Category Archives: Answering

Is the version of hadith thaqalayn ‘Kitabullah wa sunnati’ weak?

Answering-Ansar (which has shifted its website to says:

As for Ibn al-Hashimi’s version to the ‘Quran and AhlulBayt’ version of Hadith Thaqlayn and his spontaneous citation of ‘Quran and Sunnah’ version, we would like to advance the words of present day Salafi scholar Shaykh Hassan bin Farhan al-Maliki who in his book “Qeraah fi Kutub al-Aqaed”, page 71 stated:

(…كتاب الله وسنتي) وهو حديث ضعيف عند محققي أهل السنة

“(…The book of Allah and my Sunnah) this is a weak tradition according to scholars of Ahle Sunnah”



This Shaykh Hassan bin Farhan al Maliki is an old friend of Rawafidh, and the Muslims don’t give him 1% credibility in the science of hadith. Now lets turn our attention to whether this version of hadith thaqalayn is weak or not.

The Prophet (saww) said :

خلفت فيكم شيئين لن تضلوا بعدهما; كتاب الله و سنتي, و لن يفترقا حتى يردا على الحوض

I have left among you two things after which none of you will go astray; the Book of Allah and my Sunnah, and they will never separate until they return to me at the pond.

This version of hadith thaqalayn is present in the following books.
Mustadrak al Hakim
Kinzul Ummal by Ali al Muttaqi al hindi
Mishkat al Masabih by Tibrizi
Jami al Saghir by Imam Suyuti
Sunan by Imam Darqutni
Sunan al Kubra by Imam Baihaqi (two different asnaad)
Muwatta by Imam Malik
al-aitqad  by Abul Qasim
al Targheeb by Ibn Shaheen

Imam Hakim has graded it sahih, Imam Dhahabi remained silent in talkhis so it shows his approval, and Shaikh Albani and Ibn Hazm (in al ahkam) also authenticated it.

Now lets look at Shia books

We read in al Kafi
عدة من أصحابنا، عن أحمد بن محمد بن خالد، عن أبيه، عن النضر بن سويد، عن يحيى الحلبي، عن أيوب بن الحر قال: سمعت أبا عبد الله عليه السلام يقول: كل شئ مردود إلى الكتاب والسنة
A number of our people has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Khalid from his father  from al-Nadr ibn Suwayd from Yahya al-Halab from Ayyub ibn al-Hurr who has said the  following.  “Abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) has said, ‘Everything must be referred to the holy Quran and the  Sunnah”

al Kafi, Vol. 1, p. 69

Majlisi has graded it sahih

This sahih tradition from al-kafi shows that even the traditions of ahlelbayt should be referred to Quran and Sunnah, so from this,we learn that sunnah is the primary thing, and ahlelbayt’s narration is to be verified with the sunnah. If it is in agreement with the sunnah, we should accept it, otherwise, we should discard the sayings of ahlelbayt as well since the primary thing is Quran and Sunnah.


Double Standards of Answering-Ansar

Answering-Ansar made a hue and cry when Ahlelbayt website presented a chainless narration.

Taken from Madaarijun Nubuwwah, Kitaabul Wafaa, Baihaqi and in the commentaries of Mishkaat.

Kitaabul Muwaafiqah narrates that Anaani said:
“Abu Bakr came to the door of Fatima in the midday sun and said: ‘I shall not leave from here as long as the daughter of Rasool-Allah remains displeased with me. Ali came to Fatima and giving her an oath urged her to become pleased. Then she became pleased (with Abu Bakr)

Answering-Ansar said:

The book Madaarijun Nubuwwah is a compilation of narrations from other books, without any chains of narration. It is interesting that Ibn al Hashimi presents this text as fact when it contains no chain. How can a chainless narration be presented as fact, when we have a Sahih narration leading up to Ayesha who confirmed that Sayyida Fatima (as) never forgave Abu Bakr! If we are wrong and a Sahih chain narration of the above tradition does indeed exist then we invite Ibn al Hashimi to present it.

If I try to publish all the chainless and mursal narrations which Answering-Ansar has mentioned in its website, it would take huge space. I am just giving the reference of a few books which have no asnad and Answering-Ansar heavily relied on it.

1. Iqd al Fareed

There is hardly any article of Answering-Ansar in which it has not used this book and it has no chain for the narrations. Get a glimpse of it


2. Al Imama wal Siyasa
You can only imagine how much chainless narrations are present in Answering-Ansar’s own website after citing only these two books which Answering-Ansar heavily relied upon. One can only laugh at Answering-Ansar’s statement “How can a chainless narration be presented as fact“, after seeing that Answering-Ansar itself heavily relied on chainless narrations for its articles.

Similarly when another Sunni website put forth a mursal tradition

al-Hafidh Ibn Katheer mentions in his al bidayaah 6/333 that: When Fatima (alayhas salaam) was experiencing her sickness [before death], Abu Bakr as Sideeq came to her and sought to please her, and she became pleased. ”
The exact narration has originally been reported by Imaam al-Baihaqi through Ismaeel ibn Abee Khaalid who narrated from Ash-Sh’ubi, and the isnaad (chain) of this report is sahih (authentic).

Answering-Ansar said:

The chain of the tradition may be Sahih i.e. the narrators in the chain may be authentic but Nasibi failed to point out that the tradition is Mursal (disconnected) because it is a Tabayee (Shu’bi) who is giving testimony of an incident which he did not see with his eyes and this testimony is not made by someone of that era i.e. by a Sahabi. We shall remind them, that according to Salafies, the Mursal are not acceptable as Imam Nasiruddin Albaani records in his book ‘Deefa an al-Hadith al-Nabawi’, page 82:

المرسل من أقسام الضعيف على قواعد علماء الحديث

“Mursal is a kind of weak according to hadith scholars”

Another darling of Salafies Ibn Uthaimin recorded in his book Majmo’a Fatawa ibn Uthaimin, Volume 6 page 164:

والمرسل من أقسام الضعيف، فلا تقوم به الحجة

“Mursal is a kind of weak [Hadeeth], hence its not hujja”

And most importantly, the incident which Sh’ubi claims to have witnessed, took place even before his birth as Imam Ibn Hazam records in Al-Muhala, Volume 11 page 50:

ولم يولد الشعبي إلا بعد موت عمر رضي الله عنه بسنتين

“Al-Sh’ubi was born two years after the death of Umar (ra)”

Now this is also ridiculous if one finds out that Answering-Ansar itself heavily relied upon Mursal traditions.

Answering-Ansar itself says

If the Sahaba link between a successor (i.e. Tabayee) and Prophet Muhammad [s] is missing, the hadith is called mursal, e.g., when a Tabayee says, “The Prophet said …” . Such form of hadith also becomes acceptable to our opponents provided i.e. they felt like it and the report is narrated by authentic Tabayee. Imam of Wahabies Nasiruddin Al-Baani stated n ‘Al-Maseh ala al-Jurabain’ page 29:

مقطوع الثقة ليس كغيره ولذلك قبل من المراسيل مراسيل الثقات

“The disconnected (chain) of the Thiqah is not like the others, therefore the Mursal of the Thiqah is accepted”

We read in ‘Qurat al-Ayn’ by al-Hattab al-Ru’aini, page 58:

وقال مالك وأبو حنيفة وأحمد في أشهر الروايتين عنه وجماعة من العلماء: المرسل حجة؛ لأنَّ الثقة لا يرسل الحديث إلا حيث يجزم بعدالة الراوي

“Malik, Abu Hanifa, Ahmad (bin Hanbal) and group of scholars said that Mursal is Huja, because the Thiqah do not narrate the tradition without mentioning the narrator unless they are sure that the narrator is just”

Allamah Syed Mahmood Alusi al-Baghdadi (d. 1270 H) states in Tafseer Ruh al-Ma’ani Volume 9 page 151:

أن المرسل حجة عند أكثر أهل العلم.

“Mursal is Huja according us and the majority of the scholars”

We read in ‘Hashyat al-Sindi’ by Shaykh Muhammad bin Abdulhadi al-Sindi (d. 1138 H), Volume 1 page 104:

والمرسل حجة عندنا وعند الجمهور.

“Mursal is Huja according to the majority”

Allamah Badruddin al-Aini records in ‘Umdat al-Qari Sharah Sahih Bukhari’ Volume 11 page 302:

والمرسل حجة عندنا.

“The mursal is Huja according to us”


How ridiculous it is that Answering-Ansar accuses us that we Ahlussunnah accept mursal when he feel like it, as it says “Such form of hadith also becomes acceptable to our opponents provided i.e. they felt like it and the report is narrated by authentic Tabayee.

Rather it is Answering-Ansar itself, which accepts mursal traditions when it suits their claims, and discards mursal traditions when it doesn’t suit them. There is a criteria for acceptance of mursal traditions and also, the scholars have disputed regarding it, and it is not only the case with the Sunnis but Shias as well, where some scholars accept mursal, others reject it, and still others accept it based on certain conditions.

The fact is that such double standards are widespread in Answering-Ansar’s website, they try to befool the common people with such deceptions. This is totally in accordance with the fatwa of the grand Ayatullah of Shias, Mr. Khoi, who gave a fatwa that lying is allowed if it can refute the opponents of Shias in debates and this fatwa is available online.

All praises to Allah!

Is there only one difference between Aaron and Ali?

Answering-Ansar says:

Whilst Shi’a are in no doubt that the station of Prophethood ended with Muhammad (s) we would like to know why this Nasibi doesn’t seek to explain the Hadith in its entirety? The Prophet (s) is making it clear that other than Prophethood all other ranks that existed between Musa (as) and Harun (as) existed between him and Ali (as). Whilst we accept the second portion precluded Prophethood for Ali (as), all other relationships that Harun (as) had with Musa (as) existed, why doesn’t Ibn al Hashimi offer any comments about the opening words? If you look at the complete Hadith ‘Your position to me is like the position of Harun to Musa, except that there will be no prophet after me’ we can see that the sole rank the Ali (as) did not share with Harun (as) was that of Prophethood, The words of Rasulullah (s) ‘except there will be no Prophet after me’ proves that other than the station of Prophethood all the other ranks / duties that were associated with the Prophethood of Harun (as) had to also be possessed and filled by Maula Ali (as). Note that Muhammad(s) puts only one exemption clause in the nature of this relationship and that is that unlike Harun, Ali (as) will not be a prophet, hence the words, ‘…except that there will be no prophet after me.’ Given that the Qur’an states in black and white that Harun (as)’s relationship to Musa (as) is that of brother, vizier and khalifa it must be the same with Ali (as) for the only difference will be that Ali (as) is not a prophet.

Of course there were many differences between Aaron and Ali aside from Prophethood. The biggest is the difference in regard to successorship (if we suppose that Ali was supposed to be the first Imam after Prophet Muhammad). Because Aaron never became the Caliph after Moses.

And this is what Ibn al-Hashmi mentioned in his blog.

It was Prophet Yusha (Joshua) who became the Caliph (successor) of Musa, not Prophet Haroon nor his descendants. Throughout the Caliphate of the Shaykhayn and Uthman, Ali remained a spiritual guide for the people. Similar is the case with many of the Imams of the Shia, who secluded themselves from any temporal role and instead remained as spiritual guides.

The Hadith al-Manzilah does not at all help the Shia cause, but rather it is a strong proof against the Shia claims. Had the Prophet wished to imply that Ali was his successor, then he would have likened Ali to Prophet Yusha rather than Prophet Haroon. Instead, the Prophet likened Ali to Prophet Haroon whose role was not that of a temporal ruler but that of a spiritual guide.

So the simple logic which is not difficult for a sane person to understand is that if you try to prove the Imamate of Ali from this hadith, the first thing you should show is that Aaron became the Imam (shiogically speaking) after Moses. When this main and the fundamental ingredient is not present in the example of Aaron, how can you use this example to justify the Imamate of Ali?

Imam Nawawi’s sharh regarding this hadith also makes it very clear.

وليس فيه دلالة لاستخلافه بعده ، لأن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إنما قال هذا لعلي حين استخلفه في المدينة في غزوة تبوك ، ويؤيد هذا أن هارون المشبه به لم يكن خليفة بعد موسى ، بل توفي في حياة موسى ، وقبل وفاة موسى بنحو أربعين سنة

there isn’t any proof in it that he is the Caliph after the Prophet, as the Prophet [s] only said this to Ali when he made him a Caliph in Madina in Ghazwa Tabuk, and supporting this (is  the fact that) Aaron didn’t became Caliph after Moses, rather he died in the life of Moses, almost 40 years before the death of Moses.

Answering-Ansar has nothing to refute it. Trying to refute it, it further increases the problems for itself.

Answering-Ansar says:

Sadly for shameless Ibn al Hashimi rather than weaken the Shia stance it strengthens it after all what was the relationship between Musa (as) and Harun (as)? Who possessed a closer relationship with Prophet Musa (as) was it Harun (as) or Yusha bin Nun (as)? Had the comparison merely been to that of Yusha that would have been just one rank that of Leadership, nothing more than that, whereas the relationship between Musa (as) and Harun (as) was far greater. Rasulullah (s) by citing Hadith Manzila made it clear that the believers need to look no further than the Quran to recognize that station of Harun (as). Yusha may have indeed succeeded Harun as the Head of State, but he is not talked of in the Quran. We are not denying the excellence and honor bestowed upon Yusha bin Nun, but remember that excellence was one that linked him to Musa (as), he was his Khalifa. Harun (as)’s being the Khalifa of his brother only partially reflected the relationship between the two Prophets. The relationship between Harun (as) and Musa (as) was multi faceted as can be evidenced from the Quran.

Now of course Ahlus Sunnah don’t have any problem with anyone saying that this hadith shows the esteemed position of Ali near the Prophet (s). And we also have no problem with anyone saying that Aaron was superior to Joshua. Answering-Ansar’s statement that

Had the comparison merely been to that of Yusha that would have been just one rank that of Leadership, nothing more than that, whereas the relationship between Musa (as) and Harun (as) was far greater.

is just the fact we are trying to make the Shia understand. The one rank that Yushua had, was the rank of Leadership, Successorship, and that is the rank that the Shias try to prove for Ali from this hadith of Manzila, while this rank wasn’t with Aaron, and when Aaron didn’t have this rank, so how can this hadith show the Imamate and the Successorship of Ali?

Then Answering-Ansar says:

Rasulullah (s)’ citing the relationship between Harun (as) and Musa (as) sought to highlight the best possible relationship that best described his relationship with Ali (as) that was more than the fact he was his Khalifa as was Yusha bin Nun. The Prophet (s) therefore cited that relationship that a simile that could be gauged by looking at the Quran after all both Israelite Prophets are extolled on many occasions and we are informed that Harun (as) was brother, Vizier and Khalifa of Musa (as) – a relationship that likewise applied to Maula Ali (as).

Again we have to say the same thing. No doubt, Harun (as) was brother, Vizier and Khalifa of Musa (as), but he was the Khalifa of Musa (as) during his life. And we also don’t deny the fact that on the occasion of Tabuk, Ali was appointed Khalifa just like Harun (as) and on this occasion, the Prophet said this to make Ali assure that he shouldn’t be worried about what the people talk about him, his status is indeed just like the status of Harun (as) , who was not left by Musa because he lacked something, rather he was left by Musa (as) to guide the people and act as his deputy. And just like that incident didn’t made Harun (as) the wasi of Musa (as), similarly this incident at Tabuk doesn’t make Ali the wasi of Prophet Muhammad (s).

While Answering-Ansar should have tried to refute this fact (which is totally unrefutable) that Joshua became the wasi of Musa (as) , it started undermining this role and claimed that:

Yusha bin Nun may have been the Khalifa after Musa (as) but he didn’t possess the other attributes that Allah (swt) gave Harun (as) in the Quran. Allah (swt) describes Harun (as) as the Vizier, brother, helper and Khalifa of Musa (as).

In short, when the main subject on which our discussion lies is accepted not present in Aaron, that is he wasn’t the Wasi of Musa (as), so how can this hadith prove Ali to be the Wasi of Prophet Muhammad (s)? Hence it can be concluded that Shias in trying to prove the Imamate of Ali from this hadith of Manzila are making a fatal error. May Allah protect us from misguidance.

Similar post: