TwelverShia.net Forum

Glimpses of Shi'ism in the Musnad of bin Hanbal

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

twoblade

Glimpses of Shi'ism in the Musnad of bin Hanbal
« on: July 12, 2015, 06:34:58 AM »
Asalaamu 'Alaykum

I plan on going over the Shi'ite text mentioned in the Subject, and all of the traditions that were used by the author, hopefully before the end of Ramadan.

If a researcher plagued with an uncritical eye and a desire to establish something he already believes goes about looking into any book, he will find in it everything he believes. Whether he looks into the Rig Veda, or the Talmud, he will find Jesus as Christ and part of a Triune Godhead. Whether he looks into what's survived of the writings of Mani or the Bible, he will find Buddha and his teachings. It comes as no surprise than that the author of “Glimpses of Shi'ism in the Musnad of bin Hanbal”, based on the more thorough set of articles, “Musnad ar-Riza”, will find his religion everywhere he looks in the books of the Muslims. We'll take a look at:

–   The authenticity of the traditions he's quoted and his reliability in conveying remarks.
–   The reality that such traditions are most definitely not limited to musnad, but will invariably be found in several works of Ahlus Sunnah (regardless of whether or not the traditions are authentic) contrary to his claim.
–   The problematic nature of his forcing his pre-established notions and personal interpretations on these otherwise clear narrations.

The format will be to first cite what needs to be cited from Tabatabai's work, followed by short comments as to his errors in transmission, followed by the actual text of the narration with the summarized thawtheeq of Shua'yb Arnout (rah), then any comments concerning the narration, it's meaning, it's purpose of inclusion by Tabatabai and why it is actually a narration benefiting the Muslims and not the Rafidha.

Before dealing with the traditions however, I want to address certain assertions made in the preface. Although several objectionable and unreliable claims were made in the preface of the work being looked at, it will suffice here only to deal with those related to Imaam Ahmed, and more particularly, his musnad. Any quotations and facts about the Imaam and his musnad provided herein as responses are from the seerah of Imaam Ahmed (rah) by Salahudin 'Alee Abdul Mawjood, unless otherwise stated, inshaAllah. Likewise, comments on asanid in the text can be refered back to Shua'yb Arnout's (rah) tehqeeq unless otherwise stated, inshaAllah.

Tabatabai says:

Quote
One of the characteristics of this work is the wide space given to hadīth concerning the merits of the Prophet’s Ahl al-Bayt, most of which are confirmed from the viewpoint of Shi‘ite Muslims as well. Compared to the other hadīth compendiums of the Sunnis, the Musnad’s emphasis on this subject is so pronounced that it has attracted the attention of orientalists and other researchers.

Considering all the facts, this isn't a shock. The author of this set of extracts from the musnad has himself mentioned that it is a “bulky compendium” of over 30,000 unique sayings. It isn't the least bit surprising to find in it more traditions praising ahlul bayt, who are loved by and adhered to by Ahlus Sunnah, as the book has a greater propensity of traditions in general and a lower criteria for inclusion than such works as the saheeh of Bukhari, or saheeh of Imaam Muslim. It's actually the general statement of Ibn Khallikan that the musnad contains narrations not found anywhere else. Likewise, Ibn Jawzi (rah) has said, “there is no hadeeth which doesn't have a basis in this musnad.” In fact, it's been noted that Imaam Ahmed (rah) had been in the constant process of revamping the work as he taught it, regularly adding and removing traditions from it until the day he (rah) died at which point this task could no longer be carried out. It includes in it, therefore, a mixture of the authentic and the inauthentic, the established and the weak. This conjecture of Tabatabai, his Twelver associates and supposedly also of the Orientalists, has no real basis in light of these facts.

Quote
The Musnad of bin Hanbal is probably the first of the six books of hadīth considered authentic by Sunni Muslims.

This is an untrue and baseless conjecture on the part of Tabatabai, the musnad isn't even considered a part of saheeh as-sittah, let alone being the first of the six. There is a debate amongst the scholars as to the inclusion of Sunan Darimi, Sunan ibn Majah or Muwatta of Imaam Maalik as the sixth of the six, but not the musnad of Imaam Ahmed. The musnad does however hold it's own special place in the libraries of the scholars of Islaam.

Quote
The author has selected from the bulky hadīth literature, a large number of narrations to serve as guidelines and support for the people so that when differences arise they take refuge in them and cite them as authentic.

Actually, the claim of the Imaam was that he wrote the musnad so that it could serve as an Imaam for the Muslims when differences arose, not that everything therein was authentic, and unlike the strange beliefs of the Rafidha, the Muslims don't consider an Imaam as infallible and perfect. Rather, an Imaam can be right and wrong and this is determined only through checking. It is a known fact though that Imaam Ahmed (rah) was continuously working on the musnad, revising it and removing from it what he found to be unreliable, adding to it whatever he gained in knowledge and so forth, till the day he (rah) died.

It is even a known fact that his son (rah) added narrations to it when he (rah) transmitted it – a fact of which Tabatabai was aware as indicated in one of the traditions upon which he commented. This clearly indicates that there are in it those things which are objectionable, and weak, and the scholars have listed these and discussed them. Furthermore, had Tabatabai actually consulted Ahmed Shakir's tawtheeq of the musnad beyond simply citing a handful of cases of authentication, he would've found that Ahmed Shakir included as part and parcel of his text, the publication of Ibn Hazm's refutation of Ibn Jawzi with regards to it. Ibn Jawzi had dubbed several of the traditions found in the musnad as fabrications in his major work on the topic, and Ibn Hazm sought to correct him and demonstrated that most of those traditions were in many cases simply weak, and that none could be proven as fabrications. However, the point being that Tabatabai was fully aware that not all traditions in the musnad are actually authentic as he implied in the preface.

Quote
However, the most outstanding characteristic of the Musnad is that it contains several eyecatching hadīth on the merits of the Prophet’s Ahl al-Bayt (‘a), whereas most of the compilers of the other masānīd, sihāh and sunan, have either ignored these ahādīth or related only a few of them.

This is not in the least bit true, as will be detailed. Although the musnad may contain a number of odd, eye-catching traditions, such traditions can also be found in the generality of the Muslim corpus of ahadeeth, usually suffering from the same flaws in the chains or with alternative wording. Likewise, what the musnad contains of authentic praise of Ahlul Bayt in general, and Ahlul Kisa ('Alee's family) in particular, is known from many of the Muslim texts and is most definitely not limited to the musnad.

Quote
Ibn Hanbal got into trouble with the authorities for having related these ahādīth on the merits of the Ahl al-Bayt (‘a)

This has been the case for numerous scholars of the Sunna' and isn't particularly telling or unique. The trouble for which Imaam Ahmed (rah) is truly known though is his refusal to bow down before the mihna (inquisition) and maintain his belief concerning the Qur'aan. Through the wounds on his back and his suffering in general, the proper aqeedah has been preserved, wal-hamdulillah. If the Twelver Shi'a really held disapproval of the authorities as a proof of authenticity in a thing, than they would adopt our view concerning the Holy Qur'aan rather than the blasphemies they attribute to it.

Quote
Muhammad bin Ismā‘īl al-Bukhārī and Muslim bin Hajjāj al-Qushayrī, for fear of the ‘Abbāsids, left out these ahādīth but since Ahmad was courageous he showed no fear in relating the ahādīth on the merits of Imam ‘Alī (‘a) and the Ahl al-Bayt (‘a).

This is patently false. Several traditions on the merits of these people have been mentioned by Muslim and Bukhari. Had they truly had such fear, would they have mentioned any traditions of this nature at all, let alone the number that they did narrate? Imaam Bukhari had an eye on fiqh, not fadhail, but more importantly, many of these traditions don't meet the necessary requirements for authentication that those included by sheykhan (rah) have met. This has nothing to do with fearing the Abbasids.

Even more telling is the various narrations Sheykhan (ra) have mentioned with respect to the high position of Ameer ul-Mumineen Mu'awiyah bin Abi Sufyan (ra). Had they really wanted to hide something, it would've been more appropriate to hide the various narrations they authenticated concerning Mu'awiayh (ra). This theory has absolutely no ground to stand upon.

Quote
[Story of Imaam Ahmed (rah) refuting some people speaking of the caliphate of the four followed by this interpretation:]The meaning of this statement is that the other caliphs adorned themselves with the caliphate and the caliphate covered their flaws, but there was no shortcoming or deficiency in (Imam) ‘Ali (‘a) to be made up by the caliphate. [Footnote:] bin Abī al-Hadīd, Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah, vol. 1, p. 17.

The source mentioned for this interpretation of the story is a very late work by a Mutazilli scholar, done on the orders of a later day Imami Shi'ite on a later-day Imami Shi'ite work considered by the Sunni scholars to be one chock full of Imami Shi'ite fabrications. Will Tabatabai tell people the beliefs of Imaam Ahmed (rah) on account of a Mutazilli when Imaam Ahmed was the defense of the Muslims against the Mutazilla during the mihna (inquisition)? When his suffering was on account of none other than them? Does such a story actually provide us with anything veritable with respect to the pillar of Muslim scholarship, Imaam Ahmed (rah)?

Incredibly, this interpretation cited by Tabatabai even contradicts a saying cited and attributed to Imaam Ahmed by Tabatabai himself through a comparatively more reliable source (Ibn Jawzi's (rah) manaqib al-Imaam Ahmed):

Quote
...In the matter of caliphate, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman are superior to all others...[Imaam Ahmed's defense of the tradition that 'Alee (ra) is the distributor of Hell to which the author of this text adds in the footnotes:] It is interesting to note that bin Hanbal’s reply bears close resemblance to the answer given by Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq (‘a) to Mufazzal bin ‘Umar concerning this same hadith. Imam ‘Alī bin Musā al-Rizā (‘a) also gave a similar reply to Ma’mun; refer to ‘Allāmah Majlisī: Bihār al-Anwār, vol. 39, pp. 193-194, Dār al-Ihyā’ al-Turāth al-‘Arabī, Beirut. It is essential to know that according to many narrations, Imam ‘Alī (‘a) has stated: I am the distributor of heaven and hell”, Bihār al-Anwār, vol. 39, p. 199.

Apart from destroying any ideas that could've been raised by the narration of bin Abi al-Hadid, the Mutazilli, the comments of Tabatabai have actually provided us with something far more beneficial. This very interesting tradition, coupled with Tabatabai's comments, establishes the intellectual theft of the Rafidha who took the defense of 'Alee (ra), and the tradition about him, by Imaam Ahmed (rah) and placed it instead in the mouth of Ja'far (rah) and 'Alee al-Riza. In this same way, the Imamis have plagerized every one of the fadhail and the athaar of the Sahaba and the Prophets and given them to the Imaams (ra-rah). The Imamiyah will not be satisfied though with simply stealing the statements of Imaam Ahmed (rah), rather, they will attribute this to their idea that Ahmed (rah) was nothing more than a disciple to the Imaams to whom they claim allegiance:

Quote
The author of Rawzāt al-Jannāt relates on the authority of Daylamī’s Irshād al-Qulub that Ahmad bin Hanbal was a student of Imam al-Kāzim (‘a). Shaykh al-Tā’ifah Tusī considers him among the students of Imam al-Rizā (‘a). A contemporary researcher pointing out bin Hanbal’s links with Imāmī scholars, writes that he studied under many of those known to be followers of the school of Imam Ja‘far al-Sādiq (‘a), and for this reason he has often been criticised by the enemies of the Shi‘ites. [footnote:] The author has listed the names of bin Hanbal’s teachers, who according to him had Shi‘ite tendencies, but a review of Shi‘ite narrators in Sayyid al-Khu’ī’s Mu‘jam Rijāl al-Hadith shows that no hadith has been related from Ahmad bin Hanbal in authoritative Shi‘ite books of hadith

Concerning the first two claims, they come from Twelver texts. Although it would not be the least bit surprising for these men, particularly Imaam Ja'far (rah), to be teaching one another from traditions they knew, nothing of this nature is established.

As to the claim that he (rah) had Shi'i teachers, than it's well-known that the people considered as Shi'a by Ahlus Sunnah are not the latter-day Imami group, but the sects within Islaam, and those who leaned towards them, which elevated 'Alee (ra) beyond his actual rank. This was not entirely uncommon and any scholar with enough teachers probably had at least one Shi'i teacher in this respect.

twoblade

Re: Glimpses of Shi'ism in the Musnad of bin Hanbal
« Reply #1 on: July 12, 2015, 10:33:24 AM »
Tradition 1 – 'Alee's (ra) volunteering from amongst his family

Quote
Aswad bin ‘Amir has related to us from Sharīk from A‘mash from Minhal from ‘Abdullāh bin Asadi, that (Imam) ‘Alī (‘a) said...Ahmad Muhammad Shākir the annotator of the Musnad has enumerated the isnād of this hadīth as hasan or fair. [Commentary:] The same event has been narrated in greater detail in the words of Imam ‘Alī (‘a) in hadīth no. 1371 of the Musnad (vol. 2, pp. 352-353) and the annotator has termed its isnād as sahīh (authoritative). [footnote:] Ahmad bin Hanbal, al-Musnad, annotated by Ahmad Muhammad Shākir in 15 volumes, Dār al-Ma‘ārif, Cairo, 1949-1958, hadith no. 883.

Firstly, he makes a mistake in that Minhal narrates from (عباد بن عبد الله الأسدي) 'Abaad bin Abdallah al-Asadi, and not from 'Abdallah bin al-asadi.

The text of the traditions are as follows:

883

 حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا أسود بن عامر ثنا شريك عن الأعمش عن المنهال عن عباد بن عبد الله الأسدي عن على رضي الله عنه قال : لما نزلت هذه الآية { وأنذر عشيرتك الأقربين } قال جمع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم من أهل بيته فاجتمع ثلاثون فأكلوا وشربوا قال فقال لهم من يضمن عني ديني ومواعيدي ويكون معي في الجنة ويكون خليفتي في أهلي فقال رجل لم يسمه شريك يا رسول الله أنت كنت بحرا من يقوم بهذا قال ثم قال الآخر قال فعرض ذلك على أهل بيته فقال علي رضي الله عنه انا

تعليق شعيب الأرنؤوط : إسناده ضعيف

1371

 حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا عفان ثنا أبو عوانة عن عثمان بن المغيرة عن أبي صادق عن ربيعة بن ناجذ عن على رضي الله عنه قال : جمع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أو دعا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بنى عبد المطلب فيهم رهط كلهم يأكل الجذعة ويشرب الفرق قال فصنع لهم مدا من طعام فأكلوا حتى شبعوا قال وبقى الطعام كما هو كأنه لم يمس ثم دعا بغمر فشربوا حتى رووا وبقى الشراب كأنه لم يمس أو لم يشرب فقال يا بنى عبد المطلب انى بعثت لكم خاصة والى الناس بعامة وقد رأيتم من هذه الآية ما رأيتم فأيكم يبايعني على أن يكون أخي وصاحبي قال فلم يقم إليه أحد قال فقمت إليه وكنت أصغر القوم قال فقال اجلس قال ثلاث مرات كل ذلك أقوم إليه فيقول لي اجلس حتى كان في الثالثة ضرب بيده على يدي

تعليق شعيب الأرنؤوط : إسناده ضعيف

Arnout (rah) has graded both traditions as having inauthentic isnaad. The weakness in the first one is from two of the narrators, Shareek bin Abdallah al-Najai and 'Abaad bin Abdallah al-Asadi. The problematic narrator in the second chain is Rabi'ah bin Naajidh.

As to the text of the narration, the first narration has the Prophet (saw) saying (خليفتي في أهلي) “Who will be my successor from my family”, meaning that even if the tradition is accepted, the successorship spoken of here is limited to his family – as in, who will succeed me as head of my Household. And not successorship of the Ummah.

There are many things which Tabatabai omits in his disingenious commentary when he speaks about the second narration. First and foremost, the title of Tabatabai’s chapter is “1) Admonition to Kinsmen and Nomination of Imam ‘Ali (‘a)” while the “authentic” tradition he uses doesn't even include this statement of successorship! Instead, this version is about him declaring his Prophethood to Bani Abdul Mattalib and asking who will accept him.

Furthermore, this version “narrated in greater detail” actually has the Prophet refusing ‘Ali for his age and telling ‘Ali to sit three times before accepting him.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2015, 10:36:01 AM by twoblade »

twoblade

Re: Glimpses of Shi'ism in the Musnad of bin Hanbal
« Reply #2 on: July 12, 2015, 10:49:40 AM »
Tradition 2 – 'Alee is to Me as Haroon was to Musa

Quote
[Commentary:] He subsequently placed Imam ‘Alī (‘a) in charge of Medina before departing for the expedition to Tabuk, and in order to quell the hypocrites’ ill-speaking of his cousin, he said the latter’s position to him was like that of Aaron to Prophet Moses (‘a).

This saying is known as Hadīth al-Manzilah and has been reported by all scholars. Ibn Hanbal has recorded it in the Musnad twenty times through different chains of isnād on the authority of several companions of the Prophet including Jābir bin ‘Abdullāh al-Ansārī, Asmā’ bint ‘Umays, ‘Abdullāh bin ‘Abbās, Abī Sa‘īd al-Khidrī and Sa‘d bin Abī Waqqās.

Abī Ahmad Zubayri quotes ‘Abdullāh bin Habīb bin Abī Thābit from Hamzah bin ‘Abdullāh from his father and from Sa‘d (bin Abī Waqqās)...Ahmad Shākir has termed the isnād of this hadīth as fair.

He makes a mistake in saying Hamzah from his father and from Sa'd. Hamzah only took it from his father who took it from Sa'd as the actual chain says (حمزة بن عبد الله عن أبيه عن سعد).

As for the narration itself:

1600

 حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا أبو أحمد الزبيري ثنا عبد الله يعني بن حبيب بن أبي ثابت عن حمزة بن عبد الله عن أبيه عن سعد قال : لما خرج رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في غزوة تبوك خلف عليا رضي الله عنه فقال له أتخلفني قال له أما ترضى أن تكون منى بمنزلة هارون من موسى الا انه لا نبي بعدي

تعليق شعيب الأرنؤوط : صحيح لغيره

The tradition is saheeh li-ghayrihi as stated by Sheykh al-Arnout (i.e. the asl of the tradition is authentic and this chain is not).

This chain suffers from Hamzah bin Abdallah and his father, neither of whom are rebuked or praised (indicating that they are essentially majhool). This fact was mentioned by Ahmed Shakir (rah) on account of several scholars as well, including Bukhari (rah), before he made his conclusion.

As for the reason that Tabataba'i probably used this unreliable and inauthentic version of the report is because of the words employed in it. Firstly, it doesn't have 'Alee (ra) saying “why have you left me with the women and children” and allows Tabataba'i to more easily fill in the blanks and simply accuse the hypocrites and their “ill-speaking of his cousin” as the reason for this statement. In addition to which, it has the Prophet (saw) appointing him as his “khalifa” while he is out of the city.

As for Tabatabai's mentioning of the authentication by Ahmed Shakir (rah), Ahmed Shakir actually said that it “is hasan inshaAllah”, not simply that the sanad is hasan.

The authenticity of the saying “'Alee is to me as Harun was to Musa” is not in question whatsoever here, but as mentioned by Tabatabai, was recorded by numerous scholars of ahadeeth and has been recorded in its most authentic forms as well such as in saheeh al-Bukhari:

Quote
Allah’s Apostle set out for (the Battle of) Tabuk, appointing Ali as his deputy (in Medina). Ali said, “Do you want to leave me with the children and women?” The Prophet said, “Will you not be pleased that you will be to me like Haroon to Musa? But there will be no prophet after me.”

Secondly, it is important to note here that the Twelver scholar essentially dismisses the arguments of many ignorant modern day Twelver polemicists who've attempted to employ this tradition to say that 'Alee (ra) was the successor of Muhammad (saw). This is because the tradition was actually given, as admitted by Tabatabai, as a response and not a declaration when the Prophet (saw) marched on with several of the Sahaba (ra) and left 'Alee (ra) behind.

The reason the Prophet (saw) said, “except that there will be no prophet after me”, was not because 'Alee (ra) was appointed as successor but because whenever the Prophet (saw) compared a sahabi (ra) to a Prophet (as), he made it a point to make his finality clear. The actual successor of Musa (as) was (Joshua) Yusha bin Nun (as) and not Haroon (as) who was simply an associate of Musa (as) and died during the lifetime of Musa (as). And this issue has been beaten to death in Sunni-Twelver apologetics.

twoblade

Re: Glimpses of Shi'ism in the Musnad of bin Hanbal
« Reply #3 on: July 12, 2015, 11:30:54 AM »
Tradition 3 – Abu Bakr Left Behind

Quote
Wakī‘ has related to us from Isrā’īl from Abī Ishāq from Zayd bin Yuthay‘ from Abū Bakr:...Ahmad Shākir, the annotator of the Musnad has considered the isnād of this hadīth as sahīh (authoritative) and has said that Zayd bin Yuthay‘ was a trustworthy person of the first generation of Muslims after the Prophet and the name of his father has also been mentioned as Uthay‘. Habashī bin Junādah al-Sulukī who took part in the Farewell Pilgrimage of the Prophet, has recorded four hadīth with a similiar text in his own Musnad which confirms Ibn Hanbal’s narration of the above hadīth. Habashī quotes Abū Bakr that the Messenger of Allah (S) said: ‘Alī is from me and I am from him. My words will not be conveyed except by me or by ‘Alī. [Footnote for the Musnad of Habashi:] Ibn Hanbal’s Musnad published in 6 volumes by Matba‘ah al-Maymaniyyah, vol. 4, pp. 164-165, 1st edition, Egypt, 1313 AH.

As for the narration:

4

 حدثنا عبد الله قال حدثني أبي قال ثنا وكيع قال قال إسرائيل قال أبو إسحاق عن زيد بن يثيع عن أبي بكر : أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بعثه ببراءة لأهل مكة لا يحج بعد العام مشرك ولا يطوف بالبيت عريان ولا يدخل الجنة إلا نفس مسلمة من كان بينه وبين رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم مدة فأجله إلى مدته والله { بريء من المشركين ورسوله } قال فسار بها ثلاثا ثم قال لعلي رضي الله تعالى عنه ألحقه فرد علي أبا بكر وبلغها أنت قال ففعل قال فلما قدم على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أبو بكر بكى قال يا رسول الله حدث في شيء قال ما حدث فيك إلا خير ولكن أمرت أن لا يبلغه إلا أنا أو رجل مني

تعليق شعيب الأرنؤوط : إسناده ضعيف رجاله ثقات رجال الشيخين غير زيد بن يثيع

Shu'ayb Arnout (rah) says: “The chain is weak, it's narrators are reliable men used by Sheykhan except for Zayd bin Yuthay.”

This is the fourth tradition of Imaam Ahmed's musnad and if Tabatabai had gone chronologically, this would have been his first chapter. The reason Tabatabai mentions this tradition immediately after the preceding one however is quite clear. He means to give the reader the impression that when 'Alee (ra) is stopped, than it is because of 'Alee's (ra) high rank whereas when Abu Bakr (ra) is stopped, than that too is due to 'Alee's (ra) lofty status with respect to the messenger (saw).

Whereas, if this tradition is accepted, it doesn’t demean Abu Bakr or elevate ‘Ali – rather, it elevates Abu Bakr as he was the Prophet’s own choice. A reasonable cause for Abu Bakr being called back and ‘Ali being sent instead is that in addition the religious information being conveyed, the Prophet was also making a proclamation concerning debts and contracts between himself and others. And though the Prophet wanted to send the man who would succeed him as leader of the Muslims, it was deemed more appropriate by revelation that the Prophet should send a man from his family to make a statement pertaining to his personal liabilities.

The reason Tabatabai mentions the comments of Ahmed Shakir here beyond the grade Ahmed Shakir gives to this tradition, whereas he hasn't in the previous traditions, is because in this case Ahmed Shakir is defending one of the narrators. To summarize Ahmed Shakir, the defense of the narrator is on account of Ibn Hibban (rah) and those that followed his tawtheeq on this apparently unknown figure.

Farid

Re: Glimpses of Shi'ism in the Musnad of bin Hanbal
« Reply #4 on: July 12, 2015, 01:48:34 PM »
Mashallah. I like what I see so far. Wouldn't you rather have this up as an article on the site instead of a thread on the forum?

Ibn Yahya

Re: Glimpses of Shi'ism in the Musnad of bin Hanbal
« Reply #5 on: July 12, 2015, 02:14:25 PM »
One time an ignorant Shi'i on facebook tagged me in that article from al-Islam. I looked up the references and found either they were things we already believed in or weak Hadiths, I showed them the gradings and he then said my argument was "pathetic" and based off of "personal opinions". Then realising his mistake in tagging someone who knew the Shi'i tendency to quote Weak Hadiths in the hope that it will fool ignorant Sunnis he told me to get off his post, and when I told him he shouldn't tag me in his posts if he doesn't want to be refuted and then he either un-friended or blocked me lol

Ibn Yahya

Re: Glimpses of Shi'ism in the Musnad of bin Hanbal
« Reply #6 on: July 12, 2015, 02:15:18 PM »
very good refutation so far alHamdulillah

twoblade

Re: Glimpses of Shi'ism in the Musnad of bin Hanbal
« Reply #7 on: July 12, 2015, 02:44:31 PM »
Tradition 4 – Complaints Concerning 'Alee's (ra) Conduct with Khums

Quote
[Tabatabai omits the sanad of this narration and continues:]...Burayrah (Aslamī) has related: ...When their men had died fighting, the families surrendered and from among the captives, (Imam) ‘Alī [(‘a)] chose a maid for himself...[Burayrah complains and the Prophet responds] ...Lā taqa‘ fī ‘Alīyyin fa innahu minnī wa ana minhu wa huwa waliyyukum ba‘dī wa innahu minnī wa ana minhu wa huwa waliyyukum ba‘dī (Don't try to find faults with ‘Alī, he is indeed from me and I am from him, he is your leader after me. He is from me and I am from him, he is your leader after me)

Tabatabai incorrectly names the Sahabi (ra) in question as Burayrah. This is incorrect, his name is Buraydah ibn al-Khasib al-Aslami.

The tradition is as follows:

23062

 حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا بن نمير حدثني أجلح الكندي عن عبد الله بن بريدة عن أبيه بريدة قال : بعث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بعثين إلى اليمن على أحدهما علي بن أبي طالب وعلى الآخر خالد بن الوليد فقال إذا التقيتم فعلي على الناس وان افترقتما فكل واحد منكما على جنده قال فلقينا بنى زيد من أهل اليمن فاقتتلنا فظهر المسلمون على المشركين فقتلنا المقاتلة وسبينا الذرية فاصطفى علي امرأة من السبي لنفسه قال بريدة فكتب معي خالد بن الوليد إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يخبره بذلك فلما أتيت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم دفعت الكتاب فقرئ عليه فرأيت الغضب في وجه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقلت يا رسول الله هذا مكان العائذ بعثتني مع رجل وأمرتني ان أطيعه ففعلت ما أرسلت به فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لا تقع في علي فإنه منى وأنا منه وهو وليكم بعدي وانه منى وأنا منه وهو وليكم بعدي

تعليق شعيب الأرنؤوط : إسناده ضعيف بهذه السياقة من أجل أجلح الكندي

The chain is weak according to Shu'ayb Arnout (rah) because of Ajlah al-Kindi who is bin Abdullah bin Hujayah. Ahmed Shakir's tawtheeq lists the riwayah as saheeh.

Although Ajlah al-Kindi has not been considered as weak by most of the scholars, he is a known Shi'i, and the narration of a Bidati supporting his bid'a is rejected. Of note though, Imaam an-Nasa'i (rah), the author of various important works including Khasais Ameer al-Mumineen, which Tabatabai praises in the preface as an “excellent work”, has dubbed the narrator Ajlah al-Kindi as weak. This narration, without the wording , is included in several other compendiums of ahadith and the merits of this version of the narration have been discussed by others here and here.

Let us however assume that this addition is accurate, does it imply that 'Ali was to be the next Leader of the Muslims after the Prophet? Let's step away from Sunni-Shi'ite polemics for a few moments and re-read the hadith from a more unbiased perspective, suddenly the controversy disappears entirely. The Prophet had appointed 'Ali as the Amir of the ghazwa against Bani Zayd as mentioned in that very same tradition! So when Burayda is complaining to the Prophet about 'Ali's conduct, and the Prophet is replying "he is your leader after me" - what makes more sense:

(a) that the Prophet means "after me, he is your leader" in that I'm your foremost leader but that 'Ali is your secondary leader (in this situation)
or
(b) that the Prophet is saying that after he dies years later, 'Ali will be the one to succeed him

The meaning becomes quite clear when we consider the context of the narration itself and ignore anachronistic impositions of later-day arguments. Further adding to the clarity is that this version of the report through Ajlah doesn't come in the form ("علي ولي كل مؤمن بعدي" - 'Ali is the wali of every Believer after me) but instead ("وليكم بعدي" - ['Ali is] YOUR leader after me)

Had the Prophet (saw) intended by this to appoint 'Alee (ra), he would've left no room for doubt in his employment of the proper terms. Further, the appointment of a leader would've been done at a well attended event for just that purpose, not at some stop to make salaah at Ghadeer or in response to some upset sentiments over a dispute between a soldier and his commander. And had Buraydah (ra) understood this statement to mean 'Alee (ra) would be the leader, than he would've contested the leadership of Abu Bakr (ra) and 'Umar (ra).

twoblade

Re: Glimpses of Shi'ism in the Musnad of bin Hanbal
« Reply #8 on: July 12, 2015, 02:56:17 PM »
Mashallah. I like what I see so far. Wouldn't you rather have this up as an article on the site instead of a thread on the forum?

How would I do that? Can I just send it to you as a word doc, or would that require a specific formatting? Also, I think it would be best to divide it into sections - I haven't cleaned up what I threw together on tradition 5 yet, but that one alone is probably equivalent to everything I've posted so far.

Farid

Re: Glimpses of Shi'ism in the Musnad of bin Hanbal
« Reply #9 on: July 12, 2015, 05:28:53 PM »
I was thinking that the intro should be on the first page. The links should be on the bottom to each of the sections/traditions.

Do send an e-mail to twelvershia@aol.com

Jazak Allah khairan for your hard work.

Hani

Re: Glimpses of Shi'ism in the Musnad of bin Hanbal
« Reply #10 on: July 12, 2015, 10:51:40 PM »
Salam,

Yes, twelvershia.net does accept academic articles written by qualified researchers.

Jazak-Allah Khayr.
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

twoblade

Re: Glimpses of Shi'ism in the Musnad of bin Hanbal
« Reply #11 on: July 13, 2015, 02:48:23 AM »
Tradition 5 – Leaving Behind the Book (Qur'an) and the Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet (saw)

Quote
Aswad bin ‘Amir has related from Abī Isrā’īl, i.e. Ismā‘īl bin Abī Ishāq Malaie, from ‘Atiyyah from Abī Sa‘īd...I am leaving among you two precious things, one of which is greater than the other. The Book of Allah which is the rope extending from the sky to the earth and my progeny my Ahl al-Bayt. [Footnote:] Ibid, vol. 3, p. 14. Hadith al-Thaqalayn has been recorded extensively in the Musnad, e.g. vol. 3, pp. 17, 26 & 59; vol. 4, p. 367; vol. 5, pp. 181, 189, 190.

This was thoroughly addressed here.

There are eight Thaqalayn traditions in the musnad, and the first tradition is the primary one mentioned by Tabatabai. Curiously, Tabatabai omitted one of the two most authentic versions included by Imaam Ahmed (rah) - (4/371, 19332).

To summarize the findings there here:

11119 – Weak due to 'Atiyah al-'Aoufi (عطية العوفي)
11147 – Weak due to 'Atiyah al-'Aoufi (عطية العوفي). Muhammad ibn Talhah may also contribute to its weakness.
11227 – Weak due to 'Atiyah al-'Aoufi (عطية العوفي)
11578 – Weak due to 'Atiyah al-'Aoufi (عطية العوفي). Note this has the same sanad as the prior narration, except it's wording is slightly different in both its text and the way the sanad was reported. This shows the care with which Imaam Ahmed (rah) and other scholars transmitted these texts to us, even with respect to the tiniest differences like saying 'Atiyah al-'Aoufi versus simply 'Atiyah.
19285 – Chain is authentic by the standards of Muslim. Note I don't believe this one was addressed in the list of texts and chains.
19332 – Chain is authentic by the standards of Bukhari.
21618 – Weak because of Shareek (شريك) who is also known as Ibn Abdallah an-Na'jiy. He was not only weak in ahadith but as discussed prior, has tashayu. [There is also a weakness in the rawi al-Qassim ibn Hassan (القاسم بن حسان)]
21697 – Weak because of Shareek (شريك) – and al-Qassim ibn Hassan (القاسم بن حسان).

With the exclusion of the authentic chains of 19285 and 19332, the remaining versions of the ahadeeth were considered authentic only due to authentic shawahid with more reliable wording. 19332 specifically however simply has the question posed to Zayd ibn Arqam (ra), whether he's heard the saying “I am leaving amongst you two things” or not, to which he (ra) responds that he has. So the only narration of substance that is authentic here is 19285. And this particular narration, the important text of which can also be found in Saheeh Muslim, contradicts Twelver beliefs on several accounts:
  • It does not include the statement about the Qur’an and Ahlul Bayt never parting, so the interpretation that such a statement alludes to the infallibility of Ahlul Bayt becomes void.
  • It does not tell people to follow Ahlul Bayt, or that the Prophet’s successor must be from his Ahlul Bayt, so it is of no value in that argument. Instead, it merely has the Prophet reminding the people of his family (that they should look after their welfare).
  • Though it is known that Zayd ibn Arqam was of the opinion that this hadith was in reference to Ahlul Kisa with exception to the wives of the Prophet - this tradition has Zayd explicitly endorsing that the wives of the Prophet are indeed part of his Ahlul Bayt – even if he doesn’t believe this tradition pertains to them.
  • Twelver traditions say that their Imaams are the rope of Allah (this is widely documented Twelver tradition). This tradition however, even in several of its weak forms, says that the rope of Allah is actually the Qur’an.

Surely, a riwayah which even in forms that we don’t accept contradicts fundamental Twelver beliefs can’t possibly be called a “Glimpse of Twelver Shi’ism”.


Reason for edit: Corrected the link
« Last Edit: July 13, 2015, 11:05:12 PM by AbuMuslimKhorasani »

twoblade

Re: Glimpses of Shi'ism in the Musnad of bin Hanbal
« Reply #12 on: July 13, 2015, 04:16:27 AM »
Tradition 6 – For whomsoever I am mawla, ‘Alee is his mawla

Quote
‘Abdullah bin Ahmad relates from ‘Ali bin Hakim Awdi from Sharik from Abi Ishaq from Sa‘id bin Wahab and Zayd bin Yuyhay‘ both of whom have narrated [That the Prophet said]:…O Allah! For whomsoever I am master ‘Ali is his master. O Allah! befriend his friends and despise his enemies)”… The version of Hadith al-Ghadir mentioned above is from the notes of Ibn Hanbal’s son ‘Abdullah on his father’s work. Ahmad Shakir the annotator of the Musnad has described as sahih the isnad of this hadith and has said about Sa‘id bin Wahab Khaywani that he was among the trustworthy and experienced Muslims of the first generation after the Prophet.

The hadith of Ghadir is one which has been extensively dealt with here.

This particular report is weak however:

950

 حدثنا عبد الله ثنا على بن حكيم الأودي أنبأنا شريك عن أبي إسحاق عن سعيد بن وهب وعن زيد بن يثيع قالا نشد على الناس في الرحبة من سمع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول يوم غدير خم الا قام قال فقام من قبل سعيد ستة ومن قبل زيد ستة فشهدوا انهم سمعوا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول لعلي رضي الله عنه يوم غدير خم : أليس الله أولى بالمؤمنين قالوا بلى قال اللهم من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه اللهم وال من والاه وعاد من عاداه

تعليق شعيب الأرنؤوط : صحيح لغيره

Arnout mentions that it is sahih li-ghayrihi as we have authentic versions of it (though not this version). It is weak due to Shareek, who has been discussed previously. This narration is interesting however in that Abi Ishaq reports the same tradition from both Sa’id bin Wahhab and from Zayd ibn Uthay. As for Zayd ibn Uthay, his presence causes issues as discussed prior but this becomes irrelevant if Zayd is simply narrating a corroborating report with Sa’id.

I suspect however that one of the narrators heard this narration from his teachers twice. Once where Zayd ibn Uthay was left out by Sa'id and once where the tradition was connected through him. And our version in the musnad is the narrator resolving this. This gives the appearance of corroboration, but that understanding would be a mistake and the actual chain would be “سعيد بن وهب عن زيد بن يثيع” as reported in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah:

28

 حدثنا شريك عن أبي إسحاق عن سعيد بن وهب عن زيد بن يثيع قال : بلغ عليا أن أناسا يقولون فيه ؛ قال : فصعد المنبر فقال : أنشد الله رجلا ولا أنشده إلا من أصحاب محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم سمع من النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم شيئا إلا قام ، فقام مما يليه ستة ، ومما يلي سعد بن وهب ستة فقالوا : نشهد أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه ، اللهم وال من والاه وعاد من عاداه .


