The combats among the Sahâba were because of disagreements in ijtihâd. Those who fought one another loved one another, too. It was like parents beating their childern.
[At several places in my book, I have explained the words and articles of the savants of the Ahl as-sunnat, revealing the greatness, the superiority of the Sahâba. Qayyûm-i Rabbânî Muhammad Ma’thûm-i Fârûqî Sarhandî, in answering the eighth question, says in the thirty-sixth letter of the second volume of his Maktûbât:]
Hadrat Alî, who was mercy from head to foot, never cursed any Muslim, let alone his having cursed our Prophet’s Sahâba, particularly Hadrat Mu’âwiyya, over whom he (Rasûlullah) had pronounced benedictions various times. Hadrat Alî said about Mu’âwiyya and those who were with him, “Our brothers disagree with us. They are not disbelievers or sinners. They act upon their own ijtihâd.” This statement of his keeps disbelief and sinfulness away from them. Could it ever be the case, then, that he cursed them! It is not an act of worship in Islam to curse anybody, nor even a disbeliever. While it is necessary to send prayers after each of the five prayers of namâz each day, could he ever have uttered maledictions because of his personal enmity instead of praying? Do they think Hadrat Alî’s nafs, which
had reached the highest grade of Fanâ in tasawwuf and the end of itmi’nân and which had gotten rid of personal desires, was steeped in a grudge, stubbornness and enmity, like their own nafses? They slander that very exalted person so basely. Hadrat Alî had reached the highest grades of Fanâ-fillah and muhabbat-i Rasûlillah, and had sacrificed his life and property for his ‘sallallâhu alaihi wa sallam’ sake. Why at that time of prayer didn’t he curse Allâhu ta’âlâ’s and His Messenger’s ‘sallallâhu alaihi wa sallam’ enemies who had tormented our Master, the Prophet, the sultân of both worlds, by all methods of tormenting, but would curse his own enemies, instead? In actual fact, Hadrat Alî’s statement, “They act upon their own ijtihâd,” shows that he was not their enemy.
Essentially, those wars and combats did not originate from enmity or a grudge. They originated from ijtihâd, from knowledge of the dîn. Blame whatsoever, therefore, is out of place, let alone cursing them. If slandering a person or cursing him were an act of worship, it would be one of Islam’s requirements to curse Iblis-i la’în (the Devil), Abû Jahl, Abû Lahab, and the furious disbelievers of the Quoreish, who hurt, tormented and tortured our Master, the Prophet ‘sallallâhu alaihi wa sallam’, and who were hostile, perfidious and perversely against Islam. Since it has not been commanded to curse the enemies, could it ever be (an act deserving) thawâb to curse friends? Rasûlullah ‘sallallâhu alaihi wa sallam’ stated, “If a person curses the Devil, he (the
Devil) says, ‘I have already become accursed. This cursing will not harm me.’ But if he says, ‘O my Allah! Protect me against the Devil,’ the Devil says, ‘Alas! You have broken my backbone.’ ” And another hadîth states, “Do not curse the Devil! Trust yourself to Allâhu ta’âlâ against his harm.” This means to say
such words are slanders against Hadrat Alî and mean to traduce him. Furthermore, to say that Hadrat Mu’âwiyya began cursing Hadrat Alî, Hadrat Hasan, Hadrat Hussain and others ‘radiyallâhu anhum ajma’în’ means to slander Hadrat Mu’âwiyya. They never cursed one another. The Madhhab of the Ahl as-sunnat wa’l-jamâ’at is such that it is not permissible to speak ill of Hadrat Mu’âwiyya and that that allegation is a slander against him. In addition, there is not one true report communicating it. If the historians say so, how can their words ever be a witness? Basic information of the dîn cannot be established on the words of historians. Here, the words of Imâm-i a’zam Abû Hanîfa and his companions are taken into consideration, not the words of historians or the information written
in the tafsîr of Kashshâf. The names of Hadrat Alî and Hadrat Mu’âwiyya are not mentioned in Kashshâf. There is not even a sign showing that those two superiors of the dîn cursed each other. Nevertheless, those pieces of writing in Kashshâf are true, too. There is no need to try to deduce good meanings from them, since there is nothing disagreeing with the Ahl as-sunnat in them? Yes, the Khalîfas of Amawî (Umayyads) let the Ahl-i bayt be cursed for years on minbars. ’Umar bin Abdul’aziz ‘rahmatullâhi aleyh’ put an end to it. May Allâhu ta’âlâ reward him plentifully through our prayers! But, though Hadrat Mu’âwiyya was one of the Khalîfas of the Umayyads, he cannot be spoken ill of. If Hadrat Mu’âwiyya
is cursed and slandered, a great number of the Sahâba, and even a few of the Ashara-i mubashshara, who were with him in those disagreements and combats, will have been cursed. And slandering those superiors of the dîn will abrogate the information of the dîn coming to us through them. No Muslim will tolerate or admit this.
The Shi’îs slander the three Khalîfas and Hadrat Mu’âwiyya and those who followed him in ijtihâd. They swear at them. They say that after our Master, the Prophet ‘sallallâhu alaihi wa sallam’, all the Sahâba with a few exceptions became renegades. But according to the Madhhab of the Ahl as-sunnat wa ’l-jamâ’at, nothing but good terms can be said about all the Sahâba. None of them is bad or evil. While explaining the hadîths of Muslim, Imâm-i Yahyâ bin Sharaf Nawawî says that in those combats the Sahâba parted into three groups. One group had ijtihâd agreeing with that of Hadrat Alî ‘radiyallâhu anh’. It became wâjib for them to choose the way suitable with their own ijtihâd. They helped Hadrat Alî. The second group of the Sahâba could not
distinguish the right side in their ijtihâd. It became wâjib for them not to interfere with anybody. The ijtihâd of the third group agreed with that of those who opposed Hadrat Alî. It became wâjib for those who had this ijtihâd to help the opposing side. This means to say that each group acted suitably with their own ijtihâd. For this reason, it is not right to blame any of them. However, Hadrat Alî and those who followed him, because their ijtihâd agreed with his, found out what was right; those who were against them erred in their ijtihâd. But they cannot be slandered because of their erring in ijtihâd. Those who erred received one thawâb. Those who found out what was right received ten thawâbs. It is not right even to say they erred. Those who erred should also be remembered
in good terms. This means to say that a person who dislikes Hadrat Mu’âwiyya ‘radiyallâhu anh’ and curses him cannot be in the Ahl as-sunnat wa ’l-jamâ’at, even if he has a good opinion of all the Sahâba and loves them. Even the Shi’îs do not like such a person. For, the Shi’îs’ liking a person requires his being hostile against the three Khalîfas and swearing at them. Such a person, therefore, is neither Sunnî nor Shi’î. He is in a third madhhab.
[A good and correct understanding of the disagreements among the Sahâba requires reading those books on belief which explain all the particulars clearly and one by one. We should not believe in recently written histories, incoherent, unsound words, encyclopedias or magazines!
It is surprising that Cevdet Pasha says in his book Qisâs-i anbiyâ (History of Prophets), “Upon seeing that his own government was weakening and Mu’âwiyya’s power increasing, Hadrat Alî became sorry and worried, and began to utter maledictions against Mu’âwiyya and six others. And, hearing of this, Mu’âwiyya also uttered maledictions against Hadrat Alî, Ibni Abbâs, Hasan and Husayn.” While narrating the events of Camel and Siffîn, he uses unbecoming terms about some Sahâbîs. Also, Shamsaddîn Sâmî, in his book Qâmûs-ul-a’lâm, shows disrespect toward Hadrat Mu’âwiyya and some other Sahâbîs by uttering such sentences as a Muslim could not utter about them. His showing such disrespect is not so surprising. For, he shows
disrespect toward Allâhu ta’âlâ, too, in his book titled Toprak. He does not hesitate to demote Allâhu ta’âlâ to the low grade of a slave, a substance. But Cevdet Pasha’s credulity in believing in the Abbâsîd histories and the Râfidî books astonishes us. For, his Qisâs-i anbiyâ is a dependable and valuable book which narrates
Rasûlullah’s life and Islamic history in detail and explicitly and which is known to be true. It ranks first among the books to be recommended to those who would like to learn Islamic history. He also writes reasonably and correctly about the combats among the Sahâba and their reasons. For example, he says on the 438th page, “Abruptly, the danger of apostasy grew great. Terror was everywhere. The officials in Yemen and in other places began to return, bringing bad news with them. The Muslims were all confused like a flock of sheep caught by heavy rain on a dark night. Compared with the number of renegades, the Muslims were very few. But Rasûlullah’s Khalîfa resolved never to change the improvements of the time of sa’âdat (Hadrat Muhammad’s time), and to fulfill Rasûlullah’s
intentions. He resigned himself to fighting the renegades. He sent troops everywhere. Making a vehement night attack on the enemy who had been getting ready to attack Medina, he fought until morning. He dispersed them all. He mounted his camel and together with his soldiers meant to leave for a war against those disbelievers who were far away. But Hadrat Alî ‘radiyallâhu anh’ held the halter of the Khalîfa’s camel, and said, ‘O you, the Messenger’s Khalîfa! Where are you going? Let me repeat to you what Rasûlullah told you during the war of Uhud. That day he said to you, “Put your sword back into its sheath! Don’t burn us with your death!” I swear by Allah that if something should happen to you the Muslims will not be put in order after you.’ All the Sahâba endorsed Hadrat Alî.
Upon this Hadrat Khalîfa went back to Medina.
See their love for each other, especially right after their harsh talks during the Khalîfa election! Allah’s lion, Hadrat Alî, who would never submit himself to anybody, and who had delayed the voting for Hadrat Abû Bakr because he had not been invited to the Khalîfa election was preventing him from going to war. If his heart bore a tiny mote of grudge against him he would think, ‘Let the Khalîfa go to war. I will take his place if something happens to him,’ or at least it would not interest him that he was going.
And such a high person as Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu anh’ who would never hesitate to give away his life for the sake of the dîn, would obviously never listen to anybody’s request to give up as he was beginning such an important worship as jihâd, but now he gave up his intention just because, no doubt, he believed in the rightness of Hadrat Alî’s opinion and word and listened to him. Hence, it is understood that the thoughts and the talks of all of them were intended to serve the Islamic dîn.
If those eccentric people who think and write that some of the Sahâba were fond of the world studied these examples of their behavior with attention, they would secure themselves against the sin of having an ill opinion of these great people.”
In order to ingratiate themselves with Sultans and to obtain property and posts, the Abbâsid historians did not hesitate to distort the facts or to falsify the written accounts of events, and they began cruelly to slander the Umayyads. Because the Abbâsid Khalîfas were hostile against the Umayyads, the historians, in order to obtain worldly advantages, sacrificed knowledge for the sake of politics. The Ottomans being closer to the Abbâsids with respect to time and being their neighbor in respect of land, ignorant historians translated the Abbâsid histories word for word; even Cevdet Pasha could not avoid this trend. Historians, on the one hand, the Shi’îs, on the other hand, who were the dregs of Shah Ismâ’il’s routed army and who took refuge in the dervish convents, imbued the Turks with Râfidism
and with hostility against the Sahâba. Those who escaped the calamity were only those who learned the truth of the matter from the books of the Ahl as-sunnat savants. May Allâhu ta’âlâ help those who are on the right way! Âmîn.
It is written in Maraj-ul-bahrayn that Hakîm bin Tirmuzî says, “Though there has been an increase in my knowledge, in my good deeds and in my struggling for Islam as I get older, I can no longer find any of those nûrs and effects which I attained in my youth. This is something which I could not understand until recently, when it was inspired into my heart that because the time of my youth was closer (than now) to the time of Hadrat Muhammad the state which I was in then was higher.” Since the times closer to that time are so valuable, we should realize how valuable that time itself was. It is for this reason that it is written in Qût-ul-qulûb, “To see that blessed face of Rasûlullah’s once, or to sit in his presence only for a while, makes one attain such blessings as cannot be obtained in halwats or arbaîns, which means mortification of the flesh for forty days, at other times.” Also the great Walîs who were matured at other times were promoted by receiving fayd from the spiritual sohbat of Rasûlullah.]