Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Sunni’

Washing of the feet in Wudu : Answering shi’i contentions

October 15, 2015 Leave a comment

Bismillah

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)

1. Regarding the interpretation of the verse of Wudu

2. Regarding narrations related to washing and wiping of feet.

 

 

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

August 31, 2014 Leave a comment

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

 

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

Its narrators are as follow:

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

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

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

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

Categories: Hadeeth Tags: , , , , ,

Ibn ‘Abbas and Mut’ah (Temporary marriage)

June 7, 2014 3 comments

Bismillah

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

 

OPINION OF IBN ‘ABBAS REGARDING TEMPORARY MARRIAGE

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

REACTION OF COMPANIONS AGAINST THE VIEW OF IBN ‘ABBAS

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

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

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

In Sahih Muslim it is like this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Few examples of unintentional textual alteration in the books of hadith

Bismillah

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

An addition in the published copies of Sunan Ibn Majah

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

RULING ON THE HADITH AS A WHOLE

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

 

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

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

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

 

‘ALI BIN ABI TALIB: THE BEST JUDGE

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

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

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

 

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

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.

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: , , , , , ,

Prophet’s wives were among Ahlul Bayt

December 24, 2009 2 comments

Bismillah
All praises due to Allah.

وَقَرْنَ فِي بُيُوتِكُنَّ وَلَا تَبَرَّجْنَ تَبَرُّجَ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ الْأُولَى وَأَقِمْنَ الصَّلَاةَ وَآَتِينَ الزَّكَاةَ وَأَطِعْنَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنْكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيرًا

[33:33]


And stay in your houses and do not display your finery like the displaying of the ignorance of yore; and keep up prayer, and pay the poor-rate, and obey Allah and His Apostle. Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a (thorough) purifying.”

According to correct opinion of Ahlus Sunnah scholars, the above verse revealed regarding the wives of the Prophet [SAW] but “Ahlal Bayt” (People of the House) also includes other relatives of the Prophet [saw].

But according to shia view, the red part of the verse revealed specifically for five personalities only, viz., 1. Fatima [ra] 2. Ali [ra] 3. Hasan [ra] [4] Husain [ra] 5. Nine descendents of Husain [ra].

To support their claim they give many arguments. One of their argument is that the red part of the verse uses masculine gender.
However this is a weak argument because these type of gender change are not new for Quran. Quranic arabic is very rich and many times goes against the modern arabic grammer. Just take a simple example, while talking to the wife of Ibrahim [as], angels also used the same masculine gender.

قَالُوا أَتَعْجَبِينَ مِنْ أَمْرِ اللَّهِ رَحْمَةُ اللَّهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ عَلَيْكُمْ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ إِنَّهُ حَمِيدٌ مَجِيدٌ
[11:73]
They said: Do you wonder at Allah’s bidding? The mercy of Allah and His blessings are on you, O people of the house, surely He is Praised, Glorious.

As we see here also, the Quran calls the wife of Ibrahim [as] Ahlal Bayt, and that while using the musculine gender in sentence.
The verse say “salamun ‘alaikum ahlal bayt“, and the “kum” is the same term which is used in 33:33, and is a masculine term.

Now let me give an exact example from Hadith where Prophet [saw] used masculine gender while referring to his wives as “Ahlal Bayt”.

It is mention in Sahih Muslim, Book of Marriage..

قال أنس: وشهدت وليمة زينب. فأشبع الناس خبزا ولحما. وكان يبعثني فأدعوا الناس. فلما فرغ قام وتبعته. فتخلف رجلان استأنس بهما الحديث. لم يخرجا. فجعل يمر على نسائه. فيسلم على كل واحدة منهن “سلام عليكم. كيف أنتم يا أهل البيت؟” فيقولون: بخير. يا رسول الله ! كيف وجدت أهلك ؟ فيقول “بخير” فلما فرغ رجع ورجعت معه. فلما بلغ الباب إذا هو بالرجلين قد استأنس بهما الحديث. فلما رأياه قد رجع قاما فخرجا. فوالله ! ما أدري أنا أخبرته أم أنزل عليه الوحي بأنهما قد خرجا. فرجع ورجعت معه. فلما وضع رجله في أسكفة الباب أرخى الحجاب بيني وبينه. وأنزل الله تعالى هذه الآية: {لا تدخلوا بيوت النبي إلا أن يؤذن لكم} [33 /الأحزاب/ الآية 53] الآية http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/D…Doc=1&Rec=3288

Translation of the relevant part is…
Anas said: I also saw the wedding feast of Zainab, and he (the Holy Prophet) served bread and meat to the people, and made them eat to their heart’s content, and he (the Holy Prophet) sent me to call people, and as he was free (from the ceremony) he stood up and I followed him. Two persons were left and they were busy in talking and did not get out (of the apartment). He (the Holy Prophet) then proceeded towards (the apartments of) his wives. He greeted with as-Salamu ‘alaikum to every one of them and said: Members of the household, how are you?? They said: Messenger of Allah, we are in good state ‘How do you find your family? He would say: In good state. http://www.searchtruth.com/book_disp… ber=3328#3328

Here Prophet [saw] greeted his wives as “Assalamu’alaikum. Kaifa antum ya Ahlal Bayt“. The blue parts in the sentence represent masculine gender. Hence, we see Prophet [saw] used the masculine sentence while greeting to his wives. Use of masculine gender in the above hadith doesn’t change the fact that Prophet was referring to his wives not any other members of his family.

The point here is Quranic arabic is very rich and modern arabic grammer doesn’t cover all aspects of it. We can’t just distort the context of Quran, just because it uses the masculine gender while talking to feminine, whose usage is proven for feminine by the way in the arabic books.

Now the following are some narrations which prove without doubt that Wives of the Prophet [saw] were among Ahlal Bayt…

Hazrat Aisha did consider herself among Ahlal Bayt:

35 – (1995) وحدثنا زهير بن حرب وإسحاق بن إبراهيم. كلاهما عن جرير. قال زهير: حدثنا جرير عن منصور، عن إبراهيم. قال:
قلت للأسود: هل سألت أم المؤمنين عما يكره أن ينتبذ فيه؟ قال: نعم. قلت: يا أم المؤمنين! أخبريني عما نهى عنه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أن ينتبذ فيه. قالت: نهانا، أهل البيت، أن ننتبذ في الدباء والمزفت http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/D…Doc=1&Rec=4760

Ibrahim reported: I said to Aswad if he had asked the Mother of the Believers (in which utensils) he (the Holy Prophet) disapproved the preparation of Nabidh. He (Aswad) said: Yes. I said: Mother of the Believers, inform me about the utensils in which) Allah’s Apostle forbade to prepare Nabidh. She (Hadrat ‘A’isha) said: He forbade us, the members of his family [Ahlal Bayt], to prepare Nabidh in gourd, or varnished jar. I said to him: Do you remember green pitcher, and pitcher? He said: I narrated to you what I have heard; should I narrate to you which I did not hear? [Sahih Muslim http://www.searchtruth.com/book_disp… ber=4918#4918]

Note- Ahlal Bayt in bracket is by me as a transliteration of what is present in arabic source.

Prophet (pbuh) called Aisha (ra) “Ahli Baytee” (my family) on pulpit, during the incident of Ifk:

فقام رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فاستعذر يومئذ من عبد الله بن أبي ابن سلول، فقالت: فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وهو على المنبر: (يامعشر المسلمين، من يعذرني من رجل قد بلغني أذاه في أهل بيتي، فوالله ما علمت على أهلي إلا خيرا، ولقد ذكروا رجلا ما علمت عليه إلا خيرا، وما كان يدخل على أهلي إلا معي  http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/D…Doc=0&Rec=6951

“…So Allah’s Apostle got up (and addressed) the people an asked for somebody who would take revenge on ‘Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul then. Allah’s Apostle, while on the pulpit, said, “O Muslims! Who will help me against a man who has hurt me by slandering my family? By Allah, I know nothing except good about my family, and people have blamed a man of whom I know nothing except good, and he never used to visit my family except with me,”
Sahih Bukhari- http://www.searchtruth.com/book_disp…mb er=274#274

Wassalamu’alaikum