There is no doubt that close friends of Prophet (s.a.) had special privileges. They were hearing verses from the Prophet himself, they were seeing his miracles, they were cultured by his valuable words and they were gaining practical pattern from his holiness.
According to these reasons great people had been cultured among them whom world of Islam is proud of them, but here the point is, were all of Sahaba (close friends of Prophet (s.a.)) believer, righteous, truthful and impartial without an exception or maybe there were unrighteous people among them?
There are two different beliefs: First is that all of them were in a halo of sanctity and they were righteous, truthful, virtuous and impartial without an exception. Because of that if any of them quote from Prophet (s.a.) it is correct and can be accepted, and we cannot animadvert them and if they did anything wrong we should start to justification and vindicate. This is the belief of a large group of Ahl -e- Sonnat.
Another belief is that although there were devoted, pure and virtuous people among them but also some of them were hypocritical and unrighteous whom Qur'an and Prophet (s.a.) were showing reluctance to them.
In other hand we should use all the scales and criteria to discern good people from bad people for them, but because they were Sahaba of Prophet (s.a.), we must assume for good at the first look but do not connive of truths and their faults and acts which deny justice and truthfulness. Because this kind of conniving view harms Islam and Muslims and cause hypocritical people to impenetrate the territory of Islam.
Shiites and an open minded group of Ahl -e- Sonnat have accepted the second belief.
A group of adherents of infallibly had gone so for that if anyone animadvert or appose Sahaba, they know that people as a sinner or even an infidel, or they say killing this person is permitted!!
For example we can read in the book “Al Assaba” from Abu Zar’e Raazi that: “Whenever you see someone animadverting at one of Sahaba of Prophet (s.a.), you know that this person is infidel, and this is because of Prophet (s.a.) is all the right, Qur'an is all the right and all he has bring to us is all the right and Sahaba had bring all these to us and these people (anyone who oppose) want our testifiers to be discredited for loosing Qur'an and tradition!”1
Abdullah Mouseli writes in the book “Hatta la Nankhade”: “Those (Sahaba) are people whom Allah has chosen them to accompany his Prophet and advance his religion and his law and has chosen them as ministers of his Prophet and knows friendship of them as believe and faith and hatred of them as heresy and concision! And has ordered Muslims to like them all and say continuously about their goodness and their excellency and keep silence for their fights and contentions!”2 While we will see that this expression is against Qur'an and tradition.
Here, any wise person who do not accept reasonless expressions without thinking, ask these questions from himself:
Allah said in Qur'an about wives of Prophet (s.a.): “Wives of Prophet! Any of you who do a sin have twice the penalty, and this is easy for Allah.”1
If we interpret Sahaba in any way (which its variant interpretations will be said) wives of Prophet are their most evident examples without any doubt, and Qur'an says not only theirs sins will not be absolved but their penalty is twice the others.
Should we believe this verse or expressions of adherents of unconditioned infallibly?
And also Qur'an says about the son of Noah, Sheikh of Prophets, for his faults: “He is an unrighteous act”1 and warn Noah not to intercede about him!
Is son of Prophet more important or his friends?
And Qur'an says about wives of Noah and Loot (two great Prophets): “Those two betrayed their husbands (Noah and Loot) (and accompany the enemies) and those two Prophets couldn’t intercede for them and it had said to them to enter the fire with infernals.”1
Do these verses say explicitly that: Scale of goodness and badness of people are their belief and acts, and even being progeny or wife of Prophet does not prevent them to be infernal if they had sins?
According to these proofs, is it correct that we close our eyes and say because that person is a friend of Prophet, friendship of him is belief and faith and disagreement with him is concision and heresy, although that person have joined hypocrites, hurt the heart of Prophet (s.a.) and betrayed Muslims afterwards?
Does sanity accept this expression?
If someone says Talha and Zubayr were good people at the beginning, but when they thought about reign and made wife of Prophet (Ayesha) their ally and broke their allegiance with Ali (a.s.) whom most of Muslims had made him their allegiant, and start the fire of Jamal war which killed about 17 thousands of Muslims, they deviate from the right way and bloods of these numerous people are on them and they should answer about all these in the judgment day, does this expression is far from truth?
