The authenticity of the addition “He is not the one who flee”

October 11, 2014 Leave a comment

This research is not to deny that ‘Ali (ra) was “not the one who flee”, but since Shiites may use it to show that Abu Bakr (ra) and ‘Umar (ra) were the one who fled away from the battle of Khaybar therefore I made went into depth of this particular addition. This is a version of very famous hadith on the merit of ‘Ali (ra) quoted in authentic book. But the addition under discussion has different story. This discussion is a part of my ongoing work on shia encyclopedia. Quoting from “A Shiite Encyclopedia”:

“I will give the standard tomorrow to a man who loves Allah and his Prophet, and whom Allah and his Prophet love, (a man) who will be steadfast and will not flee”.

The next day Allah’s Apostle gave ‘Ali the flag and Allah granted victory under his leadership. (See Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English version, Traditions 5.52, 5.520)

 

I could not find the hadith in Sahih Bukhari with the addition of “who will be steadfast and will not flee” neither do I see such sentence in the English translation of Sahih Bukhari by Muhsin Khan and Al-Hilali. Imam Bukhari has mentioned this hadith at seven places in Sahih Bukhari; twice in the book on Merits of Companions, and twice in the Book of Maghazi and thrice in the book of Jihad. Nowhere does this meaning exist.

However, I found this tradition with the addition of “He is not the one who flees” as follows:

  1. It has been reported in Musnad (778) of Imam Ahmad, Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah (32080), Ibn Majah (117) and others through the chain of Muhammad bin Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Lailah from Minhaal from Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Lailah who report the incident of his father with Ali (ra) which include this hadith of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). Muhammad bin Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Lailah was the one regarding whom Shu’bah said, “I have not seen a person who has as bad memory as Ibn Abi Lailah.”
  2. Ibn Ishaq reports it in Seerah [] and through him At-Tabrani in “Al-Kabeer” (7/35) through Buraidah bin Sufyan bin Farwah from his father from Salamah bin Akwa’ (ra). Buraidah bin Sufyan is not reliable. [Meezan (1/306)] His father remains unknown as no one considered him reliable except Ibn Hibban as per his standard rejected by other scholars.
  3. Ibn Abi Shaibah in Musannaf (36894) through Nu’aim bin Hakeem from Abu Maryam [Ath-Thaqafi] from ‘Ali (ra). Nu’aim bin Hakeem who is disputed upon among scholars. [ Tahdheeb al-Kamal (29/464), Meezan (4/267)]
    Abu Maryam Qais Ath-Thaqafi al-Kufi was Majhool as per the statement of Ad-Daarqutni and Ibn Hajar. [Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (12/232)] An-Nasai mentioned a narrator “Abu Maryam Qais al-Hanafi” and declared him Thiqah. According to Ibn Hajar this is a Wahm of A-Nasai as the name of Abu Maryam al-Hanafi was Iyas bin Sabeeh not Qais. Abu Maryam Iyas bin Sabeeh Al-Hanafi was a Qadhi of Basrah by the command of Abu Musa al-Ash’ari and he narrated from Umar bin al-Khattab and ‘Uthman, and his son Abdullah and Ibn Sireen have narrated from him as stated by Abu Ahmad al-Hakim in his book Al-Kuna. While Abu Maryam Qais Ath-Thaqafi al-Madaini was a different person who narrate from Ali and ‘Ammar. Refer to Tahdheeb of Ibn Hajar. And Allah knows best.
  4. Imam Nasai narrates it in Al-Kubra (8458) under “Khasais ‘Ali” through Muhammad [bin Ishaq] from Abdullah bin Abi Najeeh from his father from Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas (ra). Muhammad bin Ishaq is mudallis of the fourth category and besides that Abu Najeeh did not hear from Sa’d and hence Abu Hatim said regarding this Isnad that it is Mursal. [Al-Jarh wa at-Ta’deel (9/306)]

And Allah knows best

Hadith : “Whoever loves Ali has loved me, and whoever hates Ali has hated me”

August 31, 2014 Leave a comment

Hadith : “Whoever loves Ali has loved me, and whoever hates Ali has hated me”

 

Al-Haakim (no.4648) reported it through Sa’eed bin Aus Al-Ansari from ‘Auf from Abu ‘Uthman An-Nahdi that a person asked Salman al-Farasi, “What is this intense love of ‘Ali from you?” He said, “I heard the messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam)…alhadith”. All of its narrators are trustworthy.

Its narrators are as follow:

  1. Ahmad bin ‘Uthman bin Yahya al-‘Atashi al-Adami al-Muqri (d.349): He was trustworthy as per the declaration of Al-Barqani and Khateeb. [Tarikh al-Islam (7/871)]
  2. Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Yazeed bin Abil ‘Awwam ar-Riyahi: He was declared Saduq by Ad-Daarqutni. Ibn Hibban listed him among Thiqaat. Maslamah bin Qasim said that he was Thiqah. Ibn ‘Uqdah reports from Abdullah bin Ahmad that he was Saduq. [Ath-Thiqat by Qasim bin Qatloobagha (8/163)]
  3. Sa’eed bin Aws Abu Zaid al-Ansari: Ibn Ma’eed and Abu Hatim said Saduq. Salih Jazarah said Thiqah. [Tahdheeb al-Kamal (10/330-337)]
  4. Awf al-A’rabi: He was declared Thiqah by Ahmad bin Hanbal, Yahya bin Ma’een and An-Nasai. [Tahdheeb al-Kamal (22/437-441)]
  5. Abu ‘Uthman An-Nahdi: He was from the senior-most Tab’een.

Al-Hakim declared it authentic. This narration was also reported by Ash-Shajari in his Amaali through a weak chain going back to Sa’eed bin Aws. [Al-Eema ila zawa’id al-Amaali wa al-Ajza (3/29)]

The same wording has also been reported as a narration of Um Salamah (ra). At-Tabarani in “Al-Kabeer” (23/380), Abu Tahir Al-Mukhallis in Fawaid (3/150, no.2193) and Ibn ‘Asakir in his Tarikh (42/270-271) through Abu Jabir from Hakam bin Muhammad from Fitr from Abu Tufayl from Um Salamah (ra)…alhadith.

Shaikh Al-Albani declared the Isnad of the hadith of Umm Salamah to be Sahih. [As-Saheehah (1299)]

Categories: Hadeeth Tags: , , , , ,

Ibn ‘Abbas and Mut’ah (Temporary marriage)

Bismillah

It is a well accepted opinion among the scholars of Sunnah that Mut’ah (temporary marriage) is an invalid practice. It is also well accepted that it was once valid but later on it was banned. Hence, many narrations are present in the books of hadith to prove that it was prohibited. One of the companions who have narrated the hadith on the prohibition of Mut’ah is ‘Ali bin Abi Talib (ra). Besides that there were some who held the view of its permissibility. This is not a discussion on it details rather this is particularly to discuss the view of Abdullah bin ‘Abbas (ra) regarding it and the reaction of companions to his opinion.

 

OPINION OF IBN ‘ABBAS REGARDING TEMPORARY MARRIAGE

Ibn ‘Abbas considered that temporary marriage was permitted. Al-Imam Muhammad bin Isma’il al-Bukhari (d256 AH) narrates in his Sahih:

5116 – حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بَشَّارٍ، حَدَّثَنَا غُنْدَرٌ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ أَبِي جَمْرَةَ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ: سُئِلَ عَنْ مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ «فَرَخَّصَ»، فَقَالَ لَهُ مَوْلًى لَهُ: إِنَّمَا ذَلِكَ فِي الحَالِ الشَّدِيدِ، وَفِي النِّسَاءِ قِلَّةٌ؟ أَوْ نَحْوَهُ، فَقَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ: «نَعَمْ»

Ibn ‘Abbas was asked regarding temporary marriage with women so he allowed it. On this one of his slaves said, “It is only in harsh condition, when there is lack of women?” or something of that sort. So Ibn ‘Abbas said, “Yes.”

In a tradition from As-Sunan Al-Kabeer (14166) by Al-Bayhaqi Ibn ‘Abbas (ra) responded to the criticism of Sa’eed bin Jubair on his view on Mut’ah by saying, “I did not intend that, neither did I give such ruling regarding Mut’ah. Mut’ah is not permitted except in case of necessity. Indeed it is like the dead meat, blood and the flesh of swine.”

It is clear from the above authentic narrations that the view of Ibn ‘Abbas was not similar to that of Shia Twelvers regarding Mut’ah. Hence, according to him Mut’ah is only permitted when there is need while according to Twelvers it is a virtuous act.

However, Sunni scholars do not think that Mut’ah is permitted even if there is lack of women unlike Ibn ‘Abbas who thought it is permitted. The view of Ibn ‘Abbas (ra) was wrong and the view of Twelvers is worse.

 

REACTION OF COMPANIONS AGAINST THE VIEW OF IBN ‘ABBAS

The foremost to oppose Ibn ‘Abbas (ra) in his view was Ameer al-Mu’mineen ‘Ali (ra). Al-Imam Al-Bukhari narrates in his marvelous book Sahih:

5115 – حَدَّثَنَا مَالِكُ بْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ الزُّهْرِيَّ، يَقُولُ: أَخْبَرَنِي الحَسَنُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ، وَأَخُوهُ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِمَا، أَنَّ عَلِيًّا رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، قَالَ لِابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ: «إِنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَهَى عَنِ المُتْعَةِ، وَعَنْ لُحُومِ الحُمُرِ الأَهْلِيَّةِ، زَمَنَ خَيْبَرَ»

Al-Hasan bin Muhammad bin ‘Ali and his brother Abdullah bin Ali both narrate from their father [i.e. Ibn al-Hanafiyyah] that ‘Ali said to Ibn ‘Abbas, “The Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) forbade from Mut’ah and the eating of domestic donkey’s flesh during the time of Khaybar.”

In Sahih Muslim it is like this:

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ نُمَيْرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي، حَدَّثَنَا عُبَيْدُ اللهِ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ، وَعَبْدِ اللهِ، ابْنَيْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ، عَنْ أَبِيهِمَا، عَنْ عَلِيٍّ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ يُلَيِّنُ فِي مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ، فَقَالَ: «مَهْلًا يَا ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ، فَإِنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَهَى عَنْهَا يَوْمَ خَيْبَرَ، وَعَنْ لُحُومِ الْحُمُرِ الْإِنْسِيَّةِ»

‘Ali heard of Ibn ‘Abbas being lenient regarding Temporary marriage so he said to him, “Wait O Ibn ‘Abbas! Indeed the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) forbade it during Khaibar and from the meat of domestic donkeys.”

In another version of Sahih Muslim he said to Ibn ‘Abbas, “You are a person who has been led astray…”

Another person to oppose Ibn ‘Abbas in this regard was Abdullah bin az-Zubair. Hence, Imam Muslim records in Sahih:

حَدَّثَنِي حَرْمَلَةُ بْنُ يَحْيَى، أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ وَهْبٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي يُونُسُ، قَالَ ابْنُ شِهَابٍ: أَخْبَرَنِي عُرْوَةُ بْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ، أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللهِ بْنَ الزُّبَيْرِ، قَامَ بِمَكَّةَ، فَقَالَ: «إِنَّ نَاسًا أَعْمَى اللهُ قُلُوبَهُمْ، كَمَا أَعْمَى أَبْصَارَهُمْ، يُفْتُونَ بِالْمُتْعَةِ»، يُعَرِّضُ بِرَجُلٍ، فَنَادَاهُ، فَقَالَ: إِنَّكَ لَجِلْفٌ جَافٍ، فَلَعَمْرِي، لَقَدْ كَانَتِ الْمُتْعَةُ تُفْعَلُ عَلَى عَهْدِ إِمَامِ الْمُتَّقِينَ – يُرِيدُ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – فَقَالَ لَهُ ابْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ: «فَجَرِّبْ بِنَفْسِكَ، فَوَاللهِ، لَئِنْ فَعَلْتَهَا لَأَرْجُمَنَّكَ بِأَحْجَارِكَ»

Abdullah bin Zubair stood up in Makkah and said referring to a person, “Allah has made some people hearts blind as they as He has made their eyes blind; they issue verdict in favor of Mut’ah.” So that person called him and said, “You are uncouth and lacking in manners. By Allah, Mut’ah was practiced during the time of the leader of the pious i.e. the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam).” Ibn az-Zubair said to him, “Then do it by yourself. By Allah if you do that I will stone you with your own stones.”

 

Ibn Abi ‘Amrah al-Ansari objected to Ibn ‘Abbas on his view on Mut’ah. Hence, Abdur-Razzaq reports in “Al-Musannaf” (14033) through Az-Zuhri from Khalid bin Muhajir:

عَنْ مَعْمَرٍ قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنِي الزُّهْرِي، عَنْ خَالِدِ بْنِ الْمُهَاجِرِ بْنِ خَالِدٍ قَالَ: أَرْخَصَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ فِي الْمُتْعَةِ، فَقَالَ لَهُ ابْنُ أَبِي عَمْرَةَ الْأَنْصَارِيُّ: «مَا هَذَا يَا أَبَا عَبَّاسٍ؟» فَقَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ: فُعِلَتْ مَعَ إِمَامِ الْمُتَّقِينَ. فَقَالَ ابْنُ أَبِي عَمْرَةَ: «اللَّهُمَّ غُفْرًا، إِنَّمَا كَانَتِ الْمُتْعَةُ رُخْصَةً كَالضُّرُورَةِ إِلَى الْمَيْتَةِ، وَالدَّمِ، وَلَحْمِ الْخِنْزِيرِ، ثُمَّ أَحْكَمَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى الدِّينَ بَعْدُ»

Ibn ‘Abbas permitted Mut’ah so Ibn Abi ‘Amrah said to him, “What is this O Ibn ‘Abbas?” He said, “I did it during the time of the leader of pious.” Ibn Abi ‘Amrah said, “May Allah forgive. Indeed Mut’ah was an exemption like in the case when the dead meat, blood or the flesh of swine is necessary. Then Allah completed his religion after that.”

 

‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar also raised his voice against Ibn ‘Abbas regarding Mut’ah. Abdur-Razzaq (14035) reports:

14035 - عَنْ مَعْمَرٍ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنْ سَالِمٍ، قِيلَ لِابْنِ عُمَرَ: إِنَّ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ يُرَخِّصُ فِي مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ فَقَالَ: «مَا أَظُنُّ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ يَقُولُ هَذَا». قَالُوا: بَلَى، وَاللَّهِ إِنَّهُ لَيَقُولُهُ قَالَ: «أَمَا وَاللَّهِ مَا كَانَ لِيَقُولَ هَذَا فِي زَمَنِ عُمَرَ، وَإِنْ كَانَ عُمَرُ لَيُنَكِّلُكُمْ عَنْ مِثْلِ هَذَا، وَمَا أَعْلَمُهُ إِلَّا السِّفَاحَ»

Saalim said: It was said to Ibn ‘Umar that Ibn ‘Abbas permits Mut’ah with women. He said, “I do not think Ibn ‘Abbas says that.” They said, “Indeed, by Allah he says that.” So he said, “By Allah, he would not say such a thing during the lifetime of ‘Umar. Indeed ‘Umar would punish you on such things. And I do not think of it except as adultery.” – This narration is present in Sahih Muslim but without mentioning Ibn ‘Abbas.

Was Sayyiduna ‘Umar bin al-Khattab unaware of the verses of Tayammum?

Bismillah

All praises due to Allah and may His peace and blessings be upon the Last and Final Messenger Muhammad.

In Sahih Muslim, Book of Menstruation, chapter on Tayammum:

Abd al-Rabmin b. Abza narrated It on the authority of his father that a man came to ‘Umar and said: I am (at times) affected by seminal emission but find no water. He (‘Umar) told him not to say prayer. ‘Ammar then said. Do you remember,0 Commander of the Faithful, when I and you were in a military detachment and we had had a seminal emission and did not find water (for taking bath) and you did not say prayer, but as for myself I rolled in dust and said prayer, and (when it was mentioned before) the Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: It was enough for you to strike the ground with your hands and then blow (the dust) and then wipe your face and palms. Umar said: ‘Ammar, fear Allah. He said: If you so like, I would not narrate it.
A hadith like this has been transmitted with the same chain of transmitters but for the words: ‘Umar said: We hold you responsible for what you claim.”

Based on above narration some people allege that Umar bin Khattab (ra) was unaware of the verses of Tayammum. Basically Tayammum has been mentioned at two places in the Qur’an. First in Surah Nisa verse 43:

“O you who have believed, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying or in a state of janabah, except those passing through [a place of prayer], until you have washed [your whole body]. And if you are ill or on a journey or one of you comes from the place of relieving himself or you have contacted women and find no water, then seek clean earth and wipe over your faces and your hands [with it]. Indeed, Allah is ever Pardoning and Forgiving.” [Qur'an 4:43 tr. Sahih International]

And in Surah Ma’idah verse 6:

