By our brother, Ustaadh Ibrahim Olatunji
Ustādh Abu Amir sent a write-up to me where the writer tried to portray Mudir as a victim of attack of the accusation of being a shiite.
The write mentioned the hadeeth in Saheeh Muslims that the Prophet said in a report from A'lī bn Abee Tālib that he said " ...No one loves me except a believer, and no one hates me except an hypocrite"
There is absolutely no doubt in the correctness of this. Mudir was not the first and won't be the last of Muslims to declare their love for A'lī bn Abee Tālib as a matter of fact, every true believer (Muslim) must love A'lī bn Abee Tālib as against those tried with the innovation of Nāsibiyyah(a sect who acted opposite the excessive love for A'li bn Abee Tālib to declare hatred towards A'lī bn Abee Tālib and the household of the prophet).
Classical scholars of old like Al-Imām Ash-shāfi'ī have also been reported to make a declaration of this love. However, in what situation and what type of community? That is a question that begs answer. Is Mudir also in the same kind of situation to call for this declaration of allegiance or not?.
Al-Imām Al-Bayhaqī (one of the greatest scholars of the Shafi'iyyah school of thought who defended Al-Imām Ash-Shafi'i against all false allegations leveled against him) reported in his Manāqibu Ash-Shafi'i 2/71 through the chain of transmission from Abu Zakariyyā bn Abee Ishāq Al-Muzakī from Az-Zubair ibn Abd al-Wahid Al-Hafiz Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Al-Ash'ath informed us... Ar-Rabi said, Al-Imām Ash-shāfi'i recited the following poem:
يا راكبا قف بالمحصب من منى #واهتف بقاعد خيفها والناهض
"O rider, stop at Al-Muhassab in Mina...
Call out to those sitting in Khaif and those departing at dawn.
سحرا إذا فاض الحجيج إلى منى # فيضا كملتطم الفرات الفائض
When pilgrims flood Mina...
Like the overflowing Euphrates River.
إن كان رفضا حب آل محمد # فليشهد الثقلان أني رافضي.
If loving the family of Muhammad is considered Rafidhah (the derogatory name for the shiites when they rejected the truth said to them by one of their Imams zayd bn A'li [zaynul ā'bideen] that Abu Bakr and U'mar were better than A'libn Abee Tālib)...
Then let the jinn and humans bear witness that I am indeed a Rafidi."
أخرج البيهقي في مناقب الشافعي (ج2/ص71) من طريق أبي زكريا بن أبي إسحاق المزكي عن الزبير بن عبد الواحد الحافظ أخبرني محمد بن محمد بن الأشعث حدثنا الربيع قال: أنشدنا الشافعي رضي الله عنه....
Al-Imām Al-Bayhaqī commented after mentioning this report from Al-Imām Ash-shāfi'ī saying:
"Al-Imām Shafi'i recited these verses when the Khawarij (a group of Muslims who rebelled against Ali ibn Abi Talib) wrongly attributed him to 'Rafidah' out of envy and hostility."
قال البيهقي: وإنما قال هذه الأبيات حين نسبته الخوارج إلى الرفض حسداً وبغياً.
If Mudir was in the same situation or environment where A'li bn Abee Tālib was taunted and disrespected by its people, then his declaration of love would be justified and even praiseworthy. In the absence of that, the declaration was ill-informed and absolutely unnecessary.
Secondly, speeches anywhere in the world always have what we call "As-sawābiq" and "Al-lawāhiq" in Arabic grammar. It simply is a concept saying on the hid of trying to understand the context of any speech, we should look at what precedes it and what comes after it.
Let us flash back at some of the statements made by Mudir if the author of the write-up wants to be sincere with himself and fear the day he would stand in front of Allah without any barrier accounting for his deeds.
Mudir has consistently abused many companions like Abu Hurayrah who also said himself reporting from the prophet that he prayed for him and his mother "O Allah, make Abu Hurayrah beloving to all your true believers (Mu'minūn), So he (Abu Hurayrah) said : you will not find any true believer except that he loved me" And it is the truth!!
عن أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم دعا له ولأمه أن يحببهما الله إلى عباده المؤمنين، قال: فلا تجد مؤمناً إلا يحبني وأمي. مستدرك الحاكم 4292.
He (Mudir) also chastised some of the companions amongst whom were some of the ansār, who at the time were new believers; for standing up during one of the early khutbah sessions the prophet held. All explanations to the mudir that they were still learning the religion at the time fell on deaf ears as usual!! Always claiming many companions wronged the prophet!!! Allahul musta'ān!!!
And the prophet already said about the ansār:
"The sign of faith is loving the Ansar (the helpers), and the sign of hypocrisy is hating the Ansar. No one who believes in Allah and the Last Day hates the Ansar. No one loves the Ansar except a believer, and no one hates them except a hypocrite."
