4) Last problem of this chain is ‘Atiyyah h ibn Sad al-Awfe al-Koofe. Scholars of Islam almost agreed upon his weakness. Dhahabi, Abu Hatim, Nasai, Ahmad said he’s weak (“Mizanul itidal” 3/79/#5667). He was also weakned by Sufyan Thawri and Ibn Adi (“Tahzib al-kamal” 20/#3956). Heythami in “Majmau zawaid” #11125 said Atiyyah weak, abandoned.
Shaykh Muhammad Albani in his book on tawasul discussed ‘Atiyyah : “‘Atiyyah is weak as declared by an -Nawawee in al-Adhkaar, Ibn Taimiyyah in al-Qaa’idatul-Jaliyyah and adh-Dhahabee in al-Meezaan; indeed in ad-Du’afaa (88/1) he says: “They are agreed upon his weakness.” Also by al-Haafidh al-Haithamee in various places in Majma’uz-Zawaa’id from them (5/236). He is also mentioned by Aboo Bakr ibn al-Muhibb al-Ba’labakee in ad-Du’afaa wal-Matrookeen, and by al-Boosayree as will follow. Likewise al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr says of him: “Truthful but makes many mistakes; he was a Sbee’ee mudallis.” So he clarifies this narrator’s weakness and it is due to two things: (i) The weakness of his memory as shown by his saying: “He makes many mistakes.” This is like his saying about him in Tabaqaatul-Mudalliseen: “weak in hadeeth” Even more clear is his saying about him in “Talkbeesul-Habeer (p.24l, Indian edn.) whilst discussing another hadeeth: “It contains ‘Atiyyah ibn Sa’eed al-‘Awfee and he is weak.” (ii) His tadlees. However al-Haafidh should have explained the type of tadlees which he performed, since tadlees with the scholars of hadeeth is of many types, the most well-known of which are:
(a) That a narrator reports a narration from someone he met when in fact he did not directly hear that narration from him, or that he narrated something from a contemporary whom he did not actually meet, giving the impression that he heard it from him. For example by saying ‘From so and so’ or ‘so and so said.’
(b) That the narrator calls his Shaikh by an unfamiliar name or title, different to the name by which he is commonly known in order to hide his true identity. The scholars have clearly stated that this is something forbidden if his Shaikh was an unreliable narrator, and he does this to hide his identity or to give the impression that he was a different reliable narrator with the same name or title.103 This is known as tadleesusb-Shuyookh.
So in conclusion we say that ‘Atiyyah used to narrate from Aboo Sa’eed al – Khudree, radiyallaahu ‘anhu, then when he died he used to sit with one of the great liars well known for lying about hadeeth, who was al-Kalbee. Then ‘Atiyyah used to narrate from him, but when doing so would call him ‘Aboo Sa’eed’ to give the impression to those listening that he had heard these narrations from Aboo Sa’eed al-Khudree! This to me in itself would be enough to destroy the credibility of ‘Atiyyah, so how about when we have in addition to it his weak memory! Therefore I would have been pleased for al -Haafidh to clarify the fact that it was this evil type of tadlees which ‘Atiyyah was guilty of, even if only by an indication as he does in Tabaqaatul-Mudalliseen by his saying:
“Well-known for evil tadlees” as has preceded. It is as if al-Haafidh forgot or erred, or something else, as humans are prone to make mistakes some – times, since he says about this hadeeth that in one narration ‘Atiyyah says:
“Aboo Sa’eed narrated to me,” and he himself says about this: “Therefore through this we know that we are safe from ‘Atiyyahs tadlees,” as Ibn ‘Alaan narrated from him, and some modern day authors follow him blindly in that. I say: This declaration that he heard it from him would only be of use if his tadlees were of the first type, but the tadlees of ‘Atiyyah is of the second and worse type and will not be cured by this statement since he still said “Aboo Sa’eed narrated to me” which is exactly the evil type of tadlees which he is known for.104 So from what has preceded it will be clear that ‘Atiyyah is weak due to his poor memory and evil tadlees, so this hadeeth of his is weak. As for the declaration of al-Haafidh that it is hasan, which has beguiled some people who have no knowledge, then it is founded upon inadvertence. So be aware and do not be amongst those who are unaware. In the hadeeth there are other weaknesses which I have spoken about in the aforementioned book, so there is no need to repeat them since whoever wishes can refer to that.
As for the understanding of some people today that the saying of al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr in at-Taqreeb amounts to declaration of the reliability of ‘Atiyyah, then this is something which is not correct at all. I also asked Shaikh Ahmad ibn as- Haafidh upon this saying after our explanation of the type of tadlees which ‘Atiyyah is guilty of, then this person is biased and following his desires. This is the case with one who quoted this saying of al-Haafidh, using it as a reply to my declaration of the weakness of the hadeeth. I say that he is biased since I know that he is aware of the type of tadlees committed here and which is spoken of by me; this is because he is replying to these words of mine about this hadeeth. However he feigns ignorance of that fact and doesn’t say a single word in reply to it. Rather he pretends that the tadlees was of the first kind which can be removed by a narration where it is clearly stated that a narrator heard it directly from his Shaikh. Will the readers excuse me if I say:
Do such people not themselves deserve to be placed amongst those guilty of tadlees like ‘Atiyyah?!
Siddeeq when I met him in the Zaahiriyyah Library in Damascus about thi s understanding and he too found it very strange. For when the mistakes of a narrator become many his reliability is destroyed, as opposed to one whose mistakes are few. The first of these is weak whereas the second is hasan in hadeeth. This is why al-Haafidh in Sharhun-Nukhbah says, that one whose mistakes are many is the partner of one whose memory is poor, and he declares the ahaadeeth of both of them to be rejected, so refer back to that along with the footnotes of Shaikh ‘Alee al-Qaaree (pp.!21&130). These people have been deceived by what they report from al -Haafidh that he said in Takbreejul-Adhkaar. “The weakness of ‘Atiyyah is due to his being a Shee’ee, and due to the fact that it is said that he committed tadlees; apart from this he is acceptable. “ So these people, due to their paucity of knowledge or their lack of knowledge, do not have the courage to explain their view that the scholars do indeed make mistakes. Rather they quote their words as if they are secure from any error or slip whatsoever, especially if their words agree with what they desire, such as is the case with this quote. Since it is clear here that these words run contrary to the saying of al-Haafidh in at-Taqreeb where he shows that ‘Atiyyah is weak due to two reasons:
(i) Being a Shee’ee, which is not always a cause of weakness in the correct saying, and (ii) Tadlees which is a weakness that can be removed as will follow. However he seemed to weaken this reason by saying: “It is said…” Whereas in at-Taqreeb he definitely stated that he is a mudallis, just as he declares him to be a shee’ee. Therefore al-Haafidh himself also says of him in Tabaqaatul-Mudalliseen (p. 18): “A well known taabi’ee , weak in memory and well-known for evil tadlees!’ and he mentions him in the fourth level about whom he says: “Those about whom there is agreement then none of their hadeeth are acceptable unless they state clearly that they heard it directly. This is due to their frequency in reporting by means of tadlees from weak and unknown narrators, such as Baqiyyah ibn al-Waleed.”
He mentions this in his introduction. So both of these are clear statements from al-Haafidh himself which prove that he erred in the sentence in question when casting doubt upon the status of ‘Atiyyah as a mudallis. This is one way in which there is contradiction between this saying and what is found in at- Taqreeb. Then a further way in which there is contradiction is that in the sentence in question he fails to describe him with what is another cause of his weakness, as has preceded from him in the quote from Sharhun-Nukhbab,and that is his saying in at-Taqreeb: “He makes many mistakes.” All of this shows us that al-Haafidh, rahimahullaah, was not aided by his memory at the instance of his commenting upon this hadeeth. He therefore fell into this shortcoming which is witnessed to by his words in the other books which have more right to be depended upon. This is because in those books he quotes directly from the sources and abridges what they say, as opposed to what he does inTakhreejul-Adhkaar. (end of quote from shaykh Albani)
Jafar as-Sadiq on Abu Bakr as-Siddiq
July 13, 2010 at 4:37 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, History | 1 Comment
Salam alaikum, in his book “Kasfhul ghumma” Arbili quoted al-Hafith Abdulaziz, which said:
Abu Abdullah Jafar ibn Muhammad ibn Ali ibn al-Hussain ibn Ali ibn Abu Talib (a), as-Sadiq, his mother was Ummu Farwa bintul Qaseem ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (radiAllahu anhu), and her mother was Asma bintu Abdurrahman ibn Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, and due to that Jafar said: “Abu Bakr as-Siddiq born me twice“.
Refuting shia doubt in question of inheritance.
July 12, 2010 at 5:03 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Refuting shia doubts | Leave a comment
Salam alaikum, in one from our previous posts, we have already talked about Fadak in details.
In their attempt to make any base for their position, shias trying to find a proof in the verses of Quran.
First of all we should see these verses in context.
[27:15] And certainly We gave knowledge to Dawood and Sulaiman, and they both said: Praise be to Allah, Who has made us to excel many of His believing servants. [27:16] And Sulaiman was Dawood’s heir, and he said: O men! we have been taught the language of birds, and we have been given all things; most surely this is manifest grace.
(Quoted from ahlal-bayt):
In this verse, Allah is clearly talking about Sulaiman (عليه السلام) inheriting the knowledge of Dawud (عليه السلام). It has absolutely nothing to do with material possessions! Before and after the part about Prophet Sulaiman (عليه السلام) being Prophet Dawud’s heir (عليه السلام), we see that the Quran is talking about the special knowledge of the Prophets, especially the specific gift these Prophets were given in regards to understanding the speech of animals. The same can be said of the verses that the Shia propagandists use in regards to Prophet Zakariyyah (عليه السلام) who asked Allah in the Quran to grant him a son to become his successor.
It is obvious to all that these Quranic verses refer to the inheritance of the title of Prophethood, and has nothing to do with materal possessions. Allah uses the word “al-irth” in the Quran which does not refer to material possessions in the verses cited by the Shia. It is used to denote knowledge, Prophethood, or sovereignity. Examples of such usage are found in Surah Fatir in the Quran, in which Allah says:
“Therefore We gave the Book as inheritance (awrathna) to such of Our servants as We have chosen” (Quran, Surah Fatir)
As well as in Surah al-Mu’minoon, Allah says:
“Those are the Inheritors (al-warithun) who will inherit Paradise.” (Quran, Surah al-Mu’minoon)
Is Allah really talking about material possessions when he talks about these people? Truly this would be a ludicrous assumption.
It would not be fitting for a pious man such as Prophet Zakariyyah (عليه السلام) to be asking Allah to grant him an heir who will inherit material possessions. This would be superficial. Instead, the reality is that Prophet Zakariyyah (عليه السلام) asked for a son who would bear aloft the standard of Prophethood after him, and in whom the legacy of the progeny of Prophet Yaqoob (عليه السلام) would continue.
Indeed, it is well-known that Prophet Zakariyyah (عليه السلام) was a poor man who earned his living as a carpenter. What wealth could he possibly have had that would prompt him to request an heir from Allah? In fact, it was a general rule with the Prophets that they did not hoard anything beyond their need, and they spent any surplus in charity.
As for the case of Prophet Dawud (عليه السلام), it is well-known that he had 100 wives and 300 concubines. He had numerous children from these wives and concubines. If this verse is assumed to speak of the inheritance of material possessions, then why is Prophet Sulaiman (عليه السلام) mentioned as the soleinheritor? This proves that the Quran is not talking about material possessions but rather knowledge. Otherwise, Prophet Dawud (عليه السلام) denied inheritance to his other children, and this would violate the Shia rhetoric which state that people cannot deny inheritance to the children of Prophets.
If these Quranic verses are assumed to speak of material inheritance, it does not make much sense that it is being mentioned in the Quran, since it is then reduced to an ordinary and trivial matter (end of quote).
What kind of counterargument usually using shias? I heard: Knowledge isn’t something to be inherited.
But that’s not true, and in addition to our words, I’d like to give few quotes from their most reliable book of ahadeth, that knowledge indeed could be inherited.
In his book “Kafi” Kulayni entitled chapter in this way:
(أن الائمة (عليهم السلام) ورثة العلم، يرث بعضهم بعضا العلم)
The Imams (a.s.) are the Heirs of Knowledge to Inherit it one from the other
Just few ahadeth from this chapter:
1) “Kafi” vol 1, pp 221-222, Majlisi said it’s saheeh:
From Abu ‘Abdallah (alaihi salam) who has said the following. “Ali (alaihi salam) was a man of knowledge and knowledge is inherited. Whenever a man of knowledge dies he leave another man of knowledge behind who possess his knowledge or whatever Allah wants.”
From Abu Ja‘far (alaihi salam) who has said the following. “The knowledge that came with Adam was not taken away. Knowledge is inherited. Ali (alaihi salam) was the knowledgeable person of this nation (Muslims). No one from us have ever left this world without leaving behind one like him in knowledge or what Allah wanted.”
From Abu Ja‘far (alaihi salam) who has said the following. “The Messenger of Allah has said, ‘The first successor and executor of the will on earth was Hibbatullah, the son of Adam. No prophet has ever left this world without first leaving behind one who would execute his will. The prophets were one hundred twenty thousand persons. Five of them were commissioned Messengers, like Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa ali) Ali ibn abu Talib (alaihi salam) was the Hibbatullah for Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa ali). He inherited the knowledge of the executors of the wills of the prophets and the knowledge of those who were before him. (Is not it true) that Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa ali) inherited the knowledge of the prophets and the Messengers who lived before him? It is written on the columns of the throne, “Hamza is the loin of Allah and the loin of His Messenger. He (Hamza) is the master of the martyrs. On top of the throne is Amir al-Mu’minin Ali (a.s.). This evidence against those who deny our rights and refuse to yield to us our right of inheritance. We are not forbidden to speak. Before us is all certainty. What supporting evidence could be more clear than this.”
Abu Abdullah (alaihi salam) said: “Solomon inherited David. Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa ali) inherited Solomon and we inherited Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa ali). We have the knowledge of Torah and the Gospel (Injil), the Psalms, (al-Zabur) and the explanation of what the tablets contained.” I (the narrator) said, “This certainly is the knowledge.”
So I want to ask shias who arguing to this verse about Sulaiman and Dawud (alaihuma salam), that it’s about inheritance of worldly possessions, did prophet Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) inherited those alleged worldly possessions from Dawud (alaihi salam)? Of course no, so talk here could be only about inheritance of knowledge, wisdom, and etc.
And there is other hadith in very same “Kafi” with a clear proof from imam, that in verse 16 of surah Naml, talk is about inheritance of knowledge.
3) “Kafi” vol 1, p 225, Majlisi said it’s saheeh ala dhaher:
Abu Abdullah (alaihi salam) said: ”David inherited the knowledge of the prophets. Solomon inherited David. Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa ali) inherited Solomon and we inherited Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa ali).
Walhamdulillahi rabil alamin.
Hasan al-Basri about Muawiya. Refuting the doubt
July 7, 2010 at 7:04 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Hadith analysis, Refuting shia doubts | Leave a comment
This quote that attributed to Hasan al-Basri could be seen at many shia sites:
al-Hasan al-Basri said:
Muawiyah had four flaws, and any one of them would have been a serious
1. His appointment of trouble makers for this community so that he
stole its rule without consultation with its members, while there
was a remnant of the Companions and possessors of virtue among
2. His appointment of his son as his successor after him, a drunkard
and a winebibber who wears silk and plays tunburs
3. His claim about Ziyad (as his son), while the Messenger of God
(PBUH&HF) has said: 'The child belongs to the bed, and the
adulterer should be stoned.'
4. His killing of Hujr and his companions. Woe unto him twice for Hujr
- al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, by Ibn Kathir, v8, p130 who mentions the first
crime as: "His fighting Ali."
- History of Ibn Kathir, v3, p242
- Khilafat Mulukiyat, Syed Abul Ala Maududi, pp 165-166
I would leave without any comment their reference to book of al-Mawdude. Because he himself quoted it from other sources. Ibn al-Athir in “Kamil” mentioned this without any chain. Ibn Kathir quoted it in his history (8/140), by using expression ”and it was reported from Hasan al-Basri”.
Tabari narrated it in his history (as it quoted by ibn Jawzi in “al-Muntazam”), and in the chain is Abu Mikhnaf Loot ibn Yahya. He was shia. Abu Hatim and others left him. Daraqutni said he’s weak. Yahya ibn Muin said he wasn’t thiqat, and it was also reported that he said Loot is nothing. (Mizanul itidal 3/419/#6992)
Ibn Jawzi in “al-Mawduat” (1/406) said that Abu Mikhaf was liar.
Arabic text of discussed fabricated story:
قال أبو مخنف عن الصقعب بن زهير عن الحسن قال أربع خصال كن في معاوية لو لم يكن فيه منهن إلا واحدة لكانت موبقة انتزاؤه على هذه الأمة بالسفهاء حتى ابتزها أمرها بغير مشورة منهم وفيهم بقايا الصحابة وذوو الفضيلة واستخلافه ابنه بعده سكيرا خميرا يلبس الحرير ويضرب بالطنابير وادعاؤه زيادا وقد قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم الولد للفراش وللعاهر الحجر وقتله حجرا ويلا له من حجر وأصحاب حجر مرتين
Refuting claims raised against Amir Al-Mu’minin `Umar ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him)
July 5, 2010 at 8:42 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | 1 Comment
Quoted from Fatwas of shaykh bin Baz (rahimuhullah), part 26, p 366: