All praises due to Allah and May his peace and blessing be upon the Last and Final Messenger Muhammad, his family and companions.
Imam Malik records in his well-known Mu’atta, hence he sai under the Book of destiny that it has reached him the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said, “I am leaving among you two commandments, by adhering to them you will never be deviated; that is the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet.”
This narration has been narrated through several chains, from atleast four of the companions. However, all of them have some defects in them.
Recorded in “Mu’atta Imam Malik” without any sanad [Imam Malik said: it has reached us that Prophet [SAW] said…]. However, Imam Ibn Abdul Barr narrates it with his sanad in his Sharh of Mu’atta through two companions; Abu Hurairah and ‘Amr bin Awf, and he declare it to be preserve and famous among scholars. [At-Tamheed (24/331)]
This narration has been narrated through Ibn ‘Abbas, ‘Amr bin Awf, Abu Hurairah and Anas bin Malik.
Ibn ‘Abbas: – Narrated through Ibn Abbas by Imam Al-Bayhaqi in “Sunan Al-Kubra” (10/114) and in “Dalaa’il An-Nubuwwah” (5/549), Al-Hakim in “Al-Mustadrak” (318), Al-‘Uqaili in “Du’afa” (2/250) and Abu Bakr Al-Aajuri in “Ash-Sharee’ah” (5/2220). All of them narrate it through the route of Isma’eel bin Abi Uwais from his father from Thawr bin Zaid Ad-Dailee from Ikrimah from Ibn Abbas. This narration describe the speech of the Prophet (SAW) during his farewell pilgrimage.
Abdullah bin Abdullah bin Abi ‘Aamir Abu Uwais Al-Madani, the father of Isma’eel bin Abi Uwais, was close to weakness. Yahya and Ahmed said he was weak in hadith. Another time Yahya bin Mu’een said, there is no problem with him. In another narration, he said: Sadooq, but not Hujjah. Nasai and Ibn Madeeni also considered him weak. Abu Dawud said: Saleh Al-Hadith. Muslim relied on Abu Uwais in his Sahih. [Meezan Al-E’etidal (2/450)]
Isma’eel bin Abi Uwais was a disputed narrator. The correct ruling on him is that he was truthful but made mistakes while narrating from his memory. Bukhari and Muslim narrated from him in their Sahih. [Refer to al-Kashif (1/247), Taqreeb (1/96), Meezan (1/222-223) etc]
In the report of Al-Aajurri, al-‘Uqaili and al-Marwazi the father of Ibn Abi Uwais narrates from Abdullah bin Abi Abdullah Al-Basari also along with Thawr bin Zaid Ad-Dailee.
Al-Albani declared the sanad in Mustadrak Al-Hakim from Ibn ‘Abbas to be hasan [“At-Tawassul” (pg.16)], and declared the hadith to be Sahih in “Sahih Al-Jami’” (3232). Al-Hakim said, “The command to stick with Sunnah is Ghareeb (odd) in this speech (farewell speech).” The comment of Imam Hakim is true when we look at the authentic tradition of Ibn ‘Abbas recorded by al-Bukhari in his “Sahih” (1739) Ahmad in Musnad (2036) and others through Fudail b. Ghazwan from ‘Ikrimah from Ibn ‘Abbas. Basically, the version reported by al-Hakim is a manipulated version of famous narration recorded in Sahih and Musnad. And Allah knows best.
‘Amr bin ‘Awf: – Narrated by Ibn Abdul Barr in “At-Tamheed” (24/331) and in “Jami’ Bayan Al-‘Ilm” (1/755, 2/979) through the way of Katheer bin Abdullah from his father from his grand-father…
Katheer bin Abdullah was weak. Taqreeb (2/39)
Abu Hurairah: – Through Abu Hurayrah by al-Daarqutni in “Sunan” (4606), al-Bazzaar in his Musnad (8993), Al-Hakim in “Al-Mustadrak” (1/172), Imam Al-Bayhaqi in “al-Kubra” (20337), Ibn Abdul Barr in “At-Tamheed” (24/331) through the route Salih bin Musa At-Talhi from Abdul Aziz bin Rufai’ from Abu Saleh from Abu Hurairah.
Regarding Saleh bin Musa, Ibn Hajar said: He was matrook.
Anas bin Malik: – Abu Ash-Shaykh Al-Asbahani narrates as a hadith of Anas bin Malik in his “Tabaqat al-Muhadditheen” (4/67).
In this, Yazeed bin Abaan Ar-Raqqashi narrates from Anas. Yazeed was weak in hadith, as said by Ibn Ma’een, Ahmed, Ibn Sa’d, Daarqutni etc. [Tahdheeb (11/270)]
This has also been narrated through ‘Urwah and Musa bin ‘Uqbah in Mursal form.
‘Urwah bin Zubair: – This was reported by Al-Bayhaqi in “Ad-Dala’il” (5/447-448) from Urwah bin Zubair from Prophet (SAW) as a Mursal tradition. The isnad contains Ibn Lahee’ah who was weak in hadeeth.
Musa bin ‘Uqbah: – Al-Bayhaqi reports it as a Mursal report of Musa bin ‘Uqbah (d.141 AH) in the same book (5/448).
Against Hadith al-Thaqalain
Some people, especially shi’ites, always represent Hadith al-Thaqalain as an evidence against this narration. According to them, the Hadith of “Quran and Sunnah” was forged to diminish the importance of hadith al-Thaqalain. To them, since the latter is reported with so many routes therefore the former must be a fabrication. However there is no real contradiction between them.
No real Contradiction
The importance of Sunnah is evident from numerous Qur’anic verses and prophetic traditions. For example, it is mentioned in the Quran:
“O you who have believed! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything then refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day.” [4:59]
“He who obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah” [4:80]
The Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said:
“Whoever obeys me will enter paradise, and whoever disobeys me has denied.” Sahih Bukhari (7280)
Hudhaifa b. Yaman narrates that the Messenger of Allah (sallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said, “…so read from the Qur’an and understand the Sunnah.” [Sahih Bukhari (6497, 7276), Sahih Muslim (230), Tirmidhi (2179)]
These are only few evidence to prove the validity of Sunnah as a source of Islam. So it is beyond understanding as to why some of the Rawafid dislike when the hadith of Qur’an and Sunnah is used to show the importance of Sunnah. No Sunni scholar uses this hadith to discard the authenticity of the hadith of Thaqalain rather they consider both to be different statements of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam).
The common thing about both hadith Thaqalain and that of “Quran and Sunnah” is that they both speak of adhering to Qur’an. The difference in them is that the former speak of the status of Ahlul Bayt while the latter command to adhere the Sunnah. The is the basic difference which Shiites today fail to understand that hadith Thaqalain does not represent Ahlul Bayt as a source to be followed in absolute sense. To read further on this see this article.
It can be seen from above discussion that this narration has considerable defects with all of its routes. So, to many scholars the narration remains weak as a whole as these different routes do not strengthen each other because of fact that they arise from different sources, while for others it would be Hasan (which is a level just near weak) as the text has been reported through different routes and the text speaks of something which every Muslim agree on. Allah knows best.
All praises due to Allah.
May His mercy and blessings be upon Muhammad, his family and companions.
This is a refutation of Shi’i contentions with regards to the act of washing the feet in Wudu. Shi’ites say this is an innovation and against the command of Allah in Quran which is to wipe the feet.
This writing will be a refutation of all the arguments provided by Shi’ites including that by Shia scholar Abdul Husain Sharafuddin al-Musawi, the author of famous forged conversation “al-Muraja’at”, who has written against Sunni the viewpoint in his book “al-Masaail al-Fiqhiyyah” which is translated in English as “Juristic Questions”. This book can be accessed at Shia website al-islam.org.
This refutation is broadly divided into two sections: (click on the links)
Who was the bravest companion?
Abu Muhammad Ibn Hazm
This is one of the issues which Shia love to raise against the personality of companions like Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. Their problem is that they think bravery is to kill people in Jihad and if someone couldn’t kill with his power than he is not brave. And hence, they conclude, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were not brave. If that is the case then people like Pharaoh, Nimrod, Stalin and all the mass murderers would have to be listed at the top of all the braves.
Among the believers Bara bin Malik al-Ansari lonely killed hundred men besides those whom he killed with the help of others. Hamza, Abu Dujanah al-Ansari, ‘Aasim bin Thabit, Talha, Zubair, Sa’d were all known for their specialty in tackling the enemy. But no one prefer them over ‘Ali bin Abi Talib or over Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, may Allah be well pleased with them all.
Once a person presents himself to face the enemy he is proven to be a brave one regardless of how much of them he could kill or defeat. Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with them, never missed any battle with the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) and they were seen defending the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) during harsh conditions especially in Uhud and Hunain. How could such a person be coward? If it is just because there is hardly any narration describing how they killed a Mushrik during battle then what could be the response regarding the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) who never killed anyone in battle except Ubayy bin Khalaf? If they say that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) was bravest but he was a leader and hence did not involve in fighting then we shall let ‘Ali (ra) falsify this claim. Hence Imam Ahmad records in Musnad (1042), Abu Ya’la (302, 412) and others with an authentic Isnad through Abu Ishaq from Harithah bin Mudharrib that ‘Ali said:
لَمَّا حَضَرَ الْبَأْسُ يَوْمَ بَدْرٍ اتَّقَيْنَا بِرَسُولِ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، وَكَانَ مِنْ أَشَدِّ النَّاسِ، مَا كَانَ – أَوْ: لَمْ يَكُنْ – أَحَدٌ أَقْرَبَ إِلَى الْمُشْرِكِينَ مِنْهُ
“When the fighting grew intense on the day of Badr we sought shelter by drawing closer to the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), who was one of the strongest of men, and no was closer to the disbeliever than him.”
We see that during the harsh time even brave like ‘Ali (ra) used to seek shelter with the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) but still he did not kill anyone except Ubayy.
So what is bravery? Let us look at the meaning of Shuja’ah [Arabic of bravery] in Arabic dictionary. Al-Jawhari says in “As-Sihaah” (3/1235):
شدَّة القلب عند البأس
“It is the stability of heart during trial.”
Even the English word bravery means ‘able or ready to face and endure danger, disgrace or pain’. So not being able to kill someone or not being able to conquer some place does not indicate cowardice. Indeed, those who were killed by ‘Ali during the battles were more than those who were killed by Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. But it only proves that ‘Ali encountered more famous combatants than them not that they were hiding for their life.
As for running away from battles than there is no indication that any of the two Shaikh left the battle field. There were two incidents in Prophetic history when Muslims ran from the battle field when they couldn’t handle the enemies’ fierce attack. But in none of them, with any shred of evidence, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar left the battle field. So called proofs which some Shia authors quote to prove that they ran away from the battlefield are nothing but sheer misrepresentation of the context. If Allah willed I will compile a refutation on such arguments.
The following passage I translated from Minhaj as-Sunnah (8/87-89) of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah who quoted ‘Allamah Ibn Hazm from “Al-Fisal” (4/107).
Ibn Hazm said:
We see that they claim that ‘Ali was the greatest in waging Jihad against disbelievers and attacking and fighting them among all the companions.
Abu Muhammad (Ibn Hazm) said: This is wrong as the Jihad is classified in three categories;
- One of them is calling towards Allah,
- Second is to do Jihad during war by ideas and strategies
- And the third is to do jihad with hands by killing and hitting.
We find that with regards to the first type of Jihad no person supersede Abu Bakr and ‘Umar after the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). As for Abu Bakr then we find that the senior companions accepted Islam on his hands. As compared to him, ‘Ali does not have much share in this. As for ‘Umar then we see that the day he became Muslim Islam was strengthened and the worship of Allah was being done openly. This is the greatest Jihad and these two persons were alone in such Jihad of the first two categories (during early days) which has no comparable and ‘Ali does not have participation in it.
With regards to the second category then we find that it is specifically for Abu Bakr and then for ‘Umar.
As for the third category which is stabbing, hitting and combating then we find that it is the lowest level of Jihad because of the obvious reason that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), with the agreement of Muslims, was selective in doing the most virtuous of the act and we see that his – may Allah sends Salaat and salutation upon him – Jihad in most of the cases was restricted within the first two categories which is to call towards Allah – the Mighty and Majestic – and planning and forwarding. His least involvement (among the three categories) was in stabbing, hitting and combating. This is not because of cowardice but in reality he was absolutely the bravest of all earthly beings with his hands and soul and the most complete to attain succor. But he would look for the best and then next after it from the acts, and then he would prefer it and get involved with it. We find that, during Badr and other battles, Abu Bakr would not leave him and sometimes even ‘Umar was included in it. They were distinguished in this case unlike ‘Ali and all other companions, except in rare cases.
Then after that we ponder over the third category of Jihad which is to stab, to hit and to combat. We see that ‘Ali was not alone in this, but many other companions also had the same share like Talha, Zubair and Sa’d and those were killed in early Islam like Hamza, ‘Ubaidah bin Harith and Mus’ab bin ‘Umair, and from Ansar Sa’d bin Mu’adh, Simak bin Kharshah Abu Dujanah and others. Also Abu Bakr and ‘Umar do have good share in it even if they did not involve in it like these people which is because of their participation in a better Jihad in association with the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) and to aid him during battles. And he sent them for war more than he sent ‘Ali. He sent Abu Bakr towards Bani Fazarah and elsewhere and he sent ‘Umar towards Bani Fulan. On the other hand we do not know ‘Ali was sent for any battle except at some fort of Khaibar which he conquered [and he had sent Abu Bakr and ‘Umar there, before ‘Ali, but they could not conquered it]. So Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were involved in the highest level of Jihad and besides that they have their share with ‘Ali in the lower category of Jihad.
It is a well accepted opinion among the scholars of Sunnah that Mut’ah (temporary marriage) is an invalid practice. It is also well accepted that it was once valid but later on it was banned. Hence, many narrations are present in the books of hadith to prove that it was prohibited. One of the companions who have narrated the hadith on the prohibition of Mut’ah is ‘Ali bin Abi Talib (ra). Besides that there were some who held the view of its permissibility. This is not a discussion on it details rather this is particularly to discuss the view of Abdullah bin ‘Abbas (ra) regarding it and the reaction of companions to his opinion.
OPINION OF IBN ‘ABBAS REGARDING TEMPORARY MARRIAGE
Ibn ‘Abbas considered that temporary marriage was permitted. Al-Imam Muhammad bin Isma’il al-Bukhari (d256 AH) narrates in his Sahih:
5116 – حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بَشَّارٍ، حَدَّثَنَا غُنْدَرٌ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ أَبِي جَمْرَةَ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ: سُئِلَ عَنْ مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ «فَرَخَّصَ»، فَقَالَ لَهُ مَوْلًى لَهُ: إِنَّمَا ذَلِكَ فِي الحَالِ الشَّدِيدِ، وَفِي النِّسَاءِ قِلَّةٌ؟ أَوْ نَحْوَهُ، فَقَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ: «نَعَمْ»
Ibn ‘Abbas was asked regarding temporary marriage with women so he allowed it. On this one of his slaves said, “It is only in harsh condition, when there is lack of women?” or something of that sort. So Ibn ‘Abbas said, “Yes.”
In a tradition from As-Sunan Al-Kabeer (14166) by Al-Bayhaqi Ibn ‘Abbas (ra) responded to the criticism of Sa’eed bin Jubair on his view on Mut’ah by saying, “I did not intend that, neither did I give such ruling regarding Mut’ah. Mut’ah is not permitted except in case of necessity. Indeed it is like the dead meat, blood and the flesh of swine.”
It is clear from the above authentic narrations that the view of Ibn ‘Abbas was not similar to that of Shia Twelvers regarding Mut’ah. Hence, according to him Mut’ah is only permitted when there is need while according to Twelvers it is a virtuous act.
However, Sunni scholars do not think that Mut’ah is permitted even if there is lack of women unlike Ibn ‘Abbas who thought it is permitted. The view of Ibn ‘Abbas (ra) was wrong and the view of Twelvers is worse.
REACTION OF COMPANIONS AGAINST THE VIEW OF IBN ‘ABBAS
The foremost to oppose Ibn ‘Abbas (ra) in his view was Ameer al-Mu’mineen ‘Ali (ra). Al-Imam Al-Bukhari narrates in his marvelous book Sahih:
5115 – حَدَّثَنَا مَالِكُ بْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ الزُّهْرِيَّ، يَقُولُ: أَخْبَرَنِي الحَسَنُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ، وَأَخُوهُ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِمَا، أَنَّ عَلِيًّا رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، قَالَ لِابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ: «إِنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَهَى عَنِ المُتْعَةِ، وَعَنْ لُحُومِ الحُمُرِ الأَهْلِيَّةِ، زَمَنَ خَيْبَرَ»
Al-Hasan bin Muhammad bin ‘Ali and his brother Abdullah bin Ali both narrate from their father [i.e. Ibn al-Hanafiyyah] that ‘Ali said to Ibn ‘Abbas, “The Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) forbade from Mut’ah and the eating of domestic donkey’s flesh during the time of Khaybar.”
In Sahih Muslim it is like this:
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ نُمَيْرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي، حَدَّثَنَا عُبَيْدُ اللهِ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ، وَعَبْدِ اللهِ، ابْنَيْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ، عَنْ أَبِيهِمَا، عَنْ عَلِيٍّ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ يُلَيِّنُ فِي مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ، فَقَالَ: «مَهْلًا يَا ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ، فَإِنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَهَى عَنْهَا يَوْمَ خَيْبَرَ، وَعَنْ لُحُومِ الْحُمُرِ الْإِنْسِيَّةِ»
‘Ali heard of Ibn ‘Abbas being lenient regarding Temporary marriage so he said to him, “Wait O Ibn ‘Abbas! Indeed the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) forbade it during Khaibar and from the meat of domestic donkeys.”
In another version of Sahih Muslim he said to Ibn ‘Abbas, “You are a person who has been led astray…”
Another person to oppose Ibn ‘Abbas in this regard was Abdullah bin az-Zubair. Hence, Imam Muslim records in Sahih:
حَدَّثَنِي حَرْمَلَةُ بْنُ يَحْيَى، أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ وَهْبٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي يُونُسُ، قَالَ ابْنُ شِهَابٍ: أَخْبَرَنِي عُرْوَةُ بْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ، أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللهِ بْنَ الزُّبَيْرِ، قَامَ بِمَكَّةَ، فَقَالَ: «إِنَّ نَاسًا أَعْمَى اللهُ قُلُوبَهُمْ، كَمَا أَعْمَى أَبْصَارَهُمْ، يُفْتُونَ بِالْمُتْعَةِ»، يُعَرِّضُ بِرَجُلٍ، فَنَادَاهُ، فَقَالَ: إِنَّكَ لَجِلْفٌ جَافٍ، فَلَعَمْرِي، لَقَدْ كَانَتِ الْمُتْعَةُ تُفْعَلُ عَلَى عَهْدِ إِمَامِ الْمُتَّقِينَ – يُرِيدُ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – فَقَالَ لَهُ ابْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ: «فَجَرِّبْ بِنَفْسِكَ، فَوَاللهِ، لَئِنْ فَعَلْتَهَا لَأَرْجُمَنَّكَ بِأَحْجَارِكَ»
Abdullah bin Zubair stood up in Makkah and said referring to a person, “Allah has made some people hearts blind as they as He has made their eyes blind; they issue verdict in favor of Mut’ah.” So that person called him and said, “You are uncouth and lacking in manners. By Allah, Mut’ah was practiced during the time of the leader of the pious i.e. the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam).” Ibn az-Zubair said to him, “Then do it by yourself. By Allah if you do that I will stone you with your own stones.”
Ibn Abi ‘Amrah al-Ansari objected to Ibn ‘Abbas on his view on Mut’ah. Hence, Abdur-Razzaq reports in “Al-Musannaf” (14033) through Az-Zuhri from Khalid bin Muhajir:
عَنْ مَعْمَرٍ قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنِي الزُّهْرِي، عَنْ خَالِدِ بْنِ الْمُهَاجِرِ بْنِ خَالِدٍ قَالَ: أَرْخَصَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ فِي الْمُتْعَةِ، فَقَالَ لَهُ ابْنُ أَبِي عَمْرَةَ الْأَنْصَارِيُّ: «مَا هَذَا يَا أَبَا عَبَّاسٍ؟» فَقَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ: فُعِلَتْ مَعَ إِمَامِ الْمُتَّقِينَ. فَقَالَ ابْنُ أَبِي عَمْرَةَ: «اللَّهُمَّ غُفْرًا، إِنَّمَا كَانَتِ الْمُتْعَةُ رُخْصَةً كَالضُّرُورَةِ إِلَى الْمَيْتَةِ، وَالدَّمِ، وَلَحْمِ الْخِنْزِيرِ، ثُمَّ أَحْكَمَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى الدِّينَ بَعْدُ»
Ibn ‘Abbas permitted Mut’ah so Ibn Abi ‘Amrah said to him, “What is this O Ibn ‘Abbas?” He said, “I did it during the time of the leader of pious.” Ibn Abi ‘Amrah said, “May Allah forgive. Indeed Mut’ah was an exemption like in the case when the dead meat, blood or the flesh of swine is necessary. Then Allah completed his religion after that.”
‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar also raised his voice against Ibn ‘Abbas regarding Mut’ah. Abdur-Razzaq (14035) reports:
14035 – عَنْ مَعْمَرٍ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنْ سَالِمٍ، قِيلَ لِابْنِ عُمَرَ: إِنَّ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ يُرَخِّصُ فِي مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ فَقَالَ: «مَا أَظُنُّ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ يَقُولُ هَذَا». قَالُوا: بَلَى، وَاللَّهِ إِنَّهُ لَيَقُولُهُ قَالَ: «أَمَا وَاللَّهِ مَا كَانَ لِيَقُولَ هَذَا فِي زَمَنِ عُمَرَ، وَإِنْ كَانَ عُمَرُ لَيُنَكِّلُكُمْ عَنْ مِثْلِ هَذَا، وَمَا أَعْلَمُهُ إِلَّا السِّفَاحَ»
Saalim said: It was said to Ibn ‘Umar that Ibn ‘Abbas permits Mut’ah with women. He said, “I do not think Ibn ‘Abbas says that.” They said, “Indeed, by Allah he says that.” So he said, “By Allah, he would not say such a thing during the lifetime of ‘Umar. Indeed ‘Umar would punish you on such things. And I do not think of it except as adultery.” – This narration is present in Sahih Muslim but without mentioning Ibn ‘Abbas.
All praises due to Allah and may His peace and blessings be upon the Last and Final Messenger Muhammad.
In Sahih Muslim, Book of Menstruation, chapter on Tayammum:
Abd al-Rabmin b. Abza narrated It on the authority of his father that a man came to ‘Umar and said: I am (at times) affected by seminal emission but find no water. He (‘Umar) told him not to say prayer. ‘Ammar then said. Do you remember,0 Commander of the Faithful, when I and you were in a military detachment and we had had a seminal emission and did not find water (for taking bath) and you did not say prayer, but as for myself I rolled in dust and said prayer, and (when it was mentioned before) the Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: It was enough for you to strike the ground with your hands and then blow (the dust) and then wipe your face and palms. Umar said: ‘Ammar, fear Allah. He said: If you so like, I would not narrate it.
A hadith like this has been transmitted with the same chain of transmitters but for the words: ‘Umar said: We hold you responsible for what you claim.”
Based on above narration some people allege that Umar bin Khattab (ra) was unaware of the verses of Tayammum. Basically Tayammum has been mentioned at two places in the Qur’an. First in Surah Nisa verse 43:
“O you who have believed, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying or in a state of janabah, except those passing through [a place of prayer], until you have washed [your whole body]. And if you are ill or on a journey or one of you comes from the place of relieving himself or you have contacted women and find no water, then seek clean earth and wipe over your faces and your hands [with it]. Indeed, Allah is ever Pardoning and Forgiving.” [Qur’an 4:43 tr. Sahih International]
And in Surah Ma’idah verse 6:
“O you who have believed, when you rise to [perform] prayer, wash your faces and your forearms to the elbows and wipe over your heads and wash your feet to the ankles. And if you are in a state of janabah, then purify yourselves. But if you are ill or on a journey or one of you comes from the place of relieving himself or you have contacted women and do not find water, then seek clean earth and wipe over your faces and hands with it. Allah does not intend to make difficulty for you, but He intends to purify you and complete His favor upon you that you may be grateful.” [5:6]
Sayyiduna ‘Umar (ra) was certainly aware of this verse and he also held it permissible to perform Tayammum in case of minor impurity [i.e. when only ablution is necessary] when there is no water available. But according to him it was not permissible to perform Tayammum in case of major impurity [i.e. when Ghusl is necessary]. In the above two verses if the word “lams” is taken for sexual intercourse then it does go against ‘Umar (ra), however if it is taken to mean physical touch then it is not a proof against his opinion. Basically the meaning of that part is controversial among scholars. According to Imam Shafi’i the part “Lamastumun Nisa” means touching of women while according to Imam Abu Hanifa it means sexual intercourse. So Umar (ra) was not actually unaware of the verses of Tayammum but he considered them to be only for those who with minor impurity but not in case of Janabah. It was a matter of Ijtihad not like some Rawafidh are trying to portray as though he was simply ignorant of the verses of Qur’an. It is said that he left this opinion. And Allah knows best.
Another point which clearly shows that the verse is not decisive against the view held by ‘Umar (ra) is the fact that in the incident which happened between him and ‘Ammar bin Yasir (ra) regarding the issue Ammar (ra) reminded him of an incident happened during the lifetime of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) and not the verses regarding Tayammum. There could not have been any evidence stronger than the verse of Qur’an and ‘Ammar (ra) would never had left it if it were against ‘Umar (ra).
The unacademic attacks of “Misguided” Rafidhi on Sahaba(as) exposed Again
Bismillah hirahman nir raheem
The history goes like this: The “misguided” Shia of Dajjal a.k.a. toyiboffline wrote an article trying to show “Imam Ibn Katheer’s fatal contradiction”, to which I replied in this article. The Rafidhi wrote counter refutation in two parts, and replied to it in two parts which could be read here [Part 1 and Part 2]. Unfortunately, the Rafidhi didn’t learn and wrote another counter rebuttal in two parts which could be found on their Wilayat website. Then I intended to refute it again but after writing a little I realized that the “Misguided” is wasting my time (this will be clear soon). SO i stopped writing and started compiling a review to whatever has happened during this discussion. It was written with me since many days and I didn’t post it because it was incomplete. But I think whatever I have is sufficient to expose him.
1. He totally avoided the issue which was the theme of his first article in this series of argumentation, i.e. “Ibn Katheer’s FATAL contradiction”. I refuted his claim that there wasn’t any kind of contradiction in Ibn Katheer’s statement. The Rafidhi never touched this thing again. In simple term, the main claim of the Rafidhi was refuted and he never touched again in his counter refutations.
2. He doesn’t differentiate between condemning and hating. He lied and attributed a statement on Ibn Katheer which he did not say. In reality the quotation from Ibn Katheer was regarding those who HATE Sahaba, NOT for those who might have condemned some of Sahaba.
3. The Sunni viewpoint of “Sahaba” has been clarified in detail. The Rafidhi in two of his counter refutations never dealt with this. The only thing he did was to bring some names and raise a question that this person was Sahabi and he did crime, while it has been made clear that according to Sunnis a Sahabi can commit sins and even major sins. Basically, he has no point to raise against the actual viewpoint, and the things he raises are related with details which is a separate issue related with each Sahabi whom the Rafidhi brought as an example.
4. He came up with the ridiculous claim that Abu Bakr and Umar plotted for the murder of the Prophet (pbuh) during Hunain war. He brought some unknown report of Waleed bin Jumai’. I refuted it, and in recent refutation he totally avoided this.
5. When I said that Sahaba were not Ma’soom(infallible) and they were prone to commit sin, the Rafidhi took it to mean that according to me Some Sahaba were evil-doers hypocrites. Isn’t this worst kind of stupidity?.
6. He followed the teachings of his cult and by that he lied on me that I send blessings on some Sahaba for their mass murders. When I exposed this lie the Rafidhi kept silence over it.
7. He tried to make it appear that according to sunnis Sahaba were infallible, just because we believe one should not criticize them. Another example of shia stupidity.
8. I made it clear that we do not discuss sins of any Muslims because it fall under backbiting a Muslim, especially those who are no more in this word. The Rafidhi avoided this, indirectly accepting that he has nothing to argue against it.
9. He brought a tradition of Ibn Abbas in tafseer of 38:18-22, according to which the verse was revealed regarding Waleed bin ‘Uqbah. I exposed its weakness. But the half minded Khabeeth thought I was talking about another narration, so he brought authenticity of a tradition which I never criticized. In short, what the Rafidhi brought was irrelevant to what I mentioned.
10. He lied that I was arguing that Waleed was not a Sahabi. I refuted and the Rafidhi was never seen on it again.
11. I expounded on the viewpoint of Hudhafa bin Yamaan regarding Abu Bakr and Umar that he highly respected them both and narrated in their praise. The Rafidhi has no words against it.
12. He deceptively tried to make hadith in praise of Umar, as a narration defaming Umar. I refuted it, and the Rafidhi lost his voice. And all praises due to Allah.
13. I replied to his question as to why Umar suspected that he could be a hypocrite. He didn’t touch this in his counter refutation.
14. For the second time I reminded the Rafidhi that the verse 29 of Surah al-Fath is not in support of Rafidhi claim, rather it actually supports the viewpoint of Ahlus-sunnah. I said that “minhum” according to the scholars of Tafsir is not partitive rather it include the whole group (Jins) it referring to. But even if we accept that it is for tab’eedh than also it doesn’t support shi’i claim. The Rafidhi tried to respond to the first answer but he never touched the second answer even after being reminded. The answer to the part he has responded is coming later.
15. The misguided took evidence from the verse 3:152-155 to prove that the companions who left the battlefield during Uhud were hypocrites. I responded to it, and now Rafidhi is no more on it.
16. He deceptively claimed that according to Ibn Katheer, it was Abu Hurairah who made the statement of Ka’b as a tradition of Prophet (SAW), while Ibn Katheer actually attributed the mistake to some other narrator below Abu Hurairah.
17. He brought the claim that Abu Hurairah was a Mudallis and to support it he quoted some statement of Shu’bah. I refuted it and the Rafidhi kept silence over it.
18. He totally avoided the case of Ibn Hazm, Ibn Jumai’ and the so called tradition proving Abu Bakr and Umar were hypocrites.
19. The clue-less Rafidhi in his hate against the truth lost his mind and “refuted” me on something which I never claimed. He, in his previous refutation, brought up the verse of al-Qur’an (Sajdah 32:18) and claimed that it was revealed regarding Waleed bin Uqbah. I proved that the narration relating its revelation to Waleed is weak due to Ibn Abi Laylah, al-Kalbi and an unknown person (in three different chains). The Rafidhi in his counter rebuttal brought up some new routes and research of Shaykh al-Albani, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Abdul Barr and Ibn Katheer to prove that the report is authentic and that I had “hidden this fact from people in attempt to weaken the story of Walid”. But unfortunately this Khabeeth doesn’t know that all that which he brought is related to the the revelation of verse of al-Hujurat (49:6), while my discussion was regarding verse of al-Sajdah (32:18), and the foolish Rafidhi himself brought it up but somehow lost his mind.
20. He deceptively claimed, “.If a Shi’ah had done what al-Dhahabi had done, al-Nasibi (لعنه الله) would have called him a kafir”. Imam Dhahabi said that Waleed used to drink wine and that he was a sinner. We do not declare anyone Kafir for saying this. In fact, this was made clear under my first article.
21. He still thinks that Abu Hurairah attributed a lie on the Messenger of Allah, even though I had provided several evidences for the authenticity of the Hadith. The hadith that there is no transitive disease has been reported by several Sahabah. Besides Abu Hurairah, it was also reported by (1) Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas (2) Jabir bin Abdullah (3) Ibn Umar (4) Ibn Abbas (5) Anas bin Malik (6) Saa’ib bin Yazeed, and the refereces to these could be seen in previous article. Hence, the actual content is proven from the Messenger of Allah (SAW). This hadith was authenticated by the consensus of scholars of this field, and no one denied its authenticity. So, how could it be a lie on the Messenger of Allah (SAW)? The only argument the Rafidhi could provide is that they all might have heard it from Abu Hurairah. This reply is baseless as the opposite is also possible. They all might have heard it from the Prophet (pbuh) directly. In fact, Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas directly heard it from the Prophet (pbuh). Hence, Abu Ya’la reports it in his musnad (no.794), ibn HIbban in his Saheeh (6094) through Sa’eed bin Musayyib from Sa’d. Likewise, Jabir bin Abdullah mentioned his hearing from the Prophet (pbuh) as reported by Ibn Hibban (6095). Similarly, this has been reported in this way through Umair bin Sa’d, by Abu Ya’la (1577), At-Tabarani in “al-Kabeer” (17/54) and Ibn HIbban in “Ath-Thiqaat”. So for sure they did not rely on Abu Hurairah for this. Hence, we can conclude from the above details that the text of the hadith is established from other companions also. So how could it be a lie by Abu Hurairah (ra)?
I would like to end this rebuttal with a beautiful verse of Quran:
“Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish.” (17:81)
All perfect praise be to Allaah, The Lord of the Worlds. I testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allaah, and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger. We ask Allaah to exalt his mention as well as that of his family and all his companions.
All praises due to Allah and may His mercy and blessings be upon His Last and Final Messenger Muhammad, his family and companions.
Shia Imamis have always been very critical of many of the close companions of the Prophet (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him). They hate them to the worse extant and consider this to be a virtue. They consider this viewpoint of them to be a criterion to differentiate between a believer and a hypocrite. So to prove their point they come with different historical “evidences”. But in all this they fail to establish authenticity. When someone objects to this they say how could you deny this while your own scholars have written this in their books?
This is one of their biggest problems which caused them to remain ignorant about the methodology of scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah. They fail to understand that our scholars quote a tradition for different reasons and not always they care about its authenticity. So there are scholars who when quote a tradition, they quote it for its authenticity like Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Khuzaimah, Ibn Hibban etc in their Sahih collections. There are those who quote a tradition because of its weakness like Ibn al-Jawzi, Al-Shawkani, Mulla ‘Ali Qari in their collections on fabricated narrations. There are those who quote a narration to explain the usage of Arabic word contained in it, like Ibn Manzoor in Lisan al-‘Arab, Majduddin Ibn al-Atheer in An-Nihayah etc. There are those who quote a hadith as an example of a narration by specific narrator, for example Tareekh Baghdad of Khateeb in which the author mentions a narrator and after mentioning the sayings of scholars regarding him he narrates traditions narrated by him. There are those who compile books just to collect narrations on specific topic. For example, As-Suyuti compiled Al-Jami’ al-Kabeer or Jam’ al-Jawami’ which was later rearranged by ‘Ali Muttaqi in Kanz al-‘Ummal. This book is a collection of everything which is narrated from the Prophet (pbuh). So we see scholars quote a narration in their book for different reasons and its authenticity is considered while doing it. Hence, the claim of some shia that it is Hujjah on sunnis because some sunni scholars have mentioned it is flawed.
One of their accusation against Sayyida ‘Aisha is that she was involved in the murder of ‘Uthman or that she incited people against him. We see even their well known ‘Ulama propagate this false accusation. By Allah, this is not the first time she is being accused. The last time she was accused was during the incident of Ifk and Allah then revealed her innocence from above the seven heavens.
This article was compiled during my analysis of shia encyclopedia in which the Shi’i author has repeated the same accusation and to support it he has quoted some books by Sunni (or simply non-Shia) authors. Therefore, here I will be quoting the Shia author of the Shi’ite Encyclopedia first and then I will be responding to it, Insha Allah.
The author of “A Shi’ite encyclopedia” quotes:
Once she went to Uthman and asked for her share of inheritance from the Prophet (after so many years passed from the demise of the Prophet). Uthman refrained to give Aisha any money, and reminded her that she was one of those who counseled Abu Bakr not to pay the share of inheritance of Fatimah al-Zahra (AS). So if Fatimah does not have any share, then why should she? Hearing this, Aisha became very angry at Uthman, and came out and said to the people:
“Kill this old fool (Na’thal), for he is unbeliever.”
- History of Ibn al-Athir, v3, p206
- Lisan al-Arab, v14, p141
- al-Iqd al-Farid, v4, p290
- Sharh Ibn Abil Hadid, v16, pp 220-223.
As for the context of the statement quoted by the compiler of the Encyclopedia, that is Aisha (ra) asking of her share of inheritance from Uthman (ra), then I do not know the source of it. None of the referenced sources mention the background provided by the author, as far as I can see. Wallahu A’alam.
First let me introduce the refrences provided by the shia author so that the matter would be clear for the readers.
- History of ‘Izud-Deen Ibn al-Atheer Al-Jazari. It is “Al-Kaamil fi at-Tarikh”. This book is a collection of incidents without providing the source of it. It mostly relies on the book of Tabari for early history but doesn’t mention the Isnad, unlike Tabari who narrates incidents with Isnad.
- Lisan al-‘Arab: A detailed dictionary of Arabic language compiled by Muhammad bin Mukrim bin ‘Ali Al-Ansari Al-Afreeqi, well famous as Ibn Manzur Al-Afreeqi. Hence, no isnad is given. The author quotes traditions and early Arabic proverbs and poetry regardless of their authenticity. This he does to explain a specific word in his book. Besides, the author was not a specialist in hadith.
- Al-‘Iqd al-Farid: It was compiled by Abu ‘Umar Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Abdi Rabbihi, famous as Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi al-Andalusi (d.328AH). He only collected the speeches, sayings, poems and incidents he was aware of. The muhaqqiq of the book mentioned several books as his sources which includes the Torah, the Gospel, books of al-Jaahiz, books of Ibn Qutaiba, al-Kaamil of al-Mubarrad, books of Ibn al-Muqaffi’ etc. So how could he be relied when he does not mention his Isnad and quotes from such unreliable sources? Ibn Katheer (15/121) notified that he had Shi’i leaning even though he was from the Umavi lineage.
- Sharh Ibn Abil Hadeed: The detailed commentary on Nahj al-Balagha of Shareef Ridha compiled by Abdul Hameed bin Hibatullah bin Husain, Abu Haamid Ibn Abil Hadeed (d.656AH). He was a Mu’atazali on the madhhab of Baghdadi Mu’tazalites, that is those who preferred Ali over Abu Bakr and had more shi’i tendencies than their Basari predecessors who were more like Ahl as-Sunnah in these matters. Like any other Mu’tazali he was ignorant of the science of hadith criticism and hence collected good and bad he found, accepting all that which supports his creed and rejecting all that which goes against his creed. He does not narrate with his chain but many a times gives reference to a specific book which may not be a reliable book.
After all these, those Shia who think that the mere existence of a report in a Sunni book accounts for its authenticity should study more regarding the methodology of Ahl as-Sunnah. The narration “Take half of your religion from Humayra (Aisha),” was also quoted by Ibn Manzoor in the same book, but shia due to their hatred of Sayyidah Aisha declare that to be fabricated and consider this one to be acceptable. But we consider both of them to be fabricated and unreliable. We do not consider any narration in any of our books to be reliable even if it supports our claim until its authenticity is proven through reliable sources through reliable Isnad. Those who doubt this may refer to the books written on the topics of fabricated narrations, he will see a section dedicated to those traditions which were fabricated in praise of different companions.
Coming back to the narration under discussion, the particular statement, i.e. “Kill this Na’thal…,” was attributed to Sayyidah ‘Aaisha (ra) by some sunni historians and linguists who were not expert in hadith criticism like Ibn Atheer, Ibn Manzoor etc. This was attributed to Aisha (ra), in a narration, by Ubaid bin Abi Salamah, who was one of her relatives, in her presence and she did not deny. But this was reported by Saif bin Umar who was abandoned and there was sufficient gap between the incident and the narrator. [Tabari (4/458-9)]
This has also been mentioned by Abu Mikhnaf. Some say the first one to call Uthman a Na’thal was Aisha (ra) as mentioned by Ibn Abil Hadeed in Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah (6/215) without specifying who actually claimed. These are only claims which some authors inherited from others. While there could be some indication that she was critical of Uthman’s (ra) policies and actions but there is no proof in that to suggest that she wanted to kill him or was in support of his murder. These kinds of reports are unreliable because of three main reasons;
- They were reported by unreliable authors like Abu Mikhnaf, al-Waqidi, Saif bin Umar, Ibn al-Kalbi etc.
- Even they did not connect their chains to the eyewitnesses of the incident, hence the reports in most cases remain disconnected.
- The established facts indicate otherwise. Among those is the fact that Aisha always denied this accusation just as Ali bin Abi Talib denied it.
It has been narrated by Ahmad in “Fadhail as-Sahaba”, Bukhari in “Khalq Af’aal al-‘Ibaad” and Al-Baladhuri in Ansab al-Ashraf through Ibn Shihaab az-Zuhri from ‘Urwah from Aisha that she said, ‘If I wanted to kill Uthman I would have been killed too.’ This tradition is authentic. In other traditions she said, ‘By Allah, Uthaman was killed unjustly.’ And there are other traditions suggesting the same.
It could be that some people might have falsely attributed these kinds of things to ‘Aisha. This is understood from the tradition related by Ibn Sa’d (3/60), Ibn Shabbah in “Tarikh al-Madinah” (4/1225) and Al-Baladhuri in “Ansab Al-Ashraf” (5/597) through the route of A’amash from Khaithama from Masrooq that after hearing the criticism of Aisha against those who killed Uthman he said to her, ‘This has been done by you. You wrote to the people to revolt against him.’ She replied, ‘No, by the One in whom believed the believers and disbelieved the disbelievers, I did not write to them with the black (i.e. ink) on the white (i.e. paper) until this sitting of mine. A’mash said, ‘So they used to believe that it was fabricated in her name.’
Ibn Katheer said in al-Bidayah (10/340): This is authentic from her. In this and other traditions similar to it is the proof that these Khawarij had fabricated letters in the name of Sahaba, to incite people against Uthman.
This also clarifies another tradition present in Ansab al-Ashraf (5/596) through the route of Wakee’ from Qais bin Muslim from Umm al-Hajjaj al-‘Awfiyyah that on the enquiry of Ashtar an-Nakha’i regarding Uthman she replied, ‘Ma’adhAllah if I command to shed the blood of muslims and to murder their leader (Imam) and to legitimate (to downgrade) their sanctity.’ So Al-Ashtar said, ‘You wrote to us and now when the fight has initiated you have started to forbid us.’ In the version of Ibn Shabbah, in his “Tarikh al-Madeenah” (4/1224), it also adds the comment of al-A’amash that on that day A’isha (ra) took oath which no one else took before or after her. Then he mentioned her oath as in the previous tradition.
Another tradition quoted by the compiler of Shia encyclopedia is as follows:
While Ibn Abbas was setting out for Mecca, he found Aisha in al-Sulsul (seven miles south of Medina). Aisha said: “O’ Ibn Abbas, I appeal to you by God, to abandon this man (Uthman) and sow doubt about him among the people, for you have been given a sharp tongue. (By the current siege over Uthman) people have shown their understanding, and light is raised to guide them. I have seen Talha has taken the possession of the keys to the public treasuries and storehouses. If he becomes Caliph (after Uthman), he will follow in the path of his parental cousin Abu-Bakr.” Ibn Abbas said: “O’ Mother (of believers), if something happens to that man (i.e., Uthman), people would seek asylum only with our companion (namely, Ali).” Aisha replied: “Be quiet! I have no desire to defy or quarrel with you.”
Reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v15, pp 238-239
This contains al-Waqidi and Abu Bakr bin Abi Sabrah both of whom were abandoned. [See Tarikh at-Tabari (4/407), Meezan al-E’itedal (4/503-4)]
Another report given by Rawafidh is the consultation between Marwan and ‘Aisha (ra):
“We pray that you stay in Medina, and that Allah may save this man (Uthman) through you.” Aisha said: “I have prepared my means of transportation and vowed to perform the pilgrimage. By God, I shall not honor your request… I wish he (Uthman) could fit to one of my sacks so that I could carry him. I would then through him into the sea.”
Reference: “al-Ansab al-Ashraf”, by al-Baladhuri, v4, part 1, p75
This was mentioned by Ibn Sa’d in Tabaqat (2/27) and al-Baladhuri in Ansab al-Ashraaf (5/565) without relating any Isnad to it rather Ibn Sa’d, who was later on quoted by al-Baladhuri and Ibn ‘Asakir, attributed it to some unknown people with the phrase “They say”. From Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah (3/7) it appears that the actual source of this report is al-Waqidi, the abandoned narrator, who narrated this in Kitab ad-Daar. WAllahu A’alam