) when he stands before Allah on the Day of Judgment, and one who dies without having bound himself by an oath of allegiance (to an Amir) will die the death of one belonging to the days Jahiliyya. [Sahih Muslim, Book 20, Number 4562]

Ibn Taymiyyah al-Nasibi in his Minhaj al-Sunnah, vol. 1, p. 110 comments on this Hadith in this manner:

وهذا حدَّثَ به عبد الله بن عمر لعبد الله بن مطيع بن الأسود لمّا خلعوا طاعة أمير وقتهم يزيد ، مع أنه كان فيه من الظلم ما كان ، ثم إنه اقتتل هو وهم ، وفعل بأهل الحرة أموراً منكرة
فعـُلِمَ أن هذا الحديث دلَّ على ما دلَّ عليه سائر الأحاديث الآتية من أنه لا يخرج على ولاة أمور المسلمين بالسيف . وأن من لم يكن مطيعا لولاة الأمور مات ميتة جاهلية

This is what Abdullah ibn Umar did to Abdullah ibn Muti’ ibn al-Aswad when he withdrew from obedience to the Amir of their time, Yazid, despite that he was an oppressor and committed atrocities against the people of Harra.
It is known that this Hadith is proof for what the other Hadiths prove, that it is not permissible to rise with the sword against the rulers of the Muslims. And whosoever does not obey the rulers dies the death of Jahiliyyah.

In other words, in the real views of Ibn Taymiyyah al-Nasibi, both Sayyidah Fatima (عليها السلام) and Imam al-Husayn (عليه السلام) who fought with the sword against Yazid’s army, died the death of Jahiliyyah (naudhobillah)!

Of course, the fact that both are leaders of Paradise shows that both had given allegiance to the correct Imams of their times, and that Ibn Umar was wrong! It also shows that neither Abubakr nor Yazid was the rightful Imam of his time.

Shaykh al-Albani has recorded some Hadiths that help us out of the dilemma. He records in his Sahih al-Jami’ as-Saghir, Volume 1, page 482 (Al-Maktab al-Islami) that Zaid bin Thaabit (رضي الله عنه) said:

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: إني تارك فيكم خليفتين: كتاب الله حبل ممدود ما بين السماء والأرض أو ما بين السماء إلى الأرض وعترتي أهل بيتي وأنهما لن يفترقا حتى يردا عليّ الحوض

Allaah’s Apostle, peace be upon him, said: I will always leave (taarikun) among you TWO SUCCESSORS: the Book of Allaah, which is a rope stretching between the heavens and the earth, AND my progeny, my Ahl al-Bayt. The two of them will never separate till they meet me at the Lake-Font.”
Commenting upon its authenticity, Shaykh al-Albani says:صحيح Sahih

Al-Haythami in his Majma’ al-Zawaid, Volume 9, page 162 (Daar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah) has also recorded the Hadeeth, with this comment:
رواه أحمد وإسناده جيد  – Ahmad recorded it and its chain is good.

The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) has claimed that he always has two successors among the Muslims. These successors never separate from each other. One of them is the Qur’an, while the other is the Ahl al-Bayt (عليهم السلام) – a successor from the Ahl al-Bayt (عليهم السلام). So, the determinant of Imamah is whether the Imam one is giving his allegiance to is from the Ahl al-Bayt (عليهم السلام) who never separate from the Qur’an in their words or actions. No doubt, neither Abubakr nor Yazid was from this Ahl al-Bayt (عليهم السلام). Therefore, they were only fake caliphs.

The Imam of our time–Part 2

We know from the Holy Quran that there are two types of Imams (guides), those that guide by the command of Allah (swt), and those that lead us to the fire of hell.

وجعلنا منهم أئمة يهدون بأمرنا لما صبروا وكانوا بآياتنا يوقنون

And when they became steadfast and believed firmly in Our revelations, We appointed from among them leaders who guided by Our command.[1]

وجعلناهم أئمة يهدون إلى النار ويوم القيامة لا ينصرون

And We made them leaders inviting to the Fire, and on the Day of Resurrection they will not be helped.[2]

And our Holy Prophet (pbuh) applied this rule when he told Ammar ibn Yassir:

يا عمار تقتلك الفئة الباغية، تدعوهم إلى الجنة ويدعونك إلى النار

"O Amar you will be killed by the oppressive class, you invite them to heaven and they call you to the fire.’

This reveals that the Imamate under which Ammar lived and fought, was the one on the right path to salvation.

Now, in the case of Fatima (as), the lady of the women of the worlds, who is a piece of Prophet Mohammed (pbuh), at the time of her father, he was the Imam and she had pledged allegiance to the Messenger of Allah (pbuh).

So the question I direct to all Muslims of the world: After the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) passed away, who did Fatima pledged allegiance to? We know that Fatima (as) went to the Lord a martyr and angry at the first Khalifa. There is no doubt that she did not pledge allegiance to the first caliph, Abu Bakr, and neither did her husband, Ali bin Abi Talib (for a period not less than mentioned in Sahih Bukhari, which was six months). What is the conclusion we have to make based on the narrations we’ve mentioned up to now? You (followers of the school of companions and the wahabis) consider the Imamate of Abu Bakr to be legitimate, therefore Fatima (as) died a death of ignorance, and if Imam Ali (as) had died in this period (the six months before Fatima’s martyrdom), he would have died a death of ignorance. And both are free of such accusations, since it is clear for the followers of Ahlul Bayt, that Imam Ali (as) was the rightful Imam of his time and Fatima had pledged allegiance to him.

الرواية واردة في (صحيح البخاري) ص803، الحديث 4240 و4241 عن عائشة أن فاطمة عليها السلام بنت النبي أرسلت إلى أبي بكر تسأله ميراثها من رسول الله مما أفاء الله عليه بالمدينة وفدك وما بقي من خمس خيبر فقال أبو بكر: إن رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله) قال: لا نورث ما تركنا صدقة، إنما يأكل آل محمد (صلى الله عليه وآله). فأبى أبو بكر أن يدفع إلى فاطمة منها شيئاً فوجدت يعني فغضبت، فوجدت فاطمة على أبي بكر في ذلك فهجرته فلم تكلمه حتى توفيت، وعاشت بعد النبي ستة أشهر. فلما توفيت دفنها زوجها علي ليلاً ولم يؤذن بها أبا بكر وصلى عليها، وكان لعلي من الناس وجه حياة فاطمة فلما توفيت استنكر علي وجوه الناس فالتمس مصالحة أبي بكر ومبايعته

In this regard, the narration is contained in (Sahih Bukhari), p. 803, #4240 and 4241, narrated Aisha that Fatima (as), daughter of Prophet sent for Abu Bakr to ask for her inheritance from the Messenger of Allah, which Allah has bestowed upon him in Medinah and Fadak and what remains of the war booty from Khyber, so Abu Bakr said: The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said:’We do not leave inheritance of what we left as charity.’ Abu Bakr refused to pay anything to Fatima and became angry, and did not speak to him until she died; she lived six months after the Prophet passed away. When she died, she was buried by her husband Ali at the night, and Abu Bakr was not authorized to attend; later Ali had to reconcile with Abu Bakr and pledge allegiance to him to satisfy the requests of the people. 

So during those six months Imam Ali and Fatimah (as) had not pledged allegiance to the first caliph. And based on the conditions of Imamate that the school of Ahlul Bayt adheres to, the Imam has to be infallible. And it is agreed by all muslim scholars that the first caliph was not infallible. Then you have to accept that Sa’ad ibn Ubadeh, the leader of the Ansar, also died a death of ignorance, because he neither pledged allegiance to the first caliph. You also have to accept that whoever did not pledge allegiance during the caliphate of Imam Ali (as) also died a death of ignorance, the best of example of which is Mu’awiyah. Mu’awiyah didn’t just not accept his Imamate but fought him in the battle of Siffin.

______________________________________________________________

[1] 32:24

[2] 20:41

The Imam of our time–Part 1

(Note: This is a brief summary translation of Seyyed Kamal Al Haydari’s lectures on the islamic doctrine of Mahdiism broadcast on Al Kawthar Tv)

There is no difference of opinion among Muslim scholars of different inclinations and attitudes, ideas and principles and theories, whether doctrinal and theological and political, that in the last days will witness the emergence of the Mahdi. And it is also proven that this is one of the most fundamental of doctrines, without which a Muslim’s faith is not complete. This man, who is called the awaited Mahdi in various religious texts, and is the twelfth Imam of the Imams mentioned by the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) in frequent and accepted narrations (the Imams after me are twelve, the caliphs after me twelve, the princes after me are twelve, as many as the various chieftains of the children of Israel).

The debate between the different sects regarding this personality can be divided into 4 parts:

1) Is Imam Al Mahdi alive or will he be born in the future?

2) Does he possess a certain level of infallibility?

3) Does his lineage end with Imam Hassan (as) or Imam Hussein (as)?

4) Is his father Abdullah Al Allawi (as some try to suggest), or Imam Hassan Al Askari (as)?

To answer these questions, we have to first address the matter of the importance of pledging allegiance to the Imam of your time. This clear and explicit Islamic doctrine, which states that it is not permissible for any Muslim to sleep for the night, without a pledge of allegiance to the Imam. The first source that mentions this fact is (الفصل في الملل والأهواء والنحل) ‘Al Fasl fil Millal wal Ahwa’ wal Nihal’, by Imam Ibn Hazm Andalusi Al Dhahiri, who died in 456 AH, vol.4, p. 102: ‘Abu Muhammad said: The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) informed us on the obligation of Imamate, and that a night should not pass without a pledge of allegiance.’ Now one might say: What is the evidence for this claim? The evidence for this claim is contained in dozens of sources:

المصدر الأول ما ورد في مسند الإمام أحمد، الجزء 28، مؤسسة الرسالة، ص88، في الحديث 16876، الرواية عن عاصم عن أبي صالح عن معاوية قال: قال رسول الله: من مات بغير إمام مات ميتة جاهلية. يقول: هذا حديث صحيح لغيره وهذا إسناد حسن من أجل عاصم وبقية رجاله ثقات، رجال الشيخين

a) Musnad Imam Ahmad, Vol. 28, p. 88, narration #16876; the narration is from Asim from Abu Salih from Mu’awiyah, who said: ‘The Messenger of God said: "Whoever dies without an Imam dies a death of ignorance (disbelief).’ The commentator says: This narration is صحيح لغيره, and this chain is good for Assem and the others are trustworthy men, as accepted by the two sheikhs (Bukhari and Muslim).

النص الثاني: ما ورد في صحيح ابن حبان، المجلد العاشر، بتحقيق شعيب الأرنؤوط، مؤسسة الرسالة، ص434، الرواية عن معاوية قال: قال رسول الله: من مات وليس له إمام مات ميتة جاهلية. قال: حديث صحيح وأخرجه أحمد والطبراني

b) Saheeh Ibn Haban, vol. 10, pg. 434, edited and commented by Shu’aib Al Arna’uut, the narration by Mu’awiyah, said: The Messenger of God said: "Whoever dies and has no imam dies a death of ignorance. He said: حديث صحيح narrated by Ahmad and al-Tabaraani and so on.

المصدر الثالث ما ورد في مسند أبي يعلى الموصلي، المجلد 13، حققه وأخرج أحاديثه حسين سليم أسد، مكتبة الرشد ودار المأمون للتراث، ناشرون، المجلد 13، ص366، الحديث 7375، الرواية عن معاوية أيضاً قال: قال رسول الله: من مات وليس عليه إمام مات ميتة جاهلية. قال: إسناده حسن

c) Musnad Abu Ya’la Al Mawsali, vol. 13, pg. 366, edited by Hussein Salim Assad, in narration #7375, the narration by Mu’awiyah who said: The Messenger of God said: "Whoever dies and he does not have an Imam has died a death of ignorance.’ He said: إسناده حسن, the narration is valid.

النص الأخير الذي ورد في صحيح مسلم: من مات وليس في عنقه بيعة مات ميتة جاهلية. وهو وارد في ص773 من هذه النسخة المعروفة، الحديث 1850

d) Saheeh Muslim: "Whoever dies without a pledge of allegiance dies a death of ignorance. It is contained in p. 773 of this known version, narration #1850.

So now the obvious question arises: to who should be this pledge of allegiance? As the narrations clearly state, it should be to the the Imam and not for an ordinary person. So when the two narrations are combined we reach this result (who dies without a pledge of allegiance to the Imam has died a death of ignorance). Another question arises: Does this narration refer to one or multiple Imams from era to era? No doubt that in every era there is an imam, i.e. during the time of the Messenger of God, he was the imam and so on.

Now I ask the followers of the school of the companions (sunnis), and those who follow the Umayyads (wahabis): Who is the Imam after the Holy Prophet (pbuh) to whom the oath of allegiance must be given? They would say: It is the first caliph. After that, the second Caliph, and so on. So the pledge of allegiance is to the Imam of their time.

Now look at how Ibn Taymiyyah (establisher of the wahabi cult) deals with this narration in such a clumsy and absurd fashion. Allamah Al Hilli related to this text says, in pg. 74 of the book ‘Minhaj Al Karamah’: The Messenger of God said: The one who dies without knowning the Imam dies a death of ignorance’. This particular text of the narration is as accepted by the school of Ahlul Bayt.

Ibn Taymiyyah then comes and says: ‘this wording of the narration is not known to the scholars.’ What an ignorant comment coming from a supposed great scholar and expert of hadith! Assuming this wording is not known to you or your ‘scholars’, at least understand and admit that the content and meaning is as mentioned in the many narrations already mentioned above! But what can we say; this is the method used by Ibn Taymiyyah and the likes of him. This is the clumsy and un-scientific methodology of these so called scholars who always attempt to show their opponents as uninformed or without knowledge.

Mu’awiyah the Religious Jurist – معاوية فقيه

ومن العناوين الأخرى، ومن الأوسمة الأخرى التي أعطيت لمعاوية أنه فقيه، وقد ورد هذا في صحيح البخاري، ج3، ص35، باب فضائل الصحابة، باب28، باب ذكر معاوية، الحديث3765  يقول: الرواية الأولى أوتر معاوية بعد العشاء بركعة وعنده مولى لابن عباس فأتى ابن عباس فقال: دعه فإنه صحب رسول الله. دعه وإن لم يثبت، حدثنا ابن أبي مريم حدثنا نافع بن عمر حدثني ابن أبي مليكة قيل لابن عباس: هل لك في أمير المؤمنين معاوية فإنه ما أوتر إلا بواحدة. قال: إنه فقيه

ورد في (مسند الإمام أحمد بن حنبل، ج28، ص71، الحديث 16857) بتحقيق العلامة شعيب الأرنؤوط، الرواية عن عبد الله بن الزبير عن أبيه عباد قال يحيى بن عباد بن عبد الله بن الزبير عن أبيه عباد، قال: لما قدم علينا معاوية حاجاً قدمنا معه مكة قال: فصلى بنا الظهر ركعتين، ثم انصرف إلى دار الندوة قال: وكان عثمان إذا قدم مكة صلى بها الظهر والعصر والعشاء الآخرة أربعاً أربعاً، فإذا خرج إلى منى وعرفات قصر الصلاة فإذا فرغ من الحج، يقول: فلما صلى بنا معاوية الظهر ركعتين نهض إليه مروان بن الحكم وعمر بن عثمان فقالا له: ما عاب أحد ابن عمك بأقبح ما عبته به، فقال لهما: وماذا فعلت حتى أعيب عثمان، قال: فقال له: ألم تعلم أنه أتم الصلاة بمكة، وأنت خالفت سنة عثمان، قال: فقال لهما: ويحكما وهل كان غير ما صنعت، قد صليتهما مع رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله) ومع أبي بكر وعمر، في الحاشية العلامة شعيب الأرنؤوط يقول: قال السندي قوله: وهل كان غير ما صنعت، أي ما وجد في الدين أو في السنة إلا ما صنعت من القصر لا ما صنع عثمان من الإتمام، يقول: قالا: فإن ابن عمك قد كان أتمها وإن خلافك إياه لهو عيب. قال: فخرج معاوية بعد دار الندوة كان قد صلى الظهر ثم أراد أن يصلي العصر، فصلاها بنا أربعاً، حتى لا ينتقص من سنة عثمان

العلامة الأرنؤوط يقول إسناده صحيح وأخرجه الطبراني في الكبير وأورده الهيثمي ورواه أحمد وروى الطبراني ورجال أحمد موثقون. في (المسند، ج13، ص183، الحديث رقم 6800) للإمام أحمد بن حنبل بتحقيق حمزة أحمد الزين، يقول: إسناده صحيح، قال الهيثمي: رواه أحمد ورجاله موثقون. يقول: صليتها مع رسول الله قصراً يعني يتعمد مخالفة السنة النبوية، هو يقول صليتها مع رسول الله، يعني عامداً عالماً عارفاً يبتدع ويخالف السنة لرضا ابن عمه، ماذا تقولون في مثل هذا الإنسان هل هذا فقيه وهل هذا هو ستر الصحابة واقعاً هذا مفتاح الصحابة

Another virtuous label assigned to this man of many virtues, is the label of religious jurist (faqih).

In Sahih Al Bukhari, which is considered the most sacred book after the Holy Qur’an in the eyes of the followers of Ibn Taymiyah and others, Vol.3, pg.35, Chapter 28 on virtues of the companions, narration number 3765, in which the narrator is describing a situation in which Mu’awyiah prayed only one rak’ah of salaat (a minimum prayer being 2 rak’ah to be valid), and a person present questioned this clear violation of the Prophet’s teachings, but was told by Ibn Abbas that he was a companion of the Holy Prophet so leave him alone, he is a jurist… So, the alcohol and idol trader has become a religious jurist.

Another proof of Mu’awiyahs’ religious knowledge and piety can be found in the Sahih of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Vol.28, pg.71, narration number 16857, says:’When we went with Mu’awiyah to Makkah for the Hajj, we prayed the midday prayer 2 rak’ah (shortened from the usual 4). But when Uthman arrived to Makkah he prayed the midday, afternoon and evening prayer 4 rak’ah each (not shortened as Mu’awyiah did), and when in Mina and Arafat he shortened his prayers. Then Marwan ibn Hakam and Umar ibn Uthman stood up to him and questioned his contradicting the sunnah of Uthman (the 3rd Kalif at the time), to which he responded that it was this way he prayed with the Holy Prophet and Abu Bakr and Umar. But they insisted that it would be shameful to go against the way of Uthman. Finally, they prayed the afternoon prayer in 4 rak’ahs in order to keep with the sunnah of Uthman…

The commentators on this book consider this narration valid and true in its chain, and other scholars have shown this narration in several books including Tabarani’s Kabir, and Al Haitami, and Ahmad.

So we see that Mu’awyiah intentionally lied about the method of prayers when going to Hajj pilgrimage just to please his cousin. Indeed a great jurist and protector of the companions and the traditions of the Holy Prophet…

______________________________________________________________

Please note (once again) that all arabic transcripts of Seyyed Kamal’s research broadcast on Al Kawthar Tv, is available on his website. Also note that all sources stated are the arabic versions.

Beware of angering Mu’awiyah! You could be thrown into the abyss of hell!

جاء في (البداية والنهاية، ج11، ص449) للحافظ عماد الدين ابن كثير القرشي الدمشقي، تحقيق الدكتور عبد الله بن عبد المحسن التركي، دار عالم الكتب، أقرأ بعض الروايات لتعرفوا بعض الأوسمة التي أعطوها لمعاوية، هذا الذي كان يخالف السنة، هذا الذي كان يتاجر بالخمر، هذا المنافق، الفاسق، الفاجر، وقال ابن وهب عن مالك عن الزهري، قال: سألت سعيد بن المسيب عن أصحاب رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله) فقال: اسمع يا زهري، من مات محباً لأبي بكر وعمر وعثمان وعلي وشهد للعشرة بالجنة وترحم على معاوية

نص آخر يقوله هؤلاء وقال بعض السلف: بينا أنا على جبل بالشام إذ سمعت هاتفاً يقول: من أبغض الصديق فذلك زنديق، ومن أبغض عمر فإلى جهنم زمر، ومن أبغض عثمان فذاك خصمه الرحمن، ومن أبغض علياً فذاك خصمه النبي، ومن أبغض علياً فذاك خصمه النبي، ومن أبغض معاوية، سحبته الزبانية إلى جنهم الحامية ويرمى به في الهاوية

Another source of virtues for Mu’awiyah is noted in the ‘Al Bidayah wal Nihayah (The Beginning and End)’, of Ibn Kathir, Vol.11, pg 449, and I mention a couple of narrations in brief:’Who dies loving Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali, and bears witness to the ten (closest companions) to enter paradise, and prays for mercy on the soul of Mu’awiyah…’

So, the way to salvation is through praying for Mu’awiyah! But were do they get these narrations from?? Where in any of the Holy Prophet’s speeches and sermons has he even hinted at such a blatant lie?? If you consider these books and narrations to be lies and fabrications of a few, then disown them and throw them all in a big hole and burn them!

Another narration by some of the Salaf: ‘Whoever shows hate towards the Siddiq (Abu Bakr) then he is an zindeeq (atheist), whoever shows hate towards Umar then he is sent to hell, and whoever shows hate towards Uthman he shall be confronted by the All Merciful (Allah swt), and whoever shows hate towards Ali he shall be confronted by the Prophet (s)…and whoever shows hate towards Mu’awiyah the Angels of punishment will drag him to flaming hell and is thrown into the Abyss.’

As simple as that! If you have any issues with Mu’awiyah and you anger him, God have mercy on your soul! Into the abyss of hell you go! No salvation is possible. No intercession from God or the Holy Prophet is possible. It’s a one-way ticket to the inferno!

As per the authentic narrations of…… and clear proofs from the Holy Qur’an in the verse………..

 

Mu’awiyah’s virtues in the view of Wahabi scholars – الأوسمة التي تعطى لمعاوية

ومن الأوسمة التي أعطيت لمعاوية، ما ورد في (شذرات الذهب، ج1) لابن رجب الحنبلي،  يقول: وهو أحد كتبة الوحي، وهو الميزان في حب الصحابة،  قال: وهو مفتاح الصحابة

إذن ابن رجب الحنبلي يقول أن معاوية هو الميزان في حب الصحابة، انظروا نفس الامور التي ثبتت لعلي بدليل صحيح (لا يحبك إلا مؤمن ولا يبغضك إلا منافق) هذه أخذوها وأعطوها لمعاوية، عندما تصل إلى علي يناقشوها ويقولون أن سندها ضعيف ولا تقبل ولا يمكن أن تكون في الأمور الآخروية وإنما ترتبط بالأمور الدنيوية، ولكن عندما تصل إلى معاوية تجد أنهم يقبلونه بكل رحابة صدر لأنهم أشربوا حب معاوية،

سُئل الإمام أحمد بن حنبل: أيهما أفضل معاوية أو عبد عمر بن عبد العزيز، فقال: غبار لحق بأنف جواد معاوية بين يدي رسول الله،  خير من عمر بن عبد العزيز، ثم يدعو الله  وأماتنا على محبته رضي الله عنه

Some of the virtues that are given to this man, can be found in the book mentioned in the previous post, ‘Golden glimpses..’, by Al Hanbali, in Vol.1, are:’ He is one of the writers of revelations’, which is a blatant lie, ‘he is the measure of the love of the companions’.. so whoever loves Mu’awiyah, loves the companions, and whoever angers Mu’awiyah, angers the companions. And for the readers info, the sunni scholars who oppose Mu’awiyah are: Al Mustadrak (Al Hakim) Al Nisaburi, Al Nisa’i, Abul Faraj Al Isfahani, Al Thahabi..

The writer continues:’He is the key to the companions’, in the sense that if you wanted to enter into the house (of knowledge I presume) of the companions, you should enter through the gate of that house, which is Mu’awiyah. Just as in the famous Prophetic narration when mentioning Imam Ali (‘as) as the gate to the city of knowledge (I.e the Holy Prophet s).

What a tragedy is must be to have the likes of Mu’awiyah as your key to the house of the companions..this man who was a gambler, a seller of alcohol and idols, thief and killer of the elite of the Prophets’ companions, not forgetting the establisher of the custom of cursing Imam Ali (‘as) on the pulpits. This is your Ummayad ideology. If you want to know if a person is a follower of this ideology, ask him on their views on Mu’awiyah. It then should be clear what their inclinations are.

Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal was once asked on who he considered better, Mu’awiyah or Umar ibn Abdul Aziz, and he said:’ The dust that entered his nose while fighting alongside the Holy Prophet, is better than Umar ibn Abdul Aziz; and may we die loving Mu’awiyah, my God be pleased with him…!!!’

Indeed, may you die loving him, his son and whoever follows their ideology, and may you all be gathered in the same place on the day of judgement. Amen.