Read Part-1 here
Proceeding the second part, “misguided” first mentioned what I had written with regard to verse 29 of Surah Al-Fath. I answered the Rafidhi’s contention related to the verse in two ways, 1. by telling that “minhum” in the verse is for genus and not partitive (tab’eedhi), 2. by assuming that “minhum” is for tab’eedh. Rafidhi only discussed former, while the later he ignored. So let me deal with his contentions again. He said regarding the argument that “minhum” is for Jins (genus):
This Nasibi guy is comparing oranges and bananas! He could not bring a single example where “minhum” (some of them) has been translated or interpreted as “ALL OF THEM”! The examples he has brought are only nominal phrases. We challenge you: please show us where minhum has EVER been used to mean “all of them”!
The examples I brought were actually provided by scholars of this field. And “minhum” itself is a combination of min and hum. It is like asking to provide separate example for min+al-awthan and min+hareer. However, I still know some examples where “minhum” as a whole is used for genus and not as tab’eedh.
Pickthall [5:73] They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve.
While everyone of those who say “Allah is the third of three” was a disbeliever. By “minhum” one cannot conclude that there were some who were believer by believing in trinity. That is, “minhum” here has been used for Bayan and not for Tab’eedh.
[48:25] These it was who disbelieved and debarred you from the Inviolable Place of Worship, and debarred the offering from reaching its goal. And if it had not been for believing men and believing women, whom ye know not lest ye should tread them under foot and thus incur guilt for them unknowingly; that Allah might bring into His mercy whom He will. If (the believers and the disbelievers) had been clearly separated We verily had punished those of them who disbelieved with painful punishment.
If the believers and non-believers were separated, then there could only be non-believer in Mecca, during that time. Allah didn’t say “la ‘adhdhabna alladheena kafaru” (We verily had punished disbelievers), rather Allah (SWT) add “minhum” as well which makes is “We verily had punished those of them who disbelieved”. Note that the way this and previous verse use “minhum” is similar to the verse under discussion. Both of the above verses use “kafaru minhum” while the verse under discussion uses “Aamanu minhum”. This is the reply to Rafidhi’s challenge. But let me remind my second answer which Rafidhi ignored:
But even if we accept that “min” there is meant for “tab’eedh”, as considered by Shia mufassir At-Tabtabai, then also it doesn’t contradict sunni concept of “infallibility” of all the companions. By that it would mean, Allah has promised forgiveness and rewards only to those who (1). would be a believer (2). and would do righteous deeds. The question arises now: How this “destroys” the sunni concept of de facto “infallibility of Sahaba”? To see the real point one should remember the sunni definition of Sahaba.
Firstly, the term “Sahaba” linguistically includes all those who met him [SAW].
Secondly, in Islamic (or better say Sunni) terminology it means “the one who meet our Prophet (S) while he was a muslim, and he died as muslim” [refer to the books of Mustaleh]. So by this is is clear there are three condition for someone to be included among companions:
- 1. He must have found [including blind] Prophet (S) alive [this exclude all those who saw him in dream].
- 2. And that should be in state of belief [this exclude all those disbelievers and hypocrites who saw him while they were not actually muslim].
- 3. He must have died in the state of Islam [this exclude all those who became apostate later on]
Hence this definition excludes all those who were hypocrites, including all those who tried to kill Prophet [SAW], during his return from Tabuk. So how does it destroy the sunni concept of “infallibity” of Sahaba? But this type of deception isn’t only restricted to this Najis Rafidhi, rather it is the characteristic of most of their scholars.
But Rafidhi didn’t even touched this part of my argument. Then on the Rafidhi goes on to teach us Arabic by giving examples of English sentences. This is the most ridiculous part of his article, I’ll not even bother to write further on it.
Then on the Rafidhi quotes verses of Surah Ale ‘Imran 3:152-155 to prove that the Sahaba were hypocrites and specially those who turned back during Uhud were hypocrites. I’ll quote the verses in full as quoted by “misguided”:
[al-hilali and khan 3:152-155] And Allâh did indeed fulfil His Promise to YOU when YOU were killing them (YOUR enemy) with His Permission; until (the moment) YOU lost YOUR courage and fell to disputing about the order, AND DISOBEYED after He showed YOU (of the booty) which YOU love. AMONG YOU ARE SOME THAT DESIRE THIS WORLD and some that desire the Hereafter. Then He made YOU flee from them (your enemy), that He might test YOU. But surely, He forgave YOU, and Allâh is Most Gracious to THE BELIEVERS. (And remember) when YOU ran away (dreadfully) without even casting a side glance at anyone, and the Messenger (Muhammad SAW) was in YOUR rear calling YOU back. There did Allâh give YOU one distress after another by way of requital to teach YOU not to grieve for that which had escaped YOU, nor for that which had befallen YOU. And Allâh is WellAware of all that YOU do. Then after the distress, He sent down security for you. Slumber overtook A PARTY OF YOU, WHILE ANOTHER PARTY WAS THINKING ABOUT THEMSELVES (AS HOW TO SAVE THEIR OWNSELVES, IGNORING THE OTHERS AND THE PROPHET SAW) AND THOUGHT WRONGLY OF ALLÂH – THE THOUGHT OF IGNORANCE. They said, “Have we any part in the affair?” Say you (O Muhammad SAW): “Indeed the affair belongs wholly to Allâh.” THEY HIDE WITHIN THEMSELVES WHAT THEY DARE NOT REVEAL TO YOU, saying: “If we had anything to do with the affair, none of us would have been killed here.” Say: “Even if you had remained in your homes, those for whom death was decreed would certainly have gone forth to the place of their death,” but that Allâh might test what is in your breasts; and to purify that which was in your hearts (sins), and Allâh is AllKnower of what is in (your) breasts. Those of YOU who turned back on the day the two hosts met (i.e. the battle of Uhud), it was Shaitân (Satan) who caused them to backslide (run away from the battlefield) because of some (sins) they had earned. But Allâh, indeed, has forgiven them. Surely, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Forbearing.
Now let me explain the meaning of the verses as explained by scholars and Imams of this field. [The following is the translation of pickthall, and comments in bracket “” are by me to explain the context]
152. Allah verily made good His promise unto you when ye routed them by His leave, until (the moment) when your courage failed you, and ye disagreed about the order and ye disobeyed, after He had shown you that for which ye long. Some of you desired the world [those who left their station], and some of you desired the Hereafter [those who were holding their station]. Therefore He made you flee from them, that He might try you. Yet now He hath forgiven you. Allah is a Lord of Kindness to believers.
153. When ye climbed (the hill) and paid no heed to anyone, while the messenger, in your rear, was calling you (to fight). Therefor He rewarded you grief for (his) grief, that (He might teach) you not to sorrow either for that which ye missed or for that which befell you. Allah is Informed of what ye do.
154. Then, after grief [when the enemies left the war], He sent clown security for you. As slumber did it overcome a party of you [believers], while (the other) party [hypocrites], who were anxious on their own account [who still feared from the enemies, hence they did not sleep even after the slumber revealed to the believers], thought wrongly of Allah, the thought of ignorance [like, the believers helped not helped]. They said: Have we any part in the cause? [meaning, “did we receive any benefit from this, as was promised by Allah and His Messenger (pbuh)] Say (O Muhammad): The cause belongeth wholly to Allah. They hide within themselves (a thought) which they reveal not unto thee, saying: Had we had any part in the cause we should not have been slain here. Say: Even though ye had been in your houses, those appointed to be slain would have gone forth to the places where they were to lie. (All this hath been) in order that Allah might try what is in your breasts and prove what is in your hearts. Allah is Aware of what is hidden in the breasts (of men).
155. Lo! those of you who turned back on the day [and they were believers] when the two hosts met [the day of Uhud], Satan alone it was who caused them to backslide, because of some of that which they have earned [of sin by disobeying the Messenger of Allah, (pbuh)]. Now Allah hath forgiven them. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Clement.
