Monthly Archives: March 2011

Answering-Ansar’s blatant lie about Humayd ibn Ziyad

Answering-Ansar’s deceptions have no limits. In trying to prove that Ali’s daughter Umm Kulthum was never married to Umar, it had to depend on lies and deceptions heavily. The fact that this marriage indeed happened is a source of great trouble for the Shias. Perhaps Answering-Ansar was trying to gain some extra rewards for Taqiyyah while “revealing the truth”?

Answering-Ansar says:

Interestingly is the fact that our great Shi’a scholar Allamah Hullee (ra) writing on this individual deemed him “Aam” (common) that in Shi’a circles means non Shi’a (Khulasathul al Kuwwal page 219). If Nasibi will take issue that a Sunni taught Kulayni then we shoiuld point out that your Imam Bukhari also had teachers that were Shi’a. The views of a non-Shi’a have no value to us.

What Allama Helli actually said in Khulasatul Aqwal is the following

حميد بن زياد

ثقة عالم جليل واسع العلم كثير التصانيف

Humayd ibn Ziyad :

Thiqqah great scholar having huge knowledge and author of many books.

Khulasatul Aqwal fi marifatul rijal by Shaykh Helli , online reference


Moreover , he has been declared thiqqah in Fehrest of Shaikh Tusi, p. 118  and Rijal Najashi p. 132. And Majlisi declared this narration “Mawthaq” in Miratul Aqul, Vol. 21 p. 197

The second hadith has been declared “Sahih” by Majlisi in Miratul Aqul, Vol. 21. p. 199

Advertisements

Answering-Ansar and Hannan ibn Sadir

Welcome again, here is another story of Answering-Ansar’s clear deceptions. Answering-Ansar says in its article on Imam Mehdi:

We believe that Allah (swt) would not leave the believers without an Imam (as) upon the earth, and we believe that the very lifespan of this earth is linked to his lifespan. When his lifespan expires, the earth will likewise come to an end. The earth depends on him (as) and when the veil of occultation is raised by Allah (swt) it will be through him that an earth destroyed by bloodshed and misery will be uprooted and restored to beauty and splendor, with the Kingdom of God on the earth. To this effect we have explicit authentic Shi’a traditions affirming what our Imam (as) shall attain when he reappears:

Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from his father from Hannan ibn Sadir from Ma‘ruf ibn Kharrabudh from abu Ja’far (a.s.) who has said the following. “We are only like the stars in the heavens. Whenever one star disappears (from sight) another one comes in view until you will point out with your fingers and make a gesture with your necks. Allah will cause your star to disappear from your sight. The descendants of ‘Abd al-Muttalib will all look similar as such that one would not know which is which. When your star will reappear then you must give thanks to Allah.”
Usool al-Kafi, Vol 1, Kitab al-Hujjat, H 895, Ch. 80, h 8
Allamah al-Majlesi said: ‘Muwathak Hasan’ [ Mirat al-Uqool, v4 p45]

Now as you see, in the above hadith of Shiites, Hannan ibn Sadir is present. And according to Answering-Ansar, the hadith is authentic.

Now Answering-Ansar says in its article on Imamate:

[3]: Did the vast bulk of the Sahaba apostatize after the death of Rasulullah (s)?

Afriqi states:
For one who views the problem from this perspective it thus comes as no surprise to find the Shi‘ah narrating from their Imams that “all the people became murtadd after the death of Rasulullah, except three,”2 since it is consistent with the principle that equates Imamah with Nubuwah in the sense that each of them is a position appointed by Allah.

Reply One

This is one of the favourite narrations that Nawasib cite as part of their campaign to stoke up anti Shi’a feelings. The tradition is weak since one of the narrators of this tradition was Hanaan bin Sadeed who adhered to the “Wakfee al Madhab”, and Imam Raza (as) declared the following about such persons:

“An adherent of the wakfee al madhab is an individual opposed to the truth, should he remain on this deviant path until his die, his ultimate resting place shall be in Hell”.
Mukees ad’a raraya fi ilm al riwaya page 83

Reply Two

Whilst Nawasib of the rank and caliber of Abu Sulaiman cite this to create sectarian strife, there are open minded Sunni scholars have sought to interpret in a manner that will prevent dissent. The famous Wahaby scholar Allamah Waheed’udeen Zaman Khan narrates a similar narration in his famous work ‘Lughaat al Hadith’, one should observe the translation that he made of it:

“All the people turned from ‘Ali with the exception of three Salman Farsi, Abu Dharr Ghaffari and Miqdad bin Aswad. I said ‘is Amar Yasir not amongst them and he (Imam Abu Jafar) said, he was also turned little bit (then he returned to the right path)”
‘Lughaat al Hadith’ Volume 1 page 143, letter Jeem

Those who wish to incite sectarian violence should inspect the interpretation offered by this late Sunni scholar, is there any suggestion that the Sahaba became kaafir from such a translation?

If we for arguments sake accept this Hadith as correct then we will provide the same explanation that had been offered by Allamah Zaman, namely that the Sahaba turned away from ‘Ali (as), yet when we look at those Sahaba that stood with ‘Ali on the position of Khilafath, then this narration can only be understood in this manner.

We believe that far more than three people believed in the Imamate of Maula ‘Ali (as), which is why Abu Bakr used methods of State terrorism to quell support for our Imam. In no way were just three believers left the tradition cited from Usul Kafi carries a weak Isnad.

The narrator here is Hannan ibn Sadir, the same person in the narration above which is authentic according to Answering-Ansar,  and not Hannan ibn Sadeed, as we will  come to know soon.

The tradition in al-Kafi is

حنان، عن أبيه، عن أبي جعفر (عليه السلام) قال: كان الناس أهل ردة بعد النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله) إلا ثلاثة فقلت: ومن الثلاثة؟ فقال: المقداد بن الاسود وأبو ذر الغفاري و سلمان الفارسي

Hannan – from his father – from Abu Jafar who said : ‘People became apostates after the death of the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam), except for three people: Miqdad ibn Aswad, Abu Dharr Ghifari and Salmaan Farsi.’

Al-Kafi, Vol. 8, p. 245

Now Tafsir Ayyashi will tell us that it is Hannan ibn Sadir.

عن حنان بن سدير عن أبيه عن أبى جعفر عليه السلام قال كان الناس أهل ردة بعد النبي صلى الله عليه واله وسلم الا ثلثة، فقلت: ومن الثلثة ؟ قال: المقداد وأبو ذر وسلمان الفارسى

Hannan ibn Sadir – from his father – from Abu Jafar who said: ‘People became apostates after the death of the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam), except for three people: Miqdad ibn Aswad, Abu Dharr Ghifari and Salmaan Farsi.’

Tafsir Ayyashi, Vol. 1, p. 199

Secondly, Waheed uz Zaman Khan is a deviant, his books can’t be used as proof  against us.

Thirdly , Waheed uz Zaman Khan himself confessed in his book ‘Lughat al hadith’ that he gathered the ahadith of imamiya and ahle sunnah in  this book.

بالہام غیبی یہ حکم ہوا کہ ایک کتاب لغات حدیث میں بزبان اردو مرتب کر اور اس میں جہاں تک ہو سکےفریقین یعنی اہل سنت اور امامیہ کی حدیثیں جمع کر تاکہ حدیث شریف کے تمام طالبین کو شرح کا کام دے۔

Lughat al hadith, Vol. 1, p. 4

May Allah protect us from the devil’s deceptions. Amin

One witness testimony and Answering-Ansar

Answering-Ansar has a very bad habit of using short cuts to prove their cult the true religion. AA uses something to accuse someone in one article, and than goes on to justify the samething in another topic. At the end, it only succeeds in deceiving the ones who puts their trust in this site. Here is one more example.

Answering-Ansar says:

Mu’awiya ‘the Hadi’ introduced the Bidah of a single oath and witness in Islam.

We read in the Sharah of ‘Muawtta Imam Muhammad’ written by one of the revered Hanafi & Deobandi scholars Allamah Muhammad Abdul Hai al-Lucnowi (d. 1304 H):

ذكر ذلك ابن ابي ذئب عن ابن شهاب الزهري قال سألته عن اليمين مع الشاهد فقال : بدعة وأول من قضى بها معاوية

Ibn Abi al-Deab reported that he asked ibn Shehab al-Zuhari about the oath with the a witness, he (al-Zuhari) replied: “This is bid’ah and the first one who practiced it was Mu’awiya.”
Taleequl Majeed – Sharah Muawtta Imam Muhammad, page 363

We read in one of the esteemed Hanafi works, Sharah Waqaya:

إذا أنكر الخصم يرد اليمين على المدعي وعندنا هذا بدعة وأول من قضى بها معاوية

“If the opponent denied, the oath will be required from the claimant, and this is bid’ah, the first one who introduced it was Mu’awiya”
Sharah Waqayah, Volume 3 page 205

Imam of Ahle Sunnah Allamah Saaduddin Taftazani records:

وذكر في المبسوط أن القضاء بشاهد ويمين بدعة وأول من قضى بها معاوية

“It is mentioned in al-Mabsut that judgment by single witness and oath is bid’ah, the first one who introduced it was Mu’awiya”
Tauzeeh Sharah Talweeh, page 430

and than in the article of Fadak , AA says:

Why didn’t Abu Bakr accept the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as) in the first instance? Why did he ask for witness corroboration? If the court believes in the witness testimony, or that given by the claimant, then judgement can be passed. Additional witnesses are required to confirm the truthfulness of a claim, to convince a Judge. If a thing is truthful, then it remains true whether you have one witness or ten witnesses. The witness of a credible witness followed by many witnesses who are not as strong in no way weakens a case if the first witness’s credibility is proven. The Ulema of Islam have set conditions on the number of witnesses in general circumstances which refers to specific situations, but this does not apply where the Ruler has direct knowledge on a matter. Let us cite an example:

I am a Judge and I witness a man robbing another man, no other witnesses are present. Will I apply the Islamic penalty or shall I state ‘I demand two witnesses to verify what I saw’.Failure to do shall lead to me to dismiss the case’.

Witnesses are summoned as a matter of clarity, to arrive at a correct judgement. If a Judge does not have clear direct knowledge on matter then he can utilise reliance on witness testimony. Hadhrat Abu Bakr should have accepted Fatima’s belief in the correctness of her claim – after all Sunnis Fiqh stipulates that the testimony of one just Sahaba is all that is needed (Fathul Bari Volume 9 page 44).

Perhaps the AA team wants to follow the “bidahs” of Muawiyah?

Anyhow, as far as one witness is concerned, it has been allowed in certain cases and it is not the bidah of Muawiyah, Imam Zuhri’s very student, Imam Malik differed with him on this. We read in Muwatta of Imam Malik:

وحدثني مالك أنه بلغه أن أبا سلمة بن عبد الرحمن وسليمان بن يسار سئلا هل يقضى باليمين مع الشاهد فقالا نعم قال مالك مضت السنة في القضاء باليمين مع الشاهد الواحد يحلف صاحب الحق مع شاهده ويستحق حقه فإن نكل وأبى أن يحلف أحلف المطلوب فإن حلف سقط عنه ذلك الحق وإن أبى أن يحلف ثبت عليه الحق لصاحبه

Malik related to me that he heard that Abu Salama ibn Abd ar-Rahman and Sulayman ibn Yasar were both asked, “Does one pronounce judgement on the basis of an oath with one witness?” They both said, “Yes.”

Malik said, “The precedent of the sunna in judging by an oath with one witness is that if the plaintiff takes an oath with his witness, he is confirmed in his right.

Malik :: Book 36 : Hadith 36.4.7

We read in al Mughni by Ibn Qadama that the same is the view of Imam Shafi and Imam Ahmad.

Al Mughni, Kitab-ush-shahadat

Malik related to me that he heard that Abu Salama ibn Abd ar-Rahman and Sulayman ibn Yasar were both asked, “Does one pronounce judgement on the basis of an oath with one witness?” They both said, “Yes.”

Malik said, “The precedent of the sunna in judging by an oath with one witness is that if the plaintiff takes an oath with his witness, he is confirmed in his right.