Which Talha (ra) was it?

[muslim720]

Salaam alaykum wa rahmatullah,
Recently I came across an Urdu video from Takbeer TV in which Muhammad Tayyib Naqshbandi - a speaker on that channel I assume - refuted Hassan Allahyari's claims that it was Talha ibn Ubaydullah from the "10 Promised Heaven" who said that he would marry Aisha (ra) once the Prophet (saw) passes away.

The speaker cited something which I did not know until I found it on this very website.  He stated the following:
"The fact is that he is not the same Talha ibn Ubaidullah ibn Uthman ibn Amr ibn Kaab al-Tamimi al-Qarshi, who was present in the battle of Jamal, and who was from the ten persons who are guaranteed paradise, rather he is Talha ibn Ubaidullah ibn Musafa’ ibn Ayyaz ibn Sakhar ibn Aamir ibn Kaab al-Tamimi al-Qarshi.  We read in usudul Ghaba he was named as Talha al-Khair as well like Talha ibn Ubaidullah, who is from the ten (who are guaranteed paradise) and this lead to confusion amongst people, and they said : He is the one regarding whom the verse of Quran “” was revealed, and this is because he said : If the Prophet (saw) died, I will marry Ayesha, and this is wrong, and this is why a group of people from the ahl al-tafsir  thought that he is Talha ibn Ubaidullah, the one from the ten (who are guaranteed paradise) when they saw that he is Talha ibn Ubaidullah al-Tamimi al-Qarshi, and that he is a Sahabi as well.
Usudul Ghaba, Vol. 5, p. 122" (source: http://twelvershia.net/2013/04/25/respone-to-what-does-mother-of-believers-really-mean/)

Allahyari kept saying that no matter which Talha this might be, claiming such a condemned person to be the Companion of the Prophet (saw) is something abominable.  Allahyari forgot that he himself has said much worse things regarding the wives of the Prophet (saw) than Talha (ra).

Anyways, he then quoted the book and said that the report starts with "yaqeela" and that the author himself was not sure of the authenticity of the report.  Furthermore, he pointed to the fact that the footnote read that the narration was reported by Abu Musa whom Allahyari claimed to have been born 501 years after the Hijrah who reported it from Ibn Shaheen.  He also said that there are multiple Ibn Shaheen and we do not know which Ibn Shaheen is being referenced here.  Lastly, Allahyari showed Ibn Hajar's (rah) Al-Isabah in which the same report is mentioned with the following footnote that Abu Musa narrated this from Ibn Shaheen without a chain.

Any thoughts on this?

[Farid]

Wa alaykum alsalam wa rahmatullah,

It is tough to comment on this when we haven't seen the video. Ibn Shaheen is known, it is Abu Hafs. It is his opinion that this is not Talha (one of the ten). So I don't know what an isnad has to do with this.

[muslim720]

Wa alaykum alsalam wa rahmatullah,

It is tough to comment on this when we haven't seen the video. Ibn Shaheen is known, it is Abu Hafs. It is his opinion that this is not Talha (one of the ten). So I don't know what an isnad has to do with this.

Thank you for your quick response.  I would share the video with you, however, it is entirely in Urdu so it won't do any good.  Originally, I misunderstood your point regarding Ibn Shaheen but it didn't take long to put one-and-one together to realize that (you meant) his full name was Abu Hafs ibn Shaheen or Abu Hafs Umar ibn Shaheen.  I found out that he died in 385H so that cuts a major chunk out of Allahyari's lie.  He stated that Abu Musa (the reporter mentioned in the footnote) was born in 501H and even if he reported it at the age of 25, it would put him at 526H, nearly half a century after the occurrence of this incident.  Now we know that Abu Hafs ibn Shaheen died in 385H so even if he died at the age of 60, he was born on 325H which puts him a lot closer than the 526H math which Allahyari came up with.

[Farid]

Abu Musa had access to Ibn Shaheen's Kitab Al-Sahaba. He didn't need an Isnad to Ibn Shaheen's book.

[muslim720]

^JazakAllah khair!  However - and this is just my own curiosity to better understand the situation - did ibn Shaheen give a chain for what he wrote (that this was another Talha (ra), not the same Talha (ra) from among the 10 guaranteed Paradise) in Al-Sahaba or did he just state it as his opinion?

Also, how much do we know regarding the other Talha (ra)?

[Optimus Prime]

muslim720, can you confirm the narration in question?

The text, and the source, please?

[muslim720]

In my original post, I have included the narration and source.  If you understand Urdu, I can share the original video (rebuttal to Allahyari) and Allahyari's counter-rebuttal.  However, the source is Usudul Ghaba.

[Farid]

^JazakAllah khair!  However - and this is just my own curiosity to better understand the situation - did ibn Shaheen give a chain for what he wrote (that this was another Talha (ra), not the same Talha (ra) from among the 10 guaranteed Paradise) in Al-Sahaba or did he just state it as his opinion?

Also, how much do we know regarding the other Talha (ra)?

Nah, Ibn Shaheen just provides his opinion. He doesn't give his daleel. Perhaps he did in his book, but it wasn't quoted by Abu Musa.

[muslim720]

The picture is becoming clearer by the minute.  Does Ibn Shaheen's book exist today (in case one wants to verify whether or not he gave his daleel and if yes, to cross examine his daleel)?

[Optimus Prime]

The picture is becoming clearer by the minute.  Does Ibn Shaheen's book exist today (in case one wants to verify whether or not he gave his daleel and if yes, to cross examine his daleel)?

Brother, is this the narration:

"He is the one regarding whom the verse of Quran was revealed, and this is because he said: 'If the Prophet (saw) died, I will marry Ayesha, and this is wrong, and this is why a group of people from the Ahl Al-tafsir thought that he is Talha ibn Ubaidullah, the one from the ten (who are guaranteed paradise) when they saw that he is Talha ibn Ubaidullah al-Tamimi al-Qarshi, and that he is a Sahabi as well.'

Source: Usudul Ghaba, Vol. 5, p. 122

Yes, please provide the video in Urdu.

[muslim720]

Yes, that is the narration.  Here is the video.  As an Afghan who learned how to read and write Hindi (therefore, I also understand Urdu), I feel like punching this SOB in his face.  I just despise the way he talks Urdu.

[Optimus Prime]

Yes, that is the narration.  Here is the video.  As an Afghan who learned how to read and write Hindi (therefore, I also understand Urdu), I feel like punching this SOB in his face.  I just despise the way he talks Urdu.

So, this is video where he's countering refutation against him by Takbeer TV?

[muslim720]

Yes sir!

[Farid]

The picture is becoming clearer by the minute.  Does Ibn Shaheen's book exist today (in case one wants to verify whether or not he gave his daleel and if yes, to cross examine his daleel)?

Nah. His book is lost.

[muslim720]

Thank you for all the information, brother Farid. 

I had to let this squint-eyed know the truth so I posted the following under his video (which is uploaded under his YouTube channel):
All the narrations which link Talha ibn Ubaydullah (ra) - the one from the Ten guaranteed Paradise - to this incident are either weak or problematic.  They include the narrations which exist in Tafseer Al-Qurtubi, Tabaqat Al-Kabir, Sunan Al-Bayhaqi, Tafsir Ibn Kathir and Tafsir Al-Quran.  The closest narration is a "mursal" (disconnected) report which says that it was Talha (ra), the one from the Ten Guaranteed Paradise, who expressed interest in marrying Aisha (ra) after the Prophet (saw) passes away.  The rest of the reports are outright rejected.  Therefore, we do not know for a certainty which one of the Companions (ra) made this remark (regarding marrying Aisha).

If such a thing annoyed the Prophet (saw), and it truly did, imagine how much it annoys Allah (swt) and His Prophet (saw) when Allahyari curses Aisha (ra) and Hafsa (ra).  I am glad to see Allahyari expose his own hypocrisy.

Having said that, allow me to go back to the part that Allahyari hides from his viewers.  He says that the report comes from Abu Musa who quotes ibn Shaheen.  Allahyari says that there are many ibn Shaheen and moves on.  If he does not know then I will inform him that this ibn Shaheen was Abu Hafs Umar ibn Shaheen.  He is well-known; too bad that Allahyari does not know this or maybe he was hiding this fact because it would have exposed his counter-rebuttal to be nothing but a publicity stunt. 

Usudul Ghaba quotes Abu Musa who quotes Abu Hafs ibn Shaheen's book "Al-Sahaba".  Abu Musa did not have to give a sanad because he had access to the book of ibn Shaheen (all he did was point to the author as his source).  Abu Hafs ibn Shaheen, on the other hand, gives his opinion (that it was a different Talha (ra) who made this remark, not the one from the Ten Guaranteed Paradise).  To find out his daleel, or whether or not ibn Shaheen provided proof for his daleel, we must look into his book, Al-Sahaba.  And that is what Allahyari should have done but he did not.

Irrespective of whether ibn Shaheen provided a daleel for his opinion or not, and never mind the authenticity of his daleel, it does nothing for Allahyari because he linked Talha (ra) (from the Ten Guaranteed Paradise) to this incident by way of rejected reports.  If rejected reports are good enough for Allahyari then the opinion of a trusted scholar (ibn Shaheen) is good enough for us.

Lastly, how is saying such a thing (that I want to marry the wife of the Prophet (saw) after he passes away) a sin before the Qur'an condemned it?  Did any of the Companions (ra) say such a thing after the revelation of the verse (in condemnation of it)?  No!  However, we see Allahyari condemn a companion of the Prophet (saw) for saying such a thing regarding the honor of the Prophet (saw) before the Qur'anic prohibition but he (Allahyari) curses the honor of the Prophet (saw) on a daily basis.  The Prophet (saw), in an authentic narration, said, "Don't harm me by harming `Aisha, for by Allah, the Divine Inspiration never came to me while I was under the blanket of any woman amongst you except her".

[muslim720]

This hiding-behind-women-and-TV-channel coward (Allahyari) is now deleting my comment from his YouTube channel.  I posted my comment again and it was gone within hours.

[Optimus Prime]

This hiding-behind-women-and-TV-channel coward (Allahyari) is now deleting my comment from his YouTube channel.  I posted my comment again and it was gone within hours.

Brother, please share your comments here.

[muslim720]

I already did!  Here it is, one more time:

"All the narrations which link Talha ibn Ubaydullah (ra) - the one from the Ten guaranteed Paradise - to this incident are either weak or problematic.  They include the narrations which exist in Tafseer Al-Qurtubi, Tabaqat Al-Kabir, Sunan Al-Bayhaqi, Tafsir Ibn Kathir and Tafsir Al-Quran.  The closest narration is a "mursal" (disconnected) report which says that it was Talha (ra), the one from the Ten Guaranteed Paradise, who expressed interest in marrying Aisha (ra) after the Prophet (saw) passes away.  The rest of the reports are outright rejected.  Therefore, we do not know for a certainty which one of the Companions (ra) made this remark (regarding marrying Aisha).

If such a thing annoyed the Prophet (saw), and it truly did, imagine how much it annoys Allah (swt) and His Prophet (saw) when Allahyari curses Aisha (ra) and Hafsa (ra).  I am glad to see Allahyari expose his own hypocrisy.

Having said that, allow me to go back to the part that Allahyari hides from his viewers.  He says that the report comes from Abu Musa who quotes ibn Shaheen.  Allahyari says that there are many ibn Shaheen and moves on.  If he does not know then I will inform him that this ibn Shaheen was Abu Hafs Umar ibn Shaheen.  He is well-known; too bad that Allahyari does not know this or maybe he was hiding this fact because it would have exposed his counter-rebuttal to be nothing but a publicity stunt. 

Usudul Ghaba quotes Abu Musa who quotes Abu Hafs ibn Shaheen's book "Al-Sahaba".  Abu Musa did not have to give a sanad because he had access to the book of ibn Shaheen (all he did was point to the author as his source).  Abu Hafs ibn Shaheen, on the other hand, gives his opinion (that it was a different Talha (ra) who made this remark, not the one from the Ten Guaranteed Paradise).  To find out his daleel, or whether or not ibn Shaheen provided proof for his daleel, we must look into his book, Al-Sahaba.  And that is what Allahyari should have done but he did not.

Irrespective of whether ibn Shaheen provided a daleel for his opinion or not, and never mind the authenticity of his daleel, it does nothing for Allahyari because he linked Talha (ra) (from the Ten Guaranteed Paradise) to this incident by way of rejected reports.  If rejected reports are good enough for Allahyari then the opinion of a trusted scholar (ibn Shaheen) is good enough for us.

Lastly, how is saying such a thing (that I want to marry the wife of the Prophet (saw) after he passes away) a sin before the Qur'an condemned it?  Did any of the Companions (ra) say such a thing after the revelation of the verse (in condemnation of it)?  No!  However, we see Allahyari condemn a companion of the Prophet (saw) for saying such a thing regarding the honor of the Prophet (saw) before the Qur'anic prohibition but he (Allahyari) curses the honor of the Prophet (saw) on a daily basis.  The Prophet (saw), in an authentic narration, said, "Don't harm me by harming `Aisha, for by Allah, the Divine Inspiration never came to me while I was under the blanket of any woman amongst you except her".

He keeps deleting it!

[MuslimAnswers]

Allahyari kept saying that no matter which Talha this might be, claiming such a condemned person to be the Companion of the Prophet (saw) is something abominable.

Lastly, how is saying such a thing (that I want to marry the wife of the Prophet (saw) after he passes away) a sin before the Qur'an condemned it?  Did any of the Companions (ra) say such a thing after the revelation of the verse (in condemnation of it)?  No!

It seems there is a need to examine what constitutes 'Disbelief' in the Twelver religion apart from their polemics; of course, while arguing against us, they will bring almost any and every piece of evidence to see if we waver (and this even applies to their scholars all across the board), but we have to see what are the definitions they give outside of their polemic books/speeches.

[muslim720]

It seems there is a need to examine what constitutes 'Disbelief' in the Twelver religion apart from their polemics; of course, while arguing against us, they will bring almost any and every piece of evidence to see if we waver (and this even applies to their scholars all across the board), but we have to see what are the definitions they give outside of their polemic books/speeches.

Good point!  This is why we need one, just one, of our scholars (well-versed in our sciences/beliefs and their sciences/beliefs) to see this man on live TV.  Allahyari is already in a mess with folks from Takbeer TV and Ummah channel.