Or if someone says Muaviya who lit the fire of Saffain war and caused more than one hundred thousand of Muslims to die by refusing the allegiance of Imam (a.s.) and refusing to confess the right which was accepted to all Muslims was a Tyrant, does this person say anything wrong?!
Is it possible to deny these bitter truths in history or pass these terrible incidents by wrong justifications which no wise person accept them? Does friendship of these persons, as Abdullah Mouseli said, is belief and faith and hatred of them is concision and heresy?! Do we have a duty to keep silence about all wrong acts which have been done and caused thousands of people to die? Which sanity adjudicates like this? Qur'an says there were a group of hypocrites around Prophet (s.a.), shall we ignore these verses of Qur'an?
Holy Qur'an says: “There are some of Arabs around you hypocrites, and also some people from Medina. You don’t know them but we do.”1
Do we think that wise people of the world accept this logic?
Another important point here is the meaning of “Sahaba”.
Scholars of Ahl -e- Sonnat gave different explanations and definitions for “Sahaba” whom they drew this halo of sanctity around them.
1- Some of them expand this meaning so far that they say any person who saw the Prophet (s.a.) is one of his Sahaba! This explanation introduced by “Bokhari” who said: “Anyone who was friend of Prophet of Allah (a.s.) or any of Muslims who saw his holiness, then he is his Sahaba!”
Ahmad ibn Hanbal, famous scholar of Ahl -e- Sonnat knows this meaning so expanded and says: “Sahaba of Prophet (s.a.) is anyone who had been with him for a month, a day or even an hour or saw him!”
2- Some others have more limited definitions like Qazi Abu Bakr Mohammad ibn Tayyeb who says: “Although the lexical meaning of Sahaba is general, but in folkway it is given to person who had been notable time spending with his holiness, not the one who just be at his service for an hour or walked some steps with him, or heard a Hadith form his holiness”.
3- Some other persons like Saeed ibn Mossayyeb has straitened the circle more and said: “Sahaba of Prophet (s.a.) are people who had spent at least one or two years with his holiness or attend one or two wars with him.”1
These explanations and others which we refuse to say for preventing prorogation of expression, show that there is no specific explanation for persons whom included in this sanctity, but most people have chosen that expanded definition, although this doesn’t made any difference in our discussing issues, because lots of contraventions was by those who had spend long time with his holiness.
Although believing extraordinary holiness of Sahaba which is similar to infallibility in some cases, can be found neither in Qur'an nor tradition, and also Qur'an, tradition and history have different proofs, and even it is said that there was no such a thing in the first century, we should find that why this issue introduced in later centuries.
It seems that accepting this belief has some reasons:
1- The most optimistic assumption is the same as those which talk about in past issues, which is a group of Muslims thought that if they miss perfect and complete holiness of Sahaba then connection between them and Prophet (s.a.) will be cut, because Qur'an and tradition of Prophet (a.s.) has been reached us by them.
But the answer is clear because nobody says that all Sahaba are, absit omen, liar and wrong, because there were a lot of good and trusted people among them who can be our connection to Prophet (s.a.), as we say similar things about companions of Ahl -e- Bait (s.a.).
It is interesting that in later centuries the problem still exists, because today we reach ourselves with lots of connectors to the age of Prophet (s.a.), but nobody says that all these connectors are truthful and trusted and all of them have holiness and if it is not in this way, our religion will be perished.
But all Muslims say that cabbalas should be given from trusted and truthful persons, and books of Rijal (men) have been written for this purpose and to discern reliable and unreliable persons from each other. Now what is the problem to act for recognizing Sahaba as the way we act for others?!
2- The assumption that “Jarh” meaning animadverting some of Sahaba, degrades the high rank of Prophet of Islam (s.a.), and it is not allowed due to this reason.
We should ask those who say this expression as their reason: Does not Qur'an attack hardly to those hypocrites around Prophet (s.a.)? Does existence of hypocrites among truthful and pure friends of his holiness degrade the high rank of him? Not at all!
Summarizing the issue, at all times and always, even in the age of great Prophets, there were good and bad people and they never degraded the high rank of holy Prophets.
3- If the issue of animadverting acts of Sahaba introduced, then it damages the position of first leaders. Accordingly for saving their position holiness of Sahaba should be insisted on, in order that nobody can talk about the acts that have been done in the age of Osman about bursary and other acts, and nobody can ask the leader about what he has done!
Even in this way it is possible to justify and vindicate Muaviya about his opposition with Muslim leader, Ali (a.s.), and inaugurating bloody wars and killing Muslims, and keep him away from critics.
The meaning of this expression is that politicians of first centuries introduced this kind of holiness, like interpretation of the verse “Ololamr” (holders of authority) in its vast meaning which even consists tyrants of Bani Abbas and Bani Umayya, and I don’t think that results of this expression will be in favor of adherents of infallibly of all Sahaba.
4- Another group believes that belief of infallibly of Sahaba is according to an order which is available in some verses of Qur'an and Ahadith of Prophet (s.a.).
Although this reason seems to be the best justification, but when we investigate on the issue it clears that there is nothing like they want and they say in those verses and Ahadith.
The most important verse which this group refers to is the verse below:
“The first pioneers from immigrants (Mohajirin) and companions (Ansar) and those who follow them in goodness, Allah is satisfied of them and they are satisfied of hypocritical group (too), and there are gardens in heaven for them which streams are running under their trees, they live there forever, and this is a great victory.”1
Some of commentators from Ahl -e- Sonnat cited a Hadith (from some of Sahaba from Prophet (s.a.)) which its meaning is: “All of Sahaba of Prophet of Allah will be in heaven good ones and bad ones”, and refers to the above verse.2
It is interesting that the above verse says, followers are going to heaven if they follow Sahaba in their goods acts (not bad ones) and does its meaning will be that heaven is guarantied for Sahaba, is the meaning of this expression, freedom of them for sins?!
Is it possible that a Prophet who came for guidance and emendation of people, excludes his friends and makes exceptions about their sins, while Qur'an says about the wives of Prophet (s.a.) who where his closest Sahaba: If you do a sin the penalty will be twice the others.1
The considerable point is that if this verse has any vague, verse 29 from Fath Sura removes that, because it explains characteristics of real friends of Prophet (s.a.) like this:
“They are renitent against infidels and kind among themselves, you can see them continuously genuflecting and prostrating (in front of Allah) and you can see clearly the results of prostration in their faces while they always want the satisfaction and superiority of Allah.”
Were those who inaugurate Saffain and Jamal wars and arose against Imam of that time and caused tens of thousands of Muslims to die, the real sample of these heptarch characteristics? Were they kind and gentle among themselves? Were they renitent against infidels or Muslims?!
Allah says a sentence below this verse, which clears all the meaning: “Allah has promised those from them (friends of Prophet) who believe in Allah and perform good acts his mercy and great reward.”1
Therefore Allah’s mercy and great reward will be for those who act good and believe in Allah, and no one else. Do those who lit the fire of wars like Jamal and others and caused Muslims to die or in the age of Osman embezzled the bursary have good acts?
It is interesting that Allah keelhauled their great Prophets for one Tark -e- Owla (doing something wrong and also not sin, but not proper for the superior rank of a Prophet), Allah banished Adam from heaven because just one Tark -e- Owla.
Allah kept Jonah in the prison of abdomen of a great fish because of a Tark -e- Owla.
Allah blamed Noah for intercession about his son. Is it believable that Allah makes an exception for Sahaba of Prophet of Islam?
1- Tawba Sura, verse 100
2- Great interpretation of Fakhr Raazi and Almanar Interpretation, below the above verse.
3- Ahzab Sura, verse 30.
4- Fath Sura, verse 29.
▲6- Were all Sahaba impartial without an exception?
As we said before most of Sonni brothers say that all Sahaba meaning persons who were in the time of Prophet (s.a.) or had met him and be with him for a period of time, have the rank of impartiality without an exception and Qur'an proves that.
Unfortunately these brothers have accepted those verses which have benefit for them and forgot the other verses, verses which offer exceptions for this issue (we know that all generalities have exceptions).
We talk about that:
What a justice is thiswhich Qur'an says contrary expressions lots of time. For instance we read in verse 155 of Aal -e- Imran Sura: “Those who escaped in the day of confronting of two groups (Uhud war), Satan made them slip due to some sins that they had. Allah forgave them, Allah is merciful and forbearing.” This verse points to those who escaped in the day of Uhud war and leave Prophet (s.a.) alone in front of enemies.
