Archive for the ‘History and Biographies’ Category

Imam Zain al-‘Abideen: A concise biography

January 21, 2015 Leave a comment

All praises due to Allah and May His peace and blessings be upon the Last and Final Messenger Muhammad and upon his family and companions.

This concise biography on Imam Zain al-‘Abideen is compiled with the intention to give clear picture of him according to authentic sunni sources unlike shi’a authors who generally do not care about authenticity and rather judge a narration based on their own preconceived beliefs. This short biography will make it clear that ‘Ali bin Husain was never a claimant of Imamate as per the concept propounded by Shi’ites.

The source for this compilation is Siyar A’alam an-Nubala of Dhahabi but mostly I have traced the original source and added other beneficial points which are not in Siyar. Herein I have only mentioned those reports which are authentically proven and if there is any considerable defect in Isnad then I have pointed it out.

Download complete file:


Muhammad Ibn ‘Umar al-Waqidi as a Narrator

December 14, 2014 1 comment

Muhammad Ibn ‘Umar al-Waqidi as a Narrator


He is the famous historian, the author of Maghazi and other books on history. His reliability is an issue of debate among scholars. Most of the scholars do not consider him reliable although they do not see any problem in quoting his narrations and reports related to history but not for evidence. The correct view is that of the majority scholars who do not take him as evidence.

His full name was Muhammad bin ‘Umar bin Waqid Al-Waqidi Al-Aslami, Abu ‘Abdullah Al-Madani. He was a Qadhi in Baghdad. He has narrated from the likes of Zaid bin Aslam, Thawr bin Yazid, Sufyan Ath-Thawri, Al-Awza’I, Ibn Juraij, Malik bin Anas, Ibn Abi Dhi’b, Ma’mar, Ibn Abi Saburah and many others. Those who have narrated from him include Ahmad bin Mansur Ar-Rammadi, Harith bin Abi Usamah, Husain bin Marzuq, Sulaiman Ash-Shadhkuni, Abu Bakr Ibn Abi Shaibah, Qasim bin Sallam, Ibn Sa’d (his scribe) and many others. He died in the year 207 AH.

Those who have made criticism on him are:

  1. Ibn Mubarak who abandoned him as reported by Bukhari.
  2. Ash-Shafi’i
  3. Wakee’
  4. Ibn Numair who abandoned him as reported by Bukhari.
  5. Isma’eel bin Zakariyyah
  6. Ishaq bin Rahwayh
  7. Ahmad bin Hanbal
  8. Ali bin Madeeni
  9. Ibn Ma’een
  10. Bundaar
  11. Al- Bukhari
  12. Abu Zur’ah Ar-razi
  13. Abu Hatim Ar-Razi
  14. Muslim
  15. Abu Dawud
  16. Nasai
  17. Ad-Daarqutni
  18. Ibn ‘Adi
  19. As-Saaji
  20. Ibn Hibban
  21. Abu Ahmad Al-Hakim
  22. Al-Bazzar
  23. Al-‘Uqaili
  24. Al-Jawzjani

Refer to Tahdheeb al-Kamal (26-180-194) by Al-Mizzi, Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (9/363-368) by Ibn Hajar, Meezan al-I’tidal (3/662-666) by Dhahabi etc.


There are those who have praised him include: Al-Darawardi, Muhammad bin Salam Al-Jumahi, Ibrahim al-Harbi, Mus’ab Az-Zubairi, Abu ‘Aamir al-‘Uqdi, Mujahid bin Musa, As-Saghani, Al-Musayyibi, Ma’n bin ‘Isa, Abu Yahya al-Azhari, Ibn Numair, Qasim bin Sallam, ‘Abbas al-‘Anbari

  1. Ad-Darawardi who said that Al-Waqidi was Ameer al-Mumineen in the field of hadith. Besides that, Ad-Darawardi himself did not have the status as compared to the scholars quoted against Al-Waqidi. Al-Darawardi was criticized for his memory.
  2. Muhammad bin Sallam al-Jumahi said regarding him that he was the scholar of his time. This does not necessitate Tawtheeq in the terminology of hadith science. No wonder Hafiz Dhahabi says in Meezan (3/567) that he [Al-Waqidi] was one of the people of knowledge along with the weakness in him. Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani said, “He was Matrook along with the vastness of his knowledge.”
  3. Ibrahim al-Harbi said that he was the most knowledgeable person regarding the Islamic history. He also considered that Al-Waqidi was most reliable regarding the opinions of Malik and Ibn Abi Dhi’b.
  4. Mus’ab az-Zubairi said, “I have never seen someone like him.” Ibrahim al-Harbi narrates from him that Al-Waqidi was Thiqah.
  5. Abu ‘Aamir al-‘Uqdi said, “We are being asked regarding him? He is to be asked regarding us.” The same was said by Ma’n bin ‘Isa regarding him.
  6. Mujahid bin Musa said, “I have not written from anyone greater in memorizing than Al-Waqidi.” Al-Dhahabi said, “He said the truth. He was on the peak in memorizing the historical reports, Seerah, Maghazi, incidents, the timeline of people, Fiqh and other things.”
  7. Muhammad bin Ishaq al-Musayyibi said, “He was Thiqah.”
  8. Abu Yahya Az-Zuhri said, “He was Thiqah Ma’moon.”
  9. Ibn Numair said, “His narrations from us is alright, as for his narration from people of Madinah then they are more aware of it.”
  10. Abu ‘Ubaid said, “He was Thiqah.”
  11. Muhammad bin Ishaq As-Saaghani also declared him Thiqah.
  12. Yazeed bin Haroon declared him Thiqah.
  13. ‘Abbas Al-‘Anbari said as reported by Khateeb, “Al-Waqidi is more beloved to me than Abdur-Razzaq.” In a report of Ibn ‘Adi he said, “Al-Waqidi was more truthful than Abdur-Razzaq.” This statement doesn’t necessitate Tawtheeq because according to ‘Abbas, Abdur-Razzaq was a liar and to downgrade him he compared him with Al-Waqidi as Al-Waqidi was famous as a rejected narrator. Note that no one from the scholars rely on ‘Abbas in his Jarh on Abdur-Razzaq As-San’ani.
  14. Ibn Sa’d praised him with knowledge.





Comparison between praise and disparagement:

After listing out all the statement of scholars regarding him we see that:

  1. Jarh regarding him is explained. For instance Imam Ahmad said, “We never cease to defend him until he narrated from Ma’mar from Az-Zuhri from Nabhan from Um Salamah that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) to his wives, “Are you blind too?” And this is the hadith of Yunus, no one else narrates it besides him.” Similarly Ibn Ma’een said, “He used to mix up the hadith of Yunus to the hadith of Ma’mar. He was not reliable.” Abu Ahmad said, “He was Dhaahib al-Hadith.” Muslim said, “He was Matrook al-Hadith.” Similarly Ibn al-Madeeni accused him of fabricating hadith. The most conclusive statement was given by Ibn Adi who said, “These are the hadith which I mentioned and with it also those which I did not mention, none of them are preserved. Those narrations are not preserved from those Thiqaat through whom al-Waqidi narrates except through the route of al-Waqidi, and the evil is from al-Waqidi. The texts of the reports of al-Waqidi are not preserved and his weakness is obvious.” Ibn Hibban said, “He would narrate from Thiqaat reversed [Maqloob] reports, and from Thabt narrators severely disconnected narrations so much so that sometimes it appears to the heart that he does it intentionally.” Ad-Daarqutni said, “Weakness is clearly apparent in his narrations.” I say: Anyone who is slightly familiar with the methodology of scholars of hadith would smell weakness in the reports of Al-Waqidi for the weakness of a narrator is observed in his narrations.
  2. Majority criticized him as compared to very few scholars who made Tawtheeq. Those who made Tawtheeq were not famous for their criticism and praise on narrators, hence barely anyone will see them commenting on narrator’s status in the books of Jarh and Ta’deel.


So based on these conclusions we are sure about the unreliability of Muhammad bin ‘Umar al-Waqidi. Finally I quote a beautiful observation of Hafiz Dhahabi: It has already been mentioned that Al-Waqidi is weak,but he is needed in case of incidents of Battles and History. We mention his works without taking evidence from them. As for Faraidh then it is not good to mention him. Here are the six books of Hadith and Musnad Ahmad and you will see them reporting the narrations of several weak narrators, rather even Matrook reporters, but they do not mention al-Waqidi. This is besides the fact that his status according to me is that his hadith narrations are to be written as I do not accuse him of fabricating hadith. There is extremism, from some point of view, in the statement of those who totally left him just like there is nothing to rely on in the statement of those who declared him Thiqah like Yazeed, Abu ‘Ubayd, As-Saghani, Al-Harbi, Ma’n and all ten hadith scholars because there is agreement among scholars in these days that he is not Hujjah and his narrations are of the category of severely weak narrations (waahi).” Siyar (9/469).

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

October 6, 2013 5 comments


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.



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


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


Mu’ammal bin Isma’eel: A look at the research of Shaykh Zubair Ali Zai regarding him

January 7, 2012 31 comments

Mu’ammal bin Isma’eel: A look at the research of Shaykh Zubair Ali Zai regarding him


Muhammad Moin


Some brother Raza Hassan has translated an urdu article by Shaykh Zubair Ali Zai proving Tawtheeq of Mu’ammal bin Isma’eel. I had read it in the book ‘Ilmi Maqalaat (1/417) by the author. After comparing the translation and the article present in Ilmi Maqalaat, it is clear to me that the brother has quoted it from the urdu Islamic magazine Al-Hadeeth vol.21. This same article was later published in ‘Ilmi Maqalaat (collection of Shaykh Zai’s articles) where he retracted a lot of things he claimed previously (this will be notified during the course of this writing). The title of the article is “Ithbat at-Ta’deel fi tautheeq Mu’ammal bin Isma’eel”

Some people may think why Mu’ammal bin Isma’eel is so much discussed among hardcore muqallids and hardcore ghair-muqallid. There are two reasons for it, Muqallids call him Munkar ul-Hadith because (1) he is the narrator of the tradition which mentions that the Musalli should place his hands over his chest, (2) and he is the narrator of some criticisms of Sufyan Thauri against Abu Hanifa. These are the same two reasons why some harsh Ahle Hadith scholars made Tautheeq of Mu’ammal.

Shaykh Zubair Ali Zai has special methodology of analyzing conflicting statements of Jarh and Ta’deel. He counts the number of criticism and praise, and rejects the minority based on majority. This seems good, but this was not the methodology of scholars of hadith, not even single of them. Rather they would prefer explained Jarh over general Tautheeq, and reject unexplained Jarh against established Ta’deel.

