ভূমিকা

Shiavault - a Vault of Shia Islamic Books Love and Hate for God’s Sake Some proofs of the Ahlus Sunnah opposing malediction of the companions One of the most significant proofs from some of the Ahlus Sunnah in their rejection of malediction is their belief in defending the honour and integrity of all of the companions due to the fact that they consider the companions as being the prime sources of Islamic religious legislation alongside the Qur’an , Sunnah , Ijmaʿ (consensus) and ʿAql (intellect), and the other sources.

Sometimes, it is even seen that the ways and customs (madhab) of the companions is referred to as the sunnah of the companions and this clearly shows that the sunnah of the companions as well, is on the same horizontal plane as the sunnah of (S) for the Ahlus Sunnah and that they too have a sunnah [just as it is an obligation to follow the sunnah of (S) so too for some people, it is an obligation to follow the sunnah of the companions].

These people truly believe that if the companions are open to examination and analysis or are maledicted against, then this may lead to the instability of Islam, whereas a faith whose fundamentals has been laid down by God, the Most High, and the Noble (S), and as has been promised by God, will remain until the Day of Judgement, can never be made instable by the analysis and criticism of a few individuals!

Thus, this belief that the madhab of the companions is one of the fundamental sources of Islamic legislation must also be rejected! In this regards, Imam al-Ghazali said: “The person, in whom there is a possibility of error and mistakes and whose infallibility from sins and faults is not proven, his statements are not a testimony or proof over us, therefore how can anyone ever rely on his testimony if he is prone to error!?

In addition, how is it possible that without any successive proofs, one can claim infallibility of such individuals? In addition, how is it possible to imagine that a community of individuals would never have any differences of opinion amongst themselves, and even more, how is it possible that two infallible people would ever differ amongst themselves - whereas we see that there is a consensus amongst all of the companions that one is permitted to go against the opinions of the other companions.