Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah Demolishes the Basis of Yahyaa al-Haddaadi's Self-Defence in His Accusation that the Companions Participated in the Murder of Uthmaan
Monday, March 18 2013 - by Manhaj.Com
Read more articles at Manhaj.Com

Shaykh al-Islaam Demolishes the Basis of Yahyaa al-Haddaadi's Deception Regarding the Use of Muhammad bin Abi Bakr as a Justification For his Statement that "Some of The Companions Participated in the Murder of Uthmaan"

Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said in Minhaaj al-Sunnah (4/374), (whilst refuting the Raafidah!):

وأما هؤلاء الرافضة فخصوا محمد بن أبي بكر بالمعارضة وليس هو قريبا من عبد الله بن عمر في علمه ودينه ، بل ولا هو مثل أخيه عبد الرحمن ، بل عبد الرحمن له صحبة وفضيلة ، ومحمد بن أبي بكر إنما ولد عام حجة الوداع بذي الحليفة ، فأمر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أمه أسماء بنت عميس أن تغتسل للإحرام وهي نفساء، وصار ذلك سنة ولم يدرك من حياة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إلا خمس ليال من ذي القعدة ، وذا الحجة والمحرم وصفر ، وأوائل شهر ربيع الأول ، ولا يبلغ ذلك أربعة أشهر ، ومات أبوه أبو بكر رضي الله عنه وعمره أقل من ثلاث سنوات ولم يكن له صحبة مع النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - ولا قرب منزلة من أبيه إلا كما يكون لمثله من الأطفال

And as for those Raafidah, then they specify Muhammad bin Abi Bakr with opposition (to Uthmaan) and he is not close to Abdullah bin Umar in his knowledge and deen, rather, he is not like his brother Abdur-Rahmaan. In fact Abdur-Rahmaan has companionship (with the Messenger) and excellence whereas Muhammad bin Abi Bakr was born in the year of the farewell pilgrimage in Dhul-Hulayfah. So the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasalam) ordered his mother Asmaa' bin Umays to make ghusl for Ihraam when she had had the post-partum bleeding, and so in that year he did not reach from the life of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) except five nights of Dhul-Qa'dah, then Dhul-Hijjah, al-Muharram and Safar and the first few days of Rabee' al-Awwal and that does not reach four months [i.e. barely reaching a hundred days of age]. And his father Abu Bakr (radiallaahu anhu) passed away whilst his (Muhammad's) age was less than three years and he did not have any companionship with the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and nor any special position with his father, except that whose like is expected towards children...

And he also said on the next page:

والرافضة تغلو في تعظيمه على عادتهم الفاسدة في أنهم يمدحون رجال الفتنة الذين قاموا على عثمان ويبالغون في مدح من قاتل مع علي حتى يفضلون محمد بن أبي بكر على أبيه أبي بكر فيلعنون أفضل الأمة بعد نبيها ويمدحون ابنه الذي ليس له صحبة ولا سابقة ولا فضيلة ويتناقضون في ذلك

And the Raafidah exaggerate in venerating him (Muhammad bin Abi Bakr) as is their corrupt habit to praise people involved in tribulation - such as those who stood against Uthmaan - and they exaggerate in the praise of whoever participated in fighting on the side of Alee until they (the Raafidah) give preference to Muhammad bin Abi Bakr over his father Abu Bakr, so they revile the most excellent of the Ummah after its Prophet and they praise his son who has no companionship, no precedence and no excellence, and so they fall into contradiction by way of this.

In the above passages Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah has pointed out a number of important matters which have implications on Yahyaa al-Haddaadi's slander of those companions he was referring to and his subsequent attempt to cover up and deflect on the issue with the use of the name of Muhammad bin Abi Bakr, and these matters can be very briefly summarized as follows:

  • Ibn Taymiyyah establishes the non-Companionship of Muhammad bin Abi Bakr who was barely four months old when the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) passed away. This means when al-Hajuri says "Some of the Companions participated in the killing of Uthmaan" then this means he cannot use Muhammad bin Abi Bakr as a means of justifying why he said what he said. This therefore pulls the rug from underneath the attempt of Yahyaa al-Hajuri to use the name of Muhammad bin Abi Bakr in the first place.

  • Ibn Taymiyyah establishes that the Raafidah exaggerate in praise of Muhammad bin Abi Bakr for the reason that he did show some opposition to Uthmaan (radiallaahu anhu) and also because he later fought on the side of Alee (radiallaahu anhu) and for these reasons they praise him. So strange that Yahyaa al-Haddaadi should try to make use of the name of Muhammad bin Abi Bakr to say the same thing as what the Heretical Raafidah of the past said, such as Abu Mikhnaf Loot bin Yahyaa (a vile Shi'ite) and likewise Nasr bin Mazaahim another vile Raafidee - that the Companions participated in the killing of Uthmaan (radiallaahu anhu). However, that is not the worst thing, because people can make mistakes in matters of religion, and al-Hajuri like anyone else, can fall into mistakes. The worst thing is playing games when you are advised about these mistakes.

  • Finally, and most importantly, now that we have established that Muhammad bin Abi Bakr did not have companionship with the Messenger of Allaah and is not affirmed by the Scholars as being counted as a Companion, who exactly are the Companions then that Yahyaa al-Haddaadi is referring to when he says, "Some of the Companions participated in the killing of Uthmaan"? Any answers from Haddaadi Ghulaat?

Related Articles: