In our Imamate article we have evidenced Sunni Ulema past and present that had written extensively on the Ahlul bayt (as) Imams. The modern Sunni stance has been advanced by the famed words of the Deobandis own pioneer Imams of Deoband Maulana Rasheed Ahmed Gangohi (1829 to 1905) his popular anti Shia book says:
“And the Ahlul Sunnah consider the twelve Ai’ma of AhlulBayt to be the Imams, we believe that they are those that we should follow, and are the Qutb-e-Irshad [pivots of knowledge].”
[Hidayat al Shi'a, pg. 35, old edition, published in Delhi]
Today’s Ahlel Sunnah will jump with joy at these words after all this statement succinctly affirms their absolute adherence to the twelve Imams. Curiously this stance, namely the religious obligation to follow them and attain knowledge from them, was not advocated by their pioneer Imams, which thus makes such a statement completely baseless. When it comes to the grand Sunni Ulema we witness a very different stance, one that sought to discredit the Imams (as) by rejecting their reliability as Hadith narrators and downplaying their contributions towards the Deen. If the Ahle Sunnah do really love the Ahlul bayt (as) and adhere to them as Gangohi who likes to suggest why have they failed to condemn those scholars that objected to the reliability of the imams (as)? If they are going to offer the excuse that these were merely the opinions of Sunni Ulema pertaining to rijal, and it has no bearing on their love for such people, then we can counter this by pointing out that the Ahle Sunnah also love the Sahaba , what if someone were to deen Abu Huraira, Ayesha, Abu bakar etc as weak (in narrating), would that be called love and adherence to such individuals? Clearly this would be unpalatable to a Sunni, since this would turn the whole concept of love on its head. In the realms of religion, loving those that we deem guides for the faith must be accompanied by an unshaking faith in their words, the moment such words become doubtful / subject to skepticism then that automatically erodes love for that person.
Imam Abu Hatim popularly known as Ibn Hibban (d. 354 H) in his famed work Al-Thuqat, Vol. 6 pg. 131 Translation No. 7039 while recording the biography of Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) stated:
يحتج بروايته ما كان من غير رواية أولاده عنه، لأن في حديث ولده عنه مناكير كثيرة.
“His narration is reliable as long as it has been narrated from other than his children, because the reports of his children from him are very much ‘Munkar’.”
So the Imam of Ahle Sunnah Ibn Hibban accused the progeny of Imam al-Sadiq (as) of narrating Munkar and that includes His (as) son Imam Musa Kadhim (as). In order to understand the absurdity of such blasphemous accusations by Ibn Hibban, let us understand the actual meaning of Munkar. Ibn Hajar identified “Munkar” in his famed book ‘Nuzhat al-nadar Sharh Nukhbat al-Fekr’ pg. 86 and 110:
والمُنْكَرَ رَاويهِ ضعيفٌ
“Munkar is what has been narrated by a weak narrator”
We further read:
فمَنْ فَحُشَ غَلَطُهُ ، أَو كَثُرَتْ غَفلَتُه ، أَو ظهَرَ فِسْقُه ؛ فحديثُهُ مُنْكَرٍ .
“One whose mistakes are abysmal or his negligence is massive or has showed immorality, his hadith is Munkar”
So the sons of Imam Jafar al-Sadiq (as) including Imam Musa al-Kadhim (as) are considered as weak or immoral by the Imam of Ahle Sunnah Ibn Hibban.
Though there shouldn’t be any need to discuss Ibn Hibban we will do so for the benefit of our readers. Let us quote from Dhahabi’s Tazkirat ul Huffaz Vol. 3 pg. 920-921:
“Ibn Hibban the hafiz, the imam, the Allamah, Abu Hatim Muhammad bin Hibban bin Ahmad bin Hibban bin Mu’adh bin M’aebed bin Suhaid bin Hadya bin Murah bin Saad bin Yazid bin Murah bin Zaid bin Abdullah bin Darum bin Handhala bin Malik bin Zaid bin Munat bin Tamim al-Tamimi al-Basti…Abu Sa’ad al-Edrisi said: ‘He was the judge of Samarqand and he was one of the jurists and the preserver of the traditions’…Al-Hakim said: ‘Ibn Hibban was a bowl of knowledge in jurisprudence, language, hadith and preaching, and he was amongst the sensible men’…Al-Khatib said: ‘He was thiqah, noble and knowledgeable’.”
Ibn Kathir wrote about Ibn Hibban in ‘Al Bidayah wal Nihayah Vol 15 pg. 281’ that he was amongst the exalted writers and jurists.
Hafs bin Ghayat about Imam Jafar (as)
This famed Tabiee is a big narrator in the six main books and very beloved to the Sunnis Imam Hajar Asqalani records about him in Taqrib al-Tahdhib pg. 260 No. 1439:
Hafs bin Ghayat…ibn Talak ibn Muawiyah al-Nakhee, Abu Omar al-Kufi, the Judge, the trustworthy Jurist, his memorization became weaker with time.
He also records in Tahdhib Al-Tahdhib. Vol. 1 pg. 458
Narrated in Bukhari,Muslim,Tirmidhi, Nisai’i, Abu Dawud and Ibn Majah. Hafs bin Ghayat ibn Talak ibn Muawiyah al-Nakhee, Abu Omar al-Kufi…Ishaaq bin Ibrahim and others have narrated from Ibn Moen that he said: Thiqat, he is knowledgeable in hadith and he is known…Ijli said: Trustworthy Jurist…Yaqub said: Trustworthy if he narrates from written hadith…Ibn Khirash narrated from Ali ibn al-Mada’ini that he heard Yahya bin Sa’id said the most truthful compagnion of Al-A'mash is Hafs bin Ghayat…Ali ibn al-Mada’ini said something similar…Ibn Numair said: Hafs was more knowledgeable in hadith then Ibn Idrees…Abu Zu’ra said: he is not the best memorizer so when he narrates from his book he is honest…Nisai’i and ibn Kharash said: he is thiqat…Al-Ajuri narrated from Abu Dawud narrated that Abu Mahdi rejected all of the companions of Al-Amash except for Hafs bin Ghayat.
Dhahabi recorded in Mizan al-I'tidal, Vol.1, pg. 414 - 415:
"Bukhari did not use his hadith as Hujjah. Then he said: Hafs Ibn Ghiyath went out once to Abadaan so the Basraiyun came to him and said, 'Do not narrate to us from 3, Ash'ath Ibn Abd al-Malik, Amr Ibn Ubayd, and Ja'far Ibn Muhammad.' So he [Hafs] said, 'As for Ash'ath, he is yours and I leave him for you all. As for Amr, you are more knowledgeable. As for Ja'far, If you were in Kufa, I would rather take from hammered slippers."
This “truthful” narrator that narrates in both Bukhari and Muslim believes that narrating from hammered slippers is better then narrating from Imam Jaffar al-Sadiq (as). It is not surprising that Bukhari decided to not narrate from Imam Jaffar al-sadiq and even weakened him when these are the famed tabiees that are narrating in their books. Dhahabi also recorded in Al-Kashif Vol. 1 pg. 343:
Hafs bin Ghayat ibn Talak ibn Muawiyah al-Nakhee the Kufi and Janib al-Sharki Judge, narrates from Asim al-Ahwal, Yahya ibn Sa’id, Al-Amash and Ahmad, Yahya, Ishaaq narrated from him. Ya’qub said: that he is trustworthy if he narrates to you from his book.
Bukhari : 35 Muslim : 47 Nisai’i : 11 Tirmidhi : 25 Abu Dawud : 15 Ibn Majah : 31
It is unsurprising to see that Dhahabi whilst recording a short account on Imam Jafar (as), found no equal in the Sunni world to Yahya bin Saeed, a man who had the following beliefs regarding Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) as he recorded in Mizan al I'tidal, Vol. 1 pg. 414 No. 1519:
قال يحيى بن سعيد : مجالد أحب إلى منه ، في نفسي منه شئ
Yahya bin Saeed said: ‘Mujalid is more beloved to me than him (Jafar), there is something in my feelings against him (Jafar).’
Apart from being narrator of all six principle books of Ahle Sunnah, let us introduce and enlighten our readers about the exalted position Imam Yahya bin Saeed enjoys amongst Ahle Sunnah. Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani records in Tahdhib al Tahdhib Vol. 4 pg. 457 - 459:
Yahya bin Saeed bin Furukh al-Qatan al-Tamimi Abu Saeed al-Basry al-Ahwal al-Hafiz…Al-Saji narrated from Ali bin al-Madini said: ‘I never saw some one more knowledgeable than Yahya bin al-Qatan in rijal’… Ahmad bin Yahya bin al-Jarood narrated from ibn al-Madini saying: ‘I never saw someone who is more Thabt than Yahya al-Qatan’. Ibrahim said: ‘I never saw someone who was more knowledgeable than Yahya al-qatan in rijal’. Abudllah bin Ahmad said: ‘I heard my father saying: ‘My eyes never saw someone who is similar to him”…Al-Fadhel bin Zyad said: ‘I heard Ahmad saying by Allah we never met someone who was similar to him’. Ibn al-Mahdi said: ‘Your eyes can never see someone who is similar to him’…Ibn Khuzayma narrated that Bendar said: ‘Yahya bin Saeed is the imam of his time’…(Ibn Ammar said): ‘If he talked, the jurist kept listening to him’…(Bendar said): ‘I think he never disobeyed Allah’… Abu Dawoud narrated from Yahya ibn Mueen that he said: ‘Yahya al-Qatan used to recite (and complete) Quran every night for twenty years and he never missed performing down prayers at the mosque for forty years’. Ibn Sa’ad said: ‘He was thiqa, secure, exalted, proof (Hujah)’. Al-Ejli said: ‘He is Basri, thiqah in hadith, he used to narrate from the thiqa narrators only’. Abu Zua’ra said: ‘He was one of the thiqah and hafiz’. Abu Hatim said: ‘Proof (huja) and hafiz’. Al-Nesa’i said: ‘Thiqah, Thabt and satisfactory’… Ibn Manjweh said: ‘He was one of the masters of his time, he was hafiz, devoted, knowledgeable, pious, religious and ideal’…Al-Khalili said: ‘No doubt he is an Imam and he is the greatest companion of Malik at Basrah’.
In the very biography recorded by Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani, we read an interesting aspect of the life of Yahya bin Saeed:
“His grand son said: ‘My grandfather never used to joke or laugh and he never entered a bathroom“
So we come to know that internal filth is not the only identifying feature for those that bear a grudge against Ahlulbayt (as), sometimes visible and external filth is also a useful indicator!
Bukhari : 354 Muslim : 307 Nisai’i : 375 Tirmidhi : 104 Abu Dawud : 251 Ibn Majah : 79 (Reference)
Allamah Ibn Abdul Bar in his famed work ‘Al-Tamheed’ Vol. 2 pg. 66 stated under the translation of Imam Jafar al-Sadiq (as):
ذكر ابن عيينة أنه كان في حفظه شيء
Ibn Uyaina said: “There was something in his memorizing”
Imam Dhahabi records the following opinion of the Imam of Ahle Sunnah Sufyan Thawri about Imam Jafar Sadiq (as). We read in Siyar A'lam al-Nubala, Vol. 6 pg. 91:
Sufyan said: ‘We used to laugh at the hadith obtainer if he went to three, Rabeea, Muhammad bin Abi Bakar bin Hazm and Jafar bin Muhammad because they were not good in hadith.’
We read in ‘Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq’ by ibn Mandhur, Vol. 8 pg. 290:
Sufyan bin Uyaina said: ‘We used to laugh at the man who obtain hadith by going to anyone of three as they aren’t good in hadith and do not memorize it, Rabeea bin Abi Abdulrahman, Muhammad bin Abi Bakr bin Hazm, and Jafar bin Muhammad’
Of course, why would Imam Jafar (as) be considered ‘good in hadith’ according to the followers of man made caliphate since He (as) would narrate about the blessings that have been bestowed on the Imams of Ahlulbayt (as) which no Nasibi can bear!
Let us also see the status of Ibn Uyaina among Ahle Sunnah. We read in Tazkiratul Huffaz, Vol. 1 pg. 262-264 No. 249:
Sufyan bin Uyayna bin Maymun, the Allamah the hafiz, Sheikh al-islam Abu Muhammad al-Helali al-kufi, the muhadith of the al-haram (shrine)… There were many people who used to go for Hajj and the reason was to meet ibn Uyayna, there used to crowd around him during the season of Hajj, he was an Imam, hujah, hafiz, very knowledgeable and had a great status. Al-Shafi'i said: ‘Without Malik and Sufyan the knowledge of hijaz would disappear’…Abudlrahman bin Mahdi said: ‘Ibn Uyayna was the most knowledgeable about the hadith of the people of hijaz’…Ibn Wahab said: ‘I don’t know any one more knowledgeable than him in Tafseer’. Ahmad said: ‘I never saw some one more knowledgeable than him in the Sunan’…Al-Ejli said: ‘Ibn Uyayna was Thabt in Hadith’…Bin Mahdi said: ‘Sufyan had knowledge about Quran and hadith which al-Thawri didn’t possess’
Bukhari : 475 Muslim : 480 Nisai’i : 320 Tirmidhi : 282 Abu Dawud : 123 Ibn Majah : 293 (Reference)
Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani records in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib Vol. 1 pg. 310 - 311 under the translation of Imam Jafar al-Sadiq (as):
قال ابن سعد: كان كثير الحديث. ولا يحتج به ويستضعف
Ibn Sa’ad said: ‘He used to narrate a lot, but not reliable and is considered weak.’
Imam of Ahle Sunnah Ibn Hibban records in his authority work ‘al-Thuqat’ Vol. 8 pg. 456 (Imam Ali Raza’s biography):
يجب أن يعتبر حديثه إذا روى عنه غير أولاده وشيعته وأبى الصلت خاصة فان الأخبار التي رويت عنه وتبين بواطيل إنما الذنب فيها لأبى الصلت ولأولاده وشيعته
“It is wajib to accept his hadith, provided that they are narrated from him by other than his progeny and his Shia, and Abus-Salt in particular, as the reports narrated from him have such falsehoods in which there is sin from Abus-Salt and his progeny and his shia.”
So according to Ibn Hibban, the blessed son of Imam Ali Raza (as) namely Imam Muhammad al-Jawad (as) is unreliable and reports from Him (as) are to be rejected!
Imam Dhahabi records in “Al-Mughni fi al-Dhu’afa” Vol. 2 pg. 26:
قال ابن طاهر يأتي عن آبائه بعجائب
“Ibn al-Tahir said that he narrates strange (traditions) from his father”
Now about Ibn al-Tahir, Imam Dhahabi records in Tazkirah Huffaz, Vol. 4 pg. 1242-1244 No. 1053:
Muhammad bin Tahir bin Ali, the hafiz the scholar, the mukthir (who narrates a lot of hadith) the jawal (who travels a lot), Abu al-Fadhel al-Maqdesi, known as ibn al-Qaysarani al-Sheybani…Abu al-Qasim bin Asaker said: ‘I heard the hafiz Muhammad bin Ismail saying: ‘The best hafiz I ever met is ibn Tahir’. Abu Zakaria bin Mandah said: ‘Ibn Tahir was one the huffaz, possessed good beliefs, nice attitude, truthful, extremely knowledgeable in the correct and false (hadith), used to write a lot, follower of “athar” (tradition).’ …Al-Sam’ani said: ‘I asked Aba al-Hassan al-Karkhi the jurist about ibn Tahir, he replied: ‘There is no one on the face of earth who is similar to him’ …Ibn Shereweh said in ‘Tarikh Hamadan’ that bin Tahir lived in Hamadan and built a house there, he was Thiqah, hafiz, extremely knowledgeable in correct and false (hadith), well known in Rijal and texts , used to write a lot, had good handwriting, follower of “athar” (tradition), far away of curiosity and bigotry, was humorist, strong in traveling’.
Imam Dhahabi in his famed work Mizan al-I'tidal, Vol. 1 pg. 414 No. 1519 records the view of Imam Malik about Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) in this manner:
“Mus'ab ibn Abdullah said: ‘Malik would not narrate from Jafar until he linked it with those narrators who are high, then he would put his (Jafar’s) narration after it”
which means Malik did not trust Imam Jafar Sadiq’s narration unless someone else narrated the same!
Imam Bukhari had doubts on the veracity of Imam Jafar Sadiq (as). Ibn Taymiyya records in Minhaj al-Sunnah, Vol. 7 pg. 533-534:
قد استراب البخاري في بعض حديثه لما بلغه عن يحيى بن سعيد القطان فيه كلام فلم يخرج له
Bukhari had doubts over him (Jafar) due to the criticism leveled at him (Jafar) by Yahya bin Saeed al-Qattan”
Whilst we shall inshallah address this quote in greater depth later, it is worthy to consider this comment that Ibn al-Hashimi proudly placed in his article ‘the status of the twelve imams’:
Shaykh Gibril Haddad was asked about the status of the Imams of the Shia, to which he replied:
I heard Dr. Nur al-Din `Itr in class say: “Each one of them was a pious, upright Muslim from the noble Prophetic Tree and many of them were also among the foremost people of knowledge in their time.”
Screen shot from Ibn al-Hashimi’s article – top
Screen shot from Ibn al-Hashimi’s article – text
We shall now show our readers how the Shaykh of Ibn al-Hashimi graded those that he claims were “among the foremost people of knowledge in their time.”
Shaykh Ibn Tamiyah desperately sought to distinguish himself from Nawasib, but his writings on Imam Ali bin Abi Talib (as) and other Imams of Ahlulbayt (as) leaves us with little doubt to conclude that his stance was just like those espoused by Nasibis. About the three Imams namely Imam Zain ul Abdeen (as), Imam Baqir (as) and Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) he stated as follows in Minhaj al Sunnah, Vol. 6 pg. 387:
وكان علي بن الحسين وابنه أبو جعفر وابنه جعفر ابن محمد يعلمون الناس ما علمهم الله كما علمه علماء زمانهم وكان في زمنهم من هو أعلم منهم وأنفع للأمة
“Ali bin al-Hussain, his son Abu Jafar and his son Jafar bin Muhammad taught people what Allah (swt) taught them in the same manner that (Allah) taught the other scholars during their lives. Verily there were people during their lifetimes that were more knowledgeable and more useful for the nation than them.”
Ibn Taymiyah then proceeds to widen his attacks further to encompass Imam Ali bin Muhammad al-Hadi (as) and Imam Hassan Askari (as) whom he referred to as ‘Askaris’ Minhaj al Sunnah, Vol. 6 pg. 387:
وأما من بعد الثلاثة كالعسكريين فهؤلاء لم يظهر عليهم علم تستفيده الأمة ولا كان لهم يد تستعين به الأمة بل كانوا كأمثالهم من الهاشميين
“Those that came after the three (Imams) like the Askaris, did not possess useful knowledge for the nation, they didn’t have a helpful hand for the nation, verily they were just like any Hashimi”
At one place Imam Taymiyyah after citing the comments of some Sunni scholars stated Minhaj al Sunnah, Vol. 2 pg. 470-473:
“Each one of those (Sunni scholars) were more knowledgeable than the two Askaris about the religion of Allah and His messenger…what is wajib for the people like the two Askaris is to learn from one of those (sunni scholars)”
Ibn Taymiyyah has the audacity to draw comparison between the Imams of Ahlulbayt (as) to their students and then draw this conclusion. We read in Minhaj al Sunnah, Vol. 2 pg. 476:
لا ريب أن ما ينقله الفقهاء عن مثل أبي حنيفة ومالك والشافعي وأحمد وغيرهم هو أصح مما ينقله الروافض عن مثل العسكريين ومحمد بن علي الجواد وأمثالهم ولا ريب أن هؤلاء أعلم بدين النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم من أولئك
“No doubt what the jurists narrate from Abu Hanfia, Malik, al-Shefeei, Ahmad and others are more correct than what the rafidis narrate from the two Askari and Muhammad bin Ali al-Jawad and others, and no doubt that they (Abu Hanifa etc) are more knowledgeable in the religion of the Prophet (s) than those (al-Jawad etc).”
We also read in Minhaj al Sunnah, Vol. 2 pg. 460 - 462:
فالزهري أعلم بأحاديث النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وأحواله وأقواله وأفعاله باتفاق أهل العلم من أبي جعفر محمد بن علي وكان معاصرا له وأما موسى بن جعفر وعلي بن موسى ومحمد بن علي فلا يستريب من له من العلم نصيب أن مالك بن أنس وحماد بن زيد حماد بن سلمة والليث بن سعد والأوزاعي ويحيى بن سعيد ووكيع بن الجراح وعبدالله ابالمبارك والشافعي وأحمد بن حنبل وإسحاق بن راهويه وأمثالهم أعلم بأحاديث النبي صلىالله عليه وسلم من هؤلاء
“Verily al-Zuhari is more knowledgeable about the prophetic hadiths, statements and actions than Abu Jafar Muhammad bin Ali and the scholars agreed on that, and (al-Zuhari) was his contemporary.
However regarding Musa bin Jafar, Ali bin Musa and Muhammad bin Ali, no one among those who possess knowledge doubt that Malik bin Anas, Hamaad bin Zaid, Hamaad bin Salama, al-Laith bin Saad, al-Awzaei, Yahya bin Saeed, W’akei bin al-Jarah, Abdullah bin al-Mubarak, al-Shefeei, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Ishaq bin Rahwei and others were more knowledgeable about the prophettic hadith than them”
From this paragraph we can see that Ibn Tamiyah had indigestion in his stomach about eight Imams of Ahlulbayt (as). Naturally, when scholars like Ibn Tamiyah find traditions narrated by notorious Nawasib like that of Hariz bin Uthman, Abdullah bin Shaqiq, Thawr bin Yazeed etc in their principle books of adherence, he had to provide a basis for trimming down potential questions regarding the knowledge of Ahlulbayt (as) by the generations to follow.
Ibn al-Hashimi sought to convince his readers that he backed the comments of Hadad, namely that the Imams were “among the foremost people of knowledge in their time.” That is certainly not how Ibn Taymiyah views them. He sought to play down their knowledge base, and suggested they brought no value to the Deen. Why are you not affirming the same beliefs as your Shaykh? Why don’t you put up these comments on your website so that your readers can appreciate the true belief held by your Shaykh, rather than relying on a modern day scholar Hadad who your own Salafi Ulema deem deviant?
In his article ‘What is the status of the 12 Imams of the Shia?’ Ibn al-Hashimi makes a poor attempt to assert that his Sect are the true lovers of the Ahl’ul bayt (as). Ibn al Hashimi stated:
The first 11 Imams were pious individuals who were a part of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah; they had nothing to do with the Shia. None of them claimed Imamah as the Shia claim, because this would be accusing them of being Dajjals, and they were innocent of that.
Screen shot from Ibn al-Hashimi’s article – top
Screen shot from Ibn al-Hashimi’s article – text
One is at a loss to understand how he has arrived at this conclusion, when one of his great Ulema Ibn Khaldun attacked the Imams for possessing these very beliefs in the following manner:
"…and the Ahlulbayt (a.s) deviated by formulating Sects and came up with their own fiqh, which they built upon abusing some of the Sahaba, and by saying that the Imams (as) are infallible and the differences in their statements. The Kharijites similarly had their own school. The great mass did not care for these schools, but greatly disapproved of them and abused them. So, we do not recognise their sects, nor do we narrate anything from their books. Their narrations have no impact except in their own lands like Yemen, Morocco and the East.
Muqadmah Ibn Khaldun, page 446
http://www.almeshkat.com/books/open.php?cat=13&book=261
We should point out that the above passage of Ibn Khaldun has been translated differently by different people such as the English translation rendered by Franz Rosenthal
muqaddima English and the Urdu translation rendered by Allamah Raghib Rahmani Dehlavi (Nafees Acadamy Karachi) but whatever translation is to be adopted, the gist of the admission made by In Khaldun in the above mentioned paragraph remains the same, namely the Ahlulbayt:
It is on account of these beliefs that:
Now who has a greater knowledge base in Sunni eyes, this cyber Takfeeri (Ibn al Hashimi) or Ibn Khaldun?
Imam of Ahle Sunnah Jalaluddin Suyuti stated the following about the eleventh luminary from Ahlulbayt (as) in his book Lalai Masno’a fi ahadeeth al-Mawdhu’a, Vol. 1 pg. 361:
الحسن العسكري ليس بشيء.
“Al-Hassan Askari is worth nothing”
Now that we have evidenced the critical stance that the Ulema had on the Ahlul bayt (as) Imams, let us once again measure these words against those of Gangohi:
“And the Ahl’ul Sunnah consider the twelve Ai’ma of Ahl’ul Bayt to be the Imams, we believe that they are those that we should follow, and are the Qutb-e-Irshad [pivots of knowledge].”
[Hidayat al Shi'a, pg. 35, old edition, published in Delhi]
Gangohi attested that the Ahle Sunnah deem it incumbent to follow them, how can you acquire religious knowledge from those whose memory of Hadith was weak, according to the grand Sunni Ulema? That would be tantamount to someone acquiring knowledge of Chemistry from a teacher who has been criticized by his peers for not knowing how to calculate chemical formulas. Comments such as those of Gangohi cannot be deemed to be the true reflection of Ahle Sunnah aqeedah, these are just mere words conjured up, to convince the Sunni majority that their Sect are the true followers of the twelve Imams, and that people should steer clear from the deviant Shia who claim to have attained guidance from them. Gangohi falsely asserts that the Ahle Sunnah deem it incumbent to follow all twelve Imams, when the reality is the Ahle Sunnah did not even follow the first of the twelve imams, as can be evidenced in the next paragraph…
Ibn Taymiyya’s proud testimony that Ahle Sunnah don’t follow Ali bin Abi Talib (as)
Ibn Tamiyah who is known for having a grudge against Ali bin Abi Talib (as) proudly claims that none of the Sunni jurists attained teachings from Imam Ali (as). We read in Minhaj al-Sunnah, Vol. 7 pg.s 529 – 530:
فليس في الأئمة الأربعة و لا غيرهم من أئمة الفقهاء من يرجع إليه في فقهه أما مالك فان علمه عن أهل المدينة و أهل المدينة لا يكادون يأخذون بقول علي بل اخذوا فقههم عن الفقهاء السبعة عن زيد و عمر و ابن عمر و نحوهم
أما الشافعي فانه تفقه أولا على المكيين أصحاب ابن جريج كسعيد بن سالم القداح و مسلم بن خالد الزنجي و ابن جريج اخذ ذلك عن أصحاب ابن عباس كعطاء و غيره و ابن عباس كان مجتهدا مستقلا و كان إذا أفتى بقول الصحابة أفتى بقول أبي بكر و عمر لا بقول علي وكان ينكر على علي أشياء
None of the four imams nor the other of the jurists refer to him (Ali) in their jurisprudence, verily if Malik’s knowledge was obtained from the people of Madina, the people of Madina did not take Ali’s statements, they take their jurisprudence from the seven jurists, Zaid, Umar, ibn Umar and so on.
Shafiee obtained jurisprudence from the people of Mecca, the companions of ibn Juraij like Saeed bin Salem al-Qadah and Muslim bin khalid al-Zenji, ibn Juraij obtained knowledge from the companions of ibn Abbas, like Atta and others, verily ibn Abbas was an independent mujtahid, when ever he gives fatwa, according to the sahabas he would give the fatwa of Abu Bakr and Umar, not Ali’s. He disagreed with Ali on a few things.
Ibn Tamiyah who is known for having a grudge against Ali bin Abi Talib (as) proudly claims that none of the Sunni jurists attained teachings from Imam Ali (as). We read in Minhaj al-Sunnah, Vol. 7 pg.s 529 – 530:
None of the four imams nor the other of the jurists refer to him (Ali) in their jurisprudence, verily if Malik’s knowledge was obtained from the people of Madina, the people of Madina did not take Ali’s statements, they take their jurisprudence from the seven jurists, Zaid, Umar, ibn Umar and so on.
Shafiee obtained jurisprudence from the people of Makka, the companions of ibn Juraij like Saeed bin Salem al-Qadah and Muslim bin khalid al-Zenji, ibn Juraij obtained knowledge from the companions of ibn Abbas, like Atta and others, verily ibn Abbas was an independent mujtahid, when ever he gives fatwa, according to the sahabas he would give the fatwa of Abu Bakr and Umar, not Ali’s. He disagreed with Ali on few things.
It is amazing that Ibn al-Hashimi had sought to desperately claim the Ahl’ul bayt (as) Imams for the Ahl’ul Sunnah by saying:
The Muslims have a greater right to Prophet Jesus than do the Christians, and so too do the Sunnis have a greater right to the 11 Imams than do the Shia.
Screen shot from Ibn al-Hashimi’s article – top
Screen shot from Ibn al-Hashimi’s article – text
In light of the comments passed for them by the grand Sunni Ulema, is this how the ‘right’ is implemented? Is it attained by steering clear of their teachings, not taking knowledge from them, deeming them unreliable, worthless, deviants and with little contribution to the deen? Can such comments be submitted as evidence that you have any right to these great Imams (as)? In case Ibn al Hashimi seeks to insist that the today’s Salafi Ulema do not ascribe to such a viewpoint, allow us to quote how their revered post modern scholar Shaykh Ibrahim al-Jabhan has evidenced this “greater right to the 11 Imams” – through his comments about Imam al Sadiq (as). We read in Tabdeed al-Dhalam, pg. 9:
لقد قرنت أسم جعفر بن محمد بعلامة استفهام في غير موضع ، تصحيحاً للخطأ الشائع الذي وقع فيه كثير من أرباب التصانيف بإلصاقهم كلمة الصادق بإسم المذكور ، وجعلها لقباً له ، وعلماً عليه ، والواقع أن هذه التسمية أو بالأصح هذه التزكية ما ينبغي أن تطلق على شخص حامت حوله الشبهات وكثرت فيه الأقاويل
“I followed the name of Jafar bin Muhammad with a question mark in many pg.s (of this book) so as to rectify the widespread mistaken notion held amongst prominent authors who attached the epithet Al-Sadiq to him, and made a title for him, such a title should not be afforded to an individual that is under suspicion”
فتسميته بذلك تزكيه لا داعي لها ولا محل لها من الإعراب وتركها أحوط
“There is no cause or reason for calling him with this title, it is better to avoid calling him with it.”
We also read on the same page:
زد على ذلك إنني لم أكن أول من شك في سلوكه
“Moreover, I’m not the first person who suspect his attitude”
ونسبت إليه أقوال مشحونة بالزندقة والإلحاد
“Many heretical and Kufr statements are attributed to him”
On pg. 20 of the book, we read:
وهل جعفر بن محمد –إذا صح أنه أهل لتلقين العلم – إلا قطرة من غيث
“Jafar bin Muhammad – if he truly was competent to teach – it is not more than a single drop of rain”
The Salafis have spoken, their esteemed Ulema has presented their actual beliefs to the world! In his desperate attempt to convince his readers that the Sunnis have more right to the Ahlul bayt Imams that he happily quotes a ‘deviant’ sufi and forgets to point out that his school has actively sought to distance itself from the Imams, with their post modern scholar Ibrahim al-Jabhan describing the sixth Imam as a person:
whose truthfulness should be called into question
that funded scholars to damage the Islamic Ummah
made statements of kufr
that was incompetent
This is how the Salafis evidence their having a “greater right to the Imams” by attacking the sixth Imam's honesty, competence, motives and statements!
Ibn al Hashimi stated:
Shaykh Gibril Haddad was asked about the status of the Imams of the Shia, to which he replied:
I heard Dr. Nur al-Din `Itr in class say: “Each one of them was a pious, upright Muslim from the noble Prophetic Tree and many of them were also among the foremost people of knowledge in their time.”
One wonders what credence Ibn-al Hashimi actually gives to Shaykh Gibril Hadad, since he has no qualms about admitting he is a Salafi, whilst Hadad is a Sunni scholar with Sufi leanings, and beliefs in doctrines such as tawassal, and is regarded by Salafis as a deviant. Comments by such a deviant should have so value in the eyes of Ibn al-Hashimi, so one wonders why he is seeking reliance on him. As for the comment ‘Each one of them was a pious, upright Muslim from the noble Prophetic Tree’ Ibn al-Hashimi has in his article ‘Imamate the antithesis of egalitarianism’ has desperately sought to argue that lineage is of no importance whatsoever, so much so he even accused Rasulullah from coming for a tree of disbelievers (asthagfirullah):
Ibn al Hashimi stated in another article:
The Prophet (s) himself was born to a family of Mushriks (polythiests) who worshipped idols. Indeed, his own parents were Kaffir (infidels). So how can we use lineage as a litmus test for piety or greatness? Our own Prophet (s) would then be in a lowly position, but we know this is not the case! There is nobody greater than Prophet Muhammad (s) because of his great deal of Taqwa.
Screen shot from Ibn al-Hashimi’s article – top
Screen shot from Ibn al-Hashimi’s article – text
As for the statement ‘many of them were also among the foremost people of knowledge in their time’ if this was indeed the case would the Sunnis of that time not sought to have attained guidance from them? Prophetic traditions, and knowledge of them and their meaning is the cornerstone of Deen, but your Ulema did not attribute such knowledge to the Ahl’ul bayt Imams, rather they were deemed weak, unreliable and worthless in this field!
If the Imams were indeed (according to the Ahl’ul Sunnah) “among the foremost people of knowledge in their time” you would have sought to have attained maximum benefit from their company, did the great Ulema do this? Sunni scholar Mufti Ghulam Rasool tried his best to defend his Imam Bukhari whilst addressing the criticism of Abu Zahra that Imam Bukhari did not take Hadith from Imam Sadiq (as), he states as follows:
“It was not just Imam Sadiq (as) that Imam Bukhari refrained from taking Hadith from, he did not take any from four of the pure Ahl’ul bayt Imams who existed during his lifetime, namely:
The eighth Imam Ali Raza (as) (d. 209 Hijri), this was that Imam that at one time in Nishabur had more than twenty thousand scholars who benefited from listening to and recording Hadith, attendees included high ranking scholars of Hadith such Hafidh Abu Zurai Radhi (d.264 Hijri), Hafidh Muhammad Aslam Tusi (d.242 Hijri) Isaac bin Rai.
The ninth Imam, Imam Taqi (as) (d. 220 Hijri).
The tenth Imam, Imam Naqi (as) (d.245 Hijri).
The eleventh Imam, Imam Hasan Askari (as) (d.260 Hijri).
Imam Bukhari lived during the times of these four Imams yet did not take narrations from them. Imam Bukhari’s esteemed book Sahih al Bukhari is empty with Hadith from the Ahl’ul bayt Imams, even though Hadith from the Ahl’ul bayt is something that could be located in the house of the Prophet and there is a well known saying ‘No one knows the going on inside a house than the people of that house’.
Imam Bukhari should have narrated Hadith from the Imams from the Ahl’ul bayt of the Prophet since they had Hadith in their possession”
We do not say that Imam Bukhari did this due to hatred, rather we say that it was due to difficulties that he did not narrate from the Ahl’ul bayt Imams. Muhammad bin Ismaeel Bukhari (d.256 Hijri) was alive during the Abbaside era, when he collated Hadith. When he said ‘In Sahih Bukhari the Hadeeth narrated are Sahih, and I have left a great many of Sahih Hadeeth’. Abdul Haleem Jundi said ‘Imam Bukhari was indicating that the Hadith that he had omitted were those in the honour of Hadhrath Ali and the Ahl’ul bayt. Imam Bukhari through his fear of the Abbaside Khalifa could not incorporate them in his Sahih al Bukhari”
Subeh Sadiq fi Fadail Imam Jafar Sadiq, pages 195-196
The Mufti’s defense of Imam Bukhari does not form part of the discussion here, what is important to us is those that Ibn al-Hashimi allegedly believes were “among the foremost people of knowledge in their time” were completely ignored when it came to collating Hadeeth material for the boom that the Sunni Ulema deem the most authentic book after the Quran. The truth is the later Imams were treated no different to the first Imam, whilst few would doubt that he was amongst the ‘foremost people of knowledge in their time’ we already have the proud comment of Ibn Taimiya “None of the four imams nor the other of the jurists refer to him (Ali) in their jurisprudence”. If the four Imams did not even seek to attain benefit from the knowledge of Imam Ali (as) what likelihood was there of the teachings of the later Imams being adhered to? Ibn al-Hashimi this is the true picture of the value afforded to our Imams by your greatest scholar. Perhaps it would be better for you to stop adopting taqiyya and admitting that your adhere to his way and writing articles that shows readers the actual beliefs you have of the Ahl’ul bayt (as) Imams, in line with the aqeedah of you grand Shaykh ul Islam.
Allamah Abu Bakar al-Khalal in his famed hadeeth work ‘As Sunnah’ records an array of traditions showing the superiority level set by Ahle Sunnah for Sahabah and at what level do they place Imam Ali bin Abi Talib (as), let us see. We read in As Sunnah, Vol. 2 pg. 397 Hadith 574:
إسناده حسن أخبرني محمد بن يحيى ومحمد بن المنذر قالا ثنا أحمد بن الحسن الترمذي قال سمعت أبا عبدالله يقول نحن نقول أبو بكر وعمر وعثمان ونسكت على حديث ابن عمر
إسناده صحيح
Ahmad bin al-Hassan al-Termidhi said: ‘I heard Aba Abullah (ibn Hanbal) saying: ‘We say Abu bakr, Umar, Uthman.’ And then remain silent according to the hadith of ibn Umar.’
(al-khalal said) the isnaad is sahih.
In previous chapters, we have already cited the belief Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal held for the open Nasibi narrators of his school. With that belief in mind, one can easily relate the following tradition recorded in As Sunnah, Vol. 2 pg. 397 Hadith 575:
سمعت أبا بكر بن أبي خيثمة يقول قيل ليحيى بن معين وأنا شاهد أن أحمد بن حنبل يقول من قال أبو بكر وعمر وعثمان وعلي لم أعنفه فقال يحيى خلوت بأحمد على باب عفان فسألته ما تقول فقال أقول أبو بكر وعمر وعثمان لا أقول علي
إسناده صحيح
Aba bakr bin Abi Khuthaima said:’It was said to Yahya bin Mueen and I am witness that Ahmad bin Hanbal said: ‘Whoever says Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali, I will not snub him’.
Yahya said: I was in solitude with Ahmad at the front door of Affan, I asked him: ‘What do you say?’.
He (Ahmad) replied: ‘I say Abu bakr, Umar and Uthman, I don’t say Ali’.
(al-khalal said:) the isnaad is sahih.
On this topic, we further read the views of the Sunni Imam and jurist Abdullah Ibn Umar who pledged allegiance to Yazeed [la] on the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Prophet. We read in As Sunnah, Vol. 2 pg. 399 Hadith 580:
أخبرنا عبدالله قال ثنا سلمة بن شبيب قال مروان الطاطري قال ثنا سليمان بن بلال قال ثنا يحيى بن سعيد عن نافع عن ابن عمر قال كنا نفضل على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان ولا نفضل أحدا على أحد
Nafee reports that ibn Umar said: ‘We were giving superiority during the time of prophet (p.b.u.h) to Abu bakr, Umar and Uthman, then we don’t give superiority to any one on the other.’
As for the popular Chaar Yaar (Four friends) myth propagated by the Nawasib of the Indian subcontinent suggesting that the Ahle Sunnah consider Abu Bakar, Umar, Uthman and Ali hold an esteemed rank in sequence, the truth is that Ali (as) is not included in the superiority list while he is only included in the list those who became Caliphs. As we read the words of Imam Ahmad as recorded in As Sunnah, Vol. 2 pg. 392 Hadith 559:
وأخبرنا محمد بن أبي هارون قال ثنا إسحاق أن أبا عبدالله سئل عن الرجل لا يفضل عثمان على علي قال ينبغي أن نفضل عثمان على علي لم يكن بين أصحاب رسول الله اختلاف إن عثمان أفضل من علي رحمهما الله ثم قال نقول أبو بكر وعمر وعثمان ثم نسكت هذا في التفضيل وفي الخلافة أبو بكر وعمر وعثمان وعلي وهذا في الخلفاء على هذا الطريق وعلى ذا كان أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم
إسناده صحيح
Ishaq reported that Aba Abdullah (Ahmad ibn Hanbal) was asked about a man who doesn’t prefer Uthman over Ali.
He (ibn Hanbal) replied: ‘It is must to prefer Uthman over Ali, there was no disagreement amongst the companions of the prophet (p.b.u.h) about Uthman being better than Ali may Allah mercy be upon them’.
Then he (ibn Hanbal) said: ‘We say Abu bakr, Umar and Uthman then we hold on, this is about preference, but in Caliphs it's Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali. This is among the Caliphs and that is what the companions of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) used to do.’
The isnaad is Sahih.
Moreover the Sunnies have always been backing up the tyrants from Bani Umayyah, about whom we read an interesting remark in one of the poetries that Ibn Kathir has recorded in Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah, Vol. 17 pg. 375:
وكلهم قد كان ناصبياً * إلا الإمام عمر التقيا
All of them were nasibi * except Imam Umar the pious
Note: It's Umar bin Abdul Aziz.
If you ever debate with the Ahle-Hadith particularly the adherents of Deoband and Najd, one Hadith that is on the tip of their tongues is this one:
“ALLAH, ALLAH! Fear Him with regard to my Companions! Do not make them targets after me! Whoever loves them loves them with his love for me; and whoever hates them hates them with his hatred for me. Whoever bears enmity for them, bears enmity for me; and whoever bears enmity for me, bears enmity for Allah. Whoever bears enmity for Allah is about to perish!”
(Tirmidhi, Ahmad, Bayhaqi)
The Ahle Sunnah deem those embraced Islam during the life of the Prophet (s) saw him and died on iman as a Sahabi, on the basis of this definition deem the Shi’a kaafir for their rejection of personalities that fall within this definition. With this in mind we ask the so called true lover of Ahle bayt the following questions:
1. In accordance with the Hadith cited do you deem those that hate the Sahaba to be kaafirs?
2. Do you deem Nasibi narrators as hypocrites and Kafirs due to their hatred of Sahabi Ali, yes or no?
3. If yes, does Islam allow you to narrate Hadeeth from hypocrite and Kaafirs and deem them reliable ones?
Whilst logic would dictate that those that hate Ali (as) are kafirs whose word should never be adhered to, we see a departure from this precedent. When it comes to narrators of Prophetic traditions we see, biographical data confirms that they were Nasibi that hated ‘Ali (as) – a Sahabi that would hence place them within the tafkir ambit of the hadith interpretation. Figures like this should be subject to hate, ridicule and takfir by the Sahaba advocates, yet the great Sunni Ulema rather than deem them kafirs testified to their greatness and integrity, showering them with with accolades such as ‘Thiqah, Seduq and Hafiz’.
Let us leave the topic of Imam Ali (as) aside for a moment and look at some of these narrators from another angle. Amongst the wonderful Nasibi Hadith narrators the Rijal scholars noted that Hariz bin Uthman al Himsi, Kathir bin Shahab and Asad bin Wada’a were known for cursing Imam ‘Ali (as). Cursing any Muslim is a major sin, it is narratedin Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 9, Book 88, Number 197 on the authority of ‘Abdullah b. Mas’ud that
The Prophet said, “Abusing a Muslim is Fisq (evil doing) and killing him is Kufr (disbelief).”
We have already cited Sunni scholar Allamah Ahmad Shakir’s comments that make it clear that a Fasiq cannot be Thiqah. We read in al-Bahith al-Hathith by Ibn Kathir (comments by Allamah Ahmad) Shakir pg. 87:
“The accepted fact is that Thiqah is one who is considered preserved for his reports, a Muslim, rational, adult, preserved from lasciviousness (fisq) …
If any of these conditions contains defects, his narration must be rejected”
With this in mind we challenge the Ahle Sunnah to answer us these questions:
1. Is cursing a Muslim an act of Fisq?
2. If it is, how can a narrator be a Fasiq and Thiqah at the same time?
3. Allah (swt) says in Surah Hujurat verse 6 ‘O ye who believe! If a Fasiq comes to you with any news, ascertain the truth’ with this verse in mind:
3(a). Why have Ahle Sunnah rather than ascertain the truth, graded Fasiq as men of truth?
3(b). Does such grading not contradict this verse of the Qur’an?
Those that curse Muslims are transgressors, what do you think the Islamic position is on those that curse the Commander of the Faithful, Ali ibn Abi Talib (as). Let us answer it from this Hadith:
“Whoever curses (or verbally abuses) Ali, he has, in fact, cursed me, and whoever has cursed me, he has cursed Allah, and whoever has cursed Allah, then Allah will throw him into Hell-fire.”
Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Vol. 44, pg. 329
This tradition makes cursing Imam ‘Ali (as) as tantamount to cursing Allah (swt) and the Prophet (s) and is Hellbound. Tell us Ahle Sunnah:
You claim to be the true lovers of the Prophet (s), does one that curses Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s) fall within the definition of a Muslim?
If he does not, why did your great Ulema take such filthy Hellbound Kafirs to their hearts?
If you engage today’s Nasibi, the biggest propaganda tool that they use is that Sunnis steer away from the Shi’a, their word should never be accepted because they hate the Sahaba. Logic would dictate that this position should also be adopted with Nasibis on account of their hatred of the Sahaba ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) but this was not the case, hating Imam ‘Ali (as) did not in any way contaminate a narrator’s honesty and integrity, rather being a Nasibi was not even an issue of concern for the scholars of Rijjal, it was no bar on a narrators honesty and integrity!
Just consider the logic of these alleged lovers of Imam ‘Ali (as) – Shi’a hate the Sahaba hence they are kaafir, those narrators of Hadeeth that hated ‘Ali (as) are great individuals and men of truth. If the poor shia curse those Sahaba that they deem deviants who perpetuated injustice towards the Ahl’ul bayt (as), they are abruptly called kaafir and that one should stay clear of such people, but if these (Nasibi) people curse Ali (as) then they are not kaafir rather such is their grandeur character, one should associate closely with them, and benefit from their knowledge since they are thiqa narrators of their hadeeth.
What greater proof of such a contradictory stance can there than that advanced by today’s modern day Nawasib who falsely present themselves as Sunni, but get exposed when they refuse to condemn Yazid. Ibn al Hashmi is one such individual, in his article ‘Fatwa on Hussain’s Fighting Against Yazid’ he lets his Nasibi guard slip when he refuses to condemn the ‘Yazid, by suggesting the negative depictions of him are Shi’a concoctions:
The Shia, in their quest to show support for Sayyiduna Hussain (may Allah be pleased with him), have gone to extremes in casting Yazid as a diabolically evil character sparing no insult against him. The Shia have even said that Yazid was a homosexual, was impotent, was a bastard child, was a drunkard, was a sodomite, and many other childish attacks, many of which they also use against Sayyiduna Umar bin Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him). It is therefore possible (and highly probable) that in the same manner that these are lies against Sayyiduna Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), then maybe these are also lies against Yazid.
If we were to judge Yazid, we could not use reports that are highly questionable (i.e. from the Shia). Allah Almighty says in the Quran: “O you who believe! If an evil-doer comes to you with a report, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people in ignorance, then be sorry for what you have done.” (Quran, 49:6) This verse would include the Shia, who are known for their lies and slander.
We should not take our history from the Shia who are known to be Ghullat (exaggerators). They have historical records which are so polarized that Sayyiduna Hussain (may Allah be pleased with him) and Yazid become comic book characters. On the one hand, Sayyiduna Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) is described as a super-hero who can split the earth’s core open with his sword and the angels couldn’t even stop him; according to the exaggerating Shia, Sayyiduna Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) single-handedly shook an entire fort down with his bear hands. And on the other hand, the Shia call Sayyiduna Umar bin Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) to be a sodomite and a pervert, and many other dreadful things. The Shia exaggerate and make everything into a fairy-tale between good and evil. So how can we use the Shia accounts of history seriously, and how can we pass judgement on a person based on obvious exaggerations?
http://www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/history/yazid
Screenshot from Ibn al-Hashimi’s article
The text is clearly informing its Sunni readership that they should never accept the word of the Shia because they are Ghulat, they attribute lies to Yazeed and Umar, and Allah (swt) says we shouldn’t accept the words of evil doers. Is it not amazing that we should never accept anything bad said of Yazid, since these are the words of the Shi’a, but when it comes to taking the word of Nasibis and Khwaarij who slander Imam Ali (as), attributed lies to him, fake ahedeeth, cursed him and praised his killers, that is all fine, the word of such men is wholly acceptable, on the contrary such men are given titles such as men of truth. Does this double standard not evidence that the Ahl’ul Sunnah are content with maintaining cordial relations with Nasibi to the point that they can even incorporate their narrations into their books? The only evil doer that Hashmi rejects are the Shi’a, if the evil doer is a Nasibi then that’s fine, they should be afforded utmost respect and love for their contributions towards spreading the ahadeeth of the Prophet (s). Hatred of Ali (as) in no way makes one unreliable, that has no bearing on one’s nature his words should not be doubted. This contradictions proves the hypocritical nature adopted by the school of Ibn al Hashmi they are happy attacking the Shi’a, but are keen to hide their own skeletons, and fail to notify their Sunni brethren of their strong religious bond with Nasibies.
It is truly amazing that the lead advocates of the Sahaba refuse to accept the word of a Shi’a, but their Ulema had no problem accepting the word of Imam ‘Ali (as)’s enemies rather they were deemed men of truth. Mu’awiyas advocates should know that you cant have your cake and eat – you cant deem those that hate Sahaba to be kaafirs and then refuse to call those that hated ‘Ali as Kaafirs that constitute hypocrisy.
If you do indeed love Imam ‘Ali (as) and the Ahl’ul bayt (as) can you evidence this by condemning your Ulema that narrated from ‘trustworthy’ Nasibi kaafirs? If not, why not?
The reason you cannot is because you would infact be taking a part a Nasibi ideology that successfully merged with what today is the Sunni school of thought. Before we submit evidence to substantiate our claim, allow us to pose this scenario to the Ahle Sunnah:
“You are walking through the market area and see a large crowd gathers in one area. You go there to see a man with a Dawa stall speaking on a microphone. You recognise him as a prominent speaker, well known, learned you also know that he hates Imam ‘Ali (as) and during the speech makes disparaging comments of him. What would you do, would you:
We are sure that most Sunnis, as ‘true’ lovers of the Ahl’ul bayt (as) would adopt options c) or d). Unfortunately the early Sunni state that had an Anti ‘Ali (as) agenda successfully changed the mindset of its subjects, from option c) to a) and b) and this has left a permanent mark on the Sunni belief system. If the early generation may have sought to walk away from and Anti ‘Ali (as) state policy, the Banu Umayya successfully altered thinking through shifting state policy. The chief engineer of this approach was Marwan ibn al Hakim, Muawiya’s governor who set the wheels of Nasibi ideology into motion.
As evidence we present this tradition from Sahih al Bukhari Volume 2, Book 15, Number 76:
Narrated Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri:
The Prophet used to proceed to the Musalla on the days of Id-ul-Fitr and Id-ul-Adha; the first thing to begin with was the prayer and after that he would stand in front of the people and the people would keep sitting in their rows. Then he would preach to them, advise them and give them orders, (i.e. Khutba). And after that if he wished to send an army for an expedition, he would do so; or if he wanted to give and order, he would do so, and then depart. The people followed this tradition till I went out with Marwan, the Governor of Medina, for the prayer of Id-ul-Adha or Id-ul-Fitr.
When we reached the Musalla, there was a pulpit made by Kathir bin As-Salt. Marwan wanted to get up on that pulpit before the prayer. I got hold of his clothes but he pulled them and ascended the pulpit and delivered the Khutba before the prayer. I said to him, “By Allah, you have changed (the Prophet’s tradition).” He replied, “O Abu Sa’id! Gone is that which you know.” I said, “By Allah! What I know is better than what I do not know.” Marwan said, “People do not sit to listen to our Khutba after the prayer, so I delivered the Khutba before the prayer.”
Here we see that Marwan admitted that the Sunnah of the Porphet (s) had been changed because “People do not sit to listen to our Khutba after the prayer, so I delivered the Khutba before the prayer’. . Is there any reason why people walked away from the Banu Ummaya Eid Khutbah? It is because it coincided with an era when the Nasibi state would curse Imam Ali (as) through the empire in mosques. The ‘Shams al Hind’ of Sunnies Allamah Shibli Numani stated:
“Traditions were first formed in book form in the days of Ummayads, who, for about 90 years, throughout their vast dominions stretching from the Indus in India to Asia Minor and Spain, insulted the descendents of Fatima and got Ali openly censured in Friday sermons at the mosques. They had hundreds of saying coined to eulogize Amir Muawiya”
Siratun Nabi, Volume 1 page 60
Imam of Deobandies Muhammad Anwar Shah Kashmiri records in his esteemed commentary of Sahih Bukhari records:
“The sunnah is to perform prayer before sermon, but Marwan made it (sermon) before the prayer because he used to abuse Ali (may Allah be pleased with him)”
Faiz al Bari Sharah Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1 page 722 No. 954, Kitab al-Eidayn
Imam of Ahle Sunnah Kirmani in his esteemed commentary of Sahih Bukhari (under the commentary of tradition found in Volume 9, Book 88, Number 206) confirmed the historic fact that Ali (as) was being cursed from the pulpits of the mosque during the era of Muawiyah and Imam Budruddin al-A’ini echoed the same in his commentary of Sahih Bukhari:
“Probably it means the evil at the time of Uthman’s murder and the good at the time after it i.e. during the reign of Ali, the malicious are the Khawarij and those who are similar to them, and the evil is after his (Ali’s) time, the time of those who used to curse him from the pulpits”
1. . Sharah Bukhari by Kirmani, Volume 14 page 196
2. Ummadatul Qari Sharah Sahih Bukhari by Budruddin al-A’ini, Vol 24 pg. 289
The Sunnah that had the khutba after Eid Salat provided those that loved Imam Ali (as) with the opportunity to walk away from the mosque. By changing the Sunnah of the Prophet (s), the Banu Ummayad State ensured that the anti Ali (as) stance reached the ear of every Muslim adherent that entered the Mosque. The success of this approach was clear, it eased the mindset to not being hurt by such abuse, after all if the Imam of a Mosque held such a view then holding such a position was neither abhorrent not sinful. It effectively created an acceptance that hatred of Imam ‘Ali (as) did not in any way discredit an individual's character, the greatest proof being that such men’s views do not negate their truthfulness in narrating what is the cornerstone of the Islamic doctrine, Prophetic traditions. The appraisal of Nasibi and Khwaarij narrators by the Sunni scholars of rijjal serves as testament to the success of the Ummayad state in contaminating Sunni Islam, and demonstrates the pivotal role that Nasibis have had in cascading the teachings of the Prophet (s) to the Sunni masses. We ask the Ahle Sunnah these questions:
· When the Rijjal scholars never graded hatred of Imam ‘Ali (as) as diluting one’s iman, nor grounds for rejecting a narrator, on what basis do today’s Sunni deem loving the Ahl’ul bayt (as) to be a pre-requisite for being a Muslim?
· What right do today’s Ahle Sunnah have to go back to the drawing board and insert such a pre-requisite to being a Muslim, when the grand Sunni Ulema never did?
· What right do you have to bear enmity to Nasibi when your grand Ulema never did?
Whilst the Ahle Sunnah scholars will tell their adherents that they have never had any association with the Nawasib and their restoring the Eid Khutbah to its rightful place is proof of there dissociation with such times it is interesting to note that the Hanbali Sect (of which Ibn Taymeeya and Abdul Wahab was an adherent) actually recommends that the Sunnah of Marwan be followed. We read in al-Feqh ala al-Madahib al-Arba'ah Vol. 1, pg. 357 by Allamah Abdulrahman al-Jaziri the following Shafi’i and Hanafi position on the Eid Khutbah.
يشترط أن تكون قبل الصلاة
“It is recommended before the prayer”
The Hanablis have spoken. The Ahl’ul Sunnah believes that all four Sunni madhabs are correct and should be respected, so what do they have to say about this ‘recommendation’? O tell us Sunnies:
1. The Sunnah of Muhammad al Mustafa is that the Khutbah be performed after Eid, whilst the Sunnah of Marwan is that it be performed before Eid, why do you want to reinstate the Sunnah of Marwan?
2. Do you regard the Sunnah of Marwan greater than the Sunnah of Muhammad (s)? If you do not, why are you choosing to disregard the Sunnah of Muhammad in favour of the Sunnah of Marwan?
The Sunnah of Marwan was connected with the cursing of Imam ‘Ali (as) are you not ashamed that you wish to reinstate an innovation with such filthy origins?
The fact that the Hanbalis recommend adhering to the Sunnah of Marwan evidences their affiliation with this evil Nasibi, thus making them a party to the cursing of Imam ‘Ali (as).
