The Conception of the Sahaba's Ultimate Decency and the Political Authority in Islam

Chapter 5 — Prospects Attached To the Sahaba's Ultimate Decency Conception

The innovators of the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception attached the following prospects to their fabrication:

1. Misrepresenting the divine property of the Prophet's progeny in such a way that it would lose its content and function.

2. Descrying a surrogate property competing the Prophet's progeny's one and backing affairs of the rulers by imitating functions of the Prophet's progeny.

3. Inventing confused matters and giving rise to states of perplexity and suspicion among people for keeping them away from affairs of the ruling authorities, by finding a subordinate discrepancies that, gradually, would be deep, menacing and perpetual.

Finding Competitive Specifications

God has removed squalor away from the virtuous household of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) and purified them thoroughly. Fatima, Ali, Hassan and Hussein are, according to all criteria, within the Prophet's household at least. God has purified those individuals mentally and physically and foretold of their being in the Paradise before those definite individuals foretold of their being in the Paradise. According to divine texts, the Prophet's household are masters of occupants of the Paradise. They are, by the logic rule of the less is gained by gaining the more, indisputably decent.

The most honorable Sahaba, who had showed honesty to God, are dignified people who had been decided, by God, as decent. Rulers were not among those honorable Sahaba. Most of them were classified as ‘released’ who declared their Islam only after they had been surrounded by Muslims. There is no single policy in the whole world that has the techniques of regarding

those ‘released’ individuals as same honorable as the Prophet's household, except the invention of the entire Sahaba's ultimate decency conception, with regard to looking upon the lexical, as well as the terminological, meaning of Sahaba. According to this conception, there is no difference at all between a Muslim who embraced Islam before conquest of Mecca and fought, and another who declared his being Muslim only after the conquest. This conception equates the killer with his victim; the applicant of the blockade with that upon whom the blockade had been imposed; the Muhajir with the ‘released’ and the faithful believer with the hypocrite. Those individuals, as a whole, are enjoying the very same qualification; decency. Ali­bn­Abi­Talib, one of the Prophet's household, is a Sahabi in the same weight of Muawiya, the Sahabi. Both are decent. Both are legislators. Both are to be in the Paradise. Both are infallible. Ali is the foremost to Islam. He is God's devotee in the divine texts.. the carrier of the Prophet's pennon during the whole battles. He is the headmost knight of Islam during the entire battles. This man is not different from Muawiya who, accompanied by his father, fought against Islam in the entire battles, and embraced Islam only after they had been surrounded.

Topical justice does reject such a characterization. The divine justice, with stronger reason, rejects it, too. Allah and His Apostle and deeds did differentiate between the two. Who, then, did order us of regarding the two as equal? Saving the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception, which was originally invented for eradicating distinction between the foremost and the tardy; the fighters and the absconders and the first and the last, what is the evidence on such an equalization?

Invention of the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception and allegation of the entire Sahaba's decency were originally founded for competing property of purification exclusively gifted the Prophet's household.

A Factual Example

With respect to divine texts, Ali is the head of the Prophet's household, the disciple of this nation, the foremost to Islam and the pursued by the right. Loyalty to Ali is regarded as same as loyalty to God, and antagonizing him is as same as antagonizing God. Moreover, he is a Sahabi admitted by inventors of the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception. He is foretold of being in the Paradise.

Regarding Ali as a Sahabi, for what reason, then, did you, originators of the

Sahaba's ultimate decency conceptions, impose people to curse him from pulpits in the entire provinces of the Islamic state? For what reason did you curse and revile at him actually? Was it not you who decided the penalization of reviling at Sahaba? You decided that the revilers at Sahaba are miscreant whom should be not shared in a food or a drink, and that the ritual funeral prayer should not be offered to their souls.

Does the entire Sahaba's decency work for benefit of the whole except Ali and his household? Does it stop when it reaches Ali and his household in order that characteristic of decency should not be ascribed to them?

