Mahmood Shakir wrote five articles in defence of the Companions of Allaah's Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Four of them appeared in the magazine "al-Muslimoon" which was edited by Sa'eed Ramadan al-Misree, who was one of the prominent figureheads of al-Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen, and the fifth was published in "ar-Risaalah", a magazine by Ahmad Hasan az-Zayyaat. These are the five articles:

• (حكم بلا بينة) "Hukmum bilaa Bayyinah" (Judgement without proof), published in the first edition of "al-Muslimoon", 1952

• (تاريخ بلا إيمان) "Taareekh bilaa Eemaan" (History Without Faith), published in the second edition of "al-Muslimoon", 1952

• (لا تسبوا أصحابي) "Laa Tasubboo Ashaabee" (Do not Revile My Companions), published in the third edition of "al-Muslimoon", 1952

• (ألسنة المفترين) "Alsinat al-Muftareen" (Tongues of the Liars), published in the fourth edition of "al-Muslimoon", 1952

• (ذو العقل يشقى) "Dhul-Aql Yashqaa" (Possessor of Intellect Becomes Miserable), published in "ar-Risaalah" in 1952

Do Not Revile My Companions! Fifth Installment

"Do Not Revile my Companions" by Mahmood Muhammad Shakir [A Refutation of Sayyid Qutb]

Mahmood Shakir also brings, as examples of the malice and hatreds of the idolatrous western civilisation manifesting explosively, in the heart of one who proclaims defense of Islaam and Jihad in its path, the following, towards Abu Sufyaan (radiallaahu anhu), Hind (radiallaahu anhaa) [the father and mother of Mu'aawiyah], and towards Mu'awiyah and Amr bin al-Aas (radiallaahu anhum):

[Qutb said]: And Ali passed on to the mercy of his Lord, and then Mu'awiyah, the son of Hind and the son of Abu Sufyan, came along.

And I seek forgiveness from Allaah from quoting this speech, with the likes of this repulsive expression, for it is the most disgusting (offensive) of what I have seen.

Mahmood Shakir is referring here to the reference to Mu'awiyah as "the son of Hind and the son of Abu Sufyan", and as Qutb considers both Abu Sufyan and Hind as enemies of Islam whose hearts were not populated by eemaan and from whom Islaam was free of, and who only made an outward display of Islaam (see here), then introducing Mu'aawiyah here as "the son of Hind and the son of Abu Sufyaan" is a vile disgusting, filthy remark when you understand what is actually behind it. This is why Allaamah Mahmood Shakir (rahimahullaah) sought forgiveness from Allaah from even having quoted it.

Then Mahmood Shakir continues:

Then he [Qutb] says:

For if the Faith of Uthmaan, his fear (of Allaah) and his gentleness stood as an obstacle in front of Umayyah, then this obstacle fell apart and that barrier melted and Umayyah withdrew, divorced and free (i.e. from that previous barrier), returning to its hereditary legacy in jaahiliyyah and Islaam. And Mu'aawiyah came along, with a faction of the same kind as him, co-operating with him, at the head of the Amr bin al-Aas, (collectively) a people brought together by pursuits and desires, and incentivised by ambitions and desires. Neither khuluq (manners), nor deen (religion), nor conscience held them back.

You have to really understand the filth and repugnance here, because Qutb was a man that was slick with his words and basically what he is saying is that Uthmaan (radiallaahu anhu) was a barrier to Bani Umayyah, and that when that barrier "fell apart" (he's referring to Uthmaan), then it is as if Umayyah had just become free from a marriage that was holding them back and restraining them. So with Uthmaan gone (and Qutb actually praises the revolters against Uthmaan in other places as we shall document), the Umayyah are now "divorced and free" and able to return back to their "hereditary legacy". And what he means by hereditary legacy is to refer to Abu Sufyan and Hind, the parents of Mu'aawiyah, whom he deplores and about whom he uses the most repugnant of words (see here), essentially negating their Islam and claiming their Islam was just an outward show whilst inwardly, Islam never touched their hearts. So when he says, "hereditary legacy" this is what he is referring to.

And when he says, "returning to its hereditary legacy in jaahiliyyah and Islaam", he is referring to Abu Sufyaan and Hind again, because he considers them, after having accepted Islaam, to have retained the same characteristics they had before, enmity towards the Muslims and seeking tribulations for them and so on.

Then he speaks of Mu'aawiyah and Amr bin al-Aas, saying about them:

...(collectively) a people brought together by pursuits and desires, and incentivised by ambitions and desires. Neither khuluq (manners), nor deen (religion), nor conscience held them back.

A clear revilement upon their deen, their motives, their sincerity, and these are the Companions of Allaah's Messenger, with whom Allaah is pleased with by textual evidence.

So as you can see these are truly repugnant words, and this is only one of a multitude of similar statements representing his hate and resentment towards the Companions - and all on account of what? The "fikr" around which he constructed his false doctrines of "Social Justice" and "jaahiliyyah" and "Haakimiyyah" and his adaptation of the manifestos of secular atheist Jews, and he praises the revolutionaries who revolted against Uthmaan (radiallaahu anhu) - and we shall document that separately inshaa'Allaah.

But that is not the strangest thing. The strangest thing is a people faking attachment to Salafiyyah and faking love for the Companions the while they hate that his man be refuted for this, and hate that his rank be diminished in the eyes of the people, and hate that the people flee from his books - and all that being apparent in their activities online - hating, scorning and despising the Scholar who played an instrumental role in defending the honors of the Companions and in asceticism being shown (walhamdulillaah) towards the books of this Raafidee, after writing the book "Mataa'in Sayyid Qutb fis-Sahaabah".