We understand from this verse that a group of people escaped that day and the number of them mentioned a lot in histories and it is interesting that Qur'an says Satan dominates them and this domination was due to their sins, therefore former sins caused the great sin of escaping from battlefield. Although Qur'an says in continue that Allah forgave them, but forgiveness of Allah because of holy Prophet (s.a.) does not mean that they were impartial and infallible, rather Qur'an says explicitly that they had numerous sins.
What a justice is thiswhich Qur'an introduces some of them in verse 6 of Hojorat Sura as debauchee: “Those who believe in Allah! If a debauchee gives you news, investigate about that, lest harm a group because of ignorance and afterward be regretful of what you have done.”
Among commentators it is known that this verse points to “Waleed ibn Oghba” whom holy Prophet (s.a.) sent him with some others for collecting Zakat of “Bani Almustalaq” tribe. Waleed returned and said they are not prepared to pay Zakat and have arose against Islam.
A group of Muslims believed the words of Waleed and prepared to fight that disobedient tribe, but this holy verse from Hojorat Sura descended and warn Muslims that if a debauchee give you news, investigate, lest harm a group because of that news and attack them an afterwards be regretful of what you have done.
By the way it was cleared after investigation that “Bani Almustalaq” tribe are believer people and they had came to welcome Waleed not to arise against Islam or Waleed, but because Waleed had enmity with them, dissemble this and returned to holy Prophet (s.a.) and told that wrong news.
Waleed was one of Sahaba of Prophet (s.a.) which means he was one of persons who had met him and be at his service. Qur'an knows him debauchee here, is this compatible with impartiality of all Sahaba?
What a justice is thiswhich some of Sahaba protest Prophet (s.a.) during prorating Zakat. Qur'an has cited their protest in verse 58 of Tawba Sura: “There are those among them who protest you for prorating spoils, if a share is given from one to another they will be satisfied, unless will be enraged.” Are these people impartial?
What a justice is thiswhich holy Qur'an says about Ahzab war in verses 12 and 13 of Ahzab Sura: A group of hypocritical and cynical people who were at Prophet’s service and were in the battlefield, accuse holy Prophet (s.a.) for deceiving Muslims and said: “Allah and his Prophet gave us nothing but false promises!” Some of them thought that holy Prophet (s.a.) will loose the war and they will be killed and Islam will be ended, or it is derived from Shiite and Sonni cabbalas that when holy Prophet (s.a.) was digging a trench and he found and broke a stone and then he promised the conquer of Shaam, Iran and Yemen, there were a group of people who sneered at these expressions.
Were these people not from Sahaba?
And more interesting that Qur'an says in the next verse: “A group of them (refers to people of Medina who were in the war) said that here is not the place for you to stay, return to your homes.
And again another group came to Prophet and made excuses for leaving the Ahzab battlefield and Qur'an says in this verse: “A group them were asking Prophet’s permission to return and were saying that their homes are defenseless, please let us return to Medina for saving our homes. They were lying, their homes were not defenseless, they just wanted to escape.” Well, how can we ignore all these acts and do not accept animadversions about them.
The worst of all is accusation of holy Prophet (s.a.) for betrayal which is reflected in verse 161 of Aal -e- Imran Sura. Qur'an says: “It is impossible that a prophet betrays and anyone who betrays will bring the thing that he betrays in with him at the judgment day, then anything that anyone earned will be given to him and they will not be oppressed”, it means that if they will be punished it is the fruit of what they have done.
Two cause have been cited for descending this verse: Some said that this verse points to soldiers of “Abdullah ibn Jubayr” who were hiding in the Ainein Mountain and when Muslim troops overcame enemies at the beginning of the war, archers accompanying Abdullah leave their positions in their fort and went for collecting spoil albeit Prophet had told them not to leave their positions even for a second and worse than this act was their expression that they said we are aware that Prophet do not think of us when prorating spoils (they expressed sentences that a man can be ashamed of writing that).
Another cause for descending this verse which Ibn Kathir and Tabari had brought in their interpretations is that: A valuable scarlet cloth lost after winning the Badr war. Some fools accused holy Prophet (s.a.) for this and after a while it had discovered that one of soldiers had kept the cloth.
