Response to TwelverShia-dot-net: “Companion Turns Christian”
Article being refuted:
https://www.twelvershia.net/2013/04/10/response-to-companion-turns-christian/
The TwelverShia.net article makes one valid translation correction. However, it then uses a later technical definition of “Sahabi” to avoid the actual historical issue: whether a person could meet the Prophet ﷺ as a professing Muslim and subsequently abandon Islam.
The answer, even according to the Sunni material cited in the article, is yes.
1. The original RTS translation was imprecise
Ibn Hajar wrote:
فَلَوْ لَمْ يَرِدْ فِي أَمْرِهِ إِلَّا هَذَا لَكَانَ عَدُّهُ فِي الصَّحَابَةِ صَوَابًا، لَكِنْ وَرَدَ أَنَّهُ ارْتَدَّ فِي زَمَنِ عُمَرَ
“If nothing else had been reported concerning him, then counting him among the Companions would have been correct. However, it has been reported that he apostatized during the time of Umar.”
Therefore, RTS’s translation, “There is no doubting that he was a Sahabi,” was too strong. Ibn Hajar used a conditional sentence and did not say, “There is no doubt.”
That narrow correction should be accepted.
However, correcting that translation does not prove that Rabi‘ah never met the Prophet ﷺ as a Muslim. Ibn Hajar’s point is that Rabi‘ah would have fulfilled the ordinary requirements for inclusion, but a later report about his apostasy prevents him from retaining the formal hadith title of Sahabi.
2. TwelverShia.net itself admits the essential historical point
The article itself introduces Rabi‘ah as a man:
“who met the Prophet but died as a Christian.”
This is precisely the historical point under discussion.
Therefore, even TwelverShia.net concedes the following sequence:
Rabi‘ah met the Prophet ﷺ.
He was associated with Islam during the Prophet’s lifetime.
He later abandoned Islam.
He died as a Christian.
The later decision not to grant him the permanent technical title “Sahabi” does not undo that historical sequence. It only changes the terminology used for him after his death.
3. Ibn Hajar says Rabi‘ah accepted Islam and attended the Farewell Pilgrimage
Ibn Hajar begins Rabi‘ah’s biography by stating:
أَسْلَمَ يَوْمَ الْفَتْحِ، وَكَانَ شَهِدَ حَجَّةَ الْوَدَاعِ
“He accepted Islam on the Day of the Conquest and witnessed the Farewell Pilgrimage.”
Ibn Hajar also records that a number of earlier Sunni biographers included him among the Companions, including:
Al-Baghawi
Ibn Shahin
Ibn al-Sakan
Al-Bawardi
Al-Tabarani
Ibn Mandah
Abu Nu‘aym
Therefore, this was not a classification invented by a modern Shia writer. Several recognised Sunni biographical authorities had already placed Rabi‘ah in their works on the Companions.
4. An important nuance concerning the Farewell Pilgrimage report
Ibn Hajar discusses a report in which Rabi‘ah allegedly said that the Prophet ﷺ ordered him to stand beneath his camel at ‘Arafah and loudly relay the Prophet’s words to the people.
One route transmitted by Ibn Shahin names Rabi‘ah. Ibn Hajar says that this particular route contains an error and that the correct person in Ibn Ishaq’s Maghazi was Umayyah.
However, Ibn Hajar then mentions another route transmitted through Ibn ‘Abbas which again names Rabi‘ah.
Therefore, the careful conclusion is not that every route proving Rabi‘ah’s direct participation is undisputed. Rather:
Ibn Hajar independently states that Rabi‘ah accepted Islam and attended the Farewell Pilgrimage.
One route naming Rabi‘ah as the Prophet’s caller is considered mistaken by Ibn Hajar.
Another route through Ibn ‘Abbas still names Rabi‘ah.
This nuance should be acknowledged rather than either side presenting the entire report as completely undisputed.
5. What Ibn Hajar actually means by excluding him
Ibn Hajar defines a Sahabi as:
مَنْ لَقِيَ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مُؤْمِنًا بِهِ، وَمَاتَ عَلَى الْإِسْلَامِ
“One who met the Prophet ﷺ while believing in him and died upon Islam.”
He then explains that the phrase “and died upon Islam” excludes a person who met the Prophet as a believer but later apostatized and died upon that apostasy.
This establishes two separate matters:
Historical matter:
The person met the Prophet ﷺ while professing belief.
Technical matter:
Because he died outside Islam, later Sunni hadith terminology does not grant him the permanent title Sahabi.
TwelverShia.net treats the technical classification as though it disproves the historical event. It does not.
6. Ibn Hajar explicitly acknowledges multiple such cases
Ibn Hajar does not mention Rabi‘ah as the only person who met the Prophet as a Muslim and subsequently abandoned Islam.