Another Factual Example

Al­Hassan­bn­Ali and Al­Hussein­bn­Ali are, according to divine texts, the masters of the youth of the Paradise. They are basils and sons of God's messenger. According to divine texts, God made the offspring of every prophet from his own backbone, while Mohammed's was made from Ali's. At any rate, Al­Hassan and Al­Hussein are decent since they are Sahaba. It is illicit for any to malign, criticize or revile at any of Sahaba. He whoever commits such a thing is decided as a miscreant that he should not be shared in a food or a drink or offered the ritual funeral prayer. What about, then, those who poisoned Al­Hassan­bn­Ali, the Sahabi? What is your judgment about those who murdered Al­Hussein and occluded his household and him from having a single drop from water of the Euphrates, the river from which beasts, birds and animals including dogs, drink freely? Is it not to reckon murdering with maligning? What do you say about those who killed the entire progeny of Mohammed and robbed their luggage while they were dead, and captured the harem of Mohammed's progeny and the Sahaba's progeny?

Expounding Upon the Previous States

Lexically and terminologically, those who poisoned Al­Hassan were Sahaba. Those who assassinated Ali were Sahaba. Those who murdered Al­Hussein were Sahaba. Those who terminated the Prophet's progeny in Kerbela were Sahaba. Those who cursed and reviled at Ali and his associates were Sahaba. Those who ruled of inadmissibility of testimonies of Ali's assenters were Sahaba.

A Striking Surprising and A Wonderment

Al­Hassan­bn­Ali, the Sahabi, is one of the decent. Those who poisoned him to death are decent because of their being Sahaba. Al­Hussein­bn­Ali, the Sahabi, is decent. Those who murdered him are decent because of their being Sahaba. Mohammed's progeny who were completely terminated in Kerbela were decent. Those who practiced termination against them were decent because of their being Sahaba.

The poisoner and the poisoned are equally in the Paradise since both are decent Sahaba! The killer and his victim are both in the Paradise since they are decent Sahaba! The robber and the robbed are in the Paradise since both are decent Sahaba!

This equalization raises a real flouting of mankind intellect. It is forming an appearance of shameful slavery of imitation.

Fulfillment Of The Mission

The mission intended by the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception was fully accomplished. Ali became as same as Muawiya since both were decent Sahaba who should be in the Paradise. Both are rightful with the difference that the victorious should be the legitimate ruler of the nation. The year of victory had been named ‘year of congruity.’

Finding Competitive Protection

The saying that he whoever hurt the Prophet's household would be hurting the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) himself, is faced by the one that he whoever hurt the Sahaba would be hurting the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). In a like manner, he whoever bears malice against Mohammed's household is one of people of the Hell, is faced by the saying that he whoever bears malice against any of the Sahaba extensively is one of people of the Hell. Exceeding the protection given exclusively to the Prophet's household, it was ruled that those who defame any of Sahaba is reckoned with the miscreant, and that it is obligatory to avoid sharing him in a food or a drink and avoid offering his soul the ritual funeral prayer. Just like a carcass, such an individual should be cast aside. Thus, the Sahaba's ultimate decency conception granted the Sahaba a protection identical to that given exclusively to the Prophet's household, but with a little higher degree.

In Respect of Proclamation

The Quran is the major weighty thing. Mohammed's family is the minor. Being guided to the right path cannot be attained unless these two weighty things are adhered. Deviations cannot be eluded unless these two weighty things are cohered. This fact is decided by incontrovertible divine texts.[63] The Prophet's household are the Ark of Noah; he shall be most surely saved that who takes it, while that who lags behind shall be certainly drowned. This fact is documented by conclusive divine texts. They are the door to acquittal of sins; he shall be certainly forgiven that whoever passes through that door. They are the shelter of this nation. Stars are the shelter of people of this earth, and Mohammed's household are the protection against discrepancies of this nation. This is also quoted from undiscussible divine texts. Without them, this nation shall be like a donkey the backbone of which is broken. The head of the Prophet's household takes that task of settling discrepancies established in this nation after the decease of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). These facts are documented by indisputable divine texts.

Examples on What the Sahaba Gain from the Entire Sahaba's Ultimate Decency Conception

(The like of my companions is salt. Food is valueless without salt.) This (hadith) is recorded in Alisti'ab, in the margin of bn­Hajar's Al­Isabetu Fi Tamyizis­Sahaba, part1, page7.

In the (hadith) numbered 33792, of Kenzul­Ummal, part12, page22, the following is recorded: (Quraish is means of amending people. People cannot be amended by other that Quraish. Except them, none should be referred to. Their like is salt. Food cannot be accepted by anything other than salt.) This (hadith) is related to A'isheh. bn­Edi, in his Al­Kamil, relates it to A'isheh.

The (hadith) numbered 33807, of Kenzul­Ummal, part12, page25, is the following: (Quraish is security from drowning for all people of this earth. Loyalty to Quraish is security of people against being engaged in discrepancies. Quraish is people of God. People of Iblis — the Satan — are the Arab tribes who confront them.) This (hadith) is quoted from At­Tabarani's Al­Kabeer and Al­Hakim's Al­Mustedrak.

[63] In the section Authority and Political Leadership, every single word I have previously mentioned will be documented.

In his Al­Issabeh, page19, bn­Hajar, as At­Tirmithi and bn­Hebban quotes, records the following (hadith): The Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) said: “I ask you by God to take care of my Sahaba. Betake not them as an advantage. It is just for my cherishing, they are cherished, and it is just for my hatred, they are hated. He whoever hurts them, shall be hurting me. He whoever hurts me shall be hurting God. He whoever hurts God shall be taken in an unexpected time.”[64]

Texts for Reflecting on

The Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) stated: “O Ali! He is departing God that whoever departs me. He is departing me that whoever departs you.”[65] “He whoever hurts Ali shall be hurting me.”[66] “He whoever cherished Ali is cherishing me. He whoever bears malice against Ali is bearing malice against me.”[67] “Your adherent is adherent to me. My adherent is adherent to Allah. Your enemy is an enemy to me. My enemy is an enemy to Allah. Woe is those who will bear malice against you after my departure.”[68] “Blessedness is those who cherish and accept you. Woe is those who bear malice against you and belie you.”[69] “I do counsel every one who believed and confided in me to cling to leadership of Ali­bn­Abi­Talib. He whoever accedes to him shall be acceding to me. He shall be acceding to Allah that who accedes to me. He whoever cherishes him shall be cherishing me. He is cherishing Allah that who cherishes me. He whoever bears malice against him shall be bearing malice against me. He is bearing malice against Allah that who bears malice against me.”[70] “Stars are shields of people of this earth against drowning. My household are shelters of my people against discrepancies. Any Arab tribe who confront my people shall be the party of the Satan.”[71]

[64] bn­Hajar's Al­Issabetu Fi Tamyizis­Sahaba, page19. [65] Al­Hakim's Al­Mustedrak, part.3, page124. According to the criteria of the two Sheiks, Muslim and Al­Bukhari, this hadith is reckoned with the authentic ones. [66] Al­Hakim's Al­Mustedrak, part.3, page130. [67] Al­Hakim's Al­Mustedrak, part.3, page130. [68] Al­Hakim's Al­Mustedrak, part.3, page135. [69] At­Tabarani's Al­Kabeer and Kenzul­Ummal, part.3, page154, hadith 2571. The hadith is recorded by bn­Asakir. [70] Kenzul­Ummal, part.6, page155, hadith 2576. It is recorded by At­Tabarani too. [71] This hadith shall be documented in Section: Political Leadership.

See the Prophet's saying: “Stars are shelters of occupants of the heavens. My household are the shelters of my people.”[72]

Wonderment

Supposing a Sahabi hurt or bore malice against Ali, or Ali hurt or bore malice against a Sahabi; what should the situation be? Whom should we follow? Who should be the right, and who should be the wrong?!

Supposing Quraish and the Prophet's household each claimed of being shelter of this nation; how should the situation be? Whom should we confide on?!

Supposing a party of this nation followed Quraish and another followed the Prophet's household, and both claimed of being the right; what should the situation be? Which party should be regarded as the right and the bearer of the truth?!

Hint at the false saying spuriously imputed to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family): “Stars are the like of my companions. Guidance to the right path is concluded by following any of them.” This false saying is deceitfully arisen.

In At­Thehbi's Al­Munteqa, page551, the following saying of bn­Teimiyeh is recorded: “The hadith is ruled, by the most learned hadithists, as doubtful. Hence, it cannot be taken as an evidence.”

Providing a group of Sahaba supported Ali, another supported Muawiya, a third were non­partisan and a fourth were waiting for results so that they would follow the victorious. Is it rationally and conventionally acceptable that the followers of any of these four groups would be rightful? Who would be the wrong, then?!

On condition a Sahabi claims that the right is in the east, and another Sahabi claims, in the same time, that the right is in the west, and a third claims that the right is in the south, and a fourth claims that the right is in the north and so on that the nation is divided into seventy three parties each with a definite argument, as we are foretold by the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). Will it be rationally and conventionally acceptable that the entire

[72] This hadith shall be documented in Section: Political Leadership.

parties are rightful and following the right although there is only one right?! Contrariety is a crime. Unification is a matter of seeking God's favor. Is it, then, rational that the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) engages his nation in discrepancies?!

Imparting the Argument By A Medium

The Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) said unto Ali: “After me, you convey my mission and make them hear my voice and explicate for them matters they will be discrepant about.”[73]

Despite the fact that he was enthusiast to Al­Abbas, Abu­Haneefeh was wont to prefer any Sahabi's opinion to Al­Abbas's when being variant in a certain question.[74] It is recorded that Abu­Haneefeh used to say: “I will refer to the Sahaba's opinions if I lack the ability to infer from the Quran and the Prophet's traditions. In case there are different opinions of different Sahaba, I will take from any indiscriminately, in order not to neglect their opinions and opt for the followers'.”[75] In his A'lamul­Muwaqqi'in, Ibnul­Qeyyim mentions the following: “For Imam Ahmed, sources of legislation are five: 1. The text. 2. The Shaba's verdicts… Hahafites and Hanbalites ruled of allocating the Quran's judgments to the Sahaba's deeds. This is for the reason that the Sahaba would not neglect applying the Quran's judgments unless they had an evidence. Hence, whenever the Sahaba contradicted the Quran, this item must have been allocated for a specific state or manner. The Sahaba's deeds, however, are as same as their words.”[76]

By the way, the Prophet's traditions are his words, deeds and signature. Regarding the saying that the Sahaba's deeds are as same as their words, this means that lexical and terminological Sahabi's words allocate the Quran's judgment and generalize the Quran's specific situations. This reckons the Sahaba's words with the heavenly revelations that wrong does never approach from any side. The main catastrophe, here, is that every Sahabi, whether in lexical or terminological meaning, is included in this (rule). As a

[73] bn­Abil­Hadid's Sharhu Nahjil­Belagheh. Abu­Nu'eim, in his Hilyetul­Awliya, records this hadith. [74] Al­Ghezali's Al­Mustafa, page35­6, and Seyid Ar­Razawi's Aara'u Ulema'il­Muslimin.. [75] Abu­Zuhra's Abu­Haneefeh, 304. [76] Ma'ruf Ad­Dawalibi's Al­Madkhelu Ila Ilmi Ussoulil­Fiqh.

matter of fact, the entire Sahaba's ultimate decency conception granted the Sahaba's what the Doctrine has not granted to the Prophet's household.

bn­Khuldoun says: “Not the entire Sahaba were juriscounsults. Doctrinal laws were not taken from all of them. This task was private to the Quranists, who had full knowledge of positions of repealing and repealed Verses, decisive and allegorical Verses and other evidences elicited from the Quran that they had received from the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) directly or indirectly. For this reason, such individuals were named ‘Qurra — reciters’ since the Arab were generally illiterate. For a considerable period, this concern was preserved.”

Mohammed­bn­Sehl­bn­Abi­Kheithema related the following saying to his father: “Three from the Muhajirs and three from the Ansar were the only individuals who had authority of issuing judgments and rulings in the Prophet's reign. They were Omar, Othman, Ali, Ubey­bn­Ka'b, Me'ath­bn­Jabal and Zaid­bn­Thabit.”

Abdor­Rahman­bn­Qasim relates the following saying to his father: “A number of Muhajirs and Ansar were usually summoned by Abu­Bakr whenever he had a question to seek advisory about. He used to summon Omar, Othman, Ali, Abdor­Rahman­bn­Awf, Me'ath­bn­Jabal, Ubey­bn­Ka'b and Zaid­bn­Thabit. Those individuals had authority of issuing verdicts in the reign of Abu­Bakr. People received rulings and verdicts from those individuals only. When Omar became the caliph, he followed the same policy.”[77]

Expansion in Issuing Verdicts

It is noticeable that the entire Sahaba's ultimate decency conception collapsed the whole traditions relied upon in reigns of Abu­Bakr and Omar and mutinied against the whole conceptions familiar in reign of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). According to this conception, every Sahabi, in lexical and terminological meaning, had the opportunity of expressing his own opinion towards any question. In the same manner, it became lawful for every researchist or scholar of jurisprudence to refer to

[77] bn­Sa'd's Tabaqat, part.4, page168, and Seyid Ar­Razawi's Aara'u Ulema'il­Muslimin.., page50 and on.

the idea of any Sahabi at all in any question. This was by reason that the entire Sahaba were equally decent. They all shall be in the Paradise. It is impossible for them to forge lies. Hence; matters were commingled so heavily that it became impossible to discriminate. The foremost to Islam became of the same rank of the tardy. The ‘released’ became as same as the Muhajir. The whole enjoyed the same attribute of decency. A Sahabi is flawless. It is impermissible to comment on verdicts, words and deeds of the Sahaba. These rulings are deduced from the general frame of the entire Sahaba's ultimate decency conception. What is authentically related to the Sahaba is the right that wrong does never approach from any side. This is because it was traditions of the decent who had the capability of restricting a general rule frankly mentioned in the Holy Quran and, similarly, generalize a restricted Quranic rule. Consequently, efforts were exceedingly exerted for the sake of surveying and detecting the life account of the narrators from many sides like the good general behavior, honesty of their believing and authenticity of their sayings. As soon as such attributes are available in personality of a narrator and the saying is truly ascribed to that Sahabi, then such a text shall be considered as the indisputable right since it had been issued by a decent Sahabi.

A Principal Restraint on the Narrators

It is fully acceptable for any narrator to accede to Abu­Bakr, Omar or any other Sahabi at all. This loyalty will not injure honesty and authenticity. It also does not occupy any position of confusedness. Confusedness falls only on those who show any sort of loyalty to Ali and the Prophet's household. It is impracticable to regard such narrators who accede to Ali or the Prophet's household as authentic and then, it is impossible to accept narratives of such individuals. As a rule, it is to neglect totally the hadith among the authentic narrators of which there is an individual who shows loyalty to the Prophet's household. The acceptable narratives are only those related by authentic men. Authenticity and loyalty to the Prophet's household do never concur.

Abu­Amr­bn­Abdil­Berr says: “Mohammed­bn­Weddah related that Yahya­bn­Muin ruled of the unauthenticity of Mohammed­bn­Idris Ashafi'i.” Yahya­bn­Mu'in is one of the most remarkable hadithists whose decision about a person is undiscussibly regarded. Ashafi'i, the founder of a notable sect, is not authentic narrator in the opinion of bn­Muin. This is an unimaginable matter! This judgment of bn­Muin was issued because of

Ashafi'i's carrying a little loyalty to the Prophet's household. Realizing the unacceptability of this ruling, At­Thehbi commented: “bn­Muin’s words about Ashafi'i were mere a flaw of the tongue due to following whim and fanaticism.”

Imam Ja'far As­Sadiq, however, is the tutor of founders of the four sects. He is the director of a four thousand graduate school. He is the founder of the sect of the Prophet's household and an elevated name in the sky of the Prophet's people. Although Al­Bukhari, who had recorded narratives related by Marwan­bn­Al­Hakam, neglected regarding Imam As­Sadiq's narratives as an evidence on authenticity of a hadith, Abu­Hatem and An­Nisa'i ruled of the Imam's authenticity (in narrating hadiths.)

Yahya­bn­Mu'in: (As he ruled of authenticity of Sa'eed­bn­Khalid Al­Bujeli, they protested against him claiming that Sa'eed had been a Shiite. “Yes, he is Shiite and authentic!!!” He asserted. However, the Jumhour had never used these two descriptions concurrently.)

Authentic people are only those disloyal and remote from the Prophet's progeny. As for Omar­bn­Sa'd­bn­Abi­Waqqas, the commander of Yazeed's army who massacred Imam Al­Hussein and his household in Kerbela, Al­Ujeli decides him as (one of the Sahaba’s followers. He is honest. People reported his narratives.)

Imran­bn­Hattan was decided as an honest by Al­Ujeli. This Imran composed a number of poetic verses praising bn­Muljim (Cursed be him), the murderer of Imam Ali for his murder.