Are all these trump ups to holy Prophet (s.a.) compatible with justice? If our conscience be the judge, can we accept that these people were infallible and impartial, and nobody has the right to animadvert their acts?
We do not deny that most of Sahaba and friends of Prophet (s.a.) were pious and pure persons, but to issue a general statement and wash all of them with justice and virtue, and take away the right of animadversion from anyone is very amazing.
What a justice is thiswhich one person who is apparently one of Sahaba of holy Prophet (s.a.) (we mean Muaviya), let himself to damn and maledict a high rank Sahaba like Ali (a.s.) for years and command all people in all cities without an exception to do that. Notice to these two Hadith: 1- In Sahih of Muslim which is one of most reliable books of Ahl -e- Sonnat we read: “Muaviya” told “Sa’d ibn Abi Waqas”: why you abstain from maledicting Abu Torab (Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s.))? He said: I heard three superiority of him from holy Prophet (s.a.) that if I have one of them it is better for me to have all the great treasures of the world, and because of this I do not let myself to damn his holiness.1 2- In the book “Al’aghd Alfareed” written by one of Sonni scholars (Ibn Abs Rabboh Andalusi) we read: when Hassan ibn Ali (a.s.) died Muaviya came for pilgrimage the house of Allah and entered the Medina. He had decided to damn Ali (a.s.) at the Pulpit of Prophet (s.a.)! People told Muaviya that “Sa’d ibn Abi Waqas” is in the mosque and we do not think that he can bear this act of yours, he may react hard. Send someone to know his opinion. Muaviya sent someone to Sa’d and asked him about the issue, and Sa’d answered: If you do this I will leave the mosque and I will never return to the mosque of prophet of Allah.
After hearing this message and this reaction Muaviya abstain from maledicting Ali (a.s.) until Sa’d died. After the death of Sa’d, Muaviya damned Ali (a.s.) in his pulpit and wrote to all of his governors to do the same in their pulpits; and they did this. This acts had been heard by “Umm Salama”, wife of Prophet (s.a.). She wrote a letter to Muaviya that you are maledicting Allah and Prophet at your pulpits! Unless you are saying damn to Ali and anyone who loves him? I testify that Allah loves Ali, Prophet of Allah loves Ali, therefore your are maledicting Allah and Prophet (s.a.), Muaviya read her letter but ignore that.1
Are these bad and evil acts compatible and agree justice? Does any wise or impartial human let himself to damn this great character and great human, and even in this dreadful and expanded way?
An Arab poet says:
“Are you maledicting his holiness above pulpits, whenas these pulpits have been built because of blessings of his sword!”
1- Sahih of Muslim, vol. 2, page 1871, the book “Fazael Alsahaba” and also the book “Fath Albari fi Sharh -e- Sahih of Bokhari”, vol. 7, page 60 (those three superiorities are Manzilat Hadith, لأعطين الراية غداً Hadith and Mubahela verse).
2- Al’aghd Alfareed, vol. 4, page 366 and Jawahir Almatalib fi Managheb Alimam Ali ibn Abi Talib, vol. 2, page 228, written by Mohammad ibn Ahmad Damishqi Shafe’ee, died 9th century h.gh.
We can divide Sahaba of prophet, according to Qur'an, to 5 major groups:
1- Infallibles and righteous Sahaba:Those were believer and pure groups that belief had placed deep inside their hearts and they never abstain from any kind of self devotion for Allah and raising the word of Islam. That group who has pointed to them in verse 100 of Tawba Sura. “Allah was satisfied of them and they were satisfied of Allah graces too.”
2- Fallible believers:That group which beside belief and good acts, sometimes had slips and were combining good and bad acts who were confessing to their sins and there is a hope of mercy for them, and in verse 102 of Tawba Sura it has pointed to them following the first group: “And another group (are believers who) confessed to their sins and combined good and bad acts, there is a hope that Allah accept their penance, surely Allah is merciful and kind.”
3- Sinful persons:whom Qur'an named them debauchee and said if a debauchee brought you news, do not accept that without investigation and points to them in verse 6 of Hojorat Sura: “Those who believe in Allah! If a debauchee gives you news, investigate about that, lest harm a group because of ignorance and afterward be regretful of what you have done.” These people can be found in interpretations of Shi’aa and Ahl -e- Sonnat.4- Simulative Muslims:Those who were claiming of belief but it had not placed in their hearts and it has pointed to them in verse 14 of Hojorat Sura: “Bedouin Arabs said: we believed in Allah. Tell them: You are not believed, but you can say we accepted Islam, but belief has not placed in your hearts yet; And if you obey Allah and his prophet, he will not forget any of your rewards, Allah is gracious and merciful.”
5- Hypocrites:Those who were living sometimes known and sometimes unknown among Muslims with the thought of concision, and they were not afraid of sabotage in Muslim affairs or in advancement of Islam. In verse 101 of Tawba Sura it has pointed to them after infallible believers: “There some of bedouin Arabs around you who are hypocrites and also some of people of Medina use the way of concision.”
Undoubtedly all these people had seen Prophet (s.a.) and had accompanied and associated with him and lots of them had attended wars with Prophet and any explanation which we can use for Sahaba matches all these quintet groups. Is it possible to know all of them infallible and heavenly?
Isn’t it the place to divide Sahaba to quintet groups according to Qur'an, respect to those good and infallibles of them and know other groups in their proper places, and abstain from hyperbole, extremism and fanaticism? (Let’s judge fair).
Believing holiness and infallibly of all Sahaba has caused lots of problems for followers of this belief, which some of them are great historical problems. Because we can see lots of hard contentions between some of Sahaba in famous and trusted history books and of them and also Ahadith in Sahih books and we cannot accept both sides to be righteous, infallible and impartial, because this is some kind of unity of oppositions and the matter that oppositions cannot be unite is one of rational self evident matters.
Beside Jamal and Saffain wars which started by Talha, Zubayr and Muaviya against Imam of Muslims Ali (a.s.), and if we do not ignore the truths we should confess the sins and murders of war starters, there are lots of historical evidences for this issue which we briefly share just three of them here:
1- Bokhari, famous Hadith teller in his Sahih, the book “Altafsir” writes about the issue of Afak (accusation which some people gave to wife of prophet): One day Prophet (s.a.) was on pulpit, he called: Muslims, who punishes this man (Abdullah ibn Salool one of concision leaders)? It is said that he accused my wife for something bad, while I have not seen any faults from my wife ... Sa’d ibn Ma’aaz Ansari (famous Sahaba) stood and said: I punish him, if he is from “Aws” tribe I will cut his head off and if he is from “Khazraj” tribe I will do anything that you order. Sa’d ibn Ibada (Sheikh of Khazraj) who was a righteous man before that, due to tribal fanaticism told to Sa’d ibn Ma’aaz: I swear Allah that you lied, you do not have the power to do this, Aseed ibn Hazeer (cousin of Sa’d ibn Ma’aaz) said: I swear Allah that you lied, he is hypocritical and we will kill him. It was close to start a fight between to tribes that prophet of Allah (s.a.) calm them down.1 Were all these persons righteous Sahaba?
2- Famous scholar Balazari says in “Alansab”: Sa’d ibn Abi Waqas was governor of Kufa, Osman depose him and placed Waleed ibn Oghba in his position and Abdullah ibn Mas’ood was treasurer at that time. When Waleed entered the Kufa asked Abdullah ibn Mas’ood the keys of bursary. Abdullah threw the keys in front of him and said: Caliph has changed the tradition (of prophet), does he depose someone like Sa’d ibn Abi Waqas and place someone like Waleed in his position?
Waleed wrote to Osman that Abdullah ibn Mas’ood animadverting you, and Osman ordered to send Abdullah to him with guards. When he entered the Medina, Caliph was on pulpit, when he saw Abdullah ibn Mas’ood said: A bad moving thing entered! (and other expression which my pen is ashamed of writing them).
Abdullah ibn Mas’ood said: I am not this thing that you say, I am one of companions of Prophet (s.a.) in Badr war and in the day of Rizwan allegiance, Ayesha stood up defending Abdullah, but servant of Osman named “Yahmoom” moved him out of mosque and threw him in the ground and also broke one of his ribs.2
3- Balazari quotes in that book “Alansab Alashraf” that there were jewels and ornaments in Medina bursary, Osman gave some of them to his family, and when people saw that animadverting him in public and had told bad expressions about him. Osman got angry and above his pulpit said: We acquire anything that we need from spoils, although someone will be nuzzled!!
Ali (a.s.) told him: “Muslims will stop you”!
Ammar Yasser said: The first one whom will be nuzzled is me! (He meant that I won’t give up blaming you).
Osman got angry and said: You disrespect me, arrest him. Guards arrested him and bring him to Osman’s house. Osman beat him until he passed out, and then moved him to the house of Umm Salama (wife of prophet). He was not awake that he missed noon, sunset and night prayers. When he woke up, he performed ablution for prayer and said: This is not the first time that we get hurt for Allah.1 (He meant problems that he had with infidels at the beginning of Islam).
I do not want to quote these bitter adventures of Islam history, (I worry to hurt you, unless there are lots of stories! (A Poem)) and if some of our brothers didn’t insist on infallibly of all Sahaba and all their acts, maybe this much also was not proper to say.
Now the question is that is it justifiable to insult, hurt, beat and curse three of most pure and righteous Sahaba (Sa’d ibn Ma’aaz and Abdullah ibn Mas’ood and Ammar Yasser), beating one great Sahaba until his rib broke and beat another one until he passed out and missed his prayer?
Do these historical evidences which are not few let us to ignore the truths and say all of Sahaba were good and all of their acts were correct, and form a “Sahaba Army” and defend all their acts without any condition?
Does any wise man accept these kinds of thoughts?
Here we repeat this expression for more and more times that there were lots of believer, righteous and pious persons among Sahaba of prophet of Allah (s.a.), but there were some people whom theirs acts should be reconsidered and scaled with sanity and then we can talk about them.
1- Sahih of Bokhari, vol. 5, page 57.
2- Ansab Alashraf, vol. 6, page 161.
▲9- Punishment of some of Sahaba in age of Prophet (s.a.) or after that time!
We can see cases in Sahih books or other famous books of Sonni brothers that some of Sahaba performed sins in age of prophet of Allah (s.a.) that caused them to be punished.
Do you repeat that they were all impartial? And they did not make a mistake? What a justice is this which if they perform a great sin that has lawful punishment and they will be punished due to that sin, justice will remains constant in its place?
I point to some cases for example:
A) Na’eemaan Sahabi drank wine and holy Prophet (s.a.) ordered to beat him with sandals.1
B) A man from Bani Aslam tribe performed incest and Prophet (s.a.) orders to punish him by throwing stones.1
C) In the story of Afak holy Prophet (s.a.) ordered to punish some persons.2
D) After holy Prophet (s.a.) Abdurrahman ibn Omar and Oghba ibn Hareth Badri drank wine and Amr ibn Aas governor of Egypt punished them. After that Omar evoked his son and punished him again.3
E) The story of Waleed ibn Oghba is famous that he drank wine and performed dawn prayer four Rak’ats (part of prayer) instead of two, then he evoked to Medina and punished.4
And there are other cases that are not expedient to say. Do we ignore the truths again and say they were all impartial?!
1- Sahih of Bokhari, vol. 8, page 13, Hadith No. 6775, Ketab Alhad (Book of Punishment)
2- Sahih of Bokhari, vol. 8, page 22, Hadith no. 6820.
3- Mo’jam Alkabir, vol. 23, page 128 and other books.
4- Alsunan Alkobra, vol. 8, page 312 and lots of other books.
5- Sahih of Muslim, vol. 5, page 126, Hadith no. 1707.
1- Followers of complete infallibly and holiness of Sahaba when confront this mass of oppositions, convince themselves with this justification that All of Sahaba were Mujtahid and any of them acted due to his Ijtihad.
Undoubtedly this is a kind of self deception that these brothers use against such clear oppositions.
Is beating a believer Sahaba for just a gentle animadversion and ordering to do good and inhibiting from doing bad according to acts about embezzling bursary until he passed out and missed his prayers, Ijtihad?
Is breaking a rib of a famous Sahaba due to protesting for placing a drunk (Waleed) as a governor of Kufa, a kind of Ijtihad?