There are several problems with his methodology, and we shall see them during the course of this refutation, Insha Allah. After this brief introduction, let us proceed with the article by Shaykh Zai.

Note: – I’ll be quoting from the translation of Brother Raza Hassan.

Firstly he listed the criticism on Mu’ammal, and tried to answer many of them.


Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

The following are the criticizms narrated regarding Mu’ammal:

1. Abu Haatim ar-Raazi: “Sadooq, Strictly Follows the Sunnah, Makes Abundant Mistakes, Write his narrations” [Kitaab al-Jarah wal Ta’deel: 8/374]

He did not make any criticism against this Jarh of Imam Abu Hatim Ar-Razi, wa Lillahi l-Hamd. Note, that this Jarh is mufassar. Besides this there is another statement of Jarh by Imam Abu Hatim. It is in the same “Kitab al-Jarh wa at-Ta’deel” (8/168) of Ibn Abi Hatim, he said: He (Abu Hatim) was asked regarding Abu Hudhaifa and Mu’ammal, so he replied,”their books constitute a lot of mistakes. And Abu Hudhaifa was fewer in mistakes than Mu’ammal”. Both Abu Hudhaifa and Mu’ammal were students of Sufyan and they were famous for narrating from him.


Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

2. Zikriyah bin Yahya As-Saaji: “He is sadooq, but makes many mistakes. He has errors that would take too long to be mentioned.” [Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: 10/381]

* From the author of Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (Hafidh Ibn Hajar) to Imam As-Saaji, the chain is not present. Therefore this narration is Mardood.

I say: Imam As-Saaji had around a dozen books which do not reach us. Ibn Hajar very often quotes As-Saaji from his books. So there is no reason to ask for isnad while Ibn Hajar’s source is his book itself. A lot of manuscripts do not reach us but it was with Ibn Hajar from which he quoted. It is generally known and accepted that when a Muhaddith who was specialist in hadith criticism attribute some statement to a scholar or quote a hadith with affirmative words (with Jazm), then it was established according to that scholar. Imam al-Mizzi said, as quoted and followed by Ibn Hajar, “And regarding statements we quoted in this book without mentioning its sanad, so that which is with sigha of Jazm (affirmation) we do not know any problem with its sanad.”

Shaykh Abdul Kareem al-Khudheir says in his footnotes on Fath al-Mugheeth by Hafiz As-Sakhawi (4/432):
Ibn Abi Hatim said in “al-Jarh wa at-Ta’deel” (3/601), “Zakariyyah bin Yahya….Abu Yahya…He has good books on Rijal…” Ibn Khair said in his Fihrist (210), “Kitab adh-Dhu’afa wa al-mansubeen ila al-bid’ah min al-muhadditheen wa al-‘Ilal, compiled by Abu Yahya Zakariyyah bin Yahya as-Saaji.” Imam Dhahabi said in “As-Siyar” (14/197), “Imam, Thabt, Hafiz…Abu Yahya bin Zakariyyah as-Saaji…and he has a great book on the science of ‘Ilal ul-Hadith which indicates towards his great knowledge.” Ibn Hajar quoted from him, saying “Zakariyyah as-Saaji said”, and sometimes he would say, “As-Saaji mentioned in Adh-Dhu’afa”, and sometimes he would say “and in ad-Dhu’afa of as-Saaji”. –end quote—


Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

3. Muhammad bin Nasar al-Marwazi: “If Muammal alone relates a certain narration then it becomes obligatory to pause and research the hadeeth as he had a bad memory and erred excessively” [Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: 10/381]

* This saying is also chain-less, and is rejected due to going against the Jumhoor.

I say: Ibn Hajar was an Imam of this field and we trust that he wouldn’t come with some made up references. Al-Marwazi made this Jarh in one of his famous books. It is in “Ta’zeem Qadr as-Salaat” (2/572, no.614), just as quoted by Hafiz Ibn Hajar. This Jarh is also Mufassar.


Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

4. Ya’qoob bin Sufyaan al-Faarsi: “Muammal is a great sunni shaikh. I heard Sulaiman bin Harb praise him. Our shaikhs would advise us to take his hadeeth, only that his hadeeth are not like the hadeeth of his companions. At times it is obligatory upon the people of knowledge to distance themselves from his narrations as he narrates munkar ahadeeth from even his authentic teachers. This is worse for had he narrated these munkar ahadeeth from weak authorities we would have excused him.” [Kitaab al-Ma’rifat wal Taareekh: 3/52]

* If this Jarah is from Sulemaan bin Harb then Ya’qoob al-Faarsi is among the Admirers (Mothaqeen) of Mu’ammal; and if this Jarah is from Ya’qoob then Sulemaan bin Harb is among the Admirers (mothaqeen) of Mu’ammal.

There is no word of tawtheeq in the comment of al-Faswi to make it a possibility from either of them. Praising could be because of ‘adalah, but it doesn’t necessitate Thabt. There were a number of scholars who were Imams but in the field of Hadith they were weak. So basically the comment of al-Fasawi is an explained Jarh against Mu’ammal.

Shaykh Zai added a statement later on in “Ilmi Maqalat” just after the above quoted part. He said regarding Jarh of al-Fasawi, “This Jarh is rejected because it is against the majority”.
I say: This is not against the majority as we shall see soon. Besides that, Jarh of al-Fasawi is mufassar, and normally Jarh mufassar is preferred over general Tautheeq, as it is well documented in the books on Mustaleh al-Hadith. Wallahu A’alam


Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

5. Abu Zur’ah: “There are a lot of Mistakes in his hadeeth” [Mizaan ul-I’tidaal: 4/228 T. 8949]

* This saying is also chain-less.

Allahu A’alam. This could be true, as neither al-Mizzi nor Ibn Hajar mentioned this criticism. The other way is also possible, and it might be that Imam Dhahabi had seen in some book which doesn’t reach al-Mizzi and Ibn Hajar.


Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

6. Ibn Sa’d: “He is Thiqah, makes many mistakes.” [Al-Tabaqaat al-Kubra by Ibn Sa’d: 5/501]



Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

7. Daraqutni: “Thiqah, makes many mistakes.” [Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: 10/381]

* This saying is contradictory to the praise of Imam Daraqutni as is coming ahead, and it is also not proven from The author of Tahdeeb to Daraqutni. Mu’ammal is not mentioned in the book of Imam Daraqutni “Kitaab ad-Du’afa wal Matrokeen”.


Shaykh Zai made three claims, and answers to them are as follows:

(1). This saying does not contradict any other statement of Imam Daarqutni as we shall see while discussing Mu’ammal’s tawtheeq. Even if we accept that there is some contradiction, then also the Jarh should be preferred, because this Jarh is explicit and tasheeh of Isnad contains other possibilities, as we shall see under the claimed Tawtheeq of Daarqutni.
(2). The claim that this is not proven from the author of Tahdheeb till Daarqutni, is false claim. He claimed this because he couldn’t find from where Hafiz Ibn Hajar quoted it. If he had done some sabr it would have been better. Hence later on he found its source in questions of al-Hakim from Daarqutni (492). This second claim was omitted later on from the article, as could be seen in Ilmi Maqalat (1/419).
(3). Rejecting it based on the fact that it is not present in adh-Dhu’afa wa al-Matrookeen by Daarqutni is also incorrect. In his modified later edition of this article in “Ilmi Maqalaat”, Zubair Ali Zai claimed that since this Mu’ammal is not listed by Daarqutni in Ad-Dhu’afa therefore the criticism narrated by al-Hakim from him is abrogated [sic]. I say: Nowhere Imam Daarqutni claimed that all those narrators which are not listed in his “Ad-Dhu’afa wa al-Matrookeen” were Thiqah, while on the other hand criticism on Mu’ammal by Daarqutni is established. This kind of claims doesn’t suite a student, much less a scholar who is considered, by some, to be the top Muhaddith of this time.


Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

8. Abd ul-Baaqi bin Qaani’: “Saalih makes Mistakes” [Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: 10/381]

* This saying is chain-less. Abdul Baaqi bin Qaani himself is criticized of being Mukhtalat. Some have praied him and some have criticized him. [See: Mizaan ul-I’tidaal: 2/532, 533]


Ibn Qane’ was Imam of this field even though he wasn’t like others, but here his verdict is in agreement with other scholars. As for isnad of this until Ibn Qani’ then see my early reply under the Jarh of As-Saaji.


Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

9. Hafidh Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani: “He is truthful, weak in memory.” [Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb]


I do not think listing muta’akhhireen alongside mutaqaddimeen is a good thing, while you are making a list of majority and minority. Generally statements of later scholars are based on the statements of early scholars of Hadith. Yes, statements of later Huffaz are very beneficial to analyze our understanding of Jarh and Ta’deel, but mentioning it alongside Mutaqaddimeen while listing majority and minority is incorrect.



Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

10. Imam Bukhaari: “Munkir ul-Hadeeth” [Tahdheeb al-Kamaal: 18/526, Mizaan ul-I’tidaal: 4/228, Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: 10/381]

* In all the three books, this saying is mentioned without any chain and without any reference. Whereas on the contrary to it, Imam Bukhaari has mentioned Mu’ammal in Al-Taareekh al-Kabeer (Vol 8 Pg 49 T. 2107) and did not criticize him. Mu’ammal is also not mentioned in Kitaab ad-Du’afa of Imam Bukhaari, and the narrations of Mu’ammal are present in Saheeh Bukhaari, See: H. 2700, 2083 with Fath ul-Bari. Imam Mizzi said: “Imam Bukhaari has narrated from him as Istish-haad” [Tahdheeb al-Kamaal: 18/527]
Haafidh Muhammad Taahir al-Maqdasi has written regarding a narrator that: “In fact He (Bukhari) has taken narrations from him in many places as Istish-haad to indicate that he is Siqah”
This proves that Mu’ammal is Siqah according to Imam Bukhari, not Munkir ul-Hadeeth.


This could be true because just after Mu’ammal bin Isma’eel, in at-Tarikh al-Kabeer, Imam Bukhari listed Mu’ammal bin Sa’eed and declared him Munkar al-Hadith. It may be that some scholar mistakenly took it for Mu’ammal bin Isma’eel.
However, on the other hand it also seems difficult because more than one scholars had attributed this to Bukhari, some have attributed the statement “Munkar al-Hadith” while some have attributed mere weakening without specifying any term. This includes the likes of Imam al-Mizzi, al-Dhahabi, al-Haythami, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and al-Buqa’i. It is necessary, before reaching to a conclusion, that different manuscript of Tarikh Kabeer and other books on Rijal by al-Bukhari should be analyzed carefully. WAllahu A’alam.

With regards to the claim of Shaykh Zai that Imam Bukhari has included his narrations in his “Saheeh” in support and hence he was Thiqah, this is again a false analogy.
Imam Bukhari intentionally avoiding Mu’ammal and not taking him as hujjah, indicates that there was some reason for which he avoided him. Similarly Imam Muslim completely avoided him. Hafiz Abu Umar Ibn As-Salah said in his famous Muqaddimah on ‘ilmul hadeeth (pg.84), “Know that the narrations of those who is not Hujjah (as a narrator) and rather he is among weak narrators, is sometimes cited in case of Mutabi’ah and Shawahid. And in the book of Bukhari and Muslim there are several weak narrators cited as Mutabi’ah and Shawahid.”

Inclusion of some weak narrators in Ta’aaleeq of Saheeh is a fact which cannot be denied. The following are narrators in Ta’aleeq of Saheeh:
1. Ibrahim bin Isma’eel bin Mujamma’: Imam Bukhari said, “he was the person with a lot of doubts (Kathir al-Wahm)”.
2. Huraith bin Abi Matar: Bukhari said, “feehi nazr”.
3. Ubaidulla bin Sa’eed bin Muslim al-Ju’fi, Abu Muslim: Bukhari said,”feehi nazar”.
4. Umar Abu Salamah bin Abdur-Rahman: Bukhari said,”Sadooq, except that he was opposed (by scholars) in some of narrations”.
5. Imran bin Dawar: Bukhari, “truthful, he used to fall in doubts (yahim)”.
6. Mu’awiyah bin Abdul Kareem: Ibn Abi Hatim said, “Bukhari listed him amongst weak narrators”.
7. Yahya al-Kindi: Bukhari said, “He was not known and no one back (support) him (lam Yutaba’ alaih)”.
One can refer to entries of these narrators in Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb by Ibn Hajar.

Sh Zubair quoted from Muhammad bin Tahir al-Maqdisi that he said regarding a narrator, “In fact He (Bukhari) has taken narrations from him in many places as Istish-haad to indicate that he is Thiqah”, and then he (Sh Zai) himself concluded, “This proves that Mu’ammal is Thiqah according to Imam Bukhari, not Munkir ul-Hadeeth”.

I say: The statement of al-Maqdisi is regarding some narrators of Sahihayn who were well famous scholars but still Shaykhain avoided them, except in Mutabi’ah or Shawahid. This doesn’t mean for every single narrators mentioned by Shaykhain in support or for back up. Even if we accept that al-Maqdisi meant it for every single narrator, then also there is no reason to blindly follow him and leave the facts described above. Therefore, I could not understand the basis for the statement of Shaykh Zubair Ali Zai that Mu’ammal was Thiqah according to Imam Bukhari.

In conclusion, Imam Bukhari only mentioned Mu’ammal in Ta’aleeq, not in the main Ahadeeth of Sahih Bukhari. WAllahu A’alam.



Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

11. Ahmed bin Hanbal: “Mu’ammal is mistaken.” [Sawalaat al-Marwaazi: 53, Mawsoo’ah Aqwaal al-Imam Ahmed: 3/419]

It is an established saying that, even the Siqah narrators get mistaken (sometimes), therefore if such a narrator is Siqah according to the Jumhoor, then his proven Mistakes are to be left, and in his remaining narrations, he will be Hasan ul-Hadeeth. Moreover see: Qawaid fi Uloom ul-Hadeeth: Pg 275 and others.


Correct translation of the statement of Imam Ahmad should be, “Mu’ammal used to make mistakes”. WAllahu A’alam

It is true that even Thiqah Hafiz narrators could make mistakes, but that doesn’t make scholars to declare that they used to make mistakes. Imam Ahmad said this because the mistakes of Mu’ammal were in good amount.

Let me quote it in full context. It is in Su’alaat by al-Marwazi (53), al-Marwazi said: I asked Abu Abdullah, “Yahya bin Yaman and Mu’ammal, when they differ [i.e. who is to be preferred]?” He replied, “Leave it,” as though he weakened their cases (ka annahu layyana amrahuma). Then he said, “Mu’ammal used to make mistakes”.
This indicates that Mu’ammal was not as good as Yahya bin Yamaan, according to Imam Ahmad, and that is why he preferred Yahya over him. Now, what was the status of Yahya bin Yamaan according to Imam Ahmad? He said, as in Tarikh Baghdad [(14/123) with an authentic chain], “Yahya was not hujjah in hadith”. See, “Mawsoo’ah Aqwaal alImam Ahmad” (4/142-143) for other statements of Jarh on Yahya by Imam Ahmad. The point here is Imam Ahmad preferred Yahya bin Yamaan (weak according to Ahmad) over Mu’ammal. Both Yahya and Mu’ammal were famous for narrating from Sufyan, and the question of al-Marwazi was regarding their narrations from Sufyan. This proves that Mu’ammal was weak according to Imam Ahmad even while narrating from Sufyan, and hence Hafiz Ibn Hajar was correct in his verdict that his Mu’ammal’s traditions from Sufyan have weakness in it. WAllahu A’alam.


Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

12. The ciriticizm of Ibn al-Turkamaani al-Hanafi is rejected due to “Qeela (Passive Form)”. [See: Johar al-Naqi 2/30]

I say: Ibn Turkmani used “qeela” for the reason mentioned by some scholar for the weakness of Mu’ammal. So he said, “It is said that he buried his books, and then he kept on narrating from his memory that is why his mistakes became abundant. This was mentioned by the author of al-Kamal.” His use of passive form was for the reason of weakness not for the weakness itself. As for the weakness itself then Mu’ammal was obviously weak according to Ibn at-Turkamani. He quoted Dhahabi’s Meezan there to show weakness of Mu’ammal. Hafiz ad-Dimyati also said, with Jazm, that Mu’ammal buried his books and then kept on narrating from his memory, therefore his mistakes increased [al-Badr al-Muneer (7/553)].  WAllahu A’alam.

Besides this, see what I wrote previously regarding counting later scholars alongside Mutaqaddimeen to make a minority and majority.


The Praise of Mu’ammal bin Ismaa’eel


Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

On the contrary, Mu’ammal is proven to be Siqah by the following Muhadditheen:

1. Yahya ibn Ma’een: “Thiqah” [Taareekh Ibn Ma’een by Ad-Dauri: 235 Pg 591, Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel by Ibn Abi Haatim: 8/374]

In Kitaab al-Jarah wal Ta’deel, Imam Ibn Abi Haatim wrote that: “Ya’qoob bin Ishaaq narrated to us from what was written in the book from him, he said, Uthmaan bin Sa’eed (Imam Ad-Daarimi) narrated to us, he said: I said to Yahya ibn Ma’een: ‘What is the Condition of Mu’ammal when he narrates from Sufyaan? He replied: ‘He is Siqah’, I said to him: ‘Who is more beloved to you Mu’ammal or Ubaydullah?’ He declared both of them to be Equal” [Same Reference]

Ya’qoob bin Ishaaq al-Harwi is Siqah. He is mentioned in Taareekh al-Islaam of Haafidh Dhahabi [25/54]

Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali, in Sharh Illal al-Tirmidhi, has narrated this saying from the book of Imam Uthmaan bin Sa’eed ad-Daarimi. [See: 541/2]

This is one of the very few absolute Tautheeq of Mu’ammal. Regarding this Shaykh al-Albani conclude the following:
قلت : فيبدو أن من وثقه لم يبد له حفظه ، ومن وصفه به معه زيادة علم ، فينبغي اعتماده ، ولا يجوز طرحه كما هو معلوم من قواعد “مصطلح الحديث” ، وعليه ؛ فحديث الرجل يبقى في مرتبة الضعف حتى نجد له من يتابعه أو يشهد له
“So it appears that those who made his tautheeq couldn’t came across defects in his memory. And those who attributed it (weakness) to him, they had extra knowledge with them, so it should be relied on and not to be rejected as it is well documented in the principles of Mustaleh al-Hadith. So the narrations of this person remain weak unless we find some other Shahid”. Ad-Da’eefa (no.3995).


Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

2. Ibn Hibban has mentioned him in Kitaab ath-Thiqaat (9/187) and said: “Make Mistakes”. Such a narrator is not Da’eef accrding to Imam Ibn Hibbaan. Imam Ibn Hibbaan has brought the narrations of Mu’ammal in his Saheeh. [See: Al-Ihsaan bitarteeb Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan Vol 8 Pg 253 H. 6681]

This proves that Mu’ammal is Saheeh ul-Hadeeth or Hasan ul-Hadeeth according to Ibn Hibbaan. The criticizm of “Make Mistakes” does not affect the narrator.

It is well known that there are different stages of ta’deel. The book Ath-Thiqaat of Ibn Hibban includes narrators of all those stages some are close to weakness. Ibn Hibban has included even those narrators who according to him were liable to make a lot of mistakes. See the entries of Simak bin Harb, Sadoos bin Habeeb, Shabib bin Bishr, Abdullah bin ‘Usm, Mukhtar bin Fulful etc. All these narrators are listed in Ath-Thiqaat but still according to Ibn Hibban they had a lot of mistakes (yukhtee katheeran).

In case of Mu’ammal, Ibn HIbban has made it clear that he sometimes used to make mistakes. Therefore this verdict of Ibn Hibban does’nt actually contradict the verdict of Abu Hatim, rather statement of Abu Hatim is more explanatory than his.


Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

3. Imam Bukhaari: He narrated from Mu’ammal as Istishhaad in his Saheeh. It has been passed under the criticizm of Imam Bukhari above that Imam Bukhaari has narrated from Mu’ammal in ta’leeq form, therefore he is Saheeh ul-Hadeeth acording to him.

See what I have written under Jarh of Bukhari previously.


Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

4. Sulemaan bin Harb: He praised him [The reference has been passed under the criticizm of Sufyaan al-Faarsi]

Praising doesn’t indicate Tautheeq, as it has already been preceeded.


Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

5. Ishaaq bin Rahwayh: “Thiqah” [Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: 10/381]

* This saying is chain-less, therefore it is not proven.

In Ilmi Maqalaat, Zubair Ali modified his claim as he found the source of Ibn Rahuyah’s tautheeq. It is in al-Jame’ li akhlaq ar-Rawi (1/400) of Khateeb. See what I qouted from the words of Allamah al-Albani under tawtheeq of Ibn Mu’een.


Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

6. Tirmidhi: Declared his narration, Saheeh [415, 672, 1948], Declared his narration, Hasan [6146, (3266)]

Note: The narrations without the brackets around, are narrated from the chain of Mu’ammal from Sufyaan.

