The brothers at TwelverShia.net have already done a wonderful job in refuting a NUMBER of deceitful (and always unnecessarily lengthy) articles of the Rafidi blog RTS (RevisitingtheSalaf). One of the latest refutations was in regards of one of the cheapest Rafidi ‘arguments’ (also used by the likes of Yasser Al-Khabeeth etc.) namely:
Now pretty much everything has been answered there. Our aim in this article is to shed some more light on a particular accusation of that Rafidi blog against (as usual) Omar bin Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) and indirectly against Othman Ibn Affan. They cite a narraton from Hudhayfah Ibn Al-Yaman (may Allah be pleased with him) concerning Al-Farooq Omar. Let us first introduce you to the great Sahabi Hudhayfah Ibn Al-Yaman:
Hudhayfah Ibn Al-Yaman – The Keeper of the Secret of the Messenger of Allah – رضي الله عنه و أرضاه
Ibn Hajar on the great companion Hudhayfah Ibn Al-Yaman
وحذيفة أحد أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم الأربعة عشر النجباء، كان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أسر إليه أسماء المنافقين، وحفظ عنه الفتن التي تكون بين يدي الساعة، وناشده عمر بالله: أنا من المنافقين اللهم لا، ولا أزكى أحداً بعدك
Hudhayfah is one of the 14 noble companions of the Messenger of Allah (صلی الله و علیه و على آله وسلم). The Messenger of Allah (صلی الله و علیه و على آله وسلم) revealed to him the names of hypocrites, and protected him from the difficulties of the Hour, and Omar was swearing him by Allah: “Am I among these hypocrites?” in which he Hudhayfah replied, “By Allah, no! I will never tell anyone after you.”
(As you can see, in some version the wording of BY ALLAH can be found i.e. Hudhayfa SWORE by Allah that Omar is not amongst the hypocrites)
Hudhayfah had three qualities which particularly impressed the Messenger of Allah; his unique intelligence, quick wittedness, and his ability to keep a secret even under persistent questioning. A notable policy of the Messenger of Allah (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) was to utilize the special strengths of each companion (that’s a reality, unlike the kitschy scenario Shiism potrays i.e. as if Ali Ibn Abi Talib was all the help the Messenger of Allah had), carefully choosing the right man for the right task. A primary problem the Muslims encountered were hypocrites who had superficially accepted Islam while simultaneously plotting against the Muslim community. Because of Hudhayfah’s ability to keep a secret, Prophet Muhammad (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) told him the names of the hypocrites, a trust not bestowed upon others. Hudhayfah was commissioned to watch their movements and follow their activities. The hypocrites, because their secrecy and intimate knowledge of the developments and plans of the Muslims, presented a greater threat to the community than external enemies. From this time onwards, Hudhayfah was called The Keeper of the Secret of the Messenger of Allah, remaining faithful to his pledge of secrecy. Shias of course, whenever debating the issue of the companions of the Prophet and their uprightnes never fail to mention that there were hypocrites around the Messenger (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم).
This is of course true and based on that the Ahl Al-Sunnah do not include the hypocrites among the companions of the Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم), for instance, although Ibn Salool, the head of the Munafiqs (hypocrites) at the Prophet’s (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) in Madinah was around the Prophet (hence, he صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم in a Hadith even addressed him as from his Ashaab), yet later generations of course did not include him in the category of a ‘real’ Sahabi/companions, since he was a hypocrite and did not die upon Islam. In fact the Shia stance is pure hypocrisy for although they stating something right when saying that there were hypocrites amongst those who surrounded the Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم), yet what they mean with hypocrites are not the likes of Ibn Salool and others, rather the closest companions of the Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) whom he Prophet praised and even promised paradise for. The likes of Omar Ibn Al-Khattab (رضي الله عنه و أرضاه). Now let’s see what the ‘Keeper of the Secret of the Messenger of Allah’ has to say in regards to Omar:
وقال مسدد : ثنا يحيى ، عن الأعمش ، عن زيد بن وهب ، قال : سمعت حذيفة رضي الله عنه ، يقول : ” مات رجل من المنافقين فلم أصل عليه ، فقال عمر رضي الله عنه : ما منعك أن تصلي عليه ؟ قلت : إنه منهم ، فقال : أبالله منهم أنا ؟ قلت : لا . قال : فبكى عمر رضي الله عنه ” إسناده صحيح ، وقد استنكره يعقوب بن سفيان من حديث زيد بن وهب
Musaddad said: Narrated Yahya from Al-A’mash from Zaid ibn Wahab who said: I heard Hudhayfah (may Allah be pleased with him), saying: “Another man of Munafiqeen died, and I will not pray on his funeral, Omar then said: what prevents you to pray on him? I said: Because he was one of them, (Omar) said: By Allah am I also one of them?! I said: ‘No.’ Then Omar cried.’