Note few things before I get back to the Rafidhi’s conclusion:
- The verse was directed towards all the muslims and it doesn’t call anyone hypocrites, unlike other verses which were actually revealed for Hypocrites. In those cases Allah did not refer to them (Munafiqs) in general term with other believers, like “YOU lost YOUR courage” “which YOU love” “He made you flee from them (your enemies)”, “He forgave you”. Compare these with the verses revealed for hypocrites.
- The verse 152 states, “But surely, He forgave you…”, and in verse 155, “But Allah, indeed, has forgiven them”. In the former Allah (SWT) forgave those soldiers who left their station which the Prophet (pbuh) commanded them to stick to, while in the later verse (155) He (SWT) forgave those who turned away from battle field. So we know from this that those who disobeyed the Messenger of Allah,(pbuh), by leaving their station, and those who truned away, were forgiven by Allah (swt) in the Quran. So what else remains to criticize them?
Verse 154 from “while another party was thinking about themselves” onward is regarding hypocrites and those with disease in their hearts.
Reading above would clarify the context of the verse and deception of the Rafidhi when he mixed two different context with each other, i.e., the believer who did mistake and the hypocrites. So I do not feel any need of further expanding on it.
As for his take against Uthman (RA) by quoting report of Ibn Umar, then I’ll reply to it. Firstly, Rafidhi only quoted part which suits his agenda, while he left the defense therein of Uthman. Following is the narration in full:
Volumn 005, Book 057, Hadith Number 048.
Narated By ‘Uthman : (The son of Muhib) An Egyptian who came and performed the Hajj to the Kaba saw some people sitting. He enquire, “Who are these people?” Somebody said, “They are the tribe of Quraish.” He said, “Who is the old man sitting amongst them?” The people replied, “He is ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar.” He said, “O Ibn Umar! I want to ask you about something; please tell me about it. Do you know that ‘Uthman fled away on the day (of the battle) of Uhud?” Ibn ‘Umar said, “Yes.” The (Egyptian) man said, “Do you know that ‘Uthman was absent on the day (of the battle) of Badr and did not join it?” Ibn ‘Umar said, “Yes.” The man said, “Do you know that he failed to attend the Ar Ridwan pledge and did not witness it (i.e. Hudaibiya pledge of allegiance)?” Ibn ‘Umar said, “Yes.” The man said, “Allahu Akbar!” Ibn ‘Umar said, “Let me explain to you (all these three things). As for his flight on the day of Uhud, I testify that Allah has excused him and forgiven him; and as for his absence from the battle of Badr, it was due to the fact that the daughter of Allah’s Apostle was his wife and she was sick then. Allah’s Apostle said to him, “You will receive the same reward and share (of the booty) as anyone of those who participated in the battle of Badr (if you stay with her).’ As for his absence from the Ar-Ridwan pledge of allegiance, had there been any person in Mecca more respectable than ‘Uthman (to be sent as a representative). Allah’s Apostle would have sent him instead of him. No doubt, Allah’s Apostle had sent him, and the incident of the Ar-Ridwan pledge of Allegiance happened after ‘Uthman had gone to Mecca. Allah’s Apostle held out his right hand saying, ‘This is ‘Uthman’s hand.’ He stroke his (other) hand with it saying, ‘This (pledge of allegiance) is on the behalf of ‘Uthman.’ Then Ibn ‘Umar said to the man, ‘Bear (these) excuses in mind with you.’
So it is clear from above that Uthman (ra) and all those who turned away from battle field when enemies suddenly attacked them from back, were forgiven, and in fact it is evident in the verse of Quran as explained previously.
