Genuine question: Does this kufr rule apply to all sahabas or just some?
Re: Revile towards the Sahaba will indicate kufr (part 2)
good question ! ...
if u want to honestly know the answer to this ( and this is not an excuse to take potshots at sunnis like most 12ers do ) I suggest u read about the debate between ahle sunnah vs mutazilla
and the genesis of the position of sahaba in sunni hadith collections.
...some sahaba were targets of more criticism than others so it seems that emphasis is lopsided but in theory it applies to all ( with certain exceptions e.g some nawasib leaning scholars may criticize pro-alid sahaba while not outright condemning them while some pro-alid scholars will criticize uthmanid sahaba without doing the same)
Cursing abu bakr or umar however was seen as a sign of extreme devience and rafidha ....so was cursing of Ali typical of nawasib.But with heavy shift of ahle sunnah in favor of ahlulbayt the nawasib either died out or stopped directly attacking ali & his sons.So cursing sahaba was more of an issue dealing with rafidha sects
so theoratically u cant criticize even minor ( but partisan) sahaba like abul ghadiya jahuni and jahja b amr ghifari ...but that is frequently done as the average person does not know ( or even cares ) about them.
Re: Revile towards the Sahaba will indicate kufr (part 2)
You say Caliph Uthman and Imam ALi were criticised the most...who were the major critics and does this then indicate a form of kufr on the critics behalf?
[QUOTE]
You say Caliph Uthman and Imam ALi were criticised the most...who were the major critics
[/QUOTE]
yes as the civil war had broken out by then....major critics were sahaba and tabaeen on both sides too numerous to name all of them
3 groups
pro-ali , anti-uthman
anti-ali pro-ummayyad
pro-uthman but anti-ummayyad
[QUOTE]
and does this then indicate a form of kufr on the critics behalf?
[/QUOTE]
this kufr or no kufr is a argumentation of later stages.... during the civil war both sides accused each other of deviation but neither accused each other of outright apostasy
criticizing sahaba became taboo first in time of umar b abdul aziz radiallahanhu as was trying to heal the rifts of the civil war
policy was simply "dont ask dont tell"about intra-sahaba conflicts >>>and this later became the official sunni dogma regarding this issue
12ers have nothing to lose and everything to gain from bringing up these arguments as none of them affect the formation of their hadith or their narraters ( as most of them are of a later period)
but when it comes to intra-shia debates mostly after imam baqir that they be
come just as defensive ...and later 12er rijal authors tried to rehablitate the image of some shia narraters who were most commonly refered to in their hadith.
Re: Revile towards the Sahaba will indicate kufr (part 2)
so baisically, 'the reviling of sahabas is kufr' business is a biddat that Umar bin abdal aziz tried to enforce later on...it has no authentic islamic basis...because of it did, many prominent sahabis would have died in a state of kufr by this definition..hence that statement tends to fall flat on its face.
Re: Revile towards the Sahaba will indicate kufr (part 2)
^ i knew this was coming but i didnt want to sugar coat anything, as unlike u i dont come here to "win" debates that might support a certain sectarian agenda.
umar b abdul aziz may Allah elevate his station and include him with the best of believers in akirah is much better than the summary judgement that u have passed on him.
He lived in a time of extreme hostility to ahlulbayt , he inherited a system that was repressive to religious classes esp those who had sympahties for ahlulbayt.
He inherited a society deeply divided amongst alids, khawarij , ummayyads and zubarids.He set about the task of heeling their rifts and did so quite successfully, he had the bigger interests of religion at heart and this was above the memory of any sahaba good or bad.Obviously the only way to quell these debates was to discourage by all possible means discussion of sahaba conflicts.If you ever thought at the supra-sectarian level you would realize that this was the best possible decision at the time.
so in summary i do believe that criticzing sahaba has no islamic prohibition, but thats different from the harsh charges ofdisloyalty and total disregard of their services which 12ers do by selective reading of historical sources,
in end i wud like to tell u that sayyidna ali when he encountered khawarij in his time ( who considered ali an infidel after arbitration) did not call khawarij kafir ...he neither prohibited them from attending the mosque or stopped their stipends from bay ul mal
Re: Revile towards the Sahaba will indicate kufr (part 2)
Mate I merely summarised your paragraphs into context. I was not criticising what Umar did at the time to unite the people, but what you have to acknowledge is this blanket ban on critical thinking was disastrous for intellectual Islam in the long term...it may have worked to stem the conflicts temporarily, but the long term effects are the very reason why mosque are being bombed today under the very same guise of 'kufr for reviling sahabas', when infact it has no basis in Islam.
[quote]
, but what you have to acknowledge is this blanket ban on critical thinking was disastrous for intellectual Islam in the long term
[/quote]
by all means definately, but it also prevented the early muslim community from falling apart completely and the pro-hadith lobby won compared to Quran only....
equally disastrous if not more was the growth of sects which hold imams infallible , pray to imams etc
[quote]
...it may have worked to stem the conflicts temporarily, but the long term effects are the very reason why mosque are being bombed today under the very same guise of 'kufr for reviling sahabas', when infact it has no basis in Islam.
[/quote]
lol okay so fast foward to 21st century >>>
this reviling of sahaba is just an excuse to recurit simpletons into their ranks and use them as cannon fodder
and no sunni scholar worth his salt will ever say that u can kill people who curse sahaba
in reality the shia-sunni conflict is hardly ideological .... its more to do with politics
12ers/shias are now at the recieving end but their hands are not clean either , in awadh , iran and recently in syria/iraq they killed sunnis just as brutally.
Re: Revile towards the Sahaba will indicate kufr (part 2)
[quote]
by all means definately, but it also prevented the early muslim community from falling apart completely and the pro-hadith lobby won compared to Quran only....
equally disastrous if not more was the growth of sects which hold imams infallible , pray to imams etc
[/quote]
Thats because they left the ahlulbayt. Thier system was so flawed it didnt last long, if they'd followed the ahlul bayt like they were told to, the ummah would not have been so vulnerable. The khalifat was a like one big game.
Re: Revile towards the Sahaba will indicate kufr (part 2)
^the paralell system they tried to run against what was prescribed by Allah and the Prophet was so hopeless that Umar b Khattab likened Islam to any political circle that passed on the Arab Peninsula and other territories, and would be vanquished soon:
At-Tabari’s Tarikh; 3/426:
Al-Hassan Al-Basri: Omar was informed that the Quraishi celebrities had
complained his decision of detaining them in Al-Madina unless a permission is
gotten and a deadline is instituted. He ascended the pulpit and orated:
“I describe Islam as a camel. In its emergence, Islam was the like of a one year
old camel. It became two year old, four year old, six year old and, in the final, it
became senile. Nothing but decrease comes after senility. Islam is going towards
senility. The Quraishis are aiming at having God’s wealth entirely for themselves.
This shall never be as long as son of Al-Khattab is alive. I am to keep standing on
the entrance of the city for intercepting the Quraishis from falling in the fire.”
Re: Revile towards the Sahaba will indicate kufr (part 2)
^ to ma mooli
yeah hindsight is 20/20 ....
there is something called revisionist history ...thats what 12er version or rather shud i say spin on history is
^the paralell system they tried to run against what was prescribed by Allah and the Prophet was so hopeless that Umar b Khattab likened Islam to any political circle that passed on the Arab Peninsula and other territories, and would be vanquished soon:
At-Tabari’s Tarikh; 3/426: Al-Hassan Al-Basri: Omar was informed that the Quraishi celebrities had complained his decision of detaining them in Al-Madina unless a permission is gotten and a deadline is instituted. He ascended the pulpit and orated: “I describe Islam as a camel. In its emergence, Islam was the like of a one year old camel. It became two year old, four year old, six year old and, in the final, it became senile. Nothing but decrease comes after senility. Islam is going towards senility. The Quraishis are aiming at having God’s wealth entirely for themselves. This shall never be as long as son of Al-Khattab is alive. I am to keep standing on the entrance of the city for intercepting the Quraishis from falling in the fire.”
yeah thanks for quoting that it just shows what we were discussing earlier that sayyidna umar never trusted the quraihis completely nor did he show them undue favor ...infact he warned of the dangers of theirs getting too much power
Re: Revile towards the Sahaba will indicate kufr (part 2)
yea, all the non-Shia historians or writers that wrote what was in line with the Shia view were in Taqqaiya, right?
yeah thanks for quoting that it just shows what we were discussing earlier that sayyidna umar never trusted the quraihis completely nor did he show them undue favor ...infact he warned of the dangers of theirs getting too much power
Read again: "The Quraishis are aiming at having God’s wealth entirely for themselves."
May be he wasnt getting the cut he was promised?
Re: Revile towards the Sahaba will indicate kufr (part 2)
[quote]
Thier system was so flawed it didnt last long, if they'd followed the ahlul bayt like they were told to, the ummah would not have been so vulnerable.
[/quote]
and what about 12ers when they did get their kingdoms in awadh bijapur safavids pahlavis did they follow ahlulbayt? ...were their societies free of all evils ?
Read again: "The Quraishis are aiming at having God’s wealth entirely for themselves."
May be he wasnt getting the cut he was promised?
thats a disgusting accusation on umar .....
umar himself put the sabiqa system in place with preference for those who were earliest in accepting islam and then closest to prophet ...as umar was of banu adi he was lower down the order and got less stipend than many ....
if umar wanted he cud have gotten all he cud from bayt ul mal which was flooded with riches from conquests ...but all historians unanimously agree that he lived a simple life and didnt take a penny more than he was supposed to get ....
infact when people criticized uthman later it was to umar's conduct that they compared him to
Re: Revile towards the Sahaba will indicate kufr (part 2)
^may be it was the greed for the power? or envy is a real evil thing. For example in Bukhari, Umar is recorded to have said they he was jealous that Imam Ali got the flag from the Allah and his Prophet at the khyber.
^ to ma mooli yeah hindsight is 20/20 ....
really? two problems with that theory: 1) there were supporters of ahlul bayt at the time, so it wasnt just a hindsight thing.
2) even now, folks are blinded, so hindsight isnt really 20/20 is it?
oops, there goes your theory.
Re: Revile towards the Sahaba will indicate kufr (part 2)
^ who were the supporters name them
second problem is with some folks not the theory
^may be it was the greed for the power? or envy is a real evil thing. For example in Bukhari, Umar is recorded to have said they he was jealous that Imam Ali got the flag from the Allah and his Prophet at the khyber.
so if umar was really so jealous that he hated ali he wudnt have mentioned that in ali's fadail and the whole tenor of the report is a positive one for ali