Shia Double Standards on ‘Adalah Al-Sahabah
https://www.twelvershia.net/.../shia-double-standards-on.../
This article’s argument fails because it compares two completely different things.
Sunni ‘Adalah al-Sahabah is a universal doctrine.
Shia Mashayikh al-Thiqat is a limited rijal discussion about a few specific narrators.
These are not equal.
Sunni sources say clearly:
قد كفينا البحث عن أحوالهم لإجماع أهل الحق من المسلمين وهم أهل السنة والجماعة على أنهم كلهم عدول
Meaning:
“We have been spared from investigating their conditions because Ahl al-Haqq from the Muslims, meaning Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama‘ah, have consensus that all of them are upright.”
Reference:
Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, quoted by Islamweb, fatwa “عدالة الصحابة محل إجماع”.
Ibn al-Salah says:
ثم إن الأمة مجمعة على تعديل جميع الصحابة، ومن لابس الفتنة منهم فكذلك
Meaning:
“The Ummah is agreed upon declaring all the companions upright, and even those who were involved in the fitnah are included.”
Reference:
Ibn al-Salah, Muqaddimah / ‘Ulum al-Hadith, type 39, “معرفة الصحابة”.
He also says:
للصحابة بأسرهم خصيصة، وهي أنه لا يسأل عن عدالة أحد منهم
Meaning:
“All the companions have a special rule: no one from them is asked about his integrity.”
So the Sunni rule is not merely “some reliable people have a presumption of trust.”
The Sunni rule is:
Every Sahabi is automatically upright as a transmitter, even those involved in fitnah.
Now compare this with the Shia issue of Mashayikh al-Thiqat.
Al-Tusi said:
ولاجل ذلك سوت الطائفة بين ما يرويه محمد بن أبي عمير وصفوان بن يحيى وأحمد بن محمد بن أبي نصر وغيرهم من الثقات الذين عرفوا بأنهم لا يروون ولا يرسلون إلا عمن يوثق به
Meaning:
“For this reason, the sect treated equally what is narrated by Muhammad b. Abi Umayr, Safwan b. Yahya, Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Abi Nasr, and others from the trustworthy ones who were known not to narrate or send except from one who is trusted.”
Reference:
Al-Tusi, ‘Uddat al-Usul, vol. 1, p. 154.
Notice the difference.
Al-Tusi is not saying every Shia narrator is reliable.
He is not saying every companion of every Imam is reliable.
He is not saying every report in Shia books is accepted.
He is speaking about a specific group of narrators and a technical rijal presumption.
Even this limited Shia rule was not accepted blindly by later Shia scholars.
Sayyid al-Khoei strongly challenged it. He said:
أن هذه الدعوى، وأن هؤلاء الثلاثة وأضرابهم من الثقات لا يروون ولا يرسلون إلا عن ثقة: دعوى دون إثباتها خرط القتاد
Meaning:
“The claim that these three and their likes from the trustworthy narrators do not narrate or send except from a trustworthy person is a claim whose proof is extremely difficult.”
Then he says:
فهذه الدعوى ساقطة جزماً
Meaning:
“This claim is certainly fallen.”
Then he lists examples where these narrators narrated from weak transmitters, such as Ali b. Abi Hamza al-Bata’ini, Yunus b. Zibyan, Abu Jamilah, Abdullah b. Khadash, Ali b. Hadid, and others.
Reference:
Sayyid al-Khoei, Mu‘jam Rijal al-Hadith, discussion on Riwayat Safwan wa Adrabih / Mashayikh Ibn Abi Umayr.
So where is the Shia double standard?
Shia scholars themselves questioned, restricted, and even rejected this general tawtheeq.
But Sunni ‘Adalah al-Sahabah is treated as a closed universal rule.
The article’s second example is even weaker: “all companions of Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq a.s are reliable.”
The article itself admits that contemporary Twelver Usuli scholarship does not hold this view.
Sayyid al-Khoei rejected it clearly. He said:
فهذه الدعوى غير قابلة للتصديق
Meaning:
“This claim is not believable.”
Then he said:
فهي تشبه دعوى أن كل من صحب النبي صلى الله عليه وآله عادل
Meaning:
“It resembles the claim that everyone who accompanied the Prophet is upright.”
Then al-Khoei points out that al-Tusi himself weakened some people listed among the companions of Imam al-Sadiq a.s, and even counted Abu Ja‘far al-Dawaniqi/al-Mansur among the companions of Imam al-Sadiq a.s. Then al-Khoei asks:
أفهل يحكم بوثاقته بذلك؟
Meaning:
“Can his reliability be judged merely because of that?”
Reference:
Sayyid al-Khoei, Mu‘jam Rijal al-Hadith, discussion on “Ashab al-Sadiq fi Rijal al-Shaykh.”
This destroys the article’s analogy.
If Shias truly had a Sunni-style blanket doctrine, al-Khoei would not reject the reliability of all companions of Imam al-Sadiq a.s.
The real Shia method is investigation.
A narrator can be accepted.
A narrator can be weakened.
A general rule can be debated.
A report can be rejected if it contradicts stronger evidence.
Al-Kafi itself gives this principle:
فما وافق كتاب الله فخذوه، وما خالف كتاب الله فدعوه
Meaning:
“Whatever agrees with the Book of Allah, take it; and whatever opposes the Book of Allah, leave it.”
And:
كل شيء مردود إلى الكتاب والسنة، وكل حديث لا يوافق كتاب الله فهو زخرف
Meaning:
“Everything is referred back to the Book and the Sunnah, and every hadith that does not agree with the Book of Allah is worthless decoration.”
Reference:
Al-Kafi, Kitab Fadl al-‘Ilm, Chapter on following the Sunnah and the evidence of the Book.
Now come to the Sunni doctrine.
The Qur’an says:
ومن أهل المدينة مردوا على النفاق لا تعلمهم نحن نعلمهم
Meaning:
“And among the people of Madinah are those who persisted in hypocrisy. You do not know them; We know them.”
Qur’an 9:101.
So the Qur’an itself says there were hidden hypocrites around Madinah whom even the Prophet did not know by name.
The Qur’an also says:
يا أيها الذين آمنوا إن جاءكم فاسق بنبإ فتبينوا
Meaning:
“O believers, if a fasiq comes to you with news, verify it.”
Qur’an 49:6.
Sunni tafsir books mention that this verse was revealed regarding al-Walid b. ‘Uqbah. Ma‘arif al-Qur’an openly says that authentic hadiths verify this verse was connected to Walid b. ‘Uqbah, and that apparently it shows a Sahabi can be a fasiq, which conflicts with the maxim “الصحابة كلهم عدول.”
Sahih al-Bukhari also records:
لَيَرِدَنَّ عَلَيَّ نَاسٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِي الْحَوْضَ، حَتَّى عَرَفْتُهُمُ اخْتُلِجُوا دُونِي، فَأَقُولُ أَصْحَابِي، فَيَقُولُ لاَ تَدْرِي مَا أَحْدَثُوا بَعْدَكَ
Meaning:
“Some people from my companions will come to me at the Hawd. When I recognize them, they will be pulled away from me. I will say: ‘My companions!’ It will be said: ‘You do not know what they introduced after you.’”
Reference:
Sahih al-Bukhari 6582.
Another Bukhari version says:
إِنَّهُمُ ارْتَدُّوا عَلَى أَدْبَارِهِمُ الْقَهْقَرَى
Meaning:
“They turned back on their heels.”
Reference:
Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of Riqaq, Hadiths of the Hawd.
So the Shia objection is not that “one or two exceptions cancel everything.”
The Shia objection is that the Qur’an and Sahih Sunni hadith do not allow a blanket rule that every person counted as Sahabi is automatically reliable without investigation.
The real double standard is this:
When Shia scholars discuss a limited rule about a few narrators, Sunnis say:
“They narrated from weak people, so the rule fails.”
But when Qur’an, Sahih Bukhari, and Sunni tafsir show serious problems among people counted around the Prophet, Sunnis say:
“No, the rule of ‘Adalah al-Sahabah still stands.”
That is the actual double standard.
Shia rijal has no universal immunity.
Sunni ‘Adalah al-Sahabah does.
Shia scholars can reject weak narrators.
Shia scholars can reject weak reports.
Shia scholars can even reject famous general tawtheeq claims when evidence proves otherwise.
But Sunni hadith theory gives automatic uprightness to the entire class of Sahabah, even including those involved in fitnah, as Ibn al-Salah explicitly says.
Therefore TwelverShia.net’s article does not refute the Shia position.
It only proves that the author confused a limited, disputed, evidence-based Shia rijal presumption with a universal Sunni theological/radical hadith principle.
A restricted rijal presumption is not the same as blanket ‘adalah for an entire generation.
Loading comments...