The Sunnah and the
Qur’an According to “Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama‘a”
Having come to know that
Imamite Shi‘as give preference to the Qur’an over the Sunnah, making it the
final judge and the dominating authority, “Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama‘a” are
exactly the opposite: they advance the Sunnah over the Qur’an, making it the
final judge, the ultimate authority. We come to this conclusion when we
observe how they call themselves “Ahl al-Sunnah,” followers of the Sunnah,
due to the line of thinking which they adopted; otherwise, why did they not
say that they were the followers of the Qur’an and the Sunnah especially
since they narrate in their books saying that the Prophet had said, “I have
left among you the Book of Allah and my Sunnah”?
Because the Sunnis
neglected the Qur’an and gave it the back seat, upholding the alleged Sunnah
and giving it the front seat, we understand the main reason why they now say
that the Sunnah over-rules the Qur’an, which is quite odd. I think they
found themselves forced to do so when they discovered that they were doing
things which contradicted the Qur’an, things which they made up after the
rulers they obeyed forced them to act upon them. In order to justify doing
those things, they fabricated ahadith which they falsely attributed to the
Prophet. And since those ahadith contradict the injunctions of the Qur’an,
they claim that the Sunnah over-rules the Qur’an, and that it abrogates the
Let me give you a clear
example of what every Muslim individual does many times daily: the ablution
(wudu) that precedes the prayers:
The Holy Qur’an states
the following: “O you who believe! When you stand for the prayers, wash your
faces and hands to the elbows and wipe your heads and feet to the ankles”
(Holy Qur’an, 5:6).
No matter how much is
said, and regardless of where the accent marks are placed when one recites
[the original Arabic text of] this verse, al-Fakhr al-Razi, who is one of
the most famous scholars of Arabic among "Ahl
al-Sunnah wal Jama‘a,” has said that the feet have to be rubbed (or
wiped). Ibn Hazm has also said, "Whether
the accent mark is placed underneath or above the laam, it is at any rate an
injunction joining the heads in the same action (as that done to the feet),
and no other possibility is valid.” Yet although he admits that the
Qur’an mandates the rubbing of the feet in either case, al-Fakhr al-Razi is
found fanatically supporting his Sunni sect and saying, “... but the Sunnah
came to mandate the washing of the feet, thus abrogating the Qur’an.”
Such an example of the
alleged Sunnah which over-rules or abrogates the Qur’an has many similar
examples to be found with “Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama‘a.” Quite a few fabricated
ahadith idle Allah’s commandments based on the [false] claim that the
Messenger of Allah was the one who abrogated it.
If we examine the verse
referring to the ablution in Surat al-Maaida and take into consideration the
consensus of Muslims that this Sura was the very last one revealed of the
Holy Qur’an__it is said that it was revealed only two months before the
demise of the Prophet __how and when did the Prophet abrogate the injunction
in it referring to ablution?! The Prophet had already spent twenty-three
years performing his ablution, rubbing (not washing) his feet, doing so many
times each day; is it reasonable to accept that only two months before his
death, and after his having received the verse saying,
"... and wipe your heads and feet,” he
deliberately washed his feet contrarily to the commandment revealed in
Allah’s Book?! This is unbelievable...
How can people believe
that such a Prophet invited them to uphold the Book of Allah and to act
according to it, telling them, “This Book guides to what is best,” actually
does the opposite of what the Qur’an enjoins?! Would his opponents, the
polytheists and the hypocrites, then say to him, “Since you yourself do the
opposite of what the Qur’an enjoins, how can you order us to follow it?!”
The Prophet would then find himself in an embarrassing situation, not
knowing how to refute their argument; so, we do not believe such a claim, a
claim which reason and tradition reject and is rejected by anyone who knows
the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger.
But “Ahl al-Sunnah wal
Jama‘a” who, as we have come to know in past researches, are in fact Umayyad
rulers and those who followed in their footsteps, deliberately fabricated
many ahadith which they attributed to the Prophet in order to thus justify
the views and the ijtihad of the imams of misguidance, and to bestow upon
the latter religious sanctity. They did so in order to justify the ijtihad
of such persons versus the available texts, claiming that the Prophet
himself had adopted ijtihad (and
followed his own personal views) contrarily to the Qur’anic texts, thus
abrogating whatever he desired of such texts. Those who harbored bid‘as
would thus derive their legitimacy in contradicting the Qur’anic texts. They
claim that they only follow the Prophet, something which is quite untrue; it
is simply a lie.
In a previous research,
we provided strong proofs and arguments that the Messenger of Allah never,
not even for one day, followed his own view, nor did he ever adopt the
principle of qiyas; rather, he always waited for revelation. This is proven
by the verse saying, “... so that you may judge between people according to
what Allah has taught you” (Holy Qur’an, 4:105)”.
After all, is he not the
one who cited His Lord saying, "And when
Our clear Signs are recited to them, those who do not wish for the meeting
with Us say: Bring us a Qur’an other than this one, or change it. Say: It is
not for me to change it of my own accord; I only follow what is revealed to
me. I fear lest I should disobey my Lord the torment of a great Day” (Holy
Qur’an, 10:15”? Did his Lord not threaten him in the strongest terms against
his trying to attribute one single word to Allah? He, the Sublime, the most
Exalted One, said, “And had he fabricated against Us any statement, We would
certainly have seized him by the right hand, then We would certainly have
cut off his aorta, and none of you could then have withheld Us from him”
(Holy Qur’an, 69:44-47).
Such is the Holy Qur’an,
and such is the Prophet whose conduct was the embodiment of the injunctions
of the Holy Qur’an. But “Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama‘a,” because of the
intensity of their animosity towards Ali ibn Abu Talib and Ahl al-Bayt
(peace be upon them), deliberately contradicted the latter in everything, so
much so that their motto was to oppose Ali and his Shi‘as in every aspect,
even if that meant contradicting a Sunnah which they themselves regard as
Since Imam Ali was
famous for reciting the basmala audibly even while reciting the inaudible
prayers in order to revive the Prophet’s Sunnah, a number of the sahaba
expressed their view that it is makrooh to recite it in the prayers. So is
the case with regard to holding the hands versus placing them on the sides,
the supplication during the qunoot, in addition to other issues relevant to
the daily prayers.
Anas ibn Malik,
therefore, used to weep and complain thus: “By Allah! I hardly find anything
being done anymore which the Messenger of Allah used to do.” He was asked,
“What about the prayers?” He said, “You have altered it, too.”
What is strange is that
“Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama‘a” remain silent about such differences: Their four
sects differ with one another, yet they do not find anything wrong with it,
saying that their differences are a mercy. Yet they scandalize the Shi‘as
whenever the latter differ from them about any issue; it is then that mercy
turns into a calamity. They do not endorse except the views of their Imams
although the latter are no match to the Imams from the purified Progeny of
the Prophet in their knowledge, deeds, merits, or dignity.
Just as we have
indicated with regard to washing the feet [versus wiping them], and despite
the fact that their books testify that rubbing is what the Holy Qur’an
enjoins, and that it is also the Sunnah of the Prophet, they resent the
Shi‘as doing any of that, accusing them of interpreting the Qur’an and
contradicting the creed.
The second example which
has also to be mentioned is the mut‘a marriage to which the Holy Qur’an
refers and which was sanctioned by the Prophet’s Sunnah. In order to justify
Umar’s following his own ijtihad in this regard and his prohibition of it,
they invented a false tradition which they attributed to the Prophet. They
aimed by it to scandalize the Shi‘as for permitting such marriage relying on
the hadith narrated by Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib, peace be upon him. Add to
this the fact that their Sahih books testify that the sahaba practiced it
during the life of the Messenger of Allah and during the reign of Abu Bakr
and a portion of the reign of Umar before the latter outlawed it. They also
testify that the sahaba differed among themselves about it: some permitting
it while others prohibiting it.
Arguments in this
subject are quite numerous. They prove that the Sunnis abrogate the Qur’anic
text through their use of false traditions. We have stated a couple such
examples, and our objective is to remove the curtain from the sect followed
by “Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama‘a” and acquaint the reader with the fact that the
Sunnis prefer hadith over the Holy Qur’an and openly say that the Sunnah
over-rides the Qur’an.
The jurist Imam Abdullah
ibn Muslim ibn Qutaybah, traditionist and jurist of “Ahl al-Sunnah wal
Jama‘a,” who died in 276 A.H./889 A.D., openly says, “The Sunnah overrides
the Book (Qur’an); the Book does not override the Sunnah.”
The author of the book
titled Maqalat al-Islamiyyeen cites Imam al-Ash‘ari, the chief Imam of “Ahl
al-Sunnah wal Jama‘a” with regard to the usool saying, “The Sunnah abrogates
the Qur’an and cancels its injunctions, whereas the Qur’an neither abrogates
nor cancels the Sunnah.”
Ibn Abd al-Birr also
says that Imam al-Awza‘i, one of the major Imams of “Ahl al-Sunnah wal
Jama‘a,” has said, "The Qur’an is more
in need of the Sunnah than the Sunnah of the Qur’an.”
Since statements like
these testify to their creed, it is quite natural that these folks
contradict what is said by Ahl al-Bayt in as far as comparing the hadith
with the Book of Allah and weighing it accordingly. The Qur’an is the one
that determines the Sunnah. It is also natural that they reject these
traditions and refuse to accept them, even though they were narrated by the
Imams from Ahl al-Bayt, simply because they undermine their sect entirely.
Al-Bayhaqi, in his book
Dala’il al-Nubuwwah, transmits saying that the tradition wherein the Prophet
says, “If you come across one hadith reported about me, compare it with the
Book of Allah,” says, “This tradition is false and inaccurate, and it is
self-contradictory, for there is no evidence in the Qur’an suggesting making
a comparison between the hadith and the Qur’an.”
Ibn Abd al-Birr quotes
Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi saying that the tradition in which the Prophet is
quoted saying, "Whenever I am quoted to
you, compare it with the Book of Allah; if it agrees with the Book of Allah,
then I have said it, but if it contradicts the Book of Allah, then I never
said it,” cannot be accepted by people of knowledge as having been
authentic, especially since traditions to its contrary have been
authenticated. He concludes by saying that atheists and Kharijites were the
ones who fabricated it.
Notice such blind
fanaticism which leaves no room for scientifically verifying something and
the yielding to the finding: they label the narrators of this tradition, who
are the Imams of guidance from the purified Progeny of the Prophet, as
atheists and Kharijites, accusing them of fabricating hadith!
Can we ask them, “What
is the goal of atheists and Kharijites behind fabricating this tradition
which makes the Book of Allah, the one which falsehood can never approach
from the front or the back, the reference for everything?!
Any fair-minded wise
person would even sympathize with these so-called “atheists” and
“Kharijites” who thus glorify the Book of Allah and give it the highest
status to derive legislation therefrom rather than with such “Ahl al-Sunnah
wal Jama‘a” who put an end to the Book of Allah through the medium of false
traditions and abrogate its injunctions through alleged innovations.
A grievous word, indeed,
comes out of their mouths; surely what they utter is a lie. (Holy Qur’an,
Those whom they label as
“atheists” and “Kharijites” are none other than the Imams of the Prophet’s
family, the Imams of guidance, the lanterns that shatter the dark, the ones
who were described by their grandfather the Messenger of Allah as the
security of the nation against dissension: if one tribe differs from them,
it will become the party of Satan. Their only “sin” is that they upheld the
Sunnah of their grandfather and rejected anything besides it of innovations
introduced by Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Mu‘awiyah, Yazid, Marwan, and Banu
Umayyah. Since the ruling authority was in the hands of the afore-mentioned
individuals, it is only natural that they condemned their opponents,
labelling them as “Kharijites” and “atheists,” fighting and denouncing them.
Were not Ali and Ahl al-Bayt cursed from their pulpits for eighty years? Did
they not poison Imam al-Hasan ? Did they not kill Imam al-Husayn and his
Let us not go back to
discuss the tragedy of Ahl al-Bayt, injustice to whom is still ongoing, and
let us go back to those who call themselves “Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama‘a” and
who reject the hadith enjoining comparing the Sunnah with the Qur’an. Why
did they not label Abu Bakr "al-Siddeeq”
a Kharijites since it was he who burnt the hadith then delivered a sermon in
which he said, “You quote ahadith about the Messenger of Allah regarding
which you differ with one another, and people after you will be more intense
in their differences; so, do not quote anything about the Messenger of
Allah. If anyone asks you, say: ‘Between us and you is the Book of Allah;
so, follow what it permits and refrain from what it prohibits.”
Did Abu Bakr not put the
Sunnah ahead of the Qur’an? He even regarded it as the sole reference,
rejecting the Sunnah altogether, claiming his reason for doing so was people
differing among themselves about it.
Why did they not call
Umar ibn al-Khattab a Kharijite since he was the one who rejected the Sunnah
from day one saying, “The Book of Allah suffices us”? He, too, burnt all
what the sahaba had collected of the ahadith and sunan during his
reign, going beyond that to forbidding the sahaba from publicly
Why did they not call
the mother of the faithful Ayesha, from whom they derive half of their
creed, a Kharijite since she was the one who was famous for comparing the
hadith with the Holy Qur’an? Whenever she heard one hadith with which she
was not familiar, she would compare it with the Book of Allah and reject it
if it contradicted the Qur’an. She, for example, objected when Umar ibn al-Khattab
quoted one hadith saying, “A dead person is tormented in his grave on
account of his family weeping over him.” She said to him, “Suffices you to
refer to the Qur’an where it says: ‘No sin-bearing soul shall ever bear the
sin of another.’” She also rejected one hadith narrated by Abdullah ibn
Umar saying that the Prophet came once to a cemetery where some atheists
were buried after having been killed at the Battle of Badr and communicated
with them then turned to his companions and said, “They most surely hear
what I say.” Ayesha denied the dead could hear. She said, “Rather, the
Messenger of Allah said, ‘They now know that what I used to tell them is the
truth,’” then she cited the following verse to testify to the falsehood of
that tradition: “And surely you cannot make those in the graves hear you”
(Holy Qur’an, 35:22).
She rejected many other
ahadith. In each time, she would compare each hadith with the Book of Allah.
Once someone told her that Muhammad had seen his Lord, so she said to him,
“My hair stands on account of what you have just said... Where do you stand
with regard to three things about which anyone who narrates a tradition
lies: whoever tells you that Muhammad saw his Lord is a liar,” then she
cited the verse saying, “No vision can ever conceive him while He conceives
all vision, and He knows the subtleties, the Aware (Holy Qur’an, 6:103), and
also the verse saying, “And it is not for any mortal to speak to Allah
except by revelation or from behind a barrier” (Holy Qur’an, 42:51). “And
whoever tells you,” she went on, “that he knows what tomorrow holds for him
is a liar.” Then she cited the verse saying, “No soul knows what it shall
earn tomorrow” (Holy Qur’an, 31:34). “And whoever tells you,” she continued,
“that he kept any revelation for himself (without
revealing it to others) is a liar,” then she cited the verse saying, “O
Messenger! Convey what has been revealed to you from your Lord” (Holy Qur’an,
Likewise, Abu Hurayra,
the narrator of Ahl al-Sunnah, used to quite often narrate one hadith, then
he would say: “Recite whatever you please of what the Exalted One says,”
then he compares his hadith with the text of the Book of Allah so that the
listeners might believe him.
So why don’t “Ahl
al-Sunnah wal Jama‘ah” call all these persons “Kharijites” or “atheists”
since they all compare the ahadith they hear with Allah’s Book and falsify
whatever contradicts the Qur’an?! Surely they would not dare to do that. But
if the matter involves the Imams from Ahl al-Bayt, they will not hesitate to
curse them and attribute shortcomings to them without these Imams having
committed any sin other than comparing the hadith with the Book of Allah in
order to expose those who fabricate and forge, those who wish to render
Allah’s commandments idle through the medium of false ahadith. They do so
because they fully realize that had their ahadith been compared with Allah’s
Book, nine out of ten of them will be found contradicting the Book of Allah,
and the remaining tenth, which agrees with the Book of Allah because it
actually is the speech of the Prophet, they interpret it in a way which the
Messenger never intended it. Examples include the hadith saying,
"The caliphs after me are twelve; all of
them are from Quraysh,” and the one saying, “Uphold the Sunnah of the
righteous caliphs after me,” and the one saying,
differences among my nation are a mercy,”
besides many traditions
whereby the Prophet meant to refer to the Imams from his purified Progeny.
But they claimed they referred to their own usurping caliphs, and to some
Even the titles which
they attach to the sahaba, such as their calling Abu Bakr “al-Siddeeq,” Umar
“al-Farooq,” Uthman “Dhul-Noorayn,” and Khalid “Sayf-Allah,” all these
titles were given by the Prophet to Ali; for example, he has said, “The
siddeeqs are three: 1) Habib al-Najjar, the believer referred to in Surat
Yasin, 2) Ezekiel, the believer who belonged to the family of Pharaoh, and
3) Ali ibn Abu Talib who is their best.”
Ali himself used to say,
“I am the greatest siddeeq; none says so besides me except a liar.” And he
also is the greatest farooq through whom Allah distinguished the truth from
falsehood. Did not the Messenger of Allah say that loving Ali is a sign
of conviction, while hating him is a sign of hypocrisy, that the truth
revolves around him wherever he went?
As for the title of
“Dhul-Noorayn,” Ali, peace be upon him, is the father of al-Hasan and
al-Husayn, peace be upon them, masters of the youths of Paradise, two lights
that descended from the loins of Prophethood. As for “Sayf-Allah,” Ali is
the one who was described by Gabriel, peace be upon him, during the Battle
of Uhud thus: “There is no youth like Ali, and there is no sword like
Dhul-Fiqar.” And Ali in truth is the sword of Allah whom He sent upon the
polytheists to kill their heroes, arrest their brave warriors, and crush
their noses till they submitted to the truth against their wish. He is the
sword of Allah who never ran away from any battle, nor did he ever dread any
duel. He is the one who opened the fort of Khaybar, a task that frustrated
the most distinguished sahaba who had to flee away in defeat.
The caliphate, since its
inception, was based on isolating Ali and stripping him of all distinctions
and merits. When Mu‘awiyah ascended the seat of government, he went far in
cursing and belittling Ali, elevating the status of his opponents,
attributing to them each and every merit of Ali, including his titles, out
of his perfidy and calumny. And who could at that time oppose Mu‘awiyah or
call him a liar especially since they agreed with him on cursing and
condemning Ali, dissociating themselves from Ali? Mu‘awiyah’s followers from
“Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama‘a” turned all facts upside down, so much so that
right appeared to them as wrong and vice versa, to the extent that Ali and
his Shi‘as came to be labelled as Kharijites, and Rafizis the cursing and
the killing of whom was permissible, while the enemies of Allah, of His
Messenger, and of his Ahl al-Bayt came to be identified as the ones who
adhere to the Sunnah..., so read and wonder, and if you have any doubts in
this regard, research and investigate.
The similitude of the
two parties is like the blind and the deaf, the seeing and the hearing: are
they alike? Will you not mind? (Holy Qur’an, 11:24)
Surely Allah says the
 He says so
in his book Al-Tafsir al-Kabir (the grand exegesis), Vol. 11, p. 161.
 Ibn Hazm,
Al-Muhalla, Vol. 3, p. 54.
al-Razi, Al-Tafsir al-Kabir, Vol. 11, p.
Sahih, Vol. 8, p. 148.
 We mean
those early ones who made a covenant with Ali and his offspring after him
and who founded the sect of “Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama‘a.”
 We have
discussed this issue in detail and quoted their own statements which they
have published in their books as well as the statements of their imams in a
book we called Ma‘a al-Sadiqeen (So Let us be with the Truthful); so, it
must be referred to it.
Sahih, Vol. 1, p. 74.
 Ibn Sa‘d,
Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, Vol. 6, p. 191.
Sunan, Vol. 1, p. 145. Ibn Qutaybah, p.
199, in the
section dealing with interpreting disputed
 Maqalat al-Islamiyyeen,
Vol. 2, p. 251.
 Jami‘ Bayan
al-‘Ilm, Vol. 2, p. 234.
 Jami‘ Bayan
al-‘Ilm, Vol. 2, p. 233.
Tadhkirat al-Huffaz, Vol. 1, p. 3.
 Ibn Kathir,
Kanz al-Ummal, Vol. 5, p. 237.
al-Huffaz, Vol. 1, p. 5.
Tadhkirat al-Huffaz, Vol. 1, p. 5.
 This is
quoted in al-Bukhari’s Sahih in The Book of Coffins in a chapter dealing
with the Prophet’s hadith:
dead person is tormented even by a little of the
weeping of his family
over him.” It is also recorded in Muslim’s Sahih in The Book of Coffins in a
chapter dealing with a dead person tormented by his family grieving over
 This is
recorded in both al-Bukhari’s and Muslim’s Sahih books in The Book of
Coffins written by each in the chapter referred to above.
tradition is quoted on p. 223, Vol. 2, of al-Hasakani’s book Shawahid al-Tanzil,
Vol. 2, p. 223. on p. 417 of Ghayat al-Maram, p. 417. Al-Riyad al-Nadira,
Vol. 2, p. 202.
 This is
indicated in al-Tabari’s Tarikh in a chapter dealing with Ali’s conviction.
Ibn Majah, Sunan, Vol. 6, p.
Khasa’is. Al-Hakim, Mustadrak, Vol. 3, p.
al-Sunnah wal Jama‘a” call Uthman "Dhul-Noorayn,”
justifying it by saying that he had
married Ruqayya and Ummu
Kulthoom who, according to them, were the Prophet’s daughters. This is not
true. The truth is that they were his step-daughters. Even if you suppose
[erroneously] that they were his daughters, how can they be described as “noorayn,”
two lights, since the Prophet never narrated any of their merits? Why not
attach this title to Fatima whom he described as the Leader and the light of
all the women of the world? Why did they not call Ali “Dhul-Noor” based on
such a premise?
Extracted from the book "The Shi'ah
are (the real) Ahl al-Sunnah" by Dr. Muhammad Al-Tijani Al Samawi.
I AM HIS MASTER, ALI IS HIS MASTER. O
God! Love those who love him. Be hostile
to those who are hostile to him. Hate
those who hate him. Help those who help
him. And keep the truth with him
wherever he turns." (repeating this
paragraph three times).