[Holy Qur'an 17:81] And say: "Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish."

Monday, November 23, 2009

Can We Say 'Ya Muhammad'?

From Abu Hurayra: I heard the Prophet (s) say: "By the one in Whose hand is Abu al-Qasim's soul, `Isa ibn Maryam shall descend as a just and wise ruler. He shall destroy the cross, slay the swine, eradicate discord and grudges, and money shall be offered to him but he will not accept it. Then he shall stand at my graveside and say: Ya Muhammad! and I will answer him."

Abu Ya`la relates it with a sound chain in his Musnad (Dar al-Ma'mun ed. 1407/1987) 11:462; Ibn Hajar cites it in al-matalib al-`aliya (Kuwait, 1393/1973) 4:23, chapter entitled: "The Prophet's life in his grave" and #4574; Haythami says in Majma` al-zawa'id (8:5), chapter entitled: "`Isa ibn Maryam's Descent": "Its sub-narrators are the men of sound (sahih) hadith."

Bukhari in his Adab al-mufrad, Nawawi in his Adhkar, and Shawkani in Tuhfat al-dhakirin all relate the narrations of Ibn `Umar and Ibn `Abbas whereby they would call out Ya Muhammad whenever they had a cramp in their leg (Chapters entitled: "What one says if he feels a cramp in his leg"). Regardless of the grade of these narrations, it is significant that Bukhari, Nawawi, and Shawkani never raised such a disturbing notion as to say that calling out "O Muhammad" amounted to shirk. See the following editions:

Nawawi's Adhkar:

1970 Riyadh edition: p. 271

1988 Ta'if edition: p. 383

1992 Mecca edition: p. 370

Bukhari's Adab al-mufrad:

1990 `Abd al-Baqi Beirut edition: p. 286

1994 Albani edition entitled Da`if al-adab al-mufrad: p. 87

The latter gives as a reference: Takhrij al-kalim al-tayyib (235)"

date? Beirut: `Alam al-kitab: p. 324

date? Beirut: Dar al-kutub al-`ilmiyya: p.142.

Shawkani's Tuhfat al-dhakirin:

1970 Beirut: Dar al-kutub al-`ilmiyya: p. 206-207.

=========================================
First Sunni Reply :

 I doubt the narrations above because they go against Quranic principle. Allah says in Surah 24, verse 63...

Treat not the calling of the Messenger among you like the calling of one of you to another. ALLAH indeed knows those of you who steal away covertly. So let those who go against HIS command beware lest a trial afflict them or a grievous punishment overtake them.


Ibn Kathir quotes Muqaatil in his commentary of this verse...


لَا تُسَمُّوهُ إِذَا دَعَوْتُمُوهُ يَا مُحَمَّد وَلَا تَقُولُوا يَا اِبْن عَبْد اللَّه وَلَكِنْ شَرِّفُوهُ فَقُولُوا يَا نَبِيّ اللَّه يَا رَسُول اللَّه

Do not call him 'Ya Muhammad' and do not say 'son of Abdullah' but honor him and call him 'O Prophet of Allah' or 'O Messenger of Allah'


Imam Suyuti says the same thing http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/Di...a=2 4&nAya=63


Imam Tabari quotes Mujaahid who says the same thing...

عَنِ ابْن أَبِي نَجِيح , عَنْ مُجَاهِد : { كَدُعَاءِ بَعْضكُمْ بَعْضًا } قَالَ : أَمَرَهُمْ أَنْ يَدْعُوا يَا رَسُول اللَّه , فِي لِين وَتَوَاضُع , وَلَا يَقُولُوا يَا مُحَمَّد , فِي تَجَهُّم


Imam Qurtubi also quotes Mujaahid and Sa'eed ibn Jubair who said the same thing...

وَقَالَ سَعِيد بْن جُبَيْر وَمُجَاهِد : الْمَعْنَى قُولُوا يَا رَسُول اللَّه , فِي رِفْق وَلِين , وَلَا تَقُولُوا يَا مُحَمَّد بِتَجَهُّمٍ


Imam Razi says the same thing...

لا تنادوه كما ينادي بعضكم بعضاً يا محمد، ولكن قولوا يا رسول الله يا نبي الله،


Do not call out ot him as you would call out to each other by saying 'Ya Muhammad', but say 'O Messenger of Allah, O Prophet of Allah'

Source: http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?...&Page=2&Size=1


Even Shaykh Al Sha'raawi, who is a famous Ashari Egyptian scholar who passed away a few years ago said the same thing in his commentary...

فهو ليس كأحدكم تنادونه: يا محمد،


He is not like the rest of you so that you can call out to him: 'Ya Muhammad'

Source: http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?...&UserProfile=0





I am sure if I looked through more commentaries they would say the same thing, however I think this is enough.

Therefore, I find it hard to believe that the companions of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him would use terms such as 'Ya Muhammad' to call out to the Prophet peace be upon him because it goes againt Quranic principles.

Allah knows best!
=======================

2nd Sunni Reply :

speaking about calling the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam by his name, al Manawi in his book (fayd al Qadeer sharh al Jame' as Saghir) said in his explanation of hadith of the blind man:

- (اللهم إني أسألك) أطلب منك (وأتوجه إليك بنبيك محمد) صرح باسمه مع ورود النهي عنه تواضعا لكون التعليم من جهته

rough translation:
(and I turn to You by your Prophet Muhammad ) he stated his name, although it is forbidden, out of humbleness because he is in state of teaching from his side.


please correct my translation if I made a mistake.
===========================

3rd Sunni Reply :

Yeah, but he still called him 'nabi'. There is nothing wrong with saying 'Prophet Muhammad'. But you can't just call out to him 'O Muhammad' (assuming you can even call out to him in the first place). So i find it hard to believe that the companions called out to the Prophet in the first place. Secondly, even if they did they wouldn't just say 'Ya Muhammad'.
====================


4th Sunni Reply :


Quote:
From Abu Hurayra: I heard the Prophet (s) say: "By the one in Whose hand is Abu al-Qasim's soul, `Isa ibn Maryam shall descend as a just and wise ruler. He shall destroy the cross, slay the swine, eradicate discord and grudges, and money shall be offered to him but he will not accept it. Then he shall stand at my graveside and say: Ya Muhammad! and I will answer him."
in regards to this hadith, there are 2 things I would like to point out, which I observed:

1_ he (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said: "and say: ya Muhammad", and didn't mention anything about making duaa to him.
calling someone does not necessarly meaning to make duaa, he might be calling him to speak to him, or to give salam to him, there is no clear evidence that he meant that Isaa alayhi assalam would make duaa to the Prophet or to ask him to make duaa for him.

2_ this could be special for Prophet Isaa alayhi wa sallam, and not the whole ummah, that he say to the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam "ya Muhammad" and the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam respond to him.
also, in regards to the Prophets alayhim assalam it might not be forbiden for them to call each other by name, since they are all Prophets, but in our case it isn't same, wallahu a'lam.


Quote:
Bukhari in his Adab al-mufrad, Nawawi in his Adhkar, and Shawkani in Tuhfat al-dhakirin all relate the narrations of Ibn `Umar and Ibn `Abbas whereby they would call out Ya Muhammad whenever they had a cramp in their leg (Chapters entitled: "What one says if he feels a cramp in his leg"). Regardless of the grade of these narrations, it is significant that Bukhari, Nawawi, and Shawkani never raised such a disturbing notion as to say that calling out "O Muhammad" amounted to shirk
he can't use that as evidence, for it says that they told Ibn Umar to mention or remember (uthkur-اذكر ) someone whom he loves, and didn't say "ud'u - ادعو" to make duaa or ask him to cure him, or relieve his leg cramp.

and when someone remembers someone he loves dearly, it helps relieve his cramp.
and remembering someone you love does not mean you are asking him to cure you, or relieve your pain.

also, the authenticity of narration is not proven.
and the scholars who sited it didn't necessarly understand it to mean that he was making duaa to the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, they could have understood it to mean like I explained above, so unless he has clear evidence that they understood from it what Haddad understood from it, then he can't say that they don't consider making duaa to the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam to be shirk.

so with these 2 points, one can not use it as evidence for something related to aqeedah.
there must be clear evidence, with no doubt in it, which they do not have.
and it contradicts the Quran and Sunnah.

These people hang on to weak and unclear "evidences" to prove their false and deviant beliefs and practices, anything to justify their deviancy.

===============

5th Sunni Reply :


and another point

now they say that they ask or make duaa to Prophets alayhem assalam and awliya', because they are weak in iman, and they hope that when they make duaa to Prophets or awliya' that Allah will answer their duaa since they are very pious (Prophets & awliya') and close to Allah.
so what would make Prophet Isaa alayhi assalam make "duaa" to the Prophet sallallahu alyahi wa sallam or ask him to make duaa to Allah for him? when he himself is a Prophet alayhi assalam.
He would be from the ones whom sufis say is permissable to make duaa to them or ask them for duaa !
so he would be from the intercessors whom sufis use, and now they are claiming he is using an intercessor himself??!!

==============

6th Sunni Reply :

asalamu alaikum

I had responded to this before on another forum

That narration by Abu Y'ala about Isa if Im not mistaken, the matn is sound except for thew addition "Then he shall stand at my graveside and say: Ya Muhammad! and I will answer him."

of all the narrations regarding Isa, this was something i never came across, and I beleive some ulema have opined that this was a ziyaada of this riwayaa that is not acceptable.


secondly abu zubair said something a while back about this

Phrases such as wa mu'tasimah! wa muhammadah! Were never understood in the Arabic language as call for help. This call simply indicates one's sorrow, at least according to the language of the arabs

Hence, when the woman cried out wa mu'tasimah! She was declaring her sorrow over herself during al-Mu'tasim's reign.

When the companions cried out wa muhammadah! They were declaring their sorrow over the Prophet in their fight against Musaylima, and it was also their battle cry.

Similarly, when al-Mudhaffar Qutuz fought the Tatar at 'Ayn Jalut, the battle cry was wa Islamah! They were declaring their sorrow over Islam and not calling upon Islam for help.

The Arabs, similarly often utter wa huznah! wa asafah! Meaning: O my grief! O my sorrow!


and i beleive this to be the underlying reason why when those narrations were brought, particually from kalim at-tayyib, example, isa going to the grave of muhmamd sand saying ya muhammad, it is a calling of sorrow and not calling upon other than Allah which is why the imaams who may have made these narrations sahih did not connect these narrations with "calling upon other than Allah.

wallahul alim
===================

7th Sunni Reply

Even if 'Isa, 'alayhis-salam, will say "ya Muhammad", and he, sallallahu 'alayhi wa-sallam, will answer him, what does this mean? Why will he say "ya Muhammad" and what will the Prophet's answer be?

Everyone knows that when you go to the grave of the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa-sallam, you say: "As-salatu was-salamu 'alayka ya Rasulallah". And we know from the hadith that whoever sends salam to Rasulullah, sallallahu 'alayhi wa-sallam, he will reply to him. What on earth does that have to do with what these mubtadi'ah do today making istighathah of dead awliya'???

This is obviously the context of the above hadith about 'Isa, assuming of course that it is authentic to begin with.
==================
8th Sunni Reply :


Tahthib al Kamaal Vol. 17 p. 49

ت عبد الرحمن بن سعد الدشتكي هو عبد الرحمن بن عبد الله بن سعد وسيأتي

[ 3832 ] بخ عبد الرحمن بن سعد القرشي العدوي مولى بن عمر كوفي روى عن أخيه عبد الله بن سعد ومولاه عبد الله بن عمر بخ روى عنه حماد بن أبي سليمان وأبو شيبة عبد الرحمن بن إسحاق الكوفي ومنصور بن المعتمر وأبو إسحاق السبيعي بخ ذكره بن حبان في كتاب الثقات روى له البخاري في كتاب الأدب حديثا واحدا موقوفا وقد وقع لنا عاليا عنه أخبرنا به أبو الحسن بن البخاري وزينب بنت مكي قالا أخبرنا أبو حفص بن طبرزد قال أخبرنا الحافظ أبو البركات الأنماطي قال أخبرنا أبو محمد الصريفيني قال أخبرنا أبو القاسم بن حبابة قال أخبرنا عبد الله بن محمد البغوي قال حدثنا علي بن الجعد قال أخبرنا زهير عن أبي إسحاق عن عبد الرحمن بن سعد قال كنت عند عبد الله بن عمر فخدرت رجله فقلت له يا أبا عبد الرحمن ما لرجلك قال اجتمع عصبها من ها هنا قال قلت ادع أحب الناس إليك فقال يا محمد فانبسطت رواه عن أبي نعيم عن سفيان عن أبي إسحاق مختصرا

‘Abd ar-Rahman bin Sa’d al-Qarshi al-‘Adwi, freed slave of ‘Ibn ‘Umar, the Kuufan. He transmits from his brother ‘Abd Allaah bin Sa’d and his freed slave, ‘Abd Allaah bin ‘Umar. From him transmits Hamaad bin ‘Abi Sulaymaan, ‘Abu Shaybah ‘Abd ar-Rahman bin ‘Ishaaq al-Kuufi, Mansur bin al-Mu’tamar, ‘Abu ‘Ishaaq as-Sabi’ini. ‘Ibn Hibbaan mentioned him in the book of the trustworthy. Al-Bukhaari transmits from him in the book of manners one stopped (Mawquuf) narration. And already it occurred to us highly from him, he reported to us in it, ‘Abul Hasan bin al-Bukhaari and Zaynab bint Maki both said, ‘Abu Hafs bin Tabarzad reported to us, he said: al-Haafith ‘Abul Barkaat al-‘Anmaati reported to us, he said: ‘Abu Muhammad as-Sarifini reported to us, he said: ‘Abul Qaasim bin Hibaabah reported to us, he said: ‘Abd Allaah bin Muhammad al-Baghawi reported to us, he said: ‘Ali bin al-Ja’d narrated to us, he said: Zuhayr reported to us from ‘Abi ‘Ishaaq from ‘Abd ar-Rahman bin Sa’d, he said: I was near ‘Abd Allaah bin ‘Umar, so his foot fell asleep, so I said to him: Oh ‘Abu ‘Abd ar-Rahman what is with your foot? He said: Its nerves have gathered from this place. He said: I said: Call the most loved of people to you. So he said: Oh Muhammad. So it was alleviated. He transmitted it from ‘Abi Na’im from Sufyaan from ‘Abi ‘Ishaaq abbreviated.

=========== 


9th Sunni Reply :


Here is also some more analysis- I did it a while back so please forgive any errors...At the end is a conversation I had with Shaykh Yaasir about this particular narration and his comments (He referred to Multaqaa Ahlul Hadeeth!!!)

Adab al-Mufrad, ‘Imaam al-Bukhaari (Electronic Version) Vol. 6
437. What a man says when his foot goes to sleep
964. 'Abdu'r-Rahman ibn Sa'd said, "Ibn 'Umar's foot went to sleep and a man said to him, 'Mention the person you love most.' He said, 'Muhammad.'"
‘Adab al-Mufrad, ‘Imaam al-Bukhaari, (Electronic Version) in Arabic, p. 78

باب ما يقول الرجل إذا خدرت رجله

حدثنا أبو نعيم قال حدثنا سفيان عن أبي إسحاق عن عبد الرحمن بن سعد قال خدرت رجل بن عمر فقال له رجل اذكر أحب الناس إليك فقال محمد

Chapter of what the man should say when his foot falls asleep.

‘Abu Na’im narrated to us, he said: Sufyaan narrated to us from ‘Abi ‘Ishaaq from ‘Abd ar-Rahman bin Sa’d, he said: a foot of ‘Ibn ‘Umar fell asleep, so a man said to him: Mention the most loved person to you. So he said: Muhammad.

Taarikh al-Kaabir, ‘Imaam al-Bukhaari (Electronic Version) Vol. 5

[ 931 ] عبد الرحمن بن سعد مولى لابن عمر القرشي وكان يكون بالكوفة سمع بن عمر رضى الله تعالى عنهما روى عنه منصور وحماد بن أبي سليمان قاله وكيع أحسبه أخا عمرو

931- ‘Abd ar-Rahman bin Sa’d, freed slave to ‘Ibn ‘Umar al-Qarshi. And when he was in al-Kuufah, he heard from ‘Ibn ‘Umar, pleasure of Allaah, Exalted upon them two. And from him transmitted Mansuur, Hamaad bin ‘Abi Sulaymaan. Waki’ said it, he was considered as a brother of ‘Amrw.

Musnad, ‘Imaam ‘Ahmad bin Hanbal (Electronic Version) Vol. 2

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي حدثناه حسين حدثنا شيبان عن منصور عن عبد الرحمن بن سعد مولى آل عمر

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي حدثنا عبد الوهاب أنبأنا هشام عن حماد عن عبد الرحمن بن سعد مولى عمر بن الخطاب أنه أبصر عبد الله عمر

In the first entry, ‘Abd ar-Rahman bin Sa’d is a freed slave of the people of ‘Umar. In the second entry ‘Abd ar-Rahman bin Sa’d is the freed slave of ‘Umar bin al-Khattaab. In the entry of ‘Imaam al-Bukhaari, he is the freed slave of ‘Ibn ‘Umar.

What is clear as well is that ‘Abd ar-Rahman bin Sa’d is making Tadlis. In the narration mentioned by al-Bukhaari, ‘Abd ar-Rahman bin Sa’d reports that the events involved ‘a man’ giving the impression that he was not the witness to the events.

In the transmissions reported by ‘Ibn Sa’d in his Tabaqaat al-Kubraa, and al-Mizzi in his Tahthib al-Kamaal, there is significant changes to the transmission. Firstly the addition of ‘yaa’ is made. Secondly, the changing of the verb from ‘athkur’ to ‘ad’u’. And thirdly, perhaps most importantly, the person narrating the events, namely ‘Abd ar-Rahman bin Sa’d becomes the one who witnesses the events, whereas in the narration of al-Bukhaari, he merely says ‘a man’ was involved.

The first change in the chain that is evident between that of al-Bukhaari and al-Mizzi, begins with Zuhayr.

Tahthib al-Kamaal, ‘Imaam al-Mizzi, (Electronic Version) Vol. 17 p. 49

[ 3832 ] بخ عبد الرحمن بن سعد القرشي العدوي مولى بن عمر كوفي روى عن أخيه عبد الله بن سعد ومولاه عبد الله بن عمر بخ روى عنه حماد بن أبي سليمان وأبو شيبة عبد الرحمن بن إسحاق الكوفي ومنصور بن المعتمر وأبو إسحاق السبيعي بخ ذكره بن حبان في كتاب الثقات روى له البخاري في كتاب الأدب حديثا واحدا موقوفا وقد وقع لنا عاليا عنه أخبرنا به أبو الحسن بن البخاري وزينب بنت مكي قالا أخبرنا أبو حفص بن طبرزد قال أخبرنا الحافظ أبو البركات الأنماطي قال أخبرنا أبو محمد الصريفيني قال أخبرنا أبو القاسم بن حبابة قال أخبرنا عبد الله بن محمد البغوي قال حدثنا علي بن الجعد قال أخبرنا زهير عن أبي إسحاق عن عبد الرحمن بن سعد قال كنت عند عبد الله بن عمر فخدرت رجله فقلت له يا أبا عبد الرحمن ما لرجلك قال اجتمع عصبها من ها هنا قال قلت ادع أحب الناس إليك فقال يا محمد فانبسطت رواه عن أبي نعيم عن سفيان عن أبي إسحاق مختصرا

‘Abd ar-Rahman bin Sa’d al-Qarshi al-‘Adwi, freed slave of ‘Ibn ‘Umar, the Kuufan. He transmits from his brother ‘Abd Allaah bin Sa’d and his freed slave, ‘Abd Allaah bin ‘Umar. From him transmits Hamaad bin ‘Abi Sulaymaan, ‘Abu Shaybah ‘Abd ar-Rahman bin ‘Ishaaq al-Kuufi, Mansur bin al-Mu’tamar, ‘Abu ‘Ishaaq as-Sabi’ini. ‘Ibn Hibbaan mentioned him in the book of the trustworthy. Al-Bukhaari transmits from him in the book of manners one stopped (Mawquuf) narration. And already it occurred to us highly from him, he reported to us in it, ‘Abul Hasan bin al-Bukhaari and Zaynab bint Maki both said, ‘Abu Hafs bin Tabarzad reported to us, he said: al-Haafith ‘Abul Barkaat al-‘Anmaati reported to us, he said: ‘Abu Muhammad as-Sarifini reported to us, he said: ‘Abul Qaasim bin Hibaabah reported to us, he said: ‘Abd Allaah bin Muhammad al-Baghawi reported to us, he said: ‘Ali bin al-Ja’d narrated to us, he said: Zuhayr reported to us from ‘Abi ‘Ishaaq from ‘Abd ar-Rahman bin Sa’d, he said: I was near ‘Abd Allaah bin ‘Umar, so his foot fell asleep, so I said to him: Oh ‘Abu ‘Abd ar-Rahman what is with your foot? He said: Its nerves have gathered from this place. He said: I said: Call the most loved of people to you. So he said: Oh Muhammad. So it was alleviated. He transmitted it from ‘Abi Na’im from Sufyaan from ‘Abi ‘Ishaaq abbreviated.

Tabaqaat al-Kubraa, ‘Imaam ‘Ibn Sa’d, (Electronic Version) Vol. 4 p. 85

قال أخبرنا الفضل بن دكين قال حدثنا سفيان وزهير بن معاوية عن أبي إسحاق عن عبد الرحمن بن سعد قال كنت عند بن عمر فخدرت رجله فقلت يا أبا عبد الرحمن ما لرجلك قال اجتمع عصبها من هاهنا هذا في حديث زهير وحده قال قلت ادع أحب الناس إليك قال يا محمد فبسطها

He said: al-Fadhl bin Dakin reported to us, he said: Sufyaan and Zuhayr bin Mu’aawiyah narrated to us, from ‘Abi ‘Ishaaq, from ‘Abd ar-Rahman bin Sa’d, he said: I was near ‘Ibn ‘Umar, so his foot fell asleep. So I said: Oh ‘Abu ‘Abd ar-Rahman, what is with your foot? He said: Its nerves have joined from this place. (This is in a narration of Zuhayr alone) He said: I said: call the most loved of the people to you. He said: Oh Muhammad. So it alleviated it.

As per a conversation with Shaykh Yaasir al-Qaadhee:

He referred to Ahlulhadith.com, and ended up saying according to my notes:

‘Ibn ‘Ibraahim: he is matruuk
Al-‘Albaani- declared this da’if
Zuhayr makes tadlis and it weakens when he uses – 'an-'anah
Shath (abnormal) wording the use of 'Yaa
‘Abi ‘Ishaaq- mudalis, (expedites his chains) ‘ikhtilaat (mixes up or confuses narrations)
This narration is found in Dha’if ‘Adab al-Mufrad by al-'Albaanee

Also there was mention about healing in some commentaries: Love helps the circulation, to the numbed leg.
=========================


10th Sunni Reply


Assalam O Alaikum!
The people of Shirk and deviation often quote this hadeeth in order to substantiate the permissibility of saying Yaa Muhammad and therefore allowing to call upon Muhammad (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) for need or when in distress, as is evident from the text of the hadeeth and this is clear Shirk. The Soofee’s of the world whatever the name they concoct for themselves always utilize this hadeeth in some form or manner to substantiate their futile claim. So what follows is a detailed investigation of this hadeeth and its various routes.

And nothing is depended upon except Allaah and to him we belong and to him is our return. We supplicate to Allaah that he guides and keeps us firm upon belief in him and that we propagate His Wahdaniyyah and refute and censure the greatest crime, Shirk. Ameen Allaahuma Ameen.

The Narration

“The foot of Ibn Umar went numb so a man said to him mention the name of the person most beloved to you from amongst the people so he said, “Yaa Muhammad.”

References

Adaab al-Mufrad (no.992 ch. no.438 pg.261), Ibn as-Sunnee in Amal al-Yaum Wal-Lailah (no.168) with a Marfoo (raised) chain and from Ibn Abbaas without this chain)

The Chain

Bukhaari from Abu Nu’aym from Sufyaan from Abee Ishaaq from Abdur-Rahmaan bin Sa’ad and he said…..

The Imaam the Muhaddith Naasir ud deen al-Albaanee said this hadeeth is weak in Saheeh al-Kalimut-Tayyib (no.235) aswell as in his checking of Adaab al-Mufrad.


The Investigation

Firstly

This chain contains Abee Ishaaq and he is as-Sabee’ee Amr bin Abdullaah (d.127H) (al-Jarh Wat-Ta’deel (6/242), Tahdheeb (8/63), Tadhkirrah (1/114), Shadhraat (1/174) and Siyar (5/392).


And Concerning him Haafidh Ibn Hajr said,

“He became forgetful at the end but trustworthy.” (Taqreeb ut-Tahdheeb (no.5100 pg.739, with the checking of Abul-Ishbaal)


Ibn as-Salaah (d.643H) said whilst explaining the ruling on the narrator who started to forget at the end of his life,

“The ruling concerning such narrators is that the ahadeeth narrated by them before they started to forget are accepted and the ahadeeth they narrated after they started to forget are not accepted. Also concerning the narrators there are doubts about (is which ahadeeth of theirs) was narrated before or after they became forgetful are not accepted.” (Muqaddimah Ibn as-Salaah Fee Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg.220, Category no.62). He then went onto mention Sufyaan at-Thawree as one such narrator.


Shaikh Ibn as-Salaah then went onto mention,

“Abu Ishaaq as-Sabee’ee was also forgetful and it is said Sufyaan ibn Uyainah heard from Sabee’ee after he started to forget. Abu Ya’ala Khaleelee has also mentioned this.” (Muqaddimah Ibn as-Salaah (pg.220)


Allaamah Ibn Katheer said, (d.774H),

“Those who became forgetful in later life, from them were A’taa bin Saa’ib, Abu Ishaaq as-Sabee’ee. al-Haafidh Abu Ya’ala Khaleelee said, “Ibn Uyainah heard from (Sabee’ee) after he started to forget.” (Ikhtisaar Uloom al-Hadeeth of Ibn Katheer Ma’a Sharh al-Baa’ith al-Hatheeth (pg.229) of Allaamah Ahmad Muhammad Shaakir and Ikhtisaar Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg.190) with he notes and explanation of Saalah Muhammad Awaidah.


Imaam Nawawee and Imaam Suyootee mention,

“And from them is Abu Ishaaq as-Sabee’ee, those who forget from amongst the trustworthy narrators.” (Tadreeb ar-Raawee Sharh Taqreeb (2/371-373) with the checking of Abdul-Wahhaab Abdul-Lateef and in another edition (2/895-897) with the checking of Abu Qutaibah Nazar Muhammad al-Faryaabee)


Imaam Nawawee said in his Explanation of Saheeh Muslim,

“From those narrators who started to forget are….Abu Ishaaq as-Sabee’ee…” (Sharh Saheeh Muslim (1/34)


Imaam Nawawee also said,

“Ibn Uyainah heard from him (ie Abu Ishaaq) after he started to forget.” (Taqreeb Ma’a Tadreeb (2/897)


Imaam Suyootee then said in explanation of this,

“Khaleelee said Sufyaan heard from him after he started to forget.” (Tadreeb ar-Raawee (2/897), al-Irshaad (1/355)


Imaam Dhahabee said,

“He became old and made mistakes, but did not become forgetful so when Ibn Uyainah heard from him he only started to forget a little bit.” (Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal (no.6399 5/326), Tadreeb ar-Raawee (2/897-898).



Imaam Fusawee said,

“Some people of knowledge have said he became forgetful and he is rejected due to forgetfulness in the narrations 0f Ibn Uyainah.” (Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal (5/326)



Imaam Yahyaa ibn Ma’een said,

“Ibn Uyainah heard from him after he started to forget (or when he became forgetful).” (Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (no.5263 8/55)

Haafidh Abul-Wafaa Sabt bin al-Ajamee mentioned Abu Ishaaq as-Sabee’ee in his book of narrators who became forgetful. (see his book al-Egtibaat Bi Ma’arifah Ramee Bil-Ikhtilaat (pg.11).

Shaikh al-Ustaadh al-Allaamah Hamaad bin Muhammad al-Ansaari also mentions Abu Ishaaq as-Sabee’ee from those narrators whose memories deteriorated and they started to forget. (See his book Yaan’e ath-Thamr Fee Mastalah Ahlil-Athar Juzz 1 pg.48)
==================
 11th Sunni Replies
:

The Ruling on the Narrator who’s Memory Deteriorated or He became Forgetful

Ibn as-Salaah (d.643H) said,

“The ruling concerning such narrators is that the ahadeeth narrated by them before they started to forget are accepted and the ahadeeth they narrated after they started to forget are not accepted. Also concerning the narrators there are doubts about (is which ahadeeth of theirs) was narrated before or after they became forgetful are not accepted.” (Muqaddimah Ibn as-Salaah Fee Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg.220)



Haafidh Ibn Hajr said,

“The ruling concerning this is if the narration is before his memory deteriorated then it is accepted, if however this cannot be distinguished then there needs to abstinence….This depends and can be found out by the one’s this is to be taken from ie the narrators.” (Nazhatan-Nazhar Sharh Nukhbatul-Fikr (pg.82-83) Ta’leeq Wa Sharh Muhammad Awaidah, Nazhatan-Nazahr Fee Tawdheeh Nukhbatul-Fikr (pg.91) of Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaanee.)


Imaam Ibn Katheer said,

“Whoever heard from them before their memories deteriorated then their narrations are accepted. Whoever heard from them after (their memories deteriorated) or if it is uncertain (when they heard from the narrator) then they are not accepted.” (Ikhtisaar Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg.190) of Ibn Katheer Ma Sharh Wa Ta’leeq Muhammad Awaidah, al-Baa’ith al-Hatheeth Sharh Ikhtisaar Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg.229).


Imaam’s Nawawee and Suyootee said,

“And it is accepted that which has been narrated from them before their memory deteriorated, but their narrations are not accepted which were narrated after (memory deteriorated) or their narrations upon which there are doubts.” (Tadreeb ar-Raawee Fee Sharh Taqreeb an-Nawawee (2/896) in another edition (2/372).

Shaikh al-Allaamah Haafidh bin Ahmad al-Hakamee (d.1377H) also mentioned the statement of Haafidh Ibn Hajr from Nazhatan-Nazhar. He also mentioned the statement of Imaam Nawawee from Sharh Saheeh Muslim on Abu Ishaaq as-Sabee’ee of him being from amongst the narrators whose memory deteriorated. (See Daleel al-Falaah Lee Tahqeeq Fan al-Istilah (pg.152-153) of Haafidh al-Hakamee Question no.70 “…What is meant by bad memory? What is the ruling on the one who has bad memory? What is mentioned about some of the ones whose memories deteriorated? Checking by Abu Yaasar Khaalid bin Qaasim ar-Raddaadee.)



Ustaadh Hammaad al-Ansaari said,

“The hadeeth of the one who’s memory deteriorated is accepted when he heard before his memory deteriorated and those who heard after his Ikhtilaat (forgetfulness) are rejected.” (Yaan’e ath-Thamr Fee Mastalah Ahlil-Athar (1/48).


Shaikh Dr. Mahmood at-Tahaan said,

“1. The narrations they narrated before their memories deteriorated are accepted.

2. The narrations narrated after their memories deteriorated are rejected.

3. Those narrations in which it cannot be ascertained whether the narrations were narrated before or after their memories deteriorated, then there is abstinence upon them up until further clarity.” (Tayseer Mastalah al-Hadeeth (pg.124)


See also

Balgatul-Hatheeth Ilaal Ilm al-Hadeeth (pg.52) of Imaam al-Allaamah Jamaal ud deen al-Mahaasain Abdul-Haadee a-Maqdisee (d.909H).

al-Taqayyid Wal-Aydah (pg.422-443) of Haafidh al-A’raaqee

al-Maqna’a (2/662-667) of Ibn al-Mulqin

al-Yawaaqiyat Wad-Darar (2/476-477) of Allaamah Minawee.

Mu’ajam Mastalahaat al-Hadeeth (pg.112-113).


The Allaamah ash-Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad and Abdul-Kareem Muraad said,

“The ruling concerning the narrations (of such people) that which is narrated from them before their memories deteriorated and if this is not known, it is accepted and that which was narrated after is not accepted. And those which cannot be distinguished are remained silent upon.” (Min Ateeb al-Minh Fee Ilm al-Mastalah (pg.44)


Secondly

Abu Ishaaq is also a Mudallis

Haafidh Ibn Sabt al-Ajamee said,

“A major Successor (tabi’ee) and famous for tadlees.” (at-Tabayyeen Fee Asmaa al-Mudalliseen (pg.9)


Haafidh Ibn Hajr said,

“Famous for tadlees, he is a successor and trustworthy. Nasaa’ee and others have also said this.” (Ta’reef Ahlul-Taqdees Bi-Maraatab al-Mawsoofeen Bit-Tadlees al-Ma’roof beh Tabaqaat al-Mudalliseen (no.91) pg.101 of the third level)


Imaam Ibn Hibbaan said,

“He is a mudallis.” (ath-Thiqaat (5/177), (2/2/64) Qalmee, Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (8/55)

Hasan Karbeesee and Abu Ja’afar at-Tabaree mention him to be from amongst the mudalliseen narrators (Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (8/55).


Ibn Ma’an said,

“A’amsh and Abu Ishaaq as-Sabee’ee rendered the ahadeeth of the people of koofah to be corruptive due to tadlees.” (Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (8/55)


The Two Imaams Sufyaan Ibn Uyainah and Sufyaan ath-Thawree and Tadlees

As indicated above from the words of the scholars of hadeeth the Sufyaan in the chain is Ibn Uyainah. No doubt it is difficult to ascertain which Sufyaan this is whether Thawree or Ibn Uyainah so then the scholars of hadeeth look at the student of the Sufyaan and by this they make ta’ayyun which Sufyaan this is. However the student in this narration is Abu Nu’aym, which is another problem as he was the student of again both Sufyaan’s.

He narrated from Sufyaan ath-Thawree (Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (no.2538 4/102) and from Sufyaan Ibn Uyainah (Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (no.2544 4/107).

So for arguments if the Mukhaalifeen (opposers) say the Sufyaan in this chain is ath-Thawree and not Ibn Uyainah, then

It is KNOWN Imaam, Ameer al-Mu’mineen Fil-Haadeth al-Hujjah al-Aabid, Sufyaan ath-Thawree was an Imaam of Ahlus-Sunnah and a preserver of hadeeth of the highest level yet still he was a mudallis

Imaam Dhahabee said,

“Sufyaan would to tadlees from weak narrators.” (Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal (2/169), Siyaar A’laam an-Nabulaa (7/242, 7/274).

Haafidh Ibn Hajr also said he was a mudallis. (Tabaqaat al-Mudalliseen (p.32 no.51) and Taqreeb ut-Tahdheeb (no.2458 pg.394) in another ed. (p.197), an-Nukt (2/621).

Imaam Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak also said Sufyaan ath-Thawree would do tadlees. (Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (4/102)

As well as the following Imaams.

Imaam Bukhaari (al-Ellal al-Kabeer (2/966) of Tirmidhee and at-Tamheed (1/34).

Imaam Nasaa’ee. (Tabaqaat al-Mudalliseen (p.32 no.51))

Yahyaa ibn Ma’een. (Sharh Ellal at-Tirmidhee (1/357-358) and al-Kifaayah Fee Ilm ar-Riwaayah (p.361) of Khateeb al-Baghdaadee.

Yahyaa ibn Sa’eed al-Qattaan. (Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (11/192)

Khateeb al-Baghdaadee (al-Kifaayah(p.361)

Haafidh Ibn as-Saalah (Muqaddimah pg.60)

Abu Mahmood al-Maqdisee. (Qaseedah Fil Mudalliseen (p.47, second poem)

Salaah ud deen al-Laa’ee. (Jaam’e at-Tahseel Fee Ahkaam al-Maraaseel (p.99)

Haafidh Ibn Rajab. (Sharh Illal at-Tirmidhee (1/358)

Imaam Nawawee and Imaam Suyootee (Tadreeb ar-Raawee Sharh Taqreeb (1/263) in another ed. (1/230).


What is Tadlees

A Mudallis is the one who commits Tadlees which is when a narrator narrates from someone he does not directly hear from and omits the person he really hears from (See al-Fiyyah (1/180) of Haafidh al-A’raaqee, see also Nazhatun-Nazhar (p.82), an-Nukt (2/614) of Ibn Hajr and Tayseer Mastalah al-Hadeeth (p.78) of Dr. Mahmood at-Tahhaan.


The Ruling Concerning a Mudallis Narrator.

Imaam Ibn as-Salaah (d.643H) said,

“The ruling is that the only narration of a Mudallis that will be accepted is the one in which he clarifies who he heard it from, and this is upon every that individual who commits Tadlees once.” (Muqaddimah Ibn as-Salaah (p.60) another ed. (pg.99).

Imaam Ibn as-Salaah said this was the position of Imaam Shaafi’ee. (see ar-Risaalah (pg.379-380), Sharh Ellal at-Tirmidhee (1/353) and Muqaddimah Ibn as-Salaah (p.60)

Imaam Yahyaa ibn Ma’een (d.233H) said,

“The Mudallis is not a proof in is Tadlees.” (al-Kifaayah (p.362) and Sharh Ellal at-Tirmidhee (1/353) and (1/357-358)


Imaam Nawawee said,

“If a Mudallis narrates with Ann then that narration with agreement will not be proof.” (al-Majmoo Sharh al-Muhazzab (6/212), Nasb ur-Raayah (2/34).

Imaam Ibn Katheer has mentioned the same that a narration in which a mudallis clarifies he heard the narration, will be accepted, and thereafter brings the statement of Imaam Ibn as-Salaah. (See Ikhtisaar Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg.46-48), al-Baa’ith al-Hatheeth (pg.62-63).

Similar has been mentioned by Imaams Nawawee and Suyootee. (Tadreeb ar-Raawee (1/24).

See also Daleel al-Falaah Lee Tahqeeq Fan al-Istilah (pg.109-111).

Taqayyid Wal-Aydah (pg.78).

Fath al-Mugeeth (1/179) of Sakhawee.

Tawdheeh al-Afkaar (1/343).

al-Waseet (pg.295).

Asbaab Ikhtilaaf al-Muhaditheen (1/271).

Min Ateeb al-Minh Fee Ilm al-Mastalah (pg.29)

Tayseer Mastalah al-Hadeeth (pg.83).


Haafidh Ibn Hajr said,

“If tadlees is established or proven from a trustworthy narrator then still his hadeeth will not be accepted, except the hadeeth in which he clarifies who he heard the hadeeth from.” (Nazhatun-Nazhar (pg.62) in another ed. (pg.66).
============
12th Sunni Reply :

Other Chain For This Hadeeth

Ibn as-Sunnee mentions 3 more chains for this hadeeth they are as follows,

The First Chain

Muhammad bin Ibraaheem al-Anmatee and Amr bin Junaid bin Eesaa from Mahmood from Abu Bakr bin A’ayaash from Abu Ishaaq as-Sabee’ee from Abu Shu’bah……

The Second Chain

Muhammad bin Khaalid Muhammad Barzaa’ee from Haajib bin Suleimaan from Muhammad bin Mus’ab from Israa’eel from Abu Ishaaq as-Sabee’ee from Hushaim….

The Third Chain

Ahmad bin Hasan Soofee from Yahyaa bin Ja’ad from Zuhair from Abu Ishaaq from Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Sa’ad……

Then since the incident mentioned at the end of these chains seems to be the same one, then Abu Ishaaq as-Sabee’ee has performed Idhtiraab in the hadeeth.


What is Idhtiraab

Idhtiraab is when a narrator interchanges the names in a chain he sometimes narrates from person A and then sometimes narrates from Person B (the same incident). This is idhtiraab of the chain, there is also idhtiraab of the matn (text). There is a lot of variance in the statement of the scholars on its exact definition but it can be summarized as below.

Haafidh Ibn Hajr said,

“If by changing the name of a narrator a trustworthy narrator is opposed, and none of them can be given precedence over the other, then such a hadeeth is mudhtarib.” (Nazhatun-Nazhar (pg.81).

See also

Tawdheh al-Afkaar (1/221) of Sana’anee.

Muaqaddimah Ibn as-Saalah (pg.73).

Ikhtisaar Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg.54).

al-Baa’ith al-Hatheeth (pg.78).

Taqayyid Wal-Aydah (pg.124).

Fath al-Mugeeth (1/237).

Tadreeb ar-Raawee (1/308).

an-Nukt (2/772-802).

Bulgatul-Hatheeth Ilaa Imal-Hadeeth (pg.26).



Abu Ishaaq as-Sabee’ee and Idhtiraab.

Abu Ishaaq as-Sabee’ee used to do idhtiraab in his hadeeth and this is hadeeth is a prime example of that.

(see al-Ellal (1/193) of Imaam Daarqutnee,

al-Baa’ith al-Hatheeth (pg.79),

Tadreeb ar-Raawee (1/312)

and an-Nukt (2/772).

So these three narrations are also weak from this angle. As well as Abu Ishaaq as-Sabee’ee being a central narrator in all three chains the previous criticisms mentioned about him that his memory deteriorated in later life and that he was a mudallis, render all three narrations to be weak.

Further Analysis of the First Chain of Ibn as-Sunnee.

Firstly

The chain contains Abu Bakr bin A’ayaash. Many scholars of hadeeth of eminent level graded him to be trustworthy and reliable, however a greater majority scholars of hadeeth declared him to be weak, having bad memory and one who made many mistakes.

Imaam’s Bukhaari and Ibn Khuzaimah used him in a narration (s) they transmitted in their Saheeh’s. Abdullah ibn Mubaarak praised him. Yazeed bin Haaroon said, “Good and the learned.” al-Ejlee said, “Trustworthy who made mistakes.” And he also said, “He made mistakes.” Sufyaan ath-Thawree said, “There are errors in his hadeeth and there was something with his memory.”

Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal said, “Trustworthy, made many mistakes.” Ibn Sa’ad said, “Trustworthy, truthful but made many mistakes.” Imaam Saajee said, “Truthful, but had mistakes.” Imaam Ibn Hibbaan said, “Would make mistakes in what he narrated.” (Imaam Ibn Hibbaan also included him in his book of trustworthy narrators (ath-Thiqaat)

Ya’qoob bin Shaybah said, “His hadeeth contained idhtiraab.” Abu Umar said, “There are mistakes in his hadeeth and his memory had something in it.” Abu Ahmad Haakim said, “He is not a Haafidh according to me.” Muhammad bin Abdullaah bin Numair said, “He is weak.” (see Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (12/38-40) and Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal no.10024 7/337-338)

Imaam Abu Dawood said he was trustworthy. There are two statements concerning him by Imaam Yahyaa ibn Ma’een. Once he said he is trustworthy and another time he said weak. (See Taareekh Baghdaad.)

Imaam Tirmidhee said, “Made many mistakes.” (Tirmidhee (2/84).

Imaam Ibn Hazm said, “He is weak.” (al-Muhalla (7/485).

Imaam Baihaqee said, “Not a Haafidh.” (Sunan al-Kubraa 4/12).

Imaam Dhahabee said, “His hadeeth are incorrect and have errors.” (Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal no.10024 7/337-338).

Haafidh Ibn Hajr said, “When he became old his memory went bad and deteriorated in later times, trustworthy and a worshipper, but his book is authentic.” (Taqreeb ut-Tahdheeb (pg.576), Fath ul-Baaree from Taujeeh al-Qaaree (pg.336).


Secondly

Abu Bakr bin A’ayaash and Ikhtilaat (forgetfulness)

Abu Bakr bin A’ayaash’s memory deteriorated and he became forgetful as mentioned by the scholars of hadeeth as mentioned above.

See al-Kawaakib an-Neeraat Fee Ma’arifah Min Ikhtilaat Min Rawaah ath-Thiqaat (pg.439-444) of Ibn Akyaal.

al-Egtibaat Bi Ma’arifah Min Ramee Bil-Ikhtilaat (pg.26).

Nasb ur-Raayah (1/409) of Zailaa’ee.

Imaam Ibn Hibbaan has mentioned this more clearly in his book ath-Thiqaat he says,

“When Ibn A’ayaash became old his memory deteriorated. When he would narrate he would make mistakes and became forgetful. The correct position is that which he forgot or made an error in it is to be abandoned and the narration without the errors will be used as evidence.” (Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (12/39).

A MAJOR OBJECTION

The hanafee’s (by default) use Abu Bakr bin A’ayaash as double-edged sword in the following manner. They say Abu Bakr bin A’ayaash is a narrator of Saheeh al-Bukhaari and so if you bring criticism (ie he makes mistakes or he is weak) on him then you are criticizing Saheeh al-Bukhaari and Imaam Bukhaari and his expertise in the field of hadeeth as well indicating Imaam Bukhaari brought weak ahadeeth in is Saheeh. On the other hand if you do not mention the criticisms, they have an excuse (and a longing desire) to call upon other than Allaah by propagating this hadeeth is authentic.

The more well known amongst them for distortion and figurative explanations just say, “Abu Bakr bin A’ayaash is a narrator of Bukhaari.” As has one hanafee author of our times in a book of prayer according to the hanafee madhab, which he has titled based upon a khaarijee tendency, “The Salah of the Believer According to the Qur’aan and Sunnah.” When in reality he has compiled this book on prayer according to the hanafee madhab and this is what he title’s Salah of the Believer, thereby indicating any method of praying in which the people pray which is not according to the hanafee madhab, are not believers. Wal-Ayaadhbillaah.

Haafidh Ibn Hajr has answered this claim and said, “His (Abu Bakr bin A’ayaash’s) hadeeth in Saheeh al-Bukhaari are only used for support and not as the Usool (as the base or foundation).”(Haadee as-Saaree Muqaddimah Fath ul-Baaree (pg.456).

Detailed Criticism Takes Precedence Over The General Praise.

Someone may argue some of the scholars of hadeeth also praised Abu Bakr bin A’ayaash so why is the criticism taken over the praise. Then Haafidh Ibn Hajr said,

“A group has always taken criticism over the praise but the correct position is that if there is both criticism and praise of a narrator then the criticism takes precedence. This is if the criticism is detailed over the praise when the one who is criticizing is aware of the reason for the criticism. If he is not aware and the criticism is not detailed then the criticism cannot be given precedence over the praise.” (Nazhatun-Nazhar (pg.113-114).


See also

Muqaddimah Ibn as-Saalah (pg.87+)

Al-Baa’ith al-Hatheeth (pg.97-98).

Bulgatul Hatheeth Ilaa Ilmal-Hadeeth (pg.28-29).



Thirdly

In the chain is a narrator who is Abu Shu’bah and it cannot be established who he is and what his status is.

=====================


13th Sunni Reply :


Further Analysis of the Second Chain.

Muhammad bin Khaalid Muhammad Barzaa’ee from Haajib bin Suleimaan from Muhammad bin Mus’ab from Israa’eel from Abu Ishaaq as-Sabee’ee from Hushaim….


Muhammad bin Mus’ab would make many mistakes.


Haafidh Ibn Hajr said,


“Truthful but makes many mistakes.” (Taqreeb ut-Tahdheeb (pg.471)


Imaam Ibn Hibbaan said,


“He was from amongst those people who’s memories deteriorated to the extent that he would mix and confuse the chains and he would make the mursal narrations into Marfoo (ie raised to the Messenger of Allaah). So if he is alone (in reporting) then his narration is not to be used as evidence.” (Mukhtasar adh-Dhu’afaa (pg.106).


Imaam Ibn Abee Haatim said,


“I asked Abu Zur’ah about Muhammad bin Mus’ab al-Qursaanee? So he replied, “He is truthful in hadeeth but he narrates rejected narrations.” So I said, “Does this not make him weak.. He (Abu Zur’ah) replied, “I think he used to make mistakes in them.” I then asked my father (Imaam Abee Haatim) about him (ie Muhammad bin Mus’ab) so he said, “He is weak in hadeeth.” Then I told him what Abu Zur’ah had said, so my father said, “It is not like this according to me, he is weak as he narrates rejected narrations.” (al-Jarh Wat-Ta’deel (4/102).


Also another problem in this chain is that the teacher of Abu Ishaaq as-Sabee’ee and a narrator in this chain is majhool (unknown) and that is Hushaim bin Hansh.


Imaam Abu Bakr Khateeb al-Baghdaadee said,


“The unknown according to the people of hadeeth (Ashaabul-Hadeeth) is the narrator who is not known to be a student of knowledge and nor do the scholars know him and they do not know his hadeeth except through one chain. Like Umarzee Murrah, Jabbaar Ta’ee, Abdullaah bin Aghar al-Hamdaanee, Hushaim bin Hansh, Maalik bin Aghar, Sa’eed bin Dheelawaan, Qais bin Karkam, Dhamr bin Maalik, from all of them Abu Ishaaq Sabee’ee is alone in reporting from them.” (al-Kifaayah Fee Ilm ar-Riwaayah (pg.88).


Abu Ishaaq Juzjaanee said,


“Abu Ishaaq used to narrate from unknown people and their narrations did not spread amongst the people of knowledge, except that Abu Ishaaq is the only one who narrates them. According to me it is better to abstain from them. (Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (8/67).


Further Analysis of the Third Chain.

Ahmad bin Hasan Soofee from Yahyaa bin Ja’ad from Zuhair from Abu Ishaaq from Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Sa’ad……


Zuhair bin Mu’awiyyah is in the third chain and he heard from Abu Ishaaq as-Sabee’ee after he started to forget and when his memory deteriorated.


Haafidh Ibn Hajr said,


“Thiqatun-Thabt (affirmed trustworthy), except that he heard from Abu Ishaaq at the end.” (Taqreeb ut-Tahdheeb (pg.167)


The likes of this has also been mentioned in Tadreeb ar-Raawee (1/263) and Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (3/351-352).


Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal said about his hadeeth from Abu Ishaaq,


“Weak and he heard from him at the end (when his memory faded).”


Imaam Yahyaa ibn Ma’een said,


“He heard from Abu Ishaaq after he started to forget.”


Abu Haatim said,


“Zuhair is beloved to us in everything from the Israa’eel (narration’s), except the hadeeth of Abu Ishaaq.” (Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (3/351-352).


Lastly

In some of the manuscripts the words ‘Yaa’ is not present just the name of the Messenger of Allaah. (Fadhallaa us-Samad Sharh Adaab al-Mufrad (2/429).


Also this hadeeth is not Marfoo (raised) it is mawqoof ie stops at a successor. So in this regard Imaam Shawkaanee said,


“It is not in this (ie hadeeth) that the command was Marfoo (raised).” (Tuhfatul-Dhaakireen (pg.239).

===============

14th Sunni reply :

The narration regarding Hazrat Isa with the addition "Ya muhammed" is not found in Bukhari or muslim or both rather it is found without this addition! The narration with this wording i.e "Ya muhammed and the rest" is found in Abu ya'laa and hakim! The chain of Abu ya'laa contains Abu Sakhr who is known for making mistakes and he contradicts what is narrated in the sahih! So this addition is shaadh! The same addition is in haakim and the chain of haakim contains muhammed bin ishaq who is a mudallis and narrates with "an" so again the narration of Hakim is weak!
===============
15th Sunni Reply :

Assalam O Alaikum!
This is what is found in Bukhari regarding Hazrat Isa:

Narrated Abu Huraira(RA) that the Prophet of Allah(SAW) said:


By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, Son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the Cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizyah (a tax taken from the non-Muslims, who are in the protection, of the Muslim government). Then there will be abundance of money and no one will accept charitable gifts.
(Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 3, Book 34, No. 425)


Narrated Abu Huraira(RA) that hazrat Muhammad(SAW) said:


The Hour will not be established until the Son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizyah tax. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it (as charitable gifts).
(Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 3, Book 43, No. 656)


Both of them are without the addition "Ya Muhammed"!
==================

16th Sunni Reply

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarijWasti View Post
The narration regarding Hazrat Isa with the addition "Ya muhammed" is not found in Bukhari or muslim or both rather it is found without this addition! The narration with this wording i.e "Ya muhammed and the rest" is found in Abu ya'laa and hakim! The chain of Abu ya'laa contains Abu Sakhr who is known for making mistakes and he contradicts what is narrated in the sahih! So this addition is shaadh! The same addition is in haakim and the chain of haakim contains muhammed bin ishaq who is a mudallis and narrates with "an" so again the narration of Hakim is weak!

Allah knows best!


Assalamu alaikum

The claimant did not say that it was in the Sahihayn with the wording "Ya Muhammad". This is what al-Haythami said in his Majma:

13813- وعن أبي هريرة قال: سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول:
"والذي نفس أبي القاسم بيده، لينزلن عيسى بن مريم إماماً مقسطاً وحكماً عدلاً، فليكسرن الصليب، ويقتلن الخنزير، وليصلحن ذات البين، وليذهبن الشحناء وليعرضن المال فلا يقبله أحد، ثم لئن قام على قبري فقال: يا محمد، لأجبته".
قلت: هو في الصحيح باختصار.
رواه أبو يعلى ورجاله رجال الصحيح.


He declared the narrators to be that of the Sahih and the narration in the Sahih of al-Bukhari is an abridged version of what is in the Musnad of Abu Ya'la. So what do you mean that Abu Sakhr contradicts that in the Sahih when he is a narrator found in Sahih Muslim? How is his narration Shadh? Which Muhaddith said so?

Abu Sakhar is Humayd ibn Ziyad and Ibn Hajar said in al-Taqreeb (no. 1546) that he is Saduq yahim and he was opposed by Shaykhs Shu'ayb Arna'oot and Bashhar Awwad who said he is Saduq Hasan al-Hadith.

In Musnad Abu Ya'la, the one who took from Abu Sakhr was Ibn Wahb, and in Sahih Muslim there are examples of Ibn Wahb narrating from him:

- (1187) حدثني هارون بن سعيد الأيلي. حدثنا ابن وهب. حدثني أبو صخر عن ابن قسيط، عن عبيد بن جريج. قال:
حججت مع عبدالله بن عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنهما. بين حج وعمرة. ثنتين عشرة مرة. فقلت يا أبا عبدالرحمن ! لقد رأيت منك أربعة خصال. وساق الحديث، بهذا المعنى. إلا في قصة الإهلال فإنه خالف رواية المقبري. فذكره بمعنى سوى ذكره إياه.


70 - (2815) حدثني هارون بن سعيد الأيلي. حدثنا ابن وهب. أخبرني أبو صخر عن ابن قسيط. حدثه؛ أن عروة حدثه؛ أن عائشة، زوج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم حدثته؛
أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم خرج من عندها ليلا. قالت فغرت عليه. فجاء فرأى ما أصنع. فقال "مالك؟ يا عائشة! أغرت؟" فقلت: وما لي لا يغار مثلي على مثلك؟ فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم "أقد جاءك شيطانك؟" قالت: يا رسول الله! أو معي شيطان؟ قال "نعم" قلت: ومع كل إنسان؟ قال "نعم" قلت: ومعك؟ يا رسول الله! قال "نعم. ولكن ربي أعانني عليه حتى أسلم".

As for al-Hakim's version it does contain an-ana of Ibn Ishaq as you said and hence it is ma'lul in the sanad:

4162 / 172 - أخبرني أبو الطيب محمد بن أحمد الحيري، حدثنا محمد بن عبد الوهاب، حدثنا يعلى بن عبيد، حدثنا محمد بن إسحاق، عن سعيد بن أبي سعيد المقبري، عن عطاء مولى أم حبيبة قال:
سمعت أبا هريرة يقول:
قال رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم -: (ليهبطن عيسى بن مريم حكما عدلا، وإماما مقسطا، وليسلكن فجا، حاجا أو معتمرا، أو بنيتهما، وليأتين قبري حتى يسلم، ولأردن عليه).
يقول أبو هريرة: أي بني أخي، إن رأيتموه فقولوا: أبو هريرة يقرئك السلام.
هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد، ولم يخرجاه بهذه السياقة.



It looks like the ziyada from Abu Sakhr is a Ziyada thiqa and i will scan up the opinion of the Salafi Muhaddith, Husayn Salim Asad from his tahqeeq of the Musnad of Abu Ya'la declaring the said sanad to be Sahih below:





NB - Shaykh Asad mentioned under no. 5877 all the other routes he knew for the alternate version in Bukhari etc, and he didn't say that the above version in the scan is Shadh or munkar with the Ziyada.


==========


17th Sunni Reply


Assalam O Alaikum brother Abu Maryam!

Firstly, Haithami saying narrators are of two sahih does not mean much as it is mistakenly taken by some contemporaries to mean that the narration itself has been authenticated by Al-Haithami rahimahullah. But this is incorrect. Infact Imam Al-Zaila'ee Al-Hanafi rahimahullah said:

لا يلزم من كون الراوي محتجا به في الصحيح انه اذا وجد في اي حديث كان ذالك الحديث علي شرطه

"If a narrator has been used by (Imam Al-Bukhari) in Al-Sahih, it does not mean that if that narrator is found in any other (outside the Sahihs of Imams Al-Bukhari and Muslim) hadith, that that hadith itself becomes authentic fulfilling the strict condotions of Shahi Al-Bukhari" (Nasb Al-Raiyah v1 p 342)

A narrator can be from the sahihs but at the same time be a mudallis and narrates with the mode "an" outside sahih or the two sheikhs have only relied on him for support.

Secondly, Abu Sakhr Humayd bin Ziyad with all due respect to Arnaut is not without ambiguity. Imam Darmi narrated from Ibn Ma'een that he is "Thiqa". Ahmed bin said bin Abi maryam narrated from him that Abu Sakhr is "weak in hadith". Ishaq bin mansoor narrated from yahya that he is "weak"!
Likewise Imam Ahmed in one narration from Abdullah bin ahmed said "no harm in him" elsewhere Uqaili in his duafa mentioned from Muhammed bin esa from Hamdan bin Ali from Imam Ahmed that Abu Sakhr is "weak"! Imam Nisai said "he is not strong"! Ibn Adi said that he is Salih in hadith and elsewhere he said that " I heard Ibn al-Hammad say that Abu Sakhar, the one from whom Hatim Ibn Isma‘il narrates is "weak". Infact Ibn Adi pointed out the mistakes from the same route i.e. Abu Sakhr from Saeed from Abu Hurairah and said:In some of his hadeeths are things he was not followed up in narrating. al-Mizzi said: another one of his strange hadeeths is as follows. Then he pointed out that at-Tabaraani said: no one narrated it from Kurayb except humayd bin ziyaad abu sakhr. Imam Dhahabi spoke about him saying "People have disagreed abt him" Now consider the narration in the Sahihs and consider the narration with same matan with the addition "Ya Muhammed". No one narrates it except Abu Sakhr who is known for making mistakes!

Thirdly speaking, according to my knowledge Muslim has only narrated his narrations as a support(Shawahid) and not when he is alone in narrating them! He has not used them as evidence! If that is so then plz enlighten me!

Fourthly, the narration of Hakim is with the same text but with slight difference in the addition not found in the sahih and it chain contains Muhammed Ibn Ishaq a well known mudallis and narrates with mode "an" from his preceding authority! This is all with respect to Sanad! With respect to matn, even if this narration is authentic then it does not in anyway either proof tawassul nor does it prove that we can say "Ya Muhammed"!

Allah knows best!

===============

18th Sunni Reply

Here is a discussion from another forum :


The Nabi (Sallallāhu 'alayhi wa Sallam) also stated that when ‘Īsā (Sallallāhu 'alayhi wa Sallam) comes back at the end of time, he will stop at the Nabi (Sallallāhu 'alayhi wa Sallam)’s grave and greet him, and the Nabi (Sallallāhu 'alayhi wa Sallam) said "and I will answer him".

This is an addition to the matn in authentic versions . It is reported by Abu Ya'laa and Hakim with slight variation in text but both with a weak sanad .
Discussion follows :


مجمع الزوائد. الإصدار 2.05 - للحافظ الهيثمي
المجلد الثامن >> كتاب فيه ذكر الأنبياء، صلوات الله تعالى وسلامه على نبينا وعليهم أجمعين. >> 15. باب ذكر الأنبياء صلى الله عليهم وسلم.

13813- وعن أبي هريرة قال: سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول:
"والذي نفس أبي القاسم بيده، لينزلن عيسى بن مريم إماماً مقسطاً وحكماً عدلاً، فليكسرن الصليب، ويقتلن الخنزير، وليصلحن ذات البين، وليذهبن الشحناء وليعرضن المال فلا يقبله أحد، ثم لئن قام على قبري فقال: يا محمد، لأجبته".
قلت: هو في الصحيح باختصار.
رواه أبو يعلى ورجاله رجال الصحيح.

You can see he said it is in the Saheeh (either al-Bukhaari or Muslim or both) in summarized fashion (i.e. without the shirk part)It was reported by Abu Ya'laa and its narrators are the narrators of the Saheeh.The hadeeth was not graded saheeh by al-Haythami in al-Majma' .Saying the narrators are of the saheeh does not make them thiqah (because they could be mentioned in the saheeh as supporting narrators and they dont have to be thiqah to give support to another narrator's hadeeth).Also, saying that the narrators are thiqah does not make the hadeeth saheeh because the hadeeth could have an 'illah. even thiqah narrators make mistakes.


The great thing about hadeeth sciences is that its very rigorous so we can figure out who made the mistake. In this case its obvious that the shirki addition only found with Abu Ya'laa is a mistake and the established and most authentic version is obviously the shorter one found with Bukhaari or Muslim or both with complete tawheed.In general I could say these hadeeths all contradict what is known from the rest of Islaam and they are obvious additions to well-known hadeeths. When they are only found in obscure books that is an immediate give away.I dont mean that those two musnads are unknown or worthless but the 9 books hold a special place in Islaam for a reason.

Now about the sanad . It also contain the same weak reporter mentioned in previuos hadith ie Abu Sakhr who report from Sa'eed al-Maqburi from Abu Hurayrah.

So we have the same narrator who is known for having mistakes (in fact ibn 'Adi pointed out a number of mistakes from this same route: Sa'eed al-maqburi from Abu Hurayrah ) narrating an even more bunk matn.

Now we have the same type of addition (which contradicts tawheed) by the same messed up narrator, from the same companion, which contradicts hadeeths in the Saheehayn (because it is an addition to what the thiqaat narrated).

This one can not strengthen that other for two reasons:

1) its the same narrator!

2) munkar narrations (those that contradict the thiqaat) can not be used to strengthen anything because they are very very weak. Only hadeeths that have a little weakness can strengthen other hadeeths that have a little weakness.

Now about al-Hakim's version :

أخبرني أبو الطيب محمد بن أحمد الحيري، حدثنا محمد بن عبد الوهاب، حدثنا يعلى بن عبيد، حدثنا محمد بن إسحاق، عن سعيد بن أبي سعيد المقبري، عن عطاء مولى أم حبيبة قال:
سمعت أبا هريرة يقول:
قال رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم -: (ليهبطن عيسى بن مريم حكما عدلا، وإماما مقسطا، وليسلكن فجا، حاجا أو معتمرا، أو بنيتهما، وليأتين قبري حتى يسلم، ولأردن عليه).
يقول أبو هريرة: أي بني أخي، إن رأيتموه فقولوا: أبو هريرة يقرئك السلام.
هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد، ولم يخرجاه بهذه السياقة.

al-Haakim himself tells us that it is not found in the Saheehayn with this addition (although he says that the isnaad is saheeh).

Again a saheeh isnaad isnt all that, but even the isnaad has problems. You have to excuse al-Haakim in his book al-Mustadrak because he made tons of mistakes. Its so bad that adh-Dhahabi said: 'If only he didnt write that book.'

The mistake is a glaring one:Muhammad ibn Ishaaq is a world renowned mudallis. He will say ''an' 'from' so and so but he actually heard it from another person from that so and so. So the person not mentioned could be really weak. In his case (i.e. Muhammad bin Ishaaq) he would narrate like that and not mention people who really were weak. He did that alot.

Here he didnt say: 'I heard,' or 'He narrated to me,' he said 'from.' So al-Haakim should have caught that.

In addition, not only does this version contradict the version in the Saheehayn (because of the bunk addition) it also has a change in the isnaad that is not found in the version of Abu Ya'laa. Now, supposedly its from Sa'eed al-Maqburi from 'Ataa, the Mawlaa of Umm Habeebah, from Abu Hurayrah??
I have no clue who the mawlaa of umm habeebah is (on top of the fact that his presence makes the hadeeth even weaker because it shows that the weak narrators couldnt even keep the isnaad straight. sometimes they narrate it with this guy in the chain other times without him). I looked through Tahdheeb al-Kamaal and couldnt find this 'ataa'.
Also in the bio of Sa'eed al-Maqburi the only 'Ataa's al-Mizzi mentions as the shuyookh of 'Ataa' are as follows:
When people can't keep a narrators name straight that probably means that that narrator is an unknown. otherwise, if this is his correct name its just as bad that we can not find him in the 6 books because that means he is not a well-known narrator
If its 'Ataa' the mawlaa of Umm Sabiyyah then it seems the narrators couldnt keep his name straight. Also if you look at his bio he is not very well known except for narrating a hadeeth that has much differing in the way its sanad was narrated:
The only thing good we can say about him is that ibn Hibbaan put him in his book of Thiqaat but thats not so great considering ibn Hibbaan says that unknown narrators are thiqah even if he doesnt know anything about them. It seems this is a 'case in point.' I got it right this time
If he is Mawlaa ibn Abee Ahmad then the same exact stuff is true. They couldnt keep his name straight and he's not that well known except for narrating one hadeeth (both of these so far narrate from Abu Hurayrah and as you know al-Maqburi narrates from both of them. The last guy even had Muhammad bin Ishaaq in his chain like in the hadeeth of al-Haakim. This one doesnt though) at-Tabaraani said about his one hadeeth: it is not known with this isnaad except from this route. Thats really terrible if you are the only guy narrating a famous hadeeth a certain way (its the hadeeth of the one who recites qur'aan is like this and the one who doesnt is like that) How about when you are hardly even a known narrator. Plus the wording of that hadeeth is changed and not the way the thiqaat narrate it:

If he is 'Ataa' bin Maynaa' the mawlaa of ibn Abee Dhi'aab, then once again the narrators cant keep his name straight and his bio shows that he's not that well known although he is doing a bit better than the last two. Other than ibn Hibbaan someone said he was a righteous man and ibn 'uyaynah said he is a known companion of Abu Hurayrah. Being known doesnt make you good in memory, and being righteous doesnt make you good in memory either, and we know about ibn Hibbaan.

So we dont have any real matches so we are left with a few options:

1) this narrator is unknown

2) this narrator is known but we cant find his narrations in the six books (so we would have to check some more jarh wa ta'deel books I dont have on hand)

3) this narrator is in reality one of these three that I mentioned

None of those options is very good because it doesnt make this narrator thiqah. So its another cause for hesitation in accepting the hadeeth.

The best case is no. 3 and we cant even decide which of the 3 it is. The best of the three is the last one and even he isnt doing so well.

In the sciences of hadeeth we dont leave anything to chance. We would reject the hadeeth before accepting it if we have a doubt.

So we have an addition that contradicts what is found in the Saheehayn by well-known thiqaat, its only found in other than the 9 books, it only comes from routes that have problems (one with a dha'eef narrator and the other with tadlees and an unknown narrator), and it doesnt even come in a consistent manner (chain-wise) or with a consistent wording. So once again, these hadeeths are proven to be false.

Another interesting observation:
Regarding the Abu Ya'laa one. The original route was weak because of Abu Sakhr Humayd bin Ziyaad who narrates from Sa'eed al-Maqburi. Interestingly enough Muhammad bin Ishaaq is narrating from Sa'eed al-Maqburi with the word 'from.' So it is highly possible that Muhammad bin Ishaaq narrated this hadeeth from Abu Sakhr from Sa'eed al-Muqburi without explicitly stating that fact. This would mean that we have another case of just another route with the same weak narrator (which can not strengthen anything at all).
=================

19th Sunni Reply

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarijWasti View Post

Secondly, Abu Sakhr Humayd bin Ziyad with all due respect to Arnaut is not without ambiguity. Imam Darmi narrated from Ibn Ma'een that he is "Thiqa". Ahmed bin said bin Abi maryam narrated from him that Abu Sakhr is "weak in hadith". Ishaq bin mansoor narrated from yahya that he is "weak"!
Likewise Imam Ahmed in one narration from Abdullah bin ahmed said "no harm in him" elsewhere Uqaili in his duafa mentioned from Muhammed bin esa from Hamdan bin Ali from Imam Ahmed that Abu Sakhr is "weak"! Imam Nisai said "he is not strong"! Ibn Adi said that he is Salih in hadith and elsewhere he said that " I heard Ibn al-Hammad say that Abu Sakhar, the one from whom Hatim Ibn Isma‘il narrates is "weak". Infact Ibn Adi pointed out the mistakes from the same route i.e. Abu Sakhr from Saeed from Abu Hurairah and said:In some of his hadeeths are things he was not followed up in narrating. al-Mizzi said: another one of his strange hadeeths is as follows. Then he pointed out that at-Tabaraani said: no one narrated it from Kurayb except humayd bin ziyaad abu sakhr. Imam Dhahabi spoke about him saying "People have disagreed abt him" Now consider the narration in the Sahihs and consider the narration with same matan with the addition "Ya Muhammed". No one narrates it except Abu Sakhr who is known for making mistakes!
Wa alaikum salam


Brother,

With due respect i am not sure if you are on the level of a Muhaddith to give a final judgement on the narration in question or anyone else on this forum for that matter. I haven't seen anyone mention a single Muhaddith declaring this specific narration from Musnad Abu Ya'la to be da'eef.

On the contrary we have seen the Salafi Muhaddith of Syria, Shaykh Husayn Asad declaring the sanad to be SAHIH. On top of this i have also discovered from the Salafi Shaykh, Dr Sa'd ibn Nasir al-Shithari that he too had not weakened this very narration in his editing of Ibn Hajar's Matalib al-Aliyya which has this narration in it with Ibn Hajar's silence. Rather, Dr Shithari said the Hadith is Hasan with this sanad (in Abu Ya'la) and the narrators are all trustworthy! SEE the attatched file where he also said that Abu Sakhr is Saduq.

Even Shaykh al-Albani has declared in his editing of Jami al-Tirmidhi and Sunan Ibn Majah a narration via Abu Sakhr to be Hasan.

The following is a notice on Abu Sakhr in Ibn Hajar's Tahdhib (vol. 3):


[ 69 ] بخ م د ت عس ق البخاري في الأدب المفرد ومسلم وأبي داود والترمذي والنسائي في مسند علي وابن ماجة حميد بن زياد وهو بن أبي المخارق المدني أبو صخر الخراط صاحب العباء سكن مصر ويقال حميد بن صخر وقال أبو مسعود الدمشقي حميد بن صخر أبو مودود الخراط ويقال أنهما اثنان رأى سهل بن سعد وروى عن أبي صالح السمان وأبي حازم سلمة بن دينار ونافع مولى بن عمر وكريب ومكحول وأبي سعيد المقبري ويزيد بن قسيط وشريك بن عبد الله بن أبي نمر وسعيد المقبري وغيرهم وعنه سعيد بن أبي أيوب وحيوة بن شريح وابن وهب ويحيى القطان وهمام بن إسماعيل وحاتم بن إسماعيل وغيرهم قال أحمد ليس به بأس وقال عثمان الدارمي عن يحيى ليس به بأس وقال إسحاق بن منصور وابن أبي مريم عن يحيى ضعيف وكذا قال النسائي وقال بن عدي بعد أن روى له ثلاثة أحاديث وهو عندي صالح وإنما أنكر عليه هذان الحديثان المؤمن يألف وفي القدرية وسائر حديثه أرجو أن يكون مستقيما ثم قال في موضع آخر حميد بن صخر وعنه حاتم بن إسماعيل ضعفه النسائي وأخرج له بن عدي أحاديث غير تلك الأحاديث وقال وله أحاديث وبعضها لا يتابع عليه قلت وكذا فرق بينهما بن حبان وبين البغوي في كتاب الصحابة أن حاتم بن إسماعيل وهم في قوله حميد بن صخر وإنما هو حميد بن زياد أبو صخر وهو مدني صالح الحديث وقال الدارقطني ثقة وذكره بن حبان في الثقات وقال أبو إسحاق الصريفيني مات سنة 89 وقيل سنة 192 رأيت ذلك بخط مغلطاي وفيه نظر

You've mentioned some Jarh and Ta'deel on Abu Sakhr - but what you did not proove is if the Jarh is Mufassar and are all Abu Sakhr's narrations outrightly weak or not?! Did you see how Ibn Adee didn't reject all of Abu Sakhr's narrations and accepted others?


Note also that Shaykhs Arna'ut and Bashhar Awwad said in Tahrir al-Taqrib (no. 1546) that the most authentic (as-sah al-riwayat) report from Ibn Ma'een is his Tawtheeq and i didn't see you mention that al-Daraqutni (sawalat al-Barqani: 93), al-Ijli and Ibn Hibban all made tawtheeq on Abu Sakhr as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarijWasti
Thirdly speaking, according to my knowledge Muslim has only narrated his narrations as a support(Shawahid) and not when he is alone in narrating them! He has not used them as evidence! If that is so then plz enlighten me!
How do you know that and what Qawa'id is used to say that when i recall some 8 chains with Abu Sakhr in Sahih Muslim?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarijWasti
Fourthly, the narration of Hakim is with the same text but with slight difference in the addition not found in the sahih and it chain contains Muhammed Ibn Ishaq a well known mudallis and narrates with mode "an" from his preceding authority! This is all with respect to Sanad! With respect to matn, even if this narration is authentic then it does not in anyway either proof tawassul nor does it prove that we can say "Ya Muhammed"!

Allah knows best!

I know and agree with this point on Ibn Ishaq and the narration is not a proof for Tawassul or does it imply Shirk. It merely mentions what Isa (alaihi salam) may say at the Qabr. The point in the Hadith:

Then he shall stand at my graveside and say: Ya Muhammad! and I will answer him."


If this portion is Hasan or Sahih, it is exclusively for Isa (alaihis salam) and why do people think here it is a "Shirki" narration when such contemporary Salafi Muhaddithin like Dr Shithari and Shaykh Husayn Asad didn't bring such a notion up, and nor did they come off with claims of Abu Sakhr is outright weak - but rather they both accepted the narration!

To cut out the arguments please try to give a judgement from a recognised Muhaddith that Abu Ya'la's narration is Munkar.

Wassalam
Attached Files
File Type: doc Abu Sakhr in Matalib al Aliyya+Jami al-Tirmidhi.doc (200.5 KB, 28 views)


=================
21th Sunni Reply :












 

20 Question which Sunni can not answer adequately


Category: Religion and Philosophy

1.

History testifies that when Hadhrath Muhammad (saaws) declared his Prophethood (saaws), the Quraysh1 subjected the Bani Hashim to a boycott. Hadhrath Abu Talib (as) took the tribe to an area called Shib Abi Talib where they remained for three years, suffering from immense hardship. Where were Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar during that period? They were in Makkah so why did they not help the Holy Prophet (saaws)? If they were unable to join the Prophet (saaws) at the Shib Abi Talib is there any evidence that they provided any type of support (food etc), breaching the agreement that the Quraysh boycott all food / business transactions with Bani Hashim?
"the Quraysh gathered together to confer and decided to draw up a document in which they undertook not to marry women from Banu Hashim and the Banu al Muttalib, or to give them women in marriage, or to sell anything to them or buy anything from them. They drew up a written contract to that effect and solemnly pledged themselves to observe it. They then hung up the document in the interior of the Ka'bah to make it even more binding upon themselves. When Quraysh did this, the Banu Hashim and the Banu al-Muttalib joined with 'Abu Talib, went with him to his valley and gathered round him there; but 'Abu Lahab 'Abd al Uzza b. 'Abd al-Muttalib left the Banu Hashim and went with the Quraysh supporting them against 'Abu Talib. This state of affairs continued for two or three years, until the two clans were exhausted, since nothing reached any of them except what was sent secretly by those of the Quraysh who wished to maintain relations with them".
"These days were very hard with them and very often they had to feed on the leaves TALH or plantain" (taken from Siratun Nabi by Shibli Numani Vol 1 p 218 )

2.

Hadhrath Fatima Zahra (sa) died 6 months after her father (saaws), Hadhrath Abu Bakr died two and a half years later and Hadhrath Umar in 24 Hijri. Despite their later deaths how is it that they attained burial sites next to the Prophet (saaws) and not Hadhrath Fatima (as)? Did she request that she be buried away from her father? If so, why? Or did the Muslims prevent her burial?
(see Sahih al Bukhari Arabic - English Vol 5 hadith number 546).

3.

Amongst the companions Hadhrath Abu Bakr is viewed as the most superior on account of his closeness to the Holy Prophet (saaws). If this is indeed the case then why did the Holy Prophet (saaws) not select him to be his brother when he (saaws) divided the companions in to pairs on the Day of Brotherhood? Rather, the Prophet (saaws) chose Hadhrath Ali (as) saying "You are my brother in this world and the next", so on what basis is Hadhrath Abu Bakr closer?
See The History of the Khalifahs who took the right way, by Jalaladeen Suyuti, English translation by Abdassamad Clarke p177, (Taha publishers)

4.

The books of Ahlul' Sunnah are replete with traditions narrated by Hadhrath Ayesha, Abu Hurraira and Abdullah Ibne Umar. Their narration's; far exceed those relayed by Hadhrath Ali (as), Hadhrath Fatima (sa), Hadhrath Hassan (as) and Hadhrath Hussain (as). Why is this the case? When the Prophet (saaws) declared "I am the City of Knowledge and Ali is it's Gate", did Hadhrath Ali (as) benefit less from the company of the Prophet (saaws) than these individuals?

5.

If Hadhrath Ali (as) had no differences with the first three Khalifa's why did he not participate in any battles that took place during their reigns, particularly when Jihad against the Kuffar is deemed a major duty upon the Muslim? If he did not view it as necessary at that time, then why did he during his own Khilafath whilst in his fifties unsheathe his sword and participate in the battles of Jamal, Sifeen and Naharwan?

6.

If (as is the usual allegation) the Shi'as were responsible for killing Imam Hussain (as) then why did the majority Ahlul'Sunnah not come to his aid? After all they were in the majority, there were millions of such individuals, what was their position at that time?

7.

If Hadhrath Umar was correct when he denied the dying request of the Holy Prophet (saaws) on the premise that the 'Qur'an is sufficient for us' (Sahih al Bukhari Vol 7 hadith number 573) what will be the reward for accusing the Holy Prophet (saaws) of speaking nonsense?
(See Sahih al-Bukhari Vol 5 number 716)

8.

Allah (swt) sent 124,000 Prophet's to guide mankind. Is there any proof that on the deaths of any one of these Prophet's his companions failed to attend his funeral preferring to participate in the selection of his successor? If no such precedent exists then why did the Prophet (saaws)'s companions follow this approach?
"the Sahaba viewed the appointment of the Imam as so important that they preferred it to attending the Prophet's funeral" - taken from Sharh Fiqa Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, p 175 (publishers Muhammad Saeed and son, Qur'an Muhall, Karachi).

9.

Of the 124,000 Prophets' that Allah (swt) sent, what evidence is there that they left everything for their followers as Sadaqah (Charity)? If they did, then why did the Prophet (saaws)'s wives not give all their possessions to the Islamic State? After all, Ahl'ul Sunnah consider the wives to be Ahlul'bayt. Sadaqah is haram on the Ahlul'bayt, this being the case why did they hold on to their possessions?

10.

We read in the Holy Qur'an "And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense shall be hell, he shall abide therein and God's wrath (Ghazibullaho) shall be on him and his curse (lanato), and is prepared for him a great torment" (Surah Nisa, v 93) History testifies that during the battles of Sifeen and Jamal 70,800 Muslims lost their lives. What is the position of the killers here? Is this verse not applicable to them? If these individuals opposed the Khalifa of the time and were responsible for spreading fitnah (dissension) and murder, what will be their position on the Day of Judgement?

11.

Allah (swt) tells us in the Holy Qur'an "And of the people of Madina are those who are bent on hypocrisy. You know them not, but we know them". (The Qur'an 9:101). The verse proves the existence of hypocrites during the lifetime of the Prophet (saaws). After the Prophet (saaws)'s death where did they go? Historians record the fact that two groups emerged following the Prophet (saaws)'s demise, Banu Hashim and their supporters, the State and their supporters. Which side did the hypocrites join?

12.

Ahl'ul Sunnah have four principles of law the Qur'an, Sunnah, Ijtihad and Qiyas. Were any of these principles adopted by the parties during their discussions about the Prophet's successor at the Saqifa?

13.

If rejecting a Rightly Guided Khalifa is tantamount to apostasy and rebelling against any khalifa even Yazid ibn Mu'awiya will lead to such persons being raised as betrayers in the next world; what of those individuals who rebelled and fought the fourth rightly guided Khalifa?
This was the verdict of Abdullah Ibn Umar in his defence of Yazid (See Sahih al Bukhari Arabic - English Volume 9 hadith number 127)

14.

It is a basic principle of rationality that if two parties have a dispute both can be wrong, but both can not be right. Applying this to the battles of Jamal and Sifeen, will both the murderers and the murdered be in heaven, because both were right?

15.

The Holy Prophet (saaws) had said "I swear by the one who controls my life that this man (Ali) and his Shi'a shall secure deliverance on the day of resurrection". Do any hadith exist in which the Prophet (saaws) had guaranteed paradise for Imams Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi, Hanbal and their followers?
Tafsir Durr al Manthur, by al Hafidh Jalaladeen Suyuti in his commentary of verse 98:7

16.

During her lifetime Hadhrath Ayesha was a severe critic of Hadhrath Uthman, to the point that she advocated his killing. How is it that following his murder, she chose to rebel against Imam Ali (as) on the premise that his killers should be apprehended? Why did she leave Makkah, portray Hadhrath Uthman as a victim and mobilise opposition from Basrah? Was this decision based on her desire to defend Hadhrath Uthman or was it motivated by her animosity towards Hadhrath Ali (as)?
History records that she said the following about Hadhrath Uthman "Kill this old fool (Na'thal), for he is unbeliever", see History of Ibn Athir, v3, p206, Lisan al-Arab, v14, p141, al-Iqd al-Farid, v4, p290 and Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadid, v16, pp 220-223

17.

If failing to believe in Hadhrath Ayesha is an act of Kufr what opinion should we hold with regards to her killer?
Hadhrath Ayesha was killed by Mu'awiya (Tarikh al Islam, by Najeeb Abadi, Vol 2 p 44)

18.

It is commonly conveyed that the companions were brave, generous, and knowledgeable and spent their time worshipping Allah (swt). If we want to determine their bravery, then let us delve in to history, how many kaffir's did the prominent companion Hadhrath Umar slay during the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khunduq, Khayber and Hunain? How many polytheists did he kill during his own Khilafath? If we wish to determine who is firm against the unbelievers it cannot be that individual who despite the Prophet (saaws)'s order refused to go the Kaffir's prior to the treaty of Hudaiybiya on the grounds that he had no support and instead suggested Hadhrath Uthman go on account of his relationship to the Ummaya clan.
Al Faruq by Allamah Shibli Numani, Volume 1 page 66, English translation by Muhammad Saleem, (Ashraf Publishers)

19.

The Saha Sittah has traditions in which the Holy Prophet (saaws) foretold the coming of twelve khalifa's after him(1). Who are they? We assert that these are the twelve Imams from the Ahlul'bayt. Mulla Ali Qari whilst setting out the Hanafi interpretation of this hadith lists Yazid ibn Mu'awiya as the sixth Khalifa?(2) Was the Holy Prophet (saaws) really referring to such a man? When we also have a hadith that states 'He who dies without giving bayah to an Imam dies the death of one belonging to the days of jahiliyya'(3) then it is imperative that we identify and determine who these twelve khalifa's are.
1. "The affairs of the people will continue to be conducted as long as they are governed by 12 men, he then added from Quraish" (taken from Sahih Muslim, hadith number 4483, English translation by Abdul Hamid Siddiqui).
2. Sharh Fiqa Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, p 175 (publishers Muhummud Saeed and son, Qur'an Muhall, Karachi).
3. ibid, page 175


20.

Can anyone change Allah (swt) laws? The Qur'an states quite categorically that no one has that right "And it is not for a believing man or woman that they should have any choice in a matter when Allah and his Messenger have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and his Messenger; surely strays off a manifest straying". With this verse in mind, why did Hadhrath Umar introduce Tarawih prayers in congregation, three divorce utterances in one sitting and the formula 'Prayer is better than Sleep' in the Fajr Adhan? What right did he have to substitute Allah (swt)'s orders in favour of his own?
Al Faruq by Allamah Shibli Numani, Volume 2 page 338, English translation by Muhammad Saleem, (Ashraf Publishers)

Abdullah ibn Saba - a Sunni fairy tale refuted!


Category: Religion and Philosophy
A Fairytale Refuted by Facts

"Oh you believe, if a transgressor comes to you with news, try to verify it, lest you inflict damage on people unwittingly; then you may consequently regret your hasty action. (ch. 49, v.6)

The enemies of Islam whose singleness of purpose was/is to confuse, mislead, and split the Muslims, in their effort to explain the emergence of Shi'ah, claim that the Shi'ah are a sect originated by Abdullah Ibn Saba, a Jew, who embraced Islam during the reign of Uthman Ibn Affan, the third caliph. Furthermore, they claim that Abdullah Ibn Saba traveled in Muslim cities and towns, from Damascus to Kufa to Egypt; proselytizing to the Muslims that Ali is the Prophet's successor. They also claim that Abdullah Ibn Saba enticed the Muslims to kill Uthman since he believed Uthman had usurped the seat of Imam Ali. Furthermore, they claim that he also made mischief in the armies of Ali and his opponents in the battle of Camel. Some anti Shi'ah zealots, even today, conjecture that he was also responsible for the Shi'ah's " false ideology", as insinuated by this anonymous author. These mercenary writers believe that Abdullah Ibn Saba is the ORIGIN of Shi'ah; and since he himself was a hypocrite and a falsifier of tales, then all the knowledge and beliefs of the Shia are false as well. In fact, Abdullah Ibn Saba is the best scapegoat for all the claims of some Sunnis. This is the only tactic the anti- Shi'ah zealots can muster up; yet, this fictitious story has always failed to pass the giggle test among most common Muslims, let alone the scholars.

The fictitious stories attributed to the character of Abdullah Ibn Saba originated from the satanic mind of Sayf Ibn Umar al-Tamimi. He was a storyteller, lived in the second century after Hijrah, and died after the year 170 AH (750 AD), al-Dhahabi said that Sayf died during the rule of Haroon al-Rashid in Baghdad (Iraq). Sayf shaped his stories by some primary facts he found in the documented history of Islam available at that time. Sayf wrote a novel much the same as what Salman Rushdi did in "Satanic Verses" with similar motives, but with the difference that the role of Satan in this case was given to poor Abdullah Ibn Saba. Moreover, he distorted the biographies of the companions of the Holy Prophet (PBUH&HF) to please the government of his time, and to distort the history of Shi'ah and to ridicule Islam. Sayf was a staunch advocate of the Umayads, who were known throughout history to be one of the worst enemies of Ahlul-Bayt, and as such, it was in his best interest to invent such stories to degrade the Shiah. Here is the proof given by the Sunni Ulama:

The following leading Sunni scholars confirm that Sayf Ibn Umar was a well known liar and untrustworthy:
  1. al-Hakim (d. 405 AH) wrote: "Sayf is accused of being a heretic. His narrations are abandoned."

  2. al-Nisa'i (d. 303 AH) wrote: "Sayf's narrations are weak and they should be disregarded because he was unreliable and untrustworthy."

  3. Yahya Ibn Mueen (d. 233 AH) wrote: "Sayf's narrations are weak and useless."

  4. Abu Hatam (d. 277 AH) wrote: "Sayf's Hadith is rejected."

  5. Ibn Abi Hatam (d. 327 AH) wrote: "Scholars have abandoned Sayf's narrations."

  6. Abu Dawud (d. 316 AH) wrote: "Sayf is nothing. He was a liar. Some of his Hadiths were conveyed and the majority of them are denied."

  7. Ibn Habban (d. 354 AH) wrote: "Sayf attributed fabricated traditions to the good reporters. He was accused of being a heretic and a liar."

  8. Ibn Abd al-Barr (d. 462 AH) mentined in his writing abut al-Qa'qa: "Sayf reported that al-Qa'qa Said: I attended the death of the Prophet Muhammad." Ibn Adb al-Barr continued: "Ibn Abu Hatam said: Sayf is weak. Thus, what was conveyed of the presence of al-Qa'qa at the death of the Prophet is rejected. We mentioned the Sayf's traditions for knowledge only."

  9. al-Darqutini (d. 385 AH) wrote: "Sayf is weak".

  10. Firoozabadi (d. 817 AH) in "Towalif" mentioned Sayf and some others by saying: "They are weak."

  11. Ibn al-Sakan (d. 353 AH) wrote: "Sayf is weak."

  12. Safi al-Din (d. 923 AH) wrote: "Sayf is considered weak."

  13. Ibn Udei (d. 365 AH) wrote about Sayf: "He is weak. Some of his narrations are famous yet the majority of his narrations are disgraceful and not followed."

  14. al-Suyuti (d. 900 AH) wrote: "Sayf's Hadith is weak."

  15. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 852 AH) wrote after mentioning a tradition: "Many reporters of this tradition are weak, and the weakest among them is Sayf." It is interesting to see that although al-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH) has quoted from the book of Sayf in his History, he has mentioned in his other book that Sayf as a weak narrator. In "al-Mughni fi al-Dhu'afa'" al-Dhahabi wrote:

    "Sayf has two books which have been unanimously abandoned by the scholars." (al-Mughni fi al-Dhu'afa', by al-Dhahabi, p292)

The result of the investigation into Sayf's life shows that Sayf was an agnostic and an unreliable storyteller. Stories told by him are dubious at best and entirely or partly forged. In his stories, he has used names of cities that never existed in the world. Abdullah Ibn Saba is the star of those stories. He also introduced some 150 imaginary companions for the Prophet to fill out the empty characters of his scenarios, by giving them some strange names that are not found in any other documents. Furthermore, the timing of the events given by Sayf's narrations contradicts the authentic Sunni documents. Sayf has also used imaginary chains of narrators, and reported many miraculous events (like talking cows with human etc...)

Bellow, I have produced the anonymous and seething article in full. Although, the evidence, I have provided above, is so conclusive that based just on it the article bellow should be dismissed. Never the less, in fairness I will respond. (inshallah)

'ABDULLAH IBN SABA - FOUNDER OF SHI'ISM?


jamiat.org.za states:
There have been a growing tendency amongst modern Shi`ah scholars to dismiss the role of `Abdullah ibn Saba (sometimes called ibn Sauda) of San'a, a city of Yemen, in the origin of Shi'ism debate. After the Iranian revolution of 1979, the modern Shi'ah state now wishes to ground its origins on something more concrete, rather than upon the mischief of Jew, in order to gain official recognition as a legitimate Islamic state amongst Muslims.



Is this anonymous author implying the absurdity that the Shi'ahs are so stupid and ignorant that after 1400 years, they have never figured out that their belief and faith are based on fabricated traditions and tales going back to Abdullah Ibn Saba? The Shi'ah, if they were indeed so stupid as to believe a fictitious/hypocrite Jew in their theology, philosophy, jurisprudence, history, and interpretations of the Quran, then how have they survived to this day and age?

It is more interesting when we see the Imams of the majority of the Sunnis were the students of the Imams of Sh'iha (Imam Muhammad Baqir and Imam Ja'far Sadiq, peace be upon them), then one would say the Sunni schools got the basics of their Fiqh from Sh'iha, which means the Sunnis along with the Shi'ahs were the followers of the very same person, the mysterious Abdullah Ibn Saba! Who is left then? Perhaps, the followers of Muhammad Ibn Abdil Wahhab!


jamiat.org.za states:
Upto the classical age of Shi'ism, all of the erudite Shi'ite scholars attributed the origin of Shi'ism to this same ibn Saba. `Allamah Majlisi said: "Some scholars have asserted that ibn Saba was a Jew who accepted Islam and started voicing his opinion of the `wilayat' (divine appointment) of `Ali. While a Jew, he propounded the exaggerative notion that Yusha ibn Nun was divinely appointed to succeed Prophet Musa, he thus adopted a similar stance with regard to `Ali in relation to the Holy Prophet. He was the first to subscribe to the belief of Imamate, and he openly vitriolated his enemies (i.e. the first three Caliphs) and branded them as infidels. The origin of Shi'ism is thus based on Judaism." (Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 25, p. 287). Other Shi`ah scholars who have affirmed this was `Allamah Kashi in his Rijal al-Kashi and `Allamah Mamaqani in his Tanqih al-Maqal.



Although the above statement is not quite what it reads never the less, all that it goes to show is that Allamah Majlisi was asserting what some scholars had said. ("Some scholars have asserted that ibn Saba was a Jew..") I should point out however that there are less than 14 reports available in the collections of Shi'ah and Sunni, which mentions the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba, and are supplied with the chain of authorities, but in their chain of authorities, the name of Sayf does not exist.

Al-Kushshi (or al-Keshshi; also abbreviated as Kash) (d. 369) who wrote his book "Rijal" in 340 AH mentioned few traditions in which there exists the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba, from the Imams of Ahlul-Bayt. These traditions give a very different picture than those mentioned by Sayf. However, it has been proven for Shi'ah scholars that the book of al- Kushshi (Kash) has many errors, especially in the names and few errors in quotations. He has reported many weak traditions in his book of al-Rijal, and as a result, his book is not considered a reliable source for Shi'ah. Furthermore, the reports of al-Kushshi (Kash) are not found in any of the major 4-books of tradition of the Shi'ah. (For a critical evaluation of his errors, please see al-Rijal by al-Tusteri as well as al-Askari.)

Other Shi'ah scholars, who mentioned Abdullah Ibn Saba, have quoted al-Kushshi or the two historians (i.e., al-A'sh'ari al-Qummi and al-Nawbakhti who did not provide any chain of transmitters or any source for their report). Among those who quoted al-Kushshi (Kash) are: Shaikh al-Tusi(d. 460), Ahmad Ibn Tawoos (d. 673), Allama al-Hilli (d. 726), etc.


jamiat.org.za states:
Amongst Sunni scholars, `Allamah ibn Taimiyyah had confirmed this in his Minhaj al-Sunnah. He wrote: "More than one Shi`ah scholar have affirmed that that the first one to start disparaging the Sahabah and who introduced the doctrine of wilayah was a hypocrite and a zindiq who intended to corrode Islam from within. He wished to scheme as Baulus had schemed against Christianity. Prophet Jesus was raised to the heavens, and there were a precious few who followed his teachings. His teachings thus weakened the fabric of Christianity and many started adopting his exaggerated notions and many kings were won over to their side. When their scholars tried to oppose them, they were killed, some were exiled, while some were confined to life-long sentences in remote monasteries. On the other hand, this ummah will always have a group of staunch followers who will uphold the truth. No corrupt person will be able to destroy Islam, he will only gain some followers." (Minhaj al-Sunnah, vol. 3, p. 261). `Allamah Shahristani has confirmed this too, saying that when `Ali heard the claim of his divinity directly from the mouth of ibn Saba, he exiled him to Mada'in (Al-Milal wa al-Nihal, vol. 2, p. 11).



Among the Sunnis who mentioned the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba in their stories WITHOUT bringing any source for their claims, are:
  1. Ali Ibn Isma'il al-Ash'ari (d. 330) in his book "Maqalat al-Islamiyin" (Essays about the People of Islam).

  2. Abdul-Qahir Ibn Tahir al-Baghdadi (d. 429) in his book "al-Farq Bain al-Firaq" (Differences of the Sects).

  3. Muhammad Ibn Abdil-Karim al-Shahrastani (d. 548) in his book "al-Milal wan Nihal" (Nations and Cultures).

The above-mentioned Sunnis do not give any source or any chain of authority for their story about Abdullah Ibn Saba. They have competed with each other to increase the number of sects in Islam with strange names such as al-Kawusiyyah, al-Tayyarah, al Mamturah, al-Ghrabiyyah, al-Ma'lumiyyah !!, al-Majhuliyyah ! In addition, so on WITHOUT giving any source or reference for their claims. Living in medieval times, these authors presumed that writing stranger stories and attributing unrealistic events to different Muslim nations will make them more reputable than the other competitors in this area. Moreover, by that, they caused a tragic damage to the history of Islam and committed a great crime for what they have falsely attributed to the Muslim nations.

Some of them have provided silly legends and fairy-tales, whose falsehood are easy to detect nowadays, though it would have been possible for them to succeed in passing off such stories as history in those times. For instance, al-Shahrastani in his book "al-Milal wan Nihal" has mentioned that there was a group of semi-human creatures in the name of "al-Nas-Naas" with only half face, one eye, one hand, and one leg. Muslims could talk to these semi-human creatures and they even exchanged poetry! Some Muslims even used to go hunting these semi-human creatures and they used to eat them! These semi-humans could jump faster than a horse and were ruminant/cud- chewers! Al Shahrastani further mentioned that al-Mutawakkil, the Abbasid Caliph, ordered the scientists of his time to investigate about these creatures! (See al-Milal wan Nihal, by al-Sharastani)

People at that time did not have the modern tools that would enable them to discover the falsehood these unrealistic stories and fairy-tales, and perhaps they would have preferred more extensive and more strange collections which may have seemed a guarantee of their accuracy, even though they were provided with no reference.

In addition, by chronological study of the lifetime of these authors, we can conclude that ALL of them were long after the era of Sayf Ibn Umar, and even after al-Tabari. Therefore, it is quite possible that they all got the story of Abdullah Ibn Saba from Sayf. This claim becomes stronger when one observes that none of them mentioned the source of their reports, which might be because Sayf Ibn Umar's scandal was known to every body by that time and they did not want to discredit their books by mentioning its source. Moreover there exists NO document available related to Abdullah IbnSaba BEFORE Sayf. The scholars or historians who lived before Sayf Ibn Umar NEVER mentioned the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba in their books. This shows that if Ibn Saba ever existed he was not anything important for the historians before Sayf. This is also another reason to believe that what was propagated around the personality of Abdullah Ibn Saba was initiated by the mass propaganda of Sayf Ibn Umar al-Tamimi.

The reports from Sunni scholars, historians, and storytellers of ancient cultures who wrote few lines about Abdullah Ibn Saba but did not supply any evidence for their claims, nor did they provide any chain of supportive authorities (isnad) for their reports to be examined, thus they have been dismissed, here is why:

For instance, their reports start with: "some people say so and so..." or "some scholars say so and so..." without mentioning who that scholar was, and where they got it from. It was based on rumors which was propagated by Umayads (AFTER Sayf's work) which had reached them, and some based on the authors' own creativity. This is inferred when we see these authors have reported some legends which are clearly false and rejected by logic. These reports are provided by those who wrote books about "al-Milal wa Nihal" (stories about civilizations and cultures) or "al-Firaq" (divisions/sects).


jamiat.org.za states:
Hafiz ibn Hajar threw more light on the dialogue between `Ali and ibn Saba on this occasion: "Abul Ijlas says that I heard `Ali telling `Abdullah ibn Saba: "By Allah, I have not hidden any secret from anyone which the Holy Prophet told me. I heard the Holy Prophet saying that there would appear thirty liars before the last day, and you are one of them." Once Suwaid ibn Ghafalah visited `Ali during his reign and told him that he had passed a few people amongst whom was ibn Saba speaking ill of Abu Bakr. They claimed that you also held the same opinion." `Ali retorted: "I have nothing to do with this black filthy creature. I seek refuge from Allah that I hold any opinion other than the best for Abu Bakr and `Umar." He then exiled ibn Saba saying that he could not tolerate to live with him in one city. `Ali then ascended the pulpit, and after relating the story said: "I will lash anyone who prefers me over Abu Bakr and `Umar, the lashing of a slanderer." (Lisan al-Mizan, vol. 3, p. 290).



This Sunni tradition is not rated authentic either. The total of these unauthentic tradition by both Shi'ah and Sunni (reported by other than Sayf), do not exceed fourteen at most. They will be even less if you remove repetitions. These few Sunnite and Shi'ite traditions convey that:
  1. Abdullah Ibn Saba appeared during the Caliphate of Imam Ali (AS), and not during the rule of Uthman as Sayf alleged.

  2. Abdullah Ibn Saba did not say that Ali is the successor of Prophet (PBUH&HF) as Sayf claimed. Rather he said Ali (AS) is God.

  3. Imam Ali (AS) burnt him along with all other extremists (al-Ghulat). This is while Sayf does not state such a thing.

  4. There is no mention of his existence or his playing a role at the time of Uthman. There is no mention of his agitation against Uthman, which ended up with assassination of Uthman as Sayf attributed to Abdullah Ibn Saba.

  5. There is no mention of the role of Abdullah Ibn Saba in the battle of Camel as Sayf attributed to him.

  6. These traditions do not indicate that any righteous companions of Prophet followed Abdullah Ibn Saba. This is while Sayf maliciously alleged that some of the most faithful pioneers of Islam such as Abu Darr (RA) and Ammar Yasir (RA) were the students of Abdullah Ibn Saba during the reign of Uthman.

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani provides the very similar information of what al-Kushshi (Kash) provided. Ibn Hajar mentioned:

"Abdullah Ibn Saba was one of the extremist (al-Ghulat), dualist/seducee/manichaeist (Zindeeq), and misguided, which is conveyed that Ali burnt him with fire." (Lisan al-Mizan, by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, v3, p289)

Then Ibn Hajar continues:

"Ibn Asakir mentioned in his History that `his origin (Abdullah Ibn Saba) was from Yemen and that he was a Jew who adopted Islam and traveled in the cities of Muslims and preached them to disobey their rulers, to induce evil amongst them, then he entered Damascus for that purpose.' Then Ibn Asakir mentioned a LONG STORY from the book of al-Futooh of Sayf Ibn Umar, which does not have correct support/authorities (isnad)." (Lisan al-Mizan, by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, v3, p289)

Then Ibn Hajar gives a tradition among whose chain of authorities two individuals are missing. In footnote he says that its has been dropped.This is the tradition:

"Ali ascended the pulpit and said: What is wrong with him? people said: He is denying (or lying upon) Allah and His Messenger." (Lisan al-Mizan, by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, v3, p289)

In another tradition, Ibn Hajar reported:

"Ali said to Abdullah Ibn Saba: I have been told that there shall be thirty liars/imposters (who claim prophethood) and your are one of them" (Lisan al-Mizan, by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, v3, p290)

He also wrote:

"Ibn Saba and his followers believed in the deity of Ali Ibn Abi Talib, and certainly Ali burnt them by fire during his rule." (Lisan al-Mizan, by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, v3, p290)

Beliefs of Ibn Saba in a nutshell

It's fair to ask, according to whom, the enemies of Islam, or it stepchild the Wahhabis?


jamiat.org.za states:
`Ali was divinely appointed to be the Holy Prophet's successor, and that `Ali had his this knowledge from the people.



It's no surprise that the vested interests of the enemies of Islam should attribute Hazrat Ali's forthright successorship of caliphate to a fictitious character, however this wishful thinking is short lived In the light of the following evidence:

Imam Ali reported that the Messenger of God is the one who granted him the office of executorship, brotherhood, and successorship. Sayf Ibn Umar reported that the idea of the executorship of Ali had come from a Jew called Abdullah Ibn Saba. We should ask the members of the Wahhabi syndicate (who call everyone who disagree with them unbeliever) the following question: Do you believe in Imam Ali's report or Sayf Ibn Umar's? Sayf was accused by prominent Sunni scholars of weakness, forgery, and heresy.

Of course, we should not expect any true Muslim to choose the report of a liar such as Sayf Ibn Umar and to reject the report of the Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib, the Leader of the Faithful, the "brother" of the Prophet (PBUH&HF). The Messenger of God used to say to Ali:

"Your position to me is like the position of Aaron to Moses, except that there shall be no Prophet after me"

Sunni References:
  1. Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English version, Traditions 5.56 and 5.700
  2. Sahih Muslim, Arabic, v4, pp 1870-71
  3. Sunan Ibn Majah, p12
  4. Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, p174
  5. al-Khas'is, by al-Nisa'i, pp 15-16
  6. Mushkil al-Athar, by al-Tahawi, v2, p309


The Prophet (PBUH&HF) thereby meant that as Moses had left behind Aaron to look after his people as his Caliph when he went to receive the Commandments, in the same way he was leaving Ali behind as his deputy to
look after the affairs of Islam after him. Allah said in Quran:

"... And Moses said unto his brother Aaron: Take my place among my community." (Quran 7:142).

Notice that "Ukhlufni" and "Khalifa" (Caliph) are exactly from the same root.

Do the mercenary writers who endeavor to spread hostility among Muslims forget that while returning from his farewell pilgrimage, and in the presence of over a hundred thousand pilgrims in Ghadir Khum, the Messenger of God declared:

"Do I not have more right over the believers than what they have over themselves?" People cried and answered: "Yes, O' Messenger of God." Then Prophet (PBUH) held up the hand of Ali and said: "Whoever I am his leader, Ali is his leader. O' God, love those who love him, and be hostile to those who are hostile to him."

Some of Sunni References:
  1. Sahih Tirmidhi, v2, p298, v5, p63
  2. Sunan Ibn Maja, v1, pp 12,43
  3. Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, pp 84,118,119,152,330, v4, pp 281,368,370, 372,378, v5, pp 35,347,358,361,366,419 (from 40 chains of narrators!!!)
  4. Fada'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Hanbal, v2, pp 563,572
  5. al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v2, p129, v3, pp 109-110,116,371
  6. Khasa'is, by al-Nisa'i, pp 4,21
  7. Majma' al-Zawa'id, by al-Haythami, v9, p103 (from several transmitters)
  8. Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v12, pp 49-50
  9. al-Durr al-Manthur, by al-Hafiz Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, v3, p19
  10. Tarikh al-Khulafa, by al-Suyuti, pp 169,173
  11. al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah, by Ibn Kathir, v3, p213, v5, p208
  12. Mushkil al-Athar, by al-Tahawi, v2, pp 307-308
  13. Habib al-Siyar, by Mir Khand, v1, part 3, p144
  14. Sawaiq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, p26
  15. al-Isabah, by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, v2, p509; v1, part1, p319, v2, part1, p57, v3, part1, p29, v4, part 1, pp 14,16,143
  16. Tabarani, who narrated from companions such as Ibn Umar, Malik Ibn al-Hawirath, Habashi Ibn Junadah, Jari, Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas, Anas Ibn Malik, Ibn Abbas, Amarah,Buraydah,...
  17. Tarikh, by al-Khatib Baghdadi, v8, p290
  18. Hilyatul Awliya', by Abu Nu'aym, v4, p23, v5, pp26-27
  19. al-Istiab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, Chapter of word "ayn" (Ali), v2, p462
  20. Kanzul Ummal, by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, v6, pp 154,397
  21. al-Mirqat, v5, p568
  22. al-Riyad al-Nadirah, by al-Muhib al-Tabari, v2, p172
  23. Dhaka'ir al-Uqba, by al-Muhib al-Tabari, p68
  24. Fayd al-Qadir, by al-Manawi, v6, p217
  25. Usdul Ghabah, by Ibn Athir, v4, p114
  26. Yanabi' al-Mawaddah, by al-Qudoozi al-Hanafi, p297
  27. ... And hundreds more...

No Muslim would ever doubt that the Messenger of God is the leader of all Muslims for all generations. The Prophet in his statement granted Ali the same position as his, when he said that Ali is the leader of everyone who follows the Prophet.

This declaration which was narrated by more than one hundred and ten companions and rated authentic (Sahih) and frequent (Mutawatir) by the leading Sunni scholars, not only indicates that Ali is the executor of Messenger, but also indicates that Ali takes the place of the leadership of all Muslims after the Messenger of Allah. However, these mercenaries still allow themselves to say that the belief that Ali was the executor of the
Messenger had come from a Jew who declared his Islam during the days of Uthman!!!


jamiat.org.za states:
He later called for the divinity of `Ali. Having said so, he proclaimed himself as `Ali's Prophet. Even Shi`ah scholars have gawked at his audacity. He initially did not openly preach these beliefs, but he later abandoned his secret and started a vigorous campaign. (Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 25, p. 286)



This anonymous, presumed Wahhabi author is desperately trying to intertwine the unauthentic following conjecture of the Sunni tradition and link it with the shi'ah; nice try.

"Ibn Saba and his followers believed in the deity of Ali Ibn Abi Talib, and certainly Ali burnt them by fire during his rule." (Lisan al-Mizan, by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, v3, p290)


jamiat.org.za states:
He preferred `Ali over Caliph Abu Bakr, `Umar and `Uthman, saying that they usurped the Caliphate form `Ali. He declared open enmity towards all those who did not subscribe to such a belief and branded them as kuffar.



Abdullah Ibn Saba has no base on the disputes immediately after the death of prophet related to his successorship, and all relevant claims of Shi'ah is proven to be on the death of the prophet or even before that, not during the reign of Uthman which is far long after prophet's demise. At the very start and immediately after the death of the prophet (PBUH&HF), the Shi'ah of Ali included those companions who where loyal to Imam Ali, such as Ammar Ibn Yasir, Abu-Dhar al-Ghafari, Miqdad, Salman al-Farsi, Ibn Abbas ...etc., all gathered in the house of Fatimah (AS). Even Talha and Zubair were loyal to Imam Ali at the beginning and joint the others in the house of Fatimah. al-Bukhari narrated:

Umar said: "And no doubt after the death of the Prophet we were informed that the Ansar disagreed with us and gathered in the shed of Bani Sa'da. 'Ali and Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us, while the emigrants gathered with Abu Bakr."
Sunni Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English, v8, Tradition #817

His devious scheme


jamiat.org.za states:
Speaking of the devious scheme which ibn Saba gradually implemented to achieve his aims, Shah `Abd al-`Aziz has written: "Ibn Saba first called the masses to show their love and devotion to the ahl al-Bait (Prophetic Household). He then started claiming that none could excel the ahl al-Bait in status. When he gained some popularity at this, he boldly claimed that `Ali was the most superior person after the Holy Prophet. When he saw that some of his followers had indeed believed him, he confided in them that `Ali was in reality the appointed successor of the Holy Prophet, but the Sahabah had usurped this right from him. He then unleashed a campaign of vilification against all the Sahabah, and the first three Caliphs in particular amongst the army of `Ali. What amazed ibn Saba was that people still believed him! He thus took the opportunity the corrupt the belief pattern of the Muslims. He thus told his staunch supporters that `Ali had powers above those of a normal human being, he was Allah, besides whom there was no other power. This `secret' until it reached the ears of `Ali himself. `Ali threatened to burn all of them, asked them to repent and exiled them to Mada'in. As a result of this propaganda, the army of `Ali was split into four factions: First, The initial and sincere Shi`ahs who are in fact Sunnis. They followed the directives of `Ali, and paid due respect to all the Sahabah, including those who opposed `Ali like Sayyidah `A'ishah and Mu`awiyah. `Ali singled out this group for praising on many occasions, and they did not fall prey to the propaganda machine of ibn Saba. Second, The Preferential (Tafdili) Shi`ahs. They preferred `Ali over the rest of the Sahabah. Third, the Saba'i Shi`ahs or the Tabariyah. They went a step further and regarded all the Sahabah as hypocrites, usurpers, and kuffar. Fourth, the Exaggerationaists (Ghali) Shi`ahs who proclaimed `Ali as Lord. These were the special students of ibn Saba. Thus, the origin of Shi'ism was planted by ibn Saba and since then it continued to spread." (Tuhfah Ithna `Ashariyyah, pp. 3-5) All these accounts prove that ibn Saba was not a product of the figment of anyone's imagination, he was rather a well-known personality who whose notoriety matched that of the devil too.



The above conjecture made by the pseudo-scholar Shah Abd al-Aziz is his problem, and it only goes to show his ignorance. He should be concerned that he can't back up his little fairytale from any Sahih books of tradition. By the way, does Shah Abd al-Aziz believe in the semi-human creatures in the name of "al-Nas-Naas" with only half face, one eye, one hand, and one leg, and such other fairytales too?

One of the funniest conjectures made above is Quote: "First, The initial and sincere Shi`ahs who are in fact Sunnis. They followed the directives of `Ali, and paid due respect to all the Sahabah, including those who opposed `Ali like Sayyidah `A'ishah and Mu`awiyah". If in fact, those Sunnis were Shi'ah, then who or what should we name the people that gave allegiance to Mu'awiyah and cursed Ali (a.s.)?

The pseudo-scholars have ignored what is well-known in the history of Islam and which was reported by a host of good reporters. The revolution against 'Uthman was a result of the efforts of prominent personalities in Medina, such as 'A'ishah, Talhah, Zubayr, Abdul Rahman Ibn Awf, and Amr Ibn Al-As. Instead of attributing the revolution to real people who rebelled against 'Uthman and brought about the revolution, the dividers of the Muslims refuse to accept the truth or mention it. They attribute the revolution to an imaginary Jew, relying on the report of Sayf Ibn 'Umar Al-Tamimi, a man who was accused by prominent Sunni scholars to be a man of lies and deviations. They chose to accept Sayf's report in order to cover up for the Caliph, 'A'ishah, Talhah, and Zubayr.

It is even more amazing that 'A'ishah, Talhah, Zubayr, and Mu'awiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan fought the Imam in two wars, unprecedented in the history of Islam. They were the most zealous to smear the reputation of Imam Ali and his followers. Yet the opponents of Imam Ali did not accuse his supporters of being students of Ibn Saba.

History clearly states that Mu'awiyah commanded all the Imams of the mosques throughout the Muslim World to curse Imam Ali at every Friday prayer. If the imaginary Ibn Saba had any small role in the revolution against 'Uthman, Mu'awiyah would have made it the main topic of his defamation campaign against the Imam and his supporters. He would have publicized throughout the Muslim World that those who killed 'Uthman were students of Ibn Saba and that they were the ones who brought Ali to power. However, neither Mu'awiyah nor 'A'ishah took this route because Ibn Saba's story was invented by Sayf Ibn 'Umar Al-Tamimi who lived in the second Hijra century after their death.


jamiat.org.za states:
The fact that he is not well known amongst the Traditionists (Muhaddithun) is not prove enough that he was a created and legendary figure. His absence in the books of Rijal (Biographies) is because he did not report any traditions (ahadith), and not because he did not exist.



Nay, the fact that he is not known at all among authentic tradition reporters is because he does not exist, never has, never will, although, such anonymous writers, such as yourself, and the rest of your pathetic cohorts may object!

Dr. Taha Husain, who has analyzed these stories has rejected them. He wrote in "al-Fitnah al-Kubra" that:

In my opinion, those who have tried to emphasize on the story of Abdullah Ibn Saba, have committed a crime in the history and hurt themselves too. The first thing that is observed is that in the important collections the name of Ibn Saba does not appear when they discuss the agitation against Uthman. Ibn Sa'd does not mention the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba when he discusses the Caliphate of Uthman and the revolt against him. Also the book by al-Baladhuri, "Ansab al-Ashraf", which I think the most important and the most detailed book about the revolt against Uthman, the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba has never been mentioned. It appears that al-Tabari was the first who reported the story of Ibn Saba from Sayf, and then other historians quoted al-Tabari in this regard.

In his other book "Ali wa Banuh", he also mentioned:

The story of Ibn Saba is nothing but myth, and is the invention of some historians, since it contradicts other historical documents. ...The fact is that the friction between Shi'ah and Sunni have had many shapes, and each group was advocating itself and denouncing the other by any means possible. This requires a historian to be much more cautious when analyzing the controversial reports related to seditions and revolts.


jamiat.org.za states:
In the face of the above evidence, the call of modern Shi`ahs to disclaim their roots has a sinister ring to it. They wish to discredit the claims of sound historiography in doing so, and came up with new explanations which might have some early political legitimism, but has no scientific basis and is not supported by corroborative texts. At most it can be said that though Shi'ism is not entirely based on the teachings of ibn Saba, it has borrowed many Saba'i characteristics which plays an integral in modern Twelver (Ithna `Ashari) Shi'ism.
Al-Rasheed Volume3 No.10



Muhammad Jawad Chirri is Lebanese by birth and a graduate of the Islamic Institute of Najaf in Iraq. Before reaching the age of 25, he wrote about Islamic jurisprudence and its basis. The following statement of his really sums it up.

In conclusion, such false and malicious campaign started after the birth of the Islamic Republic in Iran. It seems that some of the Arab governments found the birth of this Republic a threatening danger. This Republic reminds Muslims of the period of the righteous caliphate and makes a clear distinction between the words and the deeds of the Arab governments, who claim to be committed to Islam, yet spend the public wealth to satisfy the low desires of the rulers.

These governments tried to extinguish the light of the Islamic Republic by war, but they did not succeed. Therefore, they are trying to deceive the Muslim population and turn them against the Iranian Muslims by fabricating accusations in a sectarian campaign, aiming to convince the innocent Muslims that the Shi'ites have deviated from the path of Islam. Should such a campaign succeed, unsuspecting and unsophisticated Muslims may find it religiously legal to combat the Shi'ites and shed the blood of the Iranians, who have sacrificed for Islam more than any other people have.
The Shi'ites have tried for many years to meet this campaign with silence, closing their eyes and hoping that it would end, and that there would be no need to refute the malicious accusations.

It was also hoped that some of the Sunni scholars would try to refute these accusations. There is no doubt that many Sunni scholars are aware of the Islamic doctrines to which the Shi'ites subscribe. Should they be unaware of the Shi'ite doctrines, it would be very easy to become acquainted with them. There are numerous books written by Shi'ite scholars about those doctrines, and those books are available.

It is possible for the Sunni scholars to call for an Islamic conference in which religious differences may be discussed and an appreciation for each other's viewpoint developed. This is what the Qur'an calls for:

"O you who believe, if a transgressor brings to you news, verify it, lest you inflict damage on people unwittingly; you may consequently regret your hasty action." (ch. 49, v.6)

It is regrettable that the Sunni scholars did not move in this direction and did not try, as far as is known, to refute the untrue accusations, which were publicized by the hypocrite campaigners.

Our silence did not stop this campaign. It made it more vehement. Many people thought that our silence is evidence of the truthfulness of the accusations, and that we are unable to answer them.

Thus, it has become necessary to clarify the truth and inform all the Muslims who like to know the truth. In this effort, we shall not accuse the Sunni brothers of disbelief, deviation, or transgression, as some of them have accused the Shi'ites. We shall not place ourselves in such a position, which is improper for any Muslim to take. We obey the Almighty in His prohibition:

"O you who believe, let not a folk ridicule another folk who may be better than they are; nor should women ridicule other women who may be better than them. Neither defame one another nor insult one another by calling names. That is the name of lewdness after faith and whoso turns not in repentance, such are evildoers." (ch. 49, v.11)

It should be pointed out to the reader that those who make these prohibited accusations use a very strange method to indict millions of Muslims whom they do not know, did not see, and with whom they did not speak. They tried and convicted millions of Muslims who lived centuries ago, along with the numerous future Shi'ite generations yet to be born. They have also convicted millions of contemporary Muslims without questioning them and without searching for the truth, which is within easy access to any interested person.