Chapter 25
Refutation of “Hadith Al-Rayat: Investigating its authenticity”
Then Toyib claimed that ‘Umar bin Khattab (ra) ran away from Khandaq and Khaibar also before the battle of Hunain.
This is purely his interpretation as none of the historians claimed such a thing.
On page 186-187 he quotes a narration from Musnad Ahmad where ‘Aisha (ra) describes case of Khandaq. In it she said at one place:
I went out on the Day of al-Khandaqand I stood behind the people. So, I heard footsteps coming from behind me. I turnedaround and saw Sa’d b. Mu’ādh, and his nephew al-Ḥārith b. Aws wascarrying his armour. Therefore, I sat down on the ground and Sa’dpassed by, wearing an iron armour from which his limbs had comeout. I was afraid of Sa’d’s limbs. Sa’d was one of the most huge andtallest people. Sa’d passed by, singing a battle song, saying: “Very soonthe battle will meet a camel ... What a good death it is when the timehas come.”
Then I stood up and entered a garden. There was a small group of Muslims there, and ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb was amongst them and there was another man who was wearing a mask.‘Umar said: “What brought you here? I swear by my life and I swear byAllāh, you are a reckless woman! What assures you against theoccurrence of a disaster or capture?” He kept blaming me so muchuntil I wished that the earth would split open for me so that I couldenter into it. Then the (masked) man removed the mask from his face,and he was Ṭalḥah b. ‘UbaydAllāh. So he said, “Woe to you, O Umar!You have said too much today! And where is the writhing movementor the flight except to Allāh the Almighty?
One may wonder where in the world this narration indicates that ‘Umar (ra) ran away from the battle of Khandaq. I would respond to Toyib’s contentions one by one:
From the statement of ‘Aisha (ra) that she was behind the people, Toyib concluded that ‘Umar and Talha must be at some safe place as ‘Aisha herself was behind.
However, the hadith did not indicate that where she went. In fact, it indicates that she was somewhere around the battlefield. This is evident from the fact that that ‘Umar scolded her for entering the garden. Hence it is mentioned in the hadith that ‘Umar said to her when he saw her there, “What assures you against the occurrence of a disaster or capture?” Isn’t this enough proof that the garden was within the parameters of the battleground? This single point is enough to destroy the base of satanic assumption of Toyib. Indeed Allah reminded all Muslims to remain careful in this regard:
O you who have believed, avoid much assumption. Indeed, some assumption is sin. [Qur’an 49:12]
Toyib has some obsession with the hadith is because it mentions that there was a garden around the battlefield. The battle of Khandaq did not occur outside the city or in an open ground like early battles of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) rather Muslims prepared a trench around the city of Madinah and they themselves remain under it. Hence, if there was a garden around the trench then it is not something to be amazed of.
In relation with the battle of Khayber Toyib Olawuyi quoted a narration as follow:
Abū al-‘Abbās Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Maḥbūbī – Sa’īd b. Mas’ūd – ‘Ubayd Allāh b. Mūsā – Na’īm b. Ḥakīm – Abū Mūsā al-Ḥanafī – ‘Alī, may Allāh be pleased with him:
The Prophet, peace be upon him, journeyed to Khaybar. When he arrived there, he appointed ‘Umar (as commander) and appointed some people with him (as his troops) to conquer their city or castle. So, they (‘Umar and his troops) fought them (i.e. the people of Khaybar). But ‘Umar and his troops did not hesitate before fleeing. So, they came back and they (the troops) accused him (‘Umar) of COWARDICE while he too accused them of cowardice. --
The answer to this is as follows:
1. The narration is not authentically transmitted. Abu Musa al-Hanafi is probably a mistake by a scribe or a misprint otherwise this narrator is unknown. Actual narrator is Abu Maryam. He is Abu Maryam Ah-Thaqafi al-Mada’ini not the one who is called Al-Hanafi. Another narrator is Abu Maryam al-Hanafi al-Kufi whose name was Iyas bin Sabih and he was a Qadhi of Basrah and narrated from ‘Umar. Abu Maryam Ath-Thaqafi was Majhool as per the statement of Ad-Daarqutni. Even though An-Nasai declared a person Abu Maryam Qais al-Hanafi to be Thiqah but according to Hafiz Ibn Hajar it was his mistake when he named him Qais. An-Nasai intended Abu Maryam al-Kufi but mistakenly named him Qais. In the hadith the narrator from Abu Maryam is Nu’aym bin Hakeem an inhabitant of Mada’in. Therefore it is easy to identify his teacher as Abu Maryam al-Mada’ini Ath-Thaqafi. The narration in “Al-Mustadrak” named him as Abu Maryam al-Hanafi however that is most probably from some of the transmitters as Iyas bin Sabeeh was well famous while the teacher of Nu’aim bin Hakeem was hardly known. Refer to Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb by Hafiz bin Hajar al-‘Asqalani.
2. Toyib translated the verb “Ha za ma” as “to run away” which is not accurate. Rather it should be translated as “to defeat” and in sigha of Majhool as “to be defeated”. Hence the meaning given in the narration is that they were defeated. They did fight but could not conquer Khayber and lost the fight.
3. If ‘Umar was such a coward then why the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) sent him as an Ameer in expedition towards Najd few months after Khayber?
4. We see that the narrators were very much frank in narrating about any incident they come to know. Hence, we see that the case of ‘Uthman running from Uhud was well known to the extent that an unknown person came to make argument on it with Abdullah bin ‘Umar. If ‘Umar would have been cowardly then people would have mentioned it even with an excuse they could provide.
5. The text says that they accused each other of cowardice which is not a proof of declaring one a coward. All this is when the hadith is authentic which is not the case.
On page 191-192 Toyib quotes supposed full version of above narration. However it is with same Isnad therefore the same response applicable on it. Ali Muttaqi declared it Hasan!!! May be he did so but most probably it is the ruling of As-Suyuti whose book was reorganized by ‘Ali Muttaqi as Kanz al-‘Ummal. Whatever the case is, the argument still remains. They might have considered the original narrator to be Abu Maryam al-Kufi instead of Abu Maryam Al-Mada’ini and based on this they could have declared it Hasan.
Another hadih which Toyib quotes (pg.194) is that of Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Laila from his father. It has been reported in Musnad (778) of Imam Ahmad, Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah (32080), Ibn Majah (117) and others through the chain of Muhammad bin Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Lailah from Minhaal from Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Lailah who report the incident of his father with Ali (ra) which include this hadith of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). Muhammad bin Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Lailah was the one regarding whom Shu’bah said, “I have not seen a person who has as bad memory as Ibn Abi Lailah.”
Al-Bazzar also quotes it in Musnad (496) with the same chain of narrators. Toyib quoted it from Kanz al-‘Ummal where it has been copied from Bazzar and Ibn Jareer. The reference of Musnad al-Bazzar has already been given, as for Ibn jareer then most probably he narrated it in his Tahdheeb al-Aathar which unfortunately is partially available now. I could not find it in the available portion of the book but since I have seen the methodology of Ibn Jareer in this book therefore I can say that it is nothing odd if he had declared it authentic. It is his norm in this book to declare a hadith to be authentic with the indication that this could not be authentic as per the standard of other scholars. He has unique methodology in this particular book as far as authenticity is concerned. He narrates a hadith then declare it authentic then points out the defects based on which other scholars might consider it weak, and then he skips without clarifying why he has considered it authentic ignoring the defects he himself pointed out. And Allah knows best.
After quoting this hadith in Majma az-Zawaid (9/124) Hafiz Haythami said: “Al-Bazzar narrated it. It contains Muhammad bin ‘Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Laila who had bad memory. All other of its narrators were the narrators of Sahih.”
Hafiz Busiri quotes it in Ithaf al-Khirah al-Maharah (6633) and said: Abu Bakr Ibn Abi Shaibah narrated its Isnad is weak due to weakness of Muhammad Ibn Abi Lailah.”
Other things Toyib mentioned does not need a response from Sunni side as it is either claim based on speculation or it is something which we do not disagree with.
However, I would like to point out something which shows how these Rafidha get crazy while ridiculing Ahlus-Sunnah and personalities respected by them. Hence, Toyib says on page 194:
The Prophet of Allāh testified that Amīr al-Mūminīn ‘Alī, ‘alaihi al-salām, was NOT a person who fled in any circumstance, however difficult. He too demonstrated that by accepting the challenge of Marḥab in a mortal combat. As such, while all the other Ṣaḥābah – including Abū Bakr and ‘Umar – were repeatedly fleeing the battlefields, ‘Alī always stayed till the end.
I say: If that is true then why all these venom and attacks are only directed towards Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman etc and not towards ‘Abbas, Ja’far, Zaid bin Harithah, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, Salman al-Farisi, Miqdad bin Aswad, Jabir bin ‘Abdullah, Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri? Since all the other Sahaba, as per the claim of our Shi’i writer, were repeatedly fleeing therefore these people must also be among those "all the other Sahabah"!!
32 Replies
12382 Views
April 16, 2016, 10:55:15 PM