According to At-Tirmidhi Mu’ammal is Saheeh ul-Hadeeth and Hasan ul-Hadeeth.

Imam Tirmidhi declared the hadith to be Sahih or Hasan, that doesn’t necessitate Tautheeq of each and every narrator. A scholar looks for several factors before declaring a hadith to be authentic or weak. In most of the examples provided by Shaykh Zai, Shaykh al-Albani agree with tas’heeh or tahseen of tirmidhi, so does that mean Mu’ammal was Thiqah even according to al-Albani? No, he did so based on different isnad and shawahid. WAllahu A’alam

Imam Tirmidhi himself had issues with Mu’ammal. He said under hadith no.3525 which was narrated by Mu’ammal from Hammad bin Salamah from Humaid from Anas in Marfoo’ form, “This hadith is gharib and not preserved. This narration is (correctly) narrated through Hammad from Humaid from Hasan al-Basari from the Prophet, alaihi assalatu wassalaam, and this is correct. Mu’ammal did a mistake and narrated it through Humaid from Anas, and no one supported him in this (la yutaba’ feeh).”
This is just one example of mistake of Mu’ammal, if one opens books on ‘Ilal al-Hadeeth there are several examples of Mu’ammal’s mistakes.



Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

7. Ibn Khuzaymah: Authenticated him. [1/243 H. 479 etc]

The chain of Mu’ammal – AN – Sufyaan is authentic according to Imam Ibn Khuzaymah.

Imam Ibn Khuzaimah has narrated from even matrook narrators, would that be consider his Tawtheeq? Ibrahim bin Hakam, Kharija bin Mus’ab, Isma’eel bin Yahya and his father, Abdullah bin Nafe’ are just few examples of him narrating from known matrook narrators. Mu’ammal was much better than them, so no wonder if Ibn Khuzaimah recorded his narrations. Scholars many a time may accept hadith of a weak narrator based on their selections.

If just existence of a narrator in Sahih of Ibn Khuzaimah and Ibn Hibban is tawtheeq then why do the scholars who compiled detailed books on Jarh & Ta’deel never claimed that Ibn Khuzaimah did tawtheeq of Mu’ammal and all those Matrook narrators? The only thing you can find regarding some narrators (not the above narrators) that scholars would claim “Hassan lahu at-Tirmizi” or “sahhaha lahu Ibn Khuzaima” and like it, but you will not see them inferring from these statements that Tirmidhi did Tawtheeq or Ibn Khuzaimah did Tawtheeq of such and such narrators.

Many a time Ibn Khuzaimah notify the weakness of a narrator at one place while at some place just record his narrations. It could be that Ibn Khuzaimah had notified the problems with Mu’ammal in that part of his Sahih which is lost. We have at our hands only one fourth of his Sahih while the remaining are lost since a long time. Ibn Hajar and others have notified this.


Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

8. Ad-Daraqutni: Authenticated him in his Sunan. [2/186, H. 2261]

* Daraqutni wrote about the chain of Mu’ammal from Sufyaan that, it is Saheeh. Meaning he is Saheeh ul-Hadeeth according to him from Sufyaan.

It has already preceded that ad-Darqutni made slight Jarh on him. He said in answering the questions of Abu Abdullah al-Hakim (492), “He was truthful (Sadooq), but with a lot mistakes (Kathir al-Khata’)”.

This is clear enough, so I don’t see the reason for catching at straws. These kinds of tawtheeq are not explicit, because we can never be aware what the status of the narrators was. Even tawtheeq has categories, so in which category does Mu’ammal fall in? Also what was the methodology of these scholars in authentication? They may be lenient to some extant like Tirmidhi and Ibn Hibban. Or they may have special methodology in authentication such that they would make Tasheeh based on the fact that in a particular hadith there is no mistake from a narrator who could be weak. We have already seen the jarh mufassar by Daarqutni so there is no need of using uncertain factors. Daarqutni had special methodology when he says “Isnadun Hasan” (click to learn about it), so it is also possible for “Isnadun Sahih”, and this is supported by following examples.

There are several examples where Daarqutni has said the same thing regarding an Isnad which has a weak narrator in it:

[1]. In Sunan (85, Ar-Risalah ed.) he declared an Isnad to be Saheeh. This isnad include Ali bin Ghuraab regarding whom Daarqutni, in riwayah of al-Barqani (363) said, “yu’tabiru bihi (take him for support)”. The other narrator is Hisham bin Sa’d who was weak according to scholars.
[2]. Under hadith (147) he said the same, but this include Muslim bin Qurt who was Majhool.
[3]. Hadith (161). This include Hasan bin Dhakwan who was weak according to Daarqutni as in his al-‘Ilal (3/38).
[5]. Hadith (1325). This include Laith bin Abi Sulaim. Daarqutni said, weak. He also said accused him of bad memory. Also said, he was not a Hafiz. Another place he said he was not strong. Sunan (202, 210, 1253, 2303, 3682)
[6]. Hadith (2233) and (3136). This include Simak bin Harb. Daarqutni said he had bad memory (saiy al-hifz). al-‘Ilal (13/134)

These were some selected examples which I was able to collect. These examples indicate that statement of Daarqutni “Isnadun Sahih” doesn’t necessitate tawtheeq of each and every narrator therein.

In his ‘Ilal, Daarqutni attributed mistakes to Mu’ammal in more than one narrations. For example: (2/142), (2/244), (4/380), (5/252), (6/275), (7/17-18), (7/242), (7/249), (8/22), (9/201-202), (9/273), (9/314), (11/151), (11/186), (11/317). The underlined references are through other than Sufyan.

At a place in Sunan (2199), Imam Daarqutni mentioned the statement of his teacher Abu Bakr An-Naisaburi where he doubted the memory of Mu’ammal. Imam Daarqutni said: Abu Bakr told us, “If Mu’ammal remembered this (narration) then this is Gharib, and he was opposed by al-Imam Abdur-Rahman bin Mahdi”.



Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

9. Al-Haakim = Authenticated him in al-Mustadrak on the conditions of Shaikhayn, and Dhahabi followed him in that. [1/384 H. 1418]

* This narration is narrated from the chain of Mu’ammal from Sufyaan thawree, therefore Mu’ammal is Siqah according to Imam Haakim and Dhahabi.


Shaykh Zubair Ali Zai gave only one reference, however there are many narrations through Mu’ammal in al-Mustadrak.
In the above referenced tradition al-Hakim said it is on the condition of Shaykhayn, as quoted by even Shaykh Zai. However, even he knows this is incorrect. Traditions of Mu’ammal are not on the condition of Shaykhain. Muslim totally avoided him while Bukhari reported through him in Ta’aaleeq. If someone claim that the intention of al-Hakim was to say that its narrators are like the narrators of Sahihayn, then this is also false. Imam al-Hakim said under hadith (1229): “Hadith of Thawri from Ya’la bin ‘Ataa is Gharib Sahih, because the two Shaykhs (Bukhari and Muslim) took hujjah from Mu’ammal bin Isma’eel even though they did not narrate this report”. This proves that it was from Hakim’s wahm that both Bukhari and Muslim took Mu’ammal as hujjah, and that is why he declared Mu’ammal’s tradition to be Sahih on the condition of Shaykhain. Once it is known that this was al-Hakim’s wahm then there remains no point in mentioning al-Hakim.
Also, Imam al-Hakim would include the narrations of abandoned narrators, so no wonder if he took some narrations of Mu’ammal for his al-Mustadrak. Besides this, see also what I wrote under Tawtheeq of Daarqutni regarding “inferring tawtheeq of narrators from tasheeh of isnad”.

As for Dhahabi’s agreement then it is a separate debatable topic as to whether Dhahabi’s agreement in “Talkhis” is his real agreement or it is just a summary of al-Hakim’s verdict. In any case, Dhahabi has some well known books on Jarh and Ta’deel where he made his opinion clear, which will be quoted under his supposed Tautheeq.



Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

10. Dhahabi = “He is among the Siqaat” [Al-Abar fi Khabar min Ghabar: 1/274]

This proves that according to Imam Dhahabi, Mu’ammal is Siqah and the criticizm on him is rejected.

Imam Dhahabi had made his opinion clear in Meezan al-E’atedal (4/228) where he said, “He makes mistake (yukhti)”. In Meezan, the narrators which were unjustly criticized by some are indicated by “saad & haa” (صح). This sign in al-Meezan indicates that the narrator was criticized wrongly, and hence the criticism is rejected. There is no such sign with Mu’ammal bin Isma’eel, even though the next narrator Mu’ammal bin Ihab was marked with that sign. This further supports the point that Mu’ammal was not Thiqah (in Istalahi sense) according to Dhahabi.
In “al-Kashif” (2/309) he preferred the verdict of Abu Hatim and hence he said, “Mu’ammal bin Isma’eel al-Basari al-‘Umri mawlahum, resided in Makkah. He narrated from ‘Ikrimah bin ‘Ammar, Shu’bah and Sufyan. Ahmad and Mu’ammal bin Ihab narrated from him. Abu Hatim said, “He was truthful (sadooq), strict in following sunnah. He used to make a lot of mistakes. It is said that his books were buried, so he narrated from his memory and commited mistakes.”
It is to be noted that al-Kashif is a summary of Tahdheeb al-Kamal of al-Mizzi. Dhahabi choose the opinion of Abu Hatim from all opinions mentioned in Tahdheeb (including tawtheeq of Ibn Mu’een), which means it was the most balanced opinion according to Dhahabi.

Then why did he declare him thiqah in al-‘Ibar? Allahu A’alam, Probably he meant it in literal sense not in the sense we normally understand. Many a time the word “thiqah” is used for a narrator to mean truthful and righteous regardless of his Dhabt and Memory. Many scholars would use this term in literal sense, and it is possible Dhahabi also did the same. This probability is supported by what I have already quoted.

In any case, the verdict of Dhahabi in his books on Rijal should be preferred over his statements in history books (like al-‘Ibar).

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

11. Ahmed bin Hanbal = He Narrated from him.

Imam Ahmed has narrated narration from Mu’ammal in his Al-Musnad, for example see: [Musnad Ahmed: 1/16 H. 97, Shuyookh Ahmed fi Musnad al-Imam Ahmed: 1/49]

* Zafar Ahmed Thanvi Deobandi has written that: “All the Shuyookh of Ahmed are Siqah”

* Haafidh Haythami said: “Ahmed has narrated from him and his Shyookh are Siqah.” [Majma az-Zawaid: 1/80]

Meaning generally, with the exception of some narrators, all the teachers of Imam Ahmed are Siqah (according to Jumhoor).


I say: If this is the case then on what basis he concluded that Mu’ammal did not fall under those exceptions? The misconception that all the teachers of Imam Ahmad were Thiqah was refuted by Hafiz Ibn Abdul Haadi in his marvelous book “As-Saarim Al-Munki” while discussing the adalah of Musa bin Harun, under first hadith. Since even Shaykh Zai does not believe in that misconception, I do not feel any need of quoting Ibn Abdul Haadi. Anyone looking for detail can refer there. Besides that, we have already seen the Jarh on Mu’ammal by Ahmad.


Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

12. Ali ibn al-Madeeni = He narrated from him as mentioned in Tahdheeb al-Kamaal (1/526) and Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (10/380) and others. See Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel (8/374)

* It is narrated from Abu al-Arab al-Qairawaani that: “Certainly Ahmed and Ali ibn al-Madeeni (usually) only narrate from Siqah narrators” [Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: 9/114 T. 155]

Again, there is no point as he himself considers that this was not the case always. That is why he used the word “usually” (urdu: ‘aam taur par) in brackets.

اذا جاء الاحتمال بطل الاستدلال

Note:- In the quote from Abul ‘Arab al-Qairwani, the word “maqbool” is used not thiqah, as I can see in Ilmi Maqalat (1/422). I don’t know why brother Raza Hassan mentioned “Thiqah” in his translation. “Maqbool” is totally different than “Thiqah”.WAllahu A’alam



Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

13. Ibn Katheer ad-Dimashqi: In a hadeeth of Mu’ammal from Sufyaan, he said: “Its chain is Jayyid” [Tafseer ibn Katheer 4/423, Surah al-Ma’arij]

* Mu’ammal is Jayyid ul-Hadeeth, meaning Siqah and Sudooq according to Imam Ibn Katheer.

Declaring the Isnad to be Jayyid doesn’t necessitate tawtheeq of narrator or Isnad according to Ibn Katheer. I have a lot of examples for it, but I do not think there is any need of it for the following reason:
Ibn Katheer has done tasheeh of Isnad containing Mu’ammal. He said regarding a narration containing Mu’ammal, “Isnadun Saheeh”. Tafseer (3/52, al-Maida verse-6)
Now in what category of praise he fall, according to Ibn Katheer? Allahu A’alam. In short, apparently, he did consider him trustworthy (either thiqah or Sadooq). And Allah knows best.


Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

14. Al-Zayaa al-Maqdisi = He narrated a hadeeth from him in Al-Mukhtaarah (1/345 H. 237)

* Mu’ammal is Saheeh ul-Hadeeth according to Haafidh Zaya.

Al-Ahadeeth Al-Mukhtarah, according to the author, was supposed to be a collection of authentic hadith, not necessarily a collection of authentic Isnad. Even in that scholars criticize the author for being lenient. Shaykh al-Albani said regarding a hadith containing a liar recorded by al-Hakim and al-Dhiya: There is nothing odd if al-Hakim recorded it, but the oddness is from al-Dhiya, how he disgraced his book by narrating from him (Ibn Aadam, Kadhhab), while his book is much better than al-Mustadrak. But the reality testify that he was also lenient in it [recording weak reports], for he narrates abundantly from weak and unknown narrators.” Irwa al-Ghaleel (5/321, h-1498)


Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

15. Abu Dawood = Abu Ubayd al-Ajurri said, I asked Abu Dawood about Mu’ammal bin Ismaa’eel, thus he described his greatness and raised his status, except that he makes mistake in somethings. [Tahdheeb al-Kamaal: 18/527]

* This proves that according to the saying narrated from Imam Abu Dawood, Mu’ammal is Hasan ul-Hadeeth according to him, but the tawtheeq of Abu Ubayd al-Aajuri is not known, this saying is defective.


There is no word of Tawtheeq in the statement of Abu Dawud, as one can see. It is more close to Jarh than Tawtheeq.


Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

16. Haafidh al-Haythami = “Siqah and he has weakness in him.” [Majma az-Zawaid: 8/183]

* Meaning Mu’ammal is Hasan ul-Hadeeth according to Haafidh Haythami.

One can see the clear contradiction in the writing of Shaykh Zai. Here he considers this statement to be a Tawtheeq, while the similar statement of Ibn Sa’d he kept under “Criticism on Mu’ammal”.

The term thiqah here means righteous and truthful, not thiqah. This is clear if we see it in the light of the next part of al-Haythami’s statement (i.e. he has weakness in him). This was also supported by statements of al-Haythami at other places in the same book. For example: “Ibn Mu’een made tawtheeq of him, while majority considered him weak” (5/49). “He was thiqah, with a lot of mistakes” (7/128).



Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

17. Imam Nasa’ee = He narrated from him in his Sunan (4097, 4589)

* Zafar Ahmed Thanvi Deobandi wrote: “The narrator of Sunan al-Sughra which is not criticized by Imam Nasaa’ee is Siqah according to him.” [Qawaaid Uloom ul-Hadeeth Pg 222]

This is not the case always. Allamah Badee’ud-deen Shah ar-Rashidi, teacher of Zubair Ali Zai, said in his refutation of Shaykh Zafar Ahmad Thanvi:
“His [Thanvi] statement: ……narrators on whom he (that is Nasai) kept silence were Thiqah.
I [ar-Rashidi] say: He has kept silence over Majrooh narrators, so this rule is incorrect.
I [ar-Rashidi] say: This [the statement of Sa’d az-Zanjani] doesn’t necessitate all those on whom Nasai kept silence were Thiqah. Several narrators on whom he did Sukut in Sunan, but criticized them in “adh-Dhu’afa”. And this is not hidden from anyone who has read his books”.
[Naqdh Qawa’id fi ‘Uloom al-Hadeeth, pg.213]
Note:- The text under square brackets, i.e. “[]”, is by me. This is for what has preceded and which is about to come.

I [Moin] say: Shaykh Rashidi criticized Shaykh Thanvi for generalizing this rule for Imam Ahmad also. His student Shaykh Zai is involved in taking this rule in cases of both Nasai and Ahmad.
If it is said that he did so just to make an argument against Deobandi scholars, then the question arises, why did he counted this as valid Tautheeq at the end of this topic?

Jarh of Imam Nasai on Mu’ammal bin Isma’eel: He said in Sunan Kubra (no.2838, 9833) and in “Amal al-Yawm wa al-Lailah” (85), “Mu’ammal bin Isma’eel was Katheer al-Khata’ [one who makes a lot of mistakes]”.

Hence, Imam Nasai should be kept among Jariheen. WAllahu A’lam


Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

18. Ibn Shaheen = He mentioned him in Kitaab ath-Thiqaat [Pg 232 T. 1416]

He was lenient. And in this case he relied on Yahya bin Mu’een, like he does most of the time. He said, “Mu’ammal al-Makki, Thiqah. This was said by Yahya.



Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

19. Al-Ismaa’eeli = He narrated from him in his Mustakhraj (upon Saheeh Bukhaari). [See: Fath ul-Bari 13/33 Under H. 7083]

Mustakhraj are the books in which the author connects his Isnad with the isnad of another book. Mustakhraj doesn’t necessitate authenticity, and they are sometimes referred to as Sahih [particularly Mustakhraj upon Saheeh] because their narrators are the same narrators of Sahih.
Since, Mu’ammal exist in Sahih Bukhari as a narrator of Ta’leeq, therefor Hafiz al-Isma’eeli did its takhreej and connected that Mu’allaq report with his Isnad. There is no question of Tawtheeq. See also what Mawlana Irshad ul-Haq Athari has to say regarding Mustakhraj of Abu ‘Awana (also known as Sahih Abu ‘Awanah), in Tawdheeh al-Kalam (676-678).


Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

20. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani = He mentioned the hadeeth of Ibn Khyzaymah in Fath ul-Baari (which contains Mu’ammal) and did not criticize it. [2/224 Under H. 740]

* Zafar Ahmed Thanvi said: “Whatever hadeeth Haafidh narrates in Fath ul-Baari without criticizing it, then it is Saheeh or Hasan according to him, as is affrmed in the Muqaddimah…….” [Qawaaid fi Uloom ul-Hadeeth Pg 89]

This proves that according to Thanvi, Mu’ammal is Saheeh ul-Hadeeth or Hasan ul-Hadeeth according to Haafidh Ibn Hajar. Meaning he recanted from his Jarah in Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb.


If this is just the view of Thanvi then why did Maulana Zai count it so as to make a list of Jamhoor? Ibn Hajar’s view is clear and he did slight Jarh on Mu’ammal as it has already preceded under Jarh. Even in “Fath al-Baari” he criticized Mu’ammal as quoted by Zubair Ali himself.

Zubair Ali Zai does not consider the silence of Ibn Hajar, in Fath al-Baari, to be his authentication. He has an article in his magazine al-Hadeeth vol.74 on this topic. According to him Ibn Hajar even kept silence over some fabricated hadith, and he provided some examples for it relying on some book “Anees al-Saari”. So basically, in this article, he was making an argument against Deobandi Ulama by using their own rule. If that so then he should not have counted this as valid tawtheeq to reach a number of 22. WAllahu A’alam


Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

21. Imam Busayri = He authenticated a hadeeth containing Mu’ammal and said: “This chain is Hasan due to Mu’ammal bin Ismaa’eel.” [Misbaah al-Zajajah VOl 2 Pg 130]

At another place (2/122, Dar al-‘Arabiyah) he said regarding a hadith containing Mu’ammal, “Its narrators are all Thiqaat”.


Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

22. Ibn Sayyid an-Naas = He authenticated a hadeeth containing Mu’ammal [Sharh Tirmidhi Vol 2 Pg 211]

This claim doesn’t exist in “Ilmi Maqalaat” neither in al-Hadeeth magazine, so I don’t know from where brother Raza Hassan got this reference. WAllah A’alam.
By looking at translation, it seems Ibn Sayyid an-Naas authenticated a hadith, not the Isnad. So there remains no question of tautheeq. Wa lillahi al-hamd.


Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

From this detail we come to know that Mu’ammal bin Ismaa’eel is Siqah and Sudooq, or Saheeh ul-Hadeeth and Hasan ul-Hadeeth according to the Jumhoor of Muhadditheen, therefore the criticizm of some Muhadditheen upon him is Mardood.

This is totally false and we have made it clear. Wa lillahi alhamd


Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

According to Imam Tirmidhi and the Jumhoor of Muhadditheen, if Mu’ammal narrates from Sufyaan then he is Siqah and Saheeh ul-Hadeeth. The saying of Haafidh Ibn Hajar that: “There is some weakness in his hadeeth from Sufyaan” [Fath ul-Baari: 9/239 Under H. 5172] is rejected due to it being against the Jumhoor.

Nowhere did Imam Tirmidhi claim such a thing. Authenticating a hadith doesn’t mean authenticating a particular Isnad. And Ibn Hajar’s verdict was supported by the statement of Imam Ahmad preceded under tautheeq no. 11. Ibn Muhriz also report from Ibn Mu’een that Mu’ammal was not hujjah while narrating from Sufyan. Abu Hatim also said similar thing, as could be seen under his Jarh. Ibn Hajar’s statement was also supported by the mistakes attributed to Mu’ammal in books of Ilal. I’ve already provided the references for Daarqutni’s ilal, besides that there are more explicit texts in Ilal of Ibn Abi Hatim. [For example: – (289), (578), (1754), (2008), (2069), (923), (1116), (1570), (2003), (2164), (2660)]. Hafiz al-Bazzar could also be seen attributing mistakes to Mu’ammal’s narration from Thawri [See, Musnad al-Bazzar (1476), (2395), (4363), (8653)]. Hafiz Ibn Abil Fawaaris did the same [Irwa al-Ghaleel (6/240)]. Al-Bayhaqi did the same [Shu’b al-Eeman (572), As-Sunan as-Sagheer (3/20), Al-Kubra (4/213), (4/240)]. At-Tabrani did the same [Al-Awsat (1512), As-Sagheer (777)]. Hafiz Ibn Hajar was specialist in this field and Sh Zubair Ali should think ten times before degrading their research.


Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

Total Number of Criticizers = 10. Criticizm is not proven from some of them such as Bukhaari etc.

Total Number of Admirers = 22. Praise is not proven from some of them such as Ishaaq bin Rahwayh.

Total Number of Criticizers = Abu Hatim, al-Fasawi, Nasai, Ibn Nasr al-Marwazi, As-Saaji, Ibn Sa’d, Daarqutni, Ibn Qani’, Ibn Hibban, Ahmad bin Hanbal [total 10, leaving aside Abu Zar’ah, Bukhari and Muta’akhir scholars].
Total Admirers = Ibn Mu’een, Ibn Shaheen, Ibn Rahuyah [total 3, Leaving aside others and Muta’akhhir scholars].

Besides the fact that majority of scholars criticized him, the Jarh against him is Mufassar. So it should take precedence.

And may the mercy and peace of Allah be upon His last and final Messenge Muhammad, his family and his companions.

Ahmed Al-Ghumari on Al-Albani

March 8, 2011 9 comments

There had been a long controversy between Ghumaris and Nasir Ud-Deen Al-Albani. Hence this process was started when Shaykh Al-Albani refuted Shaykh Ahmed bin Siddeeq Al-Ghumari on the topic of building over graves. But the actually heat started between Abdullah Al-Ghumari, younger brother of Ahmed Al-Ghumari, and Al-Albani. Hence, hence Abdullah Al-Ghumari wrote no less than three short books particularly in Al-Albani’s refutation. “Al-Qawl Al-Muqni’” and “Irgham Al-Mubtadi’ Al-Ghabiyy” were both written by Abdullah Al-Ghumari. The actual reason for writing “Al-Qawl Al-Muqni’” was that Abdullah Al-Ghumari had done tahqeeq and takhreej of “Bidayat As-Sool” by Ibn Abdussalaam in which he left out grading on several weak reports and declared some narrations to be authentic, which were fabricated or Munkar according to Al-Albani. Hence, Al-Albani pointed out these things in the Muqaddimah (pg. 24-28, Al-Maktab Al-Islaami) of his edition of the same book. The points on which Al-Albani criticized Al-Ghumari are as follows:

  1. Al-Ghumari didn’t mention the status of most of the narration in his takhreej.
  2. He depends on the Tahseen of Tirmidhi.
  3. His takhreej of some narrations present in Sahih of Bukhari and Muslim.
  4. He attributes narrations to books which are not famous, even though it is present in Sihaah or Sunan.
  5. His authentication of Hadith “creations are all the family of Allah” and weakening of “I am the Sayyid of Bani Adam and Ali is the Sayyid of Arab” even though it is fabricated according to Dhahabi.

To that Abdullah Al-Ghumari wrote “Al-Qawl Al-Muqni’ fi radd ‘ala Al-Albani Al-Mubtadi’” in which he insulted Al-Albani with very harsh comments and defended himself. Al-Ghumari replied to Al-Albani’s above criticism to which Al-Albani wrote a response in the Muqaddima of the third volume of “Adh-Dha’eefa” (3/8-43).

Here I am going to bring some sayings of Ahmed bin Siddeeq Al-Ghumari describing Al-Albani’s knowledge in Hadith. Like it is said:

والفضل ما شهدت به الأعداء

“Praise is that which come from enemies”

Ahmed Al-Ghumari states:

And Nasirud-Deen Al-Albani, he came to Damascus and he did not know Arabic. So he studied it and then he turned toward the study of Hadith, hence he became very skilled in it. The Zahiriyya Library, which constitutes several valuable manuscripts, helped him, and he arranged it with his own hands. Such that when I visited (that Library) in previous years, he was the one who would provide me whatever I ask for and introduce to me what was in it. And were it not for his views and stubbornness, he would have been from the persons of their time (Afrad az-zamaan) with regards to the knowledge of Hadith. That is besides the fact that he runs his shop of watch repairing. We had debate with him whose story is long…” [Durr Al-Ghamam Ar-Rafeeq (pg.191) compiled by Abdullah At-Taleedi]


Some other time he said:

As for Al-Albani then he was from the selected people in the knowledge (of Hadith), that is besides him being almost a normal (unfamous) person[1]. But in stubbornness he even left behind Az-Zamzami (one of Ghumaris) and all the stubborns on the face of earth! He mentioned me in his book “Tahdheer As-Saajid fi ittikhadh Al-Qubur Masaajid”, where he said that he met me and he found me to be Sufi Khalafi, and this he consider to be lowest level of dispraise. The enemy of Allah has lied when he attributed me towards Khalafiyya, while I am their strict enemy. But because of his ignorance he thinks that everyone who is not a Taymiyy and Wahaabi is a Khalafi.” [Al-Jawab Al-Mufeed (60-61) compiled by Abul Fadhl Badr Al-‘Imrani]

This is quite clear statement attesting to the specialty of Al-Albani in the field of Hadith. As for the part in which he talks bad of Al-Albani then it is not something weird as Al-Ghumari was his opponent in knowledge. The language of Al-Ghumari was very insultive with regards to his opponents. Take for example, his book “Al-Mudawi” where he insulted Al-Munawi several times with very insultive statements and that is after it was edited, and several insults were removed by one of his brother. This praise for Al-Albani is coming from his opponent, as for his friends then some consider him the Majaddid of this era. Amazingly, Ghumari brothers and their followers were the main group who raised question on his scholarship. Hence, besides Ahmed and Abdullah, Abdul Aziz Al-Ghumari the younger of them also wrote a book in refutation of Al-Albani when he refuted him in his tawtheeq of the narrator Harith Al-A’awar. Then the writings of Hasan As-Saqqaf are quite famous. Among his tens of books there are only selected which are written on the issue other than refutation of Al-Albani. He specially wrote “Tanaqudhaat Al-Albani” in three volumes showing the contradiction of Al-Albani in his grading of Hadith. He was refuted by several scholars and students of knowledge like Amr Abdul Mun’im Saleem in “La Difa’ ‘anil Albani”, Ali Al-Halabi, Abdullah Al-Khaleefi in “At-Tawfeeq Ar-Rabbani” etc. Then there is Mahmud Sa’eed Mamduh, a student of Abdullah Al-Ghumari, another staunch opponent of Al-Albani. The difference between Hasan As-Saqqaf and him is that, As-Saqqaf is quite frank and open such that he didn’t left even Abul Hasan Al-Ash’ari, and Mahmud Sa’eed uses sweet language to deceive people such that a person would hardly doubt what he has to say. Besides that As-Saqqaaf is Kadhhaab while I am not aware of any lie from Mahmud Sa’eed except that he uses deceptive techniques to make his point. Mahmud Sa’eed has written several books in refutation of Al-Albani which include Tanbihul Muslim, Wusul At-Tahaani, At-Ta’reef. The first book talks about the narrations of Sahih Muslim which were declared weak by Shaykh Al-Albani. He gave a big list of narrations, while actually Shaykh Al-Albani declared only selected of them to be weak. Shaykh Tariq AwdhAllah has a book in refutation of this named “Rid’il Jaani” where he analyzed the whole book in a very beautiful manner. He also have “Talee’at Siyanat Al-Hadeeth wa Ahlih” and “Talee’at fiqh Al-Isnad” in refutation of “Rafa’ Al-Minarah” and “At-Ta’reef” respectively. Interestingly, Ghumaris, Al-Kawthari and As-Saqqaf were much more frequent in declaring narrations of Sahihayn to be weak and many a time fabricated but Mahmud Sa’eed couldn’t refute them because of their high status in the field of Hadith according to him. Another, interesting thing is that he used to be a fan of Shaykh Al-Albani. He had written letters to Shaykh expressing his regards for Shaykh Al-Albani. This letter was quoted by Al-Albani himself in the Muqaddima of “Adaab Az-Zufaaf” (pg. 51-52).

The thing caused these people to portray Al-Albani like an ignorant is that the Shaykh did not have Ijazah. Although Ijazah is a good thing but it is not some kind of litmus to test someone’s scholarship. The scholarship of Al-Albani was testified by several scholars. Scholars with long list of Ijaza refer to Al-Albani when it comes to Hadith. Ibn Baaz even considered him majaddid of his time. These testimonies are of much more significance than an Ijaza which are normally issued to a student without looking at his skills in knowledge. Besides that Al-Albani did have Ijaza from Shaykh Raghib At-Tabbakh. The only people who have problem with Al-Albani are his opponents, and most of these Jarh are based on difference in Usool and Furu’. This type of criticism is normally rejected.

[1] Al-Albani was not that famous at that time.

Defending Sahaba and those who were guided, From the lies and attacks of the Rafidhi “misguided”: PART-2

December 17, 2010 1 comment

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. 1. He must have found [including blind] Prophet (S) alive [this exclude all those who saw him in dream].
  2. 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. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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:

  1. Whether the above report prove that Abu Hurairah lied or not?
  2. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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

Defending Sahaba and those who were guided, From the lies and attacks of the Rafidhi “misguided”: PART-1

December 17, 2010 5 comments

بسم الله

و الصلاة و السلام عَلَى رسول الله


I recently came across counter refutation of “Misguided” Rafidhi to my article at After reading it one can easily realize the mental status of the Rafidhi. I wouldn’t have wasted my time on this ridiculous Rafidhi but it gives me platform to clarify sunni views.

In the whole response Rafidhi showed his colour which is something expected from these Rafidhis. He followed his predecessor in this regard, hence he filled this with lies and deceptions. In fact he wants us to believe that Abu Bakr and Umar were hypocrites based on a report which doesn’t exist anywhere except that Ibn Hazm found it somewhere, but he couldn’t provide the Isnad and text of the report. This is there proof to convince us. It is like how Shaykh Al-Islam describe them, “the best thing they have as proof is disconnected historical reports”. The fact is that they can go to any extant just to prove their point, and that is why our scholars always remind us of the lies of Rafidha. Imam Malik said, “Do not talk with them, nor narrate from them, because they keep on lying”. Imam Shafi’i said, “I do not know of any group more blatant in their lies than Rafidha”. Likewise it has been narrated through Yazeed bin Harun, Shuraik, A’mash etc that Rafidha are worse liar among all sects. [Refer to “Al-Muntaqa min Minhaj Al-E’itedal” by Adh-Dhahabi]

Let me explain why I assume this Rafidhi is mentally unstable. He said regarding Ibn Katheer’s statement, “He claims that whoever condemns any of the Sahabah is an infidel”. However Ibn Katheer has only reported views of some scholars, and none of them said that condemning Sahaba makes one infidel. Rafidhi also said, “But he has made some crucial points! Some of the Sahabah were evil-doers! Fine! This is exactly what we have been arguing with Sunnis about: that some of them were evil-doing hypocrites!” Someone needs to explain this Rafidhi that sinning doesn’t make someone hypocrite. It seem the Rafidhi is now leaning toward Kharijism. Also, he said, Of course, Moin rejects Allah’s (عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ) verdict and upholds that both were righteous people and will be in Paradise! He even sends blessings upon both of them, for their mass murders! So I send blessings upon them for their mass murder.

Another ridiculous statement, “He is arguing here that people like al-Walid ibn Uqba are no longer Sahabah!!! Yet, it was him who brought Walid ibn Uqba at the beginning of his “refutation” as an example of an evil-doing Sahabi?!”

One might have realized the mental state of that “misguided” Rafidhi. I’ll expose more of his ignorance and blunders during course of this refutation, Insha Allah.


Rafidhi said:

We wrote an article to expose Ibn Kathir’s fatal contradiction concerning the Sahabah. He claims that whoever condemns any of the Sahabah is an infidel. Yet, he himself goes ahead to narrate how some of the Sahabah attempted to assassinate the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), and how the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) literally identified them as being part of his Sahabah.

This is what he said, but nowhere did Ibn Katheer declared those who condemn Sahaba to be Infidel. All what he said is,

ومن هذه الآية انتزع الإمام مالك -رحمه الله، في رواية عنه-بتكفير الروافض الذين يبغضون الصحابة، قال: لأنهم يغيظونهم، ومن غاظ الصحابة فهو كافر لهذه الآية. ووافقه طائفة من العلماء على ذلك

“And from this verse [48:29] Imam Malik, rahimahullah, in a report from him, concluded the takfeer of Rawafidh who hate the companions. He said, “this is because they hate them, and one who hate the companions is infidel based on this verse”. And a group of scholars agreed with him [Imam Malik].” [Tafseer Ibn Katheer (7/362)]

So from this we conclude:

  1. None of the above scholars, in fact none of Sunni authority, declare anyone kafir just for condemning any of the Sahaba.
  2. Some scholars, including Imam Malik in a report from him, thinks that HATING sahaba is kufr based on a verse [48:29] which states, “that He may enrage the unbelievers on account of them [Sahaba]”. And a group of scholar agreed with him.
  3. Condemning is not same thing as hating. Allah himself condemns some Sahaba in Quran for some of their acts, but still He loves them and praises their Iman, excluding hypocrites who were not actually Muslims.

This clarifies the lie and deception of “misguided” Rafidhi. Indeed lying and deceiving are the characteristics of Munafiq and Rafidhi. As for his saying:

Yet, he himself goes ahead to narrate how some of the Sahabah attempted to assassinate the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), and how the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) literally identified them as being part of his Sahabah. Then he declared them hypocrites till Doomsday.

The concept of Sahaba has already been clarified in the previous article. In short, these Munafiqs are not included amongst Sahaba according to sunni terminology, even though they can be referred to as such in linguistic sense, and this include anyone who lived besides Prophet [s].

By mentioning the phrase “de facto”, we had indicated that Sunnis never openly proclaim the infallibility of the Sahabah. Rather, their attitude is tantamount to such belief. They hate it when anyone criticizes any of the Sahabah. It is like the Sahabah are above criticism, and all of them will be in Paradise. This is what we called Sunni belief in the “de facto” infallibility of the Sahabah. Above, Moin has only attacked a strawman.

Now this is another masterpiece. So basically this Rafidhi is saying that believing that some is in paradise and one should not criticize him, amounts to belief in infallibility of that person. This would make anyone of his beloved shi’i scholars whom he does not criticize, infallible. As for us, then we stop people from talking negative of them because it is the command of Allah.

وَلاَ يَغْتَبْ بَعضُكُمْ بَعْضاً أَيُحِبُّ أَحَدُكُمْ أنْ يَأْكُلَ لَحْمَ أَخِيهِ مَيْتاً فَكَرِهْتُمُوهُ وَاتَّقُوا اللهَ إنَّ اللهَ تَوَّابٌ رَحِيمٌ

“And do not backbite one another” [49:12]

The Messenger of Allah, pbuh, said:

عن أَبي موسى – رضي الله عنه – قَالَ : قُلْتُ : يَا رسولَ اللهِ أَيُّ المُسْلمِينَ أفْضَلُ ؟ قَالَ : (( مَنْ سَلِمَ المُسْلِمُونَ مِنْ لِسَانِهِ وَيَدِهِ )) متفق عَلَيْه

Abu Musa [ra] said: I asked, “O Messenger of Allah! Which of the Muslims is best?” He replied, “That from whose tongue and hands Muslims are safe”. [Bukhari and Muslim]

أنَّ رسُولَ الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – ، قَالَ : (( أَتَدْرُونَ مَا الْغِيبَةُ ؟ )) قالوا : اللهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أعْلَمُ ، قَالَ : (( ذِكْرُكَ أخَاكَ بِما يَكْرَهُ )) قِيلَ : أفَرَأيْتَ إنْ كَانَ في أخِي مَا أقُولُ ؟ قَالَ : (( إنْ كَانَ فِيهِ مَا تَقُولُ ، فقد اغْتَبْتَهُ ، وإنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ فِيهِ مَا تَقُولُ فَقَدْ بَهَتَّهُ ))

The Messenger of Allah [pbuh] said, “do you know what is Al-Gheebah [backbiting]”. They [the people] replied, “Allah and His Messenger know best”. He [pbuh] then said, “you mentioning [something] regarding your brother which he doesn’t like”. It was thus asked, “What if the thing which I have said could be found in my brother”? He [pbuh] replied, “If indeed it exists in him then you have done Gheebah, if that [characteristic] which you said could not be found in him then you have slandered on him”. [Sahih Muslim]

So we feel there is no good reason to talk negative of them, even if we realize that they were fallible and some sins might have happened from them.

But he has made some crucial points! Some of the Sahabah were evil-doers! Fine! This is exactly what we have been arguing with Sunnis about: that some of them were evil-doing hypocrites! Now, by agreeing that some of the Sahabah were alcohol drinkers and criminals, Moin brings himself under the careless Takfir of Ibn Kathir!

As said before, the Rafidhi has lost his mind. Sinning doesn’t make someone kaffir or hypocrite except in the madhhab of Khawarij.

Moin has used two of the Sahabah as examples: Walid ibn Uqbah and Marwan ibn al-Hakam. He agrees that both of them are Sahabah, which is good for our discussion here.

I myself never said Marwan bin Al-Hakam was a Sahabi. His case is disputed upon. I only mentioned him there because he was a good example for my argument and to some he was a Sahabi. Then on this Rafidhi goes on to remind us history:

You know what? Marwan ibn al-Hakam was one of those who murdered Muslims simply for the sake of the world! Al-Bukhari records:

Narrated Abu Al-Minhal:

When Ibn Ziyad and Marwan were in Sham and Ibn Az-Zubair took over the authority in Mecca and Qurra’ (the Kharijites) revolted in Basra, I went out with my father to Abu Barza Al-Aslami till we entered upon him in his house while he was sitting in the shade of a room built of cane. So we sat with him and my father started talking to him saying, “O Abu Barza! Don’t you see in what dilemma the people has fallen?” The first thing heard him saying “I seek reward from Allah for myself because of being angry and scornful at the Quraish tribe. O you Arabs! You know very well that you were in misery and were few in number and misguided, and that Allah has brought you out of all that with Islam and with Muhammad till He brought you to this state (of prosperity and happiness) which you see now; and it is this worldly wealth and pleasures which has caused mischief to appear among you. The one who is in Sham (i.e., Marwan), by Allah, is not fighting except for the sake of worldly gain: and those who are among you, by Allah, are not fighting except for the sake of worldly gain; and that one who is in Mecca (i.e., Ibn Az-Zubair) by Allah, is not fighting except for the sake of worldly gain.

Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 228

Both Marwan and Ibn al-Zubayr, who mere murdering people for the sake of worldly gain, were Sahabah!

We don’t judge people based on what other person thinks about him. Allah knows what they fought for. It doesn’t concern us. “Those are a people who have passed away” [2:141]. Allah knows their heart and He will judge between them. We know for instance that Sahaba and early Salaf accused each other for some sins but we don’t take it seriously, like the accusation on Talha and Ali of murdering Uthman, may Allah be pleased with them. What we say is, there is not any proof of these except some claims by people against each other, therefore it doesn’t actually concern us.

Now, this is Allah’s (عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ) verdict on what they did:

[al-hilali and khan 4:93] And whoever kills a believer intentionally, HIS RECOMPENSE IS HELL TO ABIDE THEREIN; and the Wrath AND THE CURSE OF ALLAH ARE UPON HIM, and a great punishment is prepared for him.

The question to Moin is this: do you agree with Allah’s (عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ) judgment that both Marwan and Ibn al-Zubayr were eternally accursed on account of their crimes, and will be eternally in Hellfire?

This is general verdict on those who kill a Muslim intentionally, making it permitted. We don’t know what were the condition of said people. It could be that they, by their understanding, were fighting for the cause of religion. Besides one should differentiate between cases when the killing happened during war, where the opponent come to kill or to be killed, and other normal cases. In any case, Rafidhi is jumping from one issue to another issue so as to find something with which he feel some comfort, which is not going to happen, Insha Allah. I mean, there wasn’t any reason for Rafidhi to get into the detail of the issue, while I myself have accepted in my previous article that Sahaba were fallible and some of them might have done some crimes.

Then Rafidhi goes into the discussion of Waleed bin Uqbah and why he was Fasiq. My reply to him, in short, is Waleed bin Uqbah was a Muslim and has all the rights a muslim have. So backbiting him is not permitted, and there is no need to reach a conclusion regarding him. However, as the misguided has asked some questions, so here is my reply. He said:

So, we put these questions to Moin:

1. Was Walid ibn Uqba one of the Sahabah?

2. Was Walid a Fasiq (evil doer, liar)?

3. Was Walid a hypocrite?

4. Are there hypocrites among the Sahabah?

5. Are there liars among the Sahabah?


  1. Yes
  2. Fasiq is not the same as liar. The word fasiq applies to those who has done sins, and not all sinners are liars. I must appreciate deceptive way of Rafidhi, after all he is following his predecessors.
  3. No, he was not.
  4. Linguistically, yes. But in Sunni terminology ‘Sahaba’ do not include Hypocrites. This was clarified in previous article, but Rafidhi’s undeveloped mind doesn’t seem to get it.
  5. We have yet to come across Sahaba who had lied upon Prophet [pbuh], however there were those who did mistakes, and they used to forget as a human being.

Then the Rafidhi Misguided went on to prove that Waleed bin Uqbah was a Hypocrite Munafiq. He said:

Also, Allah (عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ) has promised Hellfire to Walid ibn Uqba and everyone like him, in the verse that immediately follows the one above:

[Shakir 32:18-22] Is he then who is a believer like him who is a transgressor? They are not equal. As for those who believe and do good, the gardens are their abiding-place; an entertainment for what they did. AND AS FOR THOSE WHO TRANSGRESS (FASIQUN, PLURAL OF FASIQ), THEIR ABODE IS THE FIRE; whenever they desire to go forth from it they shall be brought back into it, and it will be said to them: Taste the chastisement of the fire which you called a lie. And most certainly We will make them taste of the nearer chastisement before the greater chastisement that haply they may turn. And who is more unjust than he who is reminded of the communications of his Lord, then he turns away from them? Surely We will give punishment to the guilty.

His argument is based on some traditions which states that the verse was revealed for Ali bin Abi Talib and Waleed bin Uqbah. Firstly he quotes a report from Ibn Abbas present in “Siyar A’alam An-Nubala” (3/415) through the way of Ibn Abi Layla from Al-Hakam bin Utaibah from Sa’eed bin Jubair from Ibn Abbas. Dhahabi said, and Rafidhi quoted this as well, the chain of this is strong. This is what Dhahabi said but Ibn Abi Layla in the Isnad, although an Imam and a Qadhi, but he was weak due to his bad memory. Dhahabi himself listed him in “Deewan Ad-Dhu’afa wa Al-Matrukeen” (pg. 360) and in “Al-Mughni fi Ad-Dhu’afa” (2/227) both of which are compilations listing weak and rejected narrators. In the former he said, “Muhammad bin Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Laylah, Jurist, truthful (Saduq), with bad memory”. Ibn Hajar said in “At-Taqreeb” (2/105), “truthful with very bad memory”. Detail of criticism on him could be read in “Tahdheeb At-Tahdheeb” (9/268,269). Hafiz Ibn Katheer did not mention this report in his tafseer, this may be due to the weakness in its chain.

This was also reported by Khateeb (13/321) and Ibn ‘Adi (6/118), through Muhammad bin Saa’ib Al-Kalbi from Abu Saleh from Ibn Abbas. However, Al-Kalbi is matrook abandoned. [See, Tahdheeb At-Tahdheeb (9/157-159)]

This tafseer has also come through ‘Ata bin Yasaar, but in it Ibn Ishaq narrates from some unknown person. This was reported by Ibn Jareer in his commentary (20/188). The misguided Rafidhi even quoted Ibn Jareer At-Tabari as a supporter of said tafseer. Rafidhi quoted him as saying, “This verse was revealed about Ali ibn Abi Talib, the pleasure of Allah be upon him, and al-Walid ibn Uqba”, but he missed a word before. In reality, At-Tabari said, “And it was said (or mentioned) that this verse was revealed…”. The statement “dhukira” (it was mentioned) indicates doubt or weakness, as is known. But Rafidhi chopped the important word from Imam Tabari’s statement. Reader may have realized the reason for chopping off a single word from a sentence. Their religion is based on deception.

Other things he quoted are just same report discussed above. There is another tafsir of the verse which indicates that the argument had happened between Ali bin Abi Talib (ra) and ‘Uqba bin Abi Mu’eet, the father of Waleed bin ‘Uqbah. This was reported by Ibn Asakir(63/235), and Suyuti attributed it to Khateeb and Ibn Mardwayh as well, through the way of Ibn Lahee’ah from ‘Amr bin Deenar from Ibn Abbas. However its Isnad is not much better than the report by Ibn Abi Layla, because of Ibn Lahee’ah who was weak. Ibn Katheer only mentioned this explanation and attributed it to ‘Ata bin Yasaar and Suddi, which is wrong as far as I know. Qurtubi attributed this to Az-Zajaaj and An-Nahhaas. This later tafseer is much strong than earlier one because the context of Quran speaks of it. I mean Waleed bin Uqbah was nobody during that time, while his father Uqba was from among the devils of Qureish and an enemy of Islam. Secondly, the tradition states that Waleed bin Uqbah was older than Ali (ra), which is hard to digest. As a whole there is no proof for Rafidhi in the verse as all of what has been reported contain weakness.

Then the Rafidhi quoted verses talking about hypocrites and applied it to Ibn Zubair, Marwan and Waleed. There would have been any point in using those verses, if they have been proven hypocrites through established evidence. Further “misguided” states:

Now, read the next words of Moin al-Nasibi:

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].


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.

He is arguing here that people like al-Walid ibn Uqba are no longer Sahabah!!! Yet, it was him who brought Walid ibn Uqba at the beginning of his “refutation” as an example of an evil-doing Sahabi?!

No sane person would conclude from my writing that I excluded them from the category of Sahaba. Yes, an insane person like “misguided” Rafidhi aka toyib-offline can do that.

Then the Rafidhi said:

But, we will open his eyes farther now. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, in his al-Matalib al-Aliya, “Kitab al-Tafsir”, Number 3718, records:

وقال : مسدد : ، ثنا : يحيى ، عن الأعمش ، عن زيد بن وهب قال : سمعت حذيفة ، يقول : مات رجل من المنافقين فلم أصل عليه ، فقال عمر : ما منعك أن تصلي عليه ؟ ، قلت : إنه منهم ، فقال : أبالله منهم أنا ؟ ، قلت : لا ، قال : فبكى عمر

Hudhayfah said:

One of the hypocrites died, and I did not pray over him. So, Umar asked me, “What stopped you from praying over him?” I said, “He was one of them (i.e. hypocrites).” Umar then asked, “I beg you by Allah, am I one of them?” I said, “No”. Then, Umar wept.

Ibn Hajar says:

إسناده صحيح

Its chain is sahih

Although Hudhayfah (رضي الله عنه) had told Umar that Umar was not a hypocrite, he could have said that in Taqiyyah. Allah’s Apostle (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) had kept the names of the hypocrites as a secret with Hudhayfah (رضي الله عنه). Would you have told Umar, if you were Hudhayfah (رضي الله عنه), that he was one of the hypocrites if he really was?

The narration quoted by “misguided” is sufficient to destroy his own claim, but the way he is behaving is laughable. Hudhayfa in this report deny Umar being a hypocrite.

This Rafidhi has attributed a ridiculous hypocrisy to Hudhayfah bin Al-Yaman. However Hudhayfah (ra) was free from Taqiyyah, and he did not consider Umar to be among hypocrites because of the following reports he narrates:

  1. Hudhayfah considered Umar to be a closed gate against the Fitnah. [Bukhari (no.502, 1368,1796), Musnad Ahmed (no.23412) etc]
  2. He reported a Hadith in which Prophet (pbuh) instructed us to follow Abu Bakr and Umar after him.
  3. The claim of Rafidhi is based on assumption,i.e., Hudhayfa might have said that out of Taqiyyah.

So, the report quoted by the Rafidhi is a proof against him and what he brought up from Ibn Hazm. Related to the above report, the Rafidhi has some question for me. He said:

Whatever the case, we ask Moin al-Nasibi: why did Umar suspect that he could be a hypocrite?

As for why did Umar feared Nifaq for himself, that is because it is sign of a believer that he fear from Nifaq. It is like Ibn Abi Mulaika’s statement, “I found 30 of the companions of the Prophet (pbuh), all of whom used to fear from Nifaq”. And Hasan Al-Basari said, “No one fear from it except a believer, and no one feel secure from it except a hypocrite”. Both of these statements are mentioned by Bukhari in his Saheeh in Mu’allaq form.

Also, it has been recorded in “Sifat An-Nifaq” (no.68, 69) of Al-Firyabi that Abu Darda used to seek refuge of Allah (SWT) from Nifaq.

Narrated from Abu Idrees Al-Khawlani that he said, “there is no one on the face of the earth who does not fear for his Iman that it will left, except it will left (in reality)”. Likewise it is narrated through Abu Raja Al-Utaridi, a Taba’i, that senior companions used to fear from Nifaq. And there are many reports which could be read in “Sifat Al-Nifaq” of Abu Bakr Al-Firyabi.

Similarly, there is famous incident of Hanzalah [RA], reported in Saheeh Muslim (2750), is quite famous. [See pt.151 of this]

This is Moin’s logic:

1. A Sahabi can never be a hypocrite

2. Umar was a Sahabi

3. Therefore Umar was not a hypocrite

But, it did not work with Umar! Umar knew that he was a Sahabi. Yet, he positively considered the possibility of him being a hypocrite! THIS MEANS THAT A SAHABI CAN BE A HYPOCRITE! OTHERWISE, UMAR WOULD NEVER HAVE ASKED THAT QUESTION!!!

A sahabi could never be a hypocrite but a Sahabi could become a hypocrite. Calling someone a Sahabi and hypocrite at the same time is like an oxymoron. The condition of Sahabi is that he must not be a hypocrite, and if a Sahabi turns out to be a hypocrite then the term ‘Sahabi’, according to sunni terminology, no longer applies to him. This was clarified in the previous article.

Here ends the first part of Rafidhi’s counter rebuttle.