The chain of this Hadeeth is Saheeh.
(Source: Matalib Al-A’lia. Vol. 14, Pg # 702. and Tarikh Al-Islam of Al-Dhahabi. Vol. 3, Pg # 494.)
(This can alsobe found in the Muhalla of Ibn Hazm, the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shayba, in Tabari’s Jami’ Al-Bayan, in Ibn Hajar’s, in Al-Sunnah by Abu Bakr Al-Khallaal etc.).
Now the hateful Shia object (as usual) and want their bias makes them view a narration in favour of Omar (a merit) as an actual proof of Omar’s kufr/disbelief (we seek refuge from the Rafidah and their bias), although the narration has been narrated by one of the very few companions Shias claim to respect (Hudhayfah Ibn Al-Yaman) and it’s text is not ambigious at all. Anyway, that’s their explanation:
Umar was asking a rather foolish question, and unintentionally revealed his true color’s by doing so. In response, Hudhayfah said: “No you are not!”. Did Umar not know if he was at Uqbah that night? Didn’t Umar know If He was a Munafiq or not ? Hudhaifah concealed this fact from him but more importantly why?. The answer is very clear, he was concealing the truth to spare his life. Suppose Hudhayfah would have said to Umar “That you are one of the Munafiqs” would Umar had speared his life?
(UQBAH: The place were a group of masked hypocrites tried to assassinate the Prophet (peace be upon him), for more information refer to the link i.e. rebuttal at the top of this post.)
On the contrary, Hudhayfah made it public that Omar was not a hypocrite by narrating this event to Zaid bin Wahb, the narrator from Hudhayfah. Such an action implies that Hudhayfah intentionally wanted people to know what he bore witness that Omar was not a hypocrite, therefore the only foolishness here is the Rafidi ‘reason’. Hudhayfah could have easily said “It’s not for me to reveal. Mind your own business.” Instead, Hudhayfah would have committed a sin by lying and “fooling” everyone into thinking that ‘Omar is a believer’ if we go by the Rafidi conspiracy. Besides, the Munafiqs who tried to kill the Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) at Uqbah where not the only existing hypocrites, unless the Rafidah have suddenly changed their minds and claim that there were only a maximum of fourteen hypocrites (those present at ‘Uqba who tried to kill the Prophet) amongst those who surrounded the Prophet and lived in Madinah. Of course there were more, in fact according to a Sahih narration in Muslim there were at least fourteen masked hypocrites at Uqbah who wanted to assassinate the Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم), yet there are also other Hadiths where the Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) said that amongst his Sahaba are twelve hypocrites who will never enter paradise. The foolishness lies in the distorted understanding of the hateful Shia propagandists (as you can see in the quote above), who somewhat suggest that when Omar requested about the hypocrites, then he must have certainly meant those at Uqbah who tried to kill the Prophet, and when he meant them then he automatically exposed himself, because how can someone ask about a group of hypocrites who tried to murder the Prophet and ask if he was among them? ‘This is certainly a confession that he was amongst them, he was just eager to know if Hudhayfah knew this or not’.
As you can see an absolute pathetic reasoning to say the least, this is because the narration itself does not even mention that the dead hypocrite (upon whom Hudhayfah did not want to pray the funeral prayer) was amongst those masked riders who wanted to kill the Prophet at Uqbah. The point is that the number of the hypocrites had never been restricted to a certain number, nor to those who tried to kill the Prophet at Uqbah, hence Omar (and other major Sahaba, despite being promised paradise!) used to ask (especially whenever Hudhayfah used to reveal the identity of a hypocrite, usually at his funeral) IF they are one of them (Munfiqs). This has got nothing to do with him ‘indirectly’ confessing that he was actually at Uqbah (the place where hypocrite riders tried to assassinate the Prophet) and hence a hypocrite who tried to kill the Prophet (صل الله عليه و سلم)!
NOTE: It is clear that Hudhayfa did not conceal anything, let alone being afraid of Omar! Hudhayfah was truthful so war Omar, yet the Rafidah boldly claim:
‘Hudhaifah concealed this fact from him but more importantly why?. The answer is very clear, he was concealing the truth to spare his life. Suppose Hudhayfah would have said to Umar “That you are one of the Munafiqs” would Umar had speared his life?
YES, he would have spared his life, why not? Why should Omar kill him? Is there a single account where Omar killed someone who called him (Omar) a hypocrite? We have authentic narrations about the humbleness of Omar where a woman corrected him, did he went mad and killed her? According to Shiism Fatimah and Ali openly announced that Omar (and Abu Bakr) are hypocrites, Fatimah (according to even more extreme-tales) went so far to tell Omar that she is going to curse him in every prayer. So why didn’t Omar kill them both for that? (Keep in mind that the other fairy-tale, namely the assault on Fatimah’s house occured BEFORE Fatimah cursed and made Takfeer on Omar. Why didn’t Omar kill her and her husband?)As you can see, you can refute the Rafidah based on their own made up beliefs that – as in this case – are like a curse to them, pulversing their false assumptions. Here some more clear-cut evidence proving that Hudhayfah Ibn Al-Yaman was a well-wisher for Omar, respected Omar, knew the merits of Omar and testified that Omar is not just far away from being a hypocrite, rather he was a the safeguard of Islam, the gate of Islam that prevented the Fitnah.
Hudhayfah praises Omar in more than one occasion after his death.
We find in Fadha’il Al-Sahaba by Ahmad bin Hanbal 2/404 (Dar Ibn Al-Jawzi, 1430, 4thedition) the following:
حدثنا عبد الله : قثنا هارون بن سفيان ، نا معاوية بن عمرو قثنا زائدة قثنا منصور ، عن ربعي بن حراش ، عن حذيفة قال : إن عمر لما استخلف كان الإسلام كالرجل المقبل ؛ لا يزداد إلا قربا ، فلما قتل عمر كان الإسلام كالرجل المدبر ؛ لا يزداد إلا بعدا .
اخرجه الامام احمد في فضائل الصحابة 1/404
Abdullah narrated to us, that Harun bin Sufyan narrated to us, that Mu’awiya bin Amr, that Za’idah narrated to us, that Mansour narrated from Rib’ee bin Hirash, from Hudhayfah, he said: When Omar received the caliphate, Islam was like a man that was approaching, who would continuously come closer, but when Omar was killed, Islam was like a man that was walking away, who continuously kept getting farther.
We also find in the Musannaf Abdelrazzaq 11/105 (Dar Ihya’ Al-Turath Al-‘Arabi, 1423, first edition) the following:
أخبرنا عبد الرزاق عن معمر عن أيوب عن ابن سيرين قال : سئل حذيفة عن شئ ، فقال : إنما يفتي أحد ثلاثة : من عرف الناسخ والمنسوخ ، قالوا : ومن يعرف ذلك ؟ قال : عمر ، أو رجل ولى سلطانا فلا يجد بدا من ذلك ، أو متكلف (2).
Abdelrazzaq told us, from Ma’ammar from Ayyoub, from Ibn Sireen, that Hudhayfah was asked something, he replied: ‘Only three people can give out religious rulings, 1- Those that knew the abrogated laws, they asked: Who’d know that? He replied: Omar, 2- Or a man given a position that has no other choice but to, 3- Or a Mutakallif (one who acts greater than he actually is).
Both narrations are authentic.
So, as we can see, even after the death of Omar, Hudhayfah still speaks of him with great praise. Declaring that Islam was closer to the people when he was alive and that he was one of knowledge scholars in regards to the laws of abrogation (in the Qur’an). Both are of the highest forms of praise. That being the case, one has no choice but to hold the view that Hudhayfah’s negation of Omar’s hypocrisy is to be taken at face value, and that there are no hidden meanings in the text.
As for ‘Omar asking, although his likes have been promised paradise in more than one Sahih Hadith, then well it’s because he was humble and feared Allah, the Prophet himself feared the Hellfire (although being promised the highest state in Paradise), this is a sign of Iman/belief and not a sign of doubt or hypocricy (ironically Evangelists too, just like the Rafidah use Quranic verses and Hadiths to prove that the Prophet himself doubted about himself and his final destination. It’s quite remarkable how the polytheists all misunderstood the Islamic text, but after all they both hold unbelievable grudge, some against the Prophet himself, some against his students, the Sahaba). According to the biased Shia understanding of hatred merely asking if one is a hypocrite is a sign of confession (i.e. that one is a hypocrite) instead of being a sign of Iman/belief! Well, then what about the likes of Prophet Ibrahim (عليه السلام), the Idol-Breaker who humbled himself and for the sake of having an absolute peace of mind asked the following question:
(260. And (remember) when Ibrahim said, “My Lord! Show me how You give life to the dead.” He (Allah) said: “Do you not believe” He (Ibrahim) said: “Yes (I believe), but to be stronger in faith.” He said: “Take four birds, then cause them to incline towards you (then slaughter them, cut them into pieces), and then put a portion of them on every hill, and call them, they will come to you in haste. And know that Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.”)
Thanks to Allah, the above can’t be dismissed as an ‘Umayyad fabrication that aims to belittle the Prophets and Ahl Al-Bayt, blah, blah, blah’.
Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah said, (We are more liable to be in doubt than Ibrahim when he said, “My Lord! Show me how You give life to the dead.” Allah said, “Don’t you believe” Ibrahim said, “Yes (I believe), but (I ask) in order to be stronger in faith.”) The Prophet’s statement in the Hadith means, “We are more liable to seek certainty.”
Are you thinking what we are thinking right now? We hope so, for then you will share our opinion that there is no doubt that if the Ayah would had been a Hadith in Sahih Al-Bukhari and if you would (just for argument’s sake) replace the name of the Prophet Ibrahim with Omar’s name and the sentence “My Lord!” etc. with “Oh Prophet of Allah …”, then be assured that the hateful Rawafid (plural of Rafidis/Rafidites/Shia/Shiites) would jump at you and call it the conclusive proof of Omar’s kufr/disbelief in Allah. As you can see, their reason and approach is childish, ridiculous and biased and if we were to go by their reasoning, we could have easily accused Prophet Ibrahim of being a hypocrite and atheist for even requesting something like that, we seek refuge in Allah from such foolish thoughts and we seek refuge in Allah from the logic of the Rafidah. Lastly, there are many reports of the Salaf, proving that having fear of falling into Nifaq is a sign of Iman, the sign of the giants of this Ummah:
lbn Abi Mulaykah said,”I met thirty companions of the Messenger of Allah (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم), all of them feared Nifaq for himself and none of them said that he was upon the Iman of Jibril or Mikail.”
Al-Hasan al-Basri said of hypocrisy: “No one fears it but a believer, and no one feels safe from it but a hypocrite.”
Omar was inquiring because the believers life’s between (الخوف والرجاء) fear and hope. A person who has the fear of the punishment of the hereafter definitely is interested in knowing such thing, just like a student who has given an examination is interested in knowing whether he has passed or failed. This is a sign of Iman/belief even though the Prophet promised him paradise. Imagine Omar would go around declaring himself as a man of Paradise (because of what the Prophet said)! The Rafidah would find always a way to attack him, in that case they would accuse him of arrogance. The point is our Prophet (peace be upon him) himself was not just promised paradise but in fact the hightest place in Paradise (Jannah Al-Firdows Al-A’la), yet he made constantly istighfar (asking Allah for forgiveness) and FEARED Allah and the Hellfire, because it is the right of Allah to be feared and as we said before, the believer lives in a state of fear and hope. To put the final nail into this coffin, let us show you something from Shia books:
قد ملك الشيطان عناني في سوء الظن وضعف اليقين، فأنا أشكو سوء مجاورته لي، وطاعة نفسي له، وأستعصمك من ملكته
This is a prayer from the book (chain-less, attributed to Imam Zayn Al-Abideen, Ali Ibn Al-Hussein, a giant from amongst the scholars of the Salaf whom the Rafidah falsely ascribe to themselves) called ‘الصحيفة السجادية الكاملة’ (Sahifah Al-Sajjadiyyah), it is a book about supplications i.e. how the so called ‘4th infallible’ Shia Imam (Zayn Al-Abideen) supplicated to Allah. The translation of the supplication above is:
Satan has taken possession of my reins through my distrust and frail certainty. قَدْ مَلَكَ الشَّيْطَانُ عِنَانِي فِي سُوءِ الظَّنِّ وَضَعْفِ الْيَقِينِ،
I complain of his evil neighbourhood with me and my soul’s obedience toward him! فَأَنَا أَشْكُو سُوْءَ مُجَاوَرَتِهِ لِي وَطَـاعَةَ نَفْسِي لَـهُ،
If we would have hold the same grudge towards the Ahl Al-Bayt (we seek refuge in Allah from holding ANY grudge against the Ahl Al-Bayt) as the Shia hold towards Omar Ibn Al-Khattab, we (or anyone else for that matter) could easily accuse Imam Al-Sajjad/Zayn Al-Abideen of being in the possession and control of Satan and hence a hypocrite. Is this what Imam Zayn Al-Abideen wants to tell us Does this mean he is a servant of Satan or does it prove that he is showing humility with such words? Certainly the latter, same goes for Omar, fair play, putting bias aside give the enemies of Omar no choice but to understand his (Omar’s) words in the light of humility.
So Omar’s words, and his relief upon hearing Hudhayfah’s confirmation, shows that it was Omar’s personality that did not allow him to think highly of himself, constantly causing him to recheck his intentions to be sure that they were in order. It is known that performing good deeds in Islam, with intentions for anyone other than Allah (i.e. for the society, for family), is considered as a form of lesser hypocrisy, which is a trap that even the best of Muslims can fall into.
We are not finished yet, there is even MORE supportive evidence, even from Hudhayfah himself that proves that Omar was as truthful as Hudhayfah was in his testimony of Omar NOT being from amongst the hypocrites:
Hudhayfah says Omar was the gate that prevented the Fitnah (history testifies)
أنَّ عمرَ بنَ الخطابِ رَضِيَ اللهُ عنهُ قال : أيُّكم يحفظُ قولَ رسولِ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ في الفتنةِ ؟ فقال حذيفةُ : أنا أحفظُ كما قال ، قال : هاتِ ، إنكَ لجريءٌ ، قال رسولُ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ : ( فتنةُ الرجلِ في أهلِهِ ومالِهِ وجارِهِ ، تُكَفِّرُهَا الصلاةُ والصدقةُ ، والأمرُ بالمعروفِ والنهيُ عن المنكرِ ) . قال : ليست هذهِ ، ولكن التي تموجُ كموجِ البحرِ ، قال : يا أميرَ المؤمنينَ ، لابأسَ عليكَ منها ، إنَّ بينكَ وبينها بابًا مغلقًا ، قال : يُفْتَحُ البابُ أو يُكْسَرُ ؟ قال : لا ، بل يُكْسَرُ ، قال : ذاك أَحْرَى أن لا يُغْلَقَ ، قلنا : عَلِمَ البابَ ؟ قال : نعم ، كما أنَّ دون غدٍ الليلةَ ، إني حدَّثتُهُ حديثًا ليس بالأغاليظِ ، فهَبْنَا أن نسألَهُ ، وأمرنا مسروقًا فسألَهُ فقال : من البابُ ؟ قال : عمرُ . الراوي: حذيفة بن اليمان المحدث:البخاري – المصدر: صحيح البخاري – الصفحة أو الرقم: 3586 خلاصة حكم المحدث: [صحيح]
Narrated Hudhayfa Ibn Al-Yaman: Once ‘Omar bin Al-Khattab said, said, “Who amongst you remembers the statement of Allah’s Apostle regarding the afflictions?” Hudhayfa replied, “I remember what he said exactly.” ‘Omar said. “Tell (us), you are really a daring man!” Hudhayfa said, “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘A man’s afflictions (i.e. wrong deeds) concerning his relation to his family, his property and his neighbors are expiated by his prayers, giving in charity and enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil.’ ” ‘Omar said, “I don’t mean these afflictions but the afflictions that will be heaving up and down like waves of the sea.” Hudhayfa replied, “O chief of the believers! You need not fear those (afflictions) as there is a closed door between you and them.” ‘Omar asked, “Will that door be opened or broken?” Hudhayfa replied, “No, it will be broken.” ‘Omar said, “Then it is very likely that the door will not be closed again.” Later on the people asked Hudhayfa, “Did ‘Omar know what that door meant?” He said. “Yes, ‘Omar knew it as everyone knows that there will be night before the tomorrow morning. I narrated to ‘Omar an authentic narration, not lies.” We dared not ask Hudhayfa; therefore we requested Masruq who asked him, “What does the door stand for?” He said, “Omar.” (Bukhari, Book #56, Hadith #786)
Comment: Does any sane person, whether Muslim or Kafir doubt that the door of Fitnah was certainly closed up until the end of the Caliphate of Al-Farooq, Omar Ibn Al-Khattab (رضي الله عنه و أرضاه)? Under Omar the Islamic empire expanded at an unprecedented rate ruling the whole Sassanid Persian Empire (Ali supported Omar’s opening of Persia, see Nahj Al-Balagha) and more than two thirds of the Eastern Roman Empire. His attacks against the Sassanid Persian Empire (which started the war by trying to murder the Prophet of Islam years before!) resulted in the conquest of the Persian empire in less than two years. More importanly, over ten years (!) of Khilafah, and not a single civil war occured during his reign, the Persians and Romans were brought to their knees, the Fitnah started indeed after his death, when he got cowardly murdered by a Zoroastrian (Shia saint aka Abu Lo’lo’ah) lowlife, who stabbed Omar to death, while Omar was leading the Sahabah and Ahl Al-Bayt in the morning prayer. The gates of Fitnah are open since then (Othman go brutaly murdered, Jamal and Siffeen Fitnah under Ali’s regin and the Fitnah up to our very age and time).
And finally another (in this case) Sahabiyyah whom the Shia CLAIM to respect, who also testifies to what Hudhayfah testified to.
Umm Al-Mu’mineen (The Mother Of The Believer) Ummu Salamah رضي الله عنها و أرضاها testifies that Omar is NOT a Munafiq:
Finally there is supportive evidence that shows that other Sahabah as well were well aware that Omar Ibn Al-Khattab was never amongst the hypocrites. This time a testimony from the Mother of the Believers Ummu Salamah (whom the Shia claim to respect, but will certainly reject when reading the following):
NOTE: This narration and similar ones (like the one about twelve hypocrites amongst the companions of the Prophet) do not contract the beliefs of the Ahl Al-Sunnah. For first of all the companions mentioned are not any of the companions held in high regard by Ahl Al-Sunnah. One can’t pick and choose from Sunni books (the SAME books that have narrated the merits of Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman, ALI, FATIMAH etc.) and then use his own criteria to judge them. Either one accepts all the Hadiths or not. According to the Ahl Al-Sunnah and the Qur’an the REAL companions are those who accepted Islam and DIED upon Islam. These companions are the ones the Ahl Al-Sunnah refer to as Sahaba, the thing is that among them you will certainly find the likes of Abu Bakr, Omar, Ibn Masoud etc. and as for the hypocrites then you will have Ibn Salool etc. whereas according to Shiism the hypocrites were the most loyal followers of the Prophet such as Abu Bakr, Omar, Ibn Masoud (you will barely hear them mentioning the TRUE hypocrites such as Ibn Salool etc.), so logically those narrations where the Prophet (صل الله عليه و سلم) calls anyone who surrounded him as a ‘Sahabi/companion’ are to be taken in the linguistic sense, for linguistically everyone who surrounds you can be reffered to as a Sahabi/companion, even if he is in real a hypocrite, but in the theological/Sharia sense, there has been made a distinction between the true Sahaba and the fake ones, accordingly a hypocrite like Ibn Salool can’t be a companion by defination (linguistically he was a companions, just as the twelve where who will never enter paradise, or those whom the Prophet will meet at the font who will be dragged to hell. The point is, one can’t include the likes of Abu Bakr and Omar etc. into these hypocrites since their sound belief has been established by the same SAHIH narrations as the Iman/belief of the Ahl Al-Bayt!). Plus, the hypocrites were killed in the wars against the apostates. A war that was started by Abu Bakr against the REAL hypocrites and apostates, a war where Ali Ibn Abi Talib AIDED his brother Abu Bakr (unlike Shia claims that have been refuted HERE).
Here some important points proving without a shred of doubt that Hudhayfah did say the truth when testifying that Omar was not among the Munafiqeen:
– Hudhayfah was the governor (Wazir) of Omar over Mada’in (former capital) of Persian, even before Salman Al-Farsi
– Hudhayfah did not pray over the Munafiqs (remember the narration about Omar asking him WHY he does not pray over the dead)
– Hudhayfa PREVENTED Omar from praying over the Munafiqs. Why would he prevent a Munafiq (Omar, according to Shiism) to pray over Munafiqs? It definitely proves that Omar was not a Munafiq according to him, and he had the knowledge of the Munafiqeen, and he would even prohibit the Caliph from praying over them.
Finally the RTS Rafidi blog tried to use a ambigious narrations to attack Omar and Othman. We’d like to put the previous answer of TwelverShia.net here with some additional informations.
So far the RTS claimed (with no evidence whatsoever) that Hudhayfah actually did Taqiyyah by telling Omar that Omar is NOT a Munafiq. Well, this is their evidence (note the red-marked parts):
The actions of Hudhayfah should not come as a surprise. On another occasion Hudhayfah deny’s what he had said before regarding Uthman and swears by Allah (swt). He conceals the truth and says that it is part of the religion to spare other part of it.
Ibn Abi Shaybah: Narrated Abdullah ibn Nomair from Al-A’mash from Abdulmalik ibn Maysara from Al-Nazzal Ibn Sabra who said: Ibn Masoud and Hudhaifa entered upon Uthman, Uthman said to Hudhayfah I have been informed that you have said such and such? Hudhayfah said: ‘No, by Allah (swt) I haven’t said that’, when they went out ibn Masoud he said to Hudhaifa: ‘What is wrong with you?! Why did you deny what I heard you say (about Uthman) before?’ He said: ‘I spare parts of my religion with other parts of it, because of the fear to loose it completely’.
The above narration is not relevant to the accusation that the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) attempted to take his life. The narration is vague, does not include any details, and suffers from the same weakness as the previous hadith, which is the Tadlees of Al-A’amash. (See above for details.)
RTS goes on to quote Ibn Al-Qayyim, Abu Nu’aim, and Ibn Qutaibah, who all quote the same narration. However, these are either disconnected, or contain the same defect, which is the Tadlees of Al-A’amash, and the vagueness of the narration prohibits the possibility of linking the narration with the earlier narration of the hypocrites and their attempt to kill the Messenger (pbuh).
On the other hand, we find a clear authentic Hadith about the position of Hudhayfah towards Uthman in Tareekh Al-Madinah by Ibn Shibbah 2/170 (Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyah, 1417, first edition):
حدثنا حبان بن هلال قال، حدثنا أبو الأشهب قال، حدثني حبيب بن الشهيد قال، حدثني الوليد، عن جندبرضي الله عنه قال: بلغنا حديث ذكره حذيفةبن اليمان رضي الله عنه في عثمان بن عفان رضي الله عنه فأنكرته من مثله لمثله، فأتيته عند صلاة الصبح فسلمت عليه ثلاثا فلم يؤذن لي فرجعت، فإذا رسوله قد أتبعني فردني، فدخلت عليه فقال: ما ردك ؟ فقلت: استأذنت – أو سلمت ثلاثا فلم يؤذن لي. فقال:أما إنك لو استأذنت أكثر من ذلك لم يؤذن لك. قال: وحسبتك نائما. قال: ما كنت لانام حتى أعلم من أين تطلع الشمس. قال: ما حديث بلغني عنك ذكرت به عثمان فأنكرته من مثلك لمثله ؟ فقال: قد كان بعض ذلك، أما إنهم قد ساروا إليه وهم قاتلوه. قلت:قاتلوه ؟ قال: قاتلوه – ثلاثا – قلت: فأين قتلته ؟ قال: في النار والله – قالها ثلاثا – قلت: فأين هو ؟ قال: في الجنة والله – قالها ثلاثا – ثم قال: أما إنها قد حضرت فتنة ففر منها. ثم قال: والله لانا أعلم بها من بطريق كذا وكذا. قلت: ما تأمرني ؟ قال:الزم الذي أنت عليه ولا تدعه إلى غيره فتضل.
Hibban bin Hilal said: Abu Al-Ashhab narrated to us, he said: Habeeb bin Al-Shaheed narrated to us, he said: Al-Waleed narrated to me, from Jundub, that he said: We heard of statements from Hudhayfah bin Al-Yaman (raa) about Uthman (raa), and I rejected that such a person could say such a thing about such a person, so I went to him at the morning prayer, greeted thrice, received no answer, and left. Then, a messenger brought me back to him, so I entered. He said: Why did you leave? I said: I asked permission – or – I greeted thrice and received no permission. He said: If you asked more than that (three times) you wouldn’t have been allowed entry. He said: I thought you were asleep. He said: I don’t sleep until I know where the sun comes from. He (Jundub) said: What is it about that I’ve heard about you about Uthman that I rejected from someone like you would say about someone like him?! He (Hudhayfah): Some of that is happening, they are going to kill him. He said: Kill him? He said: Kill him – three times. He said: Where are his killers? He said: In the hellfire, Wallah! – he said it thrice. He (Jundub) said: What about him? He said: In heaven, Wallah! – He said it three times. Then he said: The Fitna has begun, so you should escape it. Then he said: I know more about it (the Fitna) than this path and that path. He said: And what do you suggest I do? He said: Stick to what you are upon now, and don’t leave it to another for that will cause you to go astray.
The narration is authentic, and clearly shows that Hudhayfah believed that Uthman is from the people of heaven.
Finally, RTS actually provides a clear narration, where in which Hudhayfah accuses a companion of being a Munafiq. This time though, it is Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari. He quotes:
Narrated Al-A’mash from Shaqiq who said: We were sitting beside Hudhayfah and Abdullah (ibn Mas’ud) and Aboo Moosa (Al-Ash’ari) entered the mosque, Hudhaifa said: ‘One of these two is a Munafiq’, then he continue to say: ‘The most similar people to the Prophet (saw) in his character, his actions and manner is Abdullah. (i.e. Aboo Musa is the Munafiq).
Footnote: the narrators of this narration are trustworthy, and this narration is narrated in Al-Ma’rifa wa Al-Tarikh of Al-Fasawi.
First of all, the narration proves the Iman of Abdallah Ibn Masood who never believed in the fairy-tale of Imamah/Wilayah, hence he is regarded as an apostate according to Shiism (just like the rest of the absolute majority of the Sahaba). Secondly this narration, with this text, can only be found in the narration of Abdullah bin Numair from Al-A’amash. In all other chains and paths for this Hadith, we find the same text, but without the addition that Abu Musa was with Ibn Mas’ud. The first of these are the narrations of Abdulrahman bin Yazeed, from Hudhayfah. (Sunan Al-Tirmithi, p. 863, Daralsalam, 1420, first edition.)
As for the narrations of Abu Wa’el, also known as Shaqeeq, we find Al-A’amash narrating from him, along with several other narrators, however, the accusation against Abu Musa can only be found in the narration of Abdullah bin Numair. Other narrators that have narrated this from Al-A’amash include include Za’idah (Musnad Ahmad 16/598, Dar Al-Hadith, 1416, first edition), Muhadhir (Al-Mustadrak, 4/1204, Al-Maktaba Al-Asriya, 1427), Abu Ishaaq (Fadha’il Al-Sahaba 2/1062, Dar Ibn Al-Jawzi, 1430, fourth edition), Abu Mu’awiyah Mohammad bin Khazim (Fadha’il Al-Sahaba, 2/1063), and Mohammad bin Ubaid (see Musnad Ahmad 16/597)
Furthermore, Za’idah and Abu Mu’awiyah are two of the best known narrators from Al-A’amash, while Abdullah bin Numair is included in a lesser level, so whatever he narrators that conflicts with their narration from him would normally not be accepted. (See Tabaqat Al-Nasa’ee and their biographies in the books of Rijal). Yet, in this narration Abdullah bin Numair is including an addition that isn’t mentioned by six of Al-A’amash’s students, let alone the other chains from Abu Wa’el and Abdulrahman bin Yazeed from Hudhayfah. In light of these facts, the addition in the text of the narration is to be rejected based upon the rules of the early hadith scholars.
Another piece of evidence that suggests the weakness of the addition in the narration is that the two main narrators of this event, Abu Wa’el (in the six books) and Abdulrahman bin Yazeed (in Saheeh Muslim Al-Nasa’ee, and Ibn Majah), are both students of Abu Musa and continued to narrate from him after his death. (Tahtheeb Al-Kamal 3/402 and 4/490) It is not logical for them to narrate from Abu Musa if there was evidence that he was a hypocrite.
Omar is in Paradise, Othman is in Paradise, Hudhayfah is in Paradise, and their enemies will burn in the Hellfire.