“O you who have believed, when you rise to [perform] prayer, wash your faces and your forearms to the elbows and wipe over your heads and wash your feet to the ankles. And if you are in a state of janabah, then purify yourselves. But if you are ill or on a journey or one of you comes from the place of relieving himself or you have contacted women and do not find water, then seek clean earth and wipe over your faces and hands with it. Allah does not intend to make difficulty for you, but He intends to purify you and complete His favor upon you that you may be grateful.” [5:6]

Sayyiduna ‘Umar (ra) was certainly aware of this verse and he also held it permissible to perform Tayammum in case of minor impurity [i.e. when only ablution is necessary] when there is no water available. But according to him it was not permissible to perform Tayammum in case of major impurity [i.e. when Ghusl is necessary]. In the above two verses if the word “lams” is taken for sexual intercourse then it does go against ‘Umar (ra), however if it is taken to mean physical touch then it is not a proof against his opinion. Basically the meaning of that part is controversial among scholars. According to Imam Shafi’i the part “Lamastumun Nisa” means touching of women while according to Imam Abu Hanifa it means sexual intercourse. So Umar (ra) was not actually unaware of the verses of Tayammum but he considered them to be only for those who with minor impurity but not in case of Janabah. It was a matter of Ijtihad not like some Rawafidh are trying to portray as though he was simply ignorant of the verses of Qur’an. It is said that he left this opinion. And Allah knows best.

Another point which clearly shows that the verse is not decisive against the view held by ‘Umar (ra) is the fact that in the incident which happened between him and ‘Ammar bin Yasir (ra) regarding the issue Ammar (ra) reminded him of an incident happened during the lifetime of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) and not the verses regarding Tayammum. There could not have been any evidence stronger than the verse of Qur’an and ‘Ammar (ra) would never had left it if it were against ‘Umar (ra).

Few examples of unintentional textual alteration in the books of hadith

Bismillah

All praises due to to Allah and may His peace and blessings be upon the last and final prophet Muhammad.

 

“The Best of Inhabitants of Madinah” or “the Best judge of inhabitants of Madinah”: Clarification regarding a narration

It was reported by Ahmad in Fadhail As-Sahaba (1033) through Muhammad bin Ja’far Ghundur and Abu Ja’far Al-Qatee’i reports it in Zawaid to Fadhail As-Sahabah of Ahmad (1097) through Abul Qasim al-Baghwi from his grandfather from Abu Qutn. Both Abu Qutn and Ghundur narrates it from Shu’bah from Abu Ishaq from Abdullah bin Yazeed from ‘Alqamah from Ibn Mas’ud that he said, “We used to say that the best (Afdhal) among the people of Madinah is Ali bin Abi Talib.”
This Isnad is authentic but there is replacement of the word Afdhal (best) in place of Aqdha (best judge) as we shall see. This narration has also been reported by Al-Bazzar in his Musnad (1616) through Yahya bin Sakan from Shu’bah similarly with the phrase “the best (afzal) among the people of Madinah”.

However, Yahya bin Sakan is weak. Besides that the narration of Bazzar has been cited by Ibn Hajar in Al-Mutalib al-‘Aliyah (16/75) with the original wording “Aqdha Ahl al-Madinah”. In Fath al-Bari also, he cites it with correct wording but at another place in Fath al-Bari he cites it with the phrase “Afzala Ahl Al-Madinah”. One may claim that these both wordings are present in the Musnad of Bazzar and in current version it is missing due to some unknown reason, however this assumption is false because this hadith is present in the Musnad under the section where Bazzar has cited the narration of Abdur-Rahman bin Yazeed from ‘Alqamah. There he has cited only one narration and that could only be with one of those phrases. Also, if there had been both of these wordings present in Bazzar then Ibn Hajar would have cited both of them separately in Al-Mutalib as it is a collection of Zawaid of ten hadith books. Al-Haythami also cites only one wording in Majma’ az-Zawaid (9/116) and that is with the incorrect wording “Afzala Ahlal Madinah”. So we see that there is only one wording in Musnad al-Bazzar and that could be any of those two.  Therefore, if the wording is “the best judge among Ahlal Madinah is Ali” then it would add to the list of those students of Shu’bah who has reported this from him, and if the wording in Bazzar is “the best of Ahl al-Madinah is Ali” then this would be a weak and Munkar tradition due to weakness in Yahya bin Sakan and his opposition to the reliable students of Shu’bah. Although Ibn Hibban listed him among Thiqat but Imam Ad-Daarqutni and Salih Jazrah said that he was weak. Adh-Dhahabi also said that he was not strong. It is quite well known that Ibn Hibban was lenient in Tahwtheeq to some extent. [See Lisan al-Mizan (1/28) (6/259)]

The narration related by Al-Qatee’i in Fadhail as-Sahaba (1097) is also a Tasheef or mistake. The reason being the Shaykh of Al-Qatee’i in this is Abul Qasim al-Baghwi, and this Shaykh has reported this narration in his book “Mu’jam as-Sahabah” (4/361) in the same manner but the wording is “We used to say the best judge among the people of Madinah is Ali bin Abi Talib.” Ibn ‘Asakir also relates it in Tarikh Dimashq (42/405) through the Isnad of Abu al-Qasim al-Baghwi similarly as in Mu’jam as-Sahabah.

As for the narration of Ahmad in Fadhail as-Sahabah then I could not find it in any other book with the Isnad of Ahmad so as to compare them except that Ibn ‘Asakir (42/404) has cited this through Muhammad bin Uthman bin Abi Shaibah from his father from Ghundar, the shaykh of Ahmad in this narration, from Shu’bah with the correct phrase “the best judge among Ahl al-Madinah”. However there is famous dispute regarding the reliability of Muhammad bin Uthman bin Abi Shaybah among scholars. In any case, it appears that there is replacement of the word in this narration as well because it is very much probable that a scribe might have done this. Bothe the words “Afdhal” and “Aqdha” look very similar when written in arabic especially without dots. Besides that it is very much unexpected that Imam Ahmad would narrate a narration, which is not found anywhere else with authentic Isnad, and scholars would not narrate it.

From above discussion we can see that the wording ((best among people of Madinah)) has been narrated in the following sources:

  1. Fadhail as-Sahabah of Ahmad through Ghundur from Shu’bah. If it is not a Tasheef (a replacement of the correct word with similar incorrect word) then it is a mistake by Ghundur as he was opposed by majority of students of Shu’bah. However, Abu Ja’far Ibn Abi Shaibah has reported this through Ghundur with correct wording. And Allah knows best.
  2. Additions of Al-Qatee’i on Fadhail as-Sahabah through Abu Qutn from Shu’bah. This is obviously a Tasheef as the shaykh of Al-Qatee’i here has narrated this in his book “Mu’jam as-Sahaba” with the correct wording.
  3. Musnad al-Bazzar through Yahya bin Sakan from Shu’bah. Yahya bin Sakan was weak specially when opposed by well known students of Shu’bah. However, Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani has recorded this report in Al-Mutalib al-‘Aaliyah through Ibn Sakan with correct wording. And Allah knows best.

Now coming to the narration with accurate wording through famous students of Shu’ba, it was reported by Ahmad bin Manee’ [Al-Mutalib al-‘Aliyah (3924)], Ibn Sa’d in Tabaqat (2/258), Al-Hakim in Al-Mustadrak (4656), Abul Qasim al-Baghwi in Mu’jam as-Sahabah (4/361), Ibn ‘Asakir (42/404, 405) and Ibn Abdul Barr in Al-Istai’ab (3/1103).

So from the above references we came across the following students of Shu’bah:

  • Abu Qatan Umar bin Haytham
  • Wahb bin Jareer
  • Adam bin Abi Iyas
  • Muslim bin Ibrahim
  • Abu ‘Aamir al-‘Uqdi

All these narrators narrate it from Shu’ba bin Hajjaj with the wording “we used to say that the best judge among Ahl al-Madinah is Ali”. Also Hafiz Ibn Abdul Barr has said the same thing that the wording “Afzala Ahl al-Madina” is a Tasheef (mistake in word while writing or narrating). Al-Istidhkar (14/242)

Another strong evidence which strengthen our above clarification is that Ibn Mas’ud considered Uthman (ra) to be the best among the companions after the death of Umar (ra), so how could Ali (ra) be superior than even Abu Bakr (ra) and ‘Umar (ra) according to him?

Therefore, Imam Ahmad narrates in Fadhail (747), Ibn Sa’d in Tabaqat (3/46), Tabarani (9/170), Abu Nu’aym in Hilyah (7/244) through Abdul Malik bin Maisirah from Nazzaal bin Saburah from Abdullah that he said when Uthman was chosen as Caliph, “We selected the best of those who are alive as our leader.” This has been reported through other Isnad as well and is quite famous from Ibn Mas’ud so much so that Imam Abu ‘Ubaid used it as evidence to claim that ‘Uthman (ra) was superior to ‘Ali (ra). [Tarikh Baghdad (12/409), Siyar A’alam an-Nubala (10/498)]

 

An addition in the published copies of Sunan Ibn Majah

 

In Sunan Ibn Majah (154) a hadith exist which is narrated through Anas bin Malik (ra) that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said: “The most merciful of my Ummah towards my Ummah is Abu Bakr; the one who adheres most sternly to the religion of Allah is ‘Umar; the most sincere of them in shyness and modesty is ‘Uthman; the best judge is ‘Ali bin Abi Talib; the best in reciting the Book of Allah is Ubayy bin Ka’b; the most knowledgeable of what is lawful and what is unlawful is Mu’adh bin Jabal; and the most knowledgeable of the rules of inheritance is Zaid bin Thabit. And every nation has trustworthy guardian, and the trustworthy guardian of this Ummah is Abu ‘Ubaidah bin Jarrah.”

This is taken from English translation of Sunan Ibn Majah published from Darussalam with the rulings of Shaykh Zubair ‘Ali Za’i. The part of the narration “the best judge ‘Ali bin Abi Talib” is not present in the manuscript although it is in the published version and Sharh Ibn Majah of Abul Hasan as-Sindi. Shaikh Shu’aib Arnaut notified that this part is not found in the manuscript he had although it is in the copy on which As-Sindi wrote his commentary. [Ibn Majah (154) Arnaut’s ed.]

The absence of this part in Ibn Majah could be claimed based on the following factors:

  1. It cannot be found in original manuscripts as per the statement of Shaykh Shu’aib Arnaut.
  2. Hafiz Ibn Abdul Hadi has a treatise on the hadith “the most knowledgeable about Faraidh is Zaid bin Thabit” which is a part of this tradition. He quoted this hadith even from Ibn Majah but did not mention this addition.
  3. Hafiz Sakhawi discussed the hadith al-Qadha in Al-Maqasid al-Hasanah but did not reference Ibn Majah as its source.
  4. This hadith has been narrated through this route by many but no one mention this part. Hence the hadith in Ibn Majah is through Abdul Wahhab Ath-Thaqafi from Khalid al-Hadhdha from Abu Qilabah from Anas bin Malik (ra). The hadith with this same isnad has been recorded by Imam Tirmidhi in Sunan (3791), Imam Nasai in As-Sunan al-Kubra (8229), Ibn HIbban in his Sahih (7131, 7137, 7252), Al-Bayhaqi in As-Sunan al-Kubra (12188), Al-Hakim in “Al-Mustadrak” (5784), but no one mention the sentence under discussion. Other students of Khalid al-Hadhdha, like Wuhaib and Sufyan ath-Thawri, also relate it without any such addition.

 

There is another book where this addition exists in a version of this hadith. Hence it is present in Mawarid az-Zamaan (2218) by Al-Haythami which is a collection of those hadith which is in Sahih of Ibn HIbban but not in the Sahih collection of Bukhari and Muslim. Therefore the actual source of this book is the Sahih of Ibn Hibban. But when we look into Sahih Ibn HIbban, preserved as an arrangement of that book done by Ibn Balban, we find that he has reported this hadith three times in the book but nowhere does this addition exist. Besides that all the factors (from 2 to 4) mentioned earlier to show the absence of this addition in Ibn Majah also apply here.

Another factor which testifies that this addition is not in the book of Ibn Hibban is the explanation of Ibn Hibban to this hadith:

قال أبو حاتم: هذه ألفاظ أطلقت بحذف الـ “من” منها يريد بقوله صلى الله عليه وسلم: “أرحم أمتي” أي: من أرحم أمتي وكذلك قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم: “وأشدهم في أمر الله” يريد: من أشدهم ومن أصدقهم حياء ومن أقرأهم لكتاب الله ومن أفرضهم ومن أعلمهم بالحلال والحرام يريد أن هؤلاء من جماعة فيهم تلك الفضيلة وهذا كقوله صلى الله عليه وسلم للأنصار: “أنتم أحب الناس إلي”, يريد من أحب الناس من جماعة أحبهم وهم فيهم

 