He gives several examples:
‘Ubayd Allah ibn Jahsh
He accepted Islam, migrated with his wife Umm Habibah to Abyssinia, converted to Christianity and died as a Christian.
‘Abd Allah ibn Khatal
He had been associated with Islam but apostatized and was later killed while clinging to the curtains of the Ka‘bah.
Rabi‘ah ibn Umayyah
Ibn Hajar says that his story would be explained in the fourth section under the letter Ra.
Therefore, Ibn Hajar himself confirms the existence of people who met the Prophet ﷺ while outwardly Muslim but subsequently abandoned Islam and died outside it.
7. A person who apostasized but returned to Islam is still counted as a Sahabi
Ibn Hajar further states that if a person apostatized but returned to Islam before dying, he remains included among the Companions, even if he never met the Prophet ﷺ again after returning.
He cites al-Ash‘ath ibn Qays as an example. Al-Ash‘ath apostatized after the Prophet’s death, later returned to Islam during Abu Bakr’s caliphate, and was nevertheless counted among the Companions and had his reports included in Sunni hadith collections.
This is extremely important.
Consider the two cases:
Person A met the Prophet as a Muslim, apostasized and died outside Islam.
He is retrospectively excluded from the technical category of Sahabi.
Person B met the Prophet as a Muslim, apostasized, returned to Islam and died as a Muslim.
He retains the technical category of Sahabi.
Therefore, the technical classification is determined by the person’s final religious state, not by whether he historically met or accompanied the Prophet before apostatizing.
The title changes according to how the person dies. The earlier historical companionship does not disappear.
8. Sunni hadith scholars themselves used the wording “accompanied him, then apostatized”
Al-Suyuti states in Tadrib al-Rawi:
مَنْ صَحِبَهُ ثُمَّ ارْتَدَّ، كَابْنِ خَطَلٍ وَنَحْوِهِ
“One who accompanied him and then apostatized, such as Ibn Khatal and others like him.”
Al-Suyuti then explains that the definition should include the condition that the person died upon Islam.
Notice the wording:
مَنْ صَحِبَهُ ثُمَّ ارْتَدَّ
“One who accompanied him and then apostatized.”
This directly demonstrates the distinction between:
Historical companionship
And the later permanent technical status of Sahabi
A person could historically accompany the Prophet and later apostasize, even though hadith scholars would subsequently remove him from the honorific category of the Companions.
9. The argument becomes circular if used as historical proof
There is nothing inherently wrong with a scholar defining “Sahabi” as someone who died upon Islam.
The problem occurs when that definition is used to prove that nobody who accompanied the Prophet ever apostatized.
The reasoning then becomes:
A Sahabi must die as a Muslim.
Rabi‘ah died as a Christian.
Therefore, Rabi‘ah was not technically a Sahabi.
Therefore, no Sahabi ever died as an apostate.
But the final conclusion was already placed inside the definition.
This may establish how Sunni hadith scholars choose to use the title Sahabi. It does not establish that every person who met the Prophet as a Muslim remained faithful throughout the remainder of his life.
The historical question cannot be answered merely by redefining the title after the person’s death.
10. What Ibn Hajar’s fourth section actually establishes
TwelverShia.net correctly notes that Ibn Hajar placed Rabi‘ah in the fourth section of al-Isabah.
The fourth section contains persons whom previous writers included among the Companions through some form of error or mistaken classification.
However, in Rabi‘ah’s particular case, Ibn Hajar does not say:
“He never met the Prophet.”
“He never accepted Islam.”
“He was a pagan throughout the Prophet’s lifetime.”
Instead, Ibn Hajar says that Rabi‘ah accepted Islam, attended the Farewell Pilgrimage and was included by several earlier Sunni biographers. He then excludes him because of the later report that he apostatized and died as a Christian.
Therefore, the fourth-section placement means:
“Rabi‘ah should not retain the permanent technical title Sahabi because he reportedly died outside Islam.”
It does not mean:
“Rabi‘ah never met the Prophet as a Muslim.”
11. The apostasy report has a sanad problem
TwelverShia.net claims that Sunni scholars exposed such apostates because of evidence contained in “authentic narrations.”
However, the article provides no authentication for the particular report concerning Rabi‘ah.
Ibn Hajar quotes the report from Ya‘qub ibn Shaybah through the following route:
حماد، عن محمد بن عمرو، عن يحيى بن عبد الرحمن بن حاطب
“Hammad, from Muhammad ibn ‘Amr, from Yahya ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Hatib.”
Yahya ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Hatib was reportedly born during the caliphate of Uthman and died in 104 AH. Umar’s caliphate had already ended before Yahya was born.
Therefore, Yahya could not personally have witnessed Rabi‘ah’s alleged drinking, flight and conversion during Umar’s reign.
As quoted by Ibn Hajar, Yahya does not identify the earlier authority from whom he learned the story. The report is therefore mursal or disconnected with respect to the Umar-era event.
This does not automatically prove that the historical event never occurred. Historical scholars sometimes cite disconnected reports as supporting historical information.
But it does mean that TwelverShia.net cannot simply call it an “authentic narration” without presenting a connected chain or a specific authentication from a recognised hadith critic.
12. The resulting dilemma for TwelverShia.net
There are two possibilities:
First possibility:
The apostasy report is not reliably established.
In that case, TwelverShia.net cannot confidently use it to remove Rabi‘ah from the category of the Companions.
Second possibility:
The report is accepted as historically reliable.
In that case, it proves that a man who accepted Islam, met the Prophet ﷺ and attended the Farewell Pilgrimage later converted to Christianity.
The report cannot simultaneously be treated as reliable enough to remove Rabi‘ah from the list of Companions but irrelevant when discussing whether someone who met the Prophet as a Muslim could later abandon Islam.
13. TwelverShia.net changes “some” into “all”
The original RTS question asked why some Sunnis reject the idea that persons associated with the Prophet turned back after his death.
TwelverShia.net responds by demanding proof that:
“The Companions, as a whole, apostatized.”
This changes the subject.
These are two entirely different claims:
Claim one:
Some people who met the Prophet as Muslims subsequently turned back, deviated or apostasized.
Claim two:
Every single Companion, without exception, became a legal unbeliever.
The Rabi‘ah example could support the first claim.
It cannot, by itself, prove the second claim.
Therefore, answering the first claim by demanding evidence for universal apostasy is a strawman argument.
14. Shia doctrine does not require saying every Companion became a Christian or pagan
The Imami Shia criticism of the doctrine that every Companion is automatically upright does not require the belief that every person who met the Prophet became a Christian, idolater or legal apostate.
The actual disagreement concerns whether merely meeting the Prophet ﷺ creates a permanent presumption of uprightness and reliability that prevents an individual from being judged through his later words and actions.
Some Companions are praised in Shia sources, including Salman, Abu Dharr, Miqdad, ‘Ammar, Hudhayfah, Khuzaymah ibn Thabit, Jabir ibn ‘Abd Allah, Abu Ayyub al-Ansari and others.
The Shia position is individual evaluation, not the indiscriminate condemnation of every person who ever met the Prophet.
By contrast, a common Sunni hadith principle holds that all persons who permanently satisfy the technical definition of Sahabi are upright transmitters.
15. “Riddah” in Shia reports does not always mean legal departure from Islam
TwelverShia.net also appears to assume that every Shia use of the word irtidad must mean legal conversion to Christianity, paganism or another religion.
That assumption is not correct.
In Arabic, the root can mean turning back, retreating or returning, while its precise technical meaning depends on context.
In explanations of some Shia reports stating that people “turned back” after the Prophet, an explanatory note in the Arabic edition of al-Kafi states:
وَبِالِارْتِدَادِ الِارْتِدَادُ عَنِ الْإِيمَانِ لَا عَنِ الْإِسْلَامِ
“By apostasy is meant turning back from faith, not from Islam.”
The same explanation connects the report with failure to recognise or remain loyal to the authority of Imam Ali a.s, rather than claiming that all those people formally became Christians or idolaters.
Al-Majlisi likewise discusses reports about people turning back after the Prophet within the distinction between outward Islam and fuller iman.
One may disagree with this Shia theological distinction, but one must first represent it accurately.
It is therefore misleading to translate every such report into the claim:
“The Shia believe that every Companion legally abandoned Islam and joined another religion.”
16. Sahih al-Bukhari itself reports people called “my Companions” turning back
Sahih al-Bukhari records the Prophet ﷺ as saying:
يَرِدُ عَلَيَّ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ رَهْطٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِي
“A group from my Companions will come to me on the Day of Resurrection.”
They will then be driven away from the Hawd, and the Prophet will be told:
إِنَّهُمُ ارْتَدُّوا بَعْدَكَ عَلَى أَدْبَارِهِمُ الْقَهْقَرَى
“They turned back after you upon their heels.”
Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari, hadith 6585.
Another narration states that the Prophet ﷺ will recognise groups of them:
حَتَّى إِذَا عَرَفْتُهُمْ
“Until I recognised them.”
They will then be taken away, and he will be told that they turned back after him.
The narration concludes that only a small number from those particular groups will escape.
Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari, hadith 6587.
These reports do not prove that every Companion apostatized.
Nor do they establish the identities of every person condemned in the narrations.
But they do prove that the idea of people associated with the Prophet turning back after him is present in the most authoritative Sunni hadith collection.
17. Sunni commentators themselves offered several interpretations
Sunni commentators have offered several explanations for the Hawd narrations.
Among the proposed groups are:
Hypocrites who outwardly appeared Muslim
People who legally apostatized after the Prophet
Harsh Bedouins who entered Islam through desire or fear
People who introduced serious religious innovations
Major sinners
Ibn Hajar records these interpretations in Fath al-Bari. Al-Nawawi similarly mentions hypocrites, apostates and people who changed after the Prophet.
Therefore, fairness requires two admissions:
The Hawd reports should not be misused to declare every Companion an apostate.
But neither should they be ignored when someone claims there is no Sunni evidence that persons recognised as being from the Prophet’s associates could subsequently turn back or introduce serious changes.
18. The prophetic wording is broader than the later technical definition
The Hawd reports use expressions such as:
مِنْ أَصْحَابِي
“From my Companions.”
أَصْحَابِي
“My Companions.”
حَتَّى إِذَا عَرَفْتُهُمْ
“Until I recognised them.”
Later hadith scholars may retrospectively exclude permanent apostates from the technical category of Sahabi.
However, the prophetic wording in the Hawd narrations still refers to condemned people through the language of companionship or apparent association.
This demonstrates that the word “companions” can be used historically or descriptively for people known to the Prophet, even though later technical terminology might remove some of them from the permanent honorific category.
19. Outward Islam is not the same as guaranteed permanent righteousness
TwelverShia.net concludes by saying that both sects agree the people under discussion were Muslims for a period of time.
But this admission does not prove permanent uprightness.
A person may outwardly enter Islam and later:
Apostatize
Become a hypocrite
Commit major sins
Introduce innovations
Fight other Muslims
Disobey the Prophet’s instructions
Or otherwise deviate
The Qur’an and hadith repeatedly judge individuals according to their actual faith, obedience and final conduct—not merely according to whether they once lived near or met a prophet.
Therefore, the real issue is not whether Rabi‘ah was permanently entitled to the technical honorific Sahabi.
The real issue is whether temporary companionship guaranteed that a person could never later abandon or betray the faith.
The Rabi‘ah account shows that it did not.
20. What the Rabi‘ah case proves—and what it does not prove
The Rabi‘ah report does not prove:
That every Companion apostasized.
That every famous Companion was corrupt.
That all people who met the Prophet were equal.
That the Sunni technical definition of Sahabi does not contain the condition of dying upon Islam.
However, it does prove or strongly illustrate:
A person could meet the Prophet ﷺ as a professing Muslim and subsequently abandon Islam.
Several early Sunni biographers counted Rabi‘ah among the Companions.
Ibn Hajar excluded him because of a report concerning his later apostasy, not because he denied that Rabi‘ah had accepted Islam or attended the Farewell Pilgrimage.
Sunni hadith scholars distinguish historical companionship from permanent technical Sahabi status.
The condition “died upon Islam” was added precisely to exclude people who had met the Prophet as Muslims but died outside Islam.
A person who apostasized and returned to Islam could still retain the technical title Sahabi.
The quoted chain for Rabi‘ah’s apostasy is disconnected at Yahya ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Hatib.
TwelverShia.net does not provide evidence supporting its claim that this particular report is authentically connected.
The article changes the claim from “some turned back” to “all Companions apostatized.”
Sahih al-Bukhari itself contains reports about people described as being from the Prophet’s Companions who turned back or introduced changes after him.
Final conclusion
TwelverShia.net is correct about one limited matter:
RTS’s English translation of Ibn Hajar’s conditional sentence was inaccurate.
But that correction does not rescue the article’s larger argument.
The accurate conclusion is not:
“Rabi‘ah was never historically a Muslim associate of the Prophet.”
Rather, the accurate conclusion is:
“According to Ibn Hajar, Rabi‘ah accepted Islam, attended the Farewell Pilgrimage and was counted among the Companions by several earlier Sunni biographers. However, because a later report says that he converted to Christianity and died outside Islam, Ibn Hajar retrospectively excluded him from the permanent hadith-technical category of Sahabi.”
That technical exclusion does not disprove post-Prophetic apostasy or deviation.
It actually confirms why Sunni hadith scholars had to add the condition:
وَمَاتَ عَلَى الْإِسْلَامِ
“And he died upon Islam.”
Had it been historically impossible for someone who met the Prophet as a Muslim to later abandon Islam, there would have been no need to add that condition or to discuss people such as ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Jahsh, ‘Abd Allah ibn Khatal and Rabi‘ah ibn Umayyah in the first place.
Companion Turns Christian? A Sunni Response
Primary Category :
Secondary Category :
Loading comments...