The Ghumari brothers: Opinions of the Ulema?

[faqir]

brother Faqir..inshaAllah Sheikh will be visiting Toronto this July inshaAllah...i will definetly try asking him his own personal view and why is he defending Shaykh Sayyid Abdullah bin Siddiq al-Hasani...i am in touch with brother Salmaan as well....

salaam

It is Shaykh Ahmad al-Ghumari that is being referred to above.

JazakAllah khair for clarifying this in any case

[saalikulilm]

Assalamu `alaykum:

This topic has interested me for a long time, and unfortunately I have not found too many satisfactory answers for my questions. I have some trouble believing that Mu'awiya was *completely* sinless based upon the fitna that ensued, but also I have some trouble holding that he was a kafir (if we were to take the Sunni position that people who commit major sins are not kafir as long as they don't think what they did was lawful).

As for some who were wondering what Sidi Ahmed may have based his judgment on, then it is as follows:

(a) MU'AWIYA CURSED `ALI

Imam Ibn Majah narrates in his Sunan (Introduction [muqaddima], virtues of `Ali ibn Abi Talib):

حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيّ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ. حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ. حَدَّثَنَا مُوْسَى بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ، عَنْ ابْن سَابِطٍ، وَهُوَ عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ، عَنْ سَعْد بْنُ أَبِي وَقَّاص؛
قَالَ: قَدِمَ مُعَاوِيَةَ فِي بَعْضِ حَجَّاتِهِ، فَدَخَلَ عَلَيْهِ سَعْد، فَذَكَرُوا عَلِيُّاً. فَنَالَ مِنْهُ. فَغَضِبَ سَعْد، وَقَالَ: تَقُولُ هَذَا لِرَجُلٍ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسلَّمْ يَقُولُ (مَنْ كُنْت مَوْلاَهُ فَعَلِيُّ مَوْلاَهُ) وَسَمِعْتُهُ يَقُولُ (أَنْتَ مِنِّي بِمَنْزِلَةِ هَارُونَ مِنْ مُوْسَى إِلاَّ أَنَّهُ لاَ نَبِيَّ بَعْدي) وَسَمِعْتُهُ يَقُولُ (لأُعْطِيَنَّ الرَّأَيةَ الْيَوْمَ رَجُلاً يُحِبُّ اللَّه وَرَسُولَهُ)؟

>ش< فنال منه:
أي نال معاوية من علي, ووقع فيه وسبه - كما في شرح السندي على سنن ابن ماجة

I've had a hard time finding someone who disputed the authenticity of the hadith.

(b) WHOEVER CURSES 'ALI, CURSES THE PROPHET

Imam Ahmad relates in his Musnad

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي حدثنا يحيى بن أبي بكير قال حدثنا إسرائيل عن أبي إسحق عن عبد الله الجدلي قال دخلت على أم سلمة فقالت لي: أيسب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فيكم قلت معاذ الله أو سبحان الله أو كلمة نحوها قالت: سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول:
-من سب عليا فقد سبني ومن سبني فقد سب الله

Umm Salama told `Abdullah al-Jadali: Do any of you curse the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace? He replied, "I seek refuge in Allah!" or "May Allah be glorified!" or something like that. She then said, "I heard the Messenger of Allah - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - say: "Whoever curses `Ali, has cursed me, and whoever curses me, curses Allah."

Sidi Ahmed probably thought this hadith was authentic. If this is the case, then he concluded that: Mu'awiya cursed `Ali, cursing `Ali is like cursing the Prophet, cursing the Prophet is kufr, therefore Mu'awiya is a kafir.

Since many muhaddithin have thought the above hadiths were authentic, the only possible defense that I see against asserting that Mu'awiya was a kafir, is that the above hadiths are ahad, and one can only declare someone kafir based upon a mutawatir hadith.

Wasallam.

[godilali]

It is most disturbing to hear that those who consider themselves Ahlus Sunnah would accuse the Sahaba of kufr or even trangression. You will find many people condemning (rightfully so) Mawdudi or Sayyid Qutb for being implicitly insolent toward the Sahaba (claiming Sayyidina Uthman ra had weak leadership ability,etc.) , so can we honestly ignore explicit statements against Sayyidina Muawiyah ra, who Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wa sallam loved, and whom the vast majority of the Ulama considered to be an upright person?

"We love the Companions of the Messenger of Allah but we do not go to excess in our love for any one individual among them; nor do we disown any one of them. We hate anyone who hates them or does not speak well of them and we only speak well of them. Love of them is a part of Islam, part of belief and part of excellent behavior, while hatred of them is unbelief, hypocrisy and rebellion."-Aqidah at-Tahawiyyah

(I am not making any accusations towards the Ghumaris or Sayyid Ninowi, but I feel that I should distance myself from anyone who speaks ill of any Sahabi)

Inshallah the Haq is found on the path of moderation, not that of the Shiah or the Khwarij.

May Allah tabaraka wa t'aala guide us all to the way of the Prophet and his Companions

[saalikulilm]

Wa `alaykum assalam:

(1) As I said before, I do not believe Mu'awiya is a kafir. Rather, I hold that basing his kufr on such a hadith (which is not only ahad, but there is a difference of opinion on its authenticity) is skating on thin ice.

(2) There is an ikhtilaf about the kufr of the deviated sects, including the Khawarij. A minute look into even the most basic books of 'aqida (i.e. Sharh Jawharat at-Tawhid) would point out this fact.