And more important from them inaugurating wars which killed tens of thousands of Muslims, just for cupidity and ambition and for acquiring Islamic government, and do all these against Imam of Muslims who beside divine ranks had chosen by majority of people, are all these acts a kind of Ijtihad?
If these and all acts like them are branches of Ijtihad, it is possible to justify all crimes in history with that.
Moreover, were Ijtihad exclusive to Sahaba or at least there were lots of Mujtahids among Islamic society some centuries later and as some thinkers of Ahl -e- Sonnat and all scholars of Shi’aa say today also Ijtihad is available for all wise scholars?
If one of these persons in these days performs acts like those before, are you ready to justify them with Ijtihad?! Surely, no.
2- Sometimes they say that we have duty to keep silence about them. “There are people who passed away, their acts are for themselves and your acts are for yourselves, and you are not in charge of their acts”.1
But the question is that if they did not affect our destiny, this expression might be good, but we want to receive cabbalas of Prophet by them and make them as our patterns, shouldn’t we recognize pure from impure and impartial from debauchee to act to the meaning of holy verse: “When a debauchee brought you news do not accept that without investigation.”2
Anyone who read the history of Islam discovers that Ali (a.s.) the mountain of knowledge and virtue and closest person to holy Prophet (s.a.) the greatest defender of Islam unfortunately had been cursed and hurt so much and his friends had suppressed and had been under pressure and harmed hard that it is unheard in history, and it was from people who were naming themselves as Sahaba of Prophet (s.a.).
A) People saw Ali ibn Jahm Khorasani who is damning his own father, they asked him: why? He said: Because he has named me Ali!1
B) Muaviya wrote in a circular to all his functionaries: Anyone who say cite something about superiority of Abu Torab (Ali (a.s.)) and his family is out of my grith (his life and assets are free to take by others) and following this circular orators damn and curse Ali (a.s.) explicitly on pulpits and announced abstaining from him and trumping him up and his family.2
C) Bani Umayya anytime heard that someone named his infant Ali, immediately that infant had been killed by them. Salamat ibn Shobaib quoted this expression from Abu Abdurrahman Aghari.3
D) Zamakhshari and Sayooti cited that in the age of Bani Umayya Ali (a.s.) had been cursed on over seventy thousands pulpits and this was the tradition which Muaviya had been began.1
E) When Omar ibn Abdulaziz ordered to leave this ugly heresy and not to maledict and curse Imam of believers Ali (a.s.), crowd in the mosque cried that: “You leaved the tradition, you leave the tradition!”2
All these acts performed while according to correct cabbalas in reliable books holy Prophet has said: “Any who curses Ali had cursed me, and anyone who curses me had cursed Allah!!”3
It is good to tell the story which had happened in Masjid Alharaam for myself as an ending to this issue for dear readers and finish the chapter:
In one of Umra travels, a night in Masjid Alharaam between prayers of sunset and night which we had a chance to argue, we had a discussion about holiness of all Sahaba with some of scholars of Hejaz. They believed as always that we should not animadvert them even a little and as an idiom in Persian we should not say anything to them litter than flower!
I told one of them: assume that Saffain war has begun here, which of these two Safs (armies) do you attend, Ali’s (a.s.) or Muaviya’s?
He said: Of course Ali’s (a.s.) Army.
I said: If Ali (a.s.) says to you: Take this sword and kill Muaviya, what do you do?
He thought a while and said I will kill Muaviya but I will never animadvert him even a little!!
Yes, this is the result of insisting on illogical beliefs which defending them will be illogical too and made human entangled in bumpy roads.
The truth is that we say according to testify of Qur'an and history of Islam Sahaba and companions of Prophet (s.a.) were in some castes in one view: There were a group of Sahaba and companions of Prophet (s.a.) who were pure, truthful and righteous from beginning until the end, they live happy and died happy.
Another group was pure and righteous in the age of his holiness, but afterward changed their ways for ambition and cupidity and their destiny was not felicity and welfare (like fire starters of Jamal and Saffain wars).
And the third group was from hypocrites and secularists and had placed themselves among Muslims for especial purposes like Abu Suffian and others like him.
And here we point to the first group and say:
“Allah! Forgive us and our religious brothers who passed us in belief and keep our hearts empty of envy and hatred of believers. Allah! You are clement and merciful.”1