Ibne Hadid writes:
Muslim bin Yazid bin Abdul Akbar Baghdadi (210 to 285) is a
famous literary personality and a writer of famous books. In the book of Al-Kamil,
he has written about the story of aspirations of Abu Bakr quoting from Abdur
Rahman Ibne Auf as follows:
Alas, if I had not exposed the house of Fatima
and had left it alone, even if I had been forced to war.[1]
It is mentioned in Tarikh Tabari:
Umar came to the house of Ali (a) while Talha, Zubair and a group
of Muhajireen were present there, and he said: By Allah, come out of the house
to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr, otherwise I would burn down the place…[2]
It is objected to the report of Tabari that this report is
problematic due to the weakness of chain of its narrators, because some
scholars have claimed that Ibne Humayyad was a liar.
In reply, we say: Difference of opinion with regard to personality
of reporters is natural; therefore, it must be seen what opinions others have
about him.
In Tahdhibul Kamaal of Mizzi, which is considered to be the
most authentic Ahle Sunnat book of science of narrators (Ilme Rijal), it
is quoted from Yahya bin Moin, who is an authority of Ahle Sunnat science of
narrators (Ilme Rijal), that he said with regard to Ibne Humayyad:
He is a reliable person, without any kind of doubt and is a very
good narrator.[3]
We also add that those aware of Ilme Rijal of Ahle Sunnat testify
that no narrator can be found, except that regarding him weakness exists, even
with regard to Bukhari, whose book is the most important book of Ahle Sunnat
after the Holy Quran; various weaknesses like deceit, hypocrisy and fraud etc.
are included in it.[4]
In addition to the above, Abdur Rahman Damishqiya has also raised
an objection and said:
In this traditional report there are doubts: one of them being in
the existence of Jarir bin Hazim, although he is an honest person, but
sometimes he is involved in doubts and mistakes and as Abu Dawood has said he
has mixed together the correct and incorrect reports. Another problem is
Mughira bin Muqsam; that in spite of the fact that he is trustworthy, his
traditions are having incomplete chains of narrators. Ibne Hajar has also
included him in the third category of defrauders in traditions and his reports
are not acceptable; except if it is clarified through hearing.[5]
That is why it is necessary to correct the chains of narrators of
Tabari also on the basis of Ilme Rijal of Ahle Sunnat.[6]
Consequently the chains of narrators of the report of Tabari is
absolutely correct and without any doubt and the objection of Abdur Rahman
Damishqiya are all baseless and show his lack of attention and lack of
precision about his own sources of science of narrators.
[1] Sharh
Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 2, Pg. 46-47, Egypt
[2] Tarikh
Tabari, Vol. 2, Pg. 233, Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Jarir Tabari (d. 310
A.H.), Darul Kutub al-Ilmiyya, Beirut .
[3] Tahdhibul
Kamaal, Vol. 30, Pg. 328, Yusuf bin Zaki Abdur Rahman Abul Hajjaj al-Mizzi,
d. 742, Mausisatur Risala, Beirut, First edition, 1400 A.H. – 1980 A.D. Edited:
Dr. Bishar Awad Maruf
[4] On
the basis of Abdullah bin Manda, Muhammad bin Ismail Bukhari is the Imam of
science of traditions. He says: In the places where Bukhari says: ‘So and so
said this’: or ‘so and so narrated to us’; this act of Bukhari is defrauding
and being hypocritical to others in traditional reports.
Zikr Mudlaseen, Vol.
1, Pg. 24, Abu Abdur Rahman Ahmad bin Shuaib bin Ali Khorasani Nasai (d. 303)
[5]
Abu Dawood and Bukhari in Tarikh Kabir (2/2234)
[6]
Investigation into the report of Tabari:
1- Muhammad bin Hamid
Dhahabi has written about
him as follows:
Allamah and great Hafiz,
Muhammad bin Hamid, who was born around 160 A.H. Abu Zaraa has said about him:
One who has not met Muhammad bin Hamid has lost ten thousand traditions.
Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal says: I heard from my father that he said: As
long as Muhammad bin Hamid lived in Rayy, knowledge and learning was strong.
Abu Quraish Muhammad bin Jumah bin Khalaf says: I asked Muhammad bin Yahya:
What do you say about Muhammad bin Hamid? He replied: But don’t you see that I
do not narrate traditions from him? Then he said: I was present in the
gathering of Muhammad bin Ishaq, I saw that he was narrating traditions from
Muhammad bin Hamid, I asked: Are you narrating reports from Muhammad bin Hamid?
He replied: Why should I not when Ahmad bin Hanbal and Yahya bin Moin have
narrated from him?
Seer Aalamun Nubla,
Vol. 11, Pg. 503, Shamsuddin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Uthman bin Qaimaz Dhahabi,
Abu Abdullah (d. 748), Mausisatur Risala, Beirut, 1413, Ninth edition, Edited:
Shuaib Arnaut, Muhammad Naeem Arqasusi.
Albani has corrected the
reports of Muhammad bin Hamid:
Muhammad Nasir Albani,
contemporary Wahabi writer in the books, Sahih wa Zaeef Sunan Tirmidhi and
Silsila Ahadith Sahihya has corrected traditions, which had Muhammad bin
Hamid in their chains of narrators.
I am supposing on the point
that some have declared him as weak and some have testified to his veracity.
Even then his reports are worthy of acceptance; because according to the rules
of Ilme Rijal of Ahle Sunnat, reports of such a person are included in the ‘Hasan’
category and Hasan reports are decisive proofs (Hujjat) in view of Ahle Sunnat
scholars.
2- Jarir bin Abdul Hamid
bin Qurtubi:
He is a reporter of Sahih
Bukhari and Muslim and Mizzi in Tahdhibul Kamaal has written
in his biographical account:
Muhammad bin Saad says:
Jarir is worthy of confidence and he was very knowledgeable. People came to him
to seek knowledge. Muhammad bin Abdullah Mosuli say: He was a decisive proof
and all his books are ‘Sahih’.
Tahdhibul Kamaal,
Vol. 4, Pg. 544, Yusuf bin Zaki Abdur Rahman Abul Hajjaj Mizzi (742 A.H.),
Edited: Dr. Bishar Awad Maruf, Mausisatur Risala, Beirut, First edition, 1400
A.H. – 1980 A.D.
Seer Aalamun Nubla,
Vol. 11, Pg. 503, Shamsuddin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Uthman bin Qaimaz Dhahabi,
Abu Abdullah (d. 748), Mausisatur Risala, Beirut, 1413 A.H., Ninth edition,
Edited: Shuaib Arnaut, Muhammad Naeem Arqasusi.
On the basis of this, the
objection of Abdur Rahman Damishqiya who says:
Jarir bin Hazim, although
he is an honest person, but sometimes he is involved in doubts and mistakes and
as Abu Dawood has said he has mixed together the correct and incorrect
reports.[ Abu Dawood and Bukhari in Tarikh Kabir (2/2234)]
…is baseless and it is
having two important objections:
First: Muhammad bin Hamid
Raazi has narrated reports from Jarir bin Abdul Hamid and not from Jarir bin
Hazim and this shows his lack of precision in the chains of narrators.
Secondly: Even if we
suppose that Jarir bin Hazim also existed, it is not possible to doubt his
trustworthiness; because he is also among the reporters of Bukhari, Muslim and
other Sihah Sitta; on the basis of this, the objection of Damishqiya is
absolutely baseless.
3- Mughira bin Miqsam Zabi
He is also among the
reporters of Bukhari, Muslim and other Sihah Sitta.
Mizzi in Tahdhibul
Kamaal has written about him:
Yahya bin Moin says: He is
worthy of confidence and he is honest. Nasai says: Mughira is reliable.
Tahdhibul Kamaal,
Vol. 28, Pg. 399, 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.
We also have questions from
Abdur Rahman Damishqiya and it is that if Mughira bin Maqsam was a deceptive
why Bukhari, Muslim and…have narrated from him?
4- Ziyad bin Kulayyab:
He is also among the
reporters of Sahih Muslim, Tirmidhi and…
Mizzi in Tahdhibul
Kamaal has said in his biography:
Ahmad bin Abdullah Ajali:
He was trustworthy with regard to traditional reports. Nasai says: He is
reliable. Ibne Hibban says: He is among the steadfast memorizers and of firm
actions; he passed away in the year 119.
Tahdhibul Kamaal,
Vol. 9, Pg. 505, 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.
We reply to the objection
of Abdur Rahman Damishqiya with regard to the breaking off of his chains of
narrators:
Firstly: As is hinted at in
the report of Balazari, a senior scholar of Ahle Sunnat in the first century
has admitted it, and the same point is sufficient to prove our assertion; even
if he himself might not have witnessed the matter personally;
Secondly: All reports
narrated from Ziyad bin Kulayyab are from persons who command absolute trust of
Ahle Sunnat scholars.