Al-Shafi`i was accused of the "crime" of being a Shi`a because of having said so.

Al-Shafi`i was accused of the "crime" of being a Shi`a because of having said so. Henchmen of the Umayyads and the Abbasides accuse anyone of being a Shi`a if he blesses Muhammad and the Progeny of Muhammad or who praises them in a verse of poetry or points out to one of their feats. At any rate, researching this subject is quite exhaustive, and it may be dealt with repeatedly in many books. There is no harm in repetition so long as it benefits the reader.

What is important is that we have come to know from this chapter that the Shi`as are the ones who follow the Prophet's Sunnah and that their prayers are complete and accepted even according to the views of those who oppose them. "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a," on the other hand, have violated in this regard the clear Sunnah of the Prophet, and their prayers are curtailed and are not accepted even according to the views of their own Imams and scholars.

Or do they envy the people for what Allah has granted them of His grace? Indeed We have given Abraham's children the Book and wisdom, and We have given them a great kingdom. (Holy Qur'an, 4:54) [^292] He says so on p. 23 of his book Al-Imama. [^293] His statement , "I do not wish people to say that Muhammad kills his companions. Rather, we will deal with them beautifully, etc." contains an evident proof that the hypocrites were, indeed, among the sahaba.

The claim put forth by "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah" that the hypocrites were not among the sahaba is rejected because this claim is contradicted by the statement of the Messenger of Allah who refers to them as his companions. [^294] In Arabic, she is called al-humayraa which means: the woman the color of whose complexion is slightly red. __ Tr. [^295] These were the Meccans who remained heathen till the conquest of Mecca.

[^296] Refer to the book Ma`a al-Sadiqeen (With the Truthful) by the same author. [^297] This is so because all "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" favor Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman over Ali ibn Abu Talib . Since the latter is the master of the `Itrat and the best of after the Prophet , "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`a" place in the second place in their esteem.

They prefer over them the first sahaba to whom they refer as the "righteous caliphs." [^298] Nowadays, they claim saying, "We are more worthy of Ali and from the Shi`as." If so, why did their scholars and the Imams of their sects abandon the fiqh of and forgot it completely?