InshaAllah I will start updating it soon in few days: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Al-Sunnah/660984983967297
The unacademic attacks of “Misguided” Rafidhi on Sahaba(as) exposed Again
Bismillah hirahman nir raheem
The history goes like this: The “misguided” Shia of Dajjal a.k.a. toyiboffline wrote an article trying to show “Imam Ibn Katheer’s fatal contradiction”, to which I replied in this article. The Rafidhi wrote counter refutation in two parts, and replied to it in two parts which could be read here [Part 1 and Part 2]. Unfortunately, the Rafidhi didn’t learn and wrote another counter rebuttal in two parts which could be found on their Wilayat website. Then I intended to refute it again but after writing a little I realized that the “Misguided” is wasting my time (this will be clear soon). SO i stopped writing and started compiling a review to whatever has happened during this discussion. It was written with me since many days and I didn’t post it because it was incomplete. But I think whatever I have is sufficient to expose him.
1. He totally avoided the issue which was the theme of his first article in this series of argumentation, i.e. “Ibn Katheer’s FATAL contradiction”. I refuted his claim that there wasn’t any kind of contradiction in Ibn Katheer’s statement. The Rafidhi never touched this thing again. In simple term, the main claim of the Rafidhi was refuted and he never touched again in his counter refutations.
2. He doesn’t differentiate between condemning and hating. He lied and attributed a statement on Ibn Katheer which he did not say. In reality the quotation from Ibn Katheer was regarding those who HATE Sahaba, NOT for those who might have condemned some of Sahaba.
3. The Sunni viewpoint of “Sahaba” has been clarified in detail. The Rafidhi in two of his counter refutations never dealt with this. The only thing he did was to bring some names and raise a question that this person was Sahabi and he did crime, while it has been made clear that according to Sunnis a Sahabi can commit sins and even major sins. Basically, he has no point to raise against the actual viewpoint, and the things he raises are related with details which is a separate issue related with each Sahabi whom the Rafidhi brought as an example.
4. He came up with the ridiculous claim that Abu Bakr and Umar plotted for the murder of the Prophet (pbuh) during Hunain war. He brought some unknown report of Waleed bin Jumai’. I refuted it, and in recent refutation he totally avoided this.
5. When I said that Sahaba were not Ma’soom(infallible) and they were prone to commit sin, the Rafidhi took it to mean that according to me Some Sahaba were evil-doers hypocrites. Isn’t this worst kind of stupidity?.
6. He followed the teachings of his cult and by that he lied on me that I send blessings on some Sahaba for their mass murders. When I exposed this lie the Rafidhi kept silence over it.
7. He tried to make it appear that according to sunnis Sahaba were infallible, just because we believe one should not criticize them. Another example of shia stupidity.
8. I made it clear that we do not discuss sins of any Muslims because it fall under backbiting a Muslim, especially those who are no more in this word. The Rafidhi avoided this, indirectly accepting that he has nothing to argue against it.
9. He brought a tradition of Ibn Abbas in tafseer of 38:18-22, according to which the verse was revealed regarding Waleed bin ‘Uqbah. I exposed its weakness. But the half minded Khabeeth thought I was talking about another narration, so he brought authenticity of a tradition which I never criticized. In short, what the Rafidhi brought was irrelevant to what I mentioned.
10. He lied that I was arguing that Waleed was not a Sahabi. I refuted and the Rafidhi was never seen on it again.
11. I expounded on the viewpoint of Hudhafa bin Yamaan regarding Abu Bakr and Umar that he highly respected them both and narrated in their praise. The Rafidhi has no words against it.
12. He deceptively tried to make hadith in praise of Umar, as a narration defaming Umar. I refuted it, and the Rafidhi lost his voice. And all praises due to Allah.
13. I replied to his question as to why Umar suspected that he could be a hypocrite. He didn’t touch this in his counter refutation.
14. For the second time I reminded the Rafidhi that the verse 29 of Surah al-Fath is not in support of Rafidhi claim, rather it actually supports the viewpoint of Ahlus-sunnah. I said that “minhum” according to the scholars of Tafsir is not partitive rather it include the whole group (Jins) it referring to. But even if we accept that it is for tab’eedh than also it doesn’t support shi’i claim. The Rafidhi tried to respond to the first answer but he never touched the second answer even after being reminded. The answer to the part he has responded is coming later.
15. The misguided took evidence from the verse 3:152-155 to prove that the companions who left the battlefield during Uhud were hypocrites. I responded to it, and now Rafidhi is no more on it.
16. He deceptively claimed that according to Ibn Katheer, it was Abu Hurairah who made the statement of Ka’b as a tradition of Prophet (SAW), while Ibn Katheer actually attributed the mistake to some other narrator below Abu Hurairah.
17. He brought the claim that Abu Hurairah was a Mudallis and to support it he quoted some statement of Shu’bah. I refuted it and the Rafidhi kept silence over it.
18. He totally avoided the case of Ibn Hazm, Ibn Jumai’ and the so called tradition proving Abu Bakr and Umar were hypocrites.
19. The clue-less Rafidhi in his hate against the truth lost his mind and “refuted” me on something which I never claimed. He, in his previous refutation, brought up the verse of al-Qur’an (Sajdah 32:18) and claimed that it was revealed regarding Waleed bin Uqbah. I proved that the narration relating its revelation to Waleed is weak due to Ibn Abi Laylah, al-Kalbi and an unknown person (in three different chains). The Rafidhi in his counter rebuttal brought up some new routes and research of Shaykh al-Albani, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Abdul Barr and Ibn Katheer to prove that the report is authentic and that I had “hidden this fact from people in attempt to weaken the story of Walid”. But unfortunately this Khabeeth doesn’t know that all that which he brought is related to the the revelation of verse of al-Hujurat (49:6), while my discussion was regarding verse of al-Sajdah (32:18), and the foolish Rafidhi himself brought it up but somehow lost his mind.
20. He deceptively claimed, “.If a Shi’ah had done what al-Dhahabi had done, al-Nasibi (لعنه الله) would have called him a kafir”. Imam Dhahabi said that Waleed used to drink wine and that he was a sinner. We do not declare anyone Kafir for saying this. In fact, this was made clear under my first article.
21. He still thinks that Abu Hurairah attributed a lie on the Messenger of Allah, even though I had provided several evidences for the authenticity of the Hadith. The hadith that there is no transitive disease has been reported by several Sahabah. Besides Abu Hurairah, it was also reported by (1) Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas (2) Jabir bin Abdullah (3) Ibn Umar (4) Ibn Abbas (5) Anas bin Malik (6) Saa’ib bin Yazeed, and the refereces to these could be seen in previous article. Hence, the actual content is proven from the Messenger of Allah (SAW). This hadith was authenticated by the consensus of scholars of this field, and no one denied its authenticity. So, how could it be a lie on the Messenger of Allah (SAW)? The only argument the Rafidhi could provide is that they all might have heard it from Abu Hurairah. This reply is baseless as the opposite is also possible. They all might have heard it from the Prophet (pbuh) directly. In fact, Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas directly heard it from the Prophet (pbuh). Hence, Abu Ya’la reports it in his musnad (no.794), ibn HIbban in his Saheeh (6094) through Sa’eed bin Musayyib from Sa’d. Likewise, Jabir bin Abdullah mentioned his hearing from the Prophet (pbuh) as reported by Ibn Hibban (6095). Similarly, this has been reported in this way through Umair bin Sa’d, by Abu Ya’la (1577), At-Tabarani in “al-Kabeer” (17/54) and Ibn HIbban in “Ath-Thiqaat”. So for sure they did not rely on Abu Hurairah for this. Hence, we can conclude from the above details that the text of the hadith is established from other companions also. So how could it be a lie by Abu Hurairah (ra)?
I would like to end this rebuttal with a beautiful verse of Quran:
“Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish.” (17:81)
All perfect praise be to Allaah, The Lord of the Worlds. I testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allaah, and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger. We ask Allaah to exalt his mention as well as that of his family and all his companions.
All praises due to Allah and may His mercy and blessings be upon His Last and Final Messenger Muhammad, his family and companions.
Shia Imamis have always been very critical of many of the close companions of the Prophet (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him). They hate them to the worse extant and consider this to be a virtue. They consider this viewpoint of them to be a criterion to differentiate between a believer and a hypocrite. So to prove their point they come with different historical “evidences”. But in all this they fail to establish authenticity. When someone objects to this they say how could you deny this while your own scholars have written this in their books?
This is one of their biggest problems which caused them to remain ignorant about the methodology of scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah. They fail to understand that our scholars quote a tradition for different reasons and not always they care about its authenticity. So there are scholars who when quote a tradition, they quote it for its authenticity like Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Khuzaimah, Ibn Hibban etc in their Sahih collections. There are those who quote a tradition because of its weakness like Ibn al-Jawzi, Al-Shawkani, Mulla ‘Ali Qari in their collections on fabricated narrations. There are those who quote a narration to explain the usage of Arabic word contained in it, like Ibn Manzoor in Lisan al-‘Arab, Majduddin Ibn al-Atheer in An-Nihayah etc. There are those who quote a hadith as an example of a narration by specific narrator, for example Tareekh Baghdad of Khateeb in which the author mentions a narrator and after mentioning the sayings of scholars regarding him he narrates traditions narrated by him. There are those who compile books just to collect narrations on specific topic. For example, As-Suyuti compiled Al-Jami’ al-Kabeer or Jam’ al-Jawami’ which was later rearranged by ‘Ali Muttaqi in Kanz al-‘Ummal. This book is a collection of everything which is narrated from the Prophet (pbuh). So we see scholars quote a narration in their book for different reasons and its authenticity is considered while doing it. Hence, the claim of some shia that it is Hujjah on sunnis because some sunni scholars have mentioned it is flawed.
One of their accusation against Sayyida ‘Aisha is that she was involved in the murder of ‘Uthman or that she incited people against him. We see even their well known ‘Ulama propagate this false accusation. By Allah, this is not the first time she is being accused. The last time she was accused was during the incident of Ifk and Allah then revealed her innocence from above the seven heavens.
This article was compiled during my analysis of shia encyclopedia in which the Shi’i author has repeated the same accusation and to support it he has quoted some books by Sunni (or simply non-Shia) authors. Therefore, here I will be quoting the Shia author of the Shi’ite Encyclopedia first and then I will be responding to it, Insha Allah.
The author of “A Shi’ite encyclopedia” quotes:
Once she went to Uthman and asked for her share of inheritance from the Prophet (after so many years passed from the demise of the Prophet). Uthman refrained to give Aisha any money, and reminded her that she was one of those who counseled Abu Bakr not to pay the share of inheritance of Fatimah al-Zahra (AS). So if Fatimah does not have any share, then why should she? Hearing this, Aisha became very angry at Uthman, and came out and said to the people:
“Kill this old fool (Na’thal), for he is unbeliever.”
- History of Ibn al-Athir, v3, p206
- Lisan al-Arab, v14, p141
- al-Iqd al-Farid, v4, p290
- Sharh Ibn Abil Hadid, v16, pp 220-223.
As for the context of the statement quoted by the compiler of the Encyclopedia, that is Aisha (ra) asking of her share of inheritance from Uthman (ra), then I do not know the source of it. None of the referenced sources mention the background provided by the author, as far as I can see. Wallahu A’alam.
First let me introduce the refrences provided by the shia author so that the matter would be clear for the readers.
- History of ‘Izud-Deen Ibn al-Atheer Al-Jazari. It is “Al-Kaamil fi at-Tarikh”. This book is a collection of incidents without providing the source of it. It mostly relies on the book of Tabari for early history but doesn’t mention the Isnad, unlike Tabari who narrates incidents with Isnad.
- Lisan al-‘Arab: A detailed dictionary of Arabic language compiled by Muhammad bin Mukrim bin ‘Ali Al-Ansari Al-Afreeqi, well famous as Ibn Manzur Al-Afreeqi. Hence, no isnad is given. The author quotes traditions and early Arabic proverbs and poetry regardless of their authenticity. This he does to explain a specific word in his book. Besides, the author was not a specialist in hadith.
- Al-‘Iqd al-Farid: It was compiled by Abu ‘Umar Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Abdi Rabbihi, famous as Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi al-Andalusi (d.328AH). He only collected the speeches, sayings, poems and incidents he was aware of. The muhaqqiq of the book mentioned several books as his sources which includes the Torah, the Gospel, books of al-Jaahiz, books of Ibn Qutaiba, al-Kaamil of al-Mubarrad, books of Ibn al-Muqaffi’ etc. So how could he be relied when he does not mention his Isnad and quotes from such unreliable sources? Ibn Katheer (15/121) notified that he had Shi’i leaning even though he was from the Umavi lineage.
- Sharh Ibn Abil Hadeed: The detailed commentary on Nahj al-Balagha of Shareef Ridha compiled by Abdul Hameed bin Hibatullah bin Husain, Abu Haamid Ibn Abil Hadeed (d.656AH). He was a Mu’atazali on the madhhab of Baghdadi Mu’tazalites, that is those who preferred Ali over Abu Bakr and had more shi’i tendencies than their Basari predecessors who were more like Ahl as-Sunnah in these matters. Like any other Mu’tazali he was ignorant of the science of hadith criticism and hence collected good and bad he found, accepting all that which supports his creed and rejecting all that which goes against his creed. He does not narrate with his chain but many a times gives reference to a specific book which may not be a reliable book.
After all these, those Shia who think that the mere existence of a report in a Sunni book accounts for its authenticity should study more regarding the methodology of Ahl as-Sunnah. The narration “Take half of your religion from Humayra (Aisha),” was also quoted by Ibn Manzoor in the same book, but shia due to their hatred of Sayyidah Aisha declare that to be fabricated and consider this one to be acceptable. But we consider both of them to be fabricated and unreliable. We do not consider any narration in any of our books to be reliable even if it supports our claim until its authenticity is proven through reliable sources through reliable Isnad. Those who doubt this may refer to the books written on the topics of fabricated narrations, he will see a section dedicated to those traditions which were fabricated in praise of different companions.
Coming back to the narration under discussion, the particular statement, i.e. “Kill this Na’thal…,” was attributed to Sayyidah ‘Aaisha (ra) by some sunni historians and linguists who were not expert in hadith criticism like Ibn Atheer, Ibn Manzoor etc. This was attributed to Aisha (ra), in a narration, by Ubaid bin Abi Salamah, who was one of her relatives, in her presence and she did not deny. But this was reported by Saif bin Umar who was abandoned and there was sufficient gap between the incident and the narrator. [Tabari (4/458-9)]
This has also been mentioned by Abu Mikhnaf. Some say the first one to call Uthman a Na’thal was Aisha (ra) as mentioned by Ibn Abil Hadeed in Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah (6/215) without specifying who actually claimed. These are only claims which some authors inherited from others. While there could be some indication that she was critical of Uthman’s (ra) policies and actions but there is no proof in that to suggest that she wanted to kill him or was in support of his murder. These kinds of reports are unreliable because of three main reasons;
- They were reported by unreliable authors like Abu Mikhnaf, al-Waqidi, Saif bin Umar, Ibn al-Kalbi etc.
- Even they did not connect their chains to the eyewitnesses of the incident, hence the reports in most cases remain disconnected.
- The established facts indicate otherwise. Among those is the fact that Aisha always denied this accusation just as Ali bin Abi Talib denied it.
It has been narrated by Ahmad in “Fadhail as-Sahaba”, Bukhari in “Khalq Af’aal al-‘Ibaad” and Al-Baladhuri in Ansab al-Ashraf through Ibn Shihaab az-Zuhri from ‘Urwah from Aisha that she said, ‘If I wanted to kill Uthman I would have been killed too.’ This tradition is authentic. In other traditions she said, ‘By Allah, Uthaman was killed unjustly.’ And there are other traditions suggesting the same.
It could be that some people might have falsely attributed these kinds of things to ‘Aisha. This is understood from the tradition related by Ibn Sa’d (3/60), Ibn Shabbah in “Tarikh al-Madinah” (4/1225) and Al-Baladhuri in “Ansab Al-Ashraf” (5/597) through the route of A’amash from Khaithama from Masrooq that after hearing the criticism of Aisha against those who killed Uthman he said to her, ‘This has been done by you. You wrote to the people to revolt against him.’ She replied, ‘No, by the One in whom believed the believers and disbelieved the disbelievers, I did not write to them with the black (i.e. ink) on the white (i.e. paper) until this sitting of mine. A’mash said, ‘So they used to believe that it was fabricated in her name.’
Ibn Katheer said in al-Bidayah (10/340): This is authentic from her. In this and other traditions similar to it is the proof that these Khawarij had fabricated letters in the name of Sahaba, to incite people against Uthman.
This also clarifies another tradition present in Ansab al-Ashraf (5/596) through the route of Wakee’ from Qais bin Muslim from Umm al-Hajjaj al-‘Awfiyyah that on the enquiry of Ashtar an-Nakha’i regarding Uthman she replied, ‘Ma’adhAllah if I command to shed the blood of muslims and to murder their leader (Imam) and to legitimate (to downgrade) their sanctity.’ So Al-Ashtar said, ‘You wrote to us and now when the fight has initiated you have started to forbid us.’ In the version of Ibn Shabbah, in his “Tarikh al-Madeenah” (4/1224), it also adds the comment of al-A’amash that on that day A’isha (ra) took oath which no one else took before or after her. Then he mentioned her oath as in the previous tradition.
Another tradition quoted by the compiler of Shia encyclopedia is as follows:
While Ibn Abbas was setting out for Mecca, he found Aisha in al-Sulsul (seven miles south of Medina). Aisha said: “O’ Ibn Abbas, I appeal to you by God, to abandon this man (Uthman) and sow doubt about him among the people, for you have been given a sharp tongue. (By the current siege over Uthman) people have shown their understanding, and light is raised to guide them. I have seen Talha has taken the possession of the keys to the public treasuries and storehouses. If he becomes Caliph (after Uthman), he will follow in the path of his parental cousin Abu-Bakr.” Ibn Abbas said: “O’ Mother (of believers), if something happens to that man (i.e., Uthman), people would seek asylum only with our companion (namely, Ali).” Aisha replied: “Be quiet! I have no desire to defy or quarrel with you.”
Reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v15, pp 238-239
This contains al-Waqidi and Abu Bakr bin Abi Sabrah both of whom were abandoned. [See Tarikh at-Tabari (4/407), Meezan al-E’itedal (4/503-4)]
Another report given by Rawafidh is the consultation between Marwan and ‘Aisha (ra):
“We pray that you stay in Medina, and that Allah may save this man (Uthman) through you.” Aisha said: “I have prepared my means of transportation and vowed to perform the pilgrimage. By God, I shall not honor your request… I wish he (Uthman) could fit to one of my sacks so that I could carry him. I would then through him into the sea.”
Reference: “al-Ansab al-Ashraf”, by al-Baladhuri, v4, part 1, p75
This was mentioned by Ibn Sa’d in Tabaqat (2/27) and al-Baladhuri in Ansab al-Ashraaf (5/565) without relating any Isnad to it rather Ibn Sa’d, who was later on quoted by al-Baladhuri and Ibn ‘Asakir, attributed it to some unknown people with the phrase “They say”. From Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah (3/7) it appears that the actual source of this report is al-Waqidi, the abandoned narrator, who narrated this in Kitab ad-Daar. WAllahu A’alam
Follow up the research on narrations quoted in shia encyclopedia:
All praises due to Allah, and May His peace and blessings be upon His Last and Final Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and companions.
Shia Encyclopedia has great fame among shia so called internet debaters. They rely on this online encyclopedia assuming it to be a great research. But the fact is this work is full of weak and fabricated narrations. This Takhreej is a small effort to analyze the authenticity of narrations present outside the two Sahih.
This Part-1 include analysis of following narrations:
. “I am leaving behind two commands: the Book of Allah and my Sunnah“.
. “I am leaving for you two precious and weighty Symbols that if you adhere to both of them you shall not go astray after me. They are, the Book of Allah, and my progeny, that is my Ahlul-Bayt.”
. “Ali is with Quran, and Quran is with Ali.”
. “Behold! My Ahlul-Bayt are like the Ark of Noah. Whoever embarked in it was saved, and whoever turned away from it was perished.“
. “Do not be ahead of them (Ahlul Bayt) for you will perish, do not turn away from them for you will perish, and do not try to teach them since they know more than you do!“
. “My Ahlul-Bayt are like the Gate of Repentance (Baab Hittah) of the Children of Israel; whoever entered therein was forgiven.”
. “O folk! I am soon going to depart from here, and although I have already told you, I repeat once more that I am leaving with you two things, namely, the Book of Allah and my descendants, that is, my Ahlul-Bayt.” Then he lifted Ali by the hand and said: “Behold! This Ali is with the Quran and the Quran is with him. These two shall never separate from each other until they come to me at the Pool of Kawthar.”
. “Whosoever wishes to live and die like me and enter that heaven (after death), which my lord has promised me, namely, the everlasting heaven should acknowledge Ali (AS) as his patron after me, and after him he should acknowledge the sons of Ali.”
. “Regard the Ahlul-Bayt among you as the head to the body or the eyes to the face, for the face is only guided by the eyes.”
. “My Ahlul-Bayt are the protected place of refuge about the dispute in religion.”
Download word file: Takhreej Shia Encyclopedia Part-1
A systematic Takhreej of Hadith Thaqalain
In the name of Allah.
And may his peace and blessings be upon his final Messenger.
This hadith has been narrated from several Sahabah, viz. Ali, Abdur-Rahman bin Awf, Abu Dharr, Zaid bin Thabit, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar, Jabir, Hudhaifa bin Usaid, Khuzaimah bin Thabit, Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri, Zaid bin Arqam, Sahl bin Sa’d, Dhumairah, ‘Aamir bin Lailah, ‘Adi bin Hatim, ‘Uqbah bin ‘Aamir, Abu Rafe’, Abu Shuraih al-Khuza’i, Abu Qudamah al-Ansari, Abu Hurairah, Abul Haitham bin at-Tayyahan, Umm Salamah, Umm Hani and a person from Qureish. However, most of these traditions are not established. [See the detail of these traditions in “Istijlab Irtaqa’ al-Ghuraf” (1/336-364) by Hafiz As-Sakhawi]
My intention is to analyze the authenticity of different wordings of this tradition.
 “I am leaving behind things [or two weighty things], the first of which is the book of Allah. In it is guidance and light. So stick to it.” So he urged us to [stick with] the book of Allah and aspired people of it. Then he said, “And my Ahlul Bayt. I remind you of Allah with regards to m Ahlul Bayt [He repeated this three times]”
This wording is established from the hadith of Yazeed bin Hayyan from Zaid bin Arqam related by Muslim (6304), Ahmad (19265), Nasai in “al-Kubra” (8119), Ibn Khuzaimah (2357) and others.
This wording is also established in the narration of Atiyyah from Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri. Ya’qoob al-Fasawi relates in “al-Ma’rifah wa at-Tareekh” (1/537) through Fudhail bin Marzooq from Atiyyah al-‘Awfi from Abu Sa’eed with the wording similar to that of Sahih Muslim. At the end Fudhail asked Atiyyah, “Who were the Itrah of Prophet (S.A.W.)?” He replied, “His Ahlul Bayt”.
حدثنا عبيد الله قال: أنبأ فضيل بن مرزوق عن عطية عن أبي سعيد الخدري قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: إني تارك فيكم الثقلين أحدهما أكبر من الآخر: كتاب الله عز وجل حبل ممدود من السماء إلى الأرض طرف في يد الله عز وجل وطرف في أيديكم فاستمسكوا به، ألا وعترتي. قال فضيل: سألت عطية عن عترته؟ قال: أهل بيته
There are other wordings also narrated from ‘Atiyyah, and that may be due to weakness in ‘Atiyyah or it may be that some narrators while trying to narrate it through meaning, have changed the sequence of the words unintentionally. WAllahu A’alam
Likewise, this has come under the hadith of Zaid bin Hasan al-Anmati from Ma’roof bin Kharraboodh from Abu Tufayl from Hudhaifa bin Usaid. It was reported by Tabarani in “Al-Kabeer” (3/67 & 3/180) and Abu Nu’aim in “al-Hilyah” (1/355), and its Isnad is weak due to Zaid al-Anmaati, as we’ll see later.
This wording has also been related by Tabarani in “Al-Kabeer” (3/66 & 5/166) through the way of Abdullah bin Bukair Al-Ghanawi from Hakeem bin Jubair from Abu Tufayl from Zaid bin Arqam. Hakeem bin Jubair was extremely weak. [Meezan (1/583)]
 “I am leaving behind things, which if you adhere to you shall never go astray. And that is the Book of Allah and my Ahlul Bayt [or my Itrah].”
This is disputed upon. This relation is famous from the hadith of Jabir, related by Tirmidhi in “Sunan” (3786), Tabarani in “Al-Kabeer” (2680) and “Al-Awsat” (4757) through the way of Zaid bin Al-Hasan Al-Anmati from Ja’far bin Muhammad from his father (Al-Baqir) from Jabir bin Abdullah. This tradition also mentions that the Prophet (SAW) said it during his farewell pilgrimage. This tradition is obviously Munkar for the following reasons:
- Zaid bin al-Hasan al-Anmaati was weak as stated by Hafiz Ibn Hajar in Taqreeb (1/337). Abu Hatim said that he was Munkar al-Hadeeth.
- The hadeeth of Thaqalain was said by the Prophet (SAW) at the place of Khumm. However, according to this tradition the Prophet said it during his pilgrimage, at ‘Arafah.
- Zaid al-Anmaati relates it from Ja’far as-Sadiq, while the other trustworthy narrators related it through same Ja’far as-Sadiq and they did not mentioned Ahlul Bayt. Rather,during the farewell pilgrimage the Prophet (SAW) only urged people to stick with Qur’an. This tradition could be read in Sahih Muslim and other book.
If it is said that Shaykh al-Albani authenticated this, then answer would be: No, Shaykh al-Albani did not authenticate this particular incident; rather he specifically authenticated the wording which was common in both this narration and other narrations. He notified the weakness in Zaid al-Anmaati there. See, As-Saheehah (1761).
The other relation is that which was related by Tabrani [al-Kabeer (3/65)] through Abdul Malik bin Abi Suleiman and Harun bin Sa’d from ‘Atiyyah from Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri. This relation is not established due to Atiyyah. And the tradition through Atiyyah has come with the other wording also which doesn’t support this wording. Hence, this has been related through Katheer an-Nawa, A’amash, Fudhail bin Marzooq, Zakariyya and others from Atiyyah with the wording different than the wording related by Abdul Malik bin Abi Suleiman.
Hence, Ya’qoob al-Fasawi relates in “al-Ma’rifah wa at-Tareekh” (1/537) through Fudhail bin Marzooq from Atiyyah al-‘Awfi from Abu Sa’eed with the wording similar to that of Sahih Muslim [This has preceded already].
Fudhail was well famous for his companionship with Atiyyah and he was much well aware of the narrations of Atiyyah than any other. Besides that, he was also supported by al-A’amash from Atiyyah. So, it is established from this that what is established from the hadith of Atiyyah is that which come through Fudhail, and other people related it by meaning and hence came up with different wordings. Wallahu A’alam
Another tradition through Katheer bin Zaid from Muhammad bin Umar bin Ali from his father from Ali (ra). It has been recorded by Ishaq bin Rahuyah in his Musnad, as in “Al-Mutalib Al-‘Aaliyah” (16/142) by Ibn Hajar, likewise by Tahawi in Mushkil al-Aathar (5/13), through Abu ‘Aamir Al-‘Uqdi from Kathir bin Zaid from Muhammad bin ‘Umar bin Ali bin Abi Talib, from his father, from Ali bin Abi Talib….alhadith, which has the wording, “I have left behind among that which if you stick to you shall never go astray….”.
أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم حضر الشجرة بخم، فخرج آخذا بيد علي، فقال: من كنت مولاه فإن عليا مولاه – أو قال: فإن هذا مولاه – إني قد تركت فيكم ما إن أخذتم به لن تضلوا: كتاب الله وأهل بيتي. ألستم تشهدون أن الله ورسوله أولى بكم من أنفسكم؟ وأن الله ورسوله أولياؤكم؟ قالوا: بلى قال: فمن كنت مولاه
Ibn Hajar said, “Its Isnad is Sahih.”
I say: Katheer bin Zaid is disagreed upon. Ibn Hajar himself said in Taqreeb that he was Sadooq who used to commit mistakes. [Taqreeb] Mostly his hadith could be classified as Hasan, when not opposed by other reliable narrators. Imam Dhahabi, after quoting this tradition in disconnected form, said that there was weakness in Katheer. [Risalah Turq hadith “man kuntu maulahu fa ‘Aliyyu maulahu” (32)]
Ibn Jareer records this tradition, as mentioned treatise of al-Dhahabi and al-Bidayah of Ibn Katheer, and Ibn Abi Aasim in As-Sunnah [Zilal Al-Jannah (no.1558)] without relating the part mentioning the tradition of Thaqalain, while ad-Dawlabi related it in “Adh-Dhurriya at-Tahirah” (237) in disconnected form through Muhammad bin Umar bin Ali from Ali.
It was also related by al-Bazzar in his Musnad (864) through Su’ad bin Suleiman from Abu Ishaq from Harith fro Ali. This is weak due to Su’ad bin Suleiman and Harith al-A’awar.
Regarding Su’ad bin Suleiman, Abu Hatim said that he was not strong. Ibn Hibban listed him in ath-Thiqaat. [Tahdheeb (3/401)] It is not known whether he heard this from Harith before Ikhtilat or after it. Harith was weak according to most of the scholars. [Al-Kashif (1/303), Taqreeb (1/175), Tahdheeb (2/126)]
Also, there is disconnection between Abu Ishaq and Harith. Shu’bah said that Abu Ishaq did not hear from Harith except for four narrations. Yahya bin Sa’eed used to narrate from Abu Ishaq only those traditions of Harith which he actually heard from him. [Tahdheeb (2/126), Jami’ at-Tahseel (pg.245)] In our case, neither Abu Ishaq mentioned his hearing nor does Yahya al-Qattan narrate this from him.
Another narration, which urges muslims to stick with Ahlul Bayt, is related by al-Fasawi in “al-Ma’rifah wa at-Tareekh” (1/536) from the hadith of Zaid bin Arqam through the route of Jareer from Hasan bin Ubaidullah from Abu adh-Dhuha from Zaid bin Arqam (ra). This narration, with this wording, exists only in the version of al-Fasawi. Al-Hakim (4711) related it through the same Yahya bin Mugheerah without having the wording under consideration. Similarly, Tabarani relates it through Ali bin al-Madeeni and Khalid bin Abdullah al-Wasiti, (both of them) through Jareer. Also, the authentic tradition of Zaid bin Arqam has already been mentioned, which gives detail account of this statement of Prophet (SAW). WAllahu A’alam
Another tradition from Zaid bin Arqam is related in “al-Mustadrak” (4577) through Muhammad bin Salamah bin Kuhail from his father from Abu Tufail from Zaid. The authentic version of the hadeeth of Abu Tufail is coming under the study of the addition “they shall never separate”. Muhammad bin Salamah bin Kuhail was weak. [Lisan al-Meezan (5/183)]
This wording also exists in some version of the hadith of Shareek from Rukain from Qaasim bin Hassaan from Zaid bin Thaabit. [Musnad ‘Abd bin Humaid] This is not present in other version of the hadith of Shareek, narrated in Musnad Ahmad and other books of hadeeth. Shareek was weak.
Now, the following points would make the issue clear:
- It is known that all these traditions are describing the same statement, and the occasion was one. The Prophet couldn’t have said all of those wordings because that would be useless.
- The difference in the wording is due to reason that many people narrated it through meaning. So they narrated the summarized wording instead of exact wording. Prophet [SAW] could have uttered only one of those different wordings. That is the reason there is not a hadith with this wording except there is also other version of same narration exist which aids the version of Sahih Muslim.
- The exact wording has been narrated by Muslim in his Saheeh and Ahmad in his Musnad through Zaid bin Arqam, and this is the most authentic Isnad of Hadith Thaqalain. Similarly, the tradition of Atiyyah al-‘Awfi supports this, which was narrated by Fudhail, Atiyyah’s closest student.
- Besides that, the version of Muslim is also explicit. It has been narrated in a way which makes us to believe that it has been narrated precisely.
- This wording of Sahih Muslim is also supported by the narration of farewell ceremony related by Muslim and other through Ja’far as-Sadiq from al-Baqir from Jabir (ra). If it was necessity for the Ummah to follow Ahlul Bayt then Prophet (SAW) would have made this clear during his farewell speech at Makkah. But rather he commanded to stick with the Qur’an and later on at Khumm he repeated the same thing except that he added the prescription for the Ummah to be careful with Ahlul Bayt.
. Addition of “they shall never separate until they meet me at the fountain”.
This addition is proven in the hadeeth of Zaid bin Arqam. Hence, it was related by al-Fasawi in “al-Ma’rifah” (1/536), at-Tabarani in “al-Kabeer” (5/169)(5/170) and al-Hakim in “al-Mustadrak” (4711) all of them through Hasan bin Ubaidullah from Abu adh-Dhuha Muslim bin Sabeeh from Zaid bin Arqam.
Imam Tirmidhi relates it in his Sunan (3788) through A’mash from Habeeb bin Abi Thabit from Zaid bin Arqam. Its narrators are all reliable but there is some doubt whether Habeeb heard from Zaid or not. Ali bin Madeeni said, “He found Ibn Abbas, and heard from A’isha. He did not hear anyone besides them.” [Jami’ at-Tahseel (pg.158)] Therefore, this is disconnected. However, Nasai narrates it in al-Kubra (8092, 8410) and likewise Hakim (4576) and there they mention Abu Tufayl between Habeeb and Zaid bin Arqam. The statement of Ali bin Madeeni apply here as well, since Abu Tufayl was a Sahabi, but it is least applicable in case of Abu Tufayl because he was among those Sahabah who died after 100AH. Abu Tufail died in 110Ah while Habeeb bin Abi Thaabit died in 119AH. Both of them lived in Kufah. Imam Dhahabi declared this Isnad to be Qawi (strong), in his treatise on the hadith “man kuntu maulahu” (1/66, no.65).
This was reported in the narration of Atiyyah al-‘Awfi from Abu Sa’eed. Imam Ahmad records it in Musnad (11104, 11131, 11211 and 11561) through Atiyyah from Abu Sa’eed. Atiyyah bin Sa’d al-‘Awfi was weak in hadeeth.
This was also recorded by Imam Ahmad in his Musnad (21578, 21654) through Shuraik from ar-Rukain from Qasim bin Hassan from Zaid bin Thaabit. Shareek was weak. Qasim bin Hassaan al-‘Aamiri was Majhool al-Haal.
It was also related by At-Tabarani in “al-Kabeer” (3/67) through Zaid bin al-Hasan al-Anmati, he said narrated to us Ma’roof bin Kharboodh from Abu Tufayl from Hudhaifa bin Usaid al-Ghifari. Zaid bin Hasan al-Anmati was weak as already preceded.
. Wording of “Khaleefatayn” instead of “Thaqalain”.
This word comes in the tradition of Shareek from Rukain from Qasim bin Hassaan from Zaid bin Thaabit. It was related by Ibn Abi Shaibah in “al-Musannaf” (31679), Imam Ahmad in his Musnad (21578, 21654) and others.
Shareek was weak, especially when opposes others. [Taqreeb (1/417)] And there is dispute regarding Qaasim bin Hassaan. Dhahabi quotes from Bukhari that his hadith is Munkar and he was not known. Ibn Hibban listed him among Thiqaat, like he does with Majhool al-Haal narrators. Ibn Shaheen said that Ahmad bin Saleh al-Misri said that he was Thiqah. While Abul Hasan Ibn al-Qattan said he was not known. WAllahu A’alam [Meezan (3/369), Tahdheeb (8/279)]
The word “Khaleefah” here doesn’t indicate the successor of Prophet (SAW) in any way. Qur’an cannot be a successor of the Prophet (SAW) for it was in authority even during the lifetime of the Prophet (SAW). In fact, the Messenger of Allah (SAW) himself followed the Qur’an. Khaleefa is simply something which has been left behind. WAllahu A’alam
. Addition of “So be careful how you deal with these two”
This addition comes under the hadith of A’mash from Habeeb bin Abi Thabit [from Abu Tufail] from Zaid bin Arqam. This Isnad has been discussed under the addition of “they shall never separate…” so look there.
This is the only Isnad, according to my knowledge, which contain this wording and it is authentic, Insha Allah. Wallahu A’alam
All praises due to Allah, and may His mercy and blessings be upon the Last and Final Messenger Muhammad, his family and companions.
Muhammad ibn Sa’d, al-Waqidi’s scribe, related that ‘A’isha said to the Prophet, “When you come from relieving yourself, we do not see anything noxious from you.” He said, “‘A’isha, don’t you know that the earth swallows up what comes out of the prophets so that none of it is seen?”
This was related by Ibn Sa’d in his Tabaqat (1/170-171) and Abul Qasim at-Tabarani in “Al-Awsat” (8/21) through ‘Anbasah bin Abdur-Rahman from Muhammad bin Zadhaan from Umm Sa’d from ‘Aisha (ra)…alhadith.
There are two serious defects in this report as follows:
1. ‘Anbasa bin Abdur-Rahman was Matrook (abandoned). Ibn Hajar summarized the ruling on him: He was Matrook, and Abu Hatim accused him of fabricating hadith.
2. Muhammad bin Zadhaan was also Matrook as declared by Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani. Imam al-Bukhari said: His hadith should not be written. At-Tirmidhi said: He was Munkar al-Hadith.
It was also reported by Al-Bayhaqi in “Dala’il an-Nubuwwah” (6/70, Al-‘Ilmiyya ed.) through Husain bin ‘Ulwan, he said: narrated to us Hisham bin ‘Urwah from his father from ‘Aisha…alhadith with similar meaning.
Al-Bayhaqi declared this to be fabricated and said that it was fabricated by Husain bin ‘Ulwan. Ibn Hibban also declared it to be fabricated in “Al-Majruheen” (1/245-246). Al-Dhahabi agreed with him in “al-Meezan” (1/543).
It was also related by Al-Hakim (no.6950) through Minhal bin ‘Ubaidullah from whom he heard from Layla freed slave of ‘Aisha. The link between Minhal and Layla is not established. It was probably Abu Abdullah al-Madani as in other reports.
Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani said in “Al-Isabah” (8/108) in the entry of Layla, “Abu Umar [Ibn Abdul Barr] said isnad of her hadith [this hadith] is not established. Abu Abdullah al-Madani narrates from her and he is unknown. I [Ibn Hajar] say: Al-Mustaghfiri relates it through the route of Abdul Kareem al-Jaraar [sic] from Abu Abdullah al-Madani from the one who veil Aisha and her servant.”
This later Isnad was also cited by As-Suyuti in “Khasais al-Kubra” (1/121) quoting it from some of Abu Nu’aim’s book.
Now, there are following defects in above report:
1. Abu Abdullah al-Madani who was not known.
2. Secondly, Layla is not known. She is only mentioned in the report of Abu Abdullah al-Madani who was Majhool as mentioned before, hence her true identity depends only on the authenticity of this report. Besides this report says that it was Layla with whom this incident happen while the previous reports says that it was Aisha (ra).
There is a third defect which are different for both the routes. In the former exist Minhal bin Ubaidullah and I couldn’t find his biography. Sh Muqbil bin Haadi also didn’t mention any information on him in his book “Rijal al-Hakim fil Mustadrak” which is a book to discuss all the narrators present in Al-Mustadrak. WAllahu A’alam. In the later one, Abdul Kareem Al-Khazaaz was unreliable.
There is another route for this hadith. It was recorded by Ad-Daarqutni in “Al-Afrad”, as quoted by As-Suyuti in “Al-Khasais” (1/121), and through him Ibn al-Jawzi in “Al-‘Ilal al-Mutanahiyah” (1/182) through Muhammad bin Hassan al-Umavi who narrates it from ‘Abdah bin Suleiman from Hisham bin ‘Urwah from his father from ‘Aisha (RA)….alhadith.
Muhammad bin Hassan al-Umavi is alone in narrating from Hisham bin ‘Urwah, hence Ad-Daarqutni included this report among Ghara’ib or lone reports. With regards to Muhammad bin Hassan al-Umavi there is no praise mention in the books of hadith and its related sciences. Dhahabi under his entry says nothing related to criticism or praise, and later Ibn Hajar did the same in his Lisan al-Meezan. However, As-Suyuti quoted Ibn Dihyah who said, “This Isnad is established. Muhammad bin Hassan Baghdadi was trustworthy (thiqah) and righteous (Saleh)”. It seems Ibn Dihya thought him to be Abu Ja’far al-Baghdadi who was Muhammad bin Hassan bin Firoz Ash-Shaibani Al-Azraq that is why he called him Baghdadi. However, this is not established as both are different.
Mursal of Dhakwan
As-Suyuti said in “Al-Khasais” (1/121): And it has a sixth route (of narration) which is Mursal. This was related by Hakeem Tirmidhi through Abdur-Rahman bin Qais Az-Za’farani from Abdul Malik bin Abdullah bin Waleed from Dhakwan that he said, “The Messenger of Allah did not have any shadow in Sun (i.e. Day) or in Moon (i.e. Night). Neither did he have any remnant of faeces”.
Firstly this narration is Mursal and hence not connected with the Prophet (SAW).
Secondly, Abdur-Rahman bin Qais Az-Za’farani was matrook, and Abu Zur’ah and other considered him liar.
Tradition of Umm Ayman
Related by Abu Ya’la in his Musnad through Silm bin Qutaibah from Hasan bin Harb from Ya’la bin ‘Ataa from Waleed bin Abdur-Rahman from Umm Ayman, she said: The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaih wa sallam) had a wooden cup in which he used to urinate (during night). In the morning he would tell, O Umm Ayman, throw away the water in the cup. [She said:] So one night I awake and I was thirsty so I drank what was in it. He [sallallah ‘alaih wa sallam] said, “From this day, you’ll never complain of your stomach”. [See, Al-Mutalib al-‘Aaliyah (3823) by Ibn Hajar]
Hasan bin Harb is unidentified. I could not find any information regarding him.
Related by at-Tabarani in “al-Kabeer” (25/89) and al-Hakim (6912) through the route of Abu Maalik an-Nakha’i from Aswad bin Qais from Nabeeh al-‘Inzi from Umm Ayman…. same as previous.
Abu Malik an-Nakha’i was abandoned. [Taqreeb (2/462)]
Narration of Hukaimah bint Umaimah
Related by Tabarani in “al-Kabeer” (24/189) and al-Bayhaqi in As-Sunan al-Kubra (7/67) through Hukaimah bint Umaimah from her mother…similar to the tradition of Umm Ayman.
عَن حكيمة بنت أُمَيْمَة عَن أمهَا قَالَت كَانَ للنَّبِي صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم قدح من عيدَان يَبُول فِيهِ ويضعه تَحت سَرِيره فَقَامَ فَطَلَبه فَلم يجده فَسَأَلَ عَنهُ فَقَالَ أَيْن الْقدح قَالُوا شربته برة خَادِم أم سَلمَة الَّتِي قدمت مَعهَا من أَرض الْحَبَشَة فَقَالَ النَّبِي صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم لقد احتظرت من النَّار بحظار
Hukaimah was not known. Hafiz Dhahabi and Ibn Hajar both said that she was not known. [Meezan (1/587), Taqreeb (2/636)]
Another thing which was pointed out by Dhahabi is that it was narrated by Ibn Juraij from Hukaima through “an”, so it is doubtful whether he heard it from her or not. Ibn Juraij was known for narrating madallas traditions [in more appropriate terminology “Mursal Khafiyy”].