Shaykh Ali Halabi stated the Saqqaaf attacked and abused this companion, however his followers accused Shaykh Ali Halabi of lying. Here I present a translation of Saqqaaf's footnotes to ‘Daf` Shubah at-Tashbeeh’ provided to me by his own followers to refute their claim.
Saqqaaf states in his footnotes to ‘Daf` Shubah’ (pg. 237),
"I say: and Mu`aawiyah killed a group of righteous people from the Sahaabah and other noble personalities for the sake of gaining sovereignty. And from those was Abd ar-Rahmaan bin Khaalid bin Waleed. Ibn Jareer said in his ‘Taareekh’ (3/202) and ibn Atheer in ‘al-Kaamil’ (3/453) and the wording is his,
‘And the reason for his - Abd ar-Rahmaan bin Khaalid bin Waleed - death was that he became prominent in the eyes of the People of Shaam, and they inclined towards him due to his possessing characteristics of his father, and due to his usefulness (to the Muslims) in the Land of the Romans, and due to his great courage. So Mu`aawiyah became afraid and apprehensive of him, and commanded ibn Uthaal, the Christian, that he plan his murder. Mu`aawiyah guaranteed him exemption from his tax for as long as he lived and that he would be placed in charge of the tax revenues of Homs (a land in central Syria).
So when Abd ar-Rahmaan returned from Rum, ibn Uthaal slipped him a poisoned drink through the means of his servants. So he drank it and died at Hums, and Mu`aawiyah fulfilled what he had guaranteed ibn Uthaal.’
I say: is it permissible to kill a Muslim, and Allaah says, ‘and whosoever kills a believer deliberately, then his reward is Hellfire, to remain in there forever. And the Anger of Allaah is upon him and His Curse, and a great punishment is prepared for him" (4/93)?! And it was due to this that Hasan al-Basri said, with regards to Mu`aawiyah, as in ‘al-Kaamil’ (3/487),
‘There were four characteristics in Mu`aawiyah, and any one of them would have been a grave offense: His hastening towards evil by the sword against this Ummah until he took the matter (Khilaafate) without consultation, and amongst them were the remaining Sahaabah and other notable people. His passing the rule onto his son, an alcoholic, wearer of silk, and player of musical instruments. His claim to Ziyaad, and the Messenger of Allaah (SAW) said, "the child is for the bed, and for the fornicator is stoning." And he killed Hujr and the companions of Hujr, so woe to him for what he did to Hujr! And woe to him for what he did to the companions of Hujr!’
[This is related without an isnaad in ‘al-Kaamil’ but there is an isnaad to it in at-Tabaree but it is fabricated according to the standards of the scholars of hadeeth. See ‘Ittihaaf Ahl al-Fadl’ (vol 1) of Shaikh Naasir al-Alwaan for an in depth discussion. So Saqqaaf is blameworthy for narrating something to prove his corrupt stance which is not quoted with an isnaad in the reference he gives, and hence impermissible as evidence. Secondly he is blameworthy for quoting something that after investigation turns out to be a fabrication! ]
I say: so when the life of Mu`aawiyah is like this!!
[A clear statement that all that has preceded was with regards to this noble companion]
There does not occur anything from the Prophet (SAW) with regards to his virtues, and al-Haafidh adh-Dhahabee quotes in ‘Siyar A`laam an-Nubalaa’ (3/132) from Ishaaq bin Raahaway that he said, ‘there is nothing authentic from the Prophet (SAW) on the virtue of Mu`aawiyah’
And it is established in the Saheeh of Muslim (3/2010 no.2604) from ibn Abbaas that he Prophet (SAW) said to him. ‘go and call Mu`aawiyah.’ He said, ‘so I returned and said, "he is eating"’ so the Messenger (SAW) said, ‘may Allaah not fill his belly’
And on (pg. 241),
"So is an ijtihaad correct which allows killing Muslims, believing in the Oneness of Allaah.....?!
And is an ijtihaad permissible when there occurs a text (on the point in question)?! And it is mutawaatir from him (SAW) that he said about our Master Ammaar who fought alongside the Leader of the Believers, our Master Ali, ‘you will be killed by the aggressive party’ as is established in Bukhaaree and Muslim.
So is an ijtihaad valid despite the occurrence of many authentic texts (against it), from amongst them his saying (SAW), with regards to our Master Ali (RA), ‘the one to whom I am the mawlaa then Ali is his mawlaa. O Allaah love the one who loves him, and show enmity to the one who shows enmity to him.’
And al-Haafidh adh-Dhahabee said in ‘Siyar A`laam an-Nubala’ (8/335) about this hadeeth, ‘mutawaatir.’
And in the Saheeh of Muslim (no.78 in al-Eemaan) about our Master Ali (RA) from him that he said, ‘indeed the promise of the unlettered Prophet (SAW) to me was, "none save a believer will love you, and none save a hypocrite will hate you."’
I say: so what is the ruling on the one that commands abusing and cursing our Master Ali the mawlaa of the believers by the testimony of the Messenger of the Lord of the Universe upon the pulpits?!!
And what is the ruling of the one who tests his subjects by cursing our Master Ali (RA) and to disassociate from him, and kills the one who does not abuse and curse him?!!
And from the strange, truly laughable things after this is that you find ibn Katheer saying in the ‘chapter on Covenants (Aqd)’ in his ‘Taareekh’ (8/20) about the virtue of Mu`aawiyah, ‘he is Mu`aawiyah bin Abee Sufyaan... uncle of the believers, and the writer of the revelation of the Lord of the Universe, he embraced Islaam and his father and mother were Hindus... on the Day of the Conquest.’ Then he said after that, ‘and the intention here is to show that Mu`aawiyah used to write the revelation alongside others....’
[This proves that all that has preceded is with regards to Mu`aawiyah. However it should be known that there is no clear authentic text that shows that Mu`aawiyah ever commanded that Ali be abused on the pulpits.]
I say: No, by Allaah other than Whom there is none worthy of worship, your words are not correct O ibn Katheer, and not what you depend upon or what you think. As for your saying, ‘uncle of the believers’, then this is not correct at all, and that is because this does not occur in any authentic Sunnah or narration. And (building) upon your saying that Mu`aawiyah is the Uncle of the believers - then Habee bin Akhtab, the Jew, would be the grandfather of the believers, because he is the father of Sayyida Safiyyah, the wife of the Messenger (SAW), and this is not so."
I ask the reader: what happened to the advice of all those early scholars that order us to keep silent about the Companions? What happened about having good opinion of our predecessors, especially the Companions?
Enough of a virtue is it for Mu`aawiyah that Allaah chose him to be a writer of His revelation! And it is authentic from the Messenger (SAW) that he prayed for Mu`aawiyah with these words: "O Allaah! Teach Mu`aawiyah the Book, and save him from the fire" [Ahmad (4/127), Ibn Hibbaan (566)]
And likewise it is authentic from him, (SAW) that he said about this noble companion, "O Allaah make him one who is guided and guiding" ['Silsilah as-Saheehah’ (no.1969)]
And the Messenger (SAW) said, "None should revile my Companions, for if one amongst you were to spend as much gold as Uhud, it would not amount to as much as one mudd of one of them or half of it." [Muslim]
And may Allaah have Mercy upon Imaam Abu Zur`ah ar-Raazi who said, "if you see a man speak ill of any of the Companions of the Messenger of Allaah (SAW), then know he is a heretic." [‘al-Kifaayah’ (pg.97) of Khateeb al-Baghdaadee]
How much of this criticism of Saqqaf about his position on Muawiyah is true?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Abu Shayba
.
Bookmarks