(3) "As Imam Ash'ari says, we disassociate ourselves from those who speak against the Companions." What about Mu'awiya, who spoke evil about an even greater companion?

(4) "I find it odd that people are ready to defend and overlook Ahmad ibn Siddiq Al Ghumari mistakes who [1] Called a Sahabi a Kafir [2] Did not accept that Abu Bakr wa Umar were the greatest after the Prophet [3] Claimed that Ikhtilaaf was not a mercy [4] Claimed he was a Mujtahid Mutlaq etc. but are not willing to overlook the mistakes of the Companions of the Prophet - Allah bless him and grant him peace -."

Sidi Ahmad is not responsible for the death of Sayyiduna 'Ammar ibn Yassir. Mu'awiya is. Then, Mu'awiya went ahead and tried to blame Sayyiduna 'Ali (ra) of his death!

Sidi Ahmad never cursed *any* member of the Ahl al-Bayt, whom the Prophet (s) recommended that we follow (i.e. the righteous knowledgeable scholars amongst them), Mu'awiya did.

Sidi Ahmad never refused bay'a to the Imam of his time. Mu'awiya did. This alone is a *major* sin (kabira).

The list can go on and on.

[Muawiyah]

A look at basic books of 'aqidah would show that speaking against any of the companions is not the way of the Sunni. The tactic of the Habashi firqah is that they first claim that it is an Ash`ari position to ascribe fisq to those of the companions who opposed `Ali Radhi Allahu `anhu, then when this deviated firqah is shown the statements of the Aima clearing these companions of fisq they pull a "la-madhabi" routine on you and claim that it's against the primary sources. There have been whole books written by Ash`ari `ulama defending Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan Radhi Allahu Ta'ala `anhu.

So, if this firqah bases its claims on Ash`arism, we can bring the statements of the ash`ari aima to refute them and if it bases its claims on "primary evidences" we can bring primary evidences.

[Yahya]

Also I might add here, that these ahadith serve a purpose. Imam al-Bukhari and Imam Muslim did not narrate them with the purpose of smearing the names of various Sahaba. Rather, they recognized that they have a religious obligation to warn the Muslims against ALL prohibited actions. And mentioning these ahadith serves that purpose.

[saalikulilm]

Salman:

Mu'awiya spoke ill of one of the Companions (i.e. `Ali), as narrated in Sunan ibn Majah. There is no way to interpret the wording figuratively (i.e. the Arabic language does not have a figurative meaning that fits in with the siyaq of the hadith). as-Sandi tried to say that "cursing him" actually meant "disagreed with his ijtihad", but this does not make sense as Sa'd became angry and began to quote a few hadiths in favor of `Ali. If this were all a matter of ijtihad, there would be no reason for Sa`d to be angry, much less mention hadiths that indicate that `Ali loves Allah and His Messenger. What relevance does the latter have to ijtihad, unless Mu'awiya was detracting from `Ali's status?

[Yahya]

But isn't there a difference between mentioning a mistake of a Sahabi, and harboring spite towards them? That's my point. Imam al-Bukhari and Imam Muslim (rahimahumallah) did not harbor spite towards the Sahaba. They did not question their validity as narrators.

They narrated what was said about events involving them, including some where the Prophet said a Sahabi would be in hellfire. Clearly, in such an instance, the Sahabi in question committed a sin. However, mentioning this episode without cursing the Sahabi, nor degrading him, and recognizing that his excellence is FAR superior to ours, and acknowledging with tears the FACT that they have seen Habibullah while we could only dream of such a thing, is not necessarily what Imam Malik (rahimahullah) and the others were talking about.

Ladtly, there is a difference between what Imam Bukhari narrated and what the modern day Habashis and Ghumaris do i.e. intentionally seek out the faults of the companions to prove a point!

And, having studied a little bit with some students of al-Habashi, I can personally attest that when they mention the "faults" of some Sahaba, they do with the purpose of distinguishing, in terms of aqida, what the difference is between a prophet and a wali. They never fail to acknowledge the high status of the Sahaba, the fact that they are awliya', the fact that many of them were mujtahids, and to mention some of the karamaat associated with them. I assure you, they do not seek to disgrace the Sahaba.

Rather they bring this subject up in order to address one of the problems that we face as an Ummah nowadays. Namely, there are false Sufis out there who claim that they are protected from sin (ma'soom). In reality, this is an attribute of a prophet, and it is not attainable by a non-prophet. This is when they mention that the highest awliyaa' known in this ummah, namely the Sahaba, were not protected from sin, and they were chosen by Allah. Again, I assure you, they do not mention these sins except in a way that confirms their high status, and it is only to protect the aqidah of ahlus-sunnati wal-jamaa'a.

[saalikulilm]

brother yahya, i must disagree with you. `Abdullah al-Harari's al-Dalil al-Shar'i 'ala ithbat 'isyan man qatalahum `Ali had nothing to do with false Sufis claiming `isma. It was totally, as the title indicates, to point out that Mu'awiya was sinful in fighting `Ali, and not just mistaken in doing so.

[Omar HH]

Ustadha Aisha Beweley wrote a good book about Mu'awiyah (RA).

I love Mu'awiyah, I love Ali, and I love Hasan and Husyan (Radi Allahu 'Aynhum)