Nasibi propaganda that certain prominent Shia narrators possessed deviant beliefs

Refuting the allegation that Abdullah Ibn Saba had any link to Shiasm

In this chapter we are going to refute an article that has been circulating on different Nasibi websites with the title “RESPONSE TO THE EMBASSY OF IRAN”. The summary of this article is that in an alleged magazine called Al-Rasheed, published an article titled “Abdullah lbn Saba: Founder of Shi’aism” by an unnamed author, to which the Iranian Embassy on the 15th of August 1999 allegedly wrote a letter to the magazine expressing dissatisfaction at its contents. The unknown author defended his article by defiantly writing back to the Iranian Embassy wherein he sought to ‘prove’ his claim, that in summary was as follows::

• Abdullah Ibn Saba existed
• He was the founder of Shiaism
• He attributed traits of God to Ali bin Abi Talib (as)
• Kufa became the place where Ibn Saba’s ideas prevailed
• Three or four prominent Shia narrators of Shia Hadith books halied from Kufa
• These narrators were cursed by Imams of Ahlulbayt (as) for the same reasons

Whilst we don’t know if the article and subsequent correspondences are fact or fiction, our prime interest is the anti-Shia materials cited in the article that has attracted widespread acclaim from Nasabi quarters.
In relation to the first part of the Nasibi article, namely the existence of Abdullah Ibn Saba, we have no reason to deny this, since whether or not he existed does not effect us a single iota. What really matters are the theories attributed to him that are relied upon to draw an inference that Shias adhere to same beliefs that hence proves Ibn Saba is the founder of the Shiasm. The unknown author in his article has tried to prove that the existence and beliefs espoused by Abdullah Ibn Saba have been recorded in both Shia and Sunni books but as usual, these Nawasib merge both authentic and weak reports sp as to portray an image that best supports their evil machinations. We have already dedicated a chapter on on Abdullah Ibn Saba in our article  Who really killed Uthman? when the Pied Piper of Deception, Nasibi author Ibn al-Hashimi sought to shift the blame on those that aided and abetted Uthman’s murder from the Sahaba and Tabayeen to Abdullah Ibn Saba. Hence, our readers are advised to go through that chapter as there isn’t any need to repeat all that here, but we will just repeat the crux of their arguments, namely:

- Authentic texts prove the existence of a Yahud character called Abdullah Ibn Saba who:
a). appeared during the era of the caliphate of Ali bin Abi Talib (as)
b). attested to the divinity of Ali (as)
c). was subsequently murdered by Ali bin Abi Talib (as).

- The weak and rejected traditions [purposely fabricated by the early Sunni and Nasibi scholars] claim that:
a). a Jewish character namely Abdullah Ibn Saba appeared during the era of the caliphate of Uthman
b). claimed that the right of rulership or succession to the Prophet (s) belonged to Ali bin Abi Talib (as)
b). misguided a bulk of the Sahaba and Tabayeen who whist adhering to his footsteps launched a rebellion against the caliph and subsequently assassinated him.

The reason that the early Sunni and Nasibi authorities sought to fabricate such stories was two fold:

1. To protect the esteemed image of those Sahaba and Tabayeen that had co-ordinated popular movement against Uthman that led to his downfall. Faced with this reality, it was incumbent on the later generations of Sunni and Nasibi adherents of the State religion to shift blame elsewhere, since failure to do so would severely puncture their entire belief system that revolved around ‘each and every Sahabi is just’. They desperately needed to apportion all culpability in relation to this rebellion to Abdullah Ibn Saba as this was only means of protecting their canonical beliefs.
2. To attack the Shias of the Ahlulbayt (as) by suggesting their beliefs on Imamate echoed those of Ibn Saba, he was hence their founding father and conveniently everything bad in Islamic history was their fault alone.

Fortunately, those Sunni and Shia readers who are desirous of conducting independent research free from bias and bigotry have successfully distinguished both categories of reports regarding Abdullah Ibn Saba and have arrived an informed decision on the basis of the authentic reports, namely that Abdullah Ibn Saba affirmed belief in the divinity of Ali bin Abi Talib (as) a belief that cannot be attributed to the Shias of Ahlulbayt (as) whose belief in relation to the Ahlulbayt (as)’s legal entitlement to Imamate (leadership) was with Ahlulbayt (as) can be evidenced from the Quran and Sunnah.

Refuting the allegation that Kufa was heavily influenced by the Ghulat beliefs propagated by Abdullah Ibn Saba who subsequently fabricated beliefs and attributed it to the Imams of Ahlulbayt (as)

Having refuted the first section of the Nasibi article, let us come to the second portion wherein the author tried to suggest that the Imams of Ahlulbayt (as) were resident in Madina whilst their followers were situate in Kufa, a locality under the influence of Ghluat [extremist] beliefs that had first been propagated by Abdullah Ibn Saba.

Ansar.org stated:

Extremist tendencies like these were originally introduced by Ibn Saba. Before him no one, not even the little group of Sahabah like Abu Dharr and Salman al-Farisi, whom the Shi‘ah look upon as the early Shi‘ah, ever made such claims, neither did any one of them ever speak ill of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. This too, was invented by Ibn Saba.
Extremism did not die with the death of Ibn Saba. It persisted, and the centre of its activities, as Jafri tells us in The Origins and Early Development of Shi‘ah Islam (p. 300), was the city of Kufa. Here we stand before an interesting observation that was brought to light by Jafri. He writes:
There is another important point that must be discussed here briefly. A considerable number of traditions are to be found, especially in the earliest Shi’ite collection of hadith, Al-KAAFI, which describe the Imams as supernatural human beings. What was the origin of these traditions, and to what extent are the Imams themselves responsible for them? These traditions are reported, as indeed are all Shi‘i traditions, on the authority of one of the Imams, in this case from Al-Baqir and Ja‘far. But were these Imams really the authors of such traditions, which describe their supernatural character? The first thing which must be noted in this connection is that while Al-Baqir and Ja‘far themselves lived in Medina, most of their followers lived in Kufa. This fact brings us to a crucial problem. Kufa had long been a centre of ghulat speculations and activities. Whether ‘Abd Allah bin Saba, to whom the history of the ghulat is traced, was a real personality or not, the name as-Saba’iyya is often used to describe the ghulat in Kufa who believed in the supernatural character of ‘Ali. According to the heresiographers, Ibn Saba was the first to preach the doctrine of waqf (refusal to recognise the death of ‘Ali) and the first to condemn the first two caliphs in addition to ‘Uthman. (Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shi‘a Islam, p. 300, Ansariyan Publications, Qum)

This same Kufa, which was the hotbed of Shi’ite activities and ghulat tendencies, was also the home of the most prolific narrators of the hadith which the Shi‘ah ascribe to the Imams, and which are documented in their hadith compendiums such as al-KAAFI, Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih, Tahdhib al-Ahkam and al-Istibsar. Since it is upon this corpus of narrated material that the entire edifice of Shi‘ism rests, it would be of interest to see what kind of people were these men on whose authority it is narrated from the Imams.

Reply One – Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) lived in Kufa as well as Madina

The impression that the Nasibi author has tried to create to his readers was that Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) lived in Madina, far away from Kufa thus ‘some Ghulat’ capitalized on the situation and attributed false beliefs to the Imams of Ahlulbayt (as) in Kufa. This belief can be refuted by the fact that Madina was not the sole residence of Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) also resided in Kufa. We read in Ryadh al-Masael by Ali Tabatabai, Volume 1 page 17:

انتقل الإمام الصادق عليه السلام إلى الكوفة أيام أبي العباس السفاح واستمر بقاء الإمام الصادق عليه السلام في الكوفة مدة سنتين

“Imam Sadiq (as) moved to Kufa during the reign of Abi al-Abbas al-Safah, and Imam Sadiq resided in Kufa for two years”.

Even Salafi scholar Sheikh Muhammad Qutub in his book Aema al-Fiqh al-Islami, Volume 7 page 18 admitted that Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) attended Kufa frequently:

ثم كثرت زياراته بعد ذلك في أيام المنصور أبي جعفر

“Then his visits increased during the reign of Abu Jaffar al-Mansoor”

This shall suffice to water down the Nasibi theory that Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) had nothing to do with the beliefs propagated amongst the Kufans and it was merely a few Ghulat people who coined such beliefs and attributed them to Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) that him (as) to distance himself from such outrageous statements.

Reply Two – Ibn Saba was not the first to abuse the caliphs

The author has tried to suggest to its readership that prior to Abdullah Ibn Saba, no one even contemplated abusing the early caliphs, on account of the venerated position they enjoyed in the eyes of Muslims. Tragically, this is the typical example of blind Sahaba worship, the reality is very different after all:

• in a famed tradition in Sahih Muslim, Imam Ali bin Abi Talib (as) deemed Abu Bakar to be ‘a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest’.
• the Sahabi Ammar bin Yasir abused Uthman by calling him Nathal (Tabaqat al-Kubra, Volume 3 page 260)
• similar opinions of Uthman were also expressed by prominent personalities such as Muhammad the son of Abu Bakar as recorded in Sunni works.

Abusing a man is a lower grade offence compared to physically assaulting him, and we see that Uthman was not only abused by notable Sahaba and Tabayeen but was subsequently murdered on account of their activities. Thus, the suggestion that no one would have contemplated speaking ill of the ‘revered’ three caliphs until Ibn Saba appeared on the scene is an absolute fairytale..
It is also apt to address the claim of S.M Jaffri, that Ibn Saba was the first person to introduce the belief of Waqf (the refusal to recognize the death of Ali) when it was Imam Ali bin Abi Talib (as) personally burnt Ibn Saba alive for attesting to him being God (Rijal al-Kashi, Volume 1 page 323)?

Reply Three – There was a difference between the Ghulat belief that Ali was a ‘supernatural human being’ and the Shia belief that those selected by Allah (swt) can perform miracles

The author has not gone into the specifics as to how the beliefs propagated by Ibn Saba regarding Ali bin Abi Talib (as) compared to the Shias (followers) of the Imams of Ahlulbayt (as) as according to the former, Ali bin Abi Talib (as) was God whilst according to the latter, the Imams (as) were appointed by Allah (swt) alone and He (swt) has designated them with the power to perform miracles. There is a big difference between miracles and one being a supernatural human. A belief that the Awliyah of Allah (swt) can perform miracles is equally shared by AhleSunnah and we have discussed it at length in our article on Imamate. Therefore, just because of the existence of Hadiths what author thinks describe Imams as ‘super natural human beings’ he has casted doubts on whether the Imams (as) were really responsible for the origins of Shia Hadith, is nothing but a desperate attempt to deviate his readers.

Reply Four – Kufa was a city comprising of residents with all manner of beliefs

The author has tried to create an impression that Kufa was a place wherein the majority were Ghulat and on the basis of this assumption, he further assumes that since some of the famed narrators of Shia Hadith books hailed from Kufa, they must have also been under the same Ghulat influence. This is totally incorrect and this bizarre strategy introduced by hardcore Salafis has led to some naïve Sunnies rejecting any narrator hailing from Kufa whilst ignoring the fact that Kufa was a city wherein the residents were from various sects. This same Kufa was infact the hotbed of Sunni activities as numerous Sunni scholars hailed from this city, including Abu Hanifa, Sufyan al-Thawri, Sufyan ibn Uyayna, Hafs bin Sulayman (the narrator of the Quran), Asem bin Abi al-Nujud (the narrator of Quran), Abdullah al-Salami (the narrator of Quran), Shurayk bin Abdullah al-Qazi, Zafar bin Hudayl, Abu Yusuf, Hamaad bin Abi Sulayman. Imam Ibn Qaym in his book ‘Elam al-Muwaqeen’ Volume 1 pages 20-21 mentioned a number of Tabayeen and Sunni scholars hailng from Kufa. In fact we should point out that the entire chain of the Quran has been narrated by the Kufis.

Reply Five – The Imams (as) were fully aware of such Ghulat beliefs and constantly told their actual followers of the correct position

The author’s notion that just because some Ghulat people lived in Kufa, the narrators of Shia Hadith books ‘must have’ ascribed to the same deviant beliefs about the Imams, is totally absurd because we see that hypocrites also lived in Madina alongside Prophet Muhammad (s) but this doesn’t mean that we should just abandon the Prophet (s). The Imams from, the Ahlulbayt (as) were fully aware of the presence of such Ghulat and constantly told their true adherents in their respective eras about such Ghulat, their beliefs and the actual true beliefs that they should ascribe to. For example, we read this tradition in Amali, pages 419-420 that was the litmus test for distinguishing the Ghulat from true beliefs:

Abdul Azeem bin Abdullah al-Hasani (r.a.) narrates, ‘I went to meet my master (the tenth Imam) Ali bin Muhammad bin Ali bin Musa bin Jaffar bin Muhammad bin Ali bin al-Hussain bin Ali bin Abi Talib (a.s).’ When he (as) saw me, he (as) remarked, “Welcome, O Aba Qaasim! You are our real follower.”
I asked, ‘O son of Allah’s Messenger! I intend to present my religion before you. If it is right, then I will remain steadfast on it until I meet Allah, Mighty and Glorified be He (i.e. till my death).’
The Imam (as) ordered, “Come forth with it, O Abul Qaasim.”
I said, ‘Verily, I believe that Allah, the High, is One. There is nothing like Him. He is removed from the two limits, the limit of negation and the limit of eminence. He does not have a body or form or accident or substance. Nay! He is the Maker of bodies, the Creator of forms, the Originator of the accidents and the substances and the Lord of everything, its Owner, its Maker and its Initiator.
Indeed, Muhammad (s) is His servant and His Messenger, the seal of the Prophets and there is no Prophet after him, until the Day of Judgment. His Shariah is the last Shariah and there is no Shariah after it until the Day of Judgment.
I also believe that the Imam, the Caliph and the Master of the affair after him is Ameerul Momineen Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (as) followed by Hasan, Husain, Ali Ibn Husain, Muhammad Ibn Ali, Ja’far Ibn Muhammad, Moosa Ibn Ja’far, Ali Ibn Moosa, Muhammad Ibn Ali, then you O my Master.
He (as) informed me, “After me is my son Hasan (al-Askari). How difficult will be the condition of the people be concerning his successor (i.e. the twelfth Imam)?”
I asked, ‘Why will that be so, my master?’
He (as) explained, “This is because he will be hidden and it will not be permitted to use his name until he reappears, and when he does so, he will fill the earth with justice and equity as it would be fraught with injustice and oppression.”
I said, ‘I believe.’
Then I said, ‘I also believe that their friend is the friend of Allah and their enemy is the enemy of Allah. Their obedience is the obedience of Allah and their defiance is the defiance of Allah. I also believe that the ascension is the truth, the questioning in the grave is the truth, paradise is truth, hell is truth, the path is truth, the weighing scale is the truth and that the Hour will come and Allah will raise all those from their graves.
I also believe that the obligations after the mastership of the Ahle Bait (as) are prayers, Zakat, fasting, Hajj, Jihad, enjoining good and prohibiting evil.’
Thereafter, Imam Ali Ibn Muhammad (as) remarked, “O Aba Qaasim! By Allah! This is the religion of Allah, which He has chosen for His servants. Then be steadfast on it, may Allah keep you steadfast through firm beliefs in this world as well as the hereafter.”

Refuting the allegation against Zurarah Ibn Ayun

Ansar.org stated:

Some of the most prolific narrators of the Shi‘ah are
Zurarah ibn A`yan
Muhammad ibn Muslim at-Ta’ifi
Abu Basir Layth ibn al-Bakhtari al-Muradi
al-Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar al-Ju‘fi
All four of these men were from Kufah. Let us take a closer look at these men:
Zurarah ibn A‘yan
Sayyid Bahr al-‘Ulum states that the family of A‘yan, of which Zurarah was a scion, was the largest Shi‘i family of Kufa. (Rijal as-Sayyid Bahr al-‘Ulum, a.k.a al-Fawa’id ar-Rijaliyyah, vol. 1 p. 222)
Zurarah has always posed a problem in Shi‘ism, because while is on the one hand regarded as the most prolific narrator from the Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq, the Imams are also recorded as having cursed and excommunicated him. The Shi‘ah attempt to reconcile these two contradictory attitudes through the dubious and completely unconvincing explanation of taqiyyah by the Imams.
Regarding the wealth of narrations which Zurarah reports, we are informed by al-Kashshi that had it not been for Zurarah, the ahadith of al-Baqir would have been lost. (Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 1 p. 345) Sayyid Abul Qasim al-Khu’i has counted 2094 of his narrations in the four books, all of them from the Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq, (al-Khu’i, Mu‘jam Rijal al-Hadith vol. 7 p. 249)
On the other hand, al-Kashshi records that Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq cursed Zurarah. The following quotation is but one of several places where his cursing of Zurarah is on record:
By Allah, he has ascribed lies to me! By Allah, he has ascribed lies to me! By Allah, he has ascribed lies to me! May Allah curse Zurarah! May Allah curse Zurarah! May Allah curse Zurarah! (Ikhtiyar Ma‘`rifat ar-Rijal, vol. 1 p. 361)
Despite Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq’s cursing of Zurarah, he is still accepted by the Shi‘ah as the most prolific and reliable authority for the ahadith of the Imams. He hails from Kufa, the centre of the successors of Ibn Saba; he is cursed by the Imam as Ibn Saba was cursed by Sayyiduna ‘Ali; and yet he is respected as a trustworthy and reliable narrator of the ahadith which form the basis of Shi‘ism!

Reply One

To parahrpase the Nasibi author, “the simple reason why Zurarah is still accepted by the Shiah as the most prolific and reliable authority for the ahadith of the Imams despite Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq’s cursing of him” is that the report is not authentic and has been considered weak by Al-Khoei in his book Mu’ajam Rijal al-Hadith, Volume 8 page 247 as well as by Muhammad al-Abtahi in Tarikh aal Zurara, page 65. The chain of narration is broken between the narrators Majelwyeh and Zyad bin Abi al-Halal. On the contrary we have authentic traditions from Imams of Ahlulhbayt (as) praising Zurarah and others of their companions, we read in Rijal al-Kashi, page 151 which has been declared ‘Sahih’ by Al-Khoi in Mu’ajam Rijal al-Hadith, Volume 4 page 197 and in Volume 18 page 268:

حدثني حمدويه بن نصير ، قال : حدثنا يعقوب بن يزيد ، عن محمد بن أبي عمير ، عن جميل بن دراج ، قال : سمعت أبا عبد الله عليه السلام يقول : بشر المخبتين بالجنة : بريد بن معاوية العجلي ، وأبا بصير ليث بن البختري المرادي ، ومحمد بن مسلم ، وزرارة ، أربعة نجباء أمناء الله على حلاله وحرامه ، لولا هؤلاء انقطعت آثار النبوة واندرست

Jami bin Daraj said: ‘I heard Abu Abdullah (a) saying ‘Give glad tidings to the humble ones of Paradise, Buraid bin Abi Mu’awyia al-Ejli, Abu Basir Laith bin al-Bakhtari al-Muradi, Muhammad bin Muslim and Zurara, four pious and faithful to Allah in (the matters of) Halal and Haram, without them the prophetic traditions would have been lost’’.

Similarly we read in Rijal al-Kashi Volume 2 page 152 a narration declared ‘Sahih’ by Al-Khoi in Mu’ajam Rijal al-Hadith, Volume 18 page 268:

حمدويه قال حدثني محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد ويعقوب بن يزيد عن ابن ابي عمير عن ابي العباس البقباق عني ابي عبد الله عليه السلام قال: أربعة أحب الناس إلى أحياءا وأمواتا ، بريد بن معاوية العجلي ، وزرارة بن اعين ، ومحمد بن مسلم ، وأبوجعفر الأحول ، أحب الناس إلي أحياءا وأمواتا

Imam Jaffar al-Sadiq said: ‘Four people are the most lovable to me during their lives and after their deaths. Buraid bin Mu’awyia al-Ejli, Zurara bin Ayun, Muhammad bin Muslim and Abu Jaffar al-Ahwal, they are the most lovable people to me during their lives and after their deaths.’

Reply Two

Although ‘Reply One’ shall suffice let us for the sake of argument deem the condemnation of Zurara by Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) to be true, even then it bears no weight because the act of cursing Zurara would have had a genuine motive that narrow-minded Nawasib will obviously not comprehend. Our readers should know that our Imam (as) was not preaching during an era of Government transparency wherein subjects were afforded the freedom of expression and the freedom to promote religious thoughts. The Imam (as) lived during the reign of a brutal tyrannical dictatorship that ruled through fear and intimidation. Imam Sadiq (as) as the legitimate heir to the seat of Caliphate was seen as a threat to the Head of State and his cronies. Recognising this threat the Sunni state always had officials surveying the speeches and activities of the Imam (as) and his supporters. Surveillance on his (as) loyal followers would have been greater, after all a supporters that converted people to the teaching of the Ahl’ul bayt (as) would in effect convert critics of the State, who would question their raison d’etre of the man made caliphate to exist. The State therefore deemed it imperative that they identified these loyal supporters of the Imam (as), since their presence formed the greatest threat to their reign. Az-Zurara was one such threat, he vehemently believed in the Imamate of the Ahlulbayt (as) and openly opposed the Sheikain. He was counted amongst those who submitted logical proofs for the Imamate being designated by Allah (swt). Due to his open activities in Kufa many people recognized the right path and began adhering to the teachings of the Ahlulbayt (as) and turned against the Government. Such activities had come to the notice of the State and Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) recognized that Az-Zurara was at risk of significant harm, his liberty and even his life was at risk. Thus, to protect him from such hardships, Imam Jafar Sadiq (as), resorted to the principle of Taqiyyah and disavowed him and cursed him as a mechanism of deflecting State surveillance away from him. This very public dressing down, meant that Az-Zurara could be removed from the State surveillance radar. By publicly distancing himself from Zurara his life and liberty was safeguarded, so what is the objection in that? If anything it demonstrates the lengths the Imam (as) was prepared to go to protect his ardent supporter. The Imam (as) had adopted steps that are common place in the business world, namely health and safety risk assessments, wherein astute employers assess the potential risk their staff could be exposed to in the working environment. Once such risks are identified they formulate control measures to eliminate that risk. That is precisely what the Imam (as) had done here, he conducted a risk assessment of the foreseeable harm that Az-Zurara could be exposed to, if he continued propagating the true Islamic teachings to the masses, identifying the likely risk of harm, he adopted the appropriate control measures to mitigate that risk.. Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) adopted these steps save Az-Zurara, he had acted in the same way as the Prophet Khidr, when he sank a ship to save it from being taken from its owners by a tyrannous king. [see Rijal Kasshi, p.138]. Since we find ourselves fortunate to be the followers of those who actually represent the Holy Book, the stance of our Imams (as) was in complete conformity with those Quranic teachings that our opponent’s man made leaders had been deprived of. Can any one provide a more coherent explanation than that provided by the Imam (as) himself?

Keeping this in mind, let us shed light on further logical proofs:

1. Az-Zurara lived in Kufa, whilst Imam Jaffar Sadiq (as) was in Madina but Az-Zurara frequently visited Imam Jaffar Sadiq (as). Every time he visited, he was warmly welcomed by the Imam (as). This itself evidences his close relationship with the Imam Jafar Sadiq (as). Could anyone imagine giving a warm welcome to a man that attributes lies to him?
2. Imam Jaffar Sadiq (as) never asked the students of Az-Zurara to leave him. Amongst Zurara’s pupils, (who were all devoted followers of Jafar Sadiq (as)), were his own sons Hasan, Husayn, and Ubayd Allah; his brother Hurman, the grammarian and one of the foremost companions of Al-Baqir; Hamra, the son of Hurman; Bukayr b. Ayan and his son Abdullah; Muhammad bin al-Hakam; Humayd bin Rabbah; Muhammad bin an-Nu’man al-Ahwal, and Hisham b. Salim al-Jawaliqi. All of these pupils got the opportunity to get Ahadith directly from Imam Jafar Al-Sadiq (as) and after him Imam Musa Al-Kadhim (as). Neither Imam Jaffar Sadiq (as) nor Imam Imam Musa Kadhim (as) ever asked these great Shia scholars to disassociate themselves from Az-Zurara. [See a detailed account of the activities of Zurara and his circle in Rijal al-Kashi, page 133-61].
3. Had Az-Zurara really attributed lies to Imam Jafar (as), at least Imam Musa Kadhim (as) who have ordered the great pupils of Az-Zurara to disassociate themselves from him. The visiting of these pupils to both Imams (as) their being warmly received by both Imams (as) evidences that both Imams (as) were pleased with Az-Zurara and deemed him truthful.
4. Not only Musa Al-Kadhim (as) but Imam Ali Raza (as) also never condemned Az-Zurara.

Refuting the allegation against Muhamad bin Muslim

 Ansar.org stated:

Muhammad ibn Muslim
Muhammad ibn Muslim is another Kufan narrator whose credentials as a narrator are extremely suspect, but who is accepted by the Shi‘ah as a reliable narrator all the same. This Muhammad ibn Mus, who claims to have heard 30 000 ahadith from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, and a further 16 000 from his son Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq (See Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 1 p. 391) is also recorded by al-Kashshi to have been cursed by Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq (vol. 1 p. 394) just as Ibn Saba was cursed by his great-grandfather!

Reply

Once again, the tradition wherein Muhammad bin Muslim was cursed is not authentic whilst the traditions praising him are authentic as we had cited above. The tradition cited by our opponents has been declared weak by Al-Khoi in Mu’ajam Rijal al-Hadith, Volume 18 page 269.Compare this to the previously cited ‘Sahih’ tradition wherein the Imam (as) gave glad tidings and praised Zurara, Muhammad bin Muslim and others.

Refuting the allegation against Abu Basir al-Muradi

Ansar.org stated:

Abu Basir al-Muradi
In Abu Basir we have another very prolific Kufan narrator whose character fails to convince anyone of his trustworthiness. He, together with Zurarah, is regarded of those who preserved the legacy of the Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq. He is one of a very select group of narrators about whom it is said that “there is consensus amongst the Shi‘ah to accept what is authentically narrated from them.” (See al-Mamaqani, Miqbas al-Hidayah vol. 2 p. 171)
However, Mir Damad in his annotations to Rijal al-Kashshi notes that the Shi‘i hadith critic Abul Husayn ibn al-Ghada’iri said of him:
Abu ‘Abdillah (Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq) used to get annoyed and upset with his presence, and his companions are in disagreement amongst themselves about him. I (Ibn al-Ghada’iri) believe that he was cursed on account of (matters pertaining to) his religion, not his narrations. To me he is a trustworthy narrator. (Ikhtiyar Ma‘`rifat ar-Rijal, vol. 1 p. 397. See also al-Ardabili, Jami‘ ar-Ruwat vol. 3 p. 43)
Again we have here a most prolific Kufan narrator who was cursed by Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq just like Ibn Saba was cursed by Sayyiduna ‘Ali!

 

Reply One

We are unsure why the author inserted the word ‘cursed’ into the text when it does not exist in the original reference. Allow us to cite the actual Arabic wording from Rijal al-Ghadaeri, page 111 along with its correct English translation:

بن البختري المرادي : أبو بصير ، يكنى أبا محمد ، كان أبو عبد الله عليه السلام يتضجر به ويتبرم ، وأصحابه مختلفون في شأنه ، وعندي أن الطعن إنما وقع على دينه لا على حديثه ، وهو عندي ثقة

Laith bin al-Bakhtari al-Muradi Abu Basir, his nickname is Abu Ahmad, Abu Abdillah (Imam Jafar as-Sadiq) used to get annoyed and upset with his presence, and his companions are in disagreement amongst themselves about him. I (Ibn al-Ghada’iri) believes that he was criticized on account of (matters pertaining to) his religion, not his narrations. To me he is a trustworthy narrator.

Reply Two

The narration wherein the Imam (as) commented on Abu Basir Laith al-Bakhtari al-Muradi which Ghadairi was alluding to are recorded in Rijal al-Kashi and is not authentic and this and similar narrations have been graded as weak by Al-Khoie in his book Mu’ajam Rijal al-Hadith, Volume 15 pages 144 to 157. Contrary to this, we have already cited the authentic tradition wherein Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) explicitly praised Abu Basir.

Refuting the allegation against al-Mufaddal ibn Umar

Ansar.org stated:

al-Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar
Here we have another Kufan narrator who is regarded by eminent Shi‘i hadith critics as a reliable transmitter of the Imams’ hadith. Al-Ardabili in Jami‘ ar-Ruwat (vol. 2 p. 258) records that Shaykh Mufid mentioned al-Mufaddal as belonging to the “inner circle, reliable and pious Fuqaha” of Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq’s followers. Abu Ja‘far at-Tusi too, is quoted as having mentioned al-Mufaddal amongst the mamduhin (praiseworthy).
But Imam Ja‘far is recorded by al-Kashshi to have addressed by calling him, “You Kafir! You Mushrik!” (See Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 2 p. 612) Another lengthier narration of al-Kashshi runs as follows:
‘Abdullah ibn Miskan says: Hujr ibn Za’idah and ‘Amir ibn Judha‘ah al-Azdi came to Abu ‘Abdillah [Imam Ja‘far] and told him: “May we be ransomed for you! Mufaddal says that you [the Imams] determine the sustenance of the people.” He [Imam Ja‘far said]: “By Allah, no one besides Allah determines our sustenance. One day I needed food for my family. I was under difficult circumstances and thought hard about it, until I managed to secure food for them. Only then did I feel content. May Allah curse him and disown him.” They asked: “Do you curse and disown him?” He replied: “Yes, so you too, curse him and disown him. May Allah and His messenger disown him.” (Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 2 p. 614)
The above narration clearly identifies al-Mufaddal with the heresy originally introduced by Ibn Saba. In the biography of Ibn Saba given in al-Kashshi’s Rijal, Imam al-Baqir is reported to have stated that Ibn Saba claimed himself to be a prophet, and ‘Ali to be Allah (See Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 1 p. 323). If we return to al-Mufaddal’s biography in the same book we find the following:
Al-Kashshi says: The extremist Tayyarah mention in some of their books on the authority of al-Mufaddal that he said: “Seventy prophets were killed with Abu Isma‘il, meaning Abul Khattab, each one of whom had seen and announced his prophethood.”
[They also say] that he said: Twelve of us were admitted to the presence of Abu ‘Abdillah [Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq]. Abu ‘Abdillah started greeting each one of us, calling each of us by the name of a prophet. To some he said, “Peace be upon you, O Nuh.” To some he said, “Peace be upon you, O Ibrahim,” To last one he greeted he said, “Peace be upon you, O Yunus.” Then he said, “Do not distinguish between the Prophets.” (Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 2 p. 614)
This Mufaddal, whom al-Kashshi says was of the extremist Khattabiyyah sect, the followers of Abul Khattab, whose beliefs derived directly from Ibn Saba himself—this Mufaddal is exonerated by contemporary Shi‘i scholars such as Shaykh ‘Abdullah al-Mamaqani, and Sayyid Abul Qasim al-Khu’i as a most reliable and trustworthy transmitter of the knowledge of the Imams. Al-Mamaqani gives a lengthy explanation about what exactly constitutes ghuluww (See Tanqih al-Maqal vol. 3 p. 240 and Miqbas al-Hidayah vol. 2 p. 397) and concludes that the kind of things on account of which al-Mufaddal was labelled as a ghali has since become of the undeniable tenets (daririyyat) of Shi‘ism.

Reply One

The narrations wherein the Imam (as) condemned Mufaddal Ibn Umar has been declared weak by Khoei in Mu’ajam Rijal al-Hadith, Volume 19 pages 317 to 330.

Reply Two

The case of Mufadhal Ibn Umar is different from the previously cited three people that have been deemed indisputably authentic. There exists a difference of opinion in relation to the authenticity level of Mufadhal Ibn Umar with greater weighting being given to the fact that he is unreliable. This has not been due to the narrations cited by the Nasibi author wherein Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) condemned him, as we have already mentioned all of these narrations are weak. The negative opinions made by scholars on his reliability are for different reasons. It is stated that initially Mufadhal Ibn Umar was on the right path but then subsequently deviated as we read in Rijal ibn Dawood, page 280:

إنه رجع خطابياً بعد استقامته وحمل ما ورد في مدحه على حال استقامته أولاً

“He (Mufadhal bin Umar) became Khatabi after being straight, and the praises about him relate to his period of straightness”.

Ahle Sunnah have taken Hadith from those who have been cursed by Allah (swt) and His Apotlse (s)

Although the above discussion shall suffice to negate Nasibi suggestions that the corpus of Shia Hadith literature originates from deviant narrators cursed by the Imams (as) allow us to counter attack their suggestion, by urging our opponents to examine the contents of their own house. We had in earlier chapter evidenced the fact that the ancestors of present day Ahle Sunnah were Nawasib, and shed specific light on Marwan bin al-Hakam who was despite being cursed by Allah (swt) and His Apostle (s) was vehemently defended by the Sunni scholars who sought to incorporate him within the Sahaba category, the net result being Hadith narrated by him have been accepted and graded as authentic. Why has the author of this article failed to recognize that cursed people have been declared and accepted as the source of guidance in his own school?

Apart from Marwan, we have another example of Waleed bin Uqbah who was condemned in Holy Quran as follows:

O ye who believe! if a wicked person (fasiq) comes to you with any news, ascertain the truth, lest ye harm people unwittingly, and afterwards become full of repentance for what ye have done. (Surah al-Hujurat, verse 6)

It is interesting to note that the exegesis of this verse indicates another incident where the same al-Waleed lied about a matter that led to the revelation of this verse declaring him a transgressor (fasiq).

1. al-Suyuti and al-Mahalli, Tafsir al-Jalalayn, (Cairo, 1924), vol. 1, p. 185
2. Tafsir Ibn Abbas
3. Asbab al Nuzul by Wahidi
4. Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, Tafseer Soorah al-Hujuraat, (Riyadh), pp. 62-63 (quoting Tafsir Tabari)

Let us quote the exegesis of Philips on page 61:

“…The Prophet (s) sent al-Waleed ibn al Uqbah to collect the Zakaah from al-Haarith. However, on the way al Waleed heard that a group from Banu Mustaliq had set out and he became afaraid. He returned swiftly to the Prophet and told him that al-Haarith had refused to turn over the Zakaah and had threatened his life…Then the verse, ‘O Believers, if an unrighteous person comes to you with news, you should verify it’ was revealed”

Despite Allah (swt) condemning this individual as a liar, he is still revered as a Sahaba whose reliability is such that he can act as s source for attaining religious guidance, evident from the fact that Imam of Ahle Sunnah Abu Dawood narrated Hadith from Waleed in:
 Sunan Abo Dawood, Hadith 3469

It would be apt at this point to remind our readers that Imam Abo Dawood only Hadith from those he deemed to be reliable sources for acquiring religious guidance, evident what we find in Tamam al-Mena by Albaani, page 27:

أبي داود أنه قال في حق كتابه السنن : ما كان في كتابي هذا من حديث فيه وهن شديد بينته ومالم أذكر فيه شيئا فهو صالح .

Abu Dawood said about his book al-Sunnan: ‘In relation to that which is recorded in my book, if anything unreliable existed, I would comment on it, anything I didn’t comment on, is reliable’

With this fact in mind let us now cite Beloved of the Salafis Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips in his analysis of the repercussions of this verse on page 62 of his Tafseer al Hujuraat followed by our comments:

“Great caution must always be taken when dealing with information conveyed by people of doubtful character, those whose honesty has not yet been proven or by known sinners…”It should be noted that based on this verse, Islamic scholars have unanimously ruled that the testimony of one who is known to be unrighteous should be rejected as evidence in court unless verified…On the basis of the above mentioned ruling, the scholars of Hadeeth decided to reject any Hadeeth which had in its chain narrators an individual classified as Majhool al-Haal, that is one whose name is known but character is unknown, for any such narrator might be of bad moral character and his statement false. This shows the great care taken by Hadeeth scholars in weeding out all the questionable narrations thereby preserving the Sunnah in its pristine purity for later generations”.

• Was great caution exercised by Abu Dawood when he took a narration on the authority of a man deemed a liar by Allah (swt)?
• If the testimony of an unreliable man requires verification in court, why were the same principles not adopted when it came to recording a Hadeeth from a proven liar?
• If Hadeeth scholars preserved the Sunnah by ensuring they never took Hadeeth from those whose characters they were unaware of, was the Sunnah preserved and kept pure when Abu Dawood took a narration from one graded by Allah (swt) as an untruthful man?

The admission of Waleed into the alumni of truthful Sahaba turns this Sunni doctrine on its head. Perhaps the unnamed author of his critique of Shia narrators should answer these questions:

1. If Waleed is a lying Fasiq in the eyes of Allah (swt), on account of his attempt to dupe the Prophet (s), how is he deemed truthful enough to narrate Hadeeth?
2. When one it comes to assessing the testimony of Waleed bin Utbah, whose opinion should give credence to, Allah (swt) or Abo Dawud?
3. If the ruling of Allah (swt) is paramount (as it should be) and Waleed is indeed a lying transgressor how does that concur with the Sunni doctrine that all the Sahaba are just and truthful?

As one can see it would have been far wiser for the author to steer clear of this polemical approach, for by doing so without looking at his own house, he has in effect shot himself in the foot!

Nawasib, Khawarij and liars laid the foundations for the Sunni ‘Saha Satta’

It is fascinating that the Nasibi author sought reliance on weak Shia narrations wherein Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) condemned these four narrators who are considered the foundations of Shia Hadith works so as to conclude that the Shia faith is based on these four alleged liars. We wonder why he had the audacity to point out fingers at Shia sources when his own ancestors were Nawasib and Khawarij, from whom they ascertained knowledge on different aspects of religion! We have already dedicated two chapters to unveil the roots of AhleSunnah in terms of Nasibism and Kharijism but let us now unveil another segment of the founding fathers of AhleSunnah that comprised of liars, that creates a big question mark over the myth created and taught by AhleSunnah to their adherents about their ‘six most authentic books of Hadith’.

We attach herewith a list of narrators of the six principle Hadith books of Ahle Sunnah who have been declared ‘liars’ by Sunni scholars:

1. Aban bin Aby Ayash
2. Ibrahim bin Muhammad bin Abi Yehya
3. Isacc bin Abdullah bin Abi Farwa
4. Usaid bin Zaid bin Nujaih
5. Ayub bin Khaout al-Azdi
6. Bazam the slave of Um Hani
7. Al-Bakhtari bin Ubaid
8. Beshr bin Numair al-Qushairi
9. Telid bin Sulayman al-Muharebi
10. Thabit bin Musa bin Abdulrahman bin Salamah al-Dhabi
11. Jaber bin Yazid al-Ju’afi
12. Jabara bin al-Mughales al-Hamani
13. Al-Harith bin Abdullah al-Hamadani
14. Al-Hussain bin al-Mutwakel Abi al-Sari
15. Husain bin Umar al-Ahmasi
16. Hafs bin Sulayman
17. Al-Hakam bin Dhuhair al-Farazi
18. Hakim bin Jubair al-Asadi
19. Kharija bin Mus’ab al-Dhabee
20. Al-Khalil bin Zakarya al-Sheybani
21. Dawoud bin al-Zurqaban
22. Rauh bin Aslam al-Baheli
23. Zyad bin al-Munder al-Hamadani
24. Slem bin Ibrahim al-Waraq
25. Salaam bin Salim
26. Sayf bin Muhammad al-Thawri
27. Amer bin Saleh bin Abdullah bin Arwa al-Zubairi
28. Abdullah bin Kharash
29. Abdullah bin Zyad al-Makhzoomi
30. Abdul Alaa bin Abi al-Musawer
31. Abdulhakim bin Mansour al-Khuzaei
32. Abdulrahman bin Qays al-Dhabee
33. Abdulrahman bin Yazid bin Tamim al-Salami
34. Abdulrahim bin Zaid al-Hawary
35. Abdulrazaq bin Umar al-Demashqi
36. Abdulaziz bin Aban
37. Abdulwahab bin Mujahed
38. Ubaid bin al-Qasem
39. Atta bin Ajlan
40. Ali bin Zabyan bin Hilal
41. Ali bin Mujahed bin Muslem
42. Amarah bin Juwain
43. Umar bin Ismail bin Mujaled
44. Umar bin Subh bin Omran
45. Amro bin Jaber al-Hadhrami
46. Amro bin Khalid al-Wasiti
47. Amro bin Waqed
48. Anbasa bin Abdulrahman bin Anbasa
49. Isa bin Qurtas
50. Al-Qasem bin Abdullah bin Umar bin Hafs
51. Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin al-Alaa
52. Muhammad bin al-Hassan bin Zabala
53. Muahammad bin al-Hassan al-M’ashari
54. Muhammad bin Khalid al-Wasety
55. Muhammad bin Zyad al-Yashkuri
56. Muhammad bin al-Saeb al-Kalbi
57. Muhammad bin Saeed al-Aorduni
58. Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Zyad al-Ansary
59. Muhammad bin Abdulrahman al-Qushairi
60. Muhammad bin Umar al-Waqidi
61. Muhammad bin al-Furat al-Tamimi
62. Muhammad bin al-Fadel al-Abesi
63. Muhammad bin al-Qasem al-Asadi
64. Muhammad bin Muhsen al-Ukashi
65. Marwan bin Salem al-Ghefari
66. Mu’ala bin Abdulrahman al-Wasety
67. Mu’ala bin Hilal
68. Mu’amar bin Muhammad bin Ubaidullah bin Abi Rafee
    Muqatel bin Sulazman
69. Nasr bin Hamaad
70. Naheshal bin Saeed
71. Noah bin Daraaj
72. Al-Walid bin Muhammad al-Mauwqari
73. Yehya bin Abi Anysa
74. Yehya bin al-Alaa
75. Yazid bin Ayadh bin J’abeda
76. Yaqoob bin al-Walid al-Azdi
77. Yusuf bin Khalid al-Samti
78. Abu Khalaf al-Basry
79. Abu Salamah al-Shaami

Moreover, those narrators of Sunni Hadith books who have been declared weak by Sunni scholars are:

1. Ahmad bin Saleh al-Masry
2. Ahmad bin Abdulrahman bin Wahab
3. Ahmad bin Isa bin Hasaan al-Masry
4. Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Ayub
5. Ismail bin Abdullah bin Abdullah bin Auwais
6. Ismail bin Abdulrahman bin Abi Karima al-Sedy
7. Al-Harith bin Umair
8. Al-Hassan bin Madrak al-Sedoosi
9. Al-Hussain bin al-Hassan al-Ashqar
10. Dinar bin Umar al-Asadi
11. Sulazman bin Abdulhamid bin Rafee
12. Asem bin Ali bin Asem bin Suhaib al-wasety
13. Ayez bin Habib bin al-Malah
14. Abdullah bin Beshr al-Nabhan
15. Abdullah bin Shurayk al-Ameri
16. Abdullah bin Saleh al-Juhani
17. Abdulsalam bin Saleh Abu al-Salt al-Harawy
18. Uthman bin Abdulrahman al-Haraani
19. Ekrema the slave of Ibn Abbas
20. Ali bin Asem bin Suhaib al-Waseti
21. Al-Qasem al-M’amary
22. Muhammad bin Hatim bin Maymoon
23. Muhammad bin Hasaan al-Samti
24. Yunus bin Khabab al-Usaidi

The truth about Imam Muhamad bin Ismaeel Bukhari and his Sahih

Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his book Enba al-Ghumur, page 269 has recorded this statement of Imam Yusuf bin Musa al-Multi al-Hanafi (d. 803 H):

وأنه كان يقول: من نظر في كتاب البخاري تزندق

He (al-Multi al-Hanafi) used to say: ‘Whoever looked into the book of Bukhari, shall become a heretic’.

Imam of Salafies Nasiruddin Albaani graded some traditions of Sahih Bukhari as weak. We read his statement in ‘Fatawa Sheikh Albaani’ by Ukasha bin Abdulmanan, page 524:

أما أنه سبق لي أن ضعفت [بعض] أحاديث البخاري فهذا حقيقة يجب الاعتراف بها ولا يجوز إنكارها

“My declaring some traditions of Bukhari as weak is a fact which I have to admit and cannot deny the same”.

According to Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Fatah al-Bari, Volume 8 page 338 Imams of Ahle Sunnah such as Abu Bakr al-Baqelani, Imam Juwaini, Abu Hamed Ghazali and Al-Dawoudi have also marked a weakness in Bukhari. Moreover the Salafi scholar Sheikh Muhammad Reshid Reza in his book Tafseer al-Manar Volume 10 page 580 also highlighted weak traditions in Sahih Bukhari.

We should also highlight an untold aspect of the great Imam Muhammad bin Ismaeel Bukhari wherein he bribed somebody as a means of acquiring a book of his master. .We read in Tahdib al-Tahdib, Volume 9 page 46:

قال مسلمة وألف علي بن المديني كتاب العلل وكان ضنينا به فغاب يوما في بعض ضياعه فجاء البخاري إلى بعض بنية ورغبه بالمال على أن يرى الكتاب يوما واحدا فأعطاه له فدفعه إلى النساخ فكتبوه له ورده إليه فلما حضر على تكلم بشيء فأجابه البخاري بنص كلامه مرارا ففهم القضيه واغتنم لذلك فلم يزل مغموما حتى مات بعد يسير

Maslama said: ‘Ali bin al-Madini authored a book named al-Elal and he was so concerned for it, once he traveled to his farm, thus Bukhari came to one of his sons and lured him through money as a reward from borrowing this book from him for one day. He borrowed the book from him and he (Bukhari) gave it to the scribers to copy. When Ali (Ibn al-Madini) returned it back, he asked something, thus Bukhari answered responded in the same style as the book, thus he (ibn al-Madini) understood the matter and felt sad, he exhibited such feelings until he died that was within the next few days’.

Al-Elal was a book about the unclear defects in chains of narrations which cannot be identified except through an expert scholar. Since Bukhari had, through fraud and deceit, acquired possession of the book, he did not deem it necessary to analyse the narrators of Hadith, he just returned to Khurasan, (Iran) and began to compile his book ‘Sahih’.

In Tarikh Baghdad, Volume 2 page 12, we read the method via which Imam Bukhari achieved the task of collecting and recording the traditions in his book:

Ohaid bin Abi Jaffar said: ‘I heard Muhammad bin Ismail saying: ‘I heard some Hadiths in Basra and wrote them in Syria and heard some Hadith in Syria and wrote them in Egypt’. Then I asked him: ‘O Aba Abdullah, have you wrote them completely as they were?’ He did not respond and remained silent’

Imam Dhahabi in Syar alam al-Nubala, Volume 12 page 455 records the fatwa of Kufr by Imam Muhammad bin Yahya al-Duhali (d. 258 H) regarding Bukhari the great:

“Muhammad bin Yahya al-Duhali said: ‘the Quran is the word of Allah, it is certainly not created…whoever claims that the Quran is created a is a kafir, he is expelled from Iman, his wife is unlawful to him, he must repent otherwise his neck should be struck off, his money shall be made booty for the Muslims and he should not be buried in a Muslims cemetery. Whoever stops and says: ‘I neither say created or uncreated’ he is almost a Kafir and whoever says that the verses that we recite are created is an innovator, no one should befriend him nor talk to him and suspicions should be raised over anyone that attends Muhammad bin Ismail al-Bukhari’s gatherings.”

Moreover we read:

Muhammad bin Yahya said: “Whoever attends his (Bukhari’s) assembly should not attend ours”

On the next page we read:

Muhammad bin Yahya said: ‘This Bukhari claims that the verses which he recites are created and such a statement according to me is worse than the Jahamis’.

On page 462 we read the stance of Imam Abu Zar’a (d. 264 H) and Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi (d. 277 H):

Abdulrahman bin Abi Hatim said in his book ‘al-Jarh wa al-Tadil’: Muhammad bin Ismail came to Ray (city) in the year 250, my father and Abu Zar’a heard hadith from him but they subsequently abandoned his hadith when Muhammad bin Yahya wrote to them that he (Bukhari) declared in Nisabur (city) that his belief was that the verses which he recited were created.

It gets even worse, Imam Ibn Hajar deemed Bukhari as “Mudalis” in his book Tabaqat al-Mudaliseen that can be downloaded from the following Salafi library:  http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=12&book=1144

Mudalis is an individual that commits fraud in Hadith as recorded by Ibn Kathir in his book al-Baeth al-Hathith, page 7:

“Tadlis are of two types, the first type is to narrate from someone he met that which he didn’t hear from him or to narrate from someone he didn’t”

We also read:

“Whilst the second type of Tadlis is to mention the unpopular name or the nickname of the narrator in a manner which keeps his identity unknown.”

In order to understand the seriousness of such criticism, let us shed some light on the definition advanced by Sunni scholars of a ‘Mudalis’. We read in Al-Yawaqit wa al-Durrar, by Abdulrauf al-Manawi, Volume 1 page 128:

Shu’aba said: ‘To perform adultery is better than doing Tadlis’
And he also said: ‘Tadlis is the brother of a lie’

We read in Al-Kefaya Fi Elm al-Rewaya by Khatib Baghdadi, page 355:

Shu’aba said: ‘To perform Tadlis in hadith is worse than committing adultery’

On page 356 we read:

Abu Osama said: ‘May Allah destroy the homes of those that perform Tadlis, verily they are liars’

We also read:

Ibn al-Mubarak said: ‘To fall down from the sky is better than performing Tadlis in a single hadith’.

Thus, in the light of these definitions advanced by Sunni scholars, we come to know that in their eyes Bukhari was a person who performed something worse than adultery, told lies and fell from the sky.

The truth about Imam Muslim bin al-Hajaj and his Sahih

Our opponents teach their naïve followers that they, on account of the Saha Satta, have in their possession the most authentic information regarding the religion that has accordingly led to the blind following of these texts. From the Saha Satta, the two books that enjoy the highest status are Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. In relation to Sahih Muslim let us unveil some ‘merits’ of this work from Sunni sources. We read the following statement of Imam Ubaidullah bin Abdulkarim Abu Zua’ra (d. 264 H) in Al-Jawahir al-Muziya, page 592:

وقد قال الحفاظ أن مسلماً لما وضع كتابه الصحيح عرضه على أبي زرعة الرازي فأنكر عليه وتغيظ وقال سميته الصحيح فجعلت سلما لأهل البدع

“The scholars said that when Muslim prepared his book, the Sahih, he showed it to Abu Zu’ara al-Razi, he subsequently condemned it and exhibited anger towards him, saying: ‘You called it Sahih, and have hence created a ladder for the innovators’

Similarly we read in Siar alam al-Nubala, Volume 12 page 571:

قال سعيد البرذعي: شهدت أبا زرعة ذكر ” صحيح ” مسلم، وأن الفضل الصائغ ألف على مثاله، فقال: هؤلاء أرادوا التقدم قبل أوانه، فعملوا شيئا يتسوقون به.

Saeed al-Barzai said: ‘It was mentioned in Abu Zu’ara presence that al-Fadhel bin al-Saeqgh made a book similar to Sahih Muslim. He (Abu Zu’ara) said: ‘These people wanted to rise in a short time thus they made something for (the purposes of) marketing’.

 Imam Nawawi records in Sharh Muslim, Volume 1 page 16:

وأما قول مسلم رحمه الله في صحيحه في باب صفة صلاة رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم ليس كل شيء صحيح عندي وضعته ها هنا يعنى في كتابه هذا الصحيح وانما وضعت ها هنا ما أجمعوا عليه فمشكل فقد وضع فيه أحاديث كثيرة مختلفا في صحتها

The statement of Muslim may Allah’s mercy be upon him, in his Sahih in the chapter of ‘The prayers of Allah’s Messenger’ i.e. ‘Not all the Sahih traditions according to me have been recorded here’ refers to his book, the Sahih, ‘but I recorded here what has been agreed unanimously on’ – this is a debatable statement because he recorded many traditions on the authenticity of which there is disagreement.

We should also point out that Muslim bin al-Hajaj ascribed to the beliefs of Bukhari and hence came under the edict of Kufr passed by the grand Imam Muhammad bin Yahya al-Duhali (d. 258 H) and was accordingly expelled from his gathering and was severely criticized by the Sunni scholars of Iraq and Hijaz. Ibn Khalkan records in Wafiya al-Ayan, Volume 5 page 194 Biography 717:

قطعه أكثر الناس غير مسلم، فإنه لم يتخلف عن زيارته، فأنهي إلى محمد بن يحيى أن مسلم بن الحجاج على مذهبه قديما وحديثا وأنه عوتب على ذلك بالحجاز والعراق ولم يرجع عنه فلما كان يوم مجلس محمد ابن يحيى قال في آخر مجلسه: ألا من قال باللفظ فلا يحل له أن يحضر مجلسنا، فأخذ مسلم الرداء فوق عمامته، وقام على روؤس الناس وخرج من مجلسه،

‘Most of the people boycotted of him (Bukhari) save Muslim, he didn’t stop visiting him, thus Muhammad bin Yahya was informed that Muslim bin al-Hajaj was deemed to adhere to the same belief in the past and (more) recently, thus he (Muslim) was criticized in Hijaz and Iraq but he didn’t repent. Then when it was the day of Muhammad ibn Yahya’s assembly he said: ‘Whoever believes that the Word is created, surely its not allowed for him to attend my assembly’. Thus Muslim took his cloak and turban in front of the people and left the assembly’

Imam Dhahabi likewise records in Tazkirat al-Hufaz, Volume 2 page 589:

قال ابن الشرقي : حضرت مجلس محمد بن يحيى فقال: الا من قال لفظي بالقرآن مخلوق فلا يحضر مجلسنا ، فقام مسلم من المجلس

Ibn al-Sharqi said: ‘I attended the assembly of Muhammad bin Yahya and he said: ‘Whoever believes that the words of Quran are created, surely he should not attend our assembly, thus Muslim left the assembly’.

In Fatah al-Qadeer Sharah Hidayah, Volume 2 page 400, we read the rejection of the notion that only the two Sahihs contain the most authentic traditions whilst the truth is that more authentic traditions can be found in other books:

وَقَوْلُ مَنْ قَالَ أَصَحَّ الْأَحَادِيثِ مَا فِي الصَّحِيحَيْنِ ثُمَّ مَا انْفَرَدَ بِهِ الْبُخَارِيُّ ثُمَّ مَا انْفَرَدَ بِهِ مُسْلِمٌ … تَحَكُّمٌ لَا يَجُوزُ التَّقْلِيدُ فِيهِ

“The statement wherein someone deemed the most reliable traditions to be those located in the two Sahih (Bukhari & Muslim) starting with what has been recorded in Bukhari, then what has been recorded in Muslim… is to rule tyrannically and it is impermissible to adhere to such (a ruling)”

The truth about Sunan Ibn Majah

Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani records in Tahdeeb al-Tahdeeb, Volume 9 page 531:

وفيه أحاديث ضعيفة جداً

“It contains very weak Hadiths”

We also read:

وذكر ابن طاهر في المسور أن ابا زرعة وقف عليه فقال : ليس فيه الا نحو سبعة أحاديث

Ibn Tahir said in al-Musawar (book) that Abu Zu’ara looked at it and said: ‘It doesn’t contain any (authentic) Hadiths, save seven’.

The truth about Tirmidhi

According to Ibn Tamiyah, Tirmidhi recorded a number of weak and fabricated traditions in his ‘esteemed’ book. We read in in Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 5 page 356:

والترمذي قد ذكر أحاديث متعددة في فضائله وفيها ما هو ضعيف بل موضوع

“Tirmidhi recorded various traditions in favor of him (Imam Ali) including weak and fabricated (traditions)”

The truth about the Mu’watta of Imam Malik

Imam Ghazali records in Ihya Uloom al-Deen, Volume 1 page 79:

وكان أحمد بن حنبل ينكر على مالك في تصنيفه الموطأ ويقول ابتدع ما لم تفعله الصحابة رضي الله عنهم

“Ahmad bin Hanbal used to condemn Malik for authoring al-Mu’wata and he used to say that he innovated in what the companions had never done”

The truth about Sunni Tafseer books

In Faiz al-Qadeer, Volume 1 page 27 we read the following revelation of the Sunni commentaries of the Holy Quran:

قال ابن الكمال : كتب التفسير مشحونة بالأحاديث الموضوعة

Ibn al-Kamal said: ‘Tafseer books are filled with fabricated traditions’

Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti in his book Al-Itqan, Volume 2 page 471 has recorded the opinion of Imam Ahmed regarding the the Sunni books on Tafseer:

قال الإمام أحمد ثلاثة ليس لها أصل التفسير والملاحم والمغازي وذلك لأن الغالب عليها المراسيل

Imam Ahmad said: ‘Three things are unreliable, Tafseer, epics and battles (stories) because most of them are narrated through disconnect chains’.