Explanation of the author's statement: "And obedience to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in his saying"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said: "And obedience to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)" meaning that among their principles is obedience to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) "in his saying: ".
Reviling is disparagement and fault-finding. If it concerns the absence of a person, it is backbiting, meaning it combines backbiting and reviling. And his saying: "my Companions" means those who accompanied him. There is no doubt that the companionship of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) varies: there was early companionship before the Conquest, and later companionship after the Conquest.
And the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) to the end of it. The criterion is the generality of the wording, the generality of the wording.
And there is no doubt that 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Awf and those like him are better than Khalid ibn al-Walid (may Allah be pleased with him) in terms of their precedence in Islam. For this reason, he said: addressing Khalid ibn al-Walid and those like him.
And if this is the case regarding Khalid ibn al-Walid and those like him, what do you say regarding those who came after them? If Khalid ibn al-Walid is forbidden from reviling the Companions, then those who came after him are even more so.
Then he said:Sunan Abi Dawud 3646Sahih (Al-Albani) to the end of it. The Companions of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) combined companionship and brotherhood, so they are his Companions and his brothers. As for those who come after them, they are his brothers but not his Companions. For this reason, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: (peace and blessings be upon him). And we ask Him to make us and you among them. O Allah, amen. He said: Sunan Abi Dawud 4658Sahih (Al-Albani) The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) swore an oath, and he is the truthful, the pious, without an oath. He swore to confirm the sentence: Sahih al-Bukhari 3673. Allah is the Greatest! Like Mount Uhud in gold, like Mount Uhud in gold. And Uhud: a large, great, well-known mountain in Medina.
Sahih al-Bukhari 3673 The mudd: a quarter of a sa'.
meaning half of it. From what, from food or from gold? Some said: from food, because what is measured by the mudd and the nasif is food. As for gold, it is weighed. And some said: from gold, by the context of the situation, by the context of the discourse, because he said: Sahih al-Bukhari 3673 meaning: from gold.
In any case, if we say: from food, then it is from food. If we say: from gold, then let it be from gold. What is the ratio of the mudd or half the mudd of gold to Mount Uhud of gold? Nothing, nothing. So the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), if one of them spent a mudd, if a person among us spent the equivalent of Mount Uhud in gold, he would not have reached the mudd of any one of them or half of it. Why? The spending is the same, and what is spent is the same. And what is spent on is the same. And the spenders are all human beings. But are all human beings equal? Never. Among human beings, some are like stones, and among human beings, some are faithful and pious. So these Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) have virtues, merits, sincerity, and following that others do not have. By their great sincerity and their intense following, they were better than others in what they spend.
Now, this prohibition implies what? It implies prohibition without a doubt. So it is not permissible for anyone to revile the Companions in general, nor to revile one of them in particular. If he reviles them in general, he is a disbeliever. So the one who reviles the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in general is without a doubt a disbeliever and an apostate. And as Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: "There is no doubt in the disbelief of one whose disbelief is doubted" Yes, because this is a great disparagement of all the Companions, and reviling them is not a trivial matter. And this is if he reviles them in general. As for if he reviles them in particular, it is looked into. One might revile them for some innate qualities, innate qualities or moral qualities or religious matters. Innate qualities, by saying: he is one-eyed or lame or the like. Moral qualities, by saying: he is a coward, he is quick-tempered, or the like. Religious matters, by saying: he is deficient in religion, such as saying that he does not pray, or, may Allah protect us, that he is an adulterer, or the like. Yes? So for each case there is a ruling. This is if the reviling is directed at one person. But if he reviles all of them in religious matters, there is no doubt that he disbelieves.
Do not insult my Companions
لا تسبوا أصحابيReviling is disparagement and fault-finding. If it concerns the absence of a person, it is backbiting, meaning it combines backbiting and reviling. And his saying: "my Companions" means those who accompanied him. There is no doubt that the companionship of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) varies: there was early companionship before the Conquest, and later companionship after the Conquest.
And the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)
He was addressing Khalid ibn al-Walid when what happened between him and 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Awf occurred, namely the quarrel. So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to Khalid: Do not revile my Companions, for by Him in whose hand is my soul, by my soul.
كان يخاطب خالد بن الوليد حين حصل بينه وبين عبد الرحمن بن عوف ما حصل من المشاجرة فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لخالد :لا تسبوا أصحابي فو الذي بيده نفسي بيدهAnd there is no doubt that 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Awf and those like him are better than Khalid ibn al-Walid (may Allah be pleased with him) in terms of their precedence in Islam. For this reason, he said:
Do not insult my Companions
لا تسبوا أصحابيAnd if this is the case regarding Khalid ibn al-Walid and those like him, what do you say regarding those who came after them? If Khalid ibn al-Walid is forbidden from reviling the Companions, then those who came after him are even more so.
Then he said:
by Him in Whose hand my soul lies
فو الذي نفسي بيدهI wish we could see our brothers. They said: O Messenger of Allah, we are your brothers. He said: You are my Companions and my brothers. A people will come after me who believe in me, and they have not seen me.
ليت أنا نرى إخواننا قالوا : يا رسول الله نحن إخوانك قال أنتم أصحابي وإخواني قوم يأتون بعدي يؤمنون به وهم لم يرونيDo not revile my Companions; by him in whose hand my soul is
لا تسبوا أصحابي فو الذي نفسي بيدهif any one of you spent gold equal to Uhud (in Allah's Cause) it would not be equal to a Mud or even a half Mud spent by one of them.
لو أن أحدكم أنفق مثل أحد ذهباً، ما بلغ مد أحدهم ولا نصيفهit would not be equal to a Mud
ما بلغ مد أحدهمNor half the mudd.
ولا نصيف المدif any one of you spent gold equal to Uhud (in Allah's Cause) it would not be equal to a Mud or even a half Mud spent by one of them.
لو أنفق مثل أحد ذهباً، ما بلغ مد أحدهم ولا نصيفهIn any case, if we say: from food, then it is from food. If we say: from gold, then let it be from gold. What is the ratio of the mudd or half the mudd of gold to Mount Uhud of gold? Nothing, nothing. So the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), if one of them spent a mudd, if a person among us spent the equivalent of Mount Uhud in gold, he would not have reached the mudd of any one of them or half of it. Why? The spending is the same, and what is spent is the same. And what is spent on is the same. And the spenders are all human beings. But are all human beings equal? Never. Among human beings, some are like stones, and among human beings, some are faithful and pious. So these Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) have virtues, merits, sincerity, and following that others do not have. By their great sincerity and their intense following, they were better than others in what they spend.
Now, this prohibition implies what? It implies prohibition without a doubt. So it is not permissible for anyone to revile the Companions in general, nor to revile one of them in particular. If he reviles them in general, he is a disbeliever. So the one who reviles the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in general is without a doubt a disbeliever and an apostate. And as Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: "There is no doubt in the disbelief of one whose disbelief is doubted" Yes, because this is a great disparagement of all the Companions, and reviling them is not a trivial matter. And this is if he reviles them in general. As for if he reviles them in particular, it is looked into. One might revile them for some innate qualities, innate qualities or moral qualities or religious matters. Innate qualities, by saying: he is one-eyed or lame or the like. Moral qualities, by saying: he is a coward, he is quick-tempered, or the like. Religious matters, by saying: he is deficient in religion, such as saying that he does not pray, or, may Allah protect us, that he is an adulterer, or the like. Yes? So for each case there is a ruling. This is if the reviling is directed at one person. But if he reviles all of them in religious matters, there is no doubt that he disbelieves.