“And whoever obeys Allah and the Messenger will be in the company of those blessed by Allah: the prophets, the people of truth, the martyrs, and the righteous—what honourable company!” (Qur’an 4:69)
﷽
Shaykh Al Qanoubi (h) is the luminary of the Ibadi school in the sciences of the hadith. The one whom Allah (swt) has illuminated his mind, and given sharp wit. Able to be among the scientists who detect the ʿillah, the hidden defects that often escape the grasp of the most astute.
This entry is in regard to what is known as: Hadith Al Thaqalyan or two matters of weight or two matters of importance.
Source: (Hadith 40, in Al Jami’ Al Sahih)
In the short video clip below, Shaykh Dr. Abdullah bin Sa’ed Al Ma’mari (h) mentions that Shaykh Al Qanoubi (h), in his study on the subject, has not found the narrations that include: “and my family” as being authentic from the Blessed Prophet (saw).
As Shaykh Dr Abdullah bin Sa’ed Al Ma’mari (h) says, what is authentic for us in the Ibadi school are the words: “The book of Allah and my Sunnah.”
Obeying Allah and his Messenger is transmitted via tawatur from the Qur’an.It does not need confirmation from the hadith.
What Shaykh Dr Abdullah bin Sa’ed Al Ma’mari (h) has said is true. We don’t find a single mention of obey Allah, Obey the Messenger and Obey the Ahl Bayt.
“He who obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah, but those who turn away-We have not sent you over them as a guardian.” (Qur’an 4:80)
“O you who believe, you shall obey Allah, and obey the messenger. Otherwise, all your works will be in vain.” (Qur’an 47:33)
“And obey Allah and obey the Messenger. But if you turn away, then Our Messenger is responsible only for conveying the message clearly. (Quran 64:12)
“Say, “Obey Allah and obey the Messenger. But if you turn away, then he is only responsible for his duty, and you are responsible for yours. And if you obey him, you will be guided. The Messenger’s duty is only to deliver the message clearly.” (Qur’an 24:54)
“Believe in Allah and His Messenger, and the scripture which He has sent to His Messenger and the scripture which He sent to those before (him)” (Qur’an 4:136)
O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in the result. (Qur’an 4:59)
The hadiths that the Sunni and Shi’i primarily dispute about are as follows:
Follow the Qur’an
“I have left among you the Book of Allah, and if you hold fast to it, you would never go astray. And you would be asked about me (on the Day of Resurrection), (now tell me) what would you say? They (the audience) said: We will bear witness that you have conveyed (the message), discharged (the ministry of Prophethood) and given wise (sincere) counsel. He (the narrator) said: He (the Holy Prophet) then raised his forefinger towards the sky and pointing it at the people (said):” O Allah, be witness. 0 Allah, be witness,” saying it thrice.”
On the authority of Ikrimah, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, that the Messenger of Allah, (saw) , addressed the people during the Farewell Pilgrimage and said: “O people, I have I have left among you that which if you hold fast to it you will never go astray: the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet.”
“On the authority of Ikrimah, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, that the Messenger of Allah, (saw), The Prophet (saw) addressed the people during the Farewell Pilgrimage and said: “Satan has despaired of being worshipped in your land, but he is content to be obeyed in other than that, of your deeds that you despise. So beware, O people, for I have left among you that which, if you hold fast to it, you will never go astray: The Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet (saw). Indeed, every Muslim is a brother to Allah.” A Muslim, Muslims are brothers, and it is not permissible for a man to take from his brother’s wealth except what he gives of his own free will. And do not wrong, and do not revert after me to disbelief, striking one another’s necks . ”
That the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Indeed, I am leaving among you, that which if you hold fast to them, you shall not be misguided after me. One of them is greater than the other: The Book of Allah is a rope extended from the sky to the earth, and my family – the people of my house – and they shall not split until they meet at the Hawd, so look at how you deal with them after me.”
The problem with the above hadith is it contains the vile and evil al-A’mash! No consideration is given to it.
Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:
“I saw the Messenger of Allah during his Hajj, on the Day of ‘Arafah. He was upon his camel Al-Qaswa, giving a Khutbah, so he said: ‘O people! Indeed, I have left among you, that which if you hold fast to it, you shall not go astray: The Book of Allah and my family, the people of my house.'”
Yazid b. Hayyan reported, I went along with Husain b. Sabra and ‘Umar b. Muslim to Zaid b. Arqam and, as we sat by his side, Husain said to him:
Zaid. you have been able to acquire a great virtue that you saw Allah’s Messenger (saw) listened to his talk, fought by his side in (different) battles, offered prayer behind me. Zaid, you have in fact earned a great virtue. Zaid, narrate to us what you heard from Allah’s Messenger (saw). He said: I have grown old and have almost spent my age and I have forgotten some of the things which I remembered in connection with Allah’s Messenger (saw), so accept whatever I narrate to you, and which I do not narrate do not compel me to do that. He then said: One day Allah’s Messenger (saw) stood up to deliver sermon at a watering place known as Khumm situated between Mecca and Medina. He praised Allah, extolled Him and delivered the sermon and. exhorted (us) and said: Now to our purpose. O people, I am a human being. I am about to receive a messenger (the angel of death) from my Lord and I, in response to Allah’s call, (would bid good-bye to you), but I am leaving among you two weighty things: the one being the Book of Allah in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of Allah and adhere to it. He exhorted (us) (to hold fast) to the Book of Allah and then said: The second are the members of my household I remind you (of your duties) to the members of my family.He (Husain) said to Zaid: Who are the members of his household? Aren’t his wives the members of his family? Thereupon he said: His wives are the members of his family (but here) the members of his family are those for whom acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. And he said: Who are they? Thereupon he said: ‘Ali and the offspring of ‘Ali, ‘Aqil and the offspring of ‘Aqil and the offspring of Ja’far and the offspring of ‘Abbas. Husain said: These are those for whom the acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. Zaid said: Yes.
Notice dear reader: “and the offspring of ‘Abbas.” Surely Ibn Abbas (ra) would know best what the Blessed Prophet (saw) said.
Prima Qur’an comments:
As mentioned, the inclusion of the Book of Allah and my family is important for the Shi’i in helping to establish their positions. This is not the case for us (the Ibadi school).
Some Sunni Muslims (in particular those who follow a Sufi Tariqah) reconcile the narrations by stating that they (Sunni Muslims who follow a Sufi Tariqah) follow the Qur’an and Sunnah via the descendants of the Blessed Messenger (saw). Since it is claimed by Sunni Muslims that the bulk of the descendants of Prophet Muhammed (saw) are actually contained within the house of ‘Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah’, then they are best suited to teach and guide.
So, for example: Shaykh Muhammed Al Yaqoubi, who is a claimed descendant of the Blessed Prophet (saw) via Hasan ibn Ali. People who follow a Sufi order that he is affiliated with would find that he is best suited to guide.
As seen in two of the narrations above, Ibn Abbas (ra) is in the chain of transmission. For us (The Ibadi school) he is part of the household of the Blessed Prophet (saw). Thus, he, being a member of Ahl Bayt, transmitted that we are to follow the Qur’an and Sunnah.
That statement aligns with what we find in the Qur’an.
It could be very well that the Prophet (saw) was meant to convey the following:
Did he convey the message? Did he bring the Qur’an? Of which everyone agrees that he did.
That he would want people to look after and take care of his kinsfolk. This is only natural and something any honourable person would desire. How much more the most honorable among creation?
As we find in the Qur’an:
“That is the good news which Allah gives to His servants who believe and do good. Say, “I do not ask you for a reward for this—only honour for kinship.” Whoever earns a good deed, We will increase it in goodness for them. Surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Appreciative” (Qur’an 42:23)
Rest assured that if there are any lectures or writings from Shaykh Al Qanoubi (h) where he fleshes out the more reasons for not accepting the transmissions that include ‘and my family’ insh’Allah will be sure to share them. Allah-Willing.
” Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an and indeed, We will be its guardian.” (Qur’an 15:9)
﷽
First let us post what the original video clip has to say about Sayyid Ali’s presentation:
“In this video, the Sayyid responds to a questioner who asks whether the Qurʾān that is present between us today has been subject to distortion or not. Instead of going through the traditions related to whether this has indeed been the case, the Sayyid outlines some epistemological points to bear in mind when trying to evaluate this claim. He delineates general historical principles and facts that cause us to deem such an occurrence, as historians, to be extremely far-fetched. He then outlines the possible goals of a distorter and contrasts these objectives to what is found within the Qurʾānic text, whence we find that had these been the objectives of the distorters, then we would not possess certain verses and contents of the Qurʾān that we do today.” –Source:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7y9bstcnXM&t=1453s
We would also like to say that this explanation by Sayyid Ali is one of the best, if not the best we have seen. It answers a lot of questions that are put forward in regard to this.
There are those who claim that the Shi’i themselves make this claim. The claim of tahrif of the Qur’an. Sayyid Ali beautifully responds to these claims.
This is a short and succinct lecture, equal to about 29 minutes of your time. It is absolutely worth it.
Those Orientalists and advocates of the historical critical method are most welcome to put this in their pipes and smoke it. The Imam laid out a very cohesive and cogent argument.
We would highly recommend you listen to the whole of the presentation.
@20:04 “Pay attention with me, in the Glorious Qur’an, now if someone wants to distort, what would they want to distort? What are his objectives hind distortion? I mean, what are the possible objectives of distortion? We will mention objectives, and let’s see if they have any basis.”
@20:18 “It may be said, for example, that among the objectives of distortion: Is the removal of certain criticisms directed towards some of the Companions who ruled. I mean, those who had authority. They are all present in the Qur’an. They are found in Surat al-Tahrim, Surat al-Hujurat, which contains: {Do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet} [Qur’an 49:2]“
@20:40 “And it’s mentioned about whom it was revealed. The issue of fleeing on the day of Uhud, and Hunayn, all these details are mentioned. The details of the events are mentioned. If someone wanted to distort, why would they distort? I mean, if one of the objectives of authorities was distortion, it would have been something related to them.”
@:20:58 “Those who ruled, the criticisms directed at them in the Book of Allah are present. This is a possible objective [for distortion]. Of coruse, I mention these as supporting points, not as evidence. The [main] evidence has concluded. The evidence has concluded, now we’re mentioning supporting [points].
@21:10 “The second objective is, for example, that these individuals want to remove some matters regarding the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) [being portrayed in a negative light].
@21:19 “They love the Prophet, so they try. The Glorious Qur’an, the criticisms made by the polytheist against the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) are present in the harshest articulation. In fact, some addresses in the Qur’anic chapters to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) that contain-where principally one may perceive some sort of harshness and severity within, for example, {And had We not strengthened you, you would have almost inclined to them a little} [Qur’an 17:74], it’s all there.”
@21:49 “Alright? Of course, we say it’s in the sense of “I mean you, and listen O neighbor.” But the address is there.”
@22:17 “Very well. Among the objectives that are mentioned, is removing the names of Ahl al-Bayt (upon them be peace), from the Qur’an. I say—I say, firstly, what’s the meaning of this verse? We’re talking now as Shi’a. {O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not not, then you have not conveyed His message}[Qur’an 5:67]
@22:38 “How do we interpret this? Isn’t it about Wilaya? Isn’t it about Wilaya in the last days of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). And Surat al-Ma’ida is amongst the last [chapters] to be revealed, if not the very last.”
@22:53 “If Wilaya was detailed in previous chapters, then what would be the meaning of: {announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord} [Qur’an 5:67]? We fundamentally believe that it’s natural for the mention of the Commander of the Faithful (peace be upon him) to not be frequent in the Qur’an.“
“This is natural. And this is what we believe. I mean, his mentioned as an Imam. I speak of his mention as an Imam. Clear? Not as a man of virtues. Otherwise if we’re speaking of virtues, then a “a quarter [of the Qur’an] is about us”. Clear?”
@23:23 “We are not speaking for that perspective. We’re speaking from the perspective of those in power. Alright? Concerning those in power, {Announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message} [Qur’an 5:67] Now, this verse, what’s the reason for its revelation? It’s natural that the mention of Imam ‘Ali (upon him be peace) will not be frequent in the Qur’an. As for mentioning the rest of the Imams (upon them be peace), in the Qur’an.”
@23:50 “Fundamentally, we Shi’a do not believe in the necessity of believing in [all] the Imams (upon them be peace) except after the death of the previous Imam.
However the Imam later admits:
@27:25 “The thing that may be brought up is the issue of Wilaya. So it would be problematic only on the Shi’a side. But we explained that the Shi’a, when it comes to revealing all of the Imams’ [names], that is something they have deemed far-fetched. Fundamentally. It’s not something to be expected, that there would be something in the Qur’an about Imamate. And on the other hand, concerning the Commander of the Faithful (upon him be peace), we believe that the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) proclaimed this towards the end of his life. {O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message} [Qur’an 5:67]. So in reality, naturally, if the name of the Commander of the Faithful (upon him be peace) was in the Qur’an, it would have been rare and minimal. For example, had it been the case. Up to this extent, I mean, this degree of speculation.”
@28:14 “This does not outright negate the existence of the name of Imam ‘Ali (upon him be peace). This is a speculative argument. However, I just want to say, that upon reflection on the matter, the degree of distortion will not, some people, I mean, naturally, the name of Imam Ali, had it been in the Qur’an, it would be rare, Had it been there, it would be rare. Had it been there. Clear? According to the Shi’i view. Nothing else. I’m saying this according to the Shi’i Twelver view. Alright?”
Prima Qur’an comments: First and foremost again, the overall explanation by the respected Imam was/is brilliant! It is unfortunate that some people will allow themselves to be clouded by sectarianism and not benefit by what he said.
The only part where he dropped the ball was giving his minor points (because, as he mentioned, the main case has already been established), but in regard to the minor points is concerning the mention of the ahl bayt and/or the mention of the name of Imam Ali (at the very least).
By quoting a vague reference:”Announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message} [Qur’an 5:67] This does little to dissuade anyone from the idea that a redactor or editor wanted to remove explicit mention of the Ahl Bayt or Imam Ali as the leader of Imam of the Muslims.
The Imam was also honest and transparent enough to say:
“@22:38 “How do we interpret this? Isn’t it about Wilaya? Isn’t it about Wilaya in the last days of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family)
“How do we interpret this.”
“I mean, naturally, the name of Imam Ali, had it been in the Qur’an, it would be rare, Had it been there, it would be rare. Had it been there.”
He was also very objective and fair-minded when he stated:
“The thing that may be brought up is the issue of Wilaya. So it would be problematic only on the Shi’a side. But we explained that the Shi’a, when it comes to revealing all of the Imams’ [names], that is something they have deemed far-fetched
That is correct. It would only be a problem for the Shi’a side, as they are the ones who have as a theological foundation the concept of being ruled by the family of the Prophet (saw), a concept we absolutely do not find in the Qur’an at all.
So, for the Sunni or the Ibadi, this is not something we would expect to find in the Qur’an.
“We have neglected nothing in the Book, then unto their Lord they (all) shall be gathered.” (Qur’an 6:38)
﷽
We as Muslims believe in an All-Wise, All-Intelligent, All-Knowing, Creator. We do not describe the Creator as being frivolous or mercurial. We seek refuge in Allah.
Thus, while reading through the Qur’an, we come across this very interesting verse.
“And when you said, “O Moses, we can never endure one kind of food. So call upon your Lord to bring forth for us from the earth itsgreen herbs and its cucumbers and its garlic, and its lentils and its onions.” [Moses] said, “Would you exchange what is better for what is less? Go into any settlement and, indeed, you will have what you have asked for.” And they were covered with humiliation and poverty and returned with anger from Allah upon them. That was because they repeatedly disbelieved in the signs of Allah and killed the prophets without right. That was because they disobeyed and were habitually transgressing.” (Qur’an 2:61)
So here our colleague sat with their thoughts looking at this amazing verse. We thought about all the intra-Islamic debates over various points of doctrine and jurisprudence and the blood that has been shed over such. Cucumbers, garlic, lentils & onions, the words just jumped out at them.
“WoW!” they thought. We do not believe this verse has been the centre of any type of controversy among us as Muslims. Empires or dynasties built upon the verse that mentions cucumbers, garlic, lentils and onions.
So let us imagine that this verse came down to us in another form. Would any vital information be lost? Would we not know that the children of Israel complained about not being able to endure only one type of food and that Allah (swt) responded to them expressing disappointment?
So let us imagine that this verse came down to us in another form. Would any vital information be lost? Would we not know that the children of Israel complained about not being able to endure one type of food and that Allah (swt) responded to them expressing disappointment?
Imagine the verse said:
And when you said, “O Moses, we can never endure one kind of food. So call upon your Lord to bring forth for us from the earth its green herbs.” [Moses] said, “Would you exchange what is better for what is less? Go into any settlement and, indeed, you will have what you have asked for.” And they were covered with humiliation and poverty and returned with anger from Allah upon them. That was because they repeatedly disbelieved in the signs of Allah and killed the prophets without right. That was because they disobeyed and were habitually transgressing.” (Qur’an 2:61)
What is missing? What did we excise out?
The following: “and its cucumbers and its garlic and its lentils and its onions!”
Subhan’Allah! We as Muslims do not believe in redundant revelation.
Often, when the Shi’i engage other Muslims (usually Sunni), they will ask them: “Do you really believe that the Blessed Prophet (saw) would leave a matter like the leadership of the Muslims up in the air!?”
Often, questions like this evoke reflection and indeed they should!
But in this case, this is a loaded question. As it implies that such an issue is of vital importance to begin with. That begs the question of whether or not this is even a pillar of faith that is established in the Qur’an first and foremost.
In the Qur’an Allah (swt) establishes our most vitally important beliefs. Yet, nowhere in the entirety of the Qur’an from Al Fatiha to Al-Nas do we find mention of who should succeed the Blessed Prophet (saw)!
Rhetorical questions in the Qur’an like the following do not need to be asked if there is a clear line of succession.
“Muḥammed is not but a messenger. Messengers have passed on before him. So if he was to die or be killed, would you turn back on your heels? And he who turns back on his heels will never harm Allah at all; but Allah will reward the grateful.” (Qur’an 3:144)
We look through this astonishing beautiful revelation, this sublime source of guidance that leaves us enthralled for hours upon hours on end. Pondering its verses and yet there is no clear mention of statements like: “Ali should succeed the Prophet (saw) when he dies.” In fact, his name is not mentioned at all in the Qur’an! Statements like the following are simply not found: “The Ahl Bayt holds the leadership of the Muslims.” “The Muslims should be led by so-and-so when the Prophet (saw) dies. “
Yet…cucumbers and its garlic and its lentils and its onions! Here they are mentioned by name clear as day.
Which of the two matters does one believe is of more weight and magnitude?
Knowing by name and having spelled out to us clearly the four different food types the children of Israel were craving or knowing by name and having spelled out to us clearly that we are to obey infallible guides or guides from the family of the Blessed Messenger (saw)
Which of the two matters have the Muslims wrangled over, fought each other over, and spilled blood the most?
It has to be a point of embarrassment for those that uphold such doctrines:
A) Muslims must be ruled by the family of the Prophet (saw)
&
B) Muslims are to be ruled by infallible family members of the Prophet (saw)
It must be embarrassing for believers in such doctrines to see Our All-Wise, All-Intelligent, All-Knowing, Creator acknowledge cucumbers and its garlic and its lentilsand onionsby name in his glorious revelation and not once mention the name of Ali Ibn Abu Talib.
It should not surprise us that in any discussion in relation to topic A or B above the Shi’a are anxious to pivot the conversation away from the Qur’an and towards any (dear God, sweet Lord in heaven) and we do mean any data extraneous to the Qur’an that assist them in building their case.
We should also not be surprised that some Shi’a held to tahrif (corruption) of the Qur’an on these very topics!
Let us say that we were to gather a bunch of atheists and Agnostics in a room, and we were to pose them the following question.
Are you more likely to believe in a Creator that mentions in passing the name of a few random vegetables that people craved in the past, while not mentioning clearly a line of succession and leadership that leads to internecine conflicts among those devoted to him?
Or
A Creator that mentions clearly a line of succession & leadership that, if not mentioned clearly, would lead to internecine conflicts among those devoted to him?
