a
nd Harb bin Ismaa’eel al-Kirmani (d. 280H), in the treatise “Masaa’il Harb bin Ismaa’eel al-Kirmaanee Anil-Imaam Ahmad” said:
هذا مذهب أهل العلم، وأصحاب الأثر، وأهل السنة المتمسّكين بها، المُقتدى بهم فيها من لَدُن أصحاب النبي -صلى الله عليه وسلم- إلى يومنا هذا، وأدركت من أدركت من علماء أهل الحجاز والشام -وغيرهم-؛ فَمَن خالف شيئاً من هذه المذاهب أو طعن فيها، أو عاب قائلَها، فهو مخالفٌ مبتدعٌ خارجٌ عن الجماعة، زائلٌ عن منهج السّنّة وطريق الحق.
قال: وهو مذهب أحمد وإسحاقَ بن إبراهيم بن مَخْلَد، وعبدالله بن الزبير الحُمَيدي، وسعيد بن منصور -وغيرهم- ممن جالسْنا وأخذنا عنهم العلم، فكان من قولهم
This is the madhhab of the People of Knowledge, the Ashaabul-Athar (People of the Narrations), Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, those who stick fast to it
[Ahl us-Sunnah] and who seek to guide themselves by [them i.e. the Ahl us-Sunnah] from among those in the presence of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) up until this day of ours. And I met whomever I met from among the Scholars of the people of Hijaaz and Shaam and others besides them. Whoever differs with and opposes a single matter from the madhaahib [of these People of Knowledge] or contests and defames them or criticizes the one who speaks [by what they speak with], then he is a mukhaalif (opposer), a mubtadi’ (an innovator) and one who has left the Jamaa’ah, who has ceased to be upon the manhaj of the Sunnah and the Path of Truth.
And this [i.e. the path of the People of Knowledge] is the madhhab of [Imaam] Ahmad, Ishaaq bin Ibraaheem, Abdullaah bin Zubair al-Humaidee, Sa’eed bin Mansoor and others besides them amongst those with whom we have sat and taken knowledge from…
Then he says later in the treatise from that which is from the madhhab ijmaa’ of the people of knowledge, Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah:
وذكر محاسن أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، والكف عن ذكر مساويهم التي شجرت بينهم؛ فمن أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، أو واحدا منهم، أو تنقصه أو طعن عليهم، أو عرض بعيبهم، أو عاب أحدا منهم، فهو مبتدع رافضي خبيث مخالف، لا يقبل الله منهم صرفا ولا عدلا، بل حبهم سنة، والدعاء لهم قربة، والإقتداء بهم وسيلة، والأخذ بآثارهم بها فضيلة
And the mentioning of the good qualities and deeds of the Companions of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) and refraining from mentioning their shortcomings and mistakes, those which occurred between them. Whoever reviles the Companions of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam), or a single one amongst them, or reduces [their worth and status] or insults them or exposes their faults or criticises a single one amongst them then he is a mubtadi’ (an innovator), a raafidee (an extreme shi’ite), a khabeeth (vile and repugnant) and a mukhaalif (an opposer) and Allaah will not accept from him any of his efforts nor his fair dealings. Rather loving them is a sunnah, supplicating for them is nearness (Allaah), taking them as a model for guidance is a means (of nearness to Allaah) and accepting and taking from their narrations is an excellence
And then he mentions shortly afterwards:
لا يجوز لأحد أن يذكر شيئا من مساويهم، ولا أن يطعن على أحد منهم بعيب أو نقص؛ فمن فعل ذلك فقد وجب على السلطان تأديبه وعقوبته، ليس له أن يعفو عنه، بل يعاقبه، ويستتيبه، فإن تاب قبل منه، وإن لم يتب أعاد عليه العقوبة، وخلده في الحبس، حتى يموت أو يرجع
It is not permissible for anyone to mention anything of their shortcomings, and nor to revile anyone of them on account of a fault or deficiency. Whoever does that, then it is obligatory upon the ruler to discipline him and punish him. It is not for him (the ruler) to pardon him, rather he should punish him and seek his repentance. So if he repents, it is accepted from him and if he does not repent, the punishment is repeated upon him, and he is kept in prison until he dies or recants.
—-
Know that our madhdhab is but the concensus of the Ahl ul-Ilm, As.haabul-Athar, Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaaah, from amongst among those in the presence of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) up until this day of ours. And know that your madhhab is in opposition to ours, rather, your mode of conduct and despicable behaviour, is but the madhdhab of Ahl ul-Bidah whose love and hate is for other than Allaah’s Messengers and for other than the Companions.
And here is the evidence:
Ibn al-Qayyim says in his book Haadi ul-Arwaah ilaa Bilaad il-Afraah:
“And we shall quote their concensus (i.e. that of the Salaf) just as Harb, the companion of Imaam Ahmad, has quoted from them in his own wording in his well known al-Masaail. He said: “This is the madhhab of the People of Knowledge, the Ashaabul-Athar (People of the Narrations), Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaaah, those who stick fast to it [Ahl us-Sunnah] and who seek to guide themselves by [them i.e. the Ahl us-Sunnah] from among those in the presence of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) up until this day of ours. And I met whomever I met from among the Scholars of the people of Hijaaz and Shaam and others besides them. Whoever differs with and opposes a single matter from the madhaahib [of these People of Knowledge] or contests and defames them or criticises the one who speaks [by what they speak with], then he is a mukhaalif (opposer), a mubtadi (an innovator) and one who has left the Jamaaah, who has ceased to be upon the manhaj of the Sunnah and the Path of Truth.
And this [i.e. the path of the People of Knowledge] is the madhhab of Ahmad, Ishaaq bin Ibraaheem, Abdullaah bin Zubair al-Humaidee, Saeed bin Mansoor and others besides them amongst those with whom we have sat and taken knowledge from ” And then he lists the points of their aqeedah, amongst them: “ And the mentioning of the good qualities and deeds of the Companions of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) and refraining from mentioning their shortcomings and mistakes, those which occurred between them. Whoever reviles the Companions of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam), or a single one amongst them, or reduces [their worth and status] or insults them or exposes their faults or criticises a single one amongst them then he is a mubtadi (an innovator), a raafidee (an extreme shiite), a khabeeth (vile and repugnant) and a mukhaalif (an opposer) and Allaah will not accept from him any of his efforts nor his fair dealings. Rather loving them is a sunnah, supplicating for them is nearness (Allaah), taking them as a model for guidance is a means (of nearness to Allaah) and accepting and taking from their narrations is an excellence.”
Ibn al-Qayyim referred here, to Harb bin Ismaaeel al-Kirmaanee (one of the companions of Imaam Ahmad) who summarised the creed of the Ahl us-Sunnah. This creed is contained in the book: “Masaail Harb bin Ismaaeel al-Kirmaanee an il-Imaam Ahmad”, regarding which adh-Dhahabee (d. 748H) said: “It is one of the most precious of the books of the Hanaabilah.”
It was narrated that al-Bara’ (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “The Ansaar: no one loves them but a believer and no one hates them but a hypocrite. Whoever loves them, Allaah will love him, and whoever hates them, Allaah will hate him.”
Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3672; Muslim, 75.
If a man who hates the Ansaar cannot be a believer and that makes him a hypocrite, then how about one who hates the Ansaar and Muhaajireen and those who followed them in truth, and slanders them, curses them and denounces them and those who love them as kaafirs – as the Raafidis do? Undoubtedly they deserve more to be regarded as kaafirs and hypocrites, and of not being believers.
Al-Tahhaawi said, discussing the beliefs of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah:
We love the companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and we do not neglect to love any one of them, nor do we disavow any one of them. We hate those who hate them and who criticize them, and we only mention them in good terms. Loving them is part of religious commitment, faith and ihsaan, and hating them is kufr, hypocrisy and wrongdoing.
Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan said:
The way of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah is to love the family (ahl al-bayt) of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
The Naasibis love the Sahaabah but hate the family of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), hence they were called Naasibis because they set themselves up (nasb) as enemies of the family of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
The Raafidis are the opposite: they love the Prophet’s family (ahl al-bayt) – or so they claim, but they hate the Sahaabah, whom they curse, denounce as kaafirs and criticize.
Whoever hates the Sahaabah hates Islam, because they are the bearers of Islam and the followers of the Chosen Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). So whoever hates them hates Islam, and this indicates that there is no faith in the hearts of such people and that they do not love Islam.
This is an important basic principle which the Muslims should understand, namely loving and respecting the Sahaabah, because that is part of faith. Hating them or hating one of them is kufr and hypocrisy, because loving them is part of loving the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and hating them is part of hating the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
Sharh al-‘Aqeedah al-Waasitiyyah.
Some of the scholars explained in detail what is meant by hating the Sahaabah. They said: If a person hates some of them for some worldly reason, then that is not kufr and hypocrisy, but if it is for a religious reason, because they were the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then undoubtedly this is hypocrisy.
This is a good explanation which does not contradict what we have mentioned above, rather it explains it further and reinforces it.
Abu Zar’ah al-Raazi said: If you see a man criticizing one of the companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then know that he is a heretic.
Imam Ahmad said: If you see a man mentioning one of the companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in a bad way, then call his Islam into question.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said:
If a person slanders them in a way that does not impugn their good character or religious commitment, such as describing one of them as being stingy or cowardly or lacking in knowledge or not being an ascetic and so on, then he deserves to be rebuked and disciplined, but we do not rule him to be a kaafir because of that. This is how the words of those who were not regarded as kaafirs by the scholars are to be understood.
If a person curses them and slanders them in general terms, this is an area of scholarly dispute, depending on whether this cursing is motivated by mere feelings or religious doctrines. If a person goes beyond that and claims that they apostatized after the death of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), apart from a small group of no more than ten or so individuals, or that most of them rebelled and did evil, then there is no doubt that such a person is a kaafir, because he has denied what is stated in more than one place in the Qur’aan, that Allaah was pleased with them and praised them. Indeed whoever doubts that such a person is a kaafir is himself a kaafir, because this implies that those who transmitted the Qur’aan and Sunnah were kaafirs or evildoers and that the best of this ummah which is described in the verse “You are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:110 – interpretation of the meaning] – the first generation – were mostly kaafirs and hypocrites. It implies that this ummah is the worst of nations, and that the first generations of this ummah are the most evil. No doubt this is blatant kufr, the evidence for which is quite clear.
Hence you will find that most of those who proclaim such views will sooner or later be shown to be heretics. Heretics usually conceal their views, but Allaah has punished some of them to make an example of them, and there are many reports that they were turned into pigs in life and in death. The scholars have compiled such reports, such as al-Haafiz al-Saalih Abu ‘Abd-Allaah Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Waahid al-Maqdisi, in his book al-Nahi ‘an Sabb al-Ashaab in which he narrated the punishments that befell such heretics.
In conclusion, there are some groups of those who slander the Sahaabah concerning who them is no doubt that they are kaafirs, others who cannot be judged to be kaafirs, and others concerning whom there is some doubt regarding that.
Al-Saarim al-Maslool ‘ala Shaatim al-Rasool , p. 590-591.
Taqiy al-Deen al-Subki said:
… This refers to one who slanders some of the Sahaabah. But if a person slanders all of the Sahaabah, then he is undoubtedly a kaafir. The same applies if he slanders one of the Sahaabah just because he is a Sahaabi, because this is demeaning the virtue of the Sahaabah and indirectly slandering the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). So undoubtedly the person who does this is a kaafir. Based on this, the words of al-Tahhaawi, “and hating them is kufr” should be understood as meaning that hating all of the Sahaabah is undoubtedly kufr, but if a person slanders a Sahaabi not because he is a Sahaabi but for some personal reason, and that Sahaabi was, for example, one of those who became Muslim before the Conquest of Makkah and of whose virtue we are certain – such as the Raafidis who slander the two Shaykhs [Abu Bakr and ‘Umar] – then al-Qaadi Husayn stated that the one who slanders the two Shaykhs is a kaafir.
The reason for the scholarly dispute on this issue is if a person slanders a specific person it may be for some personal reason, or he may hate someone for a worldly reason etc. This does not imply that he is a kaafir. But undoubtedly if he hates one of the two Shaykhs because he was a companion of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then this is kufr, and indeed hating any of the Sahaabah who was lower in status than two Shaykhs just because he was a companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is also definitely kufr.
Fataawa al-Subki , 2/575.
And this [i.e. the path of the People of Knowledge] is the madhhab of [Imaam] Ahmad, Ishaaq bin Ibraaheem, Abdullaah bin Zubair al-Humaidee, Sa’eed bin Mansoor and others besides them amongst those with whom we have sat and taken knowledge from…
Then he says later in the treatise from that which is from the madhhab ijmaa’ of the people of knowledge, Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah:
وذكر محاسن أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، والكف عن ذكر مساويهم التي شجرت بينهم؛ فمن أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، أو واحدا منهم، أو تنقصه أو طعن عليهم، أو عرض بعيبهم، أو عاب أحدا منهم، فهو مبتدع رافضي خبيث مخالف، لا يقبل الله منهم صرفا ولا عدلا، بل حبهم سنة، والدعاء لهم قربة، والإقتداء بهم وسيلة، والأخذ بآثارهم بها فضيلة
And the mentioning of the good qualities and deeds of the Companions of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) and refraining from mentioning their shortcomings and mistakes, those which occurred between them. Whoever reviles the Companions of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam), or a single one amongst them, or reduces [their worth and status] or insults them or exposes their faults or criticises a single one amongst them then he is a mubtadi’ (an innovator), a raafidee (an extreme shi’ite), a khabeeth (vile and repugnant) and a mukhaalif (an opposer) and Allaah will not accept from him any of his efforts nor his fair dealings. Rather loving them is a sunnah, supplicating for them is nearness (Allaah), taking them as a model for guidance is a means (of nearness to Allaah) and accepting and taking from their narrations is an excellence
And then he mentions shortly afterwards:
لا يجوز لأحد أن يذكر شيئا من مساويهم، ولا أن يطعن على أحد منهم بعيب أو نقص؛ فمن فعل ذلك فقد وجب على السلطان تأديبه وعقوبته، ليس له أن يعفو عنه، بل يعاقبه، ويستتيبه، فإن تاب قبل منه، وإن لم يتب أعاد عليه العقوبة، وخلده في الحبس، حتى يموت أو يرجع
It is not permissible for anyone to mention anything of their shortcomings, and nor to revile anyone of them on account of a fault or deficiency. Whoever does that, then it is obligatory upon the ruler to discipline him and punish him. It is not for him (the ruler) to pardon him, rather he should punish him and seek his repentance. So if he repents, it is accepted from him and if he does not repent, the punishment is repeated upon him, and he is kept in prison until he dies or recants.
—-
Know that our madhdhab is but the concensus of the Ahl ul-Ilm, As.haabul-Athar, Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaaah, from amongst among those in the presence of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) up until this day of ours. And know that your madhhab is in opposition to ours, rather, your mode of conduct and despicable behaviour, is but the madhdhab of Ahl ul-Bidah whose love and hate is for other than Allaah’s Messengers and for other than the Companions.
And here is the evidence:
Ibn al-Qayyim says in his book Haadi ul-Arwaah ilaa Bilaad il-Afraah:
“And we shall quote their concensus (i.e. that of the Salaf) just as Harb, the companion of Imaam Ahmad, has quoted from them in his own wording in his well known al-Masaail. He said: “This is the madhhab of the People of Knowledge, the Ashaabul-Athar (People of the Narrations), Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaaah, those who stick fast to it [Ahl us-Sunnah] and who seek to guide themselves by [them i.e. the Ahl us-Sunnah] from among those in the presence of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) up until this day of ours. And I met whomever I met from among the Scholars of the people of Hijaaz and Shaam and others besides them. Whoever differs with and opposes a single matter from the madhaahib [of these People of Knowledge] or contests and defames them or criticises the one who speaks [by what they speak with], then he is a mukhaalif (opposer), a mubtadi (an innovator) and one who has left the Jamaaah, who has ceased to be upon the manhaj of the Sunnah and the Path of Truth.
And this [i.e. the path of the People of Knowledge] is the madhhab of Ahmad, Ishaaq bin Ibraaheem, Abdullaah bin Zubair al-Humaidee, Saeed bin Mansoor and others besides them amongst those with whom we have sat and taken knowledge from ” And then he lists the points of their aqeedah, amongst them: “ And the mentioning of the good qualities and deeds of the Companions of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) and refraining from mentioning their shortcomings and mistakes, those which occurred between them. Whoever reviles the Companions of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam), or a single one amongst them, or reduces [their worth and status] or insults them or exposes their faults or criticises a single one amongst them then he is a mubtadi (an innovator), a raafidee (an extreme shiite), a khabeeth (vile and repugnant) and a mukhaalif (an opposer) and Allaah will not accept from him any of his efforts nor his fair dealings. Rather loving them is a sunnah, supplicating for them is nearness (Allaah), taking them as a model for guidance is a means (of nearness to Allaah) and accepting and taking from their narrations is an excellence.”
Ibn al-Qayyim referred here, to Harb bin Ismaaeel al-Kirmaanee (one of the companions of Imaam Ahmad) who summarised the creed of the Ahl us-Sunnah. This creed is contained in the book: “Masaail Harb bin Ismaaeel al-Kirmaanee an il-Imaam Ahmad”, regarding which adh-Dhahabee (d. 748H) said: “It is one of the most precious of the books of the Hanaabilah.”
It was narrated that al-Bara’ (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “The Ansaar: no one loves them but a believer and no one hates them but a hypocrite. Whoever loves them, Allaah will love him, and whoever hates them, Allaah will hate him.”
Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3672; Muslim, 75.
If a man who hates the Ansaar cannot be a believer and that makes him a hypocrite, then how about one who hates the Ansaar and Muhaajireen and those who followed them in truth, and slanders them, curses them and denounces them and those who love them as kaafirs – as the Raafidis do? Undoubtedly they deserve more to be regarded as kaafirs and hypocrites, and of not being believers.
Al-Tahhaawi said, discussing the beliefs of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah:
We love the companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and we do not neglect to love any one of them, nor do we disavow any one of them. We hate those who hate them and who criticize them, and we only mention them in good terms. Loving them is part of religious commitment, faith and ihsaan, and hating them is kufr, hypocrisy and wrongdoing.
Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan said:
The way of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah is to love the family (ahl al-bayt) of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
The Naasibis love the Sahaabah but hate the family of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), hence they were called Naasibis because they set themselves up (nasb) as enemies of the family of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
The Raafidis are the opposite: they love the Prophet’s family (ahl al-bayt) – or so they claim, but they hate the Sahaabah, whom they curse, denounce as kaafirs and criticize.
Whoever hates the Sahaabah hates Islam, because they are the bearers of Islam and the followers of the Chosen Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). So whoever hates them hates Islam, and this indicates that there is no faith in the hearts of such people and that they do not love Islam.
This is an important basic principle which the Muslims should understand, namely loving and respecting the Sahaabah, because that is part of faith. Hating them or hating one of them is kufr and hypocrisy, because loving them is part of loving the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and hating them is part of hating the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
Sharh al-‘Aqeedah al-Waasitiyyah.
Some of the scholars explained in detail what is meant by hating the Sahaabah. They said: If a person hates some of them for some worldly reason, then that is not kufr and hypocrisy, but if it is for a religious reason, because they were the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then undoubtedly this is hypocrisy.
This is a good explanation which does not contradict what we have mentioned above, rather it explains it further and reinforces it.
Abu Zar’ah al-Raazi said: If you see a man criticizing one of the companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then know that he is a heretic.
Imam Ahmad said: If you see a man mentioning one of the companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in a bad way, then call his Islam into question.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said:
If a person slanders them in a way that does not impugn their good character or religious commitment, such as describing one of them as being stingy or cowardly or lacking in knowledge or not being an ascetic and so on, then he deserves to be rebuked and disciplined, but we do not rule him to be a kaafir because of that. This is how the words of those who were not regarded as kaafirs by the scholars are to be understood.
If a person curses them and slanders them in general terms, this is an area of scholarly dispute, depending on whether this cursing is motivated by mere feelings or religious doctrines. If a person goes beyond that and claims that they apostatized after the death of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), apart from a small group of no more than ten or so individuals, or that most of them rebelled and did evil, then there is no doubt that such a person is a kaafir, because he has denied what is stated in more than one place in the Qur’aan, that Allaah was pleased with them and praised them. Indeed whoever doubts that such a person is a kaafir is himself a kaafir, because this implies that those who transmitted the Qur’aan and Sunnah were kaafirs or evildoers and that the best of this ummah which is described in the verse “You are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:110 – interpretation of the meaning] – the first generation – were mostly kaafirs and hypocrites. It implies that this ummah is the worst of nations, and that the first generations of this ummah are the most evil. No doubt this is blatant kufr, the evidence for which is quite clear.
Hence you will find that most of those who proclaim such views will sooner or later be shown to be heretics. Heretics usually conceal their views, but Allaah has punished some of them to make an example of them, and there are many reports that they were turned into pigs in life and in death. The scholars have compiled such reports, such as al-Haafiz al-Saalih Abu ‘Abd-Allaah Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Waahid al-Maqdisi, in his book al-Nahi ‘an Sabb al-Ashaab in which he narrated the punishments that befell such heretics.
In conclusion, there are some groups of those who slander the Sahaabah concerning who them is no doubt that they are kaafirs, others who cannot be judged to be kaafirs, and others concerning whom there is some doubt regarding that.
Al-Saarim al-Maslool ‘ala Shaatim al-Rasool , p. 590-591.
Taqiy al-Deen al-Subki said:
… This refers to one who slanders some of the Sahaabah. But if a person slanders all of the Sahaabah, then he is undoubtedly a kaafir. The same applies if he slanders one of the Sahaabah just because he is a Sahaabi, because this is demeaning the virtue of the Sahaabah and indirectly slandering the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). So undoubtedly the person who does this is a kaafir. Based on this, the words of al-Tahhaawi, “and hating them is kufr” should be understood as meaning that hating all of the Sahaabah is undoubtedly kufr, but if a person slanders a Sahaabi not because he is a Sahaabi but for some personal reason, and that Sahaabi was, for example, one of those who became Muslim before the Conquest of Makkah and of whose virtue we are certain – such as the Raafidis who slander the two Shaykhs [Abu Bakr and ‘Umar] – then al-Qaadi Husayn stated that the one who slanders the two Shaykhs is a kaafir.
The reason for the scholarly dispute on this issue is if a person slanders a specific person it may be for some personal reason, or he may hate someone for a worldly reason etc. This does not imply that he is a kaafir. But undoubtedly if he hates one of the two Shaykhs because he was a companion of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then this is kufr, and indeed hating any of the Sahaabah who was lower in status than two Shaykhs just because he was a companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is also definitely kufr.
Fataawa al-Subki , 2/575.
