Refutation of the book "Ali: the best of the Sahabah" of Toyib Olawuyi (p.1-159)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


  • *****
  • Total likes: 255
  • +11/-0
  • یا مقلب القلوب ثبت قلبی علی دینک
    • Refuting Shia allegations everywhere
  • Religion: Sunni
By Muhammad Moin

Recovered from:

Continued on this thread:'ali-the-best-of-the-sahabah'-of-toyib-olawuyi/


I'll be touching few points for now.

1. It starts with the discussion on Hadeeth al-Qadha. Toyib quotes this hadith from Ibn Majah and also the authentication of scholars. I say: This hadith with the addition of "the best judge among you is 'Ali" is not present in Ibn Maja's manuscripts as stated by Shaykh Arnaut in Tahqeeq of Ibn Majah (1/107). He also said: This is present in published version and the Sharh of As-Sindi. I say: The addition is obviously a mistake. Many scholars have copied this hadith without this addition. Even Shaykh Al-Albani when discussed the hadith of Ibn Majah in his "As-Saheeha" he did not show any indication of the addition. 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. Hafiz Sakhawi discussed the hadith al-Qadha in Al-Maqasid al-Hasanah but did not reference Ibn Majah as its source. There could be many proof for this. But this is enough.

2. Toyib (pg.6) quoted this hadith i.e. "The best judge among you is Ali" from Majma' az-Zawaid as a tradition of Jabir bin Abdullah, and that Al-Haythami said that it was reported by At-Tabrani in Al-Mu'jam al-Kabeer and declered it Hasan. Toyib made a remark that this hadith had gone missing after the time of Al-Haytami the autheor of As-Sawa'iq al-Muharrqah. I say: this hadith was never present in Al-Awsat, rather it is in Al-Mu'jam as-Sagheer (556). Hafiz Al-Haythami did a mistake when he attributed it to Al-Awsat and who was coppied by Faqih Al-Haytami. Otherwise he has attributed it to both As-Saghir and Al-Awsat. In any case Mindal bin Ali in Isnad is weak.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2017, 09:07:36 PM by MuslimK »
در خلافت میل نیست ای بی‌خبر
میل کی آید ز بوبکر و عمر
میل اگر بودی در آن دو مقتدا
هر دو کردندی پسر را پیشوا

عطار نِیشابوری | |


  • *****
  • Total likes: 255
  • +11/-0
  • یا مقلب القلوب ثبت قلبی علی دینک
    • Refuting Shia allegations everywhere
  • Religion: Sunni
As far as Hadith al_Qada is concerned these are several points:

1- Some authentic versions say "And the most knowledgeable of them in Halal and Haram is Mu`adh" meaning, he has more knowledge than `Ali, if they wish to quote this Hadith it is a Hujjah upon them.

2- The Hadith has many virtues for other companions, do the opponents accept that the most merciful of this nation is Abu Bakr and that Ubay is better in recitation than `Ali? If `Ali was truly appointed by God then can it be that any other member of society is better than him in the Qur'an?

3- Ibn Tayymiyah accepts that this narration is attributed to `Umar, not to the Prophet (saw), this should be mentioned.

4- Being the best in "judgement" can simply mean that the individual is better in settling disputes, this requires several qualities like intellect, diplomacy, good listener, good understanding, patience, wisdom ect... In other words it may not necessarily mean that the best judge is the most knowledgeable.

5- The best in judgement can be a good Khalifah, but not necessarily the best Khalifah, Abu Bakr was described in the narration as being the most merciful towards the nation, this to me is more important than being a "good judge".

6- Several narrations can be found where one Sahabi or Tabi`ee describes another of having extreme knowledge.

7- Ahlul-Sunnah have no issue if `Ali was to be the most knowledgeable, knowledge alone does not determine the status of a man in the sight of Allah. On the day if judgement we will see simple ignorant men having superiority over scholars and judges and reaching a higher rank in heaven.
در خلافت میل نیست ای بی‌خبر
میل کی آید ز بوبکر و عمر
میل اگر بودی در آن دو مقتدا
هر دو کردندی پسر را پیشوا

عطار نِیشابوری | |


  • *****
  • Total likes: 255
  • +11/-0
  • یا مقلب القلوب ثبت قلبی علی دینک
    • Refuting Shia allegations everywhere
  • Religion: Sunni
Muhammad Moin

^ Alot of scholars consider this hadith to be Mursal of Abu Qilabah. Among them Hafiz Daarqutni, Khateeb, Ibn Abdul Barr, Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul Hadi. Al-Albani also retracted his authentication as mentioned by Mashhoor Hasan. Only the part which says "Abu Ubaidah is the Ameen of this Ummah" is connected all other things were declared to be Mursal. This also seems to be the view of Bukhari as he has only reported the part which speak of Abu Ubaydah in his sahih from this sanad of Khalid from Abu Qilabah from Anas. And Allah knows best.

2. Toyib (pg.6) quoted this hadith i.e. "The best judge among you is Ali" from Majma' az-Zawaid as a tradition of Jabir bin Abdullah, and that Al-Haythami said that it was reported by At-Tabrani in Al-Mu'jam al-Kabeer and declered it Hasan. Toyib made a remark that this hadith had gone missing after the time of Al-Haytami the autheor of As-Sawa'iq al-Muharrqah. I say: this hadith was never present in Al-Awsat, rather it is in Al-Mu'jam as-Sagheer (556). Hafiz Al-Haythami did a mistake when he attributed it to Al-Awsat and who was coppied by Faqih Al-Haytami. Otherwise he has attributed it to both As-Saghir and Al-Awsat. In any case Mindal bin Ali in Isnad is weak.

Mindal bin Ali is weak. While reading the treatise of Ibn Abdul Hadi in his Majmo ar-Rasail (pg. 64-65) i found that he said: The  burden of this hadith is on Muhammad bin Al-Waleed who was Ibn Aban al-Qalanisi al-Baghdadi mawla of Bani Hashim and he was a liar. Hafiz Ibn 'Adi said: He would fabricate hadith, and would attribute it to prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam), and also steal (narrations), and mix up Isnad..... till all the Jarh.
So even if Al-Haythami called it Hasan it is not actually Hasan. These kind of mistakes are many in the book of Hafiz Haythami.
در خلافت میل نیست ای بی‌خبر
میل کی آید ز بوبکر و عمر
میل اگر بودی در آن دو مقتدا
هر دو کردندی پسر را پیشوا

عطار نِیشابوری | |


  • *****
  • Total likes: 255
  • +11/-0
  • یا مقلب القلوب ثبت قلبی علی دینک
    • Refuting Shia allegations everywhere
  • Religion: Sunni
2. Toyib (pg.6) quoted this hadith i.e. "The best judge among you is Ali" from Majma' az-Zawaid as a tradition of Jabir bin Abdullah, and that Al-Haythami said that it was reported by At-Tabrani in Al-Mu'jam al-Kabeer and declered it Hasan. Toyib made a remark that this hadith had gone missing after the time of Al-Haytami the autheor of As-Sawa'iq al-Muharrqah. I say: this hadith was never present in Al-Awsat, rather it is in Al-Mu'jam as-Sagheer (556). Hafiz Al-Haythami did a mistake when he attributed it to Al-Awsat and who was coppied by Faqih Al-Haytami. Otherwise he has attributed it to both As-Saghir and Al-Awsat. In any case Mindal bin Ali in Isnad is weak.

What supports this fact is that Al-Haythami himself in Majma’a Al-Bahrain fi Zawa’id Al-Mu’jamain 6/418 mentions this narration via a single chain that is the same chain that exists in the modern version of Al-Mu’jam Al-Sagheer. He does not include another chain.

Furthermore, Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, in Al-Talkhees Al-Habeer, mentions the path of Jabir that Al-Haythami has quoted and indicated clearly that Al-Tabarani mentioned it in Al-Mu’jam Al-Sagheer. He makes no mention of it being in Al-Mu’jam Al-Awsat. More importantly, Ibn Hajar died in the year 852 AH, and is therefore a predecessor of Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami, which means that the non-existence of the narration in Al-Mu’jam Al-Awsat has been established before Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami.
در خلافت میل نیست ای بی‌خبر
میل کی آید ز بوبکر و عمر
میل اگر بودی در آن دو مقتدا
هر دو کردندی پسر را پیشوا

عطار نِیشابوری | |


  • *****
  • Total likes: 255
  • +11/-0
  • یا مقلب القلوب ثبت قلبی علی دینک
    • Refuting Shia allegations everywhere
  • Religion: Sunni
Muhammad Moin

3. On pg.4 he quotes another tradition which is the same tradition of Anas and it contains the word "And the best judge among you is Ali". He quotes it from Zawaid Ibn Hibban which was compiled by Al-Haythami. This is present in that book but the additional wording is not present in the actual book by Ibn Hibban from where the Zawaid were compiled. So most probably it is a mistake in copying. Few points will make it more clear:
In the published Ibn Hibban (which is actually the tarteeb done by Ibn Balban al-Farisi from the original book) Imam Ibn Hibban has made coment on the hadith and said that these description were made with the hazaf of "min". He repeats the wording by adding min to each description of companions mentioned in the narration, but did not mention the addition regarding Ali. Here is what he said under hadith no. (7131):

قَالَ أَبُو حَاتِمٍ: هَذِهِ أَلْفَاظٌ أُطْلِقَتْ بِحَذْفِ الْـ "مِنْ" مِنْهَا يُرِيدُ بِقَوْلِهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: "أَرْحَمُ أَمَّتِي" أَيْ: مِنْ أَرْحَمِ أُمَّتِي وَكَذَلِكَ قَوْلُهُ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: "وَأَشَدُّهُمْ فِي أَمْرِ اللَّهِ" يُرِيدُ: مِنْ أَشَدِّهِمْ ومن أصدقهم حياء ومن أقرأهم لِكِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَمِنْ أَفْرَضِهِمْ وَمِنْ أَعْلَمِهِمْ بِالْحَلَالِ وَالْحَرَامِ يُرِيدُ أَنَّ هَؤُلَاءِ مِنْ جَمَاعَةٍ فِيهِمْ تِلْكَ الْفَضِيلَةُ وَهَذَا كَقَوْلِهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لِلْأَنْصَارِ: "أَنْتُمْ أَحَبُّ النَّاسِ إِلَيَّ", يُرِيدُ مِنْ أَحَبِّ النَّاسِ مِنْ جَمَاعَةٍ أُحِبُّهُمْ وَهُمْ فيهم

Secondly, Ali Muttaqi Al-Hindi quotes this hadith in Kanzul 'Ummal and reference Ibn Hibban as one of its source but did not mention the part regarding Ali being best Judge, although he did listed this wording in the hadith of Jabir and Abu Sa'eed. If this wording had been there in Ibn HIbban then Ali Muttaqi would have quoted it in Kanz.
Thirdly, a lot of scholars have done takhrrej on this hadith of Ali being best judge but they do not mention the hadith of Abu Qilabah from Anas as its source neither in the book of Ibn Hibban nor in any book of Hadith. ALthough they do mention other hadith like that of Jabir and Abu Sa'eed and others.
Fourthly, the hadith of Abdul Wahhab Ath-Thaqafi from Khalid from Abu Qilabah from Anas has been narrated by many scholars like Tirmidhi and others but they do not mention this Isnad.

All these factors indicates that the part of the narration under discussion was never in Sahih of Ibn HIbban, rather it is a mistake by the author of Mawarid az-Zamaan or the copyist. And Allah knows best

4. On page 7 he has quoted the narration of Ibn 'Umar from Sahih Jami as-Saghir along with the authentication of Shaykh Al-Albani. Firstly I must say that in some of the abridged books of Shaykh Al-Albani the way of ruling on hadith is weird according to me. In Sahih al-Jami he ruled on the hadith of Ibn 'Umar that it is authentic while in As-Saheehah (3/224) he pointed out the weakness in the hadith of Ibn 'uMar, although he declared the hadith as a whole authentic. And in Sahiha the part which he declared to be authentic based on support does not contain the portion under discussion, i.e. Ali is the best judge. So basically in Sahih al-Jami' he declared the hadith as whole to be authentic due to various Shawahid but the portion "the best judge among them is Ali" has been declared weak by him in As-Sahiha. So what is explained and clear should be given priority over that which is unexplained and unclear.
Note: - Shaykh Albani finally ruled out the whole hadith to be weak as said previously.

After the discussion on the ruling of Shaykh Albani let us get back to the analysis of Isnad. Now Toyib has quoted the narration of Ibn 'Umar. It was related by Ibn Adi in Al-Kamil under the entry of Kawthar bin Hakeem. Kawthar relates it from Nafi' from Ibn 'Umar.

Ibn Abdul Hadi said: This narration is Batil in this form and the burden is on Kawthar, for scholars have weakened him and abandoned him. ABdullah bin Imam Ahmad said: Kawthar is nothing. His narrations  are falsehood... More than one people have narrated from Ibn Ma'een that he said: Kawthar was nothing. Abu Hatim and Abu Zur'ah said: He was weak in hadith... Bukhari and Darqutni said: Munkar al-Hadith...till all criticism.

There is another route for it. Abu Ya'la has narrated it. It contains Muhammad bin Harith al-Harithi and Muhammad bin Abdur-Rahman al-Bilmani both of whom were unreliable as described by Hafiz Ibn Abdul Hadi in his Juz.

Summarizing the evidences given by Toyib to prove the authenticity of the hadith al-Qadha:
1. Hadith of Abu Qilabah from Anas: The part regarding Ali does not exist in it. Relying on a mistake Toyib wasted his time proving the isnad authentic.
2. Hadith of Jabir: It contains Muhammad bin Waleed who was highly unreliable.
3. Hadith of Ibn 'Umar: It contain several weak narrators the weakness of whom are to such extant that they cannot be taken for support.

Next time I will inshaALlah discuss some other routes which Toyib did not bring.

The hadith of Al-Qadha has also been reported as a hadith of Abu Mihjan ath-Thaqafi. It contains Abu Sa'eed al-Baqqal. Hafiz Ibn Abdul Hadi said in his treatise: Abu Sa'eed al-Baqqal's name is Sa'eed bin Mirzban. Scholars have weakned him with different rulings... Ibn Abi Maryam and Abbas Ad-Duri narrate from Ibn Ma'een that he said. "He is nothing." Ibn Abi Maryam adds in his report, "His narrations are not to be written." Al-Falas said, "He was Da'eef al-Hadith, Matrook al-Hadith." While Abu Zur'ah said, "He was slightly weak in hadith and a mudallis." He was asked, "Was he truthful?" He said, "yes, he did not lie." Abu Hatim said, "His narrations are not to be taken as Hujjah." Bukhari said, "Munkar al-Hadith." Nasai said, "weak" and another time he said, "He was not reliable and his reports are not to be written."

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani said: he did not meet Abu Mihjan. [Al-Isabah (7/299)] I say: he died after 140 AH. This is something interesting about Al-Baqqal and probably that is what Abdullah bin Mubarak indicated in a report. Ibn Mubarak was asked regarding him that did he know him. He replied: Yes by Allah I know him. He is the person of very high Isnad. I narrated to him from Abdul Kareem AL-Jazari from Ziyad bin Abi Maryam from Abdullah bin Mughaffal from Ibn Mas'ud that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said, "Feeling regret is repentence". So he dropped me, Abdul Kareem and Ziyad and narrates from Abdullah bin Mughaffal. {juz of Ibn Abdul Hadi]

Another  report which Ibn Abil Fawaris narrates in his Amali which ineterestingly also contain the praise of Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan (ra). It contain a liar and two weak narrators. Liar is 'Amr bin Subuh, and the two weak narrators are Basheer bin Zadhaan and Abdur-Raheem bin Waqid as described by Ibn Abdul Hadi.

There is a Mursal tradition of Hasan Basari which also contain the word on Ali being best Judge. It was recorded by Ibn Abdul Barr in Al-Istai'ab and Ibn Abdul hadi attributes it to Al-Hulwani. this is mursal and Maraseel of Hasan Basari are considered worse kind of Maraseel as he narrates from all kind of narrators.

However the part "The best judge among us is Ali" is proven as a statement of Umar bin Khattab (ra) as reported by Bukhari and others. Toyib was trying to falsify Ibn Taymiyyah's statement while Ibn Taymiyyah was referring to this report as a saying of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam). Otherwise Ibn taymiyyah has himself affirmed it as a statement of Umar.

From page 8 onwards Toyib talks about statements of Sahaba regarding Ali (ra) being the best judge. He goes on discussing the Isnad of statement of Umar in length while giving the reference of Sahih Bukhari would have been sufficient for it. He also quoted a similar statement of Ibn Mas'ud then tried to portray as though these statements necessitate superiority of Ali (ra) over other Sahaba.

I say: Ibn Taymiyyah has discussed this in detail and the rafidhi, considering his work to be a refutation of Ibn Taymiyyah, should have dealt with it. In short the Qadha here is referring to resolving disputes of people. Basically Qadha is related to two types of issues: First when two parties are in fight like when a group claim something on the other group. So this need analysis based on witnesses and other things. Second is when two groups do not oppose each but they only want to know the islamic ruling regarding what they deserve or what not like their share in inheritance etc. So it is the first type which is said regarding Ali (ra) and this is not a criteria to be the best as compared to others otherwise if we count Qadha of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alaahii wa sallam) then it would not even reach ten judgement as compared to his ruling regarding Halal and Haram which is the basis of the religion.

Related to this is a narration narrated by Umm al-Mumineen Umm Salamah (ra) that the Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said, "You people present your case to me and some of you may be more eloquent in presenting his argument. So if I give someone's right to another because of the latter's presentation of the case then I am really giving him a peice of fire; so he should not take it." [Agreed upon]

This was the argument presented by Ibn Taymiyyah. Besides, as Toyib has also quoted the statement of Ibn Mas'ud that we used to say that the best Judge among people of Madinah is Ali. The isnad is good but it weakens the argumet of shi'i more than it strengthen it. It is well known that Abdullah bin Mas'ud used to consider other Khulafa superior than Ali. In fact he said explicitly that Uthman (ra) was the best of them after the death of 'Umar (ra).

Ibn Mas'ud's love for Umar is well famous. For example: Ibn Abi Shaibah and Tabrani relates through Zaidah from Abdul Malik bin Umair fro Zaid bin Wahb that Ibn Mas'ud said, "Umar was the most knowledgeable of us about Allah, the most learned of us regarding the book of Allah and most knowledgeable regarding the religion of Allah." It is also authentically proven as reported by Ibn Abi Shaibah, Tabrani in Al-Kabeer and Hakim that Abdullah used to say, "I really think that if the knowledge of Umar is placed in one side of the balance and knowledge of all the living people in the other side then the side of Umar will proved to be weighty." A'amash considered it an exaggresion and compalined to Ibrahim Nakh'i to which Ibrahim said, "What are you so shocked about. Abdullah has said even greater statement about Umar. He has said "I believe has gone with the nine out of ten parts of knowledge."

Ibn Mas'ud also said as reported by Tabrani, Ibn Abi Shaibah: Whenever I see Umar it appears as though there is an angel between his eyes to guide or correct him."
This is regarding Umar, as for Uthman then it has been reported by Ahmad in Fadhail, Ibn Sa'd, Fasawi, Tabrani, Ibn Battah in Al-Ibanah al-Kubrah and others that Ibn Mas'ud said among his companions, "We the companions of Muhammad gathered and selected over us the best of us (i.e. Uthman)." This is also authentically proven.
So if being the best judge would necessitate being the best as a whole then Ibn Mas'ud would not be considering Umar and Uthman as best of all. They knew what they were speaking of unlike Rawafidh who misrepresent any statement they feel going against them.

Similarly if being the best of judge would mean the best of all in all then why Umar did not indicated only to Ali (ra) during his last time. Rather he selected six people.  A person at his death bed would hardly speak lie. And if really wanted to hide facts he would have totally avoided Ali as he avoided his brother-in-law Sa'eed bin Zaid and no one would have objected to that great Caliph.

Note:- Some variant of the hadith of Ibn Masud regarding Ali being the best judge has the wording: We used to say the best of people of Madinah was Ali. It has been reported in Fadhail as-Sahabah of Ahmad and Musnad Bazzar. I say: There seems to be some mistake and the actual "aqdha ahlal madina" has been changed to "Afadhala ahlal madina". It could have been done by either some narrator who has some weakness or it is a mistake of a copyist. The former seems to be the case with Fadhaill as-Sahaba while the latter with Bazzar. And Allah knows best. I have some detail regarding it but it is irrelevant here. Some people like Mahmud Sa'eed Mamduh, in Ghayat at-Tabjeel, use it to show that Ibn Mas'ud considered Ali to be best of all the companions including Abu Bakr and Umar, that is why I notified it.

As it was my personal observation it could have been doubted but recently I found Ibn Abdul Barr also considered it a mistake while the wording "Aqdha ahl al-Madinah" to be correct. It is in Al-Istidhkar (14/242) under Kitab al-Jihad
« Last Edit: September 18, 2017, 08:36:34 PM by MuslimK »
در خلافت میل نیست ای بی‌خبر
میل کی آید ز بوبکر و عمر
میل اگر بودی در آن دو مقتدا
هر دو کردندی پسر را پیشوا

عطار نِیشابوری | |


  • *****
  • Total likes: 255
  • +11/-0
  • یا مقلب القلوب ثبت قلبی علی دینک
    • Refuting Shia allegations everywhere
  • Religion: Sunni

Bismillahi rahmani rahim.

I am Abdullah Efendi, slave of Allah, in contrast to misguided rafidi, starting my work with the name of Allah.

Toyib  Olawuyi said at page (2 of preface): “The question of who the best of the Ṣaḥābah, raḍiyallāh ‘anhum, was has always been a thorny issue within the Ummah, especially among the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamā’ah. Even the Saḥābah disputed with one another over the topic. Specifically, the debate often revolves around Abū Bakr and ‘Alī,‘alaihi al-salām, only. It is very difficult to see anyone - whether Sunnī or Shī’ī – arguing that ‘Umar, ‘Uthmān, Ṭalḥah, Zubayr or some other Ṣaḥābī– was the best of the Ṣaḥābah. Rather, the exact point of contention is, and always was: was Abū Bakr their best or ‘Alī? Expectedly, most of the Ahl al-Sunnah consider Abū Bakr to have been the best of the Ṣaḥābah, then ‘Umar, then ‘Uthmān, and then ‘Alī. By contrast, the Shī’ah believe that Amīr al-Mūminīn ‘Alī was the best, then al-Ḥasan, then al-Ḥusayn, and then Sayyidah Fāṭimah, ‘alaihim al-salām. There is a minority among Sunnīs –including some Ṣaḥābah and a lot of Ṣūfīs – who share the Shī’ī view on the matter.” (end of quote)

I say: Praise to Allah, protector of honest people, this rafidi lied in the very beginning of his book.

Agreement on superiority of Abu Bakr.

Ahle-sunna wal Jamaat - Islamic nation since time of companions till our time, agreed upon fact, that Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) was the best man in this nation after the prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam)! Since when it became “thorny issue” amongst Islamic nation?

Opinion of companions:

Imam al-Bukhari narrated in his “Saheeh” from ibn Umar: “We were choosing between people in the time of the messenger of Allah (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam), so we choose Abu Bakr, then Umar then Usman, may Allah be pleased with them all.” At-Tabarani added in “al-Kabir”, and the prophet knew it, and didn’t deny[1].
Amir al Muminum Umar ibn Al-Khattab said: “Best man in this nation after prophet is Abu Bakr. And whoever will say other than this is a slanderer. And upon him what required upon slanderer”[2].
Ibn Asaker narrated from Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him: “We, the gathering of the companions of prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam), while we were considerable numbers, used to say: The best of this nation after prophet is Abu Bakr, then Umar then Usman, and then we kept silence”[3].
At-Tabarani narrated in “al-Awsat” that Ammar ibn Yasir said: “Whoever preferred anyone of the companions of the messenger of Allah (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) upon Abu Bakr and Umar, indeed has belittled muhajiroon and ansaar”[4].

« Last Edit: September 18, 2017, 09:10:19 PM by MuslimK »
در خلافت میل نیست ای بی‌خبر
میل کی آید ز بوبکر و عمر
میل اگر بودی در آن دو مقتدا
هر دو کردندی پسر را پیشوا

عطار نِیشابوری | |


  • *****
  • Total likes: 255
  • +11/-0
  • یا مقلب القلوب ثبت قلبی علی دینک
    • Refuting Shia allegations everywhere
  • Religion: Sunni

Last we stopped was the confessions of the Sahaba at page 8, brother Moin may Allah bless him wrote about this section and I too shall add, to confirm that the best judge may not necessarily be the best man alive. The Rafidhi narrated from `Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) that: "The best judge is `Ali and the best reciter of Qur'an is Ubay."

Aside from the fact that an average Sahabi recites the Qur'an better than `Ali who is divinely appointed according to them. I say `Umar bin al-Khattab said in Jami` al-Tirmithy in an authentic narration:

حَدَّثَنَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ الْجَوْهَرِيُّ ، حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيل بْنُ أَبِي أُوَيْسٍ ، عَنْ سُلَيْمَانَ بْنِ بِلَالٍ ، عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ عُرْوَةَ ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ ، عَنْ عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ ، قَالَ : " أَبُو بَكْرٍ سَيِّدُنَا وَخَيْرُنَا وَأَحَبُّنَا إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ " . قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى : هَذَا صَحِيحٌ غَرِيبٌ

From `Umar bin al-Khattab that he said: "Abu Bakr is our master and the best of us, and the most beloved of us to the Prophet of Allah (saws)." abu `Isa al-Tirmithy said: "Sahih Ghareeb."

Also in the narration of abu Sa`eed al-Khudari in Sahih al-Bukhari:

حدثني عبد الله بن محمد حدثني أبو عامر حدثنا فليح قال حدثني سالم أبو النضر عن بسر بن سعيد عن أبي سعيد الخدري رضي الله عنه قال خطب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم الناس وقال إن الله خير عبدا بين الدنيا وبين ما عنده فاختار ذلك العبد ما عند الله قال فبكى أبو بكر فعجبنا لبكائه أن يخبر رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عن عبد خير فكان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم هو المخير وكان أبو بكر أعلمنا فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أن من امن الناس على في صحبته وماله أبا بكر ولو كنت متخذا خليلا غير ربى لا تخذت أبا بكر خليلا ولكن أخوة الإسلام ومودته لا يبقين في المسجد باب الأسد إلا باب أبى بكر

In a narration, from abu Sa`eed: [The Prophet (saws) delivered a sermon and told us: "Allah has given a choice to a slave, between the worldly life and between what he has, and the slave chose what Allah has." So Abu Bakr cried and we all found his crying to be strange, why cry about a slave who was given a choice? However the salve turned out to be the Prophet (saws) and Abu Bakr was the most knowledgeable of us...]

Here abu Sa`eed (ra) declares Abu Bakr (ra) as the most knowledgeable. Add to this the fact, that Abu Bakr (ra) never narrated anything from `Ali (ra) but `Ali (ra) narrated prophetic narration from Abu Bakr (ra), this shows that `Ali (ra) never knew everything and that he had to take some knowledge from his senior.

`Umar bin al-Khattab also narrates with a Sahih chain:

عن عمر رضي الله عنه لو وزن إيمان أبي بكر بإيمان هذه الأمة لرجح به

[If the faith of Abu Bakr was measured against the the faith the nation, his faith would have outweighed them.]

Ibn Hajar, al-`Iraqi, al-Sakhawi, al-`Ajlouni and others authenticated it.

In the next chapter, the Rafidhi quotes the saying of `Ali (ra) in which he says "Ask me, for there is not a verse or a a Sunnah that I do not know about."

He said that no one would have such confidence to make a such a claim. I say: similar claims have been made, such as:

`Urwah ibn al-Zubayr (rah) would tell them:

حدثنا سفيان بن عيينة عن عمرو، قال: قال لنا عروة: إيتوني، فتلقوا مني

[Suffiyan ibn `Uyaynah from `Amro, `Urwah would tell us: "Come to me, and take knowledge from me."]

Source: Tareekh Yahya bin Ma'een 1/103.

Suffiyan al-Thawri used to say:

حدثنا عبد الرحمن نا أبو عبد الله الطهراني نا عبد الرزاق قال كان الثوري يقول: سلوني عن المناسك والقرآن فاني بهما عالم

[`Abdul-Rahman, from abu `Abdullah al-Tahrani, from `Abdul-Razaq, that al-Thawri used to say: "Ask me about the rites and the Qur'an for I am knowledgeable about them."]

Source: al-Jarh wal-Ta`deel 1/117.

`Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr (ra) would say:

أخبرنا أبو بكر محمد بن عبد الباقي أنا أبو محمد الجوهري أنا أبو عمر بن حيوية أنا أحمد بن معروف أنا الحسين بن الفهم نا محمد بن سعد أنا الفضل بن دكين نا أبو سعيد بن عوذ البراد المكي نا محمد بن المرتفع قال سمعت ابن الزبير يقول يا معشر الحاج سلوني فعلينا كان التنزيل ونحن حضرنا التأويل

[... Muhammad bin al-Murtafi` said: I heard ibn al-Zubayr say: "Ask me O pilgrims, because the revelation descended on us and we witnessed the interpretation.]

Source: Tareekh Dimashq 28/168.

In fact if you gather statements of knowledge of such individuals in the time of `Ali and before him, for example:

وقال عَبْد اللَّهِ بْن إدريس، عَنْ عمه، عَنِ الشعبي: أحدثك عَنِ القوم كأنك شاهدهم كَانَ شريح أعلم القوم بالقضاء، وكَانَ عبيدة يوازي شريحا فِي علم القضاء

[`Abdullah bin Idris said, from his uncle, from al-Sha`bi: I will tell you of the folks as if you lived among them: Shurayh bin al-Harith was the most knowledgeable in judgement, and `Ubaydah is equal to Shurayh in his knowledge of judgement.]

Even `Ali ibn abi Talib (ra) praised Shurayh al-Qadi, when he was near his death, he told him:

اذهب فأنت أقضي العرب

[Go, for you are the best of judges among the Arabs.]

Thus placing him above his own son al-Hasan bin `Ali (ra).

`Amro bin Dinar from abu al-Sha`tha' Jabir that he said:

عَمْرو بْن دينار، عَنْ أبي الشعثاء جابر بْن زيد البصري أتانا زياد بشريح فقضى فينا سنة لم يقض فينا مثله قبله ولا بعده

[Ziyad brought us Shurayh, so he judged between us for one year like no one else did before or after him.]

And there is more to come.

Notes on Toyib’s crappy book:

1- Hadith ar7am umati bi’umati is weakened by Ibn Abdulhadi.
2- Narration on page 51 is mansookh according to Nawawi.
3- Samura was in Basra (p.52), and wasn’t hiding alcohol in his house.
4- Saheeh al-Isnaad to the narrator, but it is mursal, so it is weak. (131)
5- Mursal 161. Toyib lies about there being no disconnection.
6- Bullshit chain. 190

Detailed Response to Hadith Al-Qada’a (p. 1):

Ibn Taymiyyah did indeed make a mistake in saying that the narration cannot be found in the six books. He also made a mistake in saying that the narration can be found in the narrations of liars, for as Toyib has demonstrated, it can be found in chains that are free from liars.

However, the hadith is not authentic.
حدثنا أبو العباس محمد بن يعقوب ، حدثنا العباس بن محمد الدوري قال : ثنا قبيصة بن عقبة ، عن سفيان ، عن خالد الحذاء أو عاصم ، عن أبي قلابة ، عن أنس قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : « أرحم أمتي أبو بكر وأشدهم في دين الله عمر ، وأصدقهم حياء عثمان وأقرأهم أبي بن كعب ، وأعلمهم بالحلال والحرام معاذ بن جبل ، وإن لكل أمة أمينا ، وإن أمين هذه الأمة أبو عبيدة » قال أبو عبد الله : وهذا من نوع آخر علته ، فلو صح بإسناده لأخرج في الصحيح ، إنما روى خالد الحذاء ، عن أبي قلابة أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : « أرحم أمتي » ، مرسلا وأسند ، ووصل : « إن لكل أمة أمينا ، وأبوعبيدة أمين هذه الأمة » هكذا رواه البصريون الحفاظ ، عن خالد الحذاء ، وعاصم جميعا ، وأسقط المرسل من الحديث وخرج المتصل بذكر أبي عبيدة في الصحيحين

Al-Hakim said:

Abu Al-Abbas Mohammad bin Ya’qoub narrated to us from Al-Abbas bin Mohammad Al-Duri, he said: Qabeesa bin Uqba narrated to us, from Sufyan, from Khalid Al-Hatha’a or Asim, from Abi Qilaba, from Anas, that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him said), “The most merciful of my Ummah is Abu Bakr, and the most severe in religion is Omar, and the most truthful in shyness is Uthman, and Ubai is the one that reads (the Qur’an) the most, and Mu’ath is the most familiar with the Halal and Haram, and each Ummah has someone that is the most trustworthy, and for this Ummah it is Abu Ubaida.” Abu Abdullah (Al-Hakim) said: If this was authentic, it would’ve been in the Saheeh, but it has a defect, and was narrated from Khalid Al-Hatha’a, from Abi Qilaba, that the Messenger (peace be upon him said), “The most merciful upon my Ummah,” in a connected and a disconnected manner. While, the portion that says, “Each Ummah has someone that is the most trustworthy, and for this Ummah it is Abu Ubaida,” has been narrated in a connected manner. This is how the Hufath from Basra narrated it from Khalid and Asim. The disconnected part has been dropped, while the connected part that includes Abu Ubaida was included in the Saheehain.

Al-Khateeb Al-Bahdaadi in Al-Fasl lil Wasl says:
ولم يكن أبو قلابة يسند جميع المتن وإنما كان يرسله غير ذكر أبي عبيدة وحده فإنه كان يسنده عن أنس عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم روى ذلك عن خالد الحذاء عن أبي قلابة إسماعيل بن علية مبينا مفصلا وميز السمند من المرسل بعد أن ساقه سياقة واحدة ورواه حماد بن زيد ومعمر بن راشد ذكر أبي عبيدة وكذلك رواه أبو قحذم النضر بن معبد عن أبي قلابة عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم مرسلا
Abu Qilaba didn’t attach the full text, but used to narrate it in a disconnected manner, except for the part about Abu Ubaida, for he narrated that from Anas from the Prophet (peace be upon him). Isma’eel bin Ulaya narrated that specifically and clearly from Khalid Al-Hatha’a from Abi Qilaba. Hammad bin Zaid and Ma’amar bin Rashim also mentioned Abu Ubaida, and so did Abu Qahtham Al-Nadhar bin Ma’abad from Abi Qilaba from the Prophet (peace be upon him) in a disconnected manner.

Al-Albani at first held the opinion that this narration was authentic in his Silsila Al-Saheeha, but then, returned and accepted the opinions of the early scholars that the narration is disconnected after being shown the study of Mashhoor Al-Salman in his book Dirasat Hadith Arham Umati bi Umati Abu Bakr (see p. 8).

Furthermore, even if one assumed that the narration is authentic, which it isn’t, it still implies Ali is inferior to other companions when it comes to other merits. 

It should be noted that the scholars of Ahlulsunnah place objectivity above the subjective desires. We accept that statements in praise of the judgment of Ali can be correct attributed to Omar and Ibn Mas’ud, however, we do not attribute this incorrectly to the Prophet (peace be upon him), even if it means that the merits of the other companions that are mentioned in the hadith are also to be rejected.

On pages 6-7, Toyib quotes the same hadith, through Jabir Al-Ansari, in which Al-Haythami and Ibn Hajr Al-Haytami both attribute it to Al-Mu’jam Al-Awsat. He then states:
In modern prints of Al-Mu’jam Al-Awsat of Imam Al-Tabarani (d. 360 AH), this hadith, unfortunately, is no longer present!

He then adds:
It has gone missing in the same Al-Awsat after the time of Al-Haytami.

I say: There is no foul play, but rather, a mere error on part of Al-Haythami. The narration is to be found in Al-Mu’jam Al-Sagheer and not Al-Awsat. It is Al-Haythami’s habit to mention all the sources in which he has found his hadiths in his Majma’a Al-Zawa’id. However, he has only mentioned Al-Awsat and not Al-Sagheer. This shows that he has made a mistake and quoted the wrong source.
What supports this fact is that Al-Haythami himself in Majma’a Al-Bahrain fi Zawa’id Al-Mu’jamain 6/418 mentions this narration via a single chain that is the same chain that exists in the modern version of Al-Mu’jam Al-Sagheer. He does not include another chain.
Furthermore, Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, in Al-Talkhees Al-Habeer, mentions the path of Jabir that Al-Haythami has quoted and indicated clearly that Al-Tabarani mentioned it in Al-Mu’jam Al-Sagheer. He makes no mention of it being in Al-Mu’jam Al-Awsat. More importantly, Ibn Hajar died in the year 852 AH, and is therefore a predecessor of Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami, which means that the non-existence of the narration in Al-Mu’jam Al-Awsat has been established before Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami.

Once again, no foul play has occurred here, and the narration is to be attributed to Al-Sagheer and not Al-Awsat, and those that have done otherwise have erred.
در خلافت میل نیست ای بی‌خبر
میل کی آید ز بوبکر و عمر
میل اگر بودی در آن دو مقتدا
هر دو کردندی پسر را پیشوا

عطار نِیشابوری | |


  • *****
  • Total likes: 255
  • +11/-0
  • یا مقلب القلوب ثبت قلبی علی دینک
    • Refuting Shia allegations everywhere
  • Religion: Sunni
Muhammad Moin

Ibn Taymiyyah did indeed make a mistake in saying that the narration cannot be found in the six books. He also made a mistake in saying that the narration can be found in the narrations of liars, for as Toyib has demonstrated, it can be found in chains that are free from liars.

I don't think so. The narration is indeed absent in any of the six books or Musnad Ahmad. It is also not present in Sahih Ibn Hibban. What toyib brought were all based on mistakes in print or by scribes. WAllahu A'alam

As brother Efendi has replied to the portion regarding Tafdheel I want to add that I left it intentionally because it will consume time. The reason is because this issue has two parts to discuss:

1. Bringing evidences to prove that Abu Bakr and Umar  and then Uthman were superior than Ali, may Allah be pleased with them all. This was done by brother Efendi.

2. Discussion on views attributed to some of the companions who held different views. Like it is said that Abu Hurairah preferred Ja'far over all, and Abu Dharr, Ammar, Buraidah and many other preferred Ali over all. Later on some held Sayyidah Fatima superior than all the companions, while Ibn Hazm considered Sayyidah Khadija and Sayyidah 'Aisha to be superior than even Abu Bakr and Umar. Ibn Abd al-Barr preferred silence and it is said he preferred those who died during the lifetime of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) like Hamza, Ja'far, Mus'ab etc. Such views were mentioned by Ibn Hazm in Al-Fisal, Ibn Abd al-Barr in Al-Istidhkar, Abul Hasan in Maqalat and some Mu'tazalites in their compilations. But many could be found to be weak attribution. So to answer there is need of collecting all those narrations based on which these scholars attributed these views to them. This is a difficult task and I don't think anyone have done this even in arabic compilations. Although I could be wrong. Besides this is not the theme of Toyib's book. Insha Allah we will soon have a comprehensive response on this topic.

در خلافت میل نیست ای بی‌خبر
میل کی آید ز بوبکر و عمر
میل اگر بودی در آن دو مقتدا
هر دو کردندی پسر را پیشوا

عطار نِیشابوری | |


  • *****
  • Total likes: 255
  • +11/-0
  • یا مقلب القلوب ثبت قلبی علی دینک
    • Refuting Shia allegations everywhere
  • Religion: Sunni

Umm Ayman or Barakah, who raised the Prophet (saws) since he was a small kid, until he freed her, when `Umar (ra) passed away she said:

حدثنا أبو أسامة عن سفيان عن قيس بن مسلم عن طارق بن شهاب قال : قالت أم أيمن لما قتل عمر ؛ اليوم وهى الإسلام

[Abu Usamah told us, from Suffiyan, from Qays bin Muslim, from Tariq bin Shihab that he said: Umm Ayman said when `Umar was killed: "Today, Islam has weakened."]

Chain is authentic, Ibn abi Shaybah #31978.

Qubaysah ibn Jabir, the top Faqih of the people of Kufa, and one of the commanders of `Ali's (ra) army at Jamal, he said about `Umar (ra):

حدثنا حسين بن علي عن زائدة قال : قال عبد الملك : حدثني قبيصة بن جابر قال : ما رأيت رجلا أعلم بالله ولا أقرأ لكتاب الله ولا أفقه في دين الله من عمر

[Husayn bin `Ali told us, from Za'idah that he said: `Abdul-Malik said: Qubaysah bin Jabir told me: "I have not seen a man who has, more knowledge of Allah, or recited the book of Allah, nor more knowledgeable in the religion of Allah than `Umar.]

Abu Talhah al-Ansari (ra), one of the warriors of Badr, and from the twelve chosen on the night of `Aqabah, said about `Umar (ra):

حدثنا أبو خالد الأحمر والثقفي عن حميد عن أنس قال : قال أبو طلحة يوم مات عمر : ما أهل بيت حاضر ولا باد إلا وقد دخل عليهم نقص

[abu Khalid al-Ahmar and al-Thaqafi told us, from Humayd, from Anas that he said: Abu Talhah said on the day `Umar died: "There isn't a household of dwellers or travelers unless they now feel emptiness."]

And these three are all authentic testimonies from valuable people.

Sa`d ibn abi Waqqas (ra) whom they called "The warrior of Islam", he witnesses every battle alongside the Prophet (saws), and was his maternal uncle said about `Umar (ra):

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بِشْرٍ , قال : حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَمْرٍو , قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو سَلَمَةَ بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ , قَالَ : قَالَ سَعْدٌ : " أَمَا وَاللَّهِ ، مَا كَانَ بِأَقْدَمِنَا إِسْلَامًا وَلَا أَقْدَمِنَا هِجْرَةً وَلَكِنْ قَدْ عَرَفْتَ بِأَيِّ شَيْءٍ فَضَلَنَا كَانَ أَزْهَدَنَا فِي الدُّنْيَا يَعْنِي عُمَرَ بْنَ الْخَطَّابِ

[Muhammad bin Bishr told us, Muhammad bin `Urwah told us, abu Salamah bin `Abdul-Rahman told us, Sa`d said: "By Allah `Umar was not the earliest from among us to embrace Islam but I know how he bested us, he had the most Zuhd when it came to this world."]

Which is also authentic.

There are also authentic narrations of praise for him by ibn Mas`oud (ra) and Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman (ra) but I'll leave those aside for now.

Also the Hadith of Muhammad ibn `Ali, when he was asked about Abu Bakr (ra):

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ إدْرِيسَ ، عَنْ أَبِي مَالِكٍ الْأَشْجَعِيِّ ، عَنْ سَالِمٍ ، قَالَ : قُلْتُ لِابْنِ الْحَنَفِيَّةِ : " أَبُو بَكْرٍ كَانَ أَوَّلَ الْقَوْمِ إسْلَامًا " , قَالَ : " لَا " , قُلْتُ : " مِمَّ عَلَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَبَسَقَ حَتَّى لَا يُذْكَرَ غَيْرُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ " , فَقَالَ : " كَانَ أَفْضَلَهُمْ إسْلَامًا حِينَ أَسْلَمَ حَتَّى لَحِقَ بِاللَّهِ

[`Abdullah bin Idris told us, from abu Malik al-Ashja`ee, from Salim, I said to ibn al-Hanafiyyah: "Abu Bakr was the first to embrace Islam?" He said: "No" I said: "How did Abu Bakr reach such a great status that everyone mentions him?" He said: "He was the best of them in Islam when he embraced it until he returned to Allah."]

I say: He was the first man to embrace Islam not the first person, but notice how this narration and the one before it, "knowledge" is not the only factor to make someone the best person in society. Although we do believe based on evidence that Abu Bakr (ra) was more knowledgeable than `Ali (ra).

Perhaps one of the strongest arguments against the infallibility of Ali is that he would at times change his mind regarding his position towards certain Islamic laws. Such a matter is not a sign of the weakness of his character, or his mind, but rather, it demonstrates his objectivity and modesty. However, one that changes his mind regarding laws is obviously not an infallible since those that are described as such do not change their minds.

In this article, we will list some of the opinions of Ali that he let go off in preference of others. We will be using the book Al-Masa’il Al-Fiqhiya alati Hukiya fiha Rujoo’ Al-Sahaba by Khalid Babtain as our main reference. This book uses Sunni sources only and does not use Shia sources. For the sake of this article, we will only be quoting the authentic narrations of these opinions. For those that are interested in the contradictions of the Imams, please refer to Al-Tusi’s Istibsaar for a plethora of contradictions.

On p. 111, he said:
Al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated in their Saheeh, from Ata’a bin Yasar that Zaid bin Khalid Al-Juhani told him that he asked Uthman bin Affan: What if a man had intercourse with his woman and did not excrete semen? Uthman replied: He makes wud’u like one would make wud’u for prayer, then he washes his private parts. Uthman said: I heard this from the Messenger (salalahu alaihi wa salam). He said: So I asked Ali, Al-Zubair, Talha, and Ubai bin Ka’ab and they ordered to do the same. (Al-Bukhari 1/284 and Muslim 1/270)

However, Ali then changes his mind. On p. 114 we find the following narrations:
Abu Ja’afar (Al-Baqir) from Ali that he used to say: Upon it is the Hadd, but not a Qadah of water?! (Musannaf Abdulrazaq 1/246)
Note: The narration is disconnected, but we mentioned anyways since it is through the narration of the descendent of Ali, the fifth Imam, Al-Baqir.
Explanation (by TwelverShia): In this narration, Ali is saying that if a man enters a woman, then he is to be punished by Islamic law. If that is the case, how is it possible for someone to not have to wash since bathing is a much smaller deal than being punished?!
The next narration is even clearer. 
From Zir bin Hubaish from Ali that he said: If the private parts meet, then they must bathe. In another narration: If they enter one another… (Musanaf Ibn Abi Shaybah 1/84 and Al-Awsat 2/80)
As we can see from the above, Ali at one stage in his life states that the private parts meeting do not require bathing if one does not excrete semen. However, he changes his opinion in the other narrations.

The next issue is regarding the inheritance of grandfather. On page 423 we find the following narrations:
It is famous that Ali bin Abi Talib (raa) used to give the grandfather along with brothers a third and nothing less, and there are two narrations that suggest this:
1- From Abeeda bin Nadhala that Ali bin Abi Talib used to give the grandfather a third…
2- From Qatada in the hadith of Omar’s (raa) consultation of the Sahaba, he said: Omar bin Al-Khattab called in Ali bin Abi Talib, Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullah bin Abbas, and asked them about the grandfather? Ali said: A third in all cases…” (Musanaf Abdulrazaq 10/226)
His (raa) change in opinion:
It appears as though Ali (raa) has changed his mind, and saw that a grandfather should only be given a sixth and nothing more. Those that mentioned this are four of his companions, Al-Sha’bi, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Abdullah bin Salima, and Abeeda Al-Salmani, may Allah have mercy on them. Ibrahim Al-Nakha’ee also mentioned this in a disconnected report.
These are their narrations:
1- Al-Darami with his chain to Amer Al-Sha’bi that he said: Ibn Abbas wrote to Ali while in Al-Basra that a grandfather and six brothers came. Ali wrote back: Give the grandfather a sixth. (Al-Darimi 2/254)
2- From him as well about six brothers and a grandfather: Give the grandfather a sixth. Al-Darimi said: It seems that this is also his (Al-Sha’bi’s) report from Ali. (Al-Darimi 2/254)
3- From Al-Hasan Al-Basri: Ali would give a grandfather that was with brothers a sixth. (Al-Darimi 2/254)
4- From Abdullah bin Salima from Ali (raa): He used to divide to a grandfather with brothers a sixth. (Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah 6/262)
5- From Abeeda Al-Salmani: Ali used to give a grandfather that had brothers a third, but Omar used to give them a sixth. Omar then wrote to Abdullah: I am afraid that we have taken from the rights of the grandfather, so give him a third! Then, Ali came and gave him a sixth. Abeeda said: When your opinion was with the group, we preferred it more than when it went against the group. (Sunan Al-Bayhaqi 6/407)

The next issue that Ali changed his mind in has to do with his view of Umahaat Al-Awlaad. These are the female slaves that give birth to the children of their slave masters.

On page 462, we find the author collecting narrations of his opinion that one cannot sell them:
1- From Abeeda Al-Salmani from Ali bin Abi Talib (raa) that he told the people: I consulted Omar about the Umahaat Al-Awlaad and we both saw that they should be freed. (Sunan Sa’eed bin Mansoor 2/60)
The author then mentions another narration, but it is not at the level of authenticity of the first one.
He then quoted narrations of his other view:
1- From Abeeda Al-Salmani, he said: Ali said: I debated Omar on selling Umahaat Al-Awlaad. I said: They are to be sold. He said: They aren’t to be sold. Then Omar kept on coming back to me about this until I said the same then judged upon this during his life, but now that things have come to me, I see that they are to be sold. Abeeda said: I told Ali: Your opinion with Omar in agreement is more favorable to me than your opinion alone. (Sunan Sa’eed bin Mansur, Sunan Al-Bayhaqi 10/575, and Musanaf Ibn Abi Shaybah 4/414)

The author mentions the hadith through two other chains with very similar statements from both Ali and Abeeda. All the narrations imply that Ali changed his view more about the subject after he came into power.
These examples clearly show that Ali has changed his mind due to his own Ijtihad. These all imply that Ali saw that his previous views were incorrect, and that the new stances that he took were the correct positions.
Religion = simple and clear.

Im gonna start with the age of jungle justice part InshaAllah, the brothers will follow along and add their own refutations.

The first narration was about the crazy woman, I'll explain this one when I come back from shopping : )

It is basically the narration of Jarir bin Hazim from Sulayman bin Mihran al-A`mash from abu Zibyan from ibn `Abbas. This is the chain for all three or four narrations quoted by Toyib.

There is also in Fada'il al-Sahab of Ahmad, this chain here:

`Affan bin Muslim (Thiqah Thabt) -> Hammad bin Salamah (Thiqah `Abid) -> `Ata' bin al-Sa'ib (Thiqah Li'annahu Sami`a Minhu Qabl al-Ikhtilat) -> Hosayn bin Jundab abu Zibyan (Thiqah Thabt).
أن عمر بن الخطاب أتي بامرأة قد زنت فأمر برجمها ، فذهبوا بها ليرجموها فلقيهم علي فقال : ما لهذه؟ فقالوا : زنت ، فأمر عمر برجمها ، فانتزعها
علي من أيديهم وردهم ، فرجعوا إلى عمر ، فقال : ما ردكم؟ قالوا : ردنا يعني علي ، قال : ما فعل هذا علي إلا لشيء قد علمه ، فأرسل إلى علي : فجاء وهو شبهالمغضب ، فقال : ما لك رددت هؤلاء؟ قال : أما سمعت النبي صلى الله عليهوآله سلم يقول : رفع القلم عن ثلاثة : عن النائم حتى يستيقظ ، وعن الصغير
حتى يكبر ، وعن المبتلى حتى يعقل؟ قال : بلى ، قال علي : هذه مبتلاة بني فلان ، فلعله أتاها وهو بها ، فقال عمر : لا أدري ، قال : وأنا لا أدري ، فلم يرجمها.

Also a similar one in Sunan abu Dawoud:
حَدَّثَنَا هَنَّادٌ ، عَنْ أَبِي الْأَحْوَصِ . ح وَحَدَّثَنَا عُثْمَانُ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ ، حَدَّثَنَا جَرِيرٌ الْمَعْنَى ، عَنْ عَطَاءِ بْنِ السَّائِبِ ، عَنْ أَبِي ظَبْيَانَ ، قَالَ هَنَّادٌ الْجَنْبيُّ ، قَالَ : " أُتِيَ عُمَرُ بِامْرَأَةٍ قَدْ فَجَرَتْ فَأَمَرَ بِرَجْمِهَا فَمَرَّ عَلِيٌّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ فَأَخَذَهَا ، فَخَلَّى سَبِيلَهَا فَأُخْبِرَ عُمَرُ ، قَالَ : ادْعُوا لِي عَلِيًّا فَجَاءَ عَلِيٌّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ ، فَقَالَ : يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ لَقَدْ عَلِمْتَ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ : رُفِعَ الْقَلَمُ عَنْ ثَلَاثَةٍ : عَنِ الصَّبِيِّ حَتَّى يَبْلُغَ ، وَعَنِ النَّائِمِ حَتَّى يَسْتَيْقِظَ ، وَعَنِ الْمَعْتُوهِ حَتَّى يَبْرَأَ ، وَإِنَّ هَذِهِ مَعْتُوهَةُ بَنِي فُلَانٍ لَعَلَّ الَّذِي أَتَاهَا وَهِيَ فِي بَلَائِهَا قَالَ : فَقَالَ عُمَرُ : لَا أَدْرِي ، فَقَالَ عَلِيٌّ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَام وَأَنَا لَا أَدْرِي

And Musnad abi Ya`la:
حَدَّثَنَا زُهَيْرٌ ، حَدَّثَنَا جَرِيرٌ ، عَنْ عَطَاءِ بْنِ السَّائِبِ ، عَنْ أَبِي ظَبْيَانَ ، قَالَ : أُتِيَ عُمَرُ بِامْرَأَةٍ قَدْ فَجَرَتْ ، فَأَمَرَ بِهَا أَنْ تُرْجَمَ فَمُرَّ بِهَا عَلَى عَلِيٍّ فَعَرَفَهَا ، فَخَلَّى سَبِيلَهَا ، فَأُتِيَ عُمَرُ ، فَقِيلَ لَهُ : إِنَّ عَلِيًّا أَخَذَهَا مِنْ أَيْدِينَا فَأَرْسَلَهَا ، فَقَالَ : ادْعُوهُ لِي ، فَأَتَاهُ ، فَقَالَ : لِمَ أَرْسَلَتْهَا ؟ قَالَ : وَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ عَلِمْتُ يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، قَالَ : " قَدْ رُفِعَ الْقَلَمُ عَنْ ثَلاثَةٍ : عَنِ النَّائِمِ حَتَّى يَسْتَيْقِظَ ، وَعَنِ الصَّبِيِّ حَتَّى يَبْلُغَ ، وَعَنِ الْمَجْنُونِ حَتَّى يَبْرَأَ " ، وَإِنَّ هَذِهِ مَجْنُونَةُ بَنِي فُلانٍ ، وَلَعَلَّ الَّذِي فَجَرَ بِهَا أَتَاهَا وَهِيَ فِي بَلائِهَا

To make a short story shorter, the answer is that `Umar bin al-Khattab (ra) did not know she was mentally unstable, her illness isn't that she is completely crazy, but apparently from what they described her in the narrations:

هذه مبتلاة بني فلان (She is the mentally afflicted person of so and so tribe)
هَذِهِ مَعْتُوهَةُ بَنِي فُلاَنٍ (She is the mentally incapable woman of so and so)

Described as "Ma`touha" which is a feminine of "Ma`touh", which is a description of a mental disorder, not necessarily a crazy person whose completely absent minded, which is why in dictionaries such as al-Lugha al-`Arabiyyah al-Mu`asir we read:

ناقص العقل من غير جنون
[Deficiency of intellect without craziness.]

And in Lisan al-`Arab we read:

والمَعْتُوه المَدْهُوشُ من غير مَسِّ جُنُونٍ
[Ma`touh is the dull one without being overcome by craziness.]

This is why `Ali (ra) tells `Umar (ra) in the narration:

فلعله أتاها وهو بها (Maybe he did it to her while she was in this condition)
لَعَلَّ الَّذِي أَتَاهَا وَهِيَ فِي بَلاَئِهَا (Maybe the one who did this to her, did so while she was afflicted)
وَلَعَلَّ الَّذِي فَجَرَ بِهَا أَتَاهَا وَهِيَ فِي بَلائِهَا (And maybe the one who did adultery with her came when she was in her affliction)

MEANING, this person is sometimes afflicted in this state and at other times she appears to be sane. This is a very common and popular condition. `Umar (ra) did not stone her knowing of her craziness. If she committed adultery while in a state of consciousness then she is punished, but `Ali (ra) told `Umar (ra) that her life can be spared if we give her this excuse, this is why `Umar (ra) was happy and shouted "Allahu Akbar!"

`Umar (ra) did not want to stone a crazy person because he was an evil person who never knew Fiqh, like the Rafidhi implies. Otherwise, he would not have been so happy to free her, nor would he have obeyed `Ali (ra) in this.

Another claim by the Shia, is that `Umar (ra) forgot the ruling for crazy people, I say: This is not accurate, none of the narrations suggest that he forgot the ruling, in fact when `Ali (ra) asked him if he knew this ruling or not, he replied:
"Yes" and in another narration "You speak truth".

This implies that he knew the ruling but:
1- He did not know she was crazy.
2- She was afflicted with a disease but not crazy and he did not think of excusing her based on the probablity of her committing the act while in a state of affliction.

This is why when `Umar (ra) heard that `Ali (ra) stopped her stoning, he said:

ما فعل هذا علي إلا لشيء قد علمه
[`Ali would not have returned her unless he knew something.]

And in another it shows that `Ali (ra) knew her from before:

أُتِيَ عُمَرُ بِامْرَأَةٍ قَدْ فَجَرَتْ ، فَأَمَرَ بِهَا أَنْ تُرْجَمَ فَمُرَّ بِهَا عَلَى عَلِيٍّ فَعَرَفَهَا ، فَخَلَّى سَبِيلَهَا
[They brought `Umar a woman who fornicated, so he order that she be stoned, but `Ali passed by and recognized her and freed her.]

This explanation is written in Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah itself that Toyib quoted from.
وفيه دليل عندي على أن المجنون إذا حج به في حال جنونه ثم أفاق لم يجزه كالصبي

And al-Khattabi gave the same explanation:
لم يأمر عمر رضي الله عنه برَجْم مجنونة ئطبق عليها في الجنون، ولا يجوز أن يخفى هذا ولا على أحدٍ ممن بحضرته، ولكن هذه امرأَة كانت تجَن مرةً، وتُفيق أخرى، فرأى عمرُ رضي الله عنه أن لا يسقط عنها الحد لما يصيبُها من الجنون، إذ كان الزنى منها في حال الإفاقة، ورأى على كرم الله وجهه أن الجنون شبهة يدرأ بها الحدُّ عمن يبتلى به، والحدود تُدرأ بالشبهات، لعلها قد أصابت ما أصابت وهي في بقية من بلائها، فوافق اجتهاد عمر رضي الله عنه اجتهاده في ذلك، فدرأ عنها الحد، والله أعلم بالصواب.

Finally, one last issue the fool brought up, was that `Ali (ra) intervened at great personal risk. Where the heck did he get this one from? `Umar (ra) and `Ali (ra) often praised eachother, and they helped eachother and not in one narration has `Umar (ra) threatened to kill or hurt `Ali (ra) if he doesn't agree with his judgement, he actually took his opinions on many occasions, alas Toyib forgot he was writing an academic refutation and decided to turn it into a movie script!

Hopefully this is enough to show how evil Toyib's conclusions are.
در خلافت میل نیست ای بی‌خبر
میل کی آید ز بوبکر و عمر
میل اگر بودی در آن دو مقتدا
هر دو کردندی پسر را پیشوا

عطار نِیشابوری | |


  • *****
  • Total likes: 255
  • +11/-0
  • یا مقلب القلوب ثبت قلبی علی دینک
    • Refuting Shia allegations everywhere
  • Religion: Sunni
Muhammad Moin

On pg.25 under the title "an age of jungle justice" he brought the issue of ruling on establishment of the case of Zina based on other than witnesses and confession. Before moving to the incident brought up by the Rafidhi let me clarify the issue in general. Scholars are divided on whether Hadd for Zina could be established based on pregnancy. According to the views of Kufi schoolars and Imam Shafi'i it cannot be established except through confession or witnesses. On the other hand the view of Imam Malik and his followers is that it can be established through pregnancy unless if there is chance or clue of rape. This is one of the two reported view of Imam Ahmad and it was opined by Ibn Taymiyyah as in Minhaj as-Sunnah and his treatise on superiority of the madhhab of Ahl al-Madeenah. This is also the view of Khulafa as it has been reported from Umar, Uthman and Ali.

As for Umar then the evidence is provided by Toyib. Besides that it has been reported in Sahih Bukhari in Kitab al-Hudud that Umar said in his Khitab on the pulpit of the Messenger of Allah among the gathering of Sahaba, "The punishment of Rajm is to be inflicted on any married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse if the required evidence is available or there is conception or confession." (6830)
So we see no one objected to Umar on this.

As for Uthman then the similar incident has been reported with Uthman and that Ibn 'Abbas stopped Uthman with same argument as provided by Ali to Umar, may Allah be pleased with them all. See Musannaf of Abdur-Razzaq, the book of Divorce under the chapter of "woman who deliver in six months". there are several narrations. Brother Hani may collect those which are relevant. I believe the incident is reportedwith good chain. And Allah knows best.

As for Ali bin Abi Talib then it is established from the narration brought by the Rafidhi which shows that Ali challenged the ruling only because according to him six months could be minimum time-limit of the delivery. Otherwise he could easily opposed Umar's ruling by saying that Hadd are not inflicted based on pregnancy. There is also a narration from Ali to support this but I feel it is not authentic (I am not sure at the moment).
For this reason Ibn Taymiyyah claimed that it was the practice of Khulafa, and he was suppported by his student Ibn al-Qayyim in Zaad al-Ma'ad.

Coming to the issue, the argument of the Rafidhi is that Umar was unjust in his judgement. The following points would be enough for now:

1. He translated the arabic phrase "fa hamm bi rajmiha" as "so he resolved to stone her to death" which is wrong. The correct translation is "so he intended to stone" and this phrase is more explaoined in other version of this hadith which shows that Umar discussed it among Sahaba before judging and there he was told by Ali that the least time-limit of a pregnancy is six months. Hence he left that woman. This is reported by Abdur-Razzaq and Suyuti quoted it from Abdur-Razzaq, Ibn al-Mundhir and Abd bin Humaid. So we see that Umar did not finalize it undtil he was informed by Ali (ra).

2. He claimed that the Zina could only be established through witnesses according to Qur'an but this is again false. Certain proofs could be more obvious than witnesses specailly in modern days. Limiting it to only witnesses and confession would open the way of adultery and fornication. Like some scholar said that he had not seen anyone being punished based on witnesses. So pregnancy could be another way to identify the culprit. Qur'an doesn't say witnesses are the only way rather it is the least a person could brought against a woman or man for his charge of adultery. This is why even Ali (ra) did not brought this argument against Umar (ra). Was Ali not aware of the verse?

3. There are certain incidents which establish that Umar (ra) would not inflict the punishment only because of delivery rather he would give excuse if there is chance of forced intercourse. Ibn Qudamah quotes from Sunan of Sa'eed bin Mansur:

فَرَوَى سَعِيدٌ، حَدَّثَنَا خَلَفُ بْنُ خَلِيفَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا هَاشِمٌ، أَنَّ امْرَأَةً رُفِعَتْ إلَى عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ، لَيْسَ لَهَا زَوْجٌ، وَقَدْ حَمَلَتْ، فَسَأَلَهَا عُمَرُ، فَقَالَتْ: إنِّي امْرَأَةٌ ثَقِيلَةُ الرَّأْسِ، وَقَعَ عَلَيَّ رَجُلٌ وَأَنَا نَائِمَةٌ، فَمَا اسْتَيْقَظْت حَتَّى فَرَغَ. فَدَرَأَ عَنْهَا الْحَدَّ

This incident is also reported in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah and other books. And Allah knows best.
در خلافت میل نیست ای بی‌خبر
میل کی آید ز بوبکر و عمر
میل اگر بودی در آن دو مقتدا
هر دو کردندی پسر را پیشوا

عطار نِیشابوری | |


  • *****
  • Total likes: 255
  • +11/-0
  • یا مقلب القلوب ثبت قلبی علی دینک
    • Refuting Shia allegations everywhere
  • Religion: Sunni

On page 47. the Rafidhi starts with a new Shubuha called Age of Jungle Justice 3.

The Rafidhi quotes this Hadith:

[A man came to 'Umar and said: “I have seminal discharges and I
cannot find water (to do the ghusl)”. He (‘Umar) said, “Do not
perform Ṣalāt.” So, ‘Ammar said, “Do you remember, O Amīr al-
Mūminīn, when I and you were in a military detachment and we had
seminal discharges and could not find water and you (‘Umar) did
not perform the Ṣalāt. As for me, I rolled myself in dust and
performed the Ṣalāt. So, the Prophet, peace be upon him, said, “It was
enough for you to strike the soil with your hands and then blow and
then wipe your face and palms”. Umar said: “Fear Allāh, O Ammār!”
Therefore, he (‘Ammār) replied, “If you so like, I would not narrate

He accuses `Umar (ra) of ignorance and disobedience. Something to notice though in the Hadith before we begin, was that `Ammar (ra) himself didn't know how to make Tayammum, also that `Ammar (ra) told `Umar (ra): "If you so like, I would not narrate it."

Just like the Takfeeri Toyib wants to make Takfeer on `Umar (ra) because he disliked for the believers to get lazy when it comesto Tayammum.  We can also use the same logic to make Takfeer on `Ammar (ra) who decided to obey `Umar (ra) and please him.

We quote this verse: {Indeed, those who conceal what We sent down of clear proofs and guidance after We made it clear for the people in the Scripture - those are cursed by Allah and cursed by those who curse}

And this Hadith: "There is no obedience for the ruler in disobedience for Allah."

Another point is, the fact that `Ammar (ra) never knew how to do it until the Prophet (saws) taught him, shows that they never did it much. I add, that when the Prophet (saws) lectured `Ammar (ra) on how to properly do it, there is nothing that specifically states that `Umar (ra) heard this lecture.

Regardless of this, Tayammum is permissible in Islam even in Janabah as is declared by the Prophet (saws) in one narration, a man came to him and asked him about it and he (saws) permitted it.

Now the Rafidhi quotes the following verse from the Qur'an about Tayammum:

{O you who have believed, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying or in a state of Janabah, except those passing through [a place of prayer], until you have washed [your whole body]. And if you are ill or on a journey or one of you comes from the place of relieving himself or you have contacted women and find no water, then seek clean earth and wipe over your faces and your hands [with it]. Indeed, Allah is ever Pardoning and Forgiving.} [4:43]

`Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) and `Abdullah ibn Mas`oud (ra) never heard of the narration of Tayammum apparently, and they practiced based on the apparent meaning of these Qur'anic verses:

{O you who have believed, when you rise to [perform] prayer, wash your faces and your forearms to the elbows and wipe over your heads and wash your feet to the ankles. And if you are in a state of Janabah, then purify yourselves. But if you are ill or on a journey or one of you comes from the place of relieving himself or you have contacted women and do not find water, then seek clean earth and wipe over your faces and hands with it. Allah does not intend to make difficulty for you, but He intends to purify you and complete His favor upon you that you may be grateful.} [5:6]

Notice how this verse separates the ruling of Janabah from the rest of the matters, it says: {And if you are in a state of janabah, then purify yourselves}.

Even in verse [4:43] quoted by the Shia above, they understood from this part that Janabah can only be removed by washing: {O you who have believed, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying or in a state of Janabah, except those passing through [a place of prayer], until you have washed [your whole body].}

Both verse [5:6] and [4:43] state clearly that Janabah is removed by washing.

In other words, they did not hear the narration of Tayammum, and they did not see that the person on Janabah is included in this part of the verse:

{But if you are ill or on a journey or one of you comes from the place of relieving himself or you have contacted women and do not find water, then seek clean earth and wipe over your faces and hands with it.}

They also understood that "contacting women" is anything less than reaching a state of Janabah, such as touching your wife with or without lust without having intercourse.

This is proven by the fact that `Abdullah ibn Mas`oud (ra) narrates:

حدثنا حفص عن أشعث عن الشعبي عن أصحاب عبد الله عن عبد الله قال اللمس ما دون الجماع

[Hafs from al-Ash`ath from al-Sha`bi, from the companions of `Abdullah (ra) that he says: "Contact" is what is less than intercourse. Also narrated by Wakee` from Suffiyan from al-Mugheerah from Ibrahim from `Abdullah (ra)]

With the same chain from the companions of `Ali ibn abi Talib (ra) that he believed that "contacting women" means having intercourse with them. Ibn `Abbas (ra) also believed this but his student Sa`eed ibn Jubayr believed otherwise, and some Imams also differed on this, the reader can refer to the chapter in Musannaf ibn abi Shaybah about the meaning of "contacting women".

I would like to add one more thing after we have clarified the issue. Toyib missed a part of the narration which he did not translate, you see `Umar (ra) never denied `Ammar (ra) or called him a liar, when he heard from him the incident of Tayammum he simply said: "Fear Allah O `Ammar!"

`Ammar (ra) replied by telling `Umar (ra): "If you so like, I would no longer narrate it." This shows that `Ammar (ra) had great trust in `Umar's (ra) religious opinions and judgement.

Then comes the part that Toyib missed to translate:

قال لعمر: إن شئت لم أحدث به ، قال عمر : بل نوليك ما تولـيت

After `Ammar (ra) said this, `Umar (ra) replied: "Nuwallika ma Tawallayt."

In Fath al-Bari by Ibn Hajar, he explains this expression:

أي لا يلزم من كوني لا أتذكره أن لا يكون حقا في نفس الأمر ، فليس لي منعك من التحديث به

[Meaning: It is not necessary that If I do not recall it then it isn't true, so I cannot prevent you from narrating this.]

In Sharh Sunan abu Dawoud by al-`Abad:

يعني: نكلك إلى علمك وإلى ما عندك، ولك أن تعمل وتفتي بهذا

[Meaning: We leave you to your knowledge, and it is permitted for you to practice upon it and to offer it as a verdict.]

This can actually be understood that `Umar (ra) was convinced by the words of `Ammar (ra) and that he accepted his verdict and changed his view on the matter.

Another aspect that the Rafidhi never payed attention to, is that Ibn Mas`oud (ra) was convinced that his opinion was correct, Toyib says that they both did this out of ignorance and disobedience for Allah, whereas Ibn Mas`oud (ra) stated his view:

يوشك أن الرجل إذا برد عليه الماء تيمم وترك الماء

[There is a possibility that they would perform tayammum with soil even if water were available but cold.]

This proves that there was no ill intention, Ibn Mas`oud's (ra) argument was that he fears, that if abu Musa's (ra) understanding is correct, then many people would become lazy and abandon Wudhu' little by little.

This seems sufficient as an explanation, may Allah guide those of evil hearts.
در خلافت میل نیست ای بی‌خبر
میل کی آید ز بوبکر و عمر
میل اگر بودی در آن دو مقتدا
هر دو کردندی پسر را پیشوا

عطار نِیشابوری | |


  • *****
  • Total likes: 255
  • +11/-0
  • یا مقلب القلوب ثبت قلبی علی دینک
    • Refuting Shia allegations everywhere
  • Religion: Sunni
Muhammad Moin
Basically the verse of Tayammum according to Umar (ra) was regarding those who do not have Wudhu and not regarding people with Janabah. The verse is not explicit in this regard that is why Ammar (ra) and scholars did not oppose Umar's opinion through the Qur'anic verse rather they did this through the narrations.
در خلافت میل نیست ای بی‌خبر
میل کی آید ز بوبکر و عمر
میل اگر بودی در آن دو مقتدا
هر دو کردندی پسر را پیشوا

عطار نِیشابوری | |


  • *****
  • Total likes: 255
  • +11/-0
  • یا مقلب القلوب ثبت قلبی علی دینک
    • Refuting Shia allegations everywhere
  • Religion: Sunni

The issue of Kalalah is as follows:

The verse of al-Kalalah in the book of Allah (aka Verse of summer):

{They request from you a [legal] ruling. Say, "Allah gives you a ruling concerning one having neither descendants nor ascendants [as heirs]." If a man dies, leaving no child but [only] a sister, she will have half of what he left. And he inherits from her if she [dies and] has no child. But if there are two sisters [or more], they will have two-thirds of what he left. If there are both brothers and sisters, the male will have the share of two females. Allah makes clear to you [His law], lest you go astray. And Allah is Knowing of all things.}

The scholars say that the verse is talking about the man who dies, having no father or children. Although the verse only mentions that the person has no child, but it is known among scholars today that if this man were to have a father, his sister would not inherit.
Abu Bakr (ra) al-Siddeeq was the first Khalifah to establish the definition of Kalalah, he said:

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ ، عَنْ عَاصِمٍ ، عَنْ الشَّعْبِيِّ ، قَالَ : قَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ : " رَأَيْتُ فِي الْكَلَالَةِ رَأْيًا , فَإِنْ يَكُ صَوَابًا فَمِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّهِ , وَإِنْ يَكُ خَطَأً فَمِنْ قِبَلِي وَالشَّيْطَانِ ، الْكَلَالَةُ مَا عَدَا الْوَلَدَ وَالْوَالِدَ
[Abu Bakr said: “I saw an opinion concerning the Kalalah, if it is true then that is from Allah, and if false then that is from me and from Shaytan, al-Kalalah is the one with no child or father.”]

The Rafidhi claimed that this simple issue confused `Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra), but in the authentic narration we read:

حَدَّثَنَا الْمُقْرِئُ ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ أَبِي أَيُّوبَ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنِي يَزِيدُ بْنُ أَبِي حَبِيبٍ ، عَنْ أَبِي الْخَيْرِ ، عَنْ عُقْبَةَ بْنِ عَامِرٍ ، أَنَّهُ قَالَ : " مَا أَعْضَلَ بِأَصْحَابِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ , شَيْءٌ مَا أَعْضَلَتْ بِهِمْ الْكَلَالَةُ
[al-Muqri’ told us, from Sa`eed bin abi Ayyoub, that he said: Zayb ibn abi Habeeb told me, from abi Khayr, from `Uqbah ibn `Amir (ra): “Nothing was harder on the companions of Rassul-Allah (saws) than the Kalalah.”]

So this isn’t something that concerned `Umar (ra) alone, also Kalalah is a rare occasion that may not have happened often, if it ever did, during the life of the Prophet (saws). Also the issue was not simple as the ignorant Rafidhi says, the matter of inheritance is one of the most complicated sciences in Islam called "`Ilm al-Fara'id" and Kalalah could have appeared in much more complicated forms than the one stated in the verse, such as the inclusion of the grandfather or the half-brothers into the equation ect...

`Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) used to adopt the same verdict as Abu Bakr (ra) during the Khilafah of Abu Bakr (ra),
Afterwards, `Umar (ra) announced his own opinion:

أخبرنا عبد الرزاق ، عن ابن عيينة ، عن سليمان الأحول ، عن طاوس ، عن ابن عباس ، قال : إني لأحدثهم عهدا بعمر فقال : " الكلالة ما قلت " ، قال : وما قلت ؟ قال : " من لا ولد " - حسبت أنه قال - ولا والد
[`Abdul-Razzaq from ibn `Uyaynah, from Sulayman al-Ahwal, from Tawous, from ibn `Abbas (ra) that he said: “I am the most familiar of you about `Umar’s time. He said: “Kalalah is what I said.” I said: “What have you said?” He said: “The one who has no child.”]

Meaning, his opinion was that Kalalah is only for the one who dies leaving behind no child to inherit him. Unlike Abu Bakr (ra) who said that this was concerning those with no father or child.

`Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) in the end returned to the opinion of Abu Bakr (ra) and decided not to give a Fatwa in these matters out of fear from Allah:

قرأنا على عبد الرزاق ، عن معمر ، عن الزهري ، عن ابن المسيب ، أن عمر بن الخطاب كتب في الجد والكلالة كتابا ، فمكث يستخير الله ، يقول : " اللهم إن علمت فيه خيرا فأمضه " حتى إذا طعن ، دعا بالكتاب فمحى فلم يدر أحد ما كان فيه ، فقال : " إني كتبت في الجد والكلالة كتابا ، وكنت أستخير الله فيه ، فرأيت أن أترككم على ما كنتم عليه
[`Abdul-Razzaq from Ma`mar, from al-Zuhri, from ibn al-Musayyib that `Umar bin al-Khattab wrote a book about the issues of Jadd and Kalalah, and he remained doing Istikharah from Allah saying: “O Lord, if you know that in this is goodness, then let it happen.” Until he was stabbed, so (on his deathbed) he asked for that book and erased it and nobody knew what was in it. He said: “I wrote a book about the grandfather and the Kalalah and I did Istikharah then decided to leave you as you were.”]

And in the narration of al-Sha`bi:

فلما طعن عمر ، قال : " إني لأستحيي الله أن أخالف أبا بكر أرى الكلالة ما عدا الولد والوالد
[When `Umar was stabbed, he said: “I feel shy from Allah that I would oppose Abu Bakr, I see the Kalalah for the one having no child or father.”]

Also in the narration of ibn `Abbas (ra), that he was asked about `Umar (ra):

أخبرنا عبد الرزاق ، عن معمر ، عن ابن طاوس ، عن أبيه ، عن ابن عباس ، قال : قال لي عمر حين طعن : " اعقل عني ثلاثا : الإمارة شورى ، وفي فداء العرب مكان كل عبد عبد ، وفي ابن الأمة عبدان ، وفي الكلالة ما قلت " ، قال : قلت لابن طاوس : ما قال ؟ فأبى أن يخبرني
[From Ma`mar, from ibn Tawous, from his father, from ibn `Abbas (ra) that he said: `Umar told me when he was stabbed: “Remember three things from me: The Imarah is done by Shurah (…until he said…) and regarding Kalalah, I have no saying etc…]

Meaning, he left them as they were before without giving a new opinion on the matter.

I add, even al-Hasan bin Muhammad ibn `Ali, the grandson of `Ali (ra), he also in the authentic narration understood Kalalah as `Umar (ra) did, so ibn `Abbas (ra) shouted at him:

أخبرنا ابن جريج ، وابن عيينة ، عن عمرو بن دينار ، عن حسن بن محمد بن علي ، قال : سمعت ابن عباس ، يقول : " الكلالة من لا ولد ولا والد " ، زاد ابن عيينة ، قال : حسن بن محمد ، قلت لابن عباس : " فإن الله ، يقول : إن امرؤ هلك ليس له ولد قال : فانتهرني
[Ibn Jurayj and Ibn `Uyaynah both told us, from `Amro bin Dinar, from al-Hasan bin Muhammad bin `Ali, that he said: I heard ibn `Abbas saying: “Kalalah is for the one with no child or father.” So I said to him: “Allah says in his book: { If a man dies, leaving no child }.” So he angrily shouted at me.]

What is ironic is that the Rafidhi Toyib translates some narrations of `Umar (ra) in which he wishes the following:

ثلاث لأن يكون النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بينهن لنا أحب إلي من الدنيا وما فيها : الخلافة ، والكلالة ، والربا
[Three things that if the Prophet (saws) had clarified for us, is more beloved to me than this world and what is in it: “Khilafah, and Kalalah, and Riba.]

لأن أكون سألت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ، عن ثلاثة أحب إلي من حمر النعم عن الكلالة ، وعن الخليفة بعده
[If I had asked the Prophet (saws) about three, would have been more beloved to me than the loaded mules: The Kalalah, and about who the Khalifah is after him and etc…]

Does this Rafidhi not realize that he just shot himself in the leg? This is another solid proof that the companions may Allah be pleased with them never knew that `Ali (ra) was appointed, nor did the Prophet (saws) appoint anyone after him, nor did they understand Ghadeer as the Imamiyyah do.

In breif, `Umar presented his view among Sahabah in the Masjid as in Sahih Muslim but no one objected that it is an easy issue. Even `Ali couldn't clarify his doubts! All these things suggest that Kalalah was a problematic topic for Sahabah. Besides that they were quite careful while giving verdict based on their Ijtihad and the topic of Faraidh involves rights of other Muslims thats why they were confused. `Umar (ra) learned of the general ruling but forgot to ask the Prophet (saws) about other aspects and scenarios which would later appear and confuse them. This happened possibly because the Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) wanted his companions to do Ijtihad rather than totally relying on him. This was said by Nawawi in Sharh Muslim. And Allah knows best.
در خلافت میل نیست ای بی‌خبر
میل کی آید ز بوبکر و عمر
میل اگر بودی در آن دو مقتدا
هر دو کردندی پسر را پیشوا

عطار نِیشابوری | |


  • *****
  • Total likes: 255
  • +11/-0
  • یا مقلب القلوب ثبت قلبی علی دینک
    • Refuting Shia allegations everywhere
  • Religion: Sunni
Muhammad Moin
Under "An Age of Jungle Justice - 5" Rafidhi Toyib brought the incident where Umar (ra) burned the house of Ruwaishid because of his continuous selling of Alcohol.
Toyib has following arguments which he concluded from this incident:
1. A sahabi did a crime and hence it hurt the Sunni view of piety and righteousness of all the Sahabah.
2. Umar (ra) opposed the command of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) that no one to be punished more than ten lashes in other than Hadd punishment.
3. While on the other hand Umar (ra) left Samurah bin Jundub alone for the same crime.

We will deal with it one by one, Insha Allah.

1. The companionship of Ruwaishid could be disputed and his inclusion among sahaba is based on the probability that most of the people of his category and tribe had seen the Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) at least during his farewell sermon, as quoted by the Rafidhi himself. But even if he was a Sahabi then also it does not hurt the sunni viewpoint of Sahaba. It has been repeated several times, and I had written article against Toyib just to remind him of this, that none of the companions were infallible. They could commit all kind of sins and some of them even became apostate. Basically we put guidelines with each of our belief. Rawafidh basically bring these examples to open the door for maligning of Sahabah, while according to us it the least reason of not talking about the negative acts of some companions is that because it falls under Ghibah which is a major sin itself.

2. His accusation against Umar (ra) that he opposed the statement of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam), although this Rafidhi forgot that Ali (ra) also did not oppose him although he is known for interfering in the judgement of Umar (ra) as the Rafidhi himself made clear in his previous examples of so called Jungle Justice. No wonder Ali (ra) himself punished as other than Hadd with over ten lashes. A person was brought to him who had drunk alcohol during the noon of Ramadhan so he punished him with eighty lashes for drinking and twenty lashes for doing it during Ramadhan. It was reported by Tahawi and declared Hasan by Albani in Irwa al-Ghalil (8/57).
Besides that, Ruwaishid was not punished with lashes rather his house was burned and that too after being punished. If a person do not stop from a crime then it is the duty of the leader to punish him till the time he stops from his crime. The issue of the maximus Ta'zeer is disputed among the scholars and the hadith of Abu Burdah is interpreted in different ways. Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim say that it is about correcting people like a father preventing his son and the Hudud mentioned in it include Ta'zeer as well that is because the word Hadd is used in Quran to describe the limits of Allah regardless of it being those which are related to crimes pertaining to Hadd or Ta'zeer. Some other scholars say this is Mansookh. The issue is very detailed but since it does not actually related with the judgement of Umar (ra) so we leave it at this. The hadith, if taken, is related to general cases and not regarding those who do not stop after being punished.

3. As for the case of Samurah then it has not much to deal with. Islam does not fix the punishment for selling of alcohol and hence it is upon the leader to judge regading it according to circumstances. there is no clue in the narration that Samurah continued selling alcohol and if he did he was not punished, similalarly there is no clue in the incident of Ruwaishid that he was not threatened before being punished. It is known among the scholars that not mentioning something does not necessitate non-existence of it. And Allah knows best.

On page 56 under age of Jungle justice (6) he brought the incident of Mughirah bin Shu'bah (ra) and the accusation of adultery on him. Three people testified against him, among them was Abu Bakrah Ath-Thaqafi (ra), but the fourth one did not testified clearly and said that he only saw an affair but did not testify for adultery. So according to the law revealed in Qur'an Umar (ra) punished those three who accused him of adultery and left Mughirah. So the filthy mind of the Rafidhi somehow found the fault of Umar in it and that is he indicated to the fourth one by shouting on him that he should not testify on him. I say: This is falsehood. Firstly because the narration narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah from Abu 'Uthman indicates that Umar (ra) rather said to the fourth one, "A person who will not testify except for the truth Insha Allah." Even in the narration Tahawi, which is not better than the isnad of Ibn Abi Shaibah, Umar (ra) did not compell him.

Another thing the Rafidhi brought in this regard is that since Abu Bakrah (ra) was punished for false testimony and never repented hence sunnis must reject his narrations, and other similar ridiculous conclusion. This person do not understand the difference between testimony against a crime and reporting a narration. We certainly do not accept any narrations which is proven to be wrong. All the Sahaba are being considered truthful while narrating from the Prophet (sallallahu 'alahi wa sallam) not merely because they were companions but because they were found to be truthful. Narrations were compared collected and reported to other companions or the Taba'een who were the students of other companions but we do not find any evidence of lie. Yes, they may commit mistakes and they may forget but still it is compared with other narrations and evidences of Shari'ah. This methodology is followed for judging all the narrator from companions to the last. And this is what we do to judge people in our life, if only Rawafidh open their eyes to realize it.

Regarding the incident as a whole there could be some question but it is not of our concern. Allah is the best judge. We do not have all the information regarding that incident and hence we can only speculate about many of its aspects. There are several probabilities:
1. The three witnesses were testifying falsehood. Why they did so? Allah knows best. There could be some personal grudge of them against Mughirah which made them to change the issue from an ugly affair (as Ziyad testified) to Zina.
2. Mughirah (ra) committed adultery.
In both these cases Umar (ra) has nothing to answer. He judged between them according to apparent as revealed by Allah.
در خلافت میل نیست ای بی‌خبر
میل کی آید ز بوبکر و عمر
میل اگر بودی در آن دو مقتدا
هر دو کردندی پسر را پیشوا

عطار نِیشابوری | |


  • *****
  • Total likes: 255
  • +11/-0
  • یا مقلب القلوب ثبت قلبی علی دینک
    • Refuting Shia allegations everywhere
  • Religion: Sunni

I add to the above some observations,

If `Umar (ra) favored Mugheerah (ra) over the truth, he wouldn't have even called him over to Madinah and wasted his time, he would have ignored the request in the first place. Secondly his reply to al-Mugheerah itself seemed like a threat to him, he wrote: "To begin, an act of yours has been reported to me. If such-and-such is corroborated against you, it would have been better for you to have died before this day."

Meaning, if this turns out to be true, you will wish to have been dead before this day!

It was obvious from the first three testimonies that this indeed took place, Islam however requires four, so when Zayd stepped up `Umar told him: "You will testify with the truth, Allāh willing". Meaning, that the last witness settles the case, so a lot hangs on his shoulders.

Zayd said: "As for adultery, I do not testify in favour of it. However, I saw a disgusting affair." This matter is called Dar' al-Hudoud bil-Shubuhat, or Canceling the religious punishments with doubts or suspicions.

This is because our Prophet (saws) was a merciful one, he wasn't following people to punish them, he is a warner, and sometimes being caught and standing in front of a judge like in the case of Mugheerah is enough for one to repent.

He (saws) said:

ادرؤوا الحدود بالشبهات

"Cancel the religious punishments (Hudoud) with the doubts (Shubuhat)."

In another Hadith:

ادرؤوا الحدود عن المسلمين ما استطعتم

"Avert the religious punishments away from the Muslims as much as you can."

This is why `Umar bin al-Khattab said in Musannaf ibn abi Shaybah:

لئن أعطل الحدود بالشبهات أحب إلي من أن أقيمها بالشبهات

"It is more beloved to me to stop a punishment over a doubt, than to carry it out with doubts."

As usual, like brother Moin said, this Rafidhi is filthy in his thoughts and evil in his conclusion.

In this case `Umar (ra) has followed the Sunnah of the Prophet (saws) word for word, he tried to find the smallest doubt, the fact that Zayd never actually saw the act, he used this to cancel the punishment for Mugheerah.
در خلافت میل نیست ای بی‌خبر
میل کی آید ز بوبکر و عمر
میل اگر بودی در آن دو مقتدا
هر دو کردندی پسر را پیشوا

عطار نِیشابوری | |


  • *****
  • Total likes: 255
  • +11/-0
  • یا مقلب القلوب ثبت قلبی علی دینک
    • Refuting Shia allegations everywhere
  • Religion: Sunni
Muhammad Moin
Another thing which I forgot to mention is that if Umar (ra) was a criminal in this case then Ali (ra) would share the same crime. We know Ali (ra) was present during this incident and in fact he stopped Umar (ra) when he was going punish Abu Bakrah (ra) again. If Umar (ra) was doing injustice then it was the duty of Ali (ra) to prevent him from doing so, but since Ali (ra) did not object to his ruling therefore we come to know that Umar (ra) was not judging based on his whims.

From page 78 onwards Toyib talks about a narration of Ibn Mas'ud (ra) regarding Tafdheel of Ali (ra). This has been discussed in this post:

Also the issue of superiority of Ali over Shaykhain has been touched in the preface to the book of Toyib. This topic is being discussed under the same topic:
« Last Edit: September 18, 2017, 08:54:51 PM by MuslimK »
در خلافت میل نیست ای بی‌خبر
میل کی آید ز بوبکر و عمر
میل اگر بودی در آن دو مقتدا
هر دو کردندی پسر را پیشوا

عطار نِیشابوری | |


  • *****
  • Total likes: 255
  • +11/-0
  • یا مقلب القلوب ثبت قلبی علی دینک
    • Refuting Shia allegations everywhere
  • Religion: Sunni
On page 76, Toyib brings up this narration and understands from this that `Ali (ra) cannot be wrong, thus infallible.

[The Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, sent me to Yemen. So, I
said, “You are sending me to a people who are older than me that I
should judge between them.” He replied, “Go, for Allāh will guide
your heart and make firm your tongue]

I say: We know for a fact `Ali (ra) changed his rulings several times and we know for a fact he isn't infallible, to derive infallibility from such a narration and to say that anyone claiming `Ali (ra) to be wrong in any matter is blaspheming, this is utterly ridiculous. First of all, `Ali (ra) was not confident, so the Prophet (saws) encouraged him and told him to trust in Allah and he shall guide his heart to what is right and Allah will grant him confidence. This is all there is to it, to understand infallibility from this is complete idiocy although we are used to such conclusions from those of diseased minds, they said "purification" in the Qur'an meant infallibility, then they found out that Allah also told the believers he would purify them in another verse.

Just like when the Prophet (saws) promised abu Hurayrah (ra) that he won't forget the knowledge, yet at one point he did forget a narration and was angry. This is a sign from Allah that his memory was blessed but never infallible.

This is why the continuation of that Hadith that Toyib never translated is:

فلا تقضين حتى تسمع من الآخر كما سمعت من الأول

"So do not judge until you hear from the second as you heard from the first"

Why'd he say this? If he was infallible then surely he would know the correct judgement regardless, he (saws) said this because judgement on a matter is based on evidence and different scenarios, if one misses a vital point it could alter his judgement. This is why the Prophet (saws) himself said that his own judgements are not infallible, they are based on what he hears from both sides.

In another narration:

فإذا أتاك الخصمان فلا تقض لواحد حتى تسمع كلام الآخر ، فإنه أجدر أن تعلم لمن الحق

"So if two opponents come to you, do not judge for one until you hear the words of the other, this is better for you so you can distinguish who is upon truth."

In the end as we said this is a Du`a and words of encouragement so that `Ali (ra) may be confident in his judgements, not so that he can never make mistakes or become infallible, it is so that he may not be scared, or not hesitate.

This is what `Ali ibn abi Talib (ra) understands and this is what he himself tells us at the end of the Hadith:

فما شككت بعد في قضاء بين اثنين

"Since then I never had doubts when judging between two men."

On page 90 of his book, he brings up two points:

1- He rejects the narration of `Ali announcing the superiority of Abu Bakr and `Umar. This is refuted here:

2- He brings up the Hadith in Muslim where al-`Abbas and `Ali seek judgement of `Umar on some lands, this is where al-`Abbas insults `Ali, its refutation is here:

Also the fact that the majority of `Ali's supporters preferred the Shaykhayn is mentioned:

al-Nouri al-Tabrasi says in Khatimat al-Mustadrak 5/18:

ومن هنا يعلم: ان الذين قتلوا مع امير المؤمنين (عليه السلام) في الحروب الثلاثة كانوا شهداء وفيهم كثير ممن كانوا يتولونهما

[From here it is known: That those who were killed alongside Ameer al-Mu'mineen (as) in his three wars, were martyrs, and among them many were loyal to both of them(2).

Footnote (2): Meaning those who were loyal to the two Caliphs, the first and the second.]

al-Shareef al-Murtada in al-Shafi 3/113 says:

"ومعلوم أن جمهور أصحابه -اي اصحاب علي - وجلهم كانوا ممن يعتقد إمامة من تقدم عليه ع وفيهم من يفضلهم على جميع الأمة"

[And it is known that most of his companions -Meaning `Ali's- the majority of them believed in the leadership of those who preceded him and from them are those who prefer them over the entire nation.]

This is why our Imams say there was almost a consensus on this matter, only small minorities had different opinions.

Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Dhaifa by Albani, vol. 13 page 880, he says while commenting on a man who preferred `Ali over Abu Bakr, so al-Albani said: "This does not constitute Rafdh, and many of the Salaf preferred `Ali, this does not lower their status."

But the vast majority preferred Abu Bakr (ra) as stated by other than Ibn Taymiyyah, for instance al-Haythami al-Shafi`i says in al-Sawa`iq 1/194 that Imam al-Shafi`i and Ahmad and all others preferred Abu Bakr over all, and others differed over `Uthman and `Ali:

اعلم ان الذي اطبق عليه عظماء الملة وعلماء الامة ان افضل هذه الامة أبو بكر الصديق ثم عمر ثم اختلفوا فالاكثرون ومنهم الشافعي وأحمد وهو المشهور عن مالك ان الافضل بعدهما عثمان ثم على وجزم الكوفيون ومنهم سفيان الثوري بتفضيل علي

[Know, that the consensus between the great scholars of this nation that the best of this nation is Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq, then `Umar, then they differed and the majority, including al-Shafi`i, and Ahmad, and it is famous from Malik, that the best after them is `Uthman then `Ali. Although the Koufans including Suffiyan al-Thawri preferred `Ali (over `Uthman).]

Ibn `Abd al-Barr says in al-Istee`ab 1/343 while commenting on those who say that the best are Abu Bakr, `Umar, `Uthman and then the rest are equal:

ما اجتمع عليه أهل السنة من السلف والخلف من أهل الفقه والأثر أن علياً أفضل الناس بعد عثمان رضي الله

[What the Salaf and Khalaf from Ahlul-Sunnah and Ahlul-Fiqh and Athar AGREED upon is that `Ali was the best of people after `Uthman (ra).]

He says they only differed on the following:

وإنما اختلفوا في تفضيل علي وعثمان
[They only differed on whether `Ali or `Uthman were best.]

Then in 1/344 he also mentions that some group from the Salaf said `Ali was best:

واختلف السلف أيضاً في تفضيل علي وأبو بكر
[And the Salaf also differed on whether `Ali or Abu Bakr were best.]

And this is correct, although as he mentioned previously there is a major agreement on Abu Bakr, meaning the vast majority prefer him over all else. The Salaf are the first three generations, some of them preferred `Ali over Abu Bakr but they were minority, and this is what made `Ali stand on the Mimbar and declare that it was Abu Bakr then `Umar after the Prophet (saws). He also quotes ibn Ma`een who preferred `Ali over `Uthman but he stated that if someone preferred `Ali over the first two then he is an innovator.
Also he states that Malik bin Anas and Abu Sa`eed al-Qattan and others saw both `Uthman and `Ali as equal.

Brother Muhammad, you may find this beneficial for your research, a narration proving that `Ali's two step-sons did not prefer him, nor his wife.

In Fada'il al-Sahaba by Ahmad:

نا يَحْيَى بْنُ زَكَرِيَّا، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنِي أَبِي، وَابْنُ أَبِي خَالِدٍ، عَنِ الشَّعْبِيِّ، قَالَ: " تَزَوَّجَ عَلِيٌّ أَسْمَاءَ بِنْتَ عُمَيْسٍ بَعْدَ أَبِي بَكْرٍ فَتَفَاخَرَ ابْنَاهَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ، وَمُحَمَّدُ بْنُ جَعْفَرٍ، فَقَالَ وَاحِدٌ مِنْهُمَا: أَنَا خَيْرٌ مِنْكَ، وَأَبِي خَيْرٌ مِنْ أَبِيكَ، فَقَالَ عَلِيٌّ لأَسْمَاءَ: أَقْضِي بَيْنَهُمَا، فَقَالَتْ لابْنِ جَعْفَرٍ: أَمَا أَنْتَ، أَيْ بُنَيَّ فَمَا رَأَيْتُ شَابًّا مِنَ الْعَرَبِ كَانَ خَيْرًا مِنْ أَبِيكَ، وَأَمَّا أَنْتَ فَمَا رَأَيْتُ كَهْلا مِنَ الْعَرَبِ خَيْرًا مِنْ أَبِيكَ قَالَ: فَقَالَ عَلِيٌّ: مَا تَرَكْتِ لَنَا شَيْئًا، وَلَوْ قُلْتِ غَيْرَ هَذَا لَمَقَتُّكِ، قَالَ: فَقَالَتْ: وَاللَّهِ إِنَّ ثَلاثَةً أَنْتَ أَخَسُّهُمْ لا خِيَارَ

[Yahya bin Zakaria said: My father and ibn abi Khalid told me: from al-Sha`bi: `Ali married Asma' bint `Umays so her two sons Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr and Muhammad ibn Ja`far started boasting with pride, each saying: "I am better and my father is better than yours." So `Ali said to Asma': "Why don't you be the judge between them?" So she said to ibn Ja`far: "As for you son, I have not seen a young man among the Arabs better than your father Ja`far." Then she said to Muhammad: "And as for you, I have not seen a mature man among the Arabs better than your father Abu Bakr." `Ali then said to Asma' (jokingly): "You've left nothing for me? (but) If you had said otherwise I would have hated it." She replied to him: "By Allah, if you are the lesser from among the three men then you're all great."]

This is a very strong spotless narration.
On page 91, the Rafidhi quotes a narration by Ibn `Umar (ra):

[We used to compare the people as to who was better during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle. We used to regard Abu Bakr as the best, then 'Umar, and then 'Uthman .]

He criticized ibn `Umar (ra), his argument is HOW can ibn `Umar (ra) say that `Ali (ra) is equal with the rest of the Sahaba!? Then he quoted some verses and made Takfeer on ibn `Umar (ra) for his opinion.

First of all, it is authentically attributed to `Ali (ra), when he was asked who the best of this nation were, he said: "I am but a man from the Muslims."

So if `Ali (ra) made himself equal to the rest, the Rafidhi should make Takfeer of `Ali (ra).

Next he criticized ibn `Umar (ra) for not giving Bay`ah to `Ali (ra). He quotes this passage:

[Ibn ‘Umar did not mention the khilāfah of ‘Alī only because he
did not give bay’ah (oath of allegiance) to the latter, due to the
difference of opinions concerning him as it is well-known in the ṣaḥīḥ
reports. His (Ibn ‘Umar’s) view was that he would not give ba’yah to
anyone who was not universally acknowledged (as khalīfah) by all the
people. This was why he also did not give bay’ah to Ibn al-Zubayr and
‘Abd al-Malik during their disagreement. And he gave ba’yah to
Yazīd b. Mu’āwiyah, and then to ‘Abd al-Malik b. Marwān after the
killing of Ibn al-Zubayr]

The author wishes to tell us that ibn `Umar (ra) was a bad person by not giving `Ali (ra) Bay`ah. As usual, `Ali's (ra) words and actions refute the Rafidhi.

It was authentically attributed to `Ali (ra), that when he became Khalifah, he wished to appoint ibn `Umar (ra) as the ruler of al-Sham, in Tareekh Dimashq we read:

[from ibn `Umar that he said: `Ali ibn abi Talib sent after me so I came to him and he told me: "O abu `Abdul-Rahman, you are a man who is obeyed by the people of al-Sham, so march to them as I have appointed you as their Emir." so I said: "By Allah, I remind you of my closeness to the Messenger (SAWS) and my companionship to him, that you would pardon me (from this matter)." `Ali didn't accept it and I asked my sister Umm al-Mu'mineen Hafsa to help (convince him) but he still insisted]

So how can the intelligent and faithful `Ali (ra), appoint a corrupt Nasibi as his own man in al-Sham?

Secondly, during the days of `Ali (ra) was a great FItnah, `Uthman (ra) was killed by an angry mob, these men went and convinced `Ali (ra) to take the Khilafah, some Sahaba did not exactly approve of how all of this took place such as Talha (ra) and al-Zubayr (ra), then a FItnah took place between the Muslims and they started killing each-other. Ibn `Umar (ra) and others like Hassan bin Thabit (ra) and Sa`d bin abi Waqqas (ra) and Zayd ibn Thabit (ra) and Usamah ibn Zayd (ra) did not wish to take part in this, when `Ali (ra) asked them for support they said: "If you give us swords that distinguish between the believers and disbelievers we will."

After `Ali (ra), al-Hasan (ra) came, and he gave Bay`ah to Mu`awiyah (ra) as prophesied and the nation was united, Ibn `Umar (ra) gave him Bay`ah as well. Mu`awiyah (ra) tried to make Ibn `Umar (ra) give Bay`ah to his son during his life but he rejected. After his death Yazid came into power, and was given a regular Bay`ah by the vast majority so Ibn `Umar (ra) gave him as well. Later, `Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr (ra) and al-Husayn ibn `Ali (ra) decided to revolt, then after Husayn's death the people of Madinah revolted and a lot of bloodshed was caused, this is why Ibn `Umar (ra) stuck to his oath of allegiance and never encouraged the revolution. Ibn `Umar (ra) then spent some time without giving Bay`ah because the nation was split between Ibn al-Zubayr (ra) and `Abdul-Malik (ra), after this was settled and the nation was united under one Khalifah, Ibn `Umar (ra) gave his Bay`ah.

Regarding the narration of Ibn `Umar (ra). I say it's one of two, either he is lying, or he is actually speaking truth when he said that they preferred Abu Bakr (ra) then `Umar (ra) then `Uthman (ra). Before we prove that he isn't lying, we say that yes indeed the majority preferred Abu Bakr (ra), only a minority went for others like `Abbas (ra) or `Ali (ra) or `Umar (ra). As for `Uthman (ra) and `Ali (ra), the people differed, but apparently `Uthman (ra) had more supporters which is one of the main reasons he received the Khilafah before him. It could be that the Sahaba (ra) supported `Uthman (ra) more than `Ali (ra) but a big number of Tabi`een preferred `Ali (ra) to `Uthman (ra), in this case Ibn `Umar's (ra) narration is not problematic at all. The proof of Ibn `Umar's (ra) honesty is the fact that the three he mentioned became the Khulafa' one after the other.

More importantly, the narration of Ibn `Umar (ra) does not reflect the view of every single companion or follower. As we know others did prefer `Ali (ra) over `Uthman (ra), I add that `Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) himself seemed to prefer Mu`adh (ra) or Ibn al-Jarrah (ra) over `Uthman (ra). A big part of this matter is up to personal taste and subjective opinions, it could be that `Umar (ra) thought `Ubaydullah (ra) would make a better Khalifah although `Uthman (ra) was a better person in terms of faith and virtue.

The Rafidhi quotes verses about the superiority of those who spent their wealth and fought for the cause of Allah before the conquest, I say: What is the problem? The problem is that the Rafidhi believes that `Ali's (ra) early conversion to Islam and the fact that he fought makes him superior, so he finds ibn `Umar's (ra) opinion unacceptable. Well there's a bit of an issue he kind of missed, the issue is that his sect the Imami Rafidhah make Takfeer on almost every single companion, whether they emigrated, supported, fought or spent their wealth. He is in no position to speak of the virtue of the pious first forerunners or any companion for that matter.

A question may be asked, if Ahlul-Sunnah have consensus that it was the first then the second then the third and finally `Ali (ra), how then can we accept the Hadith that says that everyone after `Uthman (ra) was ignored? Well the answer is that ibn `Umar's (ra) Hadith was from what he recalled during the life of the Prophet (saws), it doesn't contradict the fact that other Sahaba favored `Ali (ra) over `Uthman (ra), it also could be that the later opinions such as `Ali (ra) being superior to `Uthman (ra) or both of them being equal etc... all of these opinions emerged later including the popular one of Ahlul-Sunnah.

Rawafidh such as Toyib like to quote the Hadith in which `Umar (ra) says: "If it weren't for `Ali, `Umar would have perished."

They boast about this and quote it day and night. They don't realize as usual that they're shooting themselves in the leg.

We tell them Why didn't `Ali (ra) do Jihad against `Umar (ra)? They say he wanted to preserve the unity, although all he preserved was the misguidance of the nation.

They claim `Umar (ra) was an evil tyrant, then they boast about the above narration, let me replace the word `Umar (ra) with tyrant and show them the reality of the matter:

"If it weren't for `Ali, the tyrant would have perished."

May Allah protect us from stupidity and misguidance!

On page 93, The Rafidhi who was joking on his facebook said that `Ali (ra) made Jihad before the conquest and thus he became superior to the rest.
I say if this verse you're quoting is to prove that `Ali (ra) is superior since he made Jihad before others, I will declare the superiority of Abu Bakr (ra) as he did Jihad before `Ali (ra).

In Sahih al-Bukhari we read:

قُلْتُ لِعَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْعَاصِ أَخْبِرْنِي بِأَشَدِّ، مَا صَنَعَ الْمُشْرِكُونَ بِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ بَيْنَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يُصَلِّي بِفِنَاءِ الْكَعْبَةِ، إِذْ أَقْبَلَ عُقْبَةُ بْنُ أَبِي مُعَيْطٍ، فَأَخَذَ بِمَنْكِبِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَلَوَى ثَوْبَهُ فِي عُنُقِهِ فَخَنَقَهُ خَنْقًا شَدِيدًا، فَأَقْبَلَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ فَأَخَذَ بِمَنْكِبِهِ، وَدَفَعَ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَقَالَ ‏{‏أَتَقْتُلُونَ رَجُلاً أَنْ يَقُولَ رَبِّيَ اللَّهُ وَقَدْ جَاءَكُمْ بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ مِنْ رَبِّكُمْ‏

[I asked `Abdullah bin `Amr bin Al-`As to inform me of the worst thing the pagans had done to Allah's Apostle. He said: "While Allah's Apostle was praying in the courtyard of the Ka`ba, `Uqba bin Abi Mu'ait came and seized Allah's Apostle by the shoulder and twisted his garment round his neck and throttled him severely. Abu Bakr came and seized `Uqba's shoulder and threw him away from Allah's Apostle and said, "Would you kill a man because he says: 'My Lord is Allah,' and has come to you with clear Signs from your Lord?" (40.28)]

And in Fath-ul-Bari we read the narration graded Hasan by Ibn Hajar from Asma':

أنَّهُم قالوا لها ما أشدُّ ما رأيْتِ المشركينَ بلَغوا من رسولِ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليْهِ وسلَّمَ ؟ فذكرَ نحو سياق ابن إسحاق المتقدم قريبا وفيه : فأتى الصريخُ إلى أبي بكرٍ فقال : أدرِكْ صاحبَكَ ، قالَتْ  : فخرجَ من عِندِنا وله غدائرُ أربعٌ وهو يقولُ : ويلَكم أتقتلونَ رجلًا أن يقولَ ربِّي اللهُ ؟ فلَهَوا عنه ، وأقبَلوا إلى أبي بكرٍ ، فرجعَ إليْنا أبو بكرٍ فجعل لا يمسُّ شيئًا من غدائرِهِ إلا رجعَ معه وهو يقول: تباركت يا ذا الجلال والإكرام

[They asked Asma': What is the worst thing the pagans had done to Allah's Apostle?So she mentioned the story and said: The screaming reached Abu Bakr and they said to him: "Help your companion!" so he left us with braided hair, saying: Woe to you! Would you kill a man because he says: My Lord is Allah!? So they left the messenger and ganged up on Abu Bakr. He finally came back (home) to us and whenever he touched his braids he said: "Glory to You the One Who deserves to be Exalted and not denied".]

I say: This is true Jihad with one's self! This is true bravery! Where was `Ali (ra) then? Was he a kid who couldn't defend the Prophet (saws)? Or was he a coward or a hypocrite as the Rafidhi would have concluded? Rather `Ali (ra) was at home with no worry in the world as his father was an important man and no one would bother with a child. This shows that Abu Bakr (ra) did Jihad way before `Ali (ra) ever did, thus proving his superiority in this point.

As for spending from his wealth, the Rafidhi with no honor said:

"They might have done jihād with their wealth – which is debatable, anyway."

I say, Abu Bakr (ra) also spent from his wealth before `Ali (ra) even had his own pocket money.

In Sahih al-Bukhari we read:

إن اللهَ بعثَني إليكم فقُلْتُم كذبْتَ، وقال أبو بكرٍ صدَق . وواساني بنفسِه ومالِه، فهل أنتم تارِكوا لي صاحِبي

The Prophet (saw) said: "Allah sent me to you so you said I was a liar, but Abu Bakr said I was truthful, And he protected me with his self and supported me with his wealth."

Abu Bakr (ra) freed the slaves and helped Islam, in one narration he spent forty thousand Dirhams in the cause of Allah and that was all his money, he left none of his family.

In another authentic narration he (saw) says: "No money has benefited me like the money of Abu Bakr."

And guess what? This money was also spent on `Ali (ra) because he was living in the Prophet's (saw) house at the time!

In conclusion to this point, we tell the Rafidhi who was joking on facebook with his mates, it is you and your religion which are a joke! Abu Bakr (ra) beat `Ali (ra) to Jihad with the self and the wealth years ago!

`Ali (ra) knows this more than the Rafidhi, which is why he said in the authentic narration:

"فوجدت أبا بكر قد سبقني وكان سباقا بالخير"
"Abu Bakr beat me to it and he used to beat us to the good deeds."


It's because of this, that he is nearer to Allah:

{And the forerunners, the forerunners - (10) Those are the ones brought near [to Allah] (11)} Sura 56.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2017, 08:58:27 PM by MuslimK »
در خلافت میل نیست ای بی‌خبر
میل کی آید ز بوبکر و عمر
میل اگر بودی در آن دو مقتدا
هر دو کردندی پسر را پیشوا

عطار نِیشابوری | |


  • *****
  • Total likes: 255
  • +11/-0
  • یا مقلب القلوب ثبت قلبی علی دینک
    • Refuting Shia allegations everywhere
  • Religion: Sunni
Muhammad Moin
On page 67 under "An age of jungle justice 7" Toyib brought the issue of Nasr bin Hajjaj who was exiled to Basrah by Umar bin Khattab (ra). The reason was that Nasr was too much beautiful that there was of fear of transgression in the holy city of Madinah. It was a step taken by Umar (ra) to achieve a greater good.
Toyib has some arguments against it. He said that Umar (ra) would not have tolerated even Prophet Yusuf ('alaihissalam) as he was even more handsome.

Toyib seems to forget the difference between a Prophet and Nasr bin Hajjaj. We do not think Nasr bin Hajjaj would have saved himself in the condition which Sayyiduna Yusuf passed by.

Another thing Toyib claimed was that even the city of Basrah had women, so what is so logical about the ruling of Umar? I say: The sanctity of the Madinah is well known to Muslims while Basrah is just another city under Islamic rule.
In summary, the action of Umar (ra) was a political step and although it could have been a wrong step but certainly Umar (ra) had religious sense behind it.

On page 72 he objected on Shaykh al-Islam for claiming that Imam Shafi'i and Ibn Nasr al-Marwazi compiled books collecting the opinions of Ali which are accepted by later generation of Muslim jurists. He says there no such books in existence and the book wriiten by Al-Marwazi is regarding those views of Ali (ra) which was contradicted by Abu Hanifah.

I say: The book of Imam Shafi'i is well known and it is published in Kitab al-Umm vol.7. As for the book of Al-Marwazi then it is not known except that some scholars mentioned it. The book of Shafi'i collects those opinions of Ali and Abdullah, may Allah be pleased with them, which were not accepted by Abu Hanifa and hence it also include those opnions which was not accepted by anyone. The main point behind the compilation of this book was to refute the cliam of Kufi scholars when they contradict a narration that they are following the views of Ali and Abdullah bin Mas'ud. Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned these books to show the ignorance of Al-HIlli in his claim that Jurists among Ahlussunnah rely on Ali (ra).

I am quite busy nowadays and probably will not be able to continue this refutation for a month. The following was written down with me:

On page 94, Rafidhi claimed that according to Sunni only report ‘Aisha (ra) was the best of manking, and hence she was also superior to Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman. He bring the narration narrated by Bukhari (3662), Muslim (2384) and others from ‘Amr bin al-‘Aas (ra) that he asked the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), “Who is most beloved to you?” He replied, “’Aishah.” He then asked, “And among men?” He said, “Her father.”

With regards to such reports Imam Abu Ja’far At-Tahawi mentioned and important point, he said, “And what we have mentioned of the priority of ‘Ali to Abu Bakr with regards to the love the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) had for them, does not prevent from Abu Bakr being superior to ‘Ali near the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam).” [Sharh Mushkil al-Aathar (13/333)]

Hence, the love of Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) for something does not necessarily make it superior to others. The claim that love of the Prophet (sallallhu ‘alaihi wa sallam) for something is followed by the love of Allah is true but it does not necessitate the love of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) for people is in the sequence of the love of Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta’ala) for them. This could be understood in the light of the following verse:

إِنَّكَ لا تَهْدِي مَنْ أَحْبَبْتَ وَلَكِنَّ اللَّهَ يَهْدِي مَنْ يَشَاءُ
“Indeed, [O Muhammad], you do not guide whom you like, but Allah guides whom He wills…” [Al-Qasas 28:56]

So the love of Prophet of Allah  (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) could be due to the human nature but it differs from other human being in that he does not remain on the love of impure and misguided one, neither does he love what is hated by Allah. But his love for people does not necessitate the sequence of their status in the sight of Allah. That is the reason the narrations which talks about the most beloved people to him mostly have ‘Ali, Fatima, Zaid, Usamah, ‘Aisha, Hasan, Husain etc who were close in relation with him. The only exception could be give to Abu Bakr (ra) but it can be said that he was in the list due to his close friendship with him. And Allah knows best.

Hence from these we can conclude the mistake of Ibn Hazm Az-Zahiri and those who followed him in that ‘Aisha (ra) was the most superior human being of this Ummah after the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam).
After that the Rafidhi brought the criticism against ‘Aisha (ra) from the Book of Allah to prove that ‘Aisha (ra) was not even worth to enter Heaven, much less being the best of humankind. He quotes the verse of Qur’an:
إِنْ تَتُوبَا إِلَى اللَّهِ فَقَدْ صَغَتْ قُلُوبُكُمَا وَإِنْ تَظَاهَرَا عَلَيْهِ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ مَوْلاهُ وَجِبْرِيلُ وَصَالِحُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَالْمَلائِكَةُ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ ظَهِيرٌ (4) عَسَى رَبُّهُ إِنْ طَلَّقَكُنَّ أَنْ يُبْدِلَهُ أَزْوَاجًا خَيْرًا مِنْكُنَّ مُسْلِمَاتٍ مُؤْمِنَاتٍ قَانِتَاتٍ تَائِبَاتٍ عَابِدَاتٍ سَائِحَاتٍ ثَيِّبَاتٍ وَأَبْكَارًا (5)
“If you two repent to Allah, for your hearts have deviated. But if you cooperate against him – then indeed Allah is his protector, and Gabriel and the righteous of the believers and the angels, moreover, are [his] assistant. Perhaps his Lord, if he divorced you [all], would substitute for him wives better than you – submitting to Allah, believing, devoutly obedient, repentant, worshipping and travelling – ones previously married and virgins.” [Surah at-Tahreem 66:4-5]
The argument of the Rafidhi is that since ‘Aisha (ra) and Hafsa (ra) both committed a sin, which we do not disagree on, and they were criticized by Allah hence they deserve not to enter Paradise especially when there is nothing in the Qur’an which revealed after these verses to free them from their crimes.

I say: It is in the same verse which proves that there repentance were accepted. That is the verse which threats them of divorce if they do not repent. It is agreed upon that he did not divorce them at any time in his life, except that it is reported that he once divorced Hafsa (ra) but later took her back. So this itself proves that their repentance was accepted. Certainly Allah would not have let his Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) to suffer at the hands of his wives after announcing that He would replace them with better substitutions if they do not repent. Besides, even if there is no evidence which certify the acceptance of their repentance in the Qur’an (leaving aside Hadith for a while as Rawafidh will not accept it) that does not mean they were not forgiven especially when the verse of the Qur’an only speak conditionally on this matter of the repentance of Sayyidah ‘Aisha and Sayyidah Hafsah, may Allah be well pleased with them.
As for the claim that the verse is a proof that there were women who were better than the wives of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) because of His (Subhanahu wa Ta’ala) saying ((…wives better than you…)) then it is just a speculation as the verse was revealed when they had sinned. The verse is not describing their abode in the hereafter rather it was revealed to guide them to right path. So their status cannot be judged based on these verses of At-Tahreem rather we have to look for other evidences regarding it.

It is very interesting that Rawafidh use these verses of Surah at-Tahreem while these verses do not go against Sunni viewpoint. We do not believe any of the Umm al-Mu’ineen was free from sins. So what actually are they trying to prove? It is the trait of Rawafidh to bring those things which are not against us just to make it look weighty in front of those who have just basic or no knowledge about Ahlus-Sunnah. The book of Toyib is a good example. Many of his pages are useless for us as he wasted them to prove something which we do not disagree on.

He then quotes (pg.99) the explanation of Ibn Taymiyyah regarding the statement of Ali (ra), “Ask me…” The points Ibn Taymiyyah made was that it was said to people who were not well versed in knowledge and most of them were ignorant.
In response to this the first thing Toyib did was to show that Ali (ra) had knowledge of everything of Qur’an and Sunnah. I say: It is not problematic to say Ali (ra) had great and sufficient knowledge of the religion but claiming that there is nothing which he did not know of is incorrect simply because it goes against facts and reality. If the intention of the Rafidhi is to establish that Ali (ra) knew each and everything so much so that “the Knowledge of Unseen” could be ascribed to him then its stupidity is obvious. But if he meant that Ali (ra) had knowledge of everything related to the religion then it is also not acceptable as we know of Ali’s views which are not accepted by scholars due to it being against the evidences. For example his view regarding the selling of Umm al-Walad [i.e. the slave-girl who has given birth to a child of her master]: Ibn Abi Shaibah reports from Abu Khalid al-Ahmar from Isma’eel bin Abi Khalid from Sha’bi from ‘Abeedah as-Salmani from ‘Ali that he said, “Umar consulted with me regarding the selling of Ummahat al-Awlad, so I and him agreed over that she would be free the time she give birth (to the child).

So Umar judged based on it till his life and then ‘Uthman after him similarly. But when I became leader I felt that might be sold. Ash-Sha’bi said: And Ibn Sireen narrated to me that he asked ‘Abeedah as to what he feel to be correct. He said, “The opinion of Umar and ‘Ali in unity is more beloved to me than the view of ‘Ali during disagreement.” In a narration of Ayyub from Ibn Sireen it is mentioned that ‘Abeedah said to Ali, “Your opinion and the opinion of ‘Umar in Jama’ah is more beloved to me than your opinion alone in disagreement. ‘Ali smiled by hearing this.” Note that ‘Abeedah was a Qadhi appointed by ‘Ali and he was from amongst the senior-most Taba’een.

I say: Ali (ra) was either wrong earlier or he was wrong at the end, no matter what is the correct opinion, our argument is established.

Another opinion which he held was that a pregnant woman whose husband has died will wait during her ‘Iddah till the farthermost duration among the duration of “iddah with and without pregnancy. That is, a pregnant woman shall wait for four months ten days (for a widow) if she gives birth before completion of that duration and if four month ten days is completed before the birth of child then she will complete her ‘Iddah till the birth of child. However the correct opinion is that the moment she gives birth to child her ‘Iddah is completed. The proof for it is the verse of the Qur’an which states ((And for those who are pregnant their ‘Iddah is until they lay down their burden)) [At-Talaq 65:4]. Similarly, there are reports which establish this.

Likewise, there is his opinion of performing rubbing over shoe similar to that of leather socks which none of the jurist who is followed by Ummah took. It was mentioned by Imam Shafi’i in his book on disagreement of Ali and Abdullah to the Kufi scholars which is in Katab al-Umm.

These are some of the examples which shows that Ali (ra) did not have that status of “infallible Imam” which shia attribute him to. Similarly we have another authentic narration in which ‘Ali (ra) said, “If I heard a hadith from the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), Allah benefitted me as He willed thereby. If someone else told me something from him I would ask him to swear, and if he swore I would believe him…” [Musnad Ahmad (2)]. If Ali had already attained the status of an Imam having complete knowledge then why he saw the need for relying on other person for a sunnah of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam)? The answer is obvious.

The main goal of Toyib in bringing that narration was to answer Ibn Taymiyyah. Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah has given a very sensible explanation regarding the Athar of 'Ali (ra). He has said while answering the misconception as to why only 'Ali bin Abi Talib said such things and not other caliphs before him, hence he answered that the statement of 'Ali (ra) was directed towards people who were MOSTLY ignorant and it was not directed towards people like Ibn Mas'ud, Abu Darda, Ubayy, Mu'adh etc, while during the time of other caliphs the majority of public used to be of senior companions. I am quoting Ibn Taymiyyah as translated by Toyib on pg.100:

The statement of ‘Alī “Ask me” to those with him in Kūfah was in this
regard. He never said this to Ibn Mas’ūd, Mu’ādh, Ubayy b. Ka’b,
Abū Dardā, Salmān or others like them, much less saying that to
‘Umar and ‘Uthmān. This is why these people were not among those
who asked him. They never asked him (anything) – not Mu’ādh, not
Ubayy, not Ibn Mas’ūd and not others from the Ṣaḥābah.

To refute the bolded part Toyib quoted the narration of Abu Tufayl who was present during this speech of Ali (ra). Hence somehow he managed to refute Ibn Taymiyyah on his claim that the statement of Ali (ra) was not directed towards any of the sahabah. However, the context of Ibn Taymiyyah indicates that he was intending the companions of the caliber of Ibn Mas'ud, Abu Darda, Ubayy ect and not any random Sahabah. Abu Tufayl was although a companion but he did not benefitted much through the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) and hence most of his knowledge came through companions like Ali bin Abi Talib. So no wonder if he was directed by the statement of Ali (ra). Besides that, it is also known that many a times some specific people are intended with general wordings. So even if there were some senior Sahabah present then also it doesn't mean it was directed at them. It is not beneficial to argue on things which can never be known before the Day of Judgement. We can never be assured as to what was the real scenario then and all we have are selected traditions which have differing description of the incident. Similarly there is no point in comparing this incident with what happened with the Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam). So to be productive on the issue we should discuss this topic in the manner I did in the previous post. If it is claimed that Ali knew each and everything then the answer has already been given. So this Athar does not benefit against already established fact as there are a lot of possibilities against the generalization of this statement. And Allah knowns best.

Under the same discussion Toyib claimed that Abu Bakr and 'Umar were ignorants. In his words:

“As for Abū Bakr and ‘Umar, both of them did not even have sufficient
knowledge of either the Qur’ān or Sunnah – much less anything else”!

Initially he brought the opinion of 'Umar (ra) regarding Tayammum and claimed that 'Umar (ra) did not even know basic Islamic ruling on Tayammum. He has already discussed this issue in the book previously. Rawafidh (and not just Toyib alone) represent it in wrong manner. They portray it as though 'Umar bin Khattab (ra) denied the validity of Tayammum in totality and hence contradicted the clear verses of the Qur'an. However the fact is totally different. Here is the Qur'anic verse as quoted by Toyib:

[[And if you are ill, or on a journey, or one of you comes after answering
the call of nature, or you have had sexual intercourse with women
and you cannot find water, perform tayammum with clean soil and
rub therewith your faces and hands]]

The bolded part in the traslation is, although a proper interpretation of the verse, not a literal translation. The disagreement among Sahabah was there regarding the true intended meaning of the part "Aw Laamastumun Nisa" or "أو لامستم النساء". It is relied on position of the Shafi'i Madhhab that it means physical touch and not sexual intercourse and they consider that the Wudhu invalidate through physical touch of women. Similarly the position of Sayyiduna 'Umar bin Khattab (ra) was that the verse is regarding Wudhu and not for sexual uncleanliness. So apparently the view of Umar (ra) was that the word "Lams" in the verse means physical touch or sexual touch without intercourse (which was the madhhab of Malik and Ahmad), and not sexual intercourse (as in the madhhab of Abu Hanifa). So basically 'Umar was aware of the verse but he differed regarding its interpretation. What strengthen this representation is the hadith of 'Ammar bin Yasir (ra), which was also quoted by Toyib in previous chapters, in which he reminds 'Umar of an incident happened between them during the lifetime of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam). 'Ammar (ra) would have simply quoted the verse if it was a Nass against 'Umar's (ra) view.

Then he brings again the topic of Kalalah and grandfather which has been discussed previously.

Then he brings the statement of Abu Bakr and 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with them, in which they denied to interpret the meaning of "Abb" in the verse 31 of Surah 'Abas. He quotes Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani:

And it is narrated from another chain on the authority of Ibrāhīm al-
Nakha’ī: Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq recited “and fruits and herbage”. So, someone asked,
“What is herbage?” Another person answered, “It is so-and-so”.
Therefore, Abū Bakr said, “This one (i.e. this question) is
overburdensome. Which earth will carry me and which sky will
shield me if I say concerning the Book of Allāh THAT WHICH I
HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF.” This is munqati’ (disconnected)
between al-Nakha’ī and al-Ṣiddīq. It is also recorded through the route
of Ibrāhīm al-Tamīmī that Abū Bakr was asked about herbage, what
it was, and he replied, “Which sky would shield me....” and he
mentioned the like of it (i.e. what Ibrāhīm al-Nakha’ī narrated). This one
too is munqati’. However, each one of the two (reports)
STRENGTHENS the other.

He also said:

 ‘Umar too had a similar condition. Imām al-Ḥākim (d. 403 H) records:

Abū ‘Abd Allāh b. Ya’qūb – Ibrāhīm al-Tamīmī – Yazīd b. Hārūn –
Ḥamīd – Anas:
And Abū ‘Abd Allāh – my father – Isḥāq – Ya’qūb b. Ibrāhīm b. Sa’d –
my father – Ṣāliḥ – Ibn Shihāb – Anas b. Mālik, may Allāh be pleased
with him:
I heard ‘Umar, may Allāh be pleased with him, reciting {And We cause
therein the grain to grow, and grapes and clover plants, and olives and
date-palms, and gardens, dense with many trees, and fruits and
herbage}. He said, “We have known all of this. But, what is
“herbage”? Then, he broke a stick which was in his hand. So, he said,
“This, I swear by the Life of Allāh, IS OVERBURDENSOME.
Follow (only) what is clear to you from this Book.”

Toyib concluded from their statement that they were unaware of the meaning of a simple well known word, i.e. Abb which means herbage which cattles eat. However, it is ridiculous to claim that they were ignorant of the meaning of a "simple word". It is either that the word was not that simple in meaning or that they were talking about certain description of the word as per the intention of the questioner. Besides that, they only abstained themselves from indulging into a matter which is not necessary. It is considered from their piety that they refrain from it so as to prevent the masses from it and hence they gave us a methodology regarding the interpretation of the Qur'an. That is why we see scholars quoting these statement of them to describe the methodology of people of Sunnah with regards to Tafseer of Qur'an. They could have interpreted with the meaning not being far from the interpretation of other Sahabah and Taba'een but since they were aware that people look at them as closest people to the Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) and hence they follow them, therefore instead of answering directly they showed them a methodology regarding any word in the Qur'an whose meaning is not certain and it is not required for doing righteous acts.

As for the Rawafidh who represent it as though Abu Bakr and 'Umar had no idea of the word then it is a ridiculous claim. Abu Bakr and 'Umar were both arabs and they were known for their mastery in language. They were known for their Khitab and Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) even send them in military expedition as a leader. Why would the Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) use people as leader of a group if they can't speak their own language? Why would the Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) use Abu Bakr (ra) to lead people in Hajj, which is a pillar of Islam, if he couldn't even interact with his native people? Nowhere did Abu Bakr and 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with them claimed that they had no idea of the word, rather their denial was regarding the intended meaning of the word in that specific place. And Allah knows best.

Imam Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal narrated in his book “Sunnan” (#1312) from al-Hakim ibn Jahl, that Ali ibn Abu Talib said: “No one would put me upon Abu Bakr and Umar (may Allah be pleased with them), except I would lash him with punishment of slanderer”. (Chain is weak. Hadith also present in book “al-Fadhail as-sahaba” #49; Ajurri “Sharia” #1764; Beyhaki “Itikadat” p 358; Ibn Abdul-Bar “al-Istiab” 1/297, shamela).

Although it Isnad is weak but there is another Isnad for this. Abu Ishaq al-Fazari reports in Siyar and through him Khateeb in al-Kifayah (pg.367) through Shu'bah from Salamah bin Kuhail from Abu Za'ra or Zaid bin Wahb. Abu Abdullah al-Bushanji defended this Isnad and agreed by Khateeb. From Al-Kifayah:

قَالَ أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْبُوشَنْجِيُّ: هَذَا الْحَدِيثُ الَّذِي سُقْنَاهُ وَرَوَيْنَاهُ مِنَ الْأَخْبَارِ الثَّابِتَةِ , لِأَمَانَةِ حُمَّالِهِ , وَثِقَةِ رِجَالِهِ , وَإِتْقَانِ أَثَرَتِهِ , وَشُهْرَتِهِمْ بِالْعِلْمِ فِي كُلِّ عَصْرٍ مِنْ أَعْصَارِهِمْ , إِلَى حَيْثُ بَلَغَ مِنْ نَقْلِهِ إِلَى الْإِمَامِ الْهَادِي عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ , حَتَّى كَأَنَّكَ شَاهِدٌ حَوْلَ الْمِنْبَرِ وَعَلِيٌّ فَوْقَهُ , وَلَيْسَ مِمَّا يَدْخُلُ إِسْنَادَهُ وَهْنٌ وَلَا ضَعْفٌ , لِقَوْلِ الرَّاوِي عَنْ أَبِي الزَّعْرَاءِ أَوْ عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ وَهْبٍ , لِمَا لَعَلَّهُ تَوَهَّمَهُ شَكًّا فِيهِ , وَلَيْسَ مِثْلُ هَذَا بِشَّكٍّ يُوهِنُ الْخَبَرَ , وَلَا يُضَعَّفُ بِهِ الْأَثَرُ , لِأَنَّهُ حَكَاهُ عَنْ أَحَدِ الرَّجُلَيْنِ , فَكُلٌّ مِنْهُمَا ثِقَةٌ مَأْمُونٌ , وَبِالْعِلْمِ مَشْهُورٌ , إِنَّمَا لَوْ كَانَ الشَّكُّ فِيهِ أَنْ يَقُولَ: عَنْ أَبِي الزَّعْرَاءِ أَوْ غَيْرِهِ أَوْ عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ وَهْبٍ أَوْ عَنْ غَيْرِهِ، كَانَ الْوَهَنُ يَدْخُلُهُ , إِذْ لَا نَعْلَمُ الْغَيْرَ مَنْ هُوَ، فَأَمَّا إِذَا صَرَّحَ الرَّاوِي وَأَفْصَحَ بِالنَّاقِلَيْنِ أَنَّهُ عَنْ أَحَدِهِمَا , فَلَيْسَ هَذَا بِمَوْضِعِ ارْتِيَابٍ، فَتَفَهَّمُوا رَحِمَكُمُ اللَّهُ. قَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ: «قَدْ مَثَّلَ أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْبُوشَنْجِيُّ الشَّكَّ الَّذِي يُوهِنُ الْخَبَرَ بِمَا أَغْنَى عَنْ كَلَامِنَا فِيهِ , وَبِمَثَابَتِهِ , بَلْ أَشَدُّ وَهْنًا مِنْهُ أَنْ يَكُونَ شَكَّ الرَّاوِي فِي سَمَاعِهِ الْحَدِيثَ مِنْ زَيْدٍ أَوْ عَمْرٍو، وَبِعَيْنِهِمَا، وَأَحَدُهُمَا ثِقَةٌ وَالْآخَرُ ثَابِتُ الْجَرْحِ

Imam Ahmad relates in Musnad (20307 Ar-Risalah// 20322 Qurtuba) through Khalid bin Tahman from Nafi’ bin Abi Nafi’ from Ma’qal bin Yasaar in a narration in which the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said to Sayyidah Fatimah (ra), “Don’t you like that I have married you to a person who was the first person to accept Islam in my Ummah, the greatest of them in knowledge and best of them in tolerance.”
The Rafidhi Toyib quoted Shaykh Shu’aib who weakened it, and then the Rafidhi said, “Strangely, al-Arnāūṭ gives no reason for his verdict, especially in the case of such a sensitive hadith!”

I say: Sh Arnaut did give the reason. The Qurtubah edition, which is in 6 volumes, is not the real version of his tahqeeq on Musnad, rather it is Ar-Risalah edition which is in over 45 volumes. On (33/421) of Ar-Risalah edition he mentioned the problem of this report. Basically Khalid bin Tuhman became confused, as Toyib himself mentioned, and his narration is accepted only in condition when it is known that he reported it before falling in confusion or Takhleet. The second problem is that Nafi’ bin Abi Nafi’ is unidentified and unknown if he is not Nufai’ bin Harith, and if he is Nufa’ then he is Matrook as clarified by Hafiz Ibn Hajar in Tahdheeb (10-410-411). The Rafidhi in his “research” touched only to the first narrator and left the second one by relying on Sh Al-Albani.

But fortunately Toyib agreed (pg.127) that the narration of narrators like Khalid is only accepted if it is known that the person who heard it from him heard it before his confusion or Ikhtilat.

Then he went on to show that there is difference whether Khalid narrated it during his Ikhtilat or before it and to prove this he brought “a statement of Abu Hamid al-Ghazali” from his book Ihya ‘Ulum ad-Deen in which he apparently declared this narration to be authentic.

I say: It is from the ignorance of Toyib that he doesn’t know specialization of scholars in different field. Al-Ghazali was not well versed in hadith with his own admission. He had a lot of mistakes in this regard so much so that Taj ad-Deen as-Subki has compiled a list of narrations which Al-Ghazali mentioned in Ihya and they don’t have any basis.

Besides that it is not the word of Al-Ghazali rather it is the word of Al-‘Iraqi. Toyib relied on a particular Shamela version of Al-Ihya and hence fall into mistake due to his lack of awareness regarding the methodology and status of Al-Ghazali in the field of hadith.

Although Hafiz Al-‘Iraqi declared the Isnad to be Sahih but he was wrong in it. Az-Zabeedi in his takhreej on Ihya pointed out that Ad-Dimyari contradicted Al-‘Iraqi by saying, “Rather its Isnad is weak due the existence of Khalid bin Tuhman who was disputed upon and a Shi’i.” [Takhrej Ahadeeth al-Ihya (4/1956)]
I say: The correct reason for the weakness has been identified above and they are Jahalah of Nafi’ bin Abi Nafi’ and Ikhtilat of Khalid. And Allah knows best.

Then Toyib quotes corroborating evidences for this report. The first one he mentioned is a hadith from Kanz al-‘Ummal of Ali Muttaqi al-Hindi:
Narrated ‘Alī:
Abū Bakr and ‘Umar sought the hand of Fāṭimah in marriage from the
Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him. But, the Messenger of Allāh,
peace be upon him, refused their proposals. So, ‘Umar said, “You are
for her, O ‘Alī.” He (‘Alī) said, “What do I have apart from my armour, my camel and my sword?” So, ‘Alī approached the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, one day and he (the Prophet) said, “O
‘Alī! Do you have anything?” He replied, “My camel and my armour.”
I mortgaged both of them. So, the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon
him, married Fāṭimah to me. When the news got to Fāṭimah, she wept.
As a result, the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, went to her
and said, “Why are you weeping, O Fāṭimah? I swear by Allāh, I have
married you to the most knowledgeable of them, and the most
clement of them, and the first of them to accept Islām.

As a source he quotes the words of the author who quoted it from Ibn Jareer and Ad-Dawlabi in Adh-Dhurriyyat at-Tahirah. Ibn Jareer also authenticated it as per the quote. I say: It is not weird from Ibn Jareer as he has very different methodology than other scholars. In Tahdheeb as-Aathar, which is only partially published, he brings a hadith then comments on it in a unique format “This hadith is sahih and it is possible that it is weak on the condition of others”. Then he provides the defects of it as per the condition of other scholars. Despite that he never tries to refute the opinion of those who weakened it. This is very unique style of Ibn Jareer particularly in his Tahdheeb Al-Aathar. And Allah knows best.
Let us look at the Isnad of the hadith as in the book of Al-Dawlabi (no.90):

حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى الصُّوفِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ أَبَانَ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مَرْيَمَ، عَنْ أَبِي إِسْحَاقَ، عَنِ الْحَارِثِ، عَنْ عَلِيٍّ، قَالَ: " خَطَبَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرُ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَأَبَى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِمَا، فَقَالَ عُمَرُ: أَنْتَ لَهَا يَا عَلِيٌّ فَقَالَ: مَا لِي مِنْ شَيْءٍ إِلَّا دِرْعِي أَرْهِنُهَا فَزَوَّجَهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَاطِمَةَ فَلَمَّا بَلَغَ ذَلِكَ فَاطِمَةَ بَكَتْ قَالَ: فَدَخَلَ عَلَيْهَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَقَالَ: «مَا لَكِ تَبْكِينَ يَا فَاطِمَةُ فَوَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ أَنْكَحْتُكِ أَكْثَرَهُمْ عِلْمًا وَأَفْضَلَهُمْ حِلْمًا وَأَوَّلَهُمْ سِلْمًا»

As one can see it is a report through Abu Maryam from Abu Ishaq from Harith from ‘Ali. The defects in it are as follows:
•   Abu Maryam was unreliable and accused of fabricating.
•   Abu Ishaq did not hear from Harith except four hadith.
•   Harith Al-A’awar was weak as per the correct view of scholars.
•   There is conflict in the Isnad of this hadith of Abu Ishaq.
The first point is enough to weaken this report but for the purpose of information let us have a look at each of them.
As for Abu Maryam Abdul Ghaffar bin Qasim, then Ali bin Madeeni said that he used to fabricate narrations. Ibn Ma’een said that he was nothing. Abu Hatim and Nasai declared him Matrook al-Hadith. [Meezan (2/640)]
‘Isa bin Yunus bin Abi Ishaq said: Shu’bah told me, “Your grandfather did not hear from Harith except four narrations”. I said, “From where you get that?” He replied, “He himself told me.” [Tahdheeb al-Kamaal, Al-Jarh wa at-Ta’deel]
As for weakness in Harith then he was weakened by Abu Zur’ah, Abu Hatim, Nasai, Ibn Ma’een in one narration, Ad-Daarqutni, Ibn Sa’d, Ibn ‘Adi, Ibn Hibban, Tirmidhi while some scholars declared him Thiqah. This is besides those who declared him a liar like Ash-Sha’bi, Ibrahim an-Nakh’i, Abu Ishaq, and Ibn Mahdi abandoned.
As for conflict in the Isnad then Toyib himself brought it as a narration of Shareek from Abu Ishaq from ‘Ali. Then Toyib quotes the statement of Al-Haythami from Majma’ az-Zawaid that this hadith has Mursal Sahih Isnad. I say: Shareek is weak while there is disconnection between Abu Ishaq and ‘Ali which Al-Haythami referred to as Mursal. This is enough to establish the weakness.
In this narration which Toyib brought as corroborating report Abu Ishaq narrates directly from Ali while in previous narration he narrated it through Harith from ‘Ali. The conflict in the hadith of Abu Ishaq was described by Hafiz Ad-Daarqutni. He showed that it has been narrated in the following form.
•   Abu Ishaq from Baraa bin ‘Aazib
•   Abu Ishaq from Zaid bin Arqam
•   Abu Ishaq from an unnamed person
•   Abu Ishaq from Ali
Interestingly Ad-Daarqutni did not mention Isnad of Abu Ishaq from Harith from Ali. That is due to the fact that this Isnad is not established because of Abu Maryam’s unreliability.
Now, does this narration of Abu Ishaq support the narration of Ma’qal bin Yasar? No it does not because of the following reasons:
•   They both are totally different narrations despite their common text. Their Isnad are not comparable.
•   The link between Abu Ishaq and ‘Ali is not known. The isnad which mention Harith as the lin is severally problematic due to Abu Maryam. Abu Ishaq was known for taking narrations from anyone and everyone so much so that he was accused for spoiling the narration of the people of Kufa. It is possible that both these two version has same common origin which is weak.
Then on page 132 he gives the title “Hadith al-‘Ilm: Proving its Tawatur” and brings certain other Turuq to apparently prove his claim that this hadith is Mutawatir. I say: Far from being Mutawatir this hadith is not even authentic. The only Turuq which were good enough to be discussed has been proven to be weak. Now let us see what Toyib has to bring in this regards:
•   The narration recorded by Ibn ‘Asakir (70/113) through the route of Hafiz Ibn ‘Uqdah fromFadhl bin Yusuf al-Ju’fi from Muhammad bin ‘Ukashah from Abul Mughra Humaid bin Muthanna from Yahya bin Talha an-Nahdi from Ayyub bin Hiz (!) from Abu Ishaq from Harith from ‘Ali. It contains Muhammad bin ‘Ukashah who was either Al-Kirmani or a Kufi. If he was Kirmani then he was accused of fabricating narrations by Ad-Daarqutni and Al-Dhahabi, and if he was Kufi then ad-Daarqutni declared him weak. Besides that the three narrators above him viz. Abul Maghra, Yahya bin Talha an-Nahdi and Ayyub bin Hizz were unspecified as to whom they actually are.
•   The narration recorded by Ibn ‘Asakir (42/132) through Dhirar bin Surad from Abdul Kareem bin Abi Ya’foor from Jabir al-Ju’fi from Abu Adh-Dhuha from Masrooq from ‘Aisha. Dhirah bin Surad and Jabir al-Ju’fi were both unreliable and this Isnad is Munkar as it is apparent. Besides them, Abdul Kareem bin Ya’foor was not strong although Ibn Hibban listed him in Thiqat. Ibn Abi Hatim reports from his father that he said regarding Abdul Kareem, ‘He was not famous (ma’roof)’. Ibn ‘Asakir cited another Isnad which exactly the previous one except that it has Mu’tamir bin Sulaiman between Dhirar and Abdul Kareem. Another Isnad which may lift the burden from Dhirar is that which Toyib (pg.135) quotes from Al-Mu’jam al-Kabeer (22/416) as a narration of Muhammad bin ‘Ubaid al-Muharibi from Abdul Kareem from Jabir from Abu at-Tufayl from ‘Aisha (ra). Anyone can see the rambling Isnad through Jabir which is sometimes through Masrooq from ‘Aisha, sometimes through Abu Tufayl through ‘Aisha, sometimes through Ibn Buraidah from Buraidah. This entire rambling make a scholar to doubt a hadith even if narrated by a reliable narrator so what to say if it from someone like Jabir al-Ju’fi. Also note that this hadith is not same as the hadith under discussion. It speaks about an incident happened during the final illness of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) while the hadith under discussion is regarding the incident happened when the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) came to visit Sayyida Fatimah (ra) and she complained about her hard life.
•   The narration recorded by Ibn ‘Asakir (42/133) through Taleed bin Sulaiman from Abul Jihaf from a person from Asma bin ‘Umais. It is again Munkar due to Taleed bin Sulaiman who was weak and Shi’i. Besides that there is unknown person between Abul Jihaf and Asma (ra). The Rawafidh who accuse Sunni scholars of bias should know that Taleed is the same person who has narrated, with a much better Isnad that this, the hadith which mention Rawafidh as Mushrik. Hence, Taleed narrates it from Abul Jihaf from Muhammad bin ‘Amr bin Hasan bin Ali bin Abi Talib from Zainab bin ‘Ali from Fatimah (ra) that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said, “As for you O son of Abu Talib, you and your companions shall be in paradise. And soon a sect will emerge who will claim love of you, they will come out of Islam and they will be referred to as Rafidhah. If you find them kill them, for they are polytheists.” [Meezan (2/18)]
•   Then he mentioned the hadith which have already been discussed under the hadith of Ma’qal bin Yasar.
•   The narration recorded by Abu Bakr al-Qatee’i in his additions to Fadhail as-Sahabah of Ahmad (1346) and through him Ibn ‘Asakir in Tarikh (42/131) through Mufaddhal bin Saleh from Jabir al-Ju’fi from Sulaiman bin Buraidah from his father. Mufaddhal and Jabir were both unreliable. Besides that, this Isnad is Munkar as no one narrates it through Buraidah. Since Jabir al-Ju’fi has been mentioned and some people may quote the opinion of Sufyan and Shu’bah about him which was positive, let it be clear that Sufyan and Shu’bah (before abandoning Jabir) made it clear that he is to be relied on when he clearly mentions that he has hear it. In other words, ‘an’ana of Jabir is not accepted even according to Sufyan, Shu’bah and Zuhair bin Mu’awiyah, and in these narrations Jabir narrates it through ‘an’anah. [Tahdheeb al-Kamal (4/467)]
•   Another Isnad, which Toyib did not mention, through Jabir which Shaddad bin Rasheed al-Ju’fi, who I could not find in books of Rijal, from Jabir similar to the previous Isnad.
•   On page 136 Toyib quotes Ad-Daarqutni’s ‘Ilal which brings nothing additional to what has already been discussed. Hafiz Ad-Daarqutni mentioned the conflict in the Isnad of the narration of Abu Ishaq and Toyib took them as separate established Isnad. The book of ‘Ilal are generally concerned with specifying a correct Isnad (which may not necessarily be Sahih) from Isnad with mistakes. All what he did is to mention differing Isnad without saying anyone of it is correct. Toyib highlighted the name of Zaid bin Arqam in one of those Isnad probably to show that he is also one of the narrators of this hadith and hence to affirm the Tawatur. I say: Toyib should learn the science of hadith before trying to become author in this field. Imam Ad-Daarqutni has indicated that this Isnad is a mistake by saying about one of its narrators that he was a Kufi Shaykh from Shia. Also, At-Tusi mentioned him among their authors.

I say: In Al-Mufeed min mu’jam ar-Rijal al-hadith which is the summary of Al-Khoi’s book on Rijal declares him Majhool.
•   Toyib on page 137 mentioned another Munkar and probably fabricated Isnad from the book of Khwarazmi. Without getting into detail all of ‘Imran bin ‘Abdur-Rahim, Abu as-Salt al-Harawi and Husain al-Ashqar were unreliable. Qais bin ar-Rabee’ was weak and his son had manipulated his narrations.
•   Then he mentioned another Isnad which contains totally unknown people like Abdul Wahhab bin Jabir and Muhammad bin ‘Umair. Besides that this Isnad is Munkar. It has been narrated through Ayyub from ‘Aasim from Ibn Sireen from Umm salamah, Salman al-Farisi and ‘Ali simultaneously which is very odd especially when comes through unknown people. And Allah knows best.
•   Then Toyib quotes (pg.139) from Al-Jahiz the Mu’tazili. Again this shows the lack of precision in the book of Rafidhi Toyib. The quote is from Abu Ja’far al-Iskafi who wrote in refutation of Al-Jahiz’s book “Al-‘Uthmania”. The refutation of Al-Iskafi, a shi’i leaning Mu’tazili, was collected from Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah of Ibn Abil Hadeed and published at the end of “Al-‘Uthmania”. There is nothing beneficial in the quote to answer. This is besides the fact that Abu Ja’far al-Iskafi, like almost all of Mu’tazalites, was ignorant of hadith-field.
•   Then he mentioned another distorted version of the hadith of Abu Ishaq and counted it as a separate narration. In it ‘Umar bin Muthanna was unknown and Sallam bin Sulaiman was weak.
These were the narrations which Toyib presented to show that this narration is Mutawatir. At the end he gives a list of Sahaba who supposedly narrated these narrations. As a summary I am pointing out the problem with them:
•   ‘Aisha bint Abi Bakr: It is falsehood due to Dhirar and Jabir.
•   Ali bin Abi Talib: The person between Abu Ishaq and Ali is not known. There could be more than one person between them.
•   Abu Ayyub al-Ansari: Not established due to several unreliable narrators in Isnad.
•   Anas bin Malik: A distorted version of Abu Ishaq’s hadith.
•   Asma bint ‘Umais: It is again falsehood due to the ignorance regarding the person between Abul Jihaf and Asma. Also Taleed was unreliable who also reports, with a better Isnad than this, the hadith which talks about killing of Rafidha.
•   Buraidah: Again through Jabir al-Ju’fi. It is amazing that among so many students of hadith, including those who were inclined towards Tashayyu’, it was only Jabir who came across this. This is how scholars of hadith judge a narrator by judging the level of Manakeer in his narrations. This is besides the fact that it was narrated through Jabir by two person one of whom was unreliable and the other was unidentified.
•   Fatima bint Muhammad (May Allah be well pleased with her and shower his peace and blessings upon her father): Mistake as notified by Hafiz Ad-Daarqutni as even quoted by Toyib. The correct version of it is Abu Ishaq from ‘Ali which is also disconnected.
•   Ibn ‘Abbas: An unknown report which was in the knowledge of fanatic like Abu Ja’far al-Iskafi an ignorant of hadith while Hafiz of the world Ad-Daarqutni couldn’t see it.
•   Jabir bin Abdullah al-Ansari: Same as previous.
•   Ma’qal bin Yasar: Weak narration due to Ikhtilat of Khalid and Jahalah of Nafi’.
•   Salman al-Farisi: Fabrication.
•   Umm Ayman: From the master-mind al-Iskafi.
•   Umm Salamah: Fabrication.
•   Zaid bin Arqam: A mistaken version from the version of Abu Ishaq’s hadith as pointed out by Ad-Daarqutni.
As anyone can see none of these narrations back up each other. Many of them are single version which some people narrated differently due to mistake and the Rafidhi Toyib took them as separate narrations. Only the hadith of Abu Ishaq and M’aqal are proper enough to be discussed and even they do not support each other owing to irrelevancy in their Isnad. I sat: This hadith is not even authentic so how could it be Mutawatir but since this Rafidhi has no knowledge in this field hence to him any hadith with several Turuq is Mutawatir which is a childish misconception especially nowadays.

And Allah knows best.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2017, 09:02:40 PM by MuslimK »
در خلافت میل نیست ای بی‌خبر
میل کی آید ز بوبکر و عمر
میل اگر بودی در آن دو مقتدا
هر دو کردندی پسر را پیشوا

عطار نِیشابوری | |