Ibne Hajar Asqalani in Lisanul Mizan and Dhahabi in Mizanul
Etedal have written that:
Umar hit on the belly of Fatima
and caused the miscarriage of Mohsin.[1]
But Ibne Hajar has rejected this report, because of the presence
of Ibne Abi Daram in its chain of narrators on the pretext that he is Rafidi
(Shia); whereas Dhahabi instead in his book of Seer Aalamun Nubla has
called him Imam, Hafiz and learned…[2]
And in another place, he said regarding him:
Among his qualities was that he was a memorizer of traditional
reports and was cognizant of traditions and the only defect he had was that he
had Shii beliefs.[3]
And in another place he says:
Muhammad bin Hammad Hafiz has said regarding him: He was a person
having correct beliefs throughout his life.[4]
In the same way, Dhahabi has mentioned in Mizanul Etedal:
He, throughout his life had correct and firm beliefs.[5]
Later on Dhahabi condemns him for being a Rafidi (Shia)
and for narrating this report and some other reports in condemnation of Caliphs
and called him names, like: old man, deviated and licentious person[6],
but can being a Shia lead to loss of integrity in a person to narrate a
tradition? What logic and reasoning permits us to leave aside the reports of a person
and to declare them as invalid only because of the fact that he is a Shia?
If Shiaism is a criterion for acceptance or rejection of traditions,
Ahle Sunnat should draw a line of invalidity on a large number of traditional
reports in their six canonical books (Sihah Sitta), because the authors
of Sihah Sitta have often narrated traditions from Shia (Rafidi
according to them). Some of their names are mentioned in the footnote.[7]
How is it possible to believe that a person earned the titles of
Imam, Hafiz and learned; and all his life he remains steadfast on faith, has
strong memory and cognition of religious concepts, and his reports are of the
rank that all scholars have consensus on them, but at the same time he is also
called deviated and sinner? Can terms and qualities like Imam, Hafiz, learned and
cognitive be mentioned together with words like: old man, deviated and
licentious person?
Yes, it is because of bigotry beyond limits, an illogical defense
of the school of Caliphs
It is possible that they might reply that only being a Rafidi
(Shia) is not the reason for the reporter to be condemned, on the contrary, it
is being an extremist in being a Rafidi.[8]
In that case, we again say: On investigating the six canonical
books of Ahle Sunnat, it is concluded that in chains of reporters of a large
number of reports, there are people who according to the admission of Ahle
Sunnat scholars have extremism in Rafdh, but in spite of this the
authors of Sihah Sitta have narrated from them. For example:
1. Adi bin Thabit: Whereas Ibne Hajar Asqalani has said regarding
him:
Ibne Moin has said that he is an extremist Shia. Salmi has said: I
asked Darqutni regarding him. He replied: He is a reliable person, but the only
problem with him is that he has observed extremism in his Shiaism.[9]
In the same way, there are other persons as well, whose names
would be mentioned to maintain brevity, like: 2. Ibad bin Yaqub Rawajani. 3.
Ismail bin Khalifah and so on…
If extremism in Rafdh (being a harsh Shia) by your own
definition is talking ill of a Caliph acceptable to Ahle Sunnat and it becomes
the cause of declaring the reporter as weak, why senior Ahle Sunnat scholars
have narrated from them in their most authentic books?
In the same way, it is possible that they might object: Since
Ibne Abi Daram in the last days of his life has mentioned the defects of Abu
Bakr and Umar and has cursed them, his reports are rejected and not acceptable.
Here also, we would reply: Following are some reporters who are
present in the chain of reporters of Sihah Sitta of Ahle Sunnat, who in
spite of the fact that they curse those two caliphs, are considered honest and
their reports are accepted as Sahih (authentic) reports, for example:
Although it is obvious that generally with regard to such
persons, the attitude of Ahle Sunnat is that if the reports are in their favor
they accept them and consider them credible (Hasan); like the
traditional reports of Talid bin Sulaiman, which he has narrated in the
excellence of first and second Ahle Sunnat Caliph, but reports which are
opposed to Ahle Sunnat or against Abu Bakr and Umar, are considered weak due to
his being a Rafidi.
More regretful than that which is mentioned so far, is the fact
that Ahle Sunnat scholars of science of narrators have appreciated those who
have abused Amirul Momineen, Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a).
Now, we ask: If cursing and abusing the companions of the Holy
Prophet (s) is cause of weakening of the reporter, why Nasibis – enemies
of Amirul Momineen (a) have been praised?
Should one who abuses Abu Bakr and Umar be considered weak, but
one who abuses Amirul Momineen (a) is regarded as trustworthy? Is this
hypocritical stance justifiable?
By way of example we mention the names of some Nasibi –
enemies of Amirul Momineen Ali (a) who have been praised by Ahle Sunnat
scholars of science of narrators:
1 – Huraiz bin Uthman Himsi:
This person used to curse and abuse Amirul Momineen (a) seventy
times every morning and evening. This matter is mentioned by three most senior
Ahle Sunnat scholars of science of narrators.[12]
The astonishing fact is that this is a person about whom most
praises have been recorded.[13]
If cursing and abusing Ahle Sunnat Caliphs becomes the cause of
weakening of the reporter, why Bukhari has narrated from him? Why Ahmad bin
Hanbal has praised him in such words?
2 – Umar bin Saad bin Abi Waqqas, killer of Imam Husain (a)[14]:
How is it possible that one who martyred the sons of the
Messenger of Allah (s) in such a terrible manner and in such tragical circumstances,
and grieved the daughter of the Messenger of Allah (s), be considered so
reliable by Ahle Sunnat scholars in narrating traditions and be accepted as
decisive proof by them? But one who is much devoted to Amirul Momineen Ali (a)
and who considers His Eminence superior to the three Caliphs, or sometimes he
insults one of the three Caliphs, how his reports are weak and unacceptable?
All the statement mentioned above lead to the conclusion that
traditional reports of Ibne Abi Daram do not have any objection and accusations
like his being Rafidi or extremist Shia do not undermine the
authenticity of his reports, because the same points are true for narrators of
Bukhari, Muslim and other Sihah books of Ahle Sunnat.
[1] Lisanul
Mizan, Vol. 1, Pg. 268, Ahmad bin Ali bin Hajar Abul Fadhl Asqalani Shafei
(d. 852 A.H.), Mausasal Aalami Lil Matbuat, Beirut . 1406 – 1986, Third edition, Edited:
Dairatul Marifa Nizamiya India .
Seer Aalamun Nubla,
Vol. 15, Pg. 578, Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Uthman bin Qaimaz Dhahabi, Abu
Abdullah, (d. 748), Mausisatur Risala, Beirut, 1413, Ninth edition, Edited:
Shuaib Arnaut, Muhammad Naeem Arqasusi.
Mizanul Etedal fee
Naqdur Rijal, Vol. 1, Pg. 283, Shamsuddin Muhammad bin Ahmad Dhahabi, (d.
748), Darul Kutub Ilmiya, Beirut, 1995, First edition, Edited: Ali Muhammad
Maudh and Adil Ahmad Abdul Maujud.
[2]
Ibne Abi Daram: Imam, Hafiz and learned, Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Muhammad Sirru bin
Yahya bin Sirri bin Abi Daram.
Seer Aalamun Nubla,
Vol. 15, Pg. 576, No. 349, Biography of Ibne Abi Daram, Muhammad bin Ahmad bin
Uthman bin Qaimaz Dhahabi, Abu Abdullah, (d. 748), Mausisatur Risala, Beirut,
1413, Ninth edition, Edited: Shuaib Arnaut, Muhammad Naeem Arqasusi.
[3] Seer
Aalamun Nubla, Vol. 15, Pg. 577, No. 349, Biography of Ibne Abi Daram,
Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Uthman bin Qaimaz Dhahabi, Abu Abdullah, (d. 748),
Mausisatur Risala, Beirut, 1413, Ninth edition, Edited: Shuaib Arnaut, Muhammad
Naeem Arqasusi.
[4] Seer
Aalamun Nubla, Vol. 15, Pg. 578, No. 349, Biography of Ibne Abi Daram,
Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Uthman bin Qaimaz Dhahabi, Abu Abdullah, (d. 748),
Mausisatur Risala, Beirut, 1413, Ninth edition, Edited: Shuaib Arnaut, Muhammad
Naeem Arqasusi.
[5] Mizanul
Etedal, Vol. 1, Pg. 139, No. 552, Biography of Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Sirri
bin Yahya bin Abi Daram Muhaddith Abu Bakr Kufi, Lisanul Mizan, Ibne
Hajar Asqalani, No. 825, Biography Ahmad bin Muhammad Sirri bin Yahya bin Abi
Daram Muhaddith Abu Bakr Kufi.
[6] Seer
Aalamun Nubla, Vol. 15, Pg. 578, No. 349, Biography of Ibne Abi Daram,
Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Uthman bin Qaimaz Dhahabi, Abu Abdullah, (d. 748),
Mausisatur Risala, Beirut, 1413, Ninth edition, Edited: Shuaib Arnaut, Muhammad
Naeem Arqasusi.
[7] I
present a few instances by way of examples:
1- Abdullah bin Musa:
Dhahabi says regarding him:
He was famous as a Rafidi.
Seer Aalamun Nubla,
Vol. 9, Pg. 556, Biography of Ubaidullah bin Musa, No. 215.
2- Ja’far bin Sulaiman Zabi
(Ahle Sunnat scholars have mentioned him as a Rafidi and an extremist Shia)
Khatib Baghdadi has
narrated from Yazid bin Zari that he said:
Indeed Ja’far bin Sulaiman
is a Rafidi.
Tarikh Baghdad, Vol.
5, Pg. 372, Biography of Ahmad bin Miqdam bin Sulaiman bin Ashath bin Aslam bin
Suwaid bin Asad bin Rabia bi Sinan Abul Ashath Ajali Basri, No. 2925
3- Abdul Malik bin Ayyin
Kufi
Mizzi has narrated from
Sufyan that: He is a Rafidi.
Tahdhibul Kamaal,
Vol. 18, Pg. 283, Biography of Abdul Malik bin Ayyin Kufi, No. 3514
And on another occasion, he
writes:
He was asked about Fazal bin
Muhammad Sherani; he said: He is honest in narrating reports, but it is doubted
that he is more inclined to Shiaism. He was asked: He is quoted in Sahih books.
He said: Book of my teacher (Sahih Muslim) is full of Shia reports!
Al-Kifaya fee Ilmur Riwaya,
Pg. 195, No. 349
[8] In
view of some Ahle Sunnat scholars of science of narrators, including Ibne Hajar
Asqalani in the preface of Fathul Bari, extremist Rafidi (harsh Shia or
extremism in Shiaism) is one who in addition to being considering Amirul Momineen
Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a) as the most superior curse and invoke against those two
and Shia is one who only considers His Eminence to be superior to Abu Bakr and
Umar. In his book, he has defined Shia and Rafidi as follows:
Shiaism: Being devoted to
Ali (a) and considering him to be superior to all companions, but if someone
considers Ali (a) to be superior to Abu Bakr and Umar, he has been extremist
about Ali (a) and he is an extremist and is called as Rafidi, but if he
is only devoted to him, he is a Shia and if he in addition to being devoted to
Ali, talks ill of the companions and expresses his enmity to them, he is an
Extremist Shia (Ghali).
Hadial Sari, Muqaddima
Fathul Bari Sharh Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 1, Pg. 459, Abul Fadhl Ahmad bin Ali
bin Hajar Asqalani Shafei (d. 852 A.H.), Darul Marifa, Beirut – 1379, Edited:
Muhammad Fawad Abdul Baqi, Muhibuddin Khatib.
[9] Tahdhibut
Tahdhib, Vol. 7, Pg. 149, Ahmad bin Ali bin Hajar Abul Fazal Asqalani
Shafei (d. 852 A.H.), Darul Fikr, Beirut, First edition, 1404 A.H. – 1984 A.D.
[10]
He is among the reporters of Sunan Tirmidhi and he has cursed Abu Bakr
and Umar. Mizzi writes about him:
Abu Dawood has said: He is
a debased Rafidi and a wicked man and he has abused Abu Bakr and Umar…Abbas
Dauri, in another place has said with regard to Talid bin Sulaiman: He is a
great liar and has abused Uthman and one who abuses Uthman, Talha or any other
companion is Anti-Christ (Dajjal) and his traditions are not written and the
curse of Allah, all people and angels be on him.
Tahdhibul Kamaal,
Vol. 4, Pg. 321, Yusuf bin Zaki Abdur Rahman Abul Hajjaj al-Mizzi (d. 742
A.H.), Edited: Dr. Bishar Awad Maruf, Mausisatur Risala, Beirut, First edition,
1400 A.H. – 1980 A.D.
[11]
Shamsuddin Dhahabi says with regard to him:
He has narrated some things
in which he is alone in narrating them and he his accused of being a Shia. He
has resorted to extremism in being a Shia, he was devoted to Ali and was
inimical to those who fought Ali.
Tadkirah Huffaz,
Vol. 1, Pg. 364, Shamsuddin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Uthman Dhahabi (d. 748
A.H.), Darul Kutub Ilmiya, Beirut ,
First edition.
In Mizaul Etedal and
Seer Aalamun Nubla, he writes:
I heard from Mukhallad
Shairi that he said: I was with Abdur Razzaq, when mention was made of
Muawiyah. Abdur Razzaq said: Do not contaminate my gathering with the mention
of Muawiyah bin Abu Sufyan.
Mizanul Etedal fee
Naqdur Rijal, Vol. 4, Pg. 343, Shamsuddin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Uthman
Dhahabi (d. 748 A.H.), Edited: Shaykh Ali Muhammad Maudh and Shaykh Adil Ahmad
Abdul Maujud, Darul Kutub Ilmiya, Beirut, First edition, 1995 A.D.
Seer Aalamun Nubla,
Vol. 9, Pg. 570, Shamsuddin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Uthman Dhahabi, Edited:
Shuaib Arnaut, Muhammad Naeem Arqasusi, Mausisatur Risala, Beirut, Ninth
edition, 1413 A.H.
Objection of Abdur Razzaq
to Umar:
Dhahabi says in Mizanul
Etedal:
I heard Ali bin Abdullah
bin Mubarak Sanani say: Zaid bin Mubarak was the companion of Abdur Razzaq and
he had heard much from him; but in the end he tore up his books and adopted the
companionship of Muhammad bin Thawr. When they asked him about it, he said: I
was with Abdur Razzaq when the tradition of Ibne Hadsan was mentioned, when he
reached to the part when Umar said to Ali and Abbas: You have come to take the
share of inheritance of your nephew and Ali has come to take the inheritance of
his wife from her father, Abdur Razzaq said: See this fool is saying:
inheritance of his nephew, he does not say: The Messenger of Allah (s).That is
why I left him and never went back to him; I also do not narrate traditions
from him.
Mizanul Etedal fee
Naqdur Rijal, Vol. 4, Pg. 343, Shamsuddin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Uthman
Dhahabi (d. 748 A.H.), Edited: Shaykh Ali Muhammad Maudh and Shaykh Adil Ahmad
Abdul Maujud, Darul Kutub Ilmiya, Beirut, First edition, 1995 A.D.
Appreciation of Abdur
Razzaq:
Dhahabi has said with
regard to Abdur Razzaq:
In Sihah books,
traditions are narrated from him and he was highly learned.
Tadkirah Huffaz,
Vol. 1, Pg. 364, Shamsuddin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Uthman Dhahabi (d. 748
A.H.), Darul Kutub Ilmiya, Beirut ,
First edition.
A sincere defense of Abdur
Razzaq:
Hakim Nishapuri in Marifate
Ulumul Hadith, Shamsuddin Dhahabi in Seer Aalamun Nubla and Ibne
Hajar in Tahdhibut Tahdhib has quoted the statement of Yahya bin Moin
that he said:
If Abdur Razzaq also
apostates from Islam, even then I will not leave his traditions.
Marifate Ulumul Hadith,
Vol. 1, Pg. 139, Muhammad bin Abdullah Abu Abdullah Hakim Nishapuri (d. 405
A.H.), Edited: Sayyid Moazzam Husain, Darul Kutub Ilmiya, Beirut , Second edition, 1397 A.H. – 1977 A.D.
Seer Aalamun Nubla,
Vol. 9, Pg. 573, Shamsuddin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Uthman Dhahabi (d. 748
A.H.), Edited: Shuaib Arnaut, Muhammad Naeem Arqasusi, Mausisatur Risala,
Beirut, Ninth edition, 1413 A.H.
Tahdhibut Tahdhib,
Vol. 6, Pg. 280, Ahmad bin Ali bin Hajar Abul Fadhl Asqalani Shafei (d. 852
A.H.), Darul Fikr, Beirut ,
First edition, 1404 A.H. – 1984 A.D.
[12]
Ahmad bin Sulaiman Maruzi has narrated from Ismail bin Ayyash that he said: I
accompanied Huraiz bin Uthman from Egypt to Mecca . During this period he spoke ill of Ali
(a) and cursed him.
Tahdhibul Kamaal,
Vol. 5, Pg. 576, Yusuf bin Zaki Abdur Rahman Abul Hajjaj al-Mizzi (d. 742
A.H.), Edited: Dr. Bishar Awad Maruf, Mausisatur Risala, Beirut, First edition,
1400 A.H. – 1980 A.D.
Tarikh al-Islam wa
Wafyatul Mashahir wal Aalaam, Vol. 10, Pg. 123, Shamsuddin Muhammad bin
Ahmad bin Uthman Dhahabi (d. 748 A.H.), Darul Kitab al-Arabi, Lebanon , Beirut , 1407 A.H. – 1987
A.D. First edition, Edited: Dr. Umar Abdus Salam Tadmiri.
Ibne Hajar Asqalani writes:
Ibne Hibban says: He cursed
Ali (a) seventy times every morning and evening. When he was asked the reason
for it, he replied: He decapitated my father and ancestors.
Tahdhibut Tahdhib,
Vol. 2, Pg. 209, Ahmad bin Ali bin Hajar Abul Fadhl Asqalani Shafei (d. 852
A.H.), Darul Fikr, Beirut ,
First edition, 1404 A.H. – 1984 A.D.
[13]
Mizzi in Tahdhibul Kamaal and Ibne Hajar Asqalani has said in his
appreciation:
They inquired about him
from Ahmad bin Hanbal, he said twice: He is trustworthy (extremely reliable)
and he also said: In Syria there is no one more confident in traditions and
sayings than Huraiz.
Maaz bin Maaz says: When
Huraiz, Abu Bakr bin Maryam and Safwan were mentioned before Ahmad bin Hanbal,
I heard him say: Among them none is as reliable as Huraiz. On another occasion
I heard from Ahmad that he said twice: Huraiz is reliable.
Tahdhibut Tahdhib,
Vol. 2, Pg. 209, Ahmad bin Ali bin Hajar Abul Fadhl Asqalani Shafei (d. 852
A.H.), Darul Fikr, Beirut ,
First edition, 1404 A.H. – 1984 A.D.
Tahdhibul Kamaal,
Vol. 5, Pg. 572, Yusuf bin Zaki Abdur Rahman Abul Hajjaj al-Mizzi (d. 742
A.H.), Edited: Dr. Bishar Awad Maruf, Mausisatur Risala, Beirut, First edition,
1400 A.H. – 1980 A.D.
Ibne Hajar has written at
the beginning of his account:
He is a reporter of Bukhari
and other four Sahihs of Ahle Sunnat (except Sahih Muslim).
[14]
Mizzi in Tahdhibul Kamaal and Ibne Hajar in Tahdhibut Tahdhib
have said about Umar bin Saad, the famous commander of Yazidites in Kerbala:
Ijli says: Umar bin Saad
has narrated traditions from his father and others have quoted from him. He was
a companion of companions (Tabii) and he was trustworthy. He was among
those who killed Husain (a).
Tahdhibul Kamaal,
Vol. 21, Pg. 357, Yusuf bin Zaki Abdur Rahman Abul Hajjaj al-Mizzi (d. 742
A.H.), Edited: Dr. Bishar Awad Maruf, Mausisatur Risala, Beirut, First edition,
1400 A.H. – 1980 A.D.
Tahdhibut Tahdhib,
Vol. 7, Pg. 396, Ahmad bin Ali bin Hajar Abul Fadhl Asqalani Shafei (d. 852
A.H.), Darul Fikr, Beirut ,
First edition, 1404 A.H. – 1984 A.D.
