The Shi’ites believe that most of the companions of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam except a very few number, were hypocrites and unbelievers. If that was the case, why didn’t those unbelievers destroy and wreck that small number that was with the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam? If they argue that the companions only became apostates after the Prophet’s death leaving only seven of them, why didn’t they bring the whole message of the Prophet to an end by destroying the few number of Muslims left, thereby reverting the situation to what it was in the days of their forefathers?
Is it logically acceptable that the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam failed woefully in choosing his companions, while Khomeini succeeded in that?
If the society of the companions of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam was such as described by the Shi’ites: a society full of enmity between its populace; its members full of envy against each other; each and every one of them striving for nothing but political leadership; a society most members of which have become apostates and left the religion of Allah – if not for a very small number of them… If all this were true we wouldn’t have witnessed Islam gaining ground and reaching the apogee of its strength and might, conquering various communities and bringing them under its umbrella and thousands of their populace accepting it as a religion, all in the days of the companions radiyallahu ‘anhum.
The Shi’ites claim that reports (from the Prophet) on ‘Ali’s virtues and on his assumed imamate are in very large numbers via Shi’ite narrators.
It is imperative here to assert that the reports narrated by those who were not among the sahabah will never be authentic, for they never met or saw the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam, nor did they hear anything from him. So their reports from him must be part of what the scholars of hadith term mursal and munqati’. Those narratives will only be authentic if they report them throug the sahabah and regard them the first authorities in that respect. And it is a known fact that the sahabahrespected and loved by the Shi’ites are very little in number, to be more precise, they are a little more than ten, and this is below the required number for a report to be termed mutawatir.
On another side we find that the Shi’ites vilify the majority of the sahabah who reported the virtues of ‘Ali, and accuse them of disbelief.
If the Shi’ites believe that it is probable that those sahabah who were praised by the Qur’an were liars and that they concealed some of the knowledge they knew concerning ‘Ali’s virtues or his purported Imamate, regardless of their large number, they must also accept that probability in the case of those little number they respect and love. Nay, that probability in their case is even more in place and logical.
The Shi’ites assume that all of the Prophet’s companions were apostates but a few, not more than seven.
The question is, what of the rest of the Ahl al-Bait like the progeny of Ja’far and those of ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhuma? Were they also apostates?
We also find that ‘Ali did not consider his opponents unbelievers, not even the Kharijites who fought and harmed him, and declared him an unbeliever. What is wrong with the Shi’ites that they fail to imitate him in that, even though they heedlessly and boldly declare the companions of Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam, nay his wives, the mothers of the faithful, to be infidels?
The Shi’ites believe that the Sahabah were not reputable and just. But we find in reliable Shi’i sources evidences that confirm their being reputable and just. They report that the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam has said in his farewell pilgrimage speech: “May Allah bless the servant who heard my statement and fully understood it, then conveyed it to him who did not hear…”. How could the Messenger sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam trust the Sahabah in conveying his message if were they not reputable, just and reliable?
If the number of hypocrites and apostates among the companions is as great as the Shi’ites claim, how could Islam have been spread the way it was? And how could the Persian and Roman empires have been conquered, nay how could Bait al-Maqdis (Jerusalem) have been brought under Islam?
The Shi’ites present as proof – to their false claim that the sahabah became apostates after the death of the Prophet – the hadith: “Some men among whom I know and who know me would come to me (on the day of judgement, in order to drink from my pond) but they would be driven away from it. And I would say: O, my companions, my companions! But it would be said to me: ‘You know not what they innovated after you’.
We reply them by saying, this hadith speaks in a general way without mentioning anybody by name. It exempts neither ‘Ammar ibn Yasir, nor al-Miqdad ibn al-Aswad, nor Abu Dharr, nor Salman al-Farisi, nor any other person among whom the Shi’ites believe were not apostates. Nay, it does not even exempt ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu himself. So, why would you specify some and leave out others. This kind of selective discrimination can be done by anyone, because anybody that has ill feelings against any of the companions can claim that the hadith speaks about him.
The Sahabah’s major crime in the sight of the Shi’ites is their deviation from the wilayah of ‘Ali and their failure to accept him as caliph (after the Prophet immediately). For this, according to the Shi’ites, they lost their uprightness and reputation. But why don’t they treat other Shi’ite sects, like ‘al-Futahiyyah’ and ‘al-Waqifiyyah’, who also reject some of their so-called imams with the same token? Instead, they even accept their reports and regard them upright. What kind of contradiction is this?
 Al-Khisal (p. 149-150, hadith No. 182).
 Reported by al-Bukhari.
 The hadith rather speaks about those Arab villagers (al-A’raab) who left the religion of Islam after the death of the Prophet, and whom Abu Bakr and the rest of the companions fought to make them return to Islam. As for the Prophet’s word “My companions”, it still refers to those Arab villagers because they were following the religion during his life and that is what he means by the word sahabi here. But if the Shi’ites will claim that rather the closest companions are hereby referred to, they have no reason whatsoever to exclude ‘Ali, ‘Ammar, al-Miqdad, Salman al-Farisi and those among the companions whom they consider the only Muslims after the death of the Prophet, because the word sahabi is applicable to all of them. But we do not subscribe to this false assumption, for all of the aforementioned together with all other companions – above all Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman and ‘Ali – were the best of this Ummah, and were the leaders of the faithful. The Prophet never refers to them in the hadith. But if they say that the companions were apostates for accepting Abu Bakr as caliph after the death of the Prophet instead of ‘Ali, then we remind them that ‘Ali himself and ‘Ammar, al-Miqdad, Abu Dharr and Salman al-Farisi all accepted Abu Bakr instead of ‘Ali, so if the companions were infidels for this particular reason the Shi’ites should raise their voice loudly and declare these five as infidels as well. (Translator).
 See for example: the books ‘Rijal al-Kisshi’ (p. 27; 219; 445; 465), ‘Rijal an-Najashi’ (p. 28; 53; 76; 86; 95; 139), and al-Ardabili’s ‘Jami’ ar-Ruwat’ (1/413).