Sayyid Qutb and the Aqidah of the Raafidah: Part 7 - Mahmood Shakir's Defence of the Companions Against the Attacks of Sayyid Qutb - Seventh Installment
Saturday, January 30 2010 - by Admin
Read more articles at TheMadkhalis.Com
Mahmood Shakir Refuting and Establishing the Hujjah Upon The Propounders of the aqidah of the Rafidah of Hatred and Revilement of the Companions

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! Seventh Installment

لا تسبوا أصحابي للأستاذ محمود محمد شاكر

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

After documenting ten instances of Qutb's revilement upon four of the Companions - Mu'awiyah, Abu Sufyan, Hind, and Amr bin al-Aas (radiallaahu anhum) - Mahmood Shakir then continues and says:

هؤلاء أربعة من أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ، يذكرهم كاتب مسلم بمثل هذه العبارات الغريبة النابية ، بل زاد ، فلم يعصم كثرة بني أمية من قلمه ، فطرح عليهم كل ما استطاع من صفات تجعلهم جملة واحدة براء من دين الله ، ينافقون في إسلامهم ، ونفون من حياتهم كل عنصر أخلاقي - كما سماه - وأنا لن أناقش الأن هذا المنهج التاريخي ؛ فإن كل مدع يستطيع أن يقول: هذا منهجي ، وهذه دراستي!! بل غاية ما أنا فاعل أن أنظر كيف كان أهل هذا الدين ينظرون إلى هؤلاء الأربعة بأعيانهم ، وكيف كانوا - هؤلاء الأربعة - عند من عاصرهم ومن جاء بعدهم من أئمة المسلمين وعلمائهم.

وأيضا ، فإني لن أحقق هذه الكلمة فساد ما بُني عليه الحكم التاريخي العجيب ، الذي استحدثه لنا هذا الكاتب ، بل أدعه إلى حينه

These are four from the Companions of Allaah's Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), a Muslim writer [Qutb] mentions them with the likes of these strange distasteful expressions. Rather, he added (more to that), for much of the Bani Umayyah were not secure against his pen. For he threw upon them whatever he was able [to throw at them] of characteristics which in their entirety rendered them [Bani Umayyah] free of the deen of Allaah, having hypocrisy in their Islaam, and negating any moral element - as he calls it - from their lives.

And I am not going to debate right now this methodology (approach) [towards] history, for every claimant is able to say, "This is my methodology, and this is my study"!! Rather, the most that I am going to do is to look at who the people of this religion looked towards those four specifically, and how these four were with those contemporary to them and those who came after them from the leaders and scholars of the Muslims.

And also I am not going to corroborate [through this] word, the corruption upon which [this] strange, historical judgement is built, which this writer has introduced, rather I will leave it for due course.

After this Mahmood Shakir spends six pages or so in mentioning the status of these four Companions from the Sunnah. We will simply summarize what he has brought of these texts and statements, since the point here is simply to outline Mahmood Shakir's perspective in refuting Qutb and how Qutb subsequently responded to him.

From what Mahmood Shakir wrote:

  • He mentions that when Mu'awiyah (radiallaahu anhu) accepted Islam, he fought in the wars of Riddah (apostasy) against the murtaddeen, despite them being only a small group (against those murtaddeen, and he was subsequently in the armies prepared by Abu Bakr (radiallaahu anhu) for Shaam where he came together with his brother Yazid bin Abu Sufyan. Later Umar placed Mu'awiyah in charge of Damascus, and then Shaam.

  • He then mentions numerous ahaadeeth which outline the virtues of Mu'awiyah, quoting them from the Musnad, and amongst them are the supplication of the Messenger for Mu'aawiyah (اللهم اجعله هادياً مهدياً ، واهد به) "O Allaah make him a guide (for others), guided, and guide (others) through him", and also the saying of the Messenger (alayhis salaam) to Mu'aawiyah (يا معاوية ! إن وليت أمراً؛ فاتق الله عز وجل واعدل) "O Mu'awiyah! If you take authority (over an affair), then have taqwa of Allaah the Mighty and Majestic and be just", and also the saying of Ibn 'Abbaas in relation to Mu'awiyah (ما كان معاوية على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم متهما) "Mu'awiyah was never suspected in relation to Allaah's Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam", meaning in what he narrated or took from the Messenger.

After bringing such narrations, Mahmood Shakir says:

هذا بعض ما قيل في معاوية رضي الله عنه ، وفي دينه وإسلامه. فإن كان هذا الكاتب قد عرف واستيقن أن الروايات المتلقفة من أطراف الكتب تنقض هذا نقضاً ، حتى يقول: إن الإسلام بريء منه! فهو وما عرف!!.

This is some of what has been said about Mu'awiyah (radiallahu anhu) and about his religion and his Islaam. So if this writer [Qutb] knows and is certain that the narrations [he] snatched from sections of the books [he used] invalidate all of this with a [complete] invalidation, such that he says, "Indeed Islaam is free of him", then its him and whatever he knows!!

Then he says:

وإن كان يعلم أنه أحسن نظراً ومعرفة بقريش من أبي بكر حين ولّي يزيد بن أبي سفيان ، وهو من بني أمية ، وأنفذ بصراً من عمر حين ولي معاوية؛ فهو وما علم !!

And if he knows that he (Qutb, himself) is better in view and in acquaintance of the Quraish than Abu Bakr when he gave authority to Yazid bin Abi Sufyan, and he is from Bani Umayyah, and more penetrative in his insight than Umar, when he gave authority to Mu'awiyah, then its him and whatever he knows!!

And then he says:

وإن كان يعلم أن معاوية لم يقاتل في حروب الردة إلا وهو يضمر النفاق والغدر؛ فله ما علم !!

And if he knows that Mu'awiyah did not fight in the wars of apostasy (against the murtaddoon) except whilst concealing nifaaq (hypocrisy) and ghadar (treachery, double-crossing) then to him is whatever he knows.

And then he says:

وإن كان يرى ما هو أعظم من ذلك ؛ أنه أعرف بصحابة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من رسول الله الذي كان يأتيه الخبر من السماء بأسماء المنافقين بأعيانهم ؛ فذلك ما أعيذه منه أن يعتقده أو يقوله !!

And if he holds what is greater than that (i.e. what has preceded), that he is more knowledgeable of the Companions of Allaah's Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) than Allaah's Messenger (himself) to whom the information used to come from the heaven of the names of the specific, individual Munafiqeen (hypocrites). And that is what I seek refuge in for him from that he should believe this or say it!!

Inshaa'Allaah we will continue with the rest in the next article.

Notes on the Above

It is important here that we understand the significance of what is going on. You should know and understand that Sayyid Qutb did not recant from this evil and wicked orientation, despite being refuted, and whilst he altered and changed some expressions, he never abandoned his orientation and ideological conviction, that for which Mahmood Shakir is actually criticizing him for.

You can also refer to these articles that prove Qutb maintained his doctrine towards those Companions:

Related Articles: