Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Shia’

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

October 6, 2013 5 comments

Bismillah

All praises due to Allah and may His mercy and blessings be upon His Last and Final Messenger Muhammad, his family and companions.

Shia Imamis have always been very critical of many of the close companions of the Prophet (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him). They hate them to the worse extant and consider this to be a virtue. They consider this viewpoint of them to be a criterion to differentiate between a believer and a hypocrite. So to prove their point they come with different historical “evidences”. But in all this they fail to establish authenticity. When someone objects to this they say how could you deny this while your own scholars have written this in their books?

This is one of their biggest problems which caused them to remain ignorant about the methodology of scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah. They fail to understand that our scholars quote a tradition for different reasons and not always they care about its authenticity. So there are scholars who when quote a tradition, they quote it for its authenticity like Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Khuzaimah, Ibn Hibban etc in their Sahih collections. There are those who quote a tradition because of its weakness like Ibn al-Jawzi, Al-Shawkani, Mulla ‘Ali Qari in their collections on fabricated narrations. There are those who quote a narration to explain the usage of Arabic word contained in it, like Ibn Manzoor in Lisan al-‘Arab, Majduddin Ibn al-Atheer in An-Nihayah etc. There are those who quote a hadith as an example of a narration by specific narrator, for example Tareekh Baghdad of Khateeb in which the author mentions a narrator and after mentioning the sayings of scholars regarding him he narrates traditions narrated by him. There are those who compile books just to collect narrations on specific topic. For example, As-Suyuti compiled Al-Jami’ al-Kabeer or Jam’ al-Jawami’ which was later rearranged by ‘Ali Muttaqi in Kanz al-‘Ummal. This book is a collection of everything which is narrated from the Prophet (pbuh). So we see scholars quote a narration in their book for different reasons and its authenticity is considered while doing it. Hence, the claim of some shia that it is Hujjah on sunnis because some sunni scholars have mentioned it is flawed.

One of their accusation against Sayyida ‘Aisha is that she was involved in the murder of ‘Uthman or that she incited people against him. We see even their well known ‘Ulama propagate this false accusation. By Allah, this is not the first time she is being accused. The last time she was accused was during the incident of Ifk and Allah then revealed her innocence from above the seven heavens.

This article was compiled during my analysis of shia encyclopedia in which the Shi’i author has repeated the same accusation and to support it he has quoted some books by Sunni (or simply non-Shia) authors. Therefore, here I will be quoting the Shia author of the Shi’ite Encyclopedia first and then I will be responding to it, Insha Allah.

The author of “A Shi’ite encyclopedia” quotes:

Once she went to Uthman and asked for her share of inheritance from the Prophet (after so many years passed from the demise of the Prophet). Uthman refrained to give Aisha any money, and reminded her that she was one of those who counseled Abu Bakr not to pay the share of inheritance of Fatimah al-Zahra (AS). So if Fatimah does not have any share, then why should she? Hearing this, Aisha became very angry at Uthman, and came out and said to the people:

“Kill this old fool (Na’thal), for he is unbeliever.”

Sunni references:

  • History of Ibn al-Athir, v3, p206
  • Lisan al-Arab, v14, p141
  • al-Iqd al-Farid, v4, p290
  • Sharh Ibn Abil Hadid, v16, pp 220-223.

 

Reply

As for the context of the statement quoted by the compiler of the Encyclopedia, that is Aisha (ra) asking of her share of inheritance from Uthman (ra), then I do not know the source of it. None of the referenced sources mention the background provided by the author, as far as I can see. Wallahu A’alam.

First let me introduce the refrences provided by the shia author so that the matter would be clear for the readers.

  1. History of ‘Izud-Deen Ibn al-Atheer Al-Jazari. It is “Al-Kaamil fi at-Tarikh”. This book is a collection of incidents without providing the source of it. It mostly relies on the book of Tabari for early history but doesn’t mention the Isnad, unlike Tabari who narrates incidents with Isnad.
  2. Lisan al-‘Arab: A detailed dictionary of Arabic language compiled by Muhammad bin Mukrim bin ‘Ali Al-Ansari Al-Afreeqi, well famous as Ibn Manzur Al-Afreeqi. Hence, no isnad is given. The author quotes traditions and early Arabic proverbs and poetry regardless of their authenticity. This he does to explain a specific word in his book. Besides, the author was not a specialist in hadith.
  3. Al-‘Iqd al-Farid: It was compiled by Abu ‘Umar Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Abdi Rabbihi, famous as Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi al-Andalusi (d.328AH). He only collected the speeches, sayings, poems and incidents he was aware of. The muhaqqiq of the book mentioned several books as his sources which includes the Torah, the Gospel, books of al-Jaahiz, books of Ibn Qutaiba, al-Kaamil of al-Mubarrad, books of Ibn al-Muqaffi’ etc. So how could he be relied when he does not mention his Isnad and quotes from such unreliable sources? Ibn Katheer (15/121) notified that he had Shi’i leaning even though he was from the Umavi lineage.
  4. Sharh Ibn Abil Hadeed: The detailed commentary on Nahj al-Balagha of Shareef Ridha compiled by Abdul Hameed bin Hibatullah bin Husain, Abu Haamid Ibn Abil Hadeed (d.656AH). He was a Mu’atazali on the madhhab of Baghdadi Mu’tazalites, that is those who preferred Ali over Abu Bakr and had more shi’i tendencies than their Basari predecessors who were more like Ahl as-Sunnah in these matters. Like any other Mu’tazali he was ignorant of the science of hadith criticism and hence collected good and bad he found, accepting all that which supports his creed and rejecting all that which goes against his creed. He does not narrate with his chain but many a times gives reference to a specific book which may not be a reliable book.

After all these, those Shia who think that the mere existence of a report in a Sunni book accounts for its authenticity should study more regarding the methodology of Ahl as-Sunnah. The narration “Take half of your religion from Humayra (Aisha),” was also quoted by Ibn Manzoor in the same book, but shia due to their hatred of Sayyidah Aisha declare that to be fabricated and consider this one to be acceptable. But we consider both of them to be fabricated and unreliable. We do not consider any narration in any of our books to be reliable even if it supports our claim until its authenticity is proven through reliable sources through reliable Isnad. Those who doubt this may refer to the books written on the topics of fabricated narrations, he will see a section dedicated to those traditions which were fabricated in praise of different companions.

Coming back to the narration under discussion, the particular statement, i.e. “Kill this Na’thal…,” was attributed to Sayyidah ‘Aaisha (ra) by some sunni historians and linguists who were not expert in hadith criticism like Ibn Atheer, Ibn Manzoor etc. This was attributed to Aisha (ra), in a narration, by Ubaid bin Abi Salamah, who was one of her relatives, in her presence and she did not deny. But this was reported by Saif bin Umar who was abandoned and there was sufficient gap between the incident and the narrator. [Tabari (4/458-9)]

This has also been mentioned by Abu Mikhnaf. Some say the first one to call Uthman a Na’thal was Aisha (ra) as mentioned by Ibn Abil Hadeed in Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah (6/215) without specifying who actually claimed. These are only claims which some authors inherited from others.  While there could be some indication that she was critical of Uthman’s (ra) policies and actions but there is no proof in that to suggest that she wanted to kill him or was in support of his murder. These kinds of reports are unreliable because of three main reasons;

  1. They were reported by unreliable authors like Abu Mikhnaf, al-Waqidi, Saif bin Umar, Ibn al-Kalbi etc.
  2. Even they did not connect their chains to the eyewitnesses of the incident, hence the reports in most cases remain disconnected.
  3. The established facts indicate otherwise. Among those is the fact that Aisha always denied this accusation just as Ali bin Abi Talib denied it.

It has been narrated by Ahmad in “Fadhail as-Sahaba”, Bukhari in “Khalq Af’aal al-‘Ibaad” and Al-Baladhuri in Ansab al-Ashraf through Ibn Shihaab az-Zuhri from ‘Urwah from Aisha that she said, ‘If I wanted to kill Uthman I would have been killed too.’ This tradition is authentic. In other traditions she said, ‘By Allah, Uthaman was killed unjustly.’ And there are other traditions suggesting the same.

It could be that some people might have falsely attributed these kinds of things to ‘Aisha. This is understood from the tradition related by Ibn Sa’d (3/60), Ibn Shabbah in “Tarikh al-Madinah” (4/1225) and Al-Baladhuri in “Ansab Al-Ashraf” (5/597) through the route of A’amash from Khaithama from Masrooq that after hearing the criticism of Aisha against those who killed Uthman he said to her, ‘This has been done by you. You wrote to the people to revolt against him.’ She replied, ‘No, by the One in whom believed the believers and disbelieved the disbelievers, I did not write to them with the black (i.e. ink) on the white (i.e. paper) until this sitting of mine. A’mash said, ‘So they used to believe that it was fabricated in her name.’

Ibn Katheer said in al-Bidayah (10/340): This is authentic from her. In this and other traditions similar to it is the proof that these Khawarij had fabricated letters in the name of Sahaba, to incite people against Uthman.

This also clarifies another tradition present in Ansab al-Ashraf (5/596) through the route of Wakee’ from Qais bin Muslim from Umm al-Hajjaj al-‘Awfiyyah that on the enquiry of Ashtar an-Nakha’i regarding Uthman she replied, ‘Ma’adhAllah if I command to shed the blood of muslims and to murder their leader (Imam) and to legitimate (to downgrade) their sanctity.’ So Al-Ashtar said, ‘You wrote to us and now when the fight has initiated you have started to forbid us.’  In the version of Ibn Shabbah, in his “Tarikh al-Madeenah” (4/1224), it also adds the comment of al-A’amash that on that day A’isha (ra) took oath which no one else took before or after her. Then he mentioned her oath as in the previous tradition.

Another tradition quoted by the compiler of Shia encyclopedia is as follows:

While Ibn Abbas was setting out for Mecca, he found Aisha in al-Sulsul (seven miles south of Medina). Aisha said: “O’ Ibn Abbas, I appeal to you by God, to abandon this man (Uthman) and sow doubt about him among the people, for you have been given a sharp tongue. (By the current siege over Uthman) people have shown their understanding, and light is raised to guide them. I have seen Talha has taken the possession of the keys to the public treasuries and storehouses. If he becomes Caliph (after Uthman), he will follow in the path of his parental cousin Abu-Bakr.” Ibn Abbas said: “O’ Mother (of believers), if something happens to that man (i.e., Uthman), people would seek asylum only with our companion (namely, Ali).” Aisha replied: “Be quiet! I have no desire to defy or quarrel with you.”

Reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v15, pp 238-239

Reply

This contains al-Waqidi and Abu Bakr bin Abi Sabrah both of whom were abandoned. [See Tarikh at-Tabari (4/407), Meezan al-E’itedal (4/503-4)]

Another report given by Rawafidh is the consultation between Marwan and ‘Aisha (ra):

“We pray that you stay in Medina, and that Allah may save this man (Uthman) through you.” Aisha said: “I have prepared my means of transportation and vowed to perform the pilgrimage. By God, I shall not honor your request… I wish he (Uthman) could fit to one of my sacks so that I could carry him. I would then through him into the sea.”

Reference: “al-Ansab al-Ashraf”, by al-Baladhuri, v4, part 1, p75

Reply

This was mentioned by Ibn Sa’d in Tabaqat (2/27) and al-Baladhuri in Ansab al-Ashraaf (5/565) without relating any Isnad to it rather Ibn Sa’d, who was later on quoted by al-Baladhuri and Ibn ‘Asakir, attributed it to some unknown people with the phrase “They say”. From Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah (3/7) it appears that the actual source of this report is al-Waqidi, the abandoned narrator, who narrated this in Kitab ad-Daar. WAllahu A’alam

 

Takhreej of Narrations present in Shia Encyclopedia [Part – 1]

January 30, 2012 2 comments

Bismillah

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

Shia Encyclopedia has great fame among shia so called internet debaters. They rely on this online encyclopedia assuming it to be a great research. But the fact is this work is full of weak and fabricated narrations. This Takhreej is a small effort to analyze the authenticity of narrations present outside the two Sahih.

This Part-1 include analysis of following narrations:

[1]. “I am leaving behind two commands: the Book of Allah and my Sunnah“.

[2]. “I am leaving for you two precious and weighty Symbols that if you adhere to both of them you shall not go astray after me. They are, the Book of Allah, and my progeny, that is my Ahlul-Bayt.”

[3]. “Ali is with Quran, and Quran is with Ali.”

[4]. “Behold! My Ahlul-Bayt are like the Ark of Noah. Whoever embarked in it was saved, and whoever turned away from it was perished.

[5]. “Do not be ahead of them (Ahlul Bayt) for you will perish, do not turn away from them for you will perish, and do not try to teach them since they know more than you do!

[6]. “My Ahlul-Bayt are like the Gate of Repentance (Baab Hittah) of the Children of Israel; whoever entered therein was forgiven.”

[7]. “O folk! I am soon going to depart from here, and although I have already told you, I repeat once more that I am leaving with you two things, namely, the Book of Allah and my descendants, that is, my Ahlul-Bayt.” Then he lifted Ali by the hand and said: “Behold! This Ali is with the Quran and the Quran is with him. These two shall never separate from each other until they come to me at the Pool of Kawthar.”

[8]. “Whosoever wishes to live and die like me and enter that heaven (after death), which my lord has promised me, namely, the everlasting heaven should acknowledge Ali (AS) as his patron after me, and after him he should acknowledge the sons of Ali.”

[9]. “Regard the Ahlul-Bayt among you as the head to the body or the eyes to the face, for the face is only guided by the eyes.”

[10]. “My Ahlul-Bayt are the protected place of refuge about the dispute in religion.”

Download word file: Takhreej Shia Encyclopedia Part-1

Hadeeth Thaqalain: A systematic takhreej of its different wordings

January 23, 2012 3 comments

A systematic Takhreej of Hadith Thaqalain

By

Muhammad Moin

 

In the name of Allah.

And may his peace and blessings be upon his final Messenger.

This hadith has been narrated from several Sahabah, viz. Ali, Abdur-Rahman bin Awf, Abu Dharr, Zaid bin Thabit, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar, Jabir, Hudhaifa bin Usaid, Khuzaimah bin Thabit, Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri, Zaid bin Arqam, Sahl bin Sa’d, Dhumairah, ‘Aamir bin Lailah, ‘Adi bin Hatim, ‘Uqbah bin ‘Aamir, Abu Rafe’, Abu Shuraih al-Khuza’i, Abu Qudamah al-Ansari, Abu Hurairah, Abul Haitham bin at-Tayyahan, Umm Salamah, Umm Hani and a person from Qureish. However, most of these traditions are not established. [See the detail of these traditions in “Istijlab Irtaqa’ al-Ghuraf” (1/336-364) by Hafiz As-Sakhawi]

My intention is to analyze the authenticity of different wordings of this tradition.

[1] “I am leaving behind things [or two weighty things], the first of which is the book of Allah. In it is guidance and light. So stick to it.” So he urged us to [stick with] the book of Allah and aspired people of it. Then he said, “And my Ahlul Bayt. I remind you of Allah with regards to m Ahlul Bayt [He repeated this three times]”

This wording is established from the hadith of Yazeed bin Hayyan from Zaid bin Arqam related by Muslim (6304), Ahmad (19265), Nasai in “al-Kubra” (8119), Ibn Khuzaimah (2357) and others.

This wording is also established in the narration of Atiyyah from Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri. Ya’qoob al-Fasawi relates in “al-Ma’rifah wa at-Tareekh” (1/537) through Fudhail bin Marzooq from Atiyyah al-‘Awfi from Abu Sa’eed with the wording similar to that of Sahih Muslim. At the end Fudhail asked Atiyyah, “Who were the Itrah of Prophet (S.A.W.)?” He replied, “His Ahlul Bayt”.

حدثنا عبيد الله قال: أنبأ فضيل بن مرزوق عن عطية عن أبي سعيد الخدري قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: إني تارك فيكم الثقلين أحدهما أكبر من الآخر: كتاب الله عز وجل حبل ممدود من السماء إلى الأرض طرف في يد الله عز وجل وطرف في أيديكم فاستمسكوا به، ألا وعترتي. قال فضيل: سألت عطية عن عترته؟ قال: أهل بيته

There are other wordings also narrated from ‘Atiyyah, and that may be due to weakness in ‘Atiyyah or it may be that some narrators while trying to narrate it through meaning, have changed the sequence of the words unintentionally. WAllahu A’alam

Likewise, this has come under the hadith of Zaid bin Hasan al-Anmati from Ma’roof bin Kharraboodh from Abu Tufayl from Hudhaifa bin Usaid. It was reported by Tabarani in “Al-Kabeer” (3/67 & 3/180) and Abu Nu’aim in “al-Hilyah” (1/355), and its Isnad is weak due to Zaid al-Anmaati, as we’ll see later.

This wording has also been related by Tabarani in “Al-Kabeer” (3/66 & 5/166) through the way of Abdullah bin Bukair Al-Ghanawi from Hakeem bin Jubair from Abu Tufayl from Zaid bin Arqam. Hakeem bin Jubair was extremely weak. [Meezan (1/583)]

 

[2] “I am leaving behind things, which if you adhere to you shall never go astray. And that is the Book of Allah and my Ahlul Bayt [or my Itrah].”

This is disputed upon. This relation is famous from the hadith of Jabir, related by Tirmidhi in “Sunan” (3786), Tabarani in “Al-Kabeer” (2680) and “Al-Awsat” (4757) through the way of Zaid bin Al-Hasan Al-Anmati from Ja’far bin Muhammad from his father (Al-Baqir) from Jabir bin Abdullah. This tradition also mentions that the Prophet (SAW) said it during his farewell pilgrimage. This tradition is obviously Munkar for the following reasons:

  1. Zaid bin al-Hasan al-Anmaati was weak as stated by Hafiz Ibn Hajar in Taqreeb (1/337). Abu Hatim said that he was Munkar al-Hadeeth.
  2. The hadeeth of Thaqalain was said by the Prophet (SAW) at the place of Khumm. However, according to this tradition the Prophet said it during his pilgrimage, at ‘Arafah.
  3. Zaid al-Anmaati relates it from Ja’far as-Sadiq, while the other trustworthy narrators related it through same Ja’far as-Sadiq and they did not mentioned Ahlul Bayt. Rather,during the farewell pilgrimage the Prophet (SAW) only urged people to stick with Qur’an. This tradition could be read in Sahih Muslim and other book.

    If it is said that Shaykh al-Albani authenticated this, then answer would be: No, Shaykh al-Albani did not authenticate this particular incident; rather he specifically authenticated the wording which was common in both this narration and other narrations. He notified the weakness in Zaid al-Anmaati there. See, As-Saheehah (1761).

The other relation is that which was related by Tabrani [al-Kabeer (3/65)] through Abdul Malik bin Abi Suleiman and Harun bin Sa’d from ‘Atiyyah from Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri. This relation is not established due to Atiyyah. And the tradition through Atiyyah has come with the other wording also which doesn’t support this wording. Hence, this has been related through Katheer an-Nawa, A’amash, Fudhail bin Marzooq, Zakariyya and others from Atiyyah with the wording different than the wording related by Abdul Malik bin Abi Suleiman.

Hence, Ya’qoob al-Fasawi relates in “al-Ma’rifah wa at-Tareekh” (1/537) through Fudhail bin Marzooq from Atiyyah al-‘Awfi from Abu Sa’eed with the wording similar to that of Sahih Muslim [This has preceded already].

Fudhail was well famous for his companionship with Atiyyah and he was much well aware of the narrations of Atiyyah than any other. Besides that, he was also supported by al-A’amash from Atiyyah. So, it is established from this that what is established from the hadith of Atiyyah is that which come through Fudhail, and other people related it by meaning and hence came up with different wordings. Wallahu A’alam

Another tradition through Katheer bin Zaid from Muhammad bin Umar bin Ali from his father from Ali (ra). It has been recorded by Ishaq bin Rahuyah in his Musnad, as in “Al-Mutalib Al-‘Aaliyah” (16/142) by Ibn Hajar, likewise by Tahawi in Mushkil al-Aathar (5/13), through Abu ‘Aamir Al-‘Uqdi from Kathir bin Zaid from Muhammad bin ‘Umar bin Ali bin Abi Talib, from his father, from Ali bin Abi Talib….alhadith, which has the wording, “I have left behind among that which if you stick to you shall never go astray….”.

أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم حضر الشجرة بخم، فخرج آخذا بيد علي، فقال: من كنت مولاه فإن عليا مولاه – أو قال: فإن هذا مولاه – إني قد تركت فيكم ما إن أخذتم به لن تضلوا: كتاب الله وأهل بيتي. ألستم تشهدون أن الله ورسوله أولى بكم من أنفسكم؟ وأن الله ورسوله أولياؤكم؟ قالوا: بلى قال: فمن كنت مولاه

Ibn Hajar said, “Its Isnad is Sahih.”

I say: Katheer bin Zaid is disagreed upon. Ibn Hajar himself said in Taqreeb that he was Sadooq who used to commit mistakes. [Taqreeb] Mostly his hadith could be classified as Hasan, when not opposed by other reliable narrators. Imam Dhahabi, after quoting this tradition in disconnected form, said that there was weakness in Katheer. [Risalah Turq hadith “man kuntu maulahu fa ‘Aliyyu maulahu” (32)]

Ibn Jareer records this tradition, as mentioned treatise of al-Dhahabi and al-Bidayah of Ibn Katheer, and Ibn Abi Aasim in As-Sunnah [Zilal Al-Jannah (no.1558)] without relating the part mentioning the tradition of Thaqalain, while ad-Dawlabi related it in “Adh-Dhurriya at-Tahirah” (237) in disconnected form through Muhammad bin Umar bin Ali from Ali.

It was also related by al-Bazzar in his Musnad (864) through Su’ad bin Suleiman from Abu Ishaq from Harith fro Ali. This is weak due to Su’ad bin Suleiman and Harith al-A’awar.

Regarding Su’ad bin Suleiman, Abu Hatim said that he was not strong. Ibn Hibban listed him in ath-Thiqaat. [Tahdheeb (3/401)] It is not known whether he heard this from Harith before Ikhtilat or after it. Harith was weak according to most of the scholars. [Al-Kashif (1/303), Taqreeb (1/175), Tahdheeb (2/126)]

Also, there is disconnection between Abu Ishaq and Harith. Shu’bah said that Abu Ishaq did not hear from Harith except for four narrations. Yahya bin Sa’eed used to narrate from Abu Ishaq only those traditions of Harith which he actually heard from him. [Tahdheeb (2/126), Jami’ at-Tahseel (pg.245)] In our case, neither Abu Ishaq mentioned his hearing nor does Yahya al-Qattan narrate this from him.

Another narration, which urges muslims to stick with Ahlul Bayt, is related by al-Fasawi in “al-Ma’rifah wa at-Tareekh” (1/536) from the hadith of Zaid bin Arqam through the route of Jareer from Hasan bin Ubaidullah from Abu adh-Dhuha from Zaid bin Arqam (ra). This narration, with this wording, exists only in the version of al-Fasawi. Al-Hakim (4711) related it through the same Yahya bin Mugheerah without having the wording under consideration. Similarly, Tabarani relates it through Ali bin al-Madeeni and Khalid bin Abdullah al-Wasiti, (both of them) through Jareer. Also, the authentic tradition of Zaid bin Arqam has already been mentioned, which gives detail account of this statement of Prophet (SAW). WAllahu A’alam

Another tradition from Zaid bin Arqam is related in “al-Mustadrak” (4577) through Muhammad bin Salamah bin Kuhail from his father from Abu Tufail from Zaid. The authentic version of the hadeeth of Abu Tufail is coming under the study of the addition “they shall never separate”. Muhammad bin Salamah bin Kuhail was weak. [Lisan al-Meezan (5/183)]

This wording also exists in some version of the hadith of Shareek from Rukain from Qaasim bin Hassaan from Zaid bin Thaabit. [Musnad ‘Abd bin Humaid] This is not present in other version of the hadith of Shareek, narrated in Musnad Ahmad and other books of hadeeth. Shareek was weak.

 

Now, the following points would make the issue clear:

  1. It is known that all these traditions are describing the same statement, and the occasion was one. The Prophet couldn’t have said all of those wordings because that would be useless.
  2. The difference in the wording is due to reason that many people narrated it through meaning. So they narrated the summarized wording instead of exact wording. Prophet [SAW] could have uttered only one of those different wordings. That is the reason there is not a hadith with this wording except there is also other version of same narration exist which aids the version of Sahih Muslim.
  3. The exact wording has been narrated by Muslim in his Saheeh and Ahmad in his Musnad through Zaid bin Arqam, and this is the most authentic Isnad of Hadith Thaqalain. Similarly, the tradition of Atiyyah al-‘Awfi supports this, which was narrated by Fudhail, Atiyyah’s closest student.
  4. Besides that, the version of Muslim is also explicit. It has been narrated in a way which makes us to believe that it has been narrated precisely.
  5. This wording of Sahih Muslim is also supported by the narration of farewell ceremony related by Muslim and other through Ja’far as-Sadiq from al-Baqir from Jabir (ra). If it was necessity for the Ummah to follow Ahlul Bayt then Prophet (SAW) would have made this clear during his farewell speech at Makkah. But rather he commanded to stick with the Qur’an and later on at Khumm he repeated the same thing except that he added the prescription for the Ummah to be careful with Ahlul Bayt.

 

 [3]. Addition of “they shall never separate until they meet me at the fountain”.

This addition is proven in the hadeeth of Zaid bin Arqam. Hence, it was related by al-Fasawi in “al-Ma’rifah” (1/536), at-Tabarani in “al-Kabeer” (5/169)(5/170) and al-Hakim in “al-Mustadrak” (4711) all of them through Hasan bin Ubaidullah from Abu adh-Dhuha Muslim bin Sabeeh from Zaid bin Arqam.

Imam Tirmidhi relates it in his Sunan (3788) through A’mash from Habeeb bin Abi Thabit from Zaid bin Arqam. Its narrators are all reliable but there is some doubt whether Habeeb heard from Zaid or not. Ali bin Madeeni said, “He found Ibn Abbas, and heard from A’isha. He did not hear anyone besides them.” [Jami’ at-Tahseel (pg.158)] Therefore, this is disconnected. However, Nasai narrates it in al-Kubra (8092, 8410) and likewise Hakim (4576) and there they mention Abu Tufayl between Habeeb and Zaid bin Arqam. The statement of Ali bin Madeeni apply here as well, since Abu Tufayl was a Sahabi, but it is least applicable in case of Abu Tufayl because he was among those Sahabah who died after 100AH. Abu Tufail died in 110Ah while Habeeb bin Abi Thaabit died in 119AH. Both of them lived in Kufah. Imam Dhahabi declared this Isnad to be Qawi (strong), in his treatise on the hadith “man kuntu maulahu” (1/66, no.65).

This was reported in the narration of Atiyyah al-‘Awfi from Abu Sa’eed. Imam Ahmad records it in Musnad (11104, 11131, 11211 and 11561) through Atiyyah from Abu Sa’eed. Atiyyah bin Sa’d al-‘Awfi was weak in hadeeth.

This was also recorded by Imam Ahmad in his Musnad (21578, 21654) through Shuraik from ar-Rukain from Qasim bin Hassan from Zaid bin Thaabit. Shareek was weak. Qasim bin Hassaan al-‘Aamiri was Majhool al-Haal.

It was also related by At-Tabarani in “al-Kabeer” (3/67) through Zaid bin al-Hasan al-Anmati, he said narrated to us Ma’roof bin Kharboodh from Abu Tufayl from Hudhaifa bin Usaid al-Ghifari. Zaid bin Hasan al-Anmati was weak as already preceded.

[4]. Wording of “Khaleefatayn” instead of “Thaqalain”.

This word comes in the tradition of Shareek from Rukain from Qasim bin Hassaan from Zaid bin Thaabit. It was related by Ibn Abi Shaibah in “al-Musannaf” (31679), Imam Ahmad in his Musnad (21578, 21654) and others.

Shareek was weak, especially when opposes others. [Taqreeb (1/417)] And there is dispute regarding Qaasim bin Hassaan. Dhahabi quotes from Bukhari that his hadith is Munkar and he was not known. Ibn Hibban listed him among Thiqaat, like he does with Majhool al-Haal narrators. Ibn Shaheen said that Ahmad bin Saleh al-Misri said that he was Thiqah. While Abul Hasan Ibn al-Qattan said he was not known. WAllahu A’alam [Meezan (3/369), Tahdheeb (8/279)]

The word “Khaleefah” here doesn’t indicate the successor of Prophet (SAW) in any way. Qur’an cannot be a successor of the Prophet (SAW) for it was in authority even during the lifetime of the Prophet (SAW). In fact, the Messenger of Allah (SAW) himself followed the Qur’an. Khaleefa is simply something which has been left behind. WAllahu A’alam

[5]. Addition of “So be careful how you deal with these two”

This addition comes under the hadith of A’mash from Habeeb bin Abi Thabit [from Abu Tufail] from Zaid bin Arqam. This Isnad has been discussed under the addition of “they shall never separate…” so look there.

This is the only Isnad, according to my knowledge, which contain this wording and it is authentic, Insha Allah. Wallahu A’alam

Verse of Mubahilah and Shi’i contentions related to it

June 6, 2011 3 comments

أعوذ بالله من الشيطان الرجيم

61. And whoso disputeth with thee concerning him, after the knowledge which hath come unto thee, say (unto him): Come! We will summon our sons and your sons, and our women and your women, and ourselves and yourselves, then we will pray humbly (to our Lord) and (solemnly) invoke the curse of Allah upon those who lie. [Surah Aale ‘Imran, verse 61]

 

Argument from the verse

This is one of the evidences which shia give to prove the Imamah of Ali bin Abi Talib (ra) after the Messenger of Allah (saw). Their argument is that, since the word “your sons” refer to Hasan and Husain, while “your women” refer to Fatima, therefore “yourselves” must be referring to Ali bin Abu Talib, and that is because the Prophet (pbuh), during Mubahila, came up only with these personalities and no one else[1].

They further argue that, since Allah calls Ali the “nafs” of the Messenger of Allah, (pbuh), therefore he must be similar to Prophet (pbuh) in each and every speciality except that which has been told[2].

The argument is as weak as the house of spider, as you will see soon.

 

Firstly, the word used for “yourselves” is “anfusana” which is a plural form. This indicates that there were more than one who were worthy to be called as the “self of the Messenger of Allah (s)”. And the Prophet(s) coming up with only Ali in reference to “anfusana” (yourselves) doesn’t falsify its implication for others. Take for example the verse “And [as for] those who put away their wives by likening their backs to the backs of their mothers” (58:3). Here, the verse uses plural form even though the cause for its revelation was a single person. But still the implication is not limited to that person only and that is why Allah (swt) used the plural form. This refutes the contention of At-Tabtaba’i, the shi’a author of “Tafseer Al-Meezan”, who took this verse of Zihaar, present in Surah Al-Mujadilah (58:3), as a proof to claim that the word “anfusana”, although plural, is restricted to Ali bin Abi Talib (ra). He also took this evidence from “Allah has certainly heard the saying of those who said: Surely Allah is poor and we are rich” (3:181) and “And they ask you as to what they should spend” (2:219).

Interestingly all these verses are very strong evidences against what he was trying to prove, as in the case of verses of Zihar. As for the verse of Ale ‘Imran “Allah has certainly heard the saying of those…”, than this was revealed for the Jews, and its implication applied to a group of Jews who held such a view. This ugly statement was attributed to a group of Jews by Ibn Abbas, Hasan Al-Basari and Qatadah as reported by Tabari (7/443) and Ibn Abi Hatim[3]. As for the argument of Shi’i At-Tabtaba’i then he probably concluded it from the report of Ibn Ishaq through Ibn Abbas which was recorded by Tabari (7/441-442) and Ibn Hisham in his “Seerah”, according to which the statement was said by Finhaas who was a Jewish scholar, and he said it during a Majlis of Jewish people. Ibn Ishaq narrates it from Muhammad bin Abi Muhammad the mawla of Zaid bin Thaabit, and he was not known. But this same Tafsir has come from Ikramah and As-Suddi. But as said before, just because the cause of of the revelation was one person or Prophet (S) was seen applying it to one person, doesn’t mean its implication restricted to that single person, this is quite obvious in light of several verses of Ahkam which were revealed because of a single person but it applies to others also[4]. The above verse was revealed for Finhaas, but it applies to all those Jews who agreed with him and this include the Jews who were sitting in his Majlis. Shaykhul Islam has excellent speech on this matter of “limitation of the verse to its cause of revelation” in his Muqaddima Usul At-Tafseer which is in his “Majmoo’ Al-Fatawa” (13/338-340). The same answer goes for the verse 219 of Surah Al-Baqarah. In conclusion, the argument of At-Tabtaba’i has nothing in it to change the plural into singular.

In our case here, the verse used anfusana, which is plural, indicates that there were others who could be called “nafs” of Rasulullah (S). As for why Prophet (s) did not come with others, then we come to it later on.

 

Secondly, the use of “anfusana” doesn’t necessitate equality or even similarity. Allah (SWT) states “why did not the believing men and believing women, when they heard it, think well of their own selves (anfusahum)” [24:12], “therefore turn to your Creator [penitently], so kill your people [anfusakum i.e. yourselves]” [2:54] that doesn’t mean those who worshipped were like those who did not. “and do not kill your people [yourselves i.e. anfusakum]” [4:29]. “and do not find fault with your own people [anfusakum]” [49:11]. Refer to “Minhaj As-Sunnah” (7/87-89).

 

Similarly, the statement of Prophet (S) to Ali (ra) “you are from me, and I am from you” [Sahih Bukhari], and his (SAW) statement regarding Julaibib (ra) “he is from me, and I am from him” [Sahih Muslim], and his statements regarding Ash’aris “they are from me, and I am from them” [Sahih Muslim]. All these statements do not indicate that Ali, Julaibib or Ash’ari brothers were equal to Prophet (S) in quality, except for the Prophethood.

Allah (SWT) mention a statement of Ibrahim (AS) in his Book:

“My Lord! surely they have led many men astray; then whoever follows me, he

is surely of me”. [Surah Ibrahim, verse 36]

No person with intelligence would conclude from the above verse that those who followed Ibrahim (pbuh) were similar to him in all aspects except Prophethood. Likewise, no one can claim that the followers of Taloot, who did not drink from the river, were like him in characteristics because of his (Taloot’s) statement “whoever then drinks from it, he is not of me, and whoever does not taste of it, he is surely of me” [Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 249].

Likewise Shia Muhaddith Al-Kulaini relates (2/170, Kitab Al-Eeman wa Al-Kufr) a narration, which is Hasan as per the verdict of Al-Majlisi, through Imam Ja’af As-Sadiq in which he said regarding relation of Muslims with each other, “he is from you, and you are from him”.

 

 

Now the question arises as to why did not the Messenger of Allah came up with other people like Abu Bakr and Umar, and his other daughters.

 

Shaikh Al-Islam states:

“the reason that (only) these were invited because the command for each group was to call for their sons, women and their self from among their closest relatives. So everyone of them should call for their sons, women and the closest men to their lineage. And these were the closest to the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) in their lineage, even though there were those who were more superior to them near him (pbuh). So the command was not to call for the superior people from them because requirement for each of them was to call for their special relatives. That is because the fear a person have for them and mercy which he have for his near relatives, and that is why they were specialized in the incident of Al-Kisa and supplication (during that incident). The Mubahila is based on justice, hence they (the Christians) were also required to come with their closest relatives to their Nasab, and they have feared for them which they do not have for other (non-relatives). And that was the reason they quit from the Mubahila as they knew that he (pbuh) was on truth so if had done mubahila its curse would fall on them and their family. In fact many a times a person have fear for his child which he does not have for himself.” [Al-Minhaj (5/23-24)]

 

As for why the Prophet (pbuh) did not come with his other daughters then this is because of the fact that they were not alive during the incident.

And reason that he didn’t come with his wives was because the fact that a person, normally, have much more love for his children as compared to his wives. So if the Prophet would have come with his wives then this would have given the other party a chance for taking the mubahila lightly. For people of that time, putting the life of their wives was much easy as compared to their children and those who were related to them through Nasab. Wallahu a’alam


[1] The incident is proven, as in Sahih Muslim (2404)

[2] See, Muhadhraat fi Al-E’etiqadat (1/25-26) by the Rafidhi Ali Al-Meelani, “Tafdheel Ameer Al-Mu’mineen” (pg.20-23) by Al-Mufeed, “Minhaj Al-Kiramah” [1/70 with Sharh by Al-Meelani] by Al-Hili under “ninth evidence” from Quran for the Imamah of Ali.

[3] Refer to Tafsir Ibn Katheer (2/155)

[4] For example, Ayah of Az-Zihar, which has already been mentioned, Ayah of Li’aan, Al-Kalalah etc were revealed for single person but applied to any other muslim having similar condition described in the verses.

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 wilayat.net. 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?

Answers:

  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].

2. And that should be in state of belief [THIS EXCLUDE ALL THOSE DISBELIEVERS AND HYPOCRITES WHO SAW HIM WHILE THEY WERE NOT ACTUALLY MUSLIM].

3. He must have died in the state of Islam [this exclude all those who became apostate later on]

Hence this definition excludes all those who were hypocrites, including all those who tried to kill Prophet [SAW], during his return from Tabuk. So how does it destroy the sunni concept of “infallibity” of Sahaba? But this type of deception isn’t only restricted to this Najis Rafidhi, rather it is the characteristic of most of their scholars.

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.

Did Ibn Katheer contradict himself? [In defense of Companions of the Prophet PBUH]

October 12, 2010 Leave a comment

Bismillah

All praises due to Allah, and may His peace and blessings be upon Messenger of Allah, his family and companions.

This is in reply to an extremist Rafidhi who consider himself “guided” while he is actually a misguided person. [Rafidhi article] He was known as “toyibonline” on shiachat but he unregistered that id for some unknown reason, but his lies and deceptions are spreaded around shiachat. Now he post at wilayat.net under the id “guided”, but here I’ll refer to him as “misguided” as a title really deserving to him.

This “misguided” thinks that there is a verse in the Qur’an which destroys the sunni concept of “infallibility of Sahaba”. He states:

There is a verse in the Qur’an that destroys the Sunni doctrine of the de facto infallibility of all the Sahabah.

Firstly there is no doctrine of “infallibility of all the Sahaba”, not even of single companion. Sunni simply say that there is not any proof where some companion ever lied while reporting from the beloved Prophet [SAW]. We have companions like Waleed bin Uqbah who is said to have drunk wine, but he never reported any narration which support him or which defends him. Look at Marwan bin Al-Hakam, who was known to commited some crime, he never reported any report which praises him, although he narrated several reports on other topics. Then we have several junior companions who could have narrated some reports which praises them but there is not such thing, except in some cases where the praise actually existed and the meaning did not raise them above their real status. Scholars of Islam analyzed those reports and compared it with other narrations and simple human logic, and finally they concluded that all the companions were truthful while narrating from Prophet [SAW]. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah said:

“None of the companion is known to have attributed a lie, deliberately, to the Messenger of Allah [SAW], even though among them were those who had sins, but in this case Allah saved them from it.” See “Al-Anwar Al-Kashifah” of Allamah Al-Mu’allimi for further on this.

Then the Rafidhi goes on to quote the verse which, according to him, destroys the sunni doctrine of “infallibility of companions”,

[Shakir 48:29] Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those with him are firm of heart against the unbelievers, compassionate among themselves; you will see them bowing down, prostrating themselves, seeking grace from Allah and pleasure; their marks are in their faces because of the effect of prostration; that is their description in the Taurat and their description in the Injeel; like as seed-produce that puts forth its sprout, then strengthens it, so it becomes stout and stands firmly on its stem, delighting the sowers that He may enrage the unbelievers on account of them; Allah has promised THOSE AMONG THEM who believe and do good, forgiveness and a great reward.

If all the Sahabah were righteous, Allah would simply have promised ALL of them, rather than only those AMONG them who believed and did righteous deeds.

It is sad that this “misguided” Rafidhi has very less comprehension skills. This verse is a proof against them, not us. Even the highlighted part is in contrast with them. Here Allah [SWT] was promising them that if they remained believers and keep on doing good works, THEN ALLAH [SWT] WILL FORGIVE THEIR SINS AND WILL GRANT THEM GREAT REWARDS.

According to scholars of Tafsir the “min” used in the verse is not “tab’eedhiyah” (partitive) rather it is an indicator of genus, as said by Al-Qurtubi, Ibn Taymiyyah in “Minhaj As-Sunnah”, Ibn Katheer etc in the commentary of this verse. In simple words all those, who were praised in the verse earlier, are included in it. It is like the verse 30 of Surah Al-Hajj where the same “min” has been used for genus.

فاجتنبوا الرجس من الأوثان

“So avoid the uncleanliness from Idols (worship)”. This is how the meaning of the verse looks like, if we consider “min” to be “tab’idhi”. But here, just like 48:29, it implies the genus i.e., avoid all that which belongs to the category (genus) of idols.

Similarly when one says, ثوب من حرير then it simply means “cloth of silk” and not “cloth from silk” and likewise there are several examples. Refer to Tafsir Al-Qurtabi (16/296) and “Minhaj As-Sunnah” (2/19). In short all those who are being described in the verse are included in the verse.

But even if we accept that “min” there is meant for “tab’eedh”, as considered by Shia mufassir At-Tabtabai, then also it doesn’t contradict sunni concept of “infallibility” of all the companions.  By that it would mean, Allah has promised forgiveness and rewards only to those who (1). would be a believer (2).  and would do righteous deeds. The question arises now: How this “destroys” the sunni concept of de facto “infallibility of Sahaba”? To see the real point one should remember the sunni definition of Sahaba.

Firstly, the term “Sahaba” linguistically includes all those who met him [SAW].

Secondly, in Islamic (or better say Sunni) terminology it means “the one who meet our Prophet (S) while he was a muslim, and he died as muslim” [refer to the books of Mustaleh]. So by this is is clear there are three condition for someone to be included among companions:

  1. He must have found [including blind] Prophet (S) alive [this exclude all those who saw him in dream].
  2. And that should be in state of belief [this exclude all those disbelievers and hypocrites who saw him while they were not actually muslim].
  3. He must have died in the state of Islam [this exclude all those who became apostate later on]

Hence this definition excludes all those who were hypocrites, including all those who tried to kill Prophet [SAW], during his return from Tabuk. So how does it destroy the sunni concept of “infallibity” of Sahaba? But this type of deception isn’t only restricted to this Najis Rafidhi, rather it is the characteristic of most of their scholars.

Then the misguided Rafidhi quotes the statement of Imam Malik, quoted by Ibn Katheer in which he declared, “according to this Ayah, he who is enraged by the Companions is a disbeliever”. And Ibn Katheer, further said that this was the view of several other scholars. Then on, the “misguided” Rafidhi goes on to show the supposed contradiction of Ibn Katheer on this. He quotes narrations talking about the incident when some hypocrites tried to kill the Prophet [SAW] when he was returning from Tabuk but they failed. He consider this to be a fatal contradiction of Ibn Katheer. But we have already provided the proof that Munafiqun aren’t considered among Sahaba at the first place, so I don’t see any need to stretch this more.

The Rafidhi says:

This is a horrible self-Takfir by Ibn Kathir. If you asked Shi’as, they would tell you that they hate ONLY the hypocrites among the Sahabah. Now, does Ibn Kathir love those hypocrites?

Had it been the case there wouldn’t have been such a disagreement among Shia and Sunnis. To sunnis a ‘hypocrite’ (the type which we are discussing here) is the one who is out of the fold of Islam and according a verse of Qur’an he is even worse than a Mushrik. So how can we include them in the category of Sahaba? Yes they are, linguistically, Sahaba but that is not what we mean when we use this term. Just like linguistically, “Hadith” means “a talk” or “new thing”, but when we use this term generally it means “the statement, action, agreement, incident or anything related to Prophet (S)”. Now, another cult known as “Hadith Rejectors” use the verses, where the term “Hadith” has been used in linguistic sense, to discredit authenticity of Hadith. So both these cult possess similar disease.

“Their hearts are all alike” [2:118]

Then this Rafidhi “misguided” made a sub-heading “WHO WERE THOSE TWELVE HYPOCRITES?”. As though after such a long time Hz Hudhaifa [RA] exposed the secret, which was told to him by Prophet [S]. Any sane person would think that he is going to provide a solid evidence to prove his point. But the only thing he did was to quote Ibn Hazm and he totally relied on Ibn Hazm, even though Ibn Hazm said what he said to show the fabrication in the report.

First let me quote the Rafidhi, he said:

WHO WERE THOSE TWELVE HYPOCRITES?

This is where the main issue lies. Ibn Hazm, a recognized Sunni scholar, in his Muhalla 11/224 states:

وأما حديث حذيفة فساقط لأنه من طريق الوليد بن جميع وهو هالك ولا نراه يعلم من وضع الحديث فإنه قد روى أخبارا فيها أن أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان وطلحة وسعد بن أبي وقاص رضي الله عنهم أرادوا قتل النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وإلقاءه من العقبة في تبوك وهذا هو الكذب الموضوع

Al-Walid ibn Jami’ narrated many reports, some of which state that Abubakr, Umar, Uthman, Talha, and Sa’d ibn Abi Waqas, may Allah be pleased with them, attempted to murder the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, by pushing him over from al-Aqabah during Tabuk. This is a fabricated lie.

The sad reality for Sunnis is that Walid is trustworthy, and is one of the narrators of Sahih Muslim! Ibn Ma’in has declared him thiqah while other rijalists like Imam Ahmad and Abu Hatim said there was no problem with him.

So, the reports are authentically transmitted.

Apparently, Sunnis love these very hypocrites who attempted to murder the Holy Prophet (pbuh).

Even more than themselves.

Recently I saw the article of bro Abu Ali Effendi refuting this particular claim of this “misguided” Rafidhi. The brother said:

Hadith would be accepted as saheeh, if it suits to some conditions. Best and shortest definition was given by ibn Salah (rahimuhullah) which said: “A sahih hadith is the one which has a continuous isnad, made up of reporters of trustworthy memory from similar authorities, and which is found to be free from any irregularities (i.e. in the text) or defects (i.e. in the isnad).”

From the very beginning we would ask. Where the chain of this hadith? Ibn Hazm only said that this hadith came from the way of Walid ibn Jamia. He didn’t recorded complete chain in his book. Walid ibn Jamia, that’s Walid ibn Abdullah ibn Jamia al-Koofe az-Zuhre. He narrated from Ibrahim Nakhai, which was born in 50 year h. Let us accept that this Walid died in second age of hijra. Ibn Hazm himself died in 456 h. There are hundred years between ibn Hazm and Walid ibn Jamia. In brief this hadith has no chain, not from Walid till someone who would be witness of that alleged attempt of assassination, neither from Walid till ibn Hazm.

Second. Even if this narration would have connected chain from anyone from companions till ibn Hazm, it still would be rejected. And the reason is very simple, no matter how this dajal guided accused us  (in his other article, see screen shot), that we depend only on authenticy of chain, we also looking for text of hadith. And this one would be extremely odd and rejected, because it’s contradicts to mutawater ahadeth regarding Islam and merits of mentioned companions.

Source: Claim: Companions tried to kill prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam)

There is another point which should be considered. Ibn Hazm was not accusing Al-Waleed bin Jami’ of fabrication, rather he was notifying that Ibn Jami’ was not even aware of the one who fabricated it. This part was not translated by the Rafidhi even though it exists in the same line he quoted.

The gist of the matter is:

  1. This particular report indicated by Ibn Hazm doesn’t exist in any book, according to my knowledge, and even bigoted Rafidhis couldn’t find this.
  2. Ibn Hazm knew this type of narration, but in what exact form, we do not know. In any case, he declared this to be a lie and fabrication and cursed the one who fabricated it. (He didn’t accuse Ibn Jami’ of fabricating it).
  3. It is also possible that Ibn Hazm was so satisfied of the text being lie that he didn’t even bother to do in-depth study of the Isnad. Therefore it is possible that there existed liar or unknown narrators below Ibn Al-Jami’. We cannot  be certain unless we see the full Isnad of the narration.
  4. Regardless of Isnad, the text remain a lie. This is because when a text, even if narrated by good narrators, contradicts established facts through Tawatur (Ma’nawi or Lafzi) then it is rejected unless there remains a way of reconciliation between both. There are abundant reports praising Abu Bakr and Umar, many of them were said by our beloved Prophet (SAW) before his death.

و صلي الله و سلم علي نبينا محمد و علي اله و صحبه

Authenticity of the Hadith: “Follow Abu Bakr and Umar after me”

December 24, 2009 4 comments

Bismillah

All praises due to Allah. And may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon His Messenger and his family and companions.

This is recorded by Imam Tirmidhi in his “Sunan” [Al-Manaaqib, manaaqib Abu Bakr and ‘Umar]

حدثنا الحسن بن الصباح البزار أخبرنا سفيان بن عيينة عن زائدة عن عبد الملك بن عمير عن ربعي هو ابن حراش عن حذيفة قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم “اقتدوا بالذين من بعدي أبي بكر وعمر”
Narrated by Hudhaifa (ra), he said: Prophet (saw) said, “follow those after me: Abu Bakr and Umar.”

Imam Tirmidhi said, narrated to us Hasan b. Sabbaah, reported to us Sufiyan bin Uyaina, from Zaa’ida, from Abdul Malik bin ‘Umair, from Raba’ee b. Haraash, from Hudhaifa (ra) …hadith…

Dr. Bashshaar Awwad said in his Tahqeeq of in the tahqeeq of above hadith: Humaidy (449), Musnad Ahmed (5/382), Sharh Mushkil al-Aathaar (1226, 1227, 1228, 1229), Baghwi (3895).

This hadith has also been recorded by Ibn Sa’d (2/334), Tahawi in “Sharh Mashkil al-Aathaar” (1229), Baghwi (3893) without having the name of Zaa’idah in the Sanad. [Tahqeeq Sunan Tirmidhi (6/43), h-3662]

Tirmidhi said : and this hadith has also come through Sufiyan Thawri, from Abdul Malik b. ‘Umair, from servant of Raba’ee, from Raba’ee, from Hudhaifa.

Regarding this, Dr. Bashshar Awwad said: This has been recorded by Ibn Sa’d (2/334), Ibn Abi Shaiba (12/11), Ahmed (5/385, 402), Ibn Majah (97), Faswi in “Al-Ma’riah wa At-Tareekh”(1/480), Ibn Abi Aasim in “As-Sunnah” (1048), Tahawi in “Sharh Mushkil” (1224), Al-Hakim (3/75), Khateeb in “Tareekh” (4/347). [See Tahqeeq Tirmidhi by Bashhar Awwaad, vol.6, page-43,44]

In another narration the name of servant of Raba’ee is mention.
Tirmidhi said: “this has also narrated by Ibraheem b. Sa’d, from Sufiyan Thawri, from Abdul Malik bin ‘Umair, from Hilaal slave of Raba’ee, from Raba’ee, from Hudhaifa.”

This is recorded by Bukhari in his “At-Tarikh Al-Kabeer” (8/no. 2741), Al-Faswi in “Al-Ma’rifah” (1/480), Ibn Abi Aasim (1149), Tahawi in “Sharh Mushkil Al-Aathar” (1230, 1231, 1232) [See “Tahqeeq Tirmidhi” by Bashhar Awwaad, vol.6, page-43,44]

As it is clear that all the above mentioned chain goes back to a common narrator Abdul Malik bin ‘Umair, and he is Thiqah (trustworthy) [“Taqreeb” (2/364. no.4200), “Al-Meezan” (2/660, no.5235)]. But he is also a well known ‘mudallis’, i.e. one who used to hide the narrator in the sanad with ambiguous words (but not necessarily everytime).
And in the above routes sometimes Abdul Malik narrates from Hilal servant of Raba’ee, and sometime he narrates directly from Raba’ee. This cause very few scholars to declare this hadith to be unauthentic (e.g. Ibn Hazm). However they were wrong and major scholars said otherwise, as we’ll see insha Allah.
As for the Tadlees of Abdul Malik, then one should keep in mind that its not necessary that all the narrations of a Mudallis is Tadlees. Abdul Malik might have heard this narration from both Hilaal and Raba’ee, as he had seen even great companions like Ali b. Abi Talib and his hearing from Raba’ee is proven. On the other hand its also possible that this narration is really a Tadlees, and Abdul Malik hide the narrator Hilal from the Sanad. If he has heard this from Raba’ee then the narration would be Sahih. And if Abdul Malik heard this from Hilaal then also the Sanad would be atleast Hasan. This is because Hilaal is “Maqbool” according to Ibn Hajar, [Taqreeb 2/576] meaning his narration should be acted upon in case if there are other chain to support it. And there are many chain to support this as shown below.

[Note that Abdul Malik is not the only narrator who has narrated this from Hilaal servant of Raba’ee, but also Mansur narrate this from Hilaal, as in “Sharh Al-Mushkil” ]

This hadith has many support from other chains and other narrations, narrated from different companions. Also the matan (content) of this hadith is sound.

This same hadith of Hudhaifa (ra) also come through another route, other than those which contain Abdul Malik b. ‘Umair.

حدثنا سعيد بن يحيى بن سعيد الأموي أخبرنا وكيعٌ عن سالم أبي العلاء المرادي عن عمرو بن هرم عن ربعي بن حراش عن حذيفة قال: – “كنا جلوسا عند النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال إني لا أدري ما بقائي فيكم، فاقتدوا بالذين من بعدي وأشار إلى أبي بكر وعمر

Tirmidhi said: narrated to us Sa’eed b. Yahya b. Sa’eed Al-Amwi, (he said) reported to us Wakee’ b. Jarraah, from Saalim Abil ‘Alaa Al-Muraadi, from ‘Amr bin Haram, from Raba’ee b. Haraash, from Hudhaifa, he said:
“We were sitting near Prophet (saw), so he said: “I don’t know how much I will remain among you. So follow among those.” And he indicated towards Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.

Recorded by Ibn Sa’d (2/334), Ahmed in his “Musnad” (5/399), and in “Fadha’il As-Sahaba” (479), Tahawi in “Sharh Al-Mushkil” (1233), Ibn Hibbaan (6902) [See Tahqeeq Tirmidhi by Bashhar Awwaad, vol.6, page-45]

In the chain above, Salim Al-Muradi Abul ‘Ala is weak according to Ibn Mu’een and Nasa’i. Abu Hatim said: his hadith should be written. And Tahawi, Ibn Hibban and Al-‘Ijli declared him thiqah. [See “Tahdheeb” by Ibn Hajar (3/440,441)]
Ibn Hajar said: He is Maqbool. [“Taqreeb”(2180)]meaning his hadith should be accepted when supported by other routes.

So this route also support the early narration and vice versa, as it is well known fact in ‘Ilmul Hadith that a weak chain, when its weakness is not much severe, support other weak sanad of the same hadith. This is known as Mutabi’ah.

However besides Saalim Abul ‘Alaa Al-Muraadi, another narrator narrates this hadith from ‘Amr bin Haram.
Ibn Adi narrates through the chain of Hammaad b. Daleel from ‘Amr b. Haram from Raba’ee from Hudhaifa similarly. [Ibn Adi in “Al-Kamil” 2/250]
Hammad bin Daleel is Sadooq according to Ibn Hajar. [“Taqreeb” (1/178, no.1497)] According to Dhahabi, he is Thiqah. [“Al-Kashif” (1/349, no.1218)] Ibn Mu’een said: Thiqah, nothing bad with him. Ibn Junaid said about him: Thiqah. Ibn ‘Ammar also consider him Thiqah. Abu Dawud said: There is no problem with him. Ibn Hibban counted him amongst Thiqaat in his book “Ath-Thiqaat”. Ibn Abi Hatim narrates from his father, that he (Hammaad) is Thiqah. [See “Tahdheeb At-Tahdheeb” (3/8)]. Also see “Tahreer Taqreeb” [1/1497]
Although Al-Azdi consider him among weak narrators, but his saying is not hujjah because, its against majority of scholars and Jarh of Azdi is not mufassar, it doesn’t say why Hammad is weak. And in these cases these type of Jarh are not accepted as it opposes majority of views without any reason.
So we see Hammaad b. Daleel also support Saalim Abul ‘Alaa Al-Muradi. Therefore, the narration of Saalim from ‘Amr and Hammaad from ‘Amr, from Raba’ee make us certain about the authenticity of the narration by Abdul Malik b. ‘Umair (from Hilaal) from Raba’ee from Hudhaifa. In conclusion, there are sufficient support for the hadith of Hudhaifa.

However there are lots of other:

[1] Ibn Mas’ud

اقتدوا باللذين من بعدي من أصحابي؛ أبي بكر وعمر واهتدوا بهدي عمار وتمسكو بعهد ابن مسعود

“Follow those after me, among my companions, Abu Bakr and Umar. And be guided through the guidance of Ammar, and stick to the advice of Ibn Mas’ud”

[Tirmidhi (3805) Bashshar Awwaad, Tabrani in “Al-Kabeer” (8426), and in “Al-Awsat” (7173), Ibn ‘Adi in “Al-Kamil” (7/2654), Al-Hakim (3/75-76), Baghwi (3496)]

Allamah Al-Albani said:
— Al-Hakim said, “its sanad (chain of narrator) is Sahih”. Dhahabi refuted him by saying, “rather its sanad is ‘wah’ (weak)”. And it is clear from the saying of Tirmidhi, “we are not aware of this accept through Yahya b. Salama b. Kuhail and he has been declared weak in hadith”
I (Al-Albani) say: “In fact he is “Matrook” (abandoned) as said by Ibn Hajar and similarly his son Isma’eel and his son Ibraheem all are weak. And there is another route (‘turq) for this narration of Ibn Mas’ud related by Ibn ‘Asakir (1/323/9) from Ahmed bin Rushd bin Khaitham from Humaid bin Abdur-Rahman from Hasan bin Saleh from Firas bin Yahya from Shu’bi from ‘Alqama bin Qais from Abdullah bin Mas’ud, without mentioning of second part of the hadith (about Ammaar and ibn Mas’ud).
I (Albani) say: The narrator are all “Thiqah” except Ahmed (bin Rushd) and I am not aware of him.—
[“Silsilah As-Saheeha” (3/233) hadith-1233. Daarul Ma’arif, Riyadh]

[2] Anas bin Maalik

Al-Albani said:
—hadith of Anas bin Malik is narrated by Hammad bin Daleel from Umar bin Nafe’ from ‘Amr bin Haram, he said: I and Jabir bin Zaid entered Anas bin Malik, so he said Prophet [saw] said…alhadith…
It is recorded by Ibn ‘Adi (1/72) through Muslim bin Saleh Abu Rajaa’ from him (Hammaad bin Daleel).—
[Ibid.]

[3] Ibn ‘Umar

Allamah Albani said:
—And the Hadith of Ibn ‘Umar is narrated through Ahmed bin Saleeh ibn Waddaah, reported to us Muhammad bin Qatn, reported to us Dhu Nun, reported to us Maalik bin Anas, from Nafe’ from him (Ibn Umar) without the second part. Recorded by Ibn ‘Asakir (2/323/9) in this way. And Ahmed bin Saleeh, Dhahabi said in “Al-Meezan”: Ahmed bin Saleeh from Dhu Nun Al-Misry from Maalik (..same hadith..). (Dhahabi said) This is incorrect. And Ahmed is not to be depended upon.
…..(Albani said) and this is also narrated through Muhammad bin Abdullah Al-‘Umri Al-Madani from Malik similarly. This is recorded by Ibn ‘Asakir. As for Al-‘Umr then Ibn Hibban said about him: “it is not correct to take him as Hujjah”. —-
[Ibid.]

Meaning of the Hadith is proven

There are many other narrations which support this meaning. One of them is that which is qouted by Shaykh Shu’aib Al-Arna’ut in the tahqeeq of Musnad to support this hadith. This is a part of a long hadith…
“So if you had obeyed Abu Bakr and Umar, you would have gone on the right path”
[Sahih Muslim (Book #004, Hadith #1450) english]

Scholars who declared this hadith to be authentic

Great scholars have declared the narration of Hudhiafa to be authentic. Some of them are as follows:

[1]. Muhammad bin ‘Eesa Al-Tirmidhi
He declared this narration “Hasan” in his “Sunan”. [Sunan Tirmidhi, Al-Manaaqib, vol.6, page-43,44. Hadith- 3662. Tahqeeq Bashshaar Awwaad, Daar ul-Gharb Al-Islami, Beirut]

[2] Imam Adh-Dhahabi
He said in Tareekh Al-Islam :
وقال زائدة، عن عبد الملك بن عمير، عن ربعي، عن حذيفة قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: ” اقتدوا بالذين من بعدي أبي بكر وعمر ” . ورواه سالم أبو العلاء – وهو ضعيف – عن عمرو بن هرم، عن ربعي، وحديث زائدة حسن
“And Zaa’idah said, from Abdul Malik bin ‘Umair, from Raba’ee, from Hudhaifa, he said: Prophet [saw] said: “Follow among those after me, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.” And narrated Saalim Abul ‘Alaa –and he is weak- from ‘Amr bin Haram, from Raba’ee. And hadeeth by Zaa’idah is Hasan.” [Tareekh Al-Islam (3/257), Daar Ul-Kutub Al-Arabi Beirut]

[3] Abu ‘Abdullah Al-Hakim
He declared this hadith to be “Sahih” in his “Al-Mustadrak” [(3/80), Daar Ul-Kutub Al-`Arabi Beirut]

[4] Abu Ja’afar Al-‘Uqailee
He this hadith good proven (jayyid thabit) in his book Ad-Du’afa (1649) .
عن بن عمر قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم اقتدوا بالأميرين بعدي أبي بكر وعمر رضي الله عنهما حديث منكر لا أصل له من حديث مالك وهذا يروى عن حذيفة عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بإسناد جيد ثابت
“Narrated Ibn ‘Umar, Messenger of Allah, (SAW) said: Follow the two leaders after me, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. (Abu Ja’far said) This hadith is munkar, not proven from the hadith of Malik. And this is narrated by Hudhaifa from Prophet (SAW) with a good and proven chain.” [Adh-Dhu’afaa (4/95), Daar Ul-Kutub Al-‘Ilmi Beirut]

[5] Ibn Hajar Al-‘Asqalani
He declared this hadith to be “Hasan” in his book “Muwafiqah Al-khubr Al-Khabar[(1/143,144), tahqeeq. Hamdi Abdul Majeed and Subhi As-Samirani, Maktaba Ar-Rushd Riyadh]

[6] Nasirud Deen Al-Albani
He declared this “Sahih”.
[Sahih Al-Jami’As-Sagheer (1/254), no. 1142, 1143, 1144. Al-Maktaba Al-Islami]
Silsila As-Saheeha [(3/233), no. 1233, Daarul Ma’arif, Riyadh]

[7] Shu’aib Al-Arna’ut etc
He declared “Hasan li ghairihi” [Tahqeeq Musnad (38/281), no. 23245, Mu’assasah Ar-Risala]

[8] Abu Hafs Ibn Mulaqqin Ash-Shafa’i (d.804 H)
He declared this Hadith “Hasan” in his book “Al-Badrul Muneer” [(9/578), Hadith- 16, Daar Ul-Hijrah, Riyadh]. And later on he discredit the view of Ibn Hazm where he declared this hadith to be weak.

[9] Abdur Rahman bin ‘Umar Al-Jawrqani
He declare this hadith to be “Sahih” in his book “Al-Abateel wa Al-Manakeer” (Kitab Al-Fada’il, Khilafah Abu Bakr, Hadith-132)

[10] Abu Hatim Ibn Hibbaan Al-Busti
He included this hadith in his “Saheeh” as referenced above.

[11] Muhammad bin ‘Ali Ash-Shawkani
He declared this hadeeth to be “Saheeh”. [See “Irshad Al-Fuhul” [(1/221), Daarul Kutub Al-‘Arabi]

Wassalamu’alaikum

Ahlus-Sunnah

Contact: ahlussunnah.moin@gmail.com


Categories: Hadeeth Tags: , , , , , ,