There are many people on this planet that would argue fiercely, cogently and intelligently that mentioning by name a few random vegetables that the people of the past craved seems almost trivial compared to mentioning by name a clear line of succession and leadership that, if not mentioned, would lead to internecine conflicts and loss of life.
Yazeed is mentioned in the Qur’an and it is a miracle! (Qur’an 19:76)
Now this doesn’t necessitate an argument against the wisdom of the Creator. It just argues for a Creator that may want his creation to figure some things out like a puzzle, an enigma or a riddle.
After all, what would we know, this is simply a run-of-the-mill garden variety refutation.
“Moreover, if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the command of Allah. And if it returns, then make settlement between them in justice and act justly. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.” (Qur’an 49:9)
﷽
So today we are going to be looking at the following hadith:
Narrated by Zaid bin Arqam:
That the Messenger of Allah (saw) said to ‘Ali, Fatimah (ra), Al-Hasan and Al-Husain (ra): “I am at war with whoever makes war with you, and peace for whoever makes peace with you.”
You can see from the above source that it has a grading of Da’if (meaning weak/fabricated).
Now, even without going into the chains of narrators, we know that this hadith has a major weakness.
However, let us say, for the sake of argument, that this hadith had a grading of Sahih (meaning sound). It would still have a defect. Not even a hidden one. Not even something that would require a hadith specialist.
It would require familiarity with the text of the Qur’an.
CONTROL GROUP A: BEING OPPRESSED
CONTROL GROUP B: DOING THE OPPRESSING.
So, in the above scenario. Ali, Fatimah (ra), Al-Hasan and Al-Husain (ra) could be in control group B. They could be doing the oppressing. However, since our interlocutors (Shi’i, Sunni, ect) will get emotionally charged over such a suggestion, we will not entertain it at this point.
Thus, Ali, Fatimah (ra), Al-Hasan and Al-Husain (ra) could be in control group A. That means they are being oppressed. They are locked in conflict with control group B. However, notice Allah (swt) says:
“If two factions among the believers should fight.”
And since the hadith states that being in conflict or at war with Ali, Fatimah (ra), Al-Hasan and Al-Husain (ra) is ipso facto being at war with the Blessed Messenger (saw) and since it is not conceivable for one to be labeled as a believer and to be at war with or conflict with the Blessed Prophet (saw) himself that hadith is baseless. It is null and void.
Next: Aisha (ra) has Wilāyat al-Ḥaqīqah (real guardianship of Allah), whereas he (Ali) only has the Wilāyatal-Dhahir (apparent guardianship).
“The Prophet has a stronger affinity to the believers than they do themselves. And his wives are their mothers.” (Qur’an 33:6)
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “Allah said, ‘I will declare war against him who shows hostility to a pious worshipper of Mine. And the most beloved things with which My slave comes nearer to Me, is what I have enjoined upon him; and My slave keeps on coming closer to Me through performing Nawafil (praying or doing extra deeds besides what is obligatory) till I love him, so I become his sense of hearing with which he hears, and his sense of sight with which he sees, and his hand with which he grips, and his leg with which he walks; and if he asks Me, I will give him, and if he asks My protection (Refuge), I will protect him; (i.e. give him My Refuge) and I do not hesitate to do anything as I hesitate to take the soul of the believer, for he hates death, and I hate to disappoint him.”
Narrated Abu Maryam `Abdullah bin Ziyad Al-Aasadi:
“When Talha, AzZubair and `Aisha moved to Basra, `Ali sent `Ammar bin Yasir and Hasan bin `Ali who came to us at Kufa and ascended the pulpit. Al-Hasan bin `Ali was at the top of the pulpit and `Ammar was below Al-Hasan. We all gathered before him. I heard `Ammar saying, “`Aisha has moved to Al-Busra. By Allah! She is the wife of your Prophet in this world and in the Hereafter. But Allah has put you to test whether you obey Him (Allah) or her (`Aisha).”
So using this standard of logic. It is Ali ibn Abi Talib who risks war with Allah (swt) and not Aisha (ra) who risks war with the Messenger of Allah!
Ali’s own brother Aqil fought on the side of Muawiya.
Aqil ibn Abi Talib (cousin of the Blessed Prophet) and elder brother of Ali. So does this now mean a cousin of the Blessed Prophet (saw) like Ali, and brother of Ali was at war with the Blessed Prophet (saw)?
Abu Hafs al ‘Asha (is munkar al hadith) — narrates unacceptable hadith)
The teacher of Muhammed ibn Suqah is majhul (unknown).
So, in the end, this hadith is discarded.
The Shi’i may not like it. The Zaydi may not like it. The Imami may not like it. But the evidence has been laid out and the refutation (if any awaits).
“Indeed, We have granted you, al-Kawthar. So pray to your Lord and sacrifice. Indeed, your enemy is the one cut off.” (Qur’an 108:1-3)
﷽
These sublime verses (Qur’an 108:1-3) were revealed to console the heart of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) in the face of repeated antagonism by those who called him, ‘abtar‘, which means ‘the animal whose tail is cut off’.
It means one who has no one to come in succession, the one who has none to inherit.
1. Truly, We have granted you Al-Kawthar.)
2. Therefore, turn in prayer to your Lord and sacrifice.)
3. For he who hates you, he will be cut off.)
Muslim, Abu Dawud, and An-Nasa’i, all recorded from Anas that he said, “While we were with the Messenger of Allah in the Masjid, he dozed off into a slumber. Then he lifted his head smiling. We said, `O Messenger of Allah! What has caused you to laugh?’ He said,
(Truly, a Surah was just revealed to me.) Then he recited…
“Indeed, We have granted you, al-Kawthar. So pray to your Lord and sacrifice. Indeed, your enemy is the one cut off.” (Qur’an 108:1-3)
The Blessed Prophet (saw) had lost his flesh and blood son Ibrahim — May Allah have abundant mercy on him.
“When Ibrahim, the son of the Messenger of Allah (saw), died, the Messenger of Allah (saw) wept. The one who was consoling him, either Abu Bakr or ‘Umar, said to him: ‘You are indeed the best of those who glorify Allah with what is due to him.’ The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘The eye weeps and the heart grieves, but we do not say anything that angers the Lord. Were it not that death is something that inevitably comes to all, and that the latter will surely join the former, then we would have been more than we are, verily we grieve for you.’”
We can see that the Blessed Messenger (saw) was overcome with grief from the death of his flesh and blood son. It was a cause of derision from his enemies. Yet, Allah (swt) revealed an entire chapter of the Qur’an on account of this.
“And We will surely test you with something of fear and hunger and a loss of wealth and lives and fruits, but give good news to the patient,
Who, when disaster strikes them, say, “Indeed we belong to Allah, and indeed to Him, we will return.“ (Qur’an 2:155-156)
So this is the attitude of the believers and who best to lead by example than the Blessed Messenger (saw). He expressed grief over the loss of his flesh and blood son. Allah (swt) revealed an entire chapter of the Qur’an which, He did not do for the death of anyone else in the Blessed Prophet’s family.
Furthermore…
Narrated Al-Mughira bin Shu`ba:
“On the day of Ibrahim’s death, the sun eclipsed, and the people said that the eclipse was due to the death of Ibrahim (the son of the Prophet). Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “The sun and the moon are two signs among the signs of Allah. They do not eclipse because of someone’s death or life. So when you see them, invoke Allah and pray till the eclipse is clear.”
Now, if there was an occasion for the Muslims of this Ummah to mourn annually, it would certainly have been for the death of the Blessed Prophet’s son.
There is not a single hadith of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) proclaiming Hussain will be a martyr or that the Prophet (saw) cried because he was a martyr. Not one!
People commemorate the deaths of others because, in their hearts, it is politics and the stirring of emotions. Yet, the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) son dies and our Noble Prophet (saw)cried and the whole Muslim Ummah has no day of grieving?
Now someone may retort, ‘There are millions of Hadiths. Have you read them all?’ It would be hubris to say that we have read them all.
However, what we can say is this. We can say that those who are more studied than us, more learned than us, more familiar with the traditions, and those who make political capital out of tragedy would have such hadith and utilize them.
The fact that they did not and still have not until this very day makes our case airtight.
Hadith from the Shi’a sources: (Update 8/31/2020) This is a typo. It is meant to say: Hadith that Shi’a relies on.
“Ummul Fadhl the daughter of al-Harith said that she entered on the Messenger of Allah (S) and she said: “Oh! Messenger of Allah, I had a strange dream last night. He said: And what is it? She said: It was difficult. He said: And what is it? She said: I saw, as if, a piece of your body was severed and was put in my lap! The Messenger of Allah (S) said: You saw well – Fatima will give birth, God willing, a boy so he will be in your lap. Then Fatima gave birth to al-Hussain (AS) and he was in my lap – just as the Messenger of Allah (S) said. So I entered one day on the Messenger of Allah (S) and put him in his lap, but I noticed that the eyes of the Messenger of Allah (S) were pouring tears! So I said: Oh! Prophet of Allah, my parents are your ransom, what is with you? He said: Gabriel (AS) came to me and informed me that my nation (ummah) will kill this son of mine.”
Source: (al-Mustadrak al-Sahih, al-Hafidh al-Hakim al-Nisapouri, v. 3, p. 176)
“Umm Salamah has said: “al-Hussain entered on the Prophet (S), while I was sitting at the door, so I saw in the hand of the Prophet (S) something he turned over while (Hussain) sleeping on his stomach. I said: Oh Messenger of Allah, I looked and saw you turning something over in your hand when the kid was sleeping on your stomach and your tears were pouring? He said: Gabriel came to me with the sand upon which he (Hussain) will be killed. And he informed me that my nation (umma) will kill him.”
Source: (al-Musannaf, al-Hafidh Abu Bakr bin abi Shaibah, v. 12.)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
Both of these hadiths are from sources that the Shi’i rely upon. Yet notice the following:
1 There is absolutely no mention that Hussain would die as a martyr. No mention at all.
2 That the Blessed Messenger (saw) cried upon information that a family member died would be a very human thing to do.
3 That the Blessed Messenger (saw) said that ‘my nation will kill him’.
The Blessed Messenger (saw) could have said, ‘renegades will kill him’. ‘He will be killed by unbelievers’ etc…..and He (saw) did not say that at all.
This is crucial when we consider the following:
Narrated `Aisha:
“Usama approached the Prophet (saw) on behalf of a woman (who had committed theft). The Prophet (saw) said, “The people before you were destroyed because they used to inflict legal punishments on the poor and forgive the rich. By Him in Whose Hand my soul is! If Fatima (the daughter of the Prophet) did that (i.e. stole), I would cut off her hand.”
So even if the mother of Hussain, the wife of Ali, stole something, the law would apply to her. This is important because there is no unequivocal statement from the Blessed Messenger (saw) stating that Hussain would die as a martyr.
Now imagine that noble Fatima (ra) did steal something. You don’t think it would grieve the Blessed Messenger (saw)?
Wouldn’t you as a parent be grieved if your child or grandchild was injured or punished? Even if they did something right or wrong?
How do we know that the Blessed Messenger (saw) wasn’t crying over the fact that Hussain brought women and children into a conflict where he was advised by senior companions not to do so?
What does it say about the character of Hussain if what we are told is true? That he ‘knowingly‘ knew that he would be ‘sacrificed?’ That he would ‘knowingly‘ sacrifice the honour of his noble sister Zaynab (ra) as well?
“He (saw) said: Gabriel came to me with the sand.”
If Gabriel could bring the sand, he could have brought an item of Hussain clothing. He could have brought anything. Yet, he brought the sand. The sand where many children and women were unnecessarily killed. Ill-advised indeed.
Hadith from the Sunni sources:
“Narrated Wakee’, narrated Abdullah bin Sa’eed, from his father from Aisha or Umm Salamah [Wakee’ said this doubt came from Abdullah bin Sa’eed] that the Prophet (saw) said to one of them [either Aisha or Umm Salamah], “An angel entered the house on me, he never entered on me before, and he said to me, ‘this son of yours, al-Hussain, will be killed, and if you wish I can show you the soil from the earth where he will be killed’. Then he took out some red soil”.
Source:[Recorded in Musnad al-Imam Ahmad, vol. 6 p. 294]
“Narrated Muhammed bin Udaid, narrated Shurahbil bin Mudrik, from Abdullah bin Nujayy, from his father, that he traveled with Ali, and he used to carry his purifying water. When they were next to Nainawa on his way to Siffin, Ali called, “Be patient Oh Abu Abdillah (the kunya of his son al-Hussain), be patient Oh Abu Abdillah by the banks of the Euphrates. I [Nujayy] said, “what is this?”. He [Ali] said, “I entered upon the Prophet (saw) one day while his eyes were shedding tears. I said, ‘what is it with yours eyes shedding tears?’. He said, ‘Rather, Jibreel was here earlier and he told me that al-Hussain will be killed by the bank of the Euphrates and he [Jibreel] said ‘do you want me to provide you a sample from his soil [where he will be killed] so you can smell it?’ and I said ‘yes’. So he extended his hand and he took a grip from the soil and gave it to me so I couldn’t help my eyes to fill with tears’”
Source: [Recorded by Ahmad, vol. 1, p. 85.]
Prima Qur’an Comments:
What is interesting and indeed telling, is that the Shi’i -from what we observe love to jump on the chance to show that there are problems with Sunni narrations on this or that. They are quite the hadith critiques. However, when it comes to anything from Sunni sources that will make their claims legitimate, all the critical thinking skills seem to go right out the window.
The first hadith has an interesting statement: “An angel entered the house on me, he never entered on me before, ” An unknown angel apparently comes to give the information.
The other odd contradictory piece of information is this.
That he traveled with Ali,
They were next to Nainawa on his way to Siffin,
Entered the house on me
So did the angel give this information when they were traveling on the way to Siffin or while the Blessed Messenger(saw) was in his house? It is quite redundant to bring the same information. Three of the hadith feel it is important to mention the sand, and one of them leaves it out completely.
Who entered in on the Blessed Messenger (saw)?
Ummul Fadhl?
Ali Ibn Abu Talib?
Umm Salamah?
Aisha?
We can reconcile this because Aisha and Umm Salamah are both wives of the Blessed Messenger (saw). Ummul Fadhl is a paternal Aunt. Ali Ibn Abu Talib, of course, is a cousin and son-in-law. So it is reasonable that they all entered in on different occasions. However, it is not reasonable to think these were separate locations and days. So, one can search the history and see if there are records of the four of them traveling together at that location. Which can’t be true as one of the narrations has it that the unidentified angel came to the Blessed Messenger (saw) while he was at home.
One thing is abundantly clear from the two Hadith from Sunni sources. There is absolutely no mention that Hussain would die as a martyr. No mention at all.
The conclusion?
People commemorate the deaths of others because, in their hearts, it is politics and the stirring of emotions. Yet, the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) son dies and our Noble Prophet (saw) cried, and the whole Muslim Ummah has no day of grieving?
The text of the hadith themselves raise questions and none of them unequivocally say that Hussain died as a martyr. There was one individual who tried to interact with this article some time ago on Facebook. That individual was shutdown. He did not interact with the material at all. Simply used emotionalism.
“Oh you who believe! if a deviator brings you a report, scrutinize it carefully in case you attack people in ignorance and so come to greatly regret what you have done.” (Quran 49:6).
﷽
This is an examination of the hadith that Shīa uses as a justification for Ali either being infallible or without error in judgement.
Namely, the hadith that comes to us with conflicting statements: One being that Ali is with the truth and the truth is with Ali. There other is that Ali is with the Qur’an and the Qur’an is with Ali.
The idea that the Shīa have in quoting this is that Ali could possibly never err. For the Shi’i, either version of this hadith is proof that Ali is infallible in his ijtihad.
In Islam, as is commonly known, no one is above the law; no one has an absolute authority by being free from the limitations of the law: anyone whose idea goes contrary to what Allah (swt) or what the Blessed Prophet (saw) says, has his idea disregarded and discarded irrespective of the class or caste to which one belongs.
The hadith contradict the Qur’an.
If the idea is that these hadith prove that Ali is infallible and beyond reproach that itself is contradicted by Allah (swt) in the Qur’an.
It would also mean that Ali or anyone who is guaranteed to be infallible or beyond reproach, would mean that he is secure from the Plan of Allah (swt) and that he would be under the power and the threat of the following verse:
“Were they secure from the Plan of Allah? None deems himself secure from the Plan of Allah except a people that are doomed to perish.” (Qur’an 7:99)
These hadiths are used in a polemical sense.
For example, they are intended to be used in the following polemical way:
Whoever opposed Ali on any matter was simply on the wrong side of history. Not only did they oppose Ali, but they opposed the haqq, the truth. Not only did they oppose Ali and the haqq, but they opposed the Qur’an. So this would include, but not limited to: Muaviyah and those companions (muhakima) who broke camp with Ali over the issue of tahkim-arbitration. It would include Aisha (ra), Talha and Zubayr etc.
Muslims are not born yesterday. Naturally, the thinking Muslim will ask the following questions.
Questions like:
Why not quote the hadith of the 10 promised paradise during all these skirmishes?
Why not quote ghadir khum hadith?
Why not quote the hadith of thaqalayn?
Why not quote all these things to avoid unnecessary bloodshed?
We will approach these narrations in three ways.
1. Does it contradict what we know from history or how other companions understood the data? Information that is accessible to you the reader.
2. We will look at the ‘matn’, which is the text itself. We are looking for anomalous statements or inconsistencies. This information is also accessible to you the reader.
3. We will be looking at the chain of narrators. This is a specialized field in which the majority of the readers do not have access to.
Does it contradict what we know from history or how other companions understood the data?
One thing which can be taken to absolutely prove the fact that many of these traditions are fabricated is that when Ali himself went to Nahrawan to debate with the people there, after Ibn ‘Abbas (ra) was defeated, Ali did not use any of those traditions as his arguments against them.
In fact, we challenge anyone to bring forth the claims that he did. And if he didn’t, and assuredly he did not, you have to ask yourself: Why is that?
Indeed, no man took those traditions as his proofs and arguments during the whole period of the Ali-Mu’awiya crisis: all of them had the Qur’an as the basis for their source of evidence for the ideas they held.
In other words, no one argued that: “Ali is with the truth and the truth is with ‘Ali: it goes with him wherever he goes.”
Take for example:
Where are all these quotes from the Blessed Prophet (saw) about Ali?
Why are all these hadith that the (Shi’i) feel are effective for the Muslims of the 14th century but not seemingly not helpful at all to Ali and his contemporaries?
This in and of itself should give the sincere researcher a cause for pause.
If Ali is with the haqq and the haqq is with Ali, why would a good portion of the companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) oppose Ali to begin with?!
We could simply end all this discussion at that. Case closed.
Then let us approach this from the angle of logic and real life scenarios.
The hadith above makes it seem as if Ali is always in the right no matter what. So in the scenario above where Al Abbas (ra) says to Umar (ra) about Ali, “judge between me and this one, liar, sinful, treacherous and deceitful.” How could it ever be fair? How could Umar (ra) judge at all? He could look and say, “Oh it’s Ali and the truth is with him, and he is with the truth out of my sight, Abbas!” In fact, Ali could win any court case by default with such a hadith!
This has all the trappings of abuse and manipulation. Especially when these types of weak hadith come to be used later in sufi tariqas and syed culture. When real abuse and mischief happens, people are shamed and silenced. Made to think evil will befall them if they report such people. A real type of psychological terrorism.
This is a far cry from the Blessed Prophet (saw) whom even Allah (swt) overturned a decision of his on the account of the woman who pleaded!
The hadith above makes it seem as if Ali is always in the right no matter what. So in the scenario above where Al Abbas (ra) says to Umar (ra) says about Ali, “judge between me and this one, liar, sinful, treacherous and deceitful.” How could it ever be fair? How could Umar (ra) judge at all? He could look and say, “Oh it’s Ali and the truth is with him and he is with the truth out of my sight Abbas!” In fact, Ali could win any court case by default with such a hadith!
Another crystal clear example of a person who did not accept that understanding is none other than Ibn Abbas (ra).
Narrated Ibn `Abbas:
Once the Prophet (saw) embraced me and said, “O Allah! Bestow on him the knowledge of the Book (Qur’an).”
Ikrima (ra) informs us that Ali had errors in his ijtihad that would go against the Qur’an & Sunnah. That he would get corrected by a senior member of the Ahl Bayt.