Reason for edit: Corrected the link
« Last Edit: July 13, 2015, 11:06:02 PM by AbuMuslimKhorasani »

Aba AbdAllah

Re: Glimpses of Shi'ism in the Musnad of bin Hanbal
« Reply #13 on: July 13, 2015, 04:34:59 AM »
Quote
Though it is known that Zayd ibn Arqam was of the opinion that this hadith was in reference to Ahlul Kisa with exception to the wives of the Prophet
Where did you get this?

twoblade

Re: Glimpses of Shi'ism in the Musnad of bin Hanbal
« Reply #14 on: July 13, 2015, 07:00:16 AM »
Quote
Though it is known that Zayd ibn Arqam was of the opinion that this hadith was in reference to Ahlul Kisa with exception to the wives of the Prophet
Where did you get this?

You can see one of the narrations of Thaqalayn:

19285

 حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا إسماعيل بن إبراهيم عن أبي حيان التيمي حدثني يزيد بن حيان التيمي قال : انطلقت أنا وحصين بن سبرة وعمر بن مسلم إلى زيد بن أرقم فلما جلسنا إليه قال له حصين لقد لقيت يا زيد خيرا كثيرا رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وسمعت حديثه وغزوت معه وصليت معه لقد رأيت يا زيد خيرا كثيرا حدثنا يا زيد ما سمعت من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال يا بن أخي والله لقد كبرت سني وقدم عهدي ونسيت بعض الذي كنت أعي من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فما حدثتكم فاقبلوه ومالا فلا تكلفونيه ثم قال قام رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يوما خطيبا فينا بماء يدعى خما بين مكة والمدينة فحمد الله تعالى وأثنى عليه ووعظ وذكر ثم قال أما بعد الا يا أيها الناس إنما أنا بشر يوشك ان يأتيني رسول ربي عز وجل فأجيب وإني تارك فيكم ثقلين أولهما كتاب الله عز وجل فيه الهدى والنور فخذوا بكتاب الله تعالى واستمسكوا به فحث على كتاب الله ورغب فيه قال وأهل بيتي أذكركم الله في أهل بيتي أذكركم الله في أهل بيتي أذكركم الله في أهل بيتي فقال له حصين ومن أهل بيته يا زيد أليس نساؤه من أهل بيته قال ان نساءه من أهل بيته ولكن أهل بيته من حرم الصدقة بعده قال ومن هم قال هم آل على وآل عقيل وآل جعفر وآل عباس قال أكل هؤلاء حرم الصدقة قال نعم قال يزيد بن حيان ثنا زيد بن أرقم في مجلسه ذلك قال بعث إلى عبيد الله بن زياد فأتيته فقال ما أحاديث تحدثها وترويها عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لا نجدها في كتاب الله تحدث ان له حوضا في الجنة قال قد حدثناه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ووعدناه قال كذبت ولكنك شيخ قد خرفت قال انى قد سمعته أذناي ووعاه قلبي من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول من كذب على متعمدا فليتبوأ مقعده من جهنم وما كذبت على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وحدثنا زيد في مجلسه قال ان الرجل من أهل النار ليعظم للنار حتى يكون الضرس من أضراسه كأحد


Something similar is also reported from him by either Muslim or Bukhari with respect to his interpretation of ahl in this particular statement if I recall correctly. And similar opinions from him are available in other sources.

Edit: Never mind, I just see the word I used. I'll correct that. Edit2: Nevermind, I see I can't make corrections to preceding texts. But Ahlul Kisa is incorrect.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2015, 07:06:19 AM by twoblade »

MuslimK

  • *****
  • Total likes: 210
  • +5/-0
  • یا مقلب القلوب ثبت قلبی علی دینک
    • Refuting Shia allegations everywhere
  • Religion: Sunni
Re: Glimpses of Shi'ism in the Musnad of bin Hanbal
« Reply #15 on: July 13, 2015, 11:01:16 PM »
@ twoblade

Salam Alaikum,

Brother when you want to add links don't put the the quotation marks " around the url address as it will not work. It adds extra characters to the link. 

May Allah reward you for the good work.
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

www.Nahjul-Balagha.net | www.TwelverShia.net | www.ghadirkhumm.com

MuslimK

  • *****
  • Total likes: 210
  • +5/-0
  • یا مقلب القلوب ثبت قلبی علی دینک
    • Refuting Shia allegations everywhere
  • Religion: Sunni
Re: Glimpses of Shi'ism in the Musnad of bin Hanbal
« Reply #16 on: September 04, 2015, 03:22:45 PM »
Any update?
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

www.Nahjul-Balagha.net | www.TwelverShia.net | www.ghadirkhumm.com

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
3443 Views
Last post May 05, 2015, 12:48:22 PM
by farrukhkabir
0 Replies
516 Views
Last post July 28, 2015, 02:52:06 AM
by Ibn Yahya
0 Replies
1029 Views
Last post November 03, 2015, 06:15:28 AM
by Bolani Muslim
86 Replies
2216 Views
Last post July 27, 2017, 11:32:31 AM
by Noor-us-Sunnah