Section 2: The Prophet's Companions, Q's 10-11

Moving on to a very emotive topic of discussion when it comes to discussing the differences between Shias and Sunnis - the companion's of the Holy Prophet. When I try to engage with Sunnis on various forums on the internet, the usual attacks are around our apparent views on the companions, specifically the first 3 caliphs after the Holy Prophet's death. We are apparently known for repeatedly cursing certain companions and displaying outright hatred towards them. In this section I will answer some of the common questions about our views on the companions.

Q10: Why are Shias against the companions?

Shias are not against the companions per se, but are stricter when it comes to deciding who is a good companion of the Holy Prophet and who is not. Sunnis seem to cast anyone associated with the Holy Prophet as a companion and then go on to describe them as people beyond reproach, sometimes based on the faintest of connections with the Holy Prophet.

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Sunni scholar, in his works on the companions, al-Isaba fi tamyiz al-Sahaba, describes them as: "Every one who has narrated a hadith or a word from the Prophet, or seen him while believing in him, is counted among the Sahabah. Also (of the Sahabah) is any one who has met the Prophet with believing in him, and died as a Muslim, whether his meeting with him being long or short, narrating from him or not... ...or who has seen him without sitting with him, or has not seen him due to an excuse." Taking these criteria, the companions number into the 100,000s, and they are all beyond reproach, criticism and questioning.

Turning to the Quran, Allah separates the companions into three categories. Firstly there are the good companions:

"Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other. Thou wilt see them bow and prostrate themselves (in prayer), seeking Grace from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure. On their faces are their marks, (being) the traces of their prostration." (Surah 48, Verse 29)

These are the companions that no Muslim should have any problem with, people like Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, Salman e-Farsi and Ammar ibn Yasir. Sunni scholer Ibn Hajar al-Haytami in his book Al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah states that the Holy Prophet said "Verily, Allah has commanded me to love four persons and has told me that He loves them." When the people asked who these four persons were, he said: "Ali bin Abu Talib, Abu Dharr, Miqdad, and Salman."

Then the Quran refers to the not so good companions:

"O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter." (Surah 9, Verse 38)

There were many events during the time of the Holy Prophet where various companions doubted his decisions and verdicts. Examples include the signing of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah when certain companions doubted the Holy Prophet and questioned whether signing the treaty was a good move for the Muslims. Then there was the Battle of Uhud when certain companions fled the battlefield in fear of defeat and others stayed behind to defend the Holy Prophet and fight in the name of Islam. We know who these companions are, they are clearly mentioned in all the history books. Are such companions meant to be beyond criticism?

"O ye who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet, nor speak aloud to him in talk, as ye may speak aloud to one another, lest your deeds become vain and ye perceive not." (Surah 49, Verse 2)

As the Holy Prophet lay on his deathbed, nearing the end of his life, he asked some companions for a pen and paper to write his last instructions, his last will. Instead he was shouted down by some companions and said to be delirious! Astagfirullah. "When Allah's Apostle was on his death-bed and in the house there were some people among whom was 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, the Prophet said, "Come, let me write for you a statement after which you will not go astray." 'Umar said, "The Prophet is seriously ill and you have the Qur'an; so the Book of Allah is enough for us." The people present in the house differed and quarrelled. Some said "Go near so that the Prophet may write for you a statement after which you will not go astray," while the others said as Umar said. When they caused a hue and cry before the Prophet, Allah's Apostle said, "Go away!" Narrated 'Ubaidullah: Ibn 'Abbas used to say, "It was very unfortunate that Allah's Apostle was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise." (Sahih Bukhari, Vol 7, Book 70, No. 573)

Lastly, the Quran refers to the hypocrites, those who pretend to be close to the Prophet and Islam. There is a whole Surah in the Quran dedicated to them - Surah 63, The Hypocrites.

"When the Hypocrites come to thee, they say, "We bear witness that thou art indeed the Messenger of Allah." Yea, Allah knoweth that thou art indeed His Messenger, and Allah beareth witness that the Hypocrites are indeed liars. They have made their oaths a screen (for their misdeeds): thus they obstruct (men) from the Path of Allah: truly evil are their deeds." (Surah 63, Verses 1-2)

Some of this hypocrites, even the Holy Prophet was unaware of and their punishment awaits on the Day of Judgement:

"And among those around you of the wandering Arabs there are hypocrites, and among the townspeople of Al-Madinah (there are some who) persist in hypocrisy whom thou (O Muhammad) knowest not. We, We know them, and We shall chastise them twice; then they will be relegated to a painful doom." (Surah 9, Verse 101)

This has been further complimented by Sahih Bukahri, "The companions of the Prophet said, "Some men from my companions will come to my Lake-Fount and they will be driven away from it, and I will say, 'O Lord, my companions!' It will be said, 'You have no knowledge of what they innovated after you left: they turned apostate as renegades (reverted from Islam)." (Vol 8, Book 76, No. 586). So who are these people, who are these companions referenced in the Holy Quran and Sahih Bukhari? Certain companions will be punished according to the Quran and the hadith and yet we are meant to treat every companion as an equal?

We should recognise that the Holy Prophet was surrounded by great men, but he was also surrounded by not so good men and also by rank hypocrites. Not all of them are worthy of praise and blessing. Surely, it makes sense to be more analytical and precise when it comes to deciding which are the suitable companions to follow.

I agree that cursing of certain companions does take place by some Shias, I can't deny that. However, I know many people disagree with such practices and many Shia scholars have criticised such actions. I agree, there is no need for curses and hatred towards some of the companions. Instead, we should focus on dialogue and discussion about the history and why some companions are worthy of much reverence over others.

Q11: For the sake of Islam and unity, shouldn't we just follow all the companions?

There is a hadith in some Sunni books by the Holy Prophet: "My Companions are like the stars; whoever among them you use for guidance, you will be rightly guided." Firstly, this is a highly questionable hadith; its authenticity has been questioned by many Sunni and Shia scholars alike. Secondly, for arguments sake, let's accept the hadith to be true - it doesn't actually make much sense. How can we follow all or any of the companions without question? For example, how can I follow both the third caliph Uthman ibn Affan and the great companion Abu Dharr? Uthman had Abu Dharr whipped and exiled from Madina to the desert where he eventually died alone. How can I follow both of these companions?

There are many examples of such conflicting choices when deciding who to follow amongst the companions. Another example is at the Battle of Jamal, on one side was Imam Ali (as) and the other was Talha and Zubayr, companions of the Holy Prophet. They went to battle against each other. How can we follow both? We have to follow those companions who were on the side of the truth. At the Battle of Jamal who was on the side of truth? It is illogical to try to argue that we should just follow all the companions.

Next time I will continue with section 2 by focusing on some particular companions, those who perhaps attract the most criticism amongst Shias. Still to come after that, will be some questions about the succession to the Holy Prophet and also some about Imam Ali (as).

Section 1: Muharrum, Q's 5-9 - Killing of Imam Husain (as), revolt against Yazid, Karbala a defeat, evilness of Yazid & Ashura

The next few questions explore some of the history leading up to the tragedy of Karbala. I'll be discussing claims that the Shia were indirectly responsible for the death of Imam Husain (as), that Imam Husain (as) was wrong to stand up to Yazid ibn Muawiya and somehow Yazid ibn Muawiya was not an evil tyrant. Along with that, I'll be explaining how despite his martydom, Imam Husain (as) was victorious after the events of Karbala.

Q5: Weren't Shia's responsible for killing Imam Husain (as)?

Before the events of Karbala, Imam Husain (as) was living in Medina. He was facing increasing pressure to give allegiance to Yazid ibn Muawiya. Fearing violence in the holy city of Medina, Imam Husain (as) was looking for a way out of the city. The people of Kufa wrote several letters to the Imam inviting him to come and live amongst them, to lead as their Imam.

Imam Husain (as) sent his cousin Muslim ibn Aqeel to visit Kufa and see for himself how genuine the support was for the Imam. Upon his arrival, Muslim was greeted by thousands of well-wishers confirming their allegiance to Imam Husain (as), begging for his arrival. Yazid sent the cursed Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad to replace the sitting governor after Umar ibn Saad (leader of Yazid ibn Muawiya's army at Karbala) wrote to him, making him aware of the situation: "Muslim bin Aqeel has come to Kufa and the Shia have given the oath of allegiance to him on behalf of al Hussain bin Ali. If you have any need of Kufah then send a strong man there who will carry out your orders and act in the same way as you would against your enemy. Al Nauman bin Bashir is a weak man or he is acting like a weak man" (Tabari, Chaper 19). Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad quickly spread fear around Kufa, threatening to kill anyone who supported the arrival of Imam Husain (as).

Unfortunately, the faith of the Kufans was not strong; Islam had only arrived in Kufa during the calpihate of Umar ibn Khattab. He had set it up as a military fort during his rule and it was then the hub of Imam Ali's (as) caliphate. When word of the threats of Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad spread, the supporters fled in their droves out of fear. Muslim ibn Aqeel was captured and executed after refusing to turn away from Imam Husain (as).

This idea that because the Kufans turned their back on Imam Husain (as) when threatened by torture and killings and therefore were responsible for the Imam's death is wrong. Ubaydullah's threats were not mere words, he imposed a curfew on Kufa, actively sent his army to look out for people who were supporting Muslim ibn Aqeel and even spread rumours that the Syrian army was arriving to support him in his quest to shut down any support for Imam Husain (as). "Women began to come to their sons and brothers, urging them to go away as the people would be enough without them. Every man went to his son or his brother telling him, ‘Tomorrow the Syrians will come against you. What have you to do with the war and this evil doing? Go away.’ Thus, each took someone away. They continued to disperse so that by the time evening came Muslim b Aqil only had thirty men with him in the mosque" (Tabari, Chaper 19). Great fear was spread throughout Kufa by his aggressive actions and many supporters of Imam Husain (as) were executed in Kufa. Despite this, several Shia Kufans managed to escape the city and fought alongside Imam Husain (as), sacrificing their lives in Karbala.

Q6: Wasn't Imam Husain (as) wrong to revolt against the ruler of his time, Yazid?

In 2007, Peace TV owner Dr. Zakir Naik sparked controversy when speaking in his annual Peace Conference. He claimed that the tragedy of Karbala was merely a "political war," a "difference of opinion" and went on to call Yazid Radiallah ta'la anho (may Allah be pleased with him)! He was rightly condemned by Shia and Sunnis alike.

Firstly, Yazid was never a legitimate rule of the Islamic kingdom. He was appointed as successor to his father Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan after his death - totally going against the treaty that Muawiya has struck with Imam Hasan (as). After his death, the caliphate was meant to return to Imam Hasan and Imam Husain (as). If he wanted to, Imam Husain (as) was perfectly entitled to stand up against Yazid.

Secondly, Imam Husain (as) did not lead a revolt against Yazid. He never set out to fight against Yazid's army. When he was faced with Hur and his small battalion as they commanded him to turn his camp and escorted him to Karbala, he had the upper hand and could've resisted, but he never intended to fight or be the aggressor.

Charles Dickens perhaps understood it best when he said "If Hussain fought to quench his worldly desires, then I do not understand why his sisters, wives and children accompanied him. It stands to reason therefore that he sacrificed purely for Islam." Imam Husain (as) did not revolt against Yazid, he went out of his way leave Medina in order to avoid any bloodshed. He was happy to leave the rule of Yazid and be left alone.

Q7: Don't Shia's exaggerate how bad Yazid truly was?

Certain defenders of Yazid ibn Muawiya try to refer to the expedition to Caesar's City when Yazid ibn Muawiya was said to have led the Muslim army into battle. They refer to the following Sahih Bukhari hadith:

"Umair said. Um Haram informed us that she heard the Prophet saying, "Paradise is granted to the first batch of my followers who will undertake a naval expedition." Um Haram added, I said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Will I be amongst them?' He replied, 'You are amongst them.' The Prophet then said, 'The first army amongst' my followers who will invade Caesar's City will be forgiven their sins." (Sahih Bukhari,Volume 4, Book 52, No. 175)

During the time of Muawiya's caliphate, he commanded an army to attack Caesar's City and some claim that Yazid was in the army ranks. If he was, then this hadith has been used as an attempt to "forgive" Yazid of his numerous crimes. It is highly disputable that Yazid was in the army at all. In Tareekh Kamil, Volume 3, Ali ibn al-Athir narrates: "In 50 Hijri, Muawiyyah (RTA) sent huge army to Caesar (Rome) and appointed Sufyan bin Au’f as Commander of the army. He also ordered his son Yazid to join the army. Yazid made excuses and said that he was feeling ill. Muawiyyah freed him."

Even if Yazid ibn Muawiya was in the army that attacked Caesar's City and the hadith is accurate, does it mean he is guaranteed forgiveness, regardless of his actions? There is no such thing as unconditional guarantees in Islam. Can he be forgiven for ordering the killing of the grandson of the Holy Prophet? If you want to gloss over that horrendous act, what about what he did in the second and third years of his short rule. Tabari narrates the massacre at Medina when the forces of Yazid ibn Muawiya killed thousands of people, raped hundreds of women and then moved onto Mecca in the third year, setting fire to the Holy Kaaba! This is someone who Allah should be pleased with?

Q8: The Battle of Karbala was a big loss for Imam Husain (as)?

The tragedy of Karbala was a mission of truth, the truth of Islam, Allah and the Holy Prophet. It was a mission to expose the enemies of truth, Yazid ibn Muawiya and Bani Ummayah. Imam Husain's (as) victory was achieved by suffering, struggling and the ultimate sacrifice. It is what has made it everlasting, leaving a permanent imprint on our consciousness.

The Holy Prophet had struggled to suppress the ignorance and anger of the Arabs and a mere 50 years after his death the anger had risen up once more. The strength of the uprising, personified by the evil tyrant Yazid ibn Muawiya was powerful enough to deface the Holy Prophet's actions. In Imam Husain's (as) mind, Islam was in need of reactivation and thus it required a complete overhaul, complete revolution. This could only be achieved by suffering and sacrifice, through a physical and spiritual jihad not seen before in human history and seen again since. Imam Husain (as) did not set out to fight a military battle, so the face that he, along with his companions were brutally killed by the far bigger, much more heavily armed army, is irrelevant to the concepts of victory and defeat.

You measure victory by achievements of stated aims. Yazid ibn Muawiya's aim was to get the pledge of allegiance from Imam Husain (as). Imam Husain's (as) aim is not to bow his head to tyranny, to illegitimate rulers and to stay on the true path of Islam. Imam Husain (as) and after his death, the 4th Holy Imam, Imam Zainul Abedeen (as) did not bow to Yazid. In fact, no Imam was ever asked again to give allegiance by any future caliph.

Q9: Isn't Ashura mean to be celebrated by fasting?

I have addressed this most ridiculous of Muharrum myths in an earlier post: Myth of Ashura.

That concludes section 1, questions on Muharrum. Next time I will be discussing some common questions about the companions of the Holy Prophet, including the first 3 kulifahs.