Narrated `Ikrima:
“Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to `Ali, and he burnt them. The news of this event reached Ibn Abbas, who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’”
‘Ali came to some people of Az-Zutt, who worshiped idols and burned them. Ibn ‘Abbas said: “But the Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: ‘Whoever changes his religion, kill him.‘”
Clearly Ibn Abbas (ra) did not see that the haqq nor the Qur’an was with Ali on that matter.
Narrated from Abū ʿAbdillāh (Imām Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq), who said: Amīr al-Muʾminīn (ʿAlī), said: “If it were possible for me, and if I found someone to help me, I would kill all the adherents of these sects (aṣnāf), and I would burn them with fire. And this is [in accordance with] the saying of Allah, Mighty and Exalted:
‘Say, I am only a man like you to whom it has been revealed that your God is but one God. So, whoever would hope for the meeting with his Lord – let him do righteous work and not associate anyone in the worship of his Lord’ (Qur’an 18:110).”
Source: (Bihār al-Anwār al-Jāmiʿah li-Durar Akhbār al-Aʾimmat al-Aṭhār Volume and Page: Vol. 25, p. 265, Hadith #30)
Prima Qur’an comments: If that is Ali’s understanding of that verse of the Qur’an, it is certainly not from any apparent reading of the text. It is a very strange take. How anyone reads the Qur’an 18:110 and takes away from it that we should burn people is shocking.
Another point to consider is that even if those traditions are really authentic, they still do not mean that Ali does not make mistakes, especially in matters like these, which depend almost entirely on human intellectual efforts.
For if “Ali is with the truth and the truth is with ‘Ali: it goes with him wherever he goes,” then the inevitable, logical implication is: “The Prophet is with the truth and the truth is with the Prophet (saw): it goes with him wherever he goes.”
This is only logical. Yet, Allah (swt) has blamed the Blessed Prophet (saw) him for leaving a better way in some of his military and civil actions.
For example, the verse states: “May Allah forgive you (O Muhammed). Why did you grant permission to them (to stay behind), until those who told the truth become clear to you, and you had known the liars? (Qur’an 9:43)” , was revealed in order to blame the Blessed Prophet (saw) for his act to allow some people who brought him false excuses so that they might be exempted from taking part in the war of Jihad.
Typically, the verse: “O Prophet! Why do you prohibit ˹yourself˺ from what Allah has made lawful to you, seeking to please your wives? And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”(Qur’an 66:1) was sent down to blame the Prophet (saw) for outlawing a certain thing which Islam makes lawful to him.
How can a person of understanding mind, therefore, claim that ‘Ali was infallible simply because the Prophet (saw) is alleged to say: “Ali is with the truth and the truth is with ‘Ali: it goes with him wherever he goes?!”
“The Prophet (saw) is with the truth and the truth is with the Prophet (saw): it goes with him wherever he goes.”
The logical question we ought to ask ourselves is: Was the Prophet (saw) not with the truth and the truth not with him? Of course!
Every Muslim’s answer will be “The Prophet (saw) was with the truth every time.” Thus, if the Prophet (saw) was the most truthful, and so was with the truth ,and the truth was with him, let us ask ourselves again: was he not blamed by Allah for leaving a better way in some of his actions?
Take for example:
Musa b. Talha reported:
“I and Allah’s Messenger (saw) happened to pass by people near the date-palm trees. He (the Holy Prophet) said: What are these people doing? They said: They are grafting, i. e. they combine the male with the female (tree) and thus they yield more fruit. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (saw) said: I do not find it to be of any use. The people were informed about it and they abandoned this practice. Allah’s Messenger (saw) (was later) on informed (that the yield had dwindled), whereupon he said: If there is any use of it, then they should do it, for it was just a personal opinion of mine, and do not go after my personal opinion; but when I say to you anything on behalf of Allah, then do accept it, for I do not attribute lie to Allah, the Exalted and Glorious.”
“Imam Nawawi comments: “Scholars mention that his opinion (peace and blessings be upon him) in worldly/livelihood affairs is like the opinion of others, so the like of this [incident] is not impossible, and there is no deficiency entailed in this. The reason is the fact that their [the Companions’] central concern was the afterlife and its affairs.” [Nawawi, Sharh Sahih Muslim]”
“Mufti Taqi Usmani mentions that the Prophet’s statement, “I don’t think that will provide any benefit,” was only based on his personal opinion and estimation, as before that, he had never himself engaged in farming and agriculture (peace and blessings be upon him). Mufti Taqi also mentions that matters such as this incident can only occur with respect to worldly affairs that are permissible (mubah), yet not with anything entailing a legal ruling of the Sacred Law, like commands, prohibitions, adjudication or legal verdicts. [Usmani, Takmila Fath al-Mulhim]”
“Allah has indeed heard (and accepted) the statement of the woman who argues with you concerning her husband and carries her complaint (in prayer) to Allah and Allah (always) hears the arguments between both sides among you: for Allah hears and sees (all things). If any men among you divorce their wives by Zihar (calling them mothers), they cannot be their mothers: None can be their mothers except those who gave them birth. And in fact, they use words (both) iniquitous and false: but truly Allah is one that blots out (sins), and forgives (again and again). But those who divorce their wives by Zihar, then wish to go back on the words they uttered,- (It is ordained that such a one) should free a slave before they touch each other: You are admonished to perform: and Allah is well-acquainted with (all) that you do. And if any has not (the wherewithal), he should fast for two months consecutively before they touch each other. But if any is unable to do so, he should feed sixty indigent ones, this, that you may show your faith in Allah and His Messenger. Those are limits (set by) Allah. For those who reject (Him), there is a grievous Penalty.” (Qur’an 58: 1-4)
As many of you may know regarding what is considered the historical context of these verses, Khawlah bint Tha‘labah (ra) went to the Blessed Messenger (saw) to complain about her husband. Many times it is reported that the Blessed Messenger (saw) gave his verdict on the matter.
Now, this should give us pause.
Here we have the case of this woman who, even after hearing the decision of the Blessed Messenger (saw), continued to argue with him! In other words, the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) wasn’t good enough for her! That’s right. She didn’t simply say, “Yes, Oh Messenger of Allah, thank you!” No! This woman went to the highest authority of justice and wisdom that there is. She took her pain directly to Allah (swt)!
So Allah (swt) took the side of the woman over the side of the Blessed Messenger (saw)!
Ali is nowhere near the Prophet (saw) when it comes to knowledge. So if the Blessed Prophet (saw) can make errors in worldy ijtihad, then so can Ali.
It is clear, therefore, that the idea of “Ali being infallible on the grounds that Ali is with the truth”…is the result of the politics of lies aimed at indoctrinating people with the creed of Alism during the time when the waves of the politics of division swept the Islamic nation.
Another example: it has also been narrated concerning Ammar bin Yasir (ra)
“Ammar (bin Yasir) is with the truth and the truth is with Ammar (bin Yasir): it goes with him wherever he goes.”
Source: (Ibn A’atham Al-Futuh Vol. 3, p. 269.)
Indeed, Ali himself has been quoted as saying: “Ammar (bin Yasir) is with the truth and the truth is with ‘Ammar: it goes with him wherever he goes.” Source: (Ibn A’atham Al-Futuh Vol. 3, p. 129, p. 269. Similar to it has been narrated by Al-Hakim – from Hudhaifa – in his Al-Mustadrak Vol. 2, p. 162, hadith no. 2652. )
Yet no one has ever claimed that ‘Ammar bin Yasir has been infallible, for in case the account is authentic, the meaning intended thereby is that ‘Amaar is truthful: he does not intend to do wrong – no sense of infallibility at all is produced by the account.
Likewise with Ali. That he intends the truth, not that he is in any sense infallible.
The hadith in question: Ali is with the Qur’an and the Qur’an is with Ali.
Al Hakim and al Tabarani narrate — from ‘Ali ibn Hashim ibn al Barid — from his father who said — Abu Sa’id al Taymi narrated to me — from Abu Thabit, the mawla (client) of Abu Dharr
“I was with Ali on the Day of the Battle of the Camel. When I saw ‘Aisha standing. Some of that (doubt) which entered other people (also) entered me. Allah disclosed that for me (i.e. removed from me the reservations I had to fight) at the time of Salat al Zuhr and so I fought alongside Amir al Muʾminin. When he finished, I proceeded to Madinah. I came to Umm Salamah and said, ‘I have come, by Allah, not asking for food or drink; rather, I am the mawla (client) of Abu Dharr.’ She said, ‘Welcome.’ I told her my story and so she said, ‘Where were you when the hearts flew their course (i.e. when the fighting broke out)?’ I said, ‘I was such that Allah disclosed it for me (i.e. removed the reservations I had) at noon (and then I went to fight alongside Amir al Muʾminin).’ She said, ‘Excellent! I heard the Messenger of Allah(saw) say: ‘‘Ali is with the Qur’an and the Qur’an is with Ali. They will never separate UNTIL they meet me at the Hawd (Cistern).’”
Sources: (Mustadrak al Hakim 4628 / al Tabarani: al Mujam al Awsat, Volume 5/4880 / & al Mujam al Saghir, volume 2 /720.)
Interestingly, these statements are not found in either Bukhari or Muslim. Neither in the Muwatta of Imam Malik nor the Musnad Al-Imam Ar-Rabi’ (Al-Jami’ Al-Sahih).
Chain analysis: a look at the sanad (chain of narrators)
Al Hakim says, “This hadith has a sahih (authentic) chain of transmission. Abu Sa’id al Taymi is (Abu Sa’id al Taymi) al ‘Aqisaʾ. He is a thiqah (reliable) and maʾmun (trustworthy). Imam al Bukhari and Imam Muslim did not include it in their respective collections.”
Dinar Abu Sa’id ‘Aqisa al Tamimi (or al Taymi) is not as al Hakim supposed.
Imam al Nasaʾi says he is not a thiqah (reliable).
Al Daraqutni says he is matruk al Hadith (suspected of forgery).
Al Sa’di says he is not a thiqah (reliable).
Additionally, Abu Thabit could not be traced. The identity of Abu Thabit is a bit of a mystery, he is not mentioned in the books of Hadith narrators. So, Thabit is Majhul (unknown)
Therefore, this hadith is etiolated, totally weak.
Some time on Al Hakim Al Naysaburi
Al-Hakim, Muhammed ibn Abd Allah ibn Muhammed ibn Hamduyah, Abu Abd Allah al-Dabbi al-Tamhani al-Naysaburi al-Shafi’i, also known as Ibn al-Bayyi.
Al-Hakim is known among the people of Hadith to be mutasahil (lenient hadith critic).
Al-Hakim’s Mustadrak was criticized by Hadith scholars due to the number of mistakes and inaccuracies found in it. Al-Sakhawiin alilan wal-Tawbikh and others mention that he declares many forged reports to be rigorously authentic; up to 100, according to some authorities. This is not to mention extremely weak ones. Instead of clinging to his own expressed precondition, he only reports with the chains of the rank of the status of Bukhari and Muslim. For example, he narrates in the Musadrak from Ibn Abbas that Allah revealed to the Blessed Messenger (saw), the following:
“I have killed seventy thousand [in punishment] for [the murder of] Yahya ibn Zakariyya and I will kill seventy thousand times seventy thousand [in punishment] for [the murder of] your daughter’s son al-Husayn.”
Al-Hakim said this report has a sound chain, while Al-Dhahabi added: “By the criterion of Muslim” but Ibn Hibban said this hadith is untraceable (la asla lahu), Al-Dhahabi himself rejected its matn as munkar in the Siyar while Ibn Kathir similarly declared it “highly anomalous” (gharib jiddan) in al-Bidaya. [1]
Sources: Ibn Hibban, al-Majruhin (2:215), al-Khatib, Tarikh Baghdad (1:142), al-Hakim(1990 ed 2:319, 2:648, and 3:195), Fayd al-Qaiîr (1:205), Tadhkirat al-Huffaz (1:77 gharib), Mizan (sv. Qâsim ibn Ibrahim al-Hashimi), and Siyar (Risala ed 4:342-343).
Some say Al-Dhahabi went to excess in regretting that al-Hakim had compiled the Mustadrak in the first place.
“It would have been better if al-Hakim had never compiled it!” as mentioned by Dr. Bashshar Awward Maruf in his doctoral thesis.”
Source: (al-Dhahabi wa Manhajuhu fi Kitabihi Tarikh al-Islam.)
His classing al-Hakim “among those who are lenient, like al-Tirmidhi” does not apply to al-Hakim in absolute terms but only to his grading of narrations in the Mustadrak, which the Scholars pointed out he compiled in his old age, intending to revise it, a task left unfinished beyond the first volume.
Sources: Dhikr Man Yutamadu Qawluhu fil-Jarh wal-Tadil (p.172) & (Cf. Al-Sakhawi, Fath al-Mughith (1:36) and Mamduh, Raf` al-Minara (p. 153 n. 1).
This is proven by the fact that al-Hâkim’s mistakes are fewer in the first volume of the Mustadrak, as shown by al-Dhahab’s own minimal corrections there. “Outside the Mustadrak,” Shaykh Mahmud Mamduh said, “his positions are as strict as those of the meticulous Imams of hadith”
Source: (al-Sakhawi, Fath al-Mughith (1:36) and Mamduh, Raf` al-Minara p. 153 n.)
Prima Qur’an comments:
A look at the matn.
Abu Thabit had to identify himself to Umm Salamah.
He twice claims that Allah (swt) had removed his reservations to fight alongside Ali. He actually says this twice. It was at the time of the afternoon prayer. He doesn’t disclose how.
The hadith contradicts another hadith (below) where he is also the transmitter in which the text (matn) is changed.
Ali is with the qur’an and the qur’an is with Ali. They will never separate until they meet me at the Hawd (Cistern)
Ali is with the truth and the truth is with ‘Ali. They will never separate UNTIL they both arrive at the Hawd (Cistern) on the Day of Judgment
This stand-out line would not be difficult for someone to recall. The fact that the narrator redacts words in the mouth of Umm Salamah and cannot get the facts straight shows that they are confused.
The Qur’an is all truth but not all truth is the Qur’an.
In the second version of the hadith of Abu Thabit, there is no mention of his own doubts with regard to standing with Ali or his change of heart at the afternoon prayer.
Also, in the second version, it is simply that he came upon Umm Salamah. In the second version he does not need to identify himself to her.
The Hadith of Umm Salamah
This hadith comes to us via two ways:
The first is as follows:
Al Khatib narrates from ‘Abdul Salam ibn Salih — ‘Ali ibn Hashim ibn al Barid — narrated to us — from his father — from Abu Sa’id al Tamimi — from Abu Thabit, the mawla (freed slave) of Abu Dharr who said, “I entered the presence of Umm Salamah and saw her crying. She was mentioning the name of ‘Ali and said, ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw),’” saying Ali is with the truth and the truth is with ‘Ali. They will never separate until they both arrive at the Hawd (Cistern) on the Day of Judgment.
Source: (Al Khatib: Tarikh Baghdad, 14/321.)
Chain analysis: a look at the sanad (chain of narrators)
‘Abdul Salam Ibn Salih is al Harawi. It has been mentioned previously that he is suspected of lying.
Al Haythimi said he is weak. Source: (Majma’ al Zawa’id vol. 9 pg. 114)
Dhahabi said he is censured: Source: (Siyar vol. 11 pg. 447)
He is accused of being a forger of hadith and one who steals chains to invent things.
Sources: (Al Kamil fi al Du’afa’ vol. 5 pg. 177) & (Lisan al Mizan vol. 4 pg. 144)
He is accused of lying and hadith forgery. Source: Mizan al I’tidal vol. 5 pg. 220.
Abu Sa’id Dinar is not a thiqah (reliable). He is matruk al hadith (suspected of forgery).
Abu Thabit could not be traced. He is mahjul (unknown)
Ibn Taymiyyah did not find a chain of transmission for this hadith; consequently, he denied it.
Source: (Ibn Taymiyyah: Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah, 4/238)
However, there is a chain via Abu Ya’la here:
The Hadith of Abu Sa’id
Abu Ya’la narrates — Muhammed ibn ‘Abbad al Makki narrated to us — Abu Sa’id narrated to us — from Sadaqah ibn al Rabi’ — from ‘Umarah ibn Ghaziyyah — from ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Abi Sa’id — from his father that ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) ,’” saying Ali is with the truth and the truth is with ‘Ali. They will never separate UNTIL they both arrive at the Hawd (Cistern) on the Day of Judgment.
Source: (Abu Ya’la: Musnad Abi Ya’la, hadith no. 1052.)
Chain analysis: a look at the sanad (chain of narrators)
Sadaqah ibn al Rabi’ is regarded as a thiqah (reliable) by Ibn Hibban.
Source: (Ibn Hibban: Kitab al Thiqat, 8/319)
Ibn Hibban is known for deeming majhul (unknown) narrators as reliable.
Ibn Abi Hatim mentions a biography about Sadaqah ibn al Rabi’. However, he did not make mention of any jarh (impugning statement) or ta’dil (statement of approval). Thus, his status is unknown. Neither favourable nor unfavourable.
Source: (Ibn Abi Hatim: Kitab al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 4/433.)
Abu Sa’id is the mawla (freed slave) of Banu Hashim. There is a difference of opinion regarding his status. The better opinion is that he is Hassan al hadith (fair in hadith). However, this type of hadith from him is unacceptable.
In short, the hadith is da’if (weak); the first chain of transmission is saqit (wholly unreliable) and the second chain of transmission is da’if (weak).
Lastly, Allah (swt) has made it clear that we are a broken humanity. Yet, he showers abundant grace and mercy upon us all.
“If Allah were to punish people ˹immediately˺ for their wrongdoing, He would not have left a single living being on earth. But He delays them for an appointed term. And when their time arrives, they cannot delay it for a moment, nor could they advance it.” (Qur’an 16:61)
In other words if Allah (swt) wanted to exact due measure and justice for the failings of humanity this whole planet would be turned to ash. Everyone. No one is exempted.
I leave you with this final verse to reflect upon.
“These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what statement after Allah and His verses will they believe?” (Qur’an 45:6)
“As for those who divide their religion and break up into (sects), you have no part in them in the least: their affair is with Allah: He will, in the end, tell them the truth of all that they did.” (Qur’an, 6:159)
﷽
This idea of the Muslims following 12 Imams is a total concoction.
First and foremost, it has absolutely no support from the Qur’an.
The Sunni Muslims the following hadith that the Shi’i will often use against them.
Narrated Jabir Ibn Samura:
I heard the Prophet (saw) saying, “There will be twelve commanders (Amir).” He then said a sentence which I did not hear. My father said the Prophet (saw) added, “All of them will be from Quraish.”
It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir b. Samura, who said:
I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: Islam will continue to be triumphant until there have been twelve Caliphs. Then the Prophet (saw) said something which I could not understand. I asked my father: What did he say? He said: He has said that all of them (twelve Caliphs) will be from the Quraish.
It is actually quite easy-peasy lemon squeezy from a Sunni Muslim perspective to shut down Shi’i intrigue over these hadiths.
None of these hadith say anything at all about the family of the Blessed Prophet (saw). So the wide-eyed speculation stops there.
None of these hadith say anything at all about them ruling in succession. That is to say, one after the other.
Did Hussein ibn Abi Talib ever rule over the Muslim ummah? We all know the answer to this is a resounding No! He didn’t rule over jack squat!
The reason we mention Hussein ibn Abi Talib is that the Shi’i who are quite imaginative see the succession of the Blessed Prophet (saw) as:
Ali ibn Abi Talib Hasan ibn Ali Husayn ibn Ali (Hussein ibn Abi Talib) Ali ibn Husayn
So, from the perspective of a Sunni Muslim or an Ibadi Muslim, that’s a wrap. That means there is nothing more to discuss. Because the points that the Shi’i want to desperately prove from these hadiths cannot be established at all.
We will come back with our critique of this hadith. However, let us first look at the history of this number 12 prior to the advent of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw).
THE NUMBER 12 HAS NO SIGNIFICANCE IN ISLAM.
The number 12 is not significant or important, in any shape or form, in Islam. It is the atomic number of atoms in Magnesium. 12 is the number of zodiac characters in both the Western and Chinese models. There are 12 months in a year of the Gregorian calendar. The 12th surah in the Qur’an is called ‘Yusuf’ or Joseph.
The 12th chapter and 12th verse of the Qur’an say the following:
“Send him with us tomorrow to enjoy himself and play, and we shall take every care of him.” (Qur’an 12:12)
“Surely, the number of months with Allah is twelve months in Allah’s ordinance since the day when He created the heavens and the earth, of these four being sacred.” (Qur’an 9:36)
Nothing here is analogous to 12 Imams. The verse says of the 12 months, 4 of them are sacred.
Are the Shi’i going to tell us that of the 12 Imams only four of them are sacred?
This holds no significance to 12 tribes, 12 disciples or 12 imams, or 12 rulers at all.
12 relates to Israel, and the tribes. It has absolutely nothing to do with Islam.
THE NUMBER 12 AND THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL
Let us look at Israel (Jacob) and the 12 tribes in the Qur’an and in the Bible.
“Allah made a covenant of old with the Children of Israel and We raised among them twelve chieftains, and Allah said: Lo! I am with you. If ye establish worship and pay the poor-due, and believe in My messengers and support them, and lend unto Allah a kindly loan, surely I shall remit your sins, and surely I shall bring you into Gardens underneath which rivers flow. Whoso among you disbelieves after this will go astray from a plain road.” (Qur’an 5:12)
“Moreover, We divided them into twelve tribes And when his people asked Moses for water, We inspired him, “Strike the rock with your staff!” -after which twelve springs gushed forth from it so that all the people knew whence to drink., And We caused the clouds to comfort them with their shade, and We sent down unto them manna and quails, [saying:] “Partake of the good things which We have provided for you as sustenance.” And [by all their sinning] they did no harm unto Us-but [only] against their own selves did they sin.” (Qur’an 7:160)
“So We dispersed them as separate communities all over the earth; some of them were righteous, and some of them less than that: and the latter We tried with blessings as well as with afflictions so that they might mend their ways.” (Qur’an 7:168)
“Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him, we have surrendered.” (Qur’an 2:136)
“Nay! do you say that Abraham and Ismail and Jacob and the tribes were Jews or Christians? Say: Are you better knowing or Allah? And who is more unjust than he who conceals a testimony that he has from Allah? And Allah is not at all heedless of what you do.” (Qur’an 2:140)
“Truly We gave unto Moses nine tokens, clear proofs (of Allah’s Sovereignty). Do but ask the Children of Israel how he came unto them, then Pharaoh said unto him: Lo! I deem you one bewitched, O Moses.” (Qur’an 7:101)
“Say: We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to us, and what was revealed to Abraham and Ismail and Ishaq and Jacob and the tribes, and what was given to Musa and Isa and to the prophets from their Lord; we do not make any distinction between any of them, and to Him do we submit. ” (Qur’an 3:84)
“Lo! Thus spoke Joseph unto his father: “O my father! Behold, I saw [in a dream] eleven stars, as well as the sun and the moon: I saw them prostrate themselves before me!” (Qur’an 12:6)
Here Joseph mentions 11 stars and, altogether, 13 celestial bodies. No mention of anything 12 here.
There is absolutely nothing in the entirety of the Qur’an that would assign or even remotely hint that the 12 sons of Israel (Jacob) played any role that the 12er Shi’i designates for their 12 Imams. Nothing analogous here at all.
Now, what does the Bible say about these 12 sons of Jacob/Israel?
While Israel was living in that region, Reuben went in and slept with his father’s concubine Bilhah, and Israel heard of it. Jacob had twelve sons:
The sons of Leah:
Reuben, the firstborn of Jacob,
Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar and Zebulun.
The sons of Rachel:
Joseph and Benjamin.
The sons of Rachel’s servant Bilhah:
Dan and Naphtali.
The sons of Leah’s servant Zilpah:
Gad and Asher.
These were the sons of Jacob, who were born to him in Paddan Aram.
Source: (Genesis 35:22-26)
“All these are the twelve tribes of Israel, and this is what their father said to them when he blessed them, giving each the blessing appropriate to him.” (Genesis 49:28)
There is absolutely nothing in the entirety of the Bible that would assign or even remotely hint that the 12 sons of Israel (Jacob) played any role that the 12er Shi’i designate for their 12 Imams.
Were the 12 Imams the names of 12 tribes? Did the descendants of these Imams fight each other in a bitter civil war as was the case with Judah and Benjamin against the other 10 tribes? We all know that the answer to all of this is a resounding No! Nothing analogous here at all.
The tribes descended from the twelve sons of Jacob. They all existed alive simultaneously as separate people. According to the Imami Shi’i, was there any point in history in which their 12 imams existed simultaneously as separate people? We all know that the answer to all of this is a resounding No! Nothing analogous here at all.
Reuben
Simeon
Levi
Judah
Issachar
Zebulun
Dan
Naphtali
Gad
Asher
Joseph
Benjamin
NUMBER 12 AND THE DISCIPLES OF JESUS.
Jesus had 12 disciples because they were to go to each of the 12 tribes of Israel as previously mentioned. That’s it.
Now let us turn our attention to the disciples of Christ Jesus (as), as they are mentioned in the Qur’an.
“When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: “Who will be My helpers to (the work of) Allah?” Said the disciples: “We are Allah’s helpers: We believe in Allah, and do bear witness that we are Muslims.” (Qur’an 3:50)
“And behold! I inspired the disciples to have faith in Me and Mine Messenger: they said, ‘We have faith, and do you bear witness that we bow to Allah as Muslims'”. (Quran 5:111)
“O you who believe! Be Allah’s helpers, even as Jesus son of Mary said unto the disciples: Who are my helpers for Allah? They said: We are Allah’s helpers. And a party of the Children of Israel believed while a party disbelieved. Then We strengthened those who believed against their foe, and they became the uppermost.” (Qur’an 61:14)
There is absolutely no mention of the number of disciples anywhere in the Qur’an, which is both telling and interesting.
Now let us turn our attention to the disciples of Jesus (a.s) as they are mentioned in the New Testament.
“The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus.” (Matthew 10: 2-4)
“Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Matthew 19:28)
“These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.” (Matthew 10:6)
“It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Revelation 21:12)
The Twelve Disciples (Apostles)
Peter the Apostle (Simon Peter)
Andrew the Apostle (Peter’s brother)
James the Great
John the Apostle
Philip the Apostle
Bartholomew the Apostle
Thomas the Apostle
Matthew the Apostle
James son of Alphaeus
Thaddeus
Simon the Zealot
Judas Iscariot
Replacement after Judas
After the betrayal and death of Judas Iscariot, the remaining apostles selected:
Matthias the Apostle
We have no record anywhere of the 12 sons of Jacob or the 12 disciples of Jesus giving legal verdicts, and so forth to anyone.
Not only that but the analogy creates real problems for the 12er Shi’i concept because the 12 sons of Jacob and the 12 disciples of Jesus were concurrent (not in succession).
Not only that, but one of the 12 disciples of Jesus was a traitor.
So, if this is analogous to the 12er Shi’i do tell us which of the “12 imams” was a traitor to Rasul Allah (saw)?
In fact, the 12er Shi’i seem to catch the unsuspecting Sunni Muslims with something that they may be remotely familiar with or something that seems vague.
“You remember about the 12 tribes of Israel?” “Oh yeah,” says the Sunni layman. “You remember Jesus had 12 disciples?” “Hmm, sounds right”, says the unsure Sunni Muslim who has never bothered to look into these matters.
So, after they “establish” something murky about the number 12 being significant, then they come and put their spin on the ahadith from Bukhari and Muslim about 12 rulers, and so forth. Even then, as we saw, those hadiths did not even allow the Shi’i to put their spin on the aware Sunni Muslim.
Now, note that these 12 disciples of Jesus, according to the above text, were with him concurrently, not in succession. None of these disciples ever disappeared, waiting until the present. One of these disciples betrayed Jesus. Which of the “12 Imams” betrayed Rasul Allah (saw)?
Also, you will note that these 12 disciples were to go unto the 12 tribes of Israel (Jacob). The whole of the New Testament is about Jesus (The Messiah) coming for his people, not the whole wide world. That is why you have the names of the 12 tribes of Israel at the gates of heaven in the vision.
Are these 12 Shi’i Imams going to have their names on 12 gates for 12 tribes of Arabs (only) numbering 12,000 each?
The only thing analogous between the 12 Imams and the 12 disciples of Jesus, who were sent to the 12 descendant tribes of Jacob, is in fact the number 12. That is all.
We have clearly pulled the rug out of the 12er Shi’i idea of there being anything analogous here.
Unfortunately, our respected Imams of Hadith were not infallible in their collection of Hadith. They allowed a bizarre narration about 12 leaders to slip in their corpus.
The 12er Shi’i then use that hadith to persuade Sunni Muslims to their perspective.
Mohammed Hashim Kamali explains the situation best.
“Hadith critics have expressed reservations. Nevertheless, over the authenticity of various hadiths. Some politically tendentious hadith have come under criticism. One such hadith that al-Bukhari has recorded on the authority of Jabir b Samura is as follows:
“I heard the Prophet, peace be on him, saying that ‘there will be twelve rulers (amiran), ‘ and then the Prophet uttered words which I did not hear-but my father believed they were ‘…all of them will be from Quraysh’. “
“The Shi’i scholars have taken this hadith as “decisive evidence”, on the veracity of their belief in the twelve Imams. The Sunnis themselves have advanced different interpretations of this hadith. One interpreter thus understood this to mean that the twelve amirs will be simultaneous, all to whom will be laying claim to leadership, and the context is, therefore, one of tumult (al-fitna). “
“The various versions of probably this same hadith that Muslim and Abu Dawud have recorded say something different. Briefly, Muslim recorded a hadith to the effect that “this matter (i.e the Caliphate) will not go away until twelve Caliphs have come and gone.” Abu Dawud similarly recorded a hadith to the effect that “this religion shall remain until twelve Caliphs have ruled, all of them with the agreement and support of the umma.”
“The commentator of al-Bukhari, Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, has quoted these views, and reading all of them together, he thought that the reference in that respect was to the Caliphate. But this only added to complication in view of the common knowledge that the approved Caliphs were only four, not twelve, According to Qadi ‘Iyad Al-Yahsubi the hadith “probably meant just leaders (‘a’immat al’adl) of whom four have lived and the rest may emerge any time before the day of resurrection.” This was “just the right sort of interpretation,” according to Jawad Yasin, for its Shi’i readers with which to vindicate their belief in occultation and the return of their twelfth Imam any time before the day of resurrection.”
“Ibn al -Jawzi surmised the meaning of the hadith at issue and commented that the Prophet had probably meant twelve rulers, excluding his companions. It was then suggested that the hadith had referred to the Umayyad Caliphs. The problem here was that the Umayyad Caliphs, starting from Mu’awiya (d. 41 H) to Marwan al-Thani (d. 127 H) numbered fourteen, not twelve. Ibn al-Jawzi’s response to this was that Mu’awiya may be excluded since he was a Companion. Then he added that Marwan Ibn al-Hakam (d. 65 H) should also be excluded as he was a usurper and took office after the people had elected ‘Abd Allah b al-Zubayr. This rather imaginative interpretation fitted in with the counting of the Umayyad Caliphs at twelve and the image that was consequently conveyed of them was that they were leaders who ruled with the support of the umma.”
“This interpretation was based on several questionable assumptions, one of which excluded the first four Caliphs from the counting altogether, then it was assumed that Mu’awiya as not a usurper of political power; that Marwan b. al-Hakam was not to be counted as a Caliph, and that ‘Abd Allah b al-Zubayr had been conclusively elected to be the Caliph.”
“All of these rather weak interpretations were attempted with the pious yet questionable motive of upholding the reliability of the leading hadith collections and also to lend support perhaps to the Umayyad rule. The episode sustained itself simply because the chain of transmitters of the hadith in question appeared sound. Al-Bukhari and Muslim evidently recorded it because of its isnad without paying much attention to its meaning. And then a series of apologetic commentaries followed suit to justify what they had done.”
“If the true purpose of all hadith is to clarify and interpret the Qur’an and those aspects of Islam that can properly be said to be a necessary part of its belief structure and its Shari’a, then the hadith we have just reviewed is so peripheral that it hardly merits all the speculative effort that is undertaken to justify it.”
Source: (A Textbook of Hadith Studies, pages 206-208 by Mohammed Hashim Kamali)
However, all this fuss is over nothing. As we have shown it is too easy to refute the Shi’i claims in regard to the above hadith.
Critique of the matn (text) of the hadith.
Narrated Jabir Ibn Samura:
“I heard the Prophet saying, “There will be twelve commanders (Amir).” He then said a sentence which I did not hear. My father said the Prophet added, “All of them will be from Quraish.”
It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir b. Samura, who said:
I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: Islam will continue to be triumphant until there have been twelve Caliphs. Then the Prophet (saw) said something which I could not understand. I asked my father: What did he say? He said: He has said that all of them (twelve Caliphs) will be from the Quraish.
Our critique of this hadith will not focus so much on the chain of narration as it will focus on the text itself, but rather using aql and mantiq.
Is it not odd that Jabir Ibn Samura is to have related something of purportedly such importance to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and yet, did not catch all of it so that his father (or the man standing next to him) had to be the one to inform him of the missing bits?
Why is Jabir Ibn Samura the only one narrating this? He was possibly only 10 years of age at the time.
Why is no clarification sought? The companions are known to ask the Blessed Messenger (saw) about the most minute details of his blessed life. Why is there no clarification sought on a matter of purportedly such weight?
If the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) narrated about the future, why not simply mention Abu Bakr, or Ali as his successor?
What if the missing bits were as follows:
“I heard the Prophet saying, “There will be twelve commanders (Amir).” He then said they would all be corrupt and vile. My father, said the Prophet added, “All of them will be from Quraish.”
It does seem odd that the Blessed Messenger (saw) would foretell about 12 rulers and yet not state plainly that Abu Bakr, or Ali, was to be the successor?
Look at this map of the umayyad dynasty. That is quite an accomplishment for an empire that did not put the familiy of Ali at the centre of thier doctrine!
The Shi’i have yet to produce a single hadith where the Blessed Messenger (saw) explicitly stated in no uncertain terms that Ali would be the Amir of the Muslims, after his death. Not one!
We know you might be thinking about the incident at Ghadir Khum. Don’t worry, we have you covered.
O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in the result. (Qur’an 4:59)
﷽
Some time back, an Ismaili Shi’i e-mailed us with regard to our entry on the Hadith of Ghadir Khum. Though he has sent us a PDF with many contentions he asked us to address, we feel that we have needed to respond to the heart of the matter.
The heart of the matter is to understand what the Qur’an says about this issue. He had sent us a link that we are sure he felt would help to establish the case. Unfortunately, if you click on the link, it shows that the page is not there! Thankfully, we have the habit of saving materials.
So here is the PDF file with the arguments in it. This was written by Mohib Ebrahim.
So, for now, let us deal with the heart of the issue. What if we left all the contentious issues aside, and we stuck with the question of what evidence we have in the Qur’an to substantiate this position?
So in the e-mail, he wrote:
“Likewise, there are numerous verses in the Qur’an that highlight the doctrines of the Imamate, infallibility of the Shi’a Imams (as) and the nobility of the Ahl ul Bayt (peace be upon them). It is not true that such concepts are absent from the Qura’n in a way that we, the Shi’i of Ali (as), are forced to consult supplementary ahadith to support our viewpoints. For more information on the Qura’nic and philosophical/rational proofs of Imamate you can visit: https://ismailignosis.com/2014/07/08/how-to-validate-the-shia-imamat-from-the-holy-quran/ “
So let us address what Mohib Ebrahim has written.
What immediately stood out to us was the very diplomatic way that the reader was being prepped for the clear admission that there is no‘smoking gun verse’ in the Quran with regard to the Imamate at all.
Instead, the reader is teased with information like:
“The dilemma is not improved, but rather compounded, when evidence from the Qur’an is relied upon simply because the Qur’an itself admits, in verse 3:7, to its own partial ambiguity thereby rendering those parts open to individual interpretation “
“Given the disagreement about a historical event despite overwhelming agreement on its record by both sides, one can only imagine the disagreement over arguments relying on the Qur’an, given its admitted ambiguity”
Interestingly, the issue is compared to the ‘Gordian Knot‘
He continues thus,
“So does this Gordian Knot have a solution or are we of modern and later times hamstrung with the vexing task of trying to tease out the truth from an incomplete historical record 1,400 years after the fact?” “Leaving aside those ambiguous verses that require the Imamat to explain they refer to the Imamat, past attempts to validate the Imamat from the Qur’an were, in general, based on arguing a specific interpretation of what were, hopefully, “smoking gun” verses that one could then point to and proclaim, “Here, clear verses where Allah ordained the Imamat.” However, the fact is that such “smoking gun” verses are few and far between — if they are to be found at all, given the disagreements over interpretation, as explained above. Furthermore, even if they are very clear when read in a certain light, it is precisely because they need to be read in that certain light and then argued in isolation, that they do not, in my opinion, provide substantive, let alone conclusive, evidence.”
This creates an infinite regress or a closed loop:
To understand the Quran, you need the Imam. To know who the Imam is, you need to understand the Quran. To understand the Quran, you need the Imam.
Now you people are intelligent. This is not a misrepresentation by us. This is a clear-cut admission.
So, ultimately, this is the intellectual endeavor of Ismail’s. The gentleman in the e-mail asked us to be circumspect with regard to Islamic sects. Let us just say this particular sect of Ismaili Shi’i, as they too have many subdivisions.
Ultimately, the intellectual endeavors of this particular sect of Ismaili Shi’i want us to believe in circular reasoning, putting the cart before the horse and finding passages simply because we want so desperately to find them.
In fact, the author, Mohib Ebrahim, states:
“I find it hard to accept that Allah has left the truth of this matter hostage either to the irreconcilable differences of expert Arabic linguists or personal interpretations of the Qur’an’s ambiguous verses.”
“Surely it is self-evident that answers must be found in the “plain verses,” and not the ambiguous ones, for otherwise we would have an unresolvable paradox where the instructions on how we are to acquire the correct meaning of the Qur’an’s ambiguous verses, were themselves cloaked in ambiguity.”
“Therefore, rather than trying to find and interpret a single “smoking gun” verse, argued and relied on in isolation, to justify Imamat, I use what I call Qur’anic Threads.”
To preface one’s argument in such a way, it is the end of the discussion, period. In fact, there was no beating around the bush. We have no ‘smoking gun‘ verse. Such ambiguous verses require us to put the cart before the horse, believe in the infallible imam’s ability to interpret before finding such passages. However, we will continue the article with a look into these various ‘threads‘ insh’Allah.
We don’t know if it would be appropriate to say that Ibrahim, Jacob, Issac were leaders of mankind. As in the whole of humanity. It is more appropriate to say leader for the people, meaning his people.
Also, to say that Allah (swt) appoints a leader, the question has to be asked. If people appoint a leader and Allah (swt) appoints a leader, are the two things mutually exclusive? After all, that is the reason for this post. That is the reason for this discussion. There is no clear-cut verse in the Qur’an for us to follow infallible Imams. There is no clear-cut verse in the Qur’an that names Ali as a leader for the community. In fact, people point to extraneous sources to indicate that Ali was to be preferred as a leader.
Look at verse Qur’an2:124 “His covenant is not with the evildoers.” If a purified lineage also equates to purified offspring, then why did Allah (swt) put the clause‘My covenant does not include the doers of evil‘?
Look at the verses: Qur’an3:33-34 THEY were descendants of one another is true, but not all prophets are descendants of one another. Unless one means that we all come from Adam (as). In that sense, the whole of humanity is the Ahl Bayt of Adam (as)
They were all descendants of one another.. We are all from Adam (as). So what is the point?
From Adam (as) we got two sons, one of whom is the first murderer of another human being. Which brings us back to what Ibrahim (as) prayed for, ‘and of my offspring?’ to which Allah (swt) responds, ‘My covenant does not include the doers of evil.’
You can imagine Adam (as) making such a du’a for his Ahl Bayt, his offspring, one of which became a murderer.
Look at verse Qur’an 57:26 among their seed…
It is interesting that the verse above is half quoted. The full verse says,
“And We have already sent Noah and Abraham and placed in their descendant’s prophethood and scripture; and among them is he who is guided, but many of them are (fasiqun) defiantly disobedient.” (Qur’an 57:26)
Among those descendants of Noah and Abraham are those who are guided but most of their descendants are defiantly disