|
Post by SyedMuhammadIbnAlAfaq on Jul 9, 2017 21:36:35 GMT
Islamic Schools, Khanqahs started after the Prophet. But they are given importance too as if they have some religious importance. Why are these not stopped? Writing tafsirs of Qur'an is also famous in our age. One should have knowledge about the Tafsir of Qur'an. But there was no tafsir book at the time of the messenger, not even at the time of mujtahids. There were no Hadith collections at that time of our Prophet. But now the use of these Hadith collections is prevalent. But they are not stopped, Why? Different Islamic conferences are held on specific days. So if specifying was wrong then why date is fixed for the conferences. Hakim ul-Ummah Ashraf Ali Thanawi divided Takhsees (specification) into two types: A'di and Deeni. He said that A'di takhsees is permissible and Deeni takhsees is impermissible. (Khutbaat e Milad al-Nabi) You have answered your own question. These are non-ritualistic ( 'adi) specifications, not given any religious meaning in and of themselves. People understand madrasas, for instance, are means to an end and are not intrinsically meritorious. Mawlid, the celebration of the birth-anniversary in Rabi al-Awwal, however, is treated as an "Id" by many and is treated as though it has intrinsic religious merit, which amounts to a ritualistic ( ta'abbudi) restriction, as opposed to a non-ritualistic ( 'adi) one. This explains why there are some people, even scholars, who actually believe there is extra merit for carrying out certain good deeds specifically in the month of Rabi al-Awwal, but no one believes the transmission of religious knowledge is intrinsically more meritorious in madrasas. Yes, people might believe it is better for other (practical/organisational) reasons, but not for any intrinsic religious meaning. Al-Shatibi explains: “As for madrasas, there no ritualistic matter connected to it about which it will be said: it is bid‘ah, unless it were supposed that part of the sunnah was that religious knowledge is only studied in masjids, but this is not found – rather, religious knowledge in the early period was distributed in every place, whether masjid, house, travel or residence, or other than that, and even in the markets. Thus, if someone prepares a madrasa for studying religious knowledge, by preparing which he is assisting students, this is no more than him preparing it as a house amongst houses [in which knowledge is distributed]…so where does bid‘ah enter into here? If it is said that bid‘ah is in specifying that place over other places, then the specification here is not a ritualistic ( ta‘abbudi) specification…” ( al-I‘tisam, 1:346) Going to a Madrassa is encouraged, Isn't it? People insist going to Madrassas. Although Madrassas are only source of seeking knowledge, they are considered blessed places. People are encouraged and are sometimes, insisted to go to Madrassas. Mawlid is also source of remembering the birth of Rasul Allah and it is blessed. If a Madrassa is a blessed place, although it is ONLY a source of seeking knowledge, then Mawlid is also blessed. People should be encouraged to do it and could be insisted too. Madrassas are given "ANY RELIGIOUS MEANING". If they are not given any religious meaning, nobody should be encouraged to go there?
|
|
|
Post by SyedMuhammadIbnAlAfaq on Jul 9, 2017 21:19:48 GMT
Did Someone Say “Good Bida`”?
salamu `alaykum There has always been confusion regarding the stance of the Deobandi scholars on the issue of “good bida`” (i.e. bida` hasana). Do the Deobandi scholars reject this concept? Is there really a difference between them and other traditional scholars on the issue? How do they explain the new acts that they themselves do?
Point 1: There Is No Real Difference Except In Usage
In reality, there is no essential difference between the definition of the scholars who named a particular practice as bida` hasana and the Deobandis. Nor do the Deobandi scholars reject such a concept. If anything, the only difference is in wording (lafdh) and the rule has always been “there is no argumentation when it comes to usage.” Maulana Ashraf `Ali Thanawi explicitly states this in his Imdad al Fatawa. He says:
“The establishment or negation of innovation being divided into “good” (hasana) and “bad” (sa’iyya) is disputed merely due to (difference) in usage… and there is no arguing when it comes to usage (istilah). After realizing and understanding this principle all subsequent and prior doubts are removed.”
(vol 5, Pg: 283. Maktaba Dar al `Ulum Khi Ed.)
Maulana Gangohi states in his fatawa :
“This is a difference in usage. Everyone means the same thing.”
(Pg: 155 Dar al Isha`at Ed. 2003)
This principle is something one should actively take note of since it is common for people to descend into petty quarrels due to differences in how they express certain points of the religion – even though both methods of expression are sound in meaning-.
Point 2: The Deobandi Definition & Explanation
Both the Deobandi scholars and others consider new practices that arise as permissible on the condition that they conform with the general dictates of Sunni methodology. As such, the Deobandis only argue that these matters are in *reality* not innovation because they conform to the general purport of the sunna and what it points (ishara) to. Due to this, such new acts will be considered sunna or mustahab and so forth, altough they may “appear” to look like innovations.
This was explained in detail by Hakimul Ummah Maulana Ashraf `Ali Thanawi (Allah be well-pleased with him) in his Imdad al Fatawa (Ibid). He clearly differentiates between:
[1] haqiqi bida` (intrinsic/real), and [2] suri bida` (extrinsic/appearingly)
He states regarding the latter (Vol 5, Pg: 293):
“[The meaning of bida` surriyya] is that which is in itself not found in the sunna (explicitly) but is infered from the general principles (of the Law).”
Then Maulana states:
“[Regarding whether bida` suriyya and hasana are two seperate thing] (bida`) Sa’iyya (bad innovation) and (bida`) haqiqiyya are one; (bida`) hasana (good innovation) and suriyya are one.”
(Ibid)
He elaborates further on the narration “All innovation is misgudiance” (kul bida` dhalala) by stating that if “innovation” is defined solely as haqiqi (intrinsic/real) then the narration is non-exclusionary, meaning that it includes every “real” innovation. Since, “real” innovation is by default considered “bad”, and that which does not conform to Sunni methodology, then there is no problem in accepting “all” (kul) in the narration to actually mean “every innovation” without specification.
However, if innovation is defined generally as including both the haqiqi and the suri then the latter will not enter into this narration, and the narration will be considered `aam makhsus i.e. a general expression used to indicate something specific. “All” (kul) will therefore only include in it haqiqi bida` and not suri. Thus, it does not mean “every innovation” but “every real (haqiqi) innovation”.(Ibid, Pg: 292)
Similarly, Imam Anwar Shah Kashmiri stated in his Faydh al Bari:
والبدعة عندي ما لا تكون مستندةً إلى الشرع، وتكون ملتبسةً بالدين
“And innovation according to me is that which has no support in the shari`ah…”
And the shari`ah here refers to the basic sources of Sunni methodology, as he makes clear in his `Urf al Shadhi when he states:
واعلم أن البدعة ما لا يكون أصله في الأصول الأربعة
“Know that innovation is that which does not have any basis in the four fundamental principles (qur’an, sunna, ijma`, and qiyas).”
This is also what Maulana Idris Kandihlawi states in his commentary on Mishkat al Masabih.
Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (Allah be well-pleased with him) says in his fatawa (Pg: 155):
“There is no such thing as “good innovation” (bida` hasana) and whatever is called bida` hasana is in reality a sunna (s: confirmed, derived, or indicated by the sunna). However, this is a difference in usage. Everyone means the same thing.”
Point 3: The Hanafi Scholars Who Divided Innovation Into “Good” Or “Bad”
Others, however, labelled the above as “good innovation” – whether by using the term or actually explaining it in detail. So it is in actuality merely khilaf lafdhi as has been mentioned before.
The muhaqiq of the Hanafi school, Allamah Ibn `Abidin stated in his Rad al Muhtar that innovation is of five types, as did many other scholars before him. He stated:
مطلب البدعة خمسة أقسام ( قوله أي صاحب بدعة ) أي محرمة ، وإلا فقد تكون واجبة ، كنصب الأدلة للرد على أهل الفرق الضالة ، وتعلم النحو المفهم للكتاب والسنة ومندوبة كإحداث نحو رباط ومدرسة وكل إحسان لم يكن في الصدر الأول ، ومكروهة كزخرفة المساجد . ومباحة كالتوسع بلذيذ المآكل والمشارب والثياب كما في شرح الجامع الصغير للمناوي عن تهذيب النووي ، وبمثله في الطريقة المحمدية للبركلي
Among the other scholars in the Hanafi school who explicitly accepted (or used) the division of innovation into hasana and sa’iyyah were:
[1] Ibn Nujaym in his Bahr al Ra’iq sharh `ala Kanz al Daqa’iq, [2] Al Birgivi in his Tariqa al Muhammadiyya, and its commentators such as Imam Khadimi, [3] Imam Tahtawi in his Hashiya, [4] `Ala al Din Haskafi in his Durr al Mukhtar, [5] The authors of Fatawa al Hindiyya, [6] The great Indian commentary on the Durr entitled Ghayat al Awtaar by Maulana Muhammad Nantowi, [7] `Allama Shabbir Ahmad `Uthmani, the Deobandi scholar, in his Fath al Mulhim, and so forth.
Point 4: Conclusion
In conclusion: Deobandis do not reject new practices, but they do not label them as “good innovations” since the phrase “innovation” is haqiqatan signifying something bad according to them. Rather, new acts that conform to the general methodology of Sunni Islam, even if not explicitly found in the sunna, are referred to as sunna. Apparently, they seem to look like innovation but in reality are not.
Others, differing in terminology, labelled such things as bida` hasana and found no qualms in using sucha phrase. To them bida` hasana is no different than sunna hasana as in the prophetic narration “whoever starts a good sunna will have the reward of it.”
The most important thing to note is that both opinions strictly stipulate that any new action that does not conform to Sunni methodology, or is not derived from the general indication of the sunna, is rejected since “that which is not from this way of ours will be rejected”, as the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said. However, that which does conform and has some basis will be accepted. Whether one wishes to refer to it as “good innovation” or as a “sunna” that only “appears” to look like an innovation is ultimately inconsequential.
And Allah Knows Best
Wasalam
Salman
Taken from HERE
|
|
|
Post by SyedMuhammadIbnAlAfaq on Jun 28, 2017 15:32:54 GMT
salaam Is the attribute of power which belongs to Allah infinite or perfect ? Allah created the heavens and the earth , it is muslim belief that their cannot be "power leakage" from Allah swt into finite created universe, right? Allah has the ability to create anything. He has power over his creation. There is no doubt in it. Why you questioned this?
|
|
|
Post by SyedMuhammadIbnAlAfaq on Jun 27, 2017 21:28:48 GMT
THE LAWS OF JIHAD - A GLIMPSE The following quotes from the Classical Fuqaha (jurists), provide just a glimpse into the 1400 year old, ancient, medieval, and “backward” Laws of Jihad:
good effort. actually i believe this is an extremely important subject as there are clearly some retarded gullible Wahhabis out there who think they have a sound religious justification for random acts of murder of civilians, women and children..... not sure why much more has not been written in English about this subject. the only book i know of is by Tahir al-Qadri (not read t) and another short book on isis by sh yaqoubi. I read this book of Dr Tahir ul-Qadri. It is a good book but many of the subjects discussed in the book are not actually related to the topic.
|
|
|
Post by SyedMuhammadIbnAlAfaq on Jun 24, 2017 19:22:38 GMT
The kind of istighāthah I referred to is very specific. A person calls out in a calamity or for some need, “O so-and-so, give me relief, fulfil my need” (يا فلان أغثني، اقض حاجتي) or something to that effect. When a prophet or saint who has passed away is called for help in this manner in a calamity, it looks like the being is called for help in just the same way Allāh is called for help. If during a calamity, a person deliberately calls out, “Jesus, help me!” a strong argument can be made for this person having left Islām because of the very strong resemblance this creates with the shirk of the Christians. [Mawlānā Idrīs Kāndhlewī said something similar in his Ma‘arif al-Qur’ān]. If a being who is not taken as a god is called for help, the resemblance would not be as strong, but it will still look like he is being called for help just as Allāh is called for help, creating a resemblance with shirk. This is what Mawlānā Thānawī referred to in the following statement: والتفصيل فى المسألة أن التوسل للمخلوق له تفاسير ثلاثة الأول دعاءه واستغاثته كديوان المشركين وهو حرام إجماعا‘ أما أنه شرك جلي أم لا فمعياره أنه اعتقد استقلاله بالتأثير فهو شرك كفري اعتقادا
“The explanation of this issue [of tawassul] is that tawassul through creation has three meanings: First, supplicating to him and seeking his help in the way of the idolaters. This is haram by consensus. As for whether it is manifest shirk or not, its criterion is that if he believes in his independence in bringing about the effect, it is shirk in creed, of a blasphemous nature...[and otherwise, it is not].” (Bawadir al-Nawadir, p. 706) This kind of istighāthah became more widespread amongst the common Muslims in the last few centuries. The great Hanafī mufti of Baghdād, Sayyid Mahmūd al-Ālūsī (1217 – 1270 H), condemned this practice in very strong terms. He wrote in his famous tafsīr: الناس قد أكثروا من دعاء غير الله تعالى من الأولياء الأحياء منهم والأموات وغيرهم مثل يا سيدي فلان أغثني، وليس ذلك من التوسل المباح في شيء، واللائق بحال المؤمن عدم التفوه بذلك، وأن لا يحوم حول حماه، وقد عده أناس من العلماء شركا، وإن لا يكنه فهو قريب منه، ولا أرى أحدا ممن يقول ذلك إلا وهو يعتقد أن المدعو الحي الغائب أو الميت المغيب يعلم الغيب أو يسمع النداء ويقدر بالذات أو بالغير على جلب الخير ودفع الأذى، وإلا لما دعاه، ولا فتح فاه، وفي ذلكم بلاء من ربكم عظيم، فالحزم التجنب عن ذلك وعدم الطلب إلا من الله تعالى القوي الغني الفعال لما يريد.
ومن وقف على سر ما رواه الطبراني في معجمه من أنه كان في زمن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم منافق يؤذى المؤمنين فقال الصديق رضي الله عنه: قوموا بنا نستغيث برسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من هذا المنافق فجاؤوا إليه فقال: إنه لا يستغاث بي إنما يستغاث بالله تعالى، لم يشك في أن الاستغاثة بأصحاب القبور – الذين هم بين سعيد شغله نعيمه وتقلبه فى الجنان عن الالتفات إلى ما في هذا العالم وبين شقي ألهاه عذابه وحبسه فى النيران عن إجابة مناديه والإصاخة إلى أهل ناديه – أمر يجب اجتنابه ولا يليق بأرباب العقول ارتكابه؛ ولا يغرنك أن المستغيث بمخلوق قد تقضى حاجته وتنجح طلبته فإن ذلك ابتلاء وفتنة منه عز وجل وقد يتمثل الشيطان للمستغيث في صورة الذى استغاث به فيظن أن ذلك كرامة لمن استغاث به؛ هيهات هيهات! إنما هو شيطان أضله وأغواه (Rūh al-Ma‘ānī, Mu’assasat al-Risālah, 7:181) “People have increased in calling on other than Allah (Exalted is He), from the saints, the living of them and the dead, and other than them, like: ‘O my master so-and-so, give me relief.’ This is not from the permissible [form of] tawassul at all. It is befitting the condition of the believer to avoid saying this and avoid roaming around its boundary. Some ‘ulama’ have considered it shirk, and if it is not so, then it is close to it. I have not seen any who say this except he believes that the one called, whether an absent living person or a dead person, knows the unseen or hears the call and is able, intrinsically or extrinsically, to bring benefit and repel harm; otherwise he would not call him or open his mouth. In this is a great trial from your Lord! It is obligatory to stay away from that and not seek [help] except from Allah (Exalted is He), the Strong, the Independent, the Doer of what He wills. And whoever comes across the secret of what al-Tabrani narrated in his Mu‘jam that there was in the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) a hypocrite harming the believers, so al-Siddiq (Allah be pleased with him) said: ‘Come with us, we will seek help from the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) against this hypocrite,’ and they came to him and he said: ‘Verily, help is not sought from me, it is sought only from Allah (Exalted is He),’ he will not doubt that seeking help from the occupants of graves – who are either fortunate, so his blessings and life in the gardens occupy him from turning to this world, or miserable, so is distracted by his punishment and his imprisonment in the Fire from answering his callers or listening to his people – is a matter which must be avoided and it is unfitting for people of intellect to perpetrate it. Let it not delude you that the one seeking help from creation often has his need fulfilled and his objective accomplished, for that is a trial and a tribulation from Him (Great and Glorious is He). Often the devil takes the form to the one asking help of the one he asked help from, so he believes that is a miracle of the one he asked help from. Far, very far! Indeed, it is only the devil misguiding him and turning him astray.” (Rūh al-Ma‘ānī, Mu’assasat al-Risālah, 7:181) Several other ‘ulamā’ before and after al-Ālūsi also explicitly forbade this kind of istighāthah. Many ‘ulamā’ who used the term “istighāthah” clearly meant tawassul, like Subkī, Ibn al-Hājj and others. By taking the prophets and saints as an intermediary in supplication, help is being derived from them, hence it may be termed “istighāthah”; while others meant deriving blessings from mentioning their name, which can also be termed “istighāthah”. These early scholars did not mean istighāthah in the way described above. An eleventh century Hanafī scholar said this explicitly: وما قيل من أنه يجوز الاستغاثة بالأنبياء والصالحين فإنما المراد به التبرك بذكرهم والتوسل بهم بلا إمداد منهم (سيف الله على من كذب على أولياء الله If a scholar allows such type of Istighatha believing that real help is from Allah. Will he remain a Sunni? Is he from Ahlus Sunnah or not? Mawlana Thanawi said that Faysala Haft Mas'ala was written by him. In that book, he allows calling Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani for help with correct belief. How can he disallow it in his another book? It's meaning must be different. In Sharah Faysala Haft Mas'ala, Mufti Jameel Ahmad Thanawi also allows calling Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani for help with correct belief and says that due to the condition of the common people, it should be avoided.
|
|
|
Post by SyedMuhammadIbnAlAfaq on Jun 16, 2017 20:15:42 GMT
The Tajsīm of Ibn Taymiyyah: Ibn Taymiyyah’s Affirmation of Limits for Allah in the Six Physical Directions In his Bayān Talbīs al-Jahmiyyah, Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that Allah has boundaries and limits (hadds/ghāyahs) in the six physical directions, namely: up, down, back, front, left and right.
He mentions this in the context of discussing Qādī Abū Ya‘lā’s discussion on ascribing hadd to Allah. Qādī Abū Ya‘lā is one of the notorious anthropomorphists taken to task by Hāfiz Ibn al-Jawzī in his Daf‘ Shubah al-Tashbīh.
First, Ibn Taymiyyah quotes Qādī Abū Ya‘lā relating two purported statements of Imām Ahmad:
1. The first that Allah has a hadd that only He knows
2. And the second that He does not have a hadd.
Then he quotes Qādī Abū Yalā’s attempt at reconciling these two purported statements:
فالموضع الذي قال (أحمد) إنه على العرش بحد معناه ما حاذى العرش من ذاته فهو حد له وجهة له والموضع الذي قال هو على العرش بغير حد معناه ما عدا الجهة المحاذية للعرش وهي الفوق والخلف والأمام والميمنة والميسرة
That is, Abu Ya‘la said: “The place in which Ahmad said that He is on the throne with a hadd, its meaning is [the part] of His essence that is in line with the ‘Arsh, so it (the ‘Arsh) is His hadd and His direction; and the place which he said He is over the throne without hadd, its meaning is what is besides the direction in line with the ‘Arsh – that is, above, behind, front, right and left.”
(Bayān Talbīs al-Jahmiyyah, 3:735) And he goes on to make it even more explicit. Abū Ya‘lā said:
“The difference between the downwards direction parallel to the ‘Arsh and other than it which we mentioned [i.e. the other five directions] is that:
“The downward direction is in line with the ‘Arsh as established from evidence, and the ‘Arsh is limited (mahdūd) so it is possible to describe [the part] of the self [of Allah] that is in line with it and that it [the ‘Arsh] is a limit and direction. That is not so in other than it [i.e. other than the downward direction], because it is not in line with that which is limited, but it is traversing through the right and the left, up, front and behind, without a limit. This is why none of these [five directions] are described with Hadd or direction; whereas the direction of ‘Arsh is parallel to what opposes it from the direction of [Allah’s] self, but it is not in line with the whole [of Allah’s] self because it has no limit.”
In brief, Qādī Abū Ya‘lā is saying that the self or essence of Allah is limited by the ‘Arsh in the downward direction (from the perspective of Allah’s self); but in the other directions, i.e. up, right, left, front and back, there are no limits, and Allah’s self is endless. That is, he believes Allah is a physical body but an infinitely large body. Hence, Abu Ya‘lā reconciles the two purported statements of Imam Ahmad as follows: the negation of hadd is for the five directions and the affirmation is for the downward direction.
Ibn Taymiyyah, however, does not agree with Qādī Abū Ya‘lā. According to Ibn Taymiyyah, the difference between the downward direction and the other directions is not that the first is limited and the others unlimited, but that the limit in the first is known while the limits in the other five directions are unknown. This is also how Ibn Taymiyyah reconciles the two purported statements of Imam Ahmad. He says the affirmation is an affirmation of limits themselves (i.e. that Allah Himself has limits in all six directions), and the negation is a negation of known limits in the five directions besides the downward direction. He says: “Where he [Ahmad] negated it, he negated a definer defining Him and his knowledge of His hadd, and where he affirmed it, he affirmed it in itself.” (حيث نفاه نفى تحديد الحاد له وعلمه بحده وحيث أثبته أثبته في نفسه).
Ibn Taymiyyah says: “As for what Qadi said of affirming hadd from the direction of ‘Arsh only (faqat)…it is the view of a group of the people that affirm (the attributes), and the majority hold the contrary view and that is correct.” (وأما ما ذكره القاضي في إثبات الحد من جهة العرش فقط فهذا قد اختلف فيه كلامه وهو قول طائفة من أهل الإثبات والجمهور على خلافه وهو الصواب)
What is the contrary view? It is the opposite of what Abū Ya‘lā said that Allah does not have a hadd above, behind, left, right and front. That is, according to Ibn Taymiyyah, Allah does have a hadd in all these directions, but it is just that we do not know what those hadds are.
He also says that the fact the hadd of Allah is not known (as mentioned in Imam Ahmad’s purported statement) shows that the hadd is not limited to the direction of ‘Arsh, as that is known to us! Hence there are hadds in the other directions which we do not know! (ولو كان مراد أحمد رحمه الله الحد من جهة العرش فقط لكان ذلك معلوما لعباده فإنهم قد عرفوا أن حده من هذه الجهة هو العرش فعلم أن الحد الذي لا يعلمونه مطلق لا يختص بجهة العرش)
Hence the clear meaning of Ibn Taymiyyah’s speech is that Allah has hadds from the six physical directions.
This is Ibn Taymiyyah’s view with respect to the self of Allah itself: that it is bounded by limits in the six physical directions (just like every single physical object). However, he does not believe the limited self is contained within creation (i.e. hulūl). The two issues should not be confused.
Scholars of lughah and other sciences, like Rāghib al-Asfahānī clearly defined “jism” as that which has length, breadth and depth. Imam al-Ghazāli defined jism in this way also:
أعني بالجسم عبارة عن مقدار له طول وعرض وعمق يمنع غيره من أن يوجد حيث هو إلا بأن يتنحى عن ذلك المكان
“By jism I mean [something with spatial] measurement of length, breadth and depth, which prevents something else from being present where it is, unless it moves from that place.”
Ibn Taymiyyah affirms that Allah’s self is bounded by limits in the six physical directions which is the very definition of jism. Hence, Ibn Taymiyyah was explicitly promoting tajsīm (corporealism) in this passage.
THIS IS TAKEN FROM HERE
|
|
|
Post by SyedMuhammadIbnAlAfaq on Jun 10, 2017 22:17:02 GMT
Some people have a misunderstanding that this is an insignificant or peripheral issue related to ‘aqīdah. In fact, it is a fundamental issue, in which holding the incorrect view may even amount to kufr as recorded from at least one of the earlier imāms of ‘aqīdah. The Barelwī opinion was espoused by some unknown figures from the early period and some people of knowledge from the later period like al-Sāwī al-Mālikī. However, it is a rejected view on account of its clear opposition to texts of the Sharī‘ah and the explicit statements of the ‘ulamā’.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imām al-Tahāwī says in his famous text on ‘aqīdah:
“The basis of qadr is a secret of Allāh (Exalted is He) in His creation, which neither an angel brought close nor a prophet sent is made aware of.”
Qādi al-Qudāt Sirāj al-Dīn ‘Umar ibn Ishāq al-Ghaznawī (704 – 773 H), a great Hanafī jurist who spent most of his life in Egypt, said in the commentary of this statement: “The intellects of man come short of encompassing the reality of divine wisdoms, and the insights come short of comprehending the lordly secrets, so qadr is from the unseen, the knowledge of which Allāh has taken exclusive possession, and He made it a secret hidden from His creation, which does not become apparent to an angel brought near or a messenger sent.” (Sharh ‘Aqīdat al-Tahāwiyyah, p. 99)
Further, al-Tahāwī says: “For knowledge is two types: a knowledge available to creation and a knowledge unavailable to creation. Denial of available knowledge is disbelief and claiming unavailable knowledge is disbelief.” Ghaznawī comments: “Available knowledge in the universe and creation is knowledge established from obvious signs and manifest evidences like knowledge of the Creator…His purity from the attributes of imperfection…Thus, this knowledge is available to creation so its denial is disbelief. As for unavailable knowledge it is knowledge which Allāh has hidden from His creation like the knowledge of the unseen, the knowledge of which He has taken exclusive possession, like knowledge of [the reality of] qadā and qadr, and the [timing of] the commencement of the Hour, as He (Exalted is He) said: ‘Say: None in the heavens and the earth know the unseen besides Allāh.’ (27:65) And he (Exalted is He) said: ‘None reveals it at its time besides He.’ (7:187). Thus, claiming this knowledge and seeking it is also disbelief, because it is to claim equivalence with Allāh in that of which He has taken exclusive possession.” (p 100)
Hence, this eighth-century Māturīdī imām considers it an act of disbelief to claim that anyone was given knowledge of the precise timing of the Hour.
Allama Ghaznawi declared claiming of the knowledge of which He has taken exclusive possession 'kufr'. He never specifically mentioned the knowledge of the hour. The disagreement is that whether the knowledge of the commencement of the hour is from this type of knowledge or not. If a person believes any this particular thing belongs to this knowledge and still claims it for anyone besides Allah, then that will be declared 'kufr'. But if he disagrees, then claiming it for anyone besides Allah will not be considered 'disbelief'. Imam Razi writes:
Allah says: He does not reveal His secrets to any. Here, Ghayb is not the ordinary unseen, rather, we say that it refers to the time of Qiyamah. This is supported by the fact the verse comes after the verse: I do not know whether that with which you are threatened is near which means that I do not know of the time of Qiyamah by myself. There is no proof in the verse which shows that Allah does not reveal the unseen upon anyone, rather, it means that Allah does not reveal this specific unseen [knowledge of the hour] to anyone except His chosen Messengers.
He continues:
If it is asked that if you have designated the meaning of this verse towards knowledge of the hour, then why does Allah say: Except to whom He chooses as a Messenger, even though He does not reveal this unseen upon any of His Messengers? We reply that near the hour, Allah will reveal it upon them and how can it not be when Allah says: The Day the heaven shall be rent asunder with clouds, and angels shall be sent down, descending in ranks [25:25]. Doubtless, the angels will get to know this knowledge with the commencement of Qiyamah. [Tafsir al-Kabir, v.30, p.168, Egypt]
Allama Taftazani said:
Here, Ghayb is not for generality, rather it is to denote a specific unseen knowledge which, according to the context, is the time of Qiyamah. It is not farfetched that Allah informs some of His Messengers of this; whether they be angelic Messengers or human. [Sharh Maqasid, v.2, p.205, Lahore]
Although I agree that no one besides Allah knows about the knowledge of the commencement of the hour, not even The Prophet (sallAllahu 'alaihi wasallam), I cannot declare anyone 'kafir' due to this. Imam Sayyid Mahmud Alusi writes about the time of Qiyamah:
It is permissible to believe that Allah gave the exact knowledge of the time of Qiyamah to His beloved sallAllahu 'alaihi wasallam but not such that his knowledge is equal to the knowledge of Allah. Due to some wisdom, He made it necessary for the Prophet sallAllahu 'alaihi wasallam to conceal this and this knowledge is specific to the Prophet sallAllahu 'alaihi wasallam though I have not seen any absolute evidence for this. [Tafsir Ruh al- Ma’ani, v.21, p.101, Tehran]
Imam Suyuti said:
Some scholars hold that the Prophet sallAllahu 'alaihi wasallam has been giventhe knowledge of even the five and he knows the time of Qiyamah and of the Soul but has been ordered to conceal this. [Khasa’is al-Kubra, v.2, p.95, Faisalabad]
|
|
|
Post by SyedMuhammadIbnAlAfaq on Jun 1, 2017 20:54:34 GMT
Assalam u alaikum wr Q. Has anyone read the book "Kashf-ul-Mahjoob"?
Is this book seriously written by Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani RA?
No, this book is not written by Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani. It is written by Ali Hijweri.
|
|
|
Post by SyedMuhammadIbnAlAfaq on May 30, 2017 10:25:28 GMT
Sahih Bukhari and Relations between Abu Bakr and Aisha
One of the most made_controversial issue of the early Islamic history is that of the allegedly unsettled row between Sayyidah Fatimah- may Allah be pleased with her- who was daughter of the Holy Prophet –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and Sayyidina Abu Bakr –may Allah be pleased with him- who was the first caliph of Islam.
The narration is found at two places in Sahih Bukhari; First in Kitab al-Maghazi and secondly in Kitab al-Faraidh. In Kitab al-Faraidh the wording is;
الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنْ عُرْوَةَ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ: أَنَّ فَاطِمَةَ وَالعَبَّاسَ عَلَيْهِمَا السَّلاَمُ، أَتَيَا أَبَا بَكْرٍ يَلْتَمِسَانِ مِيرَاثَهُمَا مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، وَهُمَا حِينَئِذٍ يَطْلُبَانِ أَرْضَيْهِمَا مِنْ فَدَكَ، وَسَهْمَهُمَا مِنْ خَيْبَرَ، فَقَالَ لَهُمَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ: سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ: «لاَ نُورَثُ، مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ، إِنَّمَا يَأْكُلُ آلُ مُحَمَّدٍ مِنْ هَذَا المَالِ» قَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ: وَاللَّهِ لاَ أَدَعُ أَمْرًا رَأَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَصْنَعُهُ فِيهِ إِلَّا صَنَعْتُهُ، قَالَ: فَهَجَرَتْهُ فَاطِمَةُ، فَلَمْ تُكَلِّمْهُ حَتَّى مَاتَتْ
Al-Zuhri narrated from ‘Urwa that narrated 'Aisha: Fatima and Al 'Abbas came to Abu Bakr, seeking their share from the property of Allah's Messenger and at that time, they were asking for their land at Fadak and their share from Khaibar. Abu Bakr said to them, " I have heard from Allah's Messenger saying, 'Our property cannot be inherited, and whatever we leave is to be spent in charity, but the family of Muhammad may take their provisions from this property." Abu Bakr added, "By Allah, I will not leave the procedure I saw Allah's Messenger following during his lifetime concerning this property." He said: Therefore Fatima left Abu Bakr and did not speak to him till she died.[1]
Translation and reference is the one commonly used online with the words "He said" added in the translation as required according to the original text.
Point to note, interjecting word قَالَ (i..e He said):
1- The companion narrating is Sayyidah Aisha (RA) and before the words that say Sayyidah Fatima (RA) did not speak to Sayydina Abu Bakr (RA) after that discussion is قال which means "he said" i.e. the person saying is male. It is therefore clear that Sayydah Aisha (RA) is not the one who said it.
2- It cannot be a scribal error for it is so given in multiple sources. Wording of the narration from : i) Sahih Bukhari, is given, other references are; ii) Sahih Muslim, Hadith 4352 iii) Musannaf Abdul Razzaq, Hadith 9774 iv) Mustakhraj/Musnad/Sahih Abu A’wana, Hadith 6679 v) Tarikh al-Tabari vol.3 p.208 vi) Tarikh al-Madina of Ibn Shabbah, vol.1 p.197 Ibn Shabbah's narration has a very interesting and important variation that I will mention and highlight below. vii) Sunan al-Kubra of al-Baihaqi, Hadith 12732
If someone disagrees with this, he must explain the word قَالَ in all these instances.
3- If at some places the narrations give the wording in question about the alleged unsorted row are given without قال "He said" (as in other instance of Bukhari) then only reasonable proposition is that they were dropped by some narrator in between. Dropping of some interjecting words is fathomable but addition of the same by multiple narrators is not, while they are all considered reliable.
In his wonderful academic work in Urdu -Ruhama-u-Baynahum- written in very friendly and non-inflammatory tone Maulana Muhammad Nafi' after referring to 15 different works of Hadith and history has stated that, he found 36 narrations with the mention of Sayyidah Fatimah's (RA) question for what she initially understood as her right from Abu Bakr (RA). 11 of those 36 that are narrated from companions other than Aisha (RA) and do not involve Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri as a narrator. None of those 11 has any word about the anger of Sayyidah Fatimah (RA). Out of the 25 that come from 'Aisha (RA) through al-Zuhri alone, 9 are such that have no indication of the kind either. The remaining 16 do have the words under consideration but as said all these come through one narrator Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri. Out of these 16, there are 6 that clearly have the قال i.e. "He said" thing mentioned above.[2]
(He said 6 and I have enumerated 7 above because the 15 hadith collections he has considered do not include Tarikh al-Madina of Ibn Shabbah)
Shia reference for the narration with قَالَ (i..e He said) word:
In fact as the word قَالَ (i..e He said) at the specific place in the narration under consideration is there even in a Shia work, See, Sharah Nahaj al-Balaghah of Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Dar al-Jeel, Beirut, 1996 vol.8 Part. 16 p.218 .
Significance and further elaboration:
For this reason, asserts Maulana Muhammad Nafi’, it is apparent that these words were actually uttered by Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri and significance of this lies in the fact that he was not there when the whole issue came up. In fact he was born many years later. The reason to attribute these words to al-Zuhri is the fact of him being known to add comments of his own the narrations he reported, as pointed out by many scholars of note. Whether it is him or anyone else does not question the basic reality of the person saying these words being a male which in turn signifies that he was not even born when all those things happened.
4- The above understanding can be further strengthened by seeing the flow of wording and placement of the interjecting words like “He said” in the narration of Al-Tabari.
The narration from Tarikh al-Tabari is same as in Bukhari and in the same work it comes with that "he said" thing. In fact careful analysis of it only proves what we earlier mentioned. Here is the actual Arabic text;
حدثنا أبو صالح الضراري، قال: حدثنا عبد الرزاق بن همام، عن معمر، عن الزهري، عن عروة، عن عائشة، أن فاطمة والعباس أتيا أبا بكر يطلبان ميراثهما من رسول الله ص، وهما حينئذ يطلبان أرضه من فدك، وسهمه من خيبر، فقال لهما أبو بكر: أما انى سمعت رسول الله يقول: [لا نورث، ما تركنا فهو صدقة، إنما يأكل آل محمد في هذا المال] وإني والله لا أدع أمرا رأيت رسول الله يصنعه إلا صنعته قال: فهجرته فاطمة فلم تكلمه في ذلك حتى ماتت، فدفنها علي ليلا، ولم يؤذن بها أبا بكر وكان لعلي وجه من الناس حياة فاطمة، فلما توفيت فاطمة انصرفت وجوه الناس عن علي، فمكثت فاطمة ستة أشهر بعد رسول الله ص، ثم توفيت. قال معمر: فقال رجل للزهري: أفلم يبايعه علي ستة أشهر! قال: لا، ولا أحد من بني هاشم، حتى بايعه علي قال لا، ولا أحد من بني هاشم
'Aishah (said): Fatimah and al-Abbas came to Abu Bakr demanding their share of inheritance of the Messenger of God. They were demanding the Messenger of God’s land in Fadak and his share of Khaybar’s tribute. Abu Bakr replied, “I have heard the Messenger of God say, “Our, i.e. the prophets’ property cannot be inherited and whatever we leave behind is alms to be given in charity. The family of Muhammad will eat from it. By God, I will not abandon a course which I saw the Messenger of god practicing, but will continue it accordingly. He said: Fatimah shunned him and did not speak to him about it until she died. Ali buried her at night and did not permit Abu Bakr to attend her burial. While Fatimah was alive, Ali held respect among the people. After she died their attention turned away form him. Ma'mar: A man asked al-Zuhri, “Did Ali not give his oath of allegiance for six months?” He said: “No, nor anyone of the Banu Hashim until Ali rendered his,”[3]
Now this actually supports all we saw earlier about the words "He said" in Sahih Bukhari etc. Just as the last words were uttered by al-Zuhri the earlier words after "he said" are also from al-Zuhri as they are for a surety not of Aisha (RA) as she cannot be referred to as "He". The words in blue even help us know that it was actually al-Zuhri's statement to which someone mentioned by Ma'mar sought his clarity about.
The meaning of the words in question:
Besides the question on the identity of the one who uttered the words “Therefore Fatima left Abu Bakr and did not speak to him till she died” another important question is about the meaning of these words; Does this mean Sayyidah Fatima never spoke to Sayyidina Abu Bakr at all or was it only about the particular topic?
Narrations from Sahih Bukhari etc. do not clarify this point and without the clarification one tends to believe it was general. Other narrations however evidently prove it was said about only the particular issue of share in inheritance.
The wording in;
1) Tarikh al-Tabari,
2) Musannaf Abdul Razzaq (Hadith, 9774), and
3) Sahih Abu A’wana (Hadith 6679), goes as:
فَلَمْ تُكَلِّمْهُ فِي ذَلِكَ حَتَّى مَاتَتْ
"And she (Fatimah- RA) did not talk to him (Abu Bakr -RA) about it until she died."
Strangely, even Maulana Muhammad Nafi’ somehow did not notice this interesting fact.
The wording of the narration in Tarikh al-Madina of Ibn Shabbah (d. 228 A.H.) is even more interesting and categorical;
عن الزهري، عن عروة، عن عائشة رضي الله عنها، أن فاطمة، والعباس رضي الله عنهما أتيا أبا بكر رضي الله عنه يلتمسان ميراثهما من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، وهما حينئذ يطلبان أرضه من فدك، وسهمه من خيبر فقال لهما أبو بكر رضي الله عنه: إني سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول: «لا نورث، ما تركنا صدقة، إنما يأكل آل محمد من هذا المال» ، وإني والله لا أغير أمرا رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يصنعه إلا صنعته. قال: فهجرته فاطمة رضي الله عنها، فلم تكلمه في ذلك المال حتى ماتت
Al-Zuhri narrated from Urwa' that 'Aisha narrated: Fatima and 'Abbas came to Abu Bakr, seeking their share from the property of Allah's Messenger and at that time, they were asking for their land at Fadak and their share from Khaibar. Abu Bakr said to them, " I have heard from Allah's Messenger -on him be the peace and blessings of Allah- saying, 'Our property cannot be inherited, and whatever we leave is to be spent in charity, but the family of Muhammad may take their provisions from this property." Abu Bakr added, "By Allah, I will not change the procedure I saw Allah's Messenger -on him be the peace and blessings of Allah- following (during his lifetime concerning this property)." He said: Therefore Fatima left Abu Bakr and did not speak to him about this property till she died.[4]
With all the details about the narrations from al-Zuhri mentioned above, this narration takes away whatever little effect his reports had left at least on the issue of alleged unsettled row. This means Sayyidah Fatima (RA) did not speak to Abu Bakr (RA) only on the particular topic thereafter till her death.
Narrations that prove the issue was amicably resolved:
1- Following report from Musnad Ahmad is very important;
عن أبي الطفيل، قال لما قبض رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أرسلت فاطمة إلى أبي بكر: أنت ورثت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، أم أهله؟ قال: فقال: لا، بل أهله. قالت: فأين سهم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم؟ قال: فقال أبو بكر: إني سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول: " إن الله عز وجل، إذا أطعم نبيا طعمة، ثم قبضه جعله للذي يقوم من بعده " فرأيت أن أرده على المسلمين. قالت: فأنت، وما سمعت من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أعلم
Narrated Abu Tufail (RA), when the Messenger of Allah -on him be the peace and blessings of Allah- died, Fatimah sent a message to Abu Bakr; 'Are you the heir of the Messenger of Allah or his family? He said: 'His family.' She said, 'So where is the share of the Messenger of Allah -peace and blessings of Allah be upon him?' Abu Bakr said: "I have heard the Messenger of Allah (saaw) saying, 'Verily when Almighty Allah feeds the Prophet (i.e. provides a source for sustenance for him) and then causes him to die, it is for his successors to manage it after him.' Therefore I wish to distribute it among Muslims." She said, 'You are more knowledgeable of what you have heard from the Messenger of Allah."[5]
Narrations to the fact that Prophets do not leave material property as inheritance are found in Shia sources as well and reported by "Infallible Imams"
One wonders about the words of Abu Bakr (RA) to the effect that that family of the Prophet (saaw) is actually his heir and yet his refusal to give ownership to them. Considering the essence of the issue Abu Bakr (RA) might have said this for his knowledge and handling of the issue. What he meant was that what was reserved for the Prophet (saaw) cannot become property of his family after him though they can benefit from it. Another narration says;
Narrated 'Aisha:Fatima and 'Abbas came to Abu Bakr, claiming their inheritance of the Prophet's land of Fadak and his share from Khaibar. Abu Bakr said, "I heard the Prophet saying, 'Our property is not inherited, and whatever we leave is to be given in charity. But the family of Muhammad can take their sustenance from this property.' By Allah, I would love to do good to the Kith and kin of Allah's Messenger rather than to my own Kith and kin."[6]
Also the following narration says it all;
Ali ibn Abu Tali said: I divided it (one fifth of the booty) during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). Abu Bakr then assigned it to me. During the last days of the caliphate of Umar a good deal of property came to him.”[7]
The report is completed in Sunan Abu Dawud where it continues as; “and Umar took out our portion. I said to him: We are well to do this year; but the Muslims are needy, so return it to them. He, therefore, returned it to them ...”[8]
This shows that even though Abu Bakr (RA) according to the Prophetic instruction did not divide the said property to his family he left it with them to manage it as they did it during the life of the Prophet (saaw).
The key point in the narration of Musnad Ahmad is that Sayyidah Fatima (RA) on listening to the hadith from Abu Bakr (RA) said:
'You are more knowledgeable of what you have heard from the Messenger of Allah."
This shows she was satisfied as she learnt that what Abu Bakr (RA) held was on the basis of the saying of the Lawgiver himself- on him be the peace of blessings of Allah.
Narration of Ibn Sa'd through al-Waqidi:
Some people also allude to a narration from Tabaqat al-Kubra of Ibn Sa’d.
“Fatimah came to Abu Bakr and demanded her share in the inheritance. Al-Abbas came to him and demanded his share in the inheritance. Ali came with them. Thereupon Abu Bakr said, "The Apostle of God said, "We leave no inheritance, what we leave behind us is sadaqah." I shall make provisions for those for whom the Prophet had made." [2] On this Ali said, "Sulayman (Solomon) inherited Dawud (David),[Quran 27:16] and Zakariya said, ‘He may be my heir and the heir of the children of Yaqab (Zachariah and John the Baptist) ’"[Quran 19:6]. Abu Bakr said, "This is as this is. By God! You know it as I know." Thereupon Ali said, "This is the Book of God that speaks." Then they became quiet and retired.”[9]
The narration comes through Muhammad bin Umar al-Waqidi whose narrations are generally not acceptable as he is graded as extremely weak and even charged of lying. For a detailed discussion about him, see the article by Syed Suleman Nadwi. HERE: www.letmeturnthetables.com/2012/01/muhammad-ibn-umar-waqidi-narrator.html
Teh narration of diraya also comes under doubt because it is hard to believe that Sayydina Ali (RA) would have referred to those two verses for material inheritance when they clearly relate to knowledge and prophethood (We defer the discussion on the verses for some other.)
Anyways even if accepted it only proves the conversation once ended there. There are other narrations that prove the later reconciliation. If we take all these together it will mean that perhaps after some deliberation thereafter the issue was resolved.
Categorical narrations on agreement:
In the same work of Ibn Sa'd, Tabaqat al-Kubra, there is also the following clear narration through much reliable chain;
أخبرنا عبد الله بن نمير. حدثنا إسماعيل عن عامر قال: جاء أبو بكر إلى فاطمة حين مرضت فاستأذن فقال علي: هذا أبو بكر على الباب فإن شئت أن تأذني له. قالت وذلك أحب إليك؟ قال: نعم. فدخل عليها واعتذر إليها وكلمها فرضيت عنه.
(Ibn Sa'd writes) Abdullah bin Numayr informed us- Ismail (bin Abi Khalid) narrated from 'Amir (al-Sha'bi) who said: Abu Bakr came to Fatima when she was ill and asked for permission to see her. Ali said, 'This is Abu Bakr on the door, if you (O Fatima) allow him (to enter). She said (to Ali); 'And you like me to (permit)? Ali said: 'Yes' Abu Bakr entered (and came to her) and pleaded with her and talked to her, therefore she became pleased with him.[10]
Following is another categorical narration about the eventual agreement.
عَنِ الشَّعْبِيِّ قَالَ: لَمَّا مَرِضَتْ فَاطِمَةُ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهَا أَتَاهَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ الصِّدِّيقُ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ فَاسْتَأْذَنَ عَلَيْهَا، فَقَالَ عَلِيٌّ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ: يَا فَاطِمَةُ، هَذَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ يَسْتَأْذِنُ عَلَيْكِ، فَقَالَتْ: أَتُحِبُّ أَنْ آذَنَ لَهُ؟ قَالَ: نَعَمْ، فَأَذِنَتْ لَهُ , فَدَخَلَ عَلَيْهَا يَتَرَضَّاهَا وَقَالَ: " وَاللهِ مَا تَرَكْتُ الدَّارَ وَالْمَالَ وَالْأَهْلَ وَالْعَشِيرَةَ إِلَّا ابْتِغَاءَ مَرْضَاةِ اللهِ وَمَرْضَاةِ رَسُولِهِ وَمَرْضَاتِكُمْ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ "، ثُمَّ تَرَضَّاهَا حَتَّى رَضِيَتْ
Narrated al-Sha'bi: When Fatima became ill, Abu Bakr came to her and asked for permission to enter (and see her). So Ali said, ‘O Fatima, this is Abu Bakr asking for permission to enter.’ She replied, ‘Do you want me allow him?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ So she allowed him (to enter), and he came in seeking her pleasure, so he told her: ‘By Allah, I left my home and property and my family seeking the pleasure of Allah and His Messenger and you, O Ahlul Bayt.’ So he talked to her to please her until she was pleased with him.[11]
Another narration of the same import is recorded in Riyadh al-Nadhra of Muhib al-Tabari with reference to Ibn al-Saman's work 'Kitab al-Mawafiqah'
Narration from Shia sources proving agreement:
Here is an excerpt from Sharah Nahaj al-Balagha of Maitham bin Ali bin Maitham al-Bahrani (d. 679 A.H.).
ان لك ما لابيك كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه و اله ياخذ من فدك قوتكم و يقسم الباقى و يحمل منه فى سبيل الله، و لك على الله ان اصنع بها كما كان يصنع. فرضيت بذلك و اخذت العهد عليه به
(Abu Bakr -RA- said to Fatima- RA): "You have the same rights as your father had. The Messenger of Allah -on him be the peace and blessings of Allah used to take provision for you from Fadak and used to distribute the rest and arrange for his ride (from it to use) in the same. I give you my word in the name of Allah that I will do as he (the Prophet) did. So she became pleased with him and had his word on this."[12]
Summary and Conclusion:
Narrations from other Sahaba e.g. Abu Tufail's (RA) narration from Musnad Ahmad given above, show Sayyidah Fatima (RA) agreed when Abu Bakr (RA) told her the saying of the Prophet (saaw) for his contention on the issue. Narrations from Sunan al-Kubra of al-Baihaqi etc. categorically show that the issue was easily resolved.
As to the wording in Sahih Bukhari etc. we come to understand that they were actually uttered by al-Zuhri and with the above stated statistics about al-Zuhri's narrations and other reports it becomes clear that they cannot be taken as people often take.
Moreover, the narration from Ibn Shabbah etc. makes it clear that there was no talk only on the subject i.e. Sayyidah Fatima (RA) gave up asking for it as she learnt the basis of Abu Bakr's (RA) view. This is even supported by the fact that the management of the Fadak was handed over to Ahlal Bayt only as was the case during the time of the Prophet (saaw).
So the gist is the issue was amicably resolved and the Sayyidah (RA) died pleased with Abu Bakr (RA).
Indeed Allah knows the best!
References
[1] Sahih Bukhari Book 88, Hadith 718
[2] Ruhama-u-Baynahum, Makkah Books, Lahore, n.d. vol.1 pp. 126-13
[3] Tarikh al-tabari, Dar al-Turath, Beirut, 1387 A.H. vol.3 pp.207-208
[4] Ibn Shabbah, Tarikh al-Madina. Syed Habib Mahmud Ahmad, Jeddah, 1399 A.H. vol.1 p.197
[5] Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 14. Classified as Sahih by Ahmad Shakir
[6] Sahih Bukhari, Book 59, Hadith 368
[7] Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 646. Classified as Hasan by Ahmad Shakir
[8] Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 2978
[9] Wikipedia, Hadith of Muhammad's inheritance, citing “The Book of the Major Classes, Volume 2, page 393” Last Accessed on October 13, 2012 11:57 am GMT
[10] Tabqat al-Kubra, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, Beirut 1990 vol.8 p.22
[11] Sunan al-Kubra of al-Baihaqi, Hadith 12735. Imam al-Baihaqi after giving the narration comments that it is Mursal Sahih.
[12] Sharah Nahaj al-Balaghah by Maitham al-Bahrani.
|
|
|
Post by SyedMuhammadIbnAlAfaq on May 29, 2017 21:05:11 GMT
AsSalaamo alaikom honored scholars and fear brothers. I feel a discourse on the very often used thaqalayn hadeeth is missing in our forum. Is there a hadith saying Qur'aan and ahlul bait? Is it authentic? Answer to your question is discussed in the following article: Hadith al-Thaqalayn: The Two Weighty Things Introduction
The six major books of Hadith are referred to as the Sihah Sittah. Two of them, known collectively as the Sahihayn (Bukhari and Muslim), contain mostly Sahih (authentic) narrations. However, the other four contain a mixed bag, with Hadith ranging from Dhaeef (weak) to Sahih (authentic).
As for the Hadith al-Thaqalayn, it is narrated in two different versions. One of these versions is considered Sahih (authentic) and part of the Sahihayn. The other version, however, is considered Dhaeef (weak) and is not a part of the Sahihayn.
Dhaeef (Weak) Version
The weak version is as follows:
“I have left with you something, which if you strictly adhere to, you shall never go astray–The Book of Allah and my progeny.”
This version has been narrated in Sunan Tirmidhi and is classed as Dhaeef (weak). Even though Imam Tirmidhi included it in his book, he himself did not consider it Sahih (authentic) and referred to it as Ghareeb (i.e. strange in its content and not widely recognized). A similar version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn can be found in Musnad Ahmad, but it too is classed as Dhaeef.
This version of the Hadith does not have any valid chains of transmission. Some of the narrators of this version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn were openly known to be Shia, such as Ali ibn al-Munzir al-Koofiy, Mohammed ibn Fudhayl, and Atiyyah Al Awfi. It is an established principle in the Hadith sciences that a narrator is rejected if the content of the narrative is peculiar to a particular deviant school of thought if it is narrated by a deviant who ascribes to such a school of thought (Al-Kifaayah fi `ilm al-Riwaayah).
In other words, a Shia narrator cannot possibly be accepted on issues related to the Sunni-Shia divide. This version of the Hadith, found in Sunan Tirmidhi, was narrated via persons who were openly Shia and therefore such a narration cannot serve as a proof. It is a well-known fact that the Shia claim that Ali ibn Abi Talib (رضّى الله عنه) was nominated to be the Caliph by Prophet Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) at Ghadir Khumm; because of this belief, the Shia have propagated many false reports with regards to what was said at Ghadir Khumm, including what was said by the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) in regards to al-Thaqalayn. It is therefore not surprising that the modern day Shia can point to many narrations in support of Shia claims, because these reports were forged by Shia themselves; these Hadith are Dhaeef (weak). The reader might wonder why these reports can be found in Sunni books, but such a wondering is based on ignorance of the Sunni science of Hadith: narrations are recorded and only afterwards graded for authenticity. The only two books which contain “pre-screened” Hadith are Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim (i.e. the Sahihayn), neither of which record this version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn.
Let us examine the chain of transmission for this version of the Hadith as found in Sunan Tirmidhi and Musnad Ahmad.
*The first chain of narrators, as reported by Tirmidhi, includes:
Nasr ibn Abd al-Rahmaan al-Koofi - Zayd ibn al-Hasan al-Anmaatiy - Ja`fer ibn Mohammed - Mohammed ibn Ali ibn Hussain…
The second person in the chain is Zayd ibn al-Hasan. Zahabiy in his book “Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal” has quoted Abu Haatim as saying that Zayd is ‘Munkir al-Hadith’ - i.e. Zayd narrates repudiated and abominable narratives. Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Hajar has considered him to be Dhaeef - i.e. a weak or an unreliable narrator (Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb). Even Tirmidhi, who has reported the said narrative, does not consider it to be ‘Sahih’. On the contrary, Tirmidhi, in his comments says that the Hadith is Ghareeb - i.e. strange in its content and not widely recognized.
*The second chain of narrators, as reported in Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal is:
Al-Aswad ibn `aamir - Shareek ibn Abd Allah ibn Abi Shareek - Al-Rakeen ibn al-Rabiy` — Al-Qaasim ibn Hassaan - Zayd ibn Thaabit…
The second person in this chain is Shareek ibn Abd Allah ibn Abi Shareek. Yahya ibn Sa`eed has considered him ‘extremely unreliable’ (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Mohammed ibn Yahya says that his father said: ‘I have noticed confusion in Shareek’s principles’ (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Abd al-Jabbaar ibn Mohammed says that once he asked Yahya ibn Sa`eed whether Shareek had become confused in his last days, to which Yahya ibn Sa`eed replied: “He (i.e. Shareek) was always confused” (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Ibn al-Mubaarak says: ‘Narratives of Shareek are worthless’ (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Juzjaaniy says: ‘[Shareek had a] faulty memory, [was] confused [in] narrating, [was] prejudiced’ (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Ibraheem ibn Sa`eed al-Jauhariy says: ‘Shareek committed mistakes in four hundred narratives’ (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Ibn Mu`een says: ‘When Shareek’s narratives contradict with someone else’s, the other person is preferable to me’ (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal).
The fourth person in this chain is Al-Qaasim ibn Hassaan. Bukhari says: ‘His narratives are Munkar (i.e. repudiated and abominable) and nothing is known about him’ (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Ibn al-Qattaan says: ‘nothing is known about him’ (Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb).
Musnad Ahmad also has a chain with Atiyyah Al Awfi from Abu Sa’id Al Khudri, and we discuss below how `Atiyyah was a Shia.
*The third chain of narrators as reported in Tirmidhi is:
Ali ibn al-Munzir al-Koofiy - Mohammed ibn Fudhayl - Al-A`mash - `Atiyyah - Abu Sa`eed.
The first, second, and fourth narrator in this chain (i.e. Ali ibn al-Munzir al-Koofiy, Mohammed ibn Fudhayl, and Atiyyah) are all known to be Shia. Based on this alone, the narration can be disregarded. Besides this, Mohammed ibn Fudhayl is also criticized by Ibn al-Mubarak as not being approved of by his contemporaries. (Dhu`afaa al-`Uqayliy). Moreover, Mohammed ibn Sa`d has said that ‘his narratives are not considered by many to be evidence of a true saying of the Prophet’ (Siyar A`laam al-Nubalaa).
The fourth narrator in this chain is Atiyyah. Shaikh Al Islam states regarding him in his Taqrib: “He was a Shia and a concealer.” Imam Dhahabi states regarding him in his Mizan Al I’tidal: “he was Dhaeef (i.e. unreliable).” Yahya ibn Mu`een considers him to be Dhaeef - i.e. unreliable (Al-Kaamil fi al-Dhu`afaa). Ahmad ibn Hanbal says that he incorrectly ascribes narratives that he hears from al-Kalabiy to Abu Sa`eed (Al-Kaamil fi al-Dhu`afaa). The same thing is reported by Ibn Hibbaan (Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb). Ahmad ibn Hanbal says that Sufiyaan al-Thauriy considered him unreliable (Al-Kaamil fi al-Dhu`afaa). Ibn Hajar says that he commits a lot of mistakes (Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb). Al-Nasaaiy and ibn Hibbaan consider him to be unreliable (Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb). Abu Dawood says: ‘He cannot be trusted’ (Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb).
Besides these three chains, all other chains of narration of this version of the narrative include one or more of those narrators who have been strongly criticized by scholars of Hadith. It is in fact abundantly clear that this version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is weak and therefore cannot serve as a proof.
Sahih (Authentic) Version
The more reliable version of Hadith al-Thaqlayn–and the one narrated in the Sahihayn–is as follows:
“I am going to leave with you two heavy burdens. The first of them is the Book of Allah: in it is the true guidance and the light. Therefore, hold fast to it.” Then he (the Prophet) prompted and induced the Muslims to adhere to the Book of God. Then he said: “And my household. I remind you of Allah in matters relating to my household. I remind you of Allah in matters relating to my household. I remind you of Allah in matters relating to my household.”
This version has been reported (with very minor variations, if any) in Sahih Muslim, Musnad Ahmad, Sunan Daarimiy, and others. In Sahih Muslim #5922, we also find that the following was said: “The Book of Allah contains right guidance, the light, and whoever adheres to it and holds it fast, he is upon right guidance and whosoever deviates from it goes astray.”
A similar narration has been accepted by the Shia, such as the following:
Al-Islam.org says:
“The Prophet replied: “One of them is the Book of Allah and the other one is my select progeny (Itrat), that is family (Ahlul-Bayt). Beware of how you behave (with) them when I am gone from amongst you, for Allah, the Merciful, has informed me that these two (i.e., Quran and Ahlul-Bayt) shall never separate from each other until they reach me in Heaven at the Pool (of al-Kawthar). I remind you, in the name of Allah, about my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you, in the name of Allah, about my Ahlul-Bayt. Once more! I remind you, in the name of Allah, about my Ahlul-Bayt.
References: - A’alam al-Wara, pp 132-133 source: www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter3/2.html ”
It should be noted that this version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is accepted by the Shia to be the most authentic one, and it is in fact narrated in A’alam al-Wara (pp.132-133) by “Amin al-Islam” al-Tabrisi, the great Shia author who wrote Majma` al-Bayan.
The perceptive reader will notice that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) says that in the Quran is guidance and it is a light which we should hold fast to without which we will go astray. It can be inferred from this that the Quran is a source of deriving our religion from. On the other hand, when the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) talks about his family, he says only “I remind you of my family”. In the version used by the Shia website above, we even read the words quite clearly: “Beware of how you behave with them…” And in another version, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) uses the words “how you treat them after me.”
Therefore, the Hadith al-Thaqalayn is in reference to taking care of (and behaving with) the Prophet’s family after his death, and it cannot be construed in the Shia manner at all. While the Quran is referred to as a source of guidance and light, this is not the case for the Ahlel Bayt, which is not referred to as a source of religion. The Hadith only directs the Muslims to refrain from adopting an uncalled for attitude towards them or a disrespectful behavior towards them.
If the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) really meant what the Shia are implying, then the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) should have said something like “follow the Quran and my Ahly Bayt, the light and guidance”, instead of saying: “…The Quran, which is the light of guidance…and I remind you of my family…”
Shaikh Faraz Rabbani’s student Sidi Salman Younas says:
"It is important to note what Thaqalayn means. It is the dual form of Thaql. Thaql means “weight”, “burden”, and “heavy”. Obviously, Thaql has a general connotation of a weight which burdens and elicits responsibility. Out of all the definitions of Thaql and its various forms and their various explications, “important” or “importance” is not one of them. “Importance” would be an inference at most, but definitely not a definition. Even if Thaql is to be understood as “important” it must be understood that it is an importance regarding its characteristic of eliciting responsibility, burden and cumber rather than being momentous and splendid. Obviously, Thaql and its various forms unanimously allude to burden, responsibility and cumber."
Context of the Hadith
It is impossible to discuss the Hadith al-Thaqalayn without first understanding the specific context in which the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said what he said. This is a general rule of thumb pertaining to the Islamic canon as a whole: it is important to know the background in which a Quranic verse was revealed or a certain Hadith was said.
For example, the Quranic verse “slay them wherever you find them” is often used by Orientalists to wrongfully make it appear as if Islam advocates the slaying of people wherever you find them all the time. Of course, if we look at when this verse was revealed, we find that it was specifically revealed during a battle between the Muslims and the Quraish Mushriks; this makes us realize that it is not a general ruling to slay people but rather it was a verse revealed in a specific situation.
Likewise, Hadith al-Thaqalayn was revealed in a certain context and this background is important to understand if we want to see what the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) meant when he said what he said. First off, the Hadith about following Quran and Sunnah was said by the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) in front of the larger gathering during his Farewell Sermon atop Mount Arafat. However, the Hadith al-Thaqalayn (i.e. Quran and Ahlel Bayt) was not said during the Farewell Sermon; instead, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said the Hadith al-Thaqalayn in front of the smaller gathering of people at a place called Ghadir Khumm, a half-way point to Medinah. It was directed only towards those living in Medinah, because the Prophet’s family lived in Medinah and therefore the task of taking care of them would fall upon their shoulders.
If Hadith al-Thaqalayn meant what the Shia imply, then surely the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) would have said it in front of all the Muslims during his Farewell Sermon. Instead, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) only said this to those living in the same city as his family, again implying that what he meant was to take care of them. And perhaps the biggest proof is the fact that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said the Hadith al-Thaqalayn during his speech at Ghadir Khumm. For those of our readers who have not read our article on Ghadir Khumm, we strongly urge them to read it now: The Sunni Position on Ghadir Kumm.
As we have shown in that article, a group of soldiers were harshly criticizing Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and complaining about him to the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) at the place of Ghadir Khumm. (Please read that article for details and references.) It was in response to this hatred, abuse, and disrespect towards Ali (رضّى الله عنه) that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) found it necessary to defend his family in the Hadith al-Thaqalayn. This serves as a very strong proof that the meaning behind the Prophet’s words were not about deriving religion from the Ahlel Bayt but rather about behaving with them, taking care of them, honoring them, respecting them, etc.
Analyzing Weak Hadith
Sometimes the Shia will insist that we accept the weak versions of Hadith al-Thaqalayn. Even if we were to do that, then we must view those Hadith in light of the authentic Hadith. For example, often the Shia will use these weak versions of the Hadith:
“I have left with you something, which if you strictly adhere to, you shall never go astray–The Book of Allah and my progeny.” or “I leave you two weighty things, if you stick to both you will never go astray after me: the Book of Allah and my progeny.” or other similar versions.
In this case, we understand that the words “sticking to” or “adhering to” or “holding onto” refers to loving them, respecting them, honoring them, etc. This is the interpretation of that, and this is based on (1) the authentic Hadith al-Thaqalayn, and (2) the context in which the Hadith was said (i.e. a group of soldiers were criticizing, disrespecting, and hating Ali).
The Shia argue that since we are told to “adhere to” the Quran and Ahlel Bayt, then we must adhere to them in the same fashion since the same word is used for both. However, this is a hasty assumption: we should adhere to them in their own respective ways that is appropriate and fitting for each. One could easily imagine an Imam saying “adhere to the Quran and the believing people.” This would mean obey the Quran and look for it as a book of guidance, as well as befriend and love the believers. It would not, however, mean equating the believers as a source of Allah’s Words. Furthermore, the problem rests mostly in English translations which do not account for the dynamic nature of the Arabic language.
In any case, no authentic Hadith words it in this way (“Hold onto both and you will never go astray”), but rather the Hadith which are worded like this are narrated from Shia and other unreliable people. The strong and authentic versions of the Hadith state it in two clauses: “…The Quran, which is the light of guidance…and I remind you of my family…” And to serve as the strongest proof against the Shia, then we look at their own website which shows what they themselves consider to be the most authentic version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn, as narrated in A’alam al-Wara (pp.132-133) by “Amin al-Islam” al-Tabrisi, the great Shia author who wrote Majma` al-Bayan:
Al-Islam.org says
“The Prophet replied: “One of them is the Book of Allah and the other one is my select progeny (Itrat), that is family (Ahlul-Bayt). Beware of how you behave (with) them when I am gone from amongst you, for Allah, the Merciful, has informed me that these two (i.e., Quran and Ahlul-Bayt) shall never separate from each other until they reach me in Heaven at the Pool (of al-Kawthar). I remind you, in the name of Allah, about my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you, in the name of Allah, about my Ahlul-Bayt. Once more! I remind you, in the name of Allah, about my Ahlul-Bayt…
References: - A’alam al-Wara, pp 132-133 source: www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter3/2.html ”
Shia Rejection of the Thaqalayn
Inspite of their vociferous slogans claiming adherence to the two weighty things, the Shia are in reality the worst and vilest deniers of the Quran and Ahlel Bayt. Even though the Shia accept parts of the Quran, they deny other parts of it. And even though the Shia accept parts of the Ahlel Bayt, they deny other parts of it. This attitude is in marked contrast to the mainstream Muslims (i.e. Sunnis), who accept all of the Quran and all of the Ahlel Bayt.
Despite the vehement denials by the Shia polemicists, many classical Shia scholars have held the opinion that the Quran has been tampered with by the Sahabah who supposedly eliminated those verses of the Quran relating to the Wilayah of Ali (رضّى الله عنه). We shall show in future articles how Tahreef (i.e. tampering of the Quran) has been a doctrine that finds much support in the core of Shia texts. In this way, the Shia have disregarded and maligned the Book of Allah, classifying it as an adulterated book much like the Torah and Bible, or at least holding in high regards those classical scholars who held such a position. Therefore, whenever the Shia polemicists mention the Hadith al-Thaqalayn, we urge our readers to remind them of their many narrations about Tahreef which can be found in their books, which will hopefully show them that they have abandoned the stronger Thaql.
As for the Ahlel Bayt, the Shia have abandoned many parts of the Prophetic family. The Shia reject Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) and Hafsa (رضّى الله عنها), who are definitely part of the Ahlel Bayt. They also reject the very existence of three of the Prophet’s daughters, namely Zaynub (رضّى الله عنها), Ruqayyah (رضّى الله عنها), and Umm Kulthoom (رضّى الله عنها). The Shia have selected a very small portion of the Prophet’s descendants to be part of the Ahlel Bayt, denying that the Prophet’s paternal uncle (Abbaas) and his children are a part of the Prophetic family. They deny that the Prophet’s cousin, Zubair (رضّى الله عنه), is part of the Ahlel Bayt. The Shia also denounce Ibrahim bin Musa Kaazim (رحمه الله) and Jafar bin Musa Kaazim (رحمه الله), referring to the latter as Kadhab (the Liar) even though he was a very noble Muslim beloved by the Ahlus Sunnah. And then there is the brother of Hasan al-Askari (رحمه الله), whose name was Jafar bin Ali (رحمه الله); because Jafar bin Ali (رحمه الله) denied the existence of Hasan al-Askari’s son, the Shia have similarly branded him as Kadhab (the Liar). Among others of the Ahlel Bayt who have been abandoned by the Shia include: Ibrahim Bin Abdullah (رحمه الله), Zakariyyah Bin Muhammad Baaqir (رحمه الله), Muhammad Bin Abdullah Bin Hussein Bin Hasan (رحمه الله), Muhammad Bin Qaasim Bin Hasan (رحمه الله), Yahya Bin Umar (رحمه الله), and many others from amongst the Prophet’s progeny.
On the other hand, the Sunnis accept and revere all parts of the Ahlel Bayt, including the eleven Imams of the Shia. Whereas the Shia hate Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) and Hafsa (رضّى الله عنها)–and deny the existence of three of the Prophet’s daughters–the Sunnis love the entire Ahlel Bayt, including Ali (رضّى الله عنه), Fatima (رضّى الله عنها), Hasan (رضّى الله عنه), and Hussain (رضّى الله عنه). While it may be true that the Shia have done a fantastic job of idolizing these four individuals and their other Imams, they have abandoned other parts of the Ahlel Bayt and have therefore only taken care of part of this Taql. Meanwhile, the Sunnis have revered all sections of the Ahlel Bayt; being a Shia means loving a part of the Ahlel Bayt to excess and hating other parts of it. Being a Sunni means loving all parts and segments of the Ahlel Bayt. This is the only difference between the Sunni and Shia when it comes to the love for the lesser Thaql.
Acquiring Knowledge from the Ahle Bayt
While it is clear that Hadith al-Thaqalayn has to do with loving and behaving with the Prophet’s family, the Shia will insist that it refers to taking knowledge from them. Even if this is the case, the Sunnis have always used the knowledge of the Ahlel Bayt. Ali (رضّى الله عنه), the Prophet’s cousin, was the vizier of the first Three Caliphs, and his input on religious matters was invaluable; he was also a rightly guided Caliph who is emulated by the Sunnis. Aisha (رضّى الله عنها), the Prophet’s wife, was an Aalimah who taught many Sahabah. As for the rest of the Imams of the Shia, they were all Sunnis in reality and Aalims. Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (رحمه الله)–whom the Shia consider to be the fifth Imam–was the Shaikh of Imam Abu Hanifa (رحمه الله), and the Hanafi Madhab is the most popular Madhab amongst Sunnis! And Imam Abu Hanifa (رحمه الله) also attended many lectures of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq (رحمه الله). Does this not involve taking knowledge from the Prophet’s progeny?
The Sunnis acknowledge that all eleven Imams of the Shia were great Aalims and reservoirs of knowledge. However, we do not accept the exaggerations of the Shia, who claim that their Imams possess knowledge of the Unseen, who control all the atoms of the universe, etc. Much in the same way that we revere Prophet Isa (عليه السلام) but reject the Christian exaggerations, likewise do we revere the eleven Imams but reject the Shia exaggerations. The Shia will often challenge the Sunnis by asking: “how many Sunni Hadith are narrated through the Imams of Ahlel Bayt?” They ask this implying that the number of Hadith narrated through them is somehow indicative of love for them. What these silly Shia propagandists do not realize is that of course we do not have many Hadith narrated through the eleven Imams, because only three of them were even alive during the time of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)! And of these three that were alive during the time of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), two of them (Hasan and Hussain) were only young children during the lifetime of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم); and as for the third (Ali ibn Abi Talib), he was killed by the Shia in his own party at a very early point in his lifetime before the Hadith were compiled en masse. Nonetheless, the Sunnis have more Hadith narrated by Ali (رضّى الله عنه) than we do by Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه), yet nobody questions our love for Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) simply because we narrate very few Hadith through them.
It should be noted that even if we were to accept this meaning of Hadith al-Thaqalayn (i.e. taking religious knowledge from Ahlel Bayt), this does not negate taking religious knowledge from other than the Ahlel Bayt. The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) similarly praised his Sahabah, and we also look to them as a source of religious knowledge. The Sunnis love all of the Prophet’s family members and his friends, whereas the Shia are partisan in their love; why do the Shia not open up their hearts and love all of the Prophet’s family and friends? The only difference in regards to love of the Ahlel Bayt is that the Sunnis love all of Ahlel Bayt whereas the Shia only love parts of it.
Wording of Hadith al-Thaqalayn
This is a point which cannot be stressed enough: if the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) had meant what the Shia intend, then the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) would have said that the two weighty things were the Quran and the Imams of Ahlel Bayt. Instead, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) only said that the two things were the Quran and the Ahlel Bayt, without any mention of the twelve Infallible Imams of the Shia. Therefore, Hadith al-Thaqalayn is about not only the twelve Imams of the Shia, but rather about others of the Ahlel Bayt as well.
Many Shia respect Imam Zayd (رحمه الله), although they do not believe that he was one of the twelve Infallible Imams. The Zaydis claim that Imam Zayd (رحمه الله) claimed Imamah for himself, but the (12er) Shia reject this and say that Zayd (رحمه الله) never claimed Imamah for himself. And the Shia respect Zayd (رحمه الله) despite the fact that they deny that he was a God-appointed Imam. Well then, is this not the position of the Sunnis with regards to the twelve Imams of the Shia? The Sunnis respect all eleven Imams of the Shia (and also believe in the advent of Imam Mehdi), but we deny that they ever claimed to be Infallible Imams. Therefore, if the Shia have fulfilled the conditions of Hadith al-Thaqalayn with respect to Imam Zayd (رحمه الله), then have the Sunnis not also fulfilled the conditions of Hadith al-Thaqalayn with respect to their twelve Infallible Imams? If the Shia say that we have not given a proper status to their twelve Imams, then we can say that they have not given a proper status to Zayd (رحمه الله) who was also one of the Prophet’s progeny!
The point here is that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said that the second Thaql was the Ahlel Bayt, not only the Infallible Imams of the Ahlel Bayt who were only twelve from amongst the many in the Prophet’s progeny. The Sunnis love all of the Ahlel Bayt and regard many amongst the Ahlel Bayt to be great Aalims; whatever the case, Hadith al-Thaqalayn has absolutely nothing to do with Imamah or Caliphate. The Shia can give absolutely no good reason as to why the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said that the second Thaql was the Ahlel Bayt and why he did not say that it was the Imams of the Ahlel Bayt. The Prophet’s statement was therefore general in nature, and it cannot possibly be construed to justify the Infallible Imamah of the Shia.
The Quran and Sunnah
The Shia say:
"The Hadeeth about Quran and Sunnah is weak and narrated by only 1 Sahabi, whereas the other Hadeeth (Quran and Ahl al-Bayt) is mutawattir and narrated by 35 Sahabah."
Answer by Shaikh Gibril Haddad:
"The hadith in question (Quran and Sunnah) is not weak…(and it is narrated by) at least four different Companions …the other hadith (Quran and Ahl al-Bayt) is not mutawatir as I already said…the hadith is NOT mutawatir nor narrated by anywhere near even 10 Sahaba. [Therefore, a similar number of Companions narrated BOTH Hadith, with perhaps only a couple more narrating the Hadith of the Quran and Ahl al-Bayt.]"
Conclusion
The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was reminding the Muslims to take care of his family after his death (i.e. “Beware of how you behave with them when I am gone from amongst you”), and this is what is known as Hadith al-Thaqalayn. The Shia understanding of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is nothing short of deviancy and error; and inspite of their vociferous slogans claiming adherence to the two weighty objects, the Shia are in reality the worst and vilest deniers of the authenticity of the Book of Allah and the innocence of the entire Ahlel Bayt. We ask Allah to bless all of the Prophet’s family.
Article Written By: Ibn al-Hashimi, www.ahlelbayt.com
|
|