people in those whom they have dealt with and put to the test.
We know with certainty that Ibn ʿUmar, Ibn ʿAbbās, Anas ibn Mālik (1), Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī, Jābir, or others like them believed in the Messenger, loved and revered him, and were not hypocrites. How, then, could this not be known about the Rightly Guided Caliphs, whose histories, faith, love, and support for the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, are known throughout the lands, east and west?!
This should be understood. The existence of some hypocrites must not be made grounds for doubting the faith of these men, who enjoy an honourable reputation within the Muslim community. Indeed, we know with certainty the faith of Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyab, al-Hasan, ʿAlqamah, al-Aswad, Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, Ahmad, al-Fudayl, al-Junayd, and those of lesser standing than them. How, then, could the faith of the Companions not be known, when we know the faith of many of our own companions with whom we have dealt directly?!
This has been discussed at length elsewhere. It has been explained that the truthfulness of a truthful person’s reports (* when these involve a claim to prophethood or something else, and the falsehood of a liar *) (2) can be known with certainty in many circumstances and through many means.
Outwardly professing Islam falls into this category, for a person is either truthful or lying.
This is the first point in reply. The second—which Ahmad and others have mentioned, and concerning which I know of no disagreement among the scholars—is that there were no hypocrites whatsoever among the Emigrants. This is because