“In what statement, after this, will they believe?” [77:50]
After that, the Rafidhis tried to prove that there were Sahaba who lied upon Prophet (pbuh). He said:
Is it true that NONE of the Sahabah ever attribute lies to Allah’s Apostle (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)? Let us carefully analyze this hadith in Sahih Muslim:
Abu Salama h. ‘Abd al-Rahman b. ‘Auf reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: There is no transitive disease, BUT he is ALSO reported to have said: A sick person should not be taken to one who is healthy. Abu Salama said that Abu Huraira used to narrate these two (different ahadith) from Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), BUT AFTERWARDS Abu Huraira became silent on these words: “There is no transitive disease,” BUT HE STUCK TO THIS that the sick person should not be taken to one who is healthy. Harith b. Abu Dhubab (and he was the first cousin of Abu Huraira) said: Abu Huraira, I used to hear from you that you narrated to us along with this hadith and the other one also (there is no transitive disease), but now you observe silence about it. You used to say that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: There is no transitive disease. ABU HURAIRA DENIED HAVING ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THAT, but he said that the sick camel should not be taken to the healthy one. Harith, however, did not agree with him, which irritated Abu Huraira and he said to him some words in the Abyssinian language. He said to Harith: Do you know what I said to you? He said: No. Abu Huraira said: I SIMPLY DENIED HAVING SAID IT. Abu Salama sad: By my life, Abu Huraira in fact used to report Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) having said: There is no transitive disease. I do not know whether Abu Huraira has forgotten it or he deemed it an abrogated statement in the light of the other one.
Sahih Muslim, Book 26, Number 5510
Abu Huraira denied having ever narrated a hadith, after he found it to be wrong! Yet, he used to narrate it!
That is an open lie on his part! Besides, will Moin tell us that it is true that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said there is nothing like infection? Of course, there is infection! So, such a statement is an outright lie! Whoever attributes this lie to Allah’s Apostle (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is a horrible liar! It is true that Abu Huraira attributed such a false statement to the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and some other Sahabah picked it from him. But then, when Abu Huraira realized that the lie he attributed to Allah’s Apostle (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was causing him trouble, he “withdrew” it from circulation and denied EVER narrating it!!!
There are two things to be considered:
- Whether the above report prove that Abu Hurairah lied or not?
- Does the above narration a lie in itself?
Firstly, the above narration doesn’t imply a lie from Abu Hurairah’s side. He simply could have forgot it like Abu Salama thought it to be, or in the view of Sh. Al-Mu’allimi, he just did not want to confuse the people by narrating apparently contradicting narrations, so he denied to answer the questioner in straight and affirmative words, but the viewers thought it to be his denial.
Secondly, this same narration was reported by Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas, Ibn Umar, Jabir bin Abdullah, Abdullah bin ‘Amr, Saa’ib bin Yazeed, Anas bin Malik, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Mas’ud, Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudri etc.
Hence, it has been reported through Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas in “Musnad Ahmed” (1554), through Ibn Umar in Sahih Bukhari (1993, 5421, 5438), through Anas bin Malik in Sahih Bukhari (5424, 5440), through Jabir bin Abdullah in Sahih Muslim (2222), through Ibn Abbas in Musnad Ahmed (2425), through Saa’ib in Sahih Muslim (2220) etc. Hence there remains no doubt about its authenticity and that Abu Hurairah was truthful, even though he might have forgot it later on but it is not necessary in light of the comment of Al-Mu’allimi as mentioned earlier.
Interestingly, this same has been reported in shia sources. Hence, Abu Ja’far Al-Kulaini reports it in his “Al-Kafi” (8/196) through Nadhr bin Qirwash Al-Jammal from Abu Abdullah (As-Sadiq) who reports it from Prophet (pbuh).
As for its meaning, then it isn’t actually that difficult. In pre-islamic time people used to think, based on their belief, that getting in contact of an ill would make you ill. So to falsify this belief, the Prophet (pbuh) said, “there is no Adwi (transferring of disease from one person to another)..”. This was a general statement, and Prophet (pbuh) gave exception in this as explained by scholars at its place. For example, we have a general statement of Quran “prohibited to you are dead (meat)…”, even though some exceptions are given to it, e.g., Fish etc.
Rafidhi then produced second proof for his claim:
Another lie that Abu Huraira attributed to Allah’s Apostle (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) but which he never withdrew from circulation is this:
Abu Haraira reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) took hold of my hands and said: Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, created the clay on Saturday and He created the mountains on Sunday and He created the trees on Monday and He created the things entailing labour on Tuesday and created light on Wednesday and lie caused the animals to spread on Thursday and created Adam (peace be upon him) after ‘Asr on Friday; the last creation at the last hour of the hours of Friday, i.e. between afternoon and night.
Sahih Muslim, Book 39, Number 6707
This hadith is obviously false since it places the creation of vegetation before the creation of sunlight. Of course, vegetation cannot survive without sunlight. Therefore, in the natural order of things, sunlight came before vegetation!
The Hadith was actually criticized by several scholar and many scholars declared this to be a mistake made by some narrator. Those scholars who denied this as a marfoo’ Hadith were, Bukhari, Ibn Al-Madeeni, Ibn Al-Mu’een. Sh. Al-Qasimi said in “Al-Fadhl Al-Mubeen”, as quoted in footnotes of Musnad Ahmed (t. Arnaut), “this Hadith was criticized by those who were more knowledgeable than Muslim, like Bukhari and Yahya bin Mu’een”. Likewise Shaykh Al-Islam criticized this in his Fatawa (17/236).
In actual this was from statement of Ka’b Al-Ahbar which Abu Hurairah narrated, but some narrator did mistake in it and made it a Hadith of Prophet (pbuh). The common narrator Ayyub bin Khalid, although truthful, was soft in hadith, and this could be his mistake.
While some other scholars considered this authentic which include Muslim, Ibn Al-Jawzi,Abdur-Rahman Al-Mu’allimi, Al-Albani etc. And Allah knows best.
In any case no one from among the scholars accused Abu Hurairah for this mistake. As for the statement of Ibn Katheer quoted by the Rafidhi:
This hadith is one of the strange things recorded in Sahih Muslim. Ali ibn al-Madini, al-Bukhari and many of the huffaz have criticized the hadith. They have stated that it was the statement of Ka’b, and that Abu Huraira only heard it from Ka’b al-Ahbar
This is a half quote which changed the whole scenario of what Ibn Katheer was actually saying. Ibn Katheer said [Tafsir (1/123) pub. ‘Ilmiyah]:
وهذا الحديث من غرائب صحيح مسلم «1» ، وقد تكلم عليه علي بن المديني والبخاري وغير واحد من الحفاظ وجعلوه من كلام كعب، وأن أبا هريرة إنما سمعه من كلام كعب الأحبار، وإنما اشتبه على بعض الرواة، فجعلوه مرفوعا، وقد حرر ذلك البيهقي
Translation by Rafidhi (with underlined part by me): They have stated that it was the statement of Ka’b, and that Abu Huraira only heard it from Ka’b al-Ahbar, and some narrator became doubtful regarding it and made it marfoo’(Hadith of the Prophet (pbuh))”.
Rafidhi left the underlined part intentionally (even in Arabic quote) to make it as though Ibn Katheer was accusing Abu Hurayrah, while Ibn Katheer actually said that some of the narrator did mistake in it (not Abu Hurairah himself). As for the quote:
Ibn Kathir in his al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, vol. 8, p. 117, also states:
وقال يزيد بن هارون : سمعت شعبة يقول : أبو هريرة كان يدلس ، أي : يروي ما سمعه من كعب وما سمعه من رسول الله (ص) ولا يميز هذا من هذا ذكره إبن عساكر.
Yazid ibn Harun said: I heard Shu’ba saying: “Abu Huraira used to distort Hadiths. He would mix up what he heard from Ka’b and what he heard from Allah’s Apostle without distinguishing one from the other. Ibn Asakir mentioned this report.
This is not proven from Shu’ba. Ibn Katheer attributed this to Ibn Asakir. This was reported by Ibn Adi in “Al-Kamil” (1/68) and through his way Ibn Asakir in “Tarikh Damishq” (67/359), through Al-Hasan bin Uthman At-Tustari who said Salamah bin Shabeeb informed us, that he heard Shu’ba saying, “Abu Hurairah used to do tadlees”. In Tarikh Damishq Salamah bin Shabeeb narrate it through Yazeed bin Harun from Shu’ba, which is correct, WAllahu A’lam.
Al-Hasan bin Uthman Abu Sa’eed At-Tustari was not trustworthy. Ibn Adi accused him of lying by saying, “he according to me used to lie and steal narrations. I asked Abdan Al-Ahwazi regarding him, so he replied that he was a liar”. [Al-Kamil (2/345)]. Abu Ali An-Naisaburi said, “he was a liar who used to steal narrations”. Daar Qutni declared him weak. [Lisan Al-Meezan (2/219)]. Also, this Abu Sa’eed At-Tustari was accused of fabricating some ridiculous narrations, one of them was “Allah has prohibited rain for this Ummah because of their hate to Ali bin Abi Talib”, and another one is “Ameens [a title famous for Prophet (s)] are three: I, Jibreel and Mu’awiyah”. [See, Al-Meezan (1/502)]
In case if the report is proven then also it doesn’t make Abu Hurayrah a liar. Sahaba were known for narrating Mursal [which is identified as tadlees in the report, and the Rafidhi translated it to mean distorting Hadith. Balatant ignorance indeed]. The Maraseel of Sahaba are accepted without any condition. In fact it is said that companions like Ibn Abbas only heard selected reports directly from Prophet (S), others he heard from other senior companions. Regarding the report under discussion, Dhahabi said in “As-Siyar” (2/608), “Tadlees of companions are numerous, and there is nothing bad in it. This is because they do tadlees from someone senior then them, and all of the companions were truthful”. As for what Ibn Katheer said, “He would mix up what he heard from Ka’b and what he heard from Allah’s Apostle without distinguishing one from the other” then this he said to explain Shu’bah’s statement [Rafidhi didn’t distinguish between his and Shu’ba’s statement in the quote]. This is far fetched and someone senior than Ibn Katheer has clarified this. This is when the report is proven which is not the case.
Hence, the above statement was not proven from Shu’bah. Therefore, there remains no validity of the claim of the Rafidhi, “Why would anyone not accuse Abu Huraira of attributing lies to the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) for his deceptive practice of placing the words of Ka’b on the tongue of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)?” This is how Rafidhis spread fabrications and accusations against anyone they dislike, and this particular Rafidi has the guts to claim, “This is one of the exaggerations and lies of Moin too! How can he claim that none of the Sahabah attributed lies to Allah’s Apostle (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in spite of these clear proofs?” We have already seen those “clear proofs”.
Then he comes to the actual issue:
There are two questions to ask here:
1. Did Ibn Hazm fabricate that report? Well, considering his attack and anger against it, he could not have fabricated it. He certainly found it in a Sunni source, which apparently is lost now. That does not mean that the hadith never existed.
2. Why did Ibn Hazm not criticize its lack of chain if it indeed had no chain? Of course, that would have been the easiest method, rather than his wasteful attack on Walid ibn Jami. Ibn Hazm attacked only Walid ibn Jami because he was left no other choice.
To answer him
- We do not have evidence to say that Ibn Hazm fabricated it, and what we know of Ibn Hazm deny this type of ugly act from his side. But this is not our point at all.
- We could have answered this if we had Ibn Hazm sitting around us. What we know is that Ibn Hazm was not infallible, and we know of several mistakes of his regarding Hadith. For example Ibn Abdul Haadi said in “Mukhtasar Tabaqat Ulama Al-Hadith” (pg. 401), as quoted by Al-Albani in “As-Saheeha” (91), “he was excessive in doubts (or mistakes) regarding authentication of Hadith and its weakening”. So who knows, he might not have realized the real mistake of the report.
Even if we assume that the report existed and it had no defects at all besides what has been said regarding Waleed bin Abdullah bin Jumai’, then also it is not valid as an evidence because of the following reasons:
- Regardless of the Isnad of it, the narration remains fabricated even if its Isnad is proven to be narrated by trustworthy reporters. This is because when a singular report (fard or also known as Ghareeb, while in terminology of fuqaha its “Ahad”) contradicts other Mutawatir fact then it is to be rejected, if there remains no way of reconciliation between them. We have this supposed report, if it really exists, saying that Shaykhain were hypocrites, on the other hand we have abundant narrations, some of them reaches Tawatur, which establish that they were most close to the Prophet (S) and they were given glad tidings of Jannah by Prophet (s). In fact, the praise and superiority of Shaykhayn is proven from the lips of Ali (ra) which reaches Tawatur, but this is not the place to go into detail of it.
- Secondly, Ahad (singular reports) doesn’t give knowledge, in the views of Usuli shia, rather Ahad are only Zanni to them. They, in this regard, are the followers of Mu’atazilites, who are also followed by several groups of Ahlul Kalam. This is when the Ahad narration is proven to be authentic, but what if the narration itself is unknown except that Ibn Hazm found it somewhere, and only Allah knows which narration he exactly mean.
- As for Waleed bin Jumai’, then he was not from Huffaz. Some scholars declared him truthful while others said that there was weakeness in him. Ibn Hajar concluded [Taqreeb (2/286)] that he was truthful (sadooq) who used to have wahm (doubts) and he was accused of shi’ism. Ibn Hibban, even though mentioned him in Ath-Thiqat, said that he used to report odd narrations from trustworthy narrators and we it is reached excess, taking him as proof is not allowed. Al-Bazzar said, his reports are to be looked into. Al-Uqaili said, “in his Hadith there is conflict”. Al-Hakim said, If Muslim had not recorded his narrations that would have been better. Refer to Tahdheeb (12/122) by Ibn Hajar. The problem with today’s Rafidhis and Sufis that they do not differentiate between “thiqah” “hafiz” “thabt”, and “sadooq” “la ba’s bihi” “Saleh Al-Hadith”, and then “sadooq lahu awham”. Extra words (Ziyadaat) in famous narrations are accepted when the extra part is narrated by first type of narrators [Thiqah, Hujjah, Thabt etc], otherwise it is counted among, Shaadh or Munkar depending upon the text.
- Surely, Ahmed bin Hanbal and Ibn Mu’een didn’t know the supposed Hadith, because if they had known anything of it then their verdict on Ibn Jumai’ would have been similar to Ibn Hazm. Because a narrator is known through his reports.
Hence there remains hardly any weight in the conclusion of the Rafidhi. After that the Rafidhi tried to reply to my last comment where I said that Ibn Hazm himself was not accusing Ibn Jumai’ of fabricating this Hadith, rather according to him Ibn Jumai’ was himself not aware of it being fabrication, indicating carelessness of Ibn Jumai’.
To that Rafidhi replied:
He may not have known the one who fabricated the hadith of Hudhayfah. But here, we are talking of many reports! Ibn Hazm calls the fact stated in those reports as a lie! Lie by whom? By Walid ibn Jami’ of course! But Walid ibn Jami’ is reliable. Therefore, the only “detected” problem in the chain of narration is actually a ruse.
As I said previously the Rafidhi has some serious mental problem. First he accepts that, according to Ibn Hazm, Ibn Jumai’ wasn’t even aware of it being a fabrication, then on he has the guts to say, “Ibn Hazm calls the fact stated in those reports as a lie! Lie by whom? By Walid ibn Jami’ of course!” The thing is, why would he consider it to be a “lie by Ibn Jumai’” while on the other hand he said that Ibn Jumai’ was not even aware of it being a fabrication?
و صلي الله علي نبينا محمد و علي اله و صحبه و سلم