عن أنس بن مالك عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه قال: " آية الإيمان حب الأنصار، وآية النفاق بغض الأنصار " وقال " لا يبغض الأنصار رجل مؤمن بالله واليوم الآخر " وقال " لا يحب الأنصار إلا مؤمن ولا يبغضهم إلا منافق" صحيح البخاري 3784.
To make matters worse and cement the claims of shiism in mudir, he said Abu Bakr and U'mar were not bittered when the prophet died. They were only fighting for how to be the next caliph!!!!" سبحان الله! هذا بهتان عظيم!!! What a slanderous allegation!!!
With the little above and many others, it became apparent that Mudir was invariably calling the Muslims of southwestern Nigeria to nothing but Shiism laced with a touch of orientalism.
NOW, TO THE CLAIMS OF THE WRITER.
One of the issues I have always noticed with people who try to defend heresy is them cherrypicking statements of scholars, either intentionally or out of lack of access to full information.
The definition of shiism (At-tashayyu') the writer quoted from Al-Imām Ibnu Hajar to mean giving preference to A'lī bn Abee Tālib over the sahābah was a summarized version, even when a student of the science of hadeeth would understand the Imām better based on other explanations he has given.
The preference of A'lī over the sahābah in the definition doesn't include Abu Bakr and U'mar since there is a concensus amongst the companions that the two were better than him. A'lī bn Abee Tālib himself said it on the pulpit of Kūfah when he became the caliph that the two were better than him.
Imam Al-Dhahabi said in "Siyar A'lam An-Nubala" (7/28):
Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said while standing on the pulpit in Kufa, in the presence of a gathering of people during his caliphate:
"The best of this nation after its Prophet is Abu Bakr, and the best after Abu Bakr is Umar. And if I wanted to name the third, I would have named him."
This statement is mutawatir (widely transmitted) from Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). May Allah disgrace the Rafidah (a derogatory term used for some Shia sects that reject the legitimacy of the first three caliphs).
قال الإمام الذهبي في سير أعلام النبلاء 28/7:
وقال علي رضي الله عنه بالكوفة على منبرها في ملأ من الناس أيام خلافته : خير هذه الأمة بعد نبيها أبو بكر ، وخيرها بعد أبي بكر عمر ، ولو شئت أن أسمي الثالث لسميته . وهذا متواتر عن علي رضي الله عنه ، فقبح الله الرافضة.
Al-Hāfidh Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his Tahdhib (1/94):
"In the understanding of the early scholars, 'Tashayyu'' (Shiism) refers to believing in the superiority of Ali over Uthman, and that Ali was right in his wars, while those who opposed him were wrong. However, this belief still acknowledges the precedence and superiority of the two Shaykhs (Abu Bakr and Umar).
Some people might even believe that Ali is the most superior creation after the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). If someone holds this belief while being pious, religiously devoted, truthful, and diligent, their narration is not rejected solely because of this, especially if they are not a propagandist.
However, whoever prefers Ali over Abu Bakr and Umar is considered extreme in his Tashayyu' and might be labeled as a Rafidi (Rejectionist). Otherwise, they would be considered Shia.
If someone adds to this belief cursing or explicitly expressing hatred (which is the understanding of Tashayyu' among later scholars), they are considered extreme Rafidis.
If someone believes in the concept of Raj'ah (return to the world before the Day of Judgment), they are even more extreme.
The narration of an extreme Rafidi is not accepted."
From the above, we can see clearly that those mentioned to have shiism in the first three generations were not those who share anything like what Mudir spills every now and then. The things Mudir actually says look more like what Shiite (Rāfidhah) orientalists say.
The difference of opinion amongst the earlier Muslims was about Uthmān and A'li, not Abu Bakr and U'mar.
DEFINITION OF TERMINOLOGIES
From the definition of Al-Imām Ibnu Hajar above, we can clearly see that the Shiism of the earlier generations was different from that of the latter generation. The latter generations of shiites like those we have around today are better called Rawāfidh even when they don't like being called sucj because of its implications. But, the truth remains that is what they are. This is simply because they reject the fact that Abu Bakr and U'mar were better than A'li bn Abee Tālib and never wronged him when they took up the responsibility to lead the Muslims.
A'li bn Abee Tālib and all of his offspring affirmed this, as a matter of fact, the name Rawāfidh originated when they rejected the honest counsel of Zayd bn A'li bn Husayn bn Abee Tālib and his father Zaynul A'bideen A'li bn Al-husayn bn A'li bn Abee Tālib about the rightful caliphacy of Abu Bakr and U'mar.
Al-Imām Siddiq Hasan Khān said in his "Ad-deenul Khālis 384":
It is established in linguistic books, Hadith explanations, and historical texts that the term "Rafidah" (Rejectionists) was given to this group because they asked Imam Zayn al-Abidin (Ali ibn Husayn ibn Ali, may Allah be pleased with them) to disavow Abu Bakr and Umar.
He replied, "They were my grandfather's ministers (or advisors)." The group rejected him and abandoned him, and thus they came to be known as "Rafidah" (those who rejected).
وقد ثبت في كتب اللغة، وشرح الحديث، وكتب التاريخ: أن الرافضة إنما ثبت لهم هذا اللقب؛ لما طلبوا من الإمام زين بن علي بن الحسين بن علي -رضي الله عنهم- أن يتبرأ من أبي بكر وعمر.
فقال: هما وزيرا جدي، فرفضوه، وفارقوه، فسموا حينئذ: "الرافضة".
Al-Imām Ibn As-sikkīt who was said to have some level of shiism in him, said in his "Tarteeb Islāhil Mantiq 1/176:
"Al-Rafd" (الرفض) is the verbal noun of "rafaḍtu al-shay' arfuḍuh," meaning "I rejected or abandoned something."
Al-Asma'i said:
"The Rafidah were named so because they abandoned (rafaḍu) Zayd."
الرفض : والرفض : مصدر رفضت الشيء أرفضه ، إذا تركته ، قال الأصمعي : ومنه سميت الرافضة ، لأنهم تركوا زيدا.
As for the statement of Al-Imām Ibnu Abdilbarr the writer mentioned that some companions held that A'li bn Abee Tālib was better than Abu Bakr and U'mar, this was a statement attributed to these companions without any basis, as a matter of fact, authentic reports from these companions says otherwise.
The likes of Al-Imām Ash-shāfi'i whose era was close to that of the students of the companions reported a concensus amongst the companions that Abu Bakr and U'mar were better.
Al-Imām Ibnu Hajar Al-Haythamī mentioned this in his "As-sawāi'qul muhriqah 172 when he was responding to the claim mentioned by Al-Imām Ibnu Abdilbarr. He said:
I say: As for what he (Ibnu Abdilbarr) narrated initially about the Salaf (early scholars) differing over the superiority of the two (Abu Bakr and Umar), it is a strange claim that he uniquely holds, unlike others who are more knowledgeable and well-versed. Therefore, it cannot be relied upon.
This is especially so since many prominent Imams, including Imam Shafi'i (may Allah be pleased with him), as narrated by Al-Bayhaqi and others, have narrated the consensus of the Companions and the Tabi'un (their successors) on the superiority of Abu Bakr and Umar and their precedence over all other Companions.
The differences among them, if any, were regarding Ali and Uthman. Even if it is assumed that Ibn Abd al-Barr preserved something that others did not, it can be responded to by saying that the Imams dismissed this view due to its anomalous nature, either because they considered it a deviation that does not undermine the consensus or because they saw it as a later development after the consensus had already been established, thus rendering it irrelevant and subject to rejection.
The understanding from Ibn Abd al-Barr's statement is that the consensus was firmly established on the superiority of the two Shaykhs (Abu Bakr and Umar) over the other two (Ali and Uthman).
قلت أما مَا حَكَاهُ أَولا من أَن السّلف اخْتلفُوا فِي تفضيلهما فَهُوَ شَيْء غَرِيب انْفَرد بِهِ عَن غَيره مِمَّن هُوَ أجل مِنْهُ حفظا واطلاعا فَلَا يعول عَلَيْهِ فَكيف والحاكي لإِجْمَاع الصَّحَابَة وَالتَّابِعِينَ على تَفْضِيل أبي بكر وَعمر وتقديمهما على سَائِر الصَّحَابَة جمَاعَة من أكَابِر الْأَئِمَّة مِنْهُم الشَّافِعِي رَضِي الله تَعَالَى عَنهُ كَمَا حَكَاهُ عَنهُ الْبَيْهَقِيّ وَغَيره وَأَن من اخْتلف مِنْهُم إِنَّمَا اخْتلف فِي عَليّ وَعُثْمَان وعَلى التنزل فِي أَنه حفظ مَا لم يحفظ غَيره فيجاب عَنهُ بِأَن الْأَئِمَّة إِنَّمَا أَعرضُوا عَن هَذِه الْمقَالة لشذوذها ذَهَابًا إِلَى أَن شذوذ الْمُخَالف لَا يقْدَح فِيهِ أَو رَأَوْا أَنَّهَا حَادِثَة بعد انْعِقَاد الْإِجْمَاع فَكَانَت فِي حيّز الطرح وَالرَّدّ على أَن الْمَفْهُوم من كَلَام ابْن عبد الْبر أَن الْإِجْمَاع اسْتَقر على تَفْضِيل الشَّيْخَيْنِ على الختنين.
Also, Al-Imām Ibnu Abdilbarr was very careful about the claim, he used what we call "Seeghatu At-tamreedh" "A wording of uncertainty" رُوِيَ [It was mentioned] in the science of hadeeth.
Click here to go to the main page about the Shiah.