In brief, Abu Hatim Ibn Hibban is saying is that these phrases (in the hadith) are used with the ommition of “min”. Hence, although “min” (which literally means ‘from’) is not mentioned in the text but its meaning is intended there. Then Ibn Hibban mentions the original phrase and then expand it with the addition of “min” in it. He does so starting from the statement regarding Abu Bakr (ra) until he ends with the statement of praise mentioned in in the hadith regarding Abu ‘Ubaidah bin Jarrah (ra). The point of evidence is the fact that he did not mention the statement regarding ‘Ali bin Abi Talib (ra) in it. This shows that the addition was not there in the text otherwise Ibn Hibban would have done the same as he has done with the statement regarding other companions. All these things suggest that the addition regarding ‘Ali (ra) is not the part of hadith of Ibn Hibban and it was mistakenly added by the author or some of the copyists of the book Mawarid az-Zamaan. And Allah knows best.

 

RULING ON THE HADITH AS A WHOLE

A lot of ‘Ulama have declared this hadith to be Mursal of Abu Qilabah. Therefore according to them the hadith was not narrated by Abu Qilabah from Anas, rather Abu Qilabah (who was a Taba’i) narrates it directly through the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). Here is a list of those scholars who consider this hadith (even without the addition regarding ‘Ali) to be Mursal:

 

  1. Ad-Daarqutni
  2. Ibn ‘Abdul Barr
  3. Khateeb Baghdadi
  4. Ibn Taymiyyah
  5. Ibn ‘Abdul Hadi
  6. Al-Albani

Ibn ‘Abdul Hadi had written a treatise regarding the hadith “the most knowledgeable regarding the law of inheritance is Zaid bin Thabit” which is a part of this hadith, where he discussed the authenticity of this hadith and declared it to be Mursal. This treatise has been published in the collection of Ibn Abdul Hadi’s treatises called “Majmoo’ rasail Ibn Abd al-Hadi”. All the references to the above mentioned scholars, except Al-Albani, could be found there. As for Shaykh Al-Albani’s view then earlier he authenticated the hadith but later on when he was shown the treatise of Ibn Abdul Hadi he retracted and declared it weak as mentioned by his student Shaykh Mashhoor Hasan[1].

While some other scholars have authenticated it which includes Imam Tirmidhi, Ibn Hibban and Hakim etc. However, the opinion of the first group of scholars seems more correct due to their status in the field of hadith and it’s ‘Ilal. Besides that, apparently Bukhari and Muslim held the same view as they have included this hadith in their Sahih with only the part regarding Abu ‘Ubaidah bin Jarrah which is the only connected (Musnad) portion of the hadith. Therefore the only portion of the hadith which is connected is the part in praise of Abu ‘Ubaidah (ra), while other portions of this narration are Mursal. And Allah knows best.

 

‘ALI BIN ABI TALIB: THE BEST JUDGE

Although it is not reported authentically from the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) however as a statement of ‘Umar bin al-Khattab it is authentic. Hence Imam Bukhari narrates in his Sahih (4481):

حدثنا عمرو بن علي، حدثنا يحيى، حدثنا سفيان، عن حبيب، عن سعيد بن جبير، عن ابن عباس، قال: قال عمر رضي الله عنه: ” أقرؤنا أبي، وأقضانا علي، وإنا لندع من قول أبي، وذاك أن أبيا يقول: لا أدع شيئا سمعته من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم “. وقد قال الله تعالى: {ما ننسخ من آية أو ننسها}

Ibn ‘Abbas said: ‘Umar bin al-Khattab said, “Our best Qur’an reciter is Ubayy and our best judge is ‘Ali…”

 

[1] http://ar.islamway.net/fatwa/31123

The unacademic attacks of “Misguided” Rafidhi on Sahaba(as) exposed Again

December 11, 2013 Leave a comment

The unacademic attacks of “Misguided” Rafidhi on Sahaba(as) exposed Again

Edited by: http://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/the-unacademic-attacks-of-misguided-rafidhi-on-sahabaas-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.

 

Was Sayyidah ‘Aisha bint Abi Bakr (ra) involved in the murder of Uthman (ra)?

October 6, 2013 5 comments

Bismillah

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.”

Sunni references:

  • 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.

 

Reply

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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;

  1. They were reported by unreliable authors like Abu Mikhnaf, al-Waqidi, Saif bin Umar, Ibn al-Kalbi etc.
  2. Even they did not connect their chains to the eyewitnesses of the incident, hence the reports in most cases remain disconnected.
  3. 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

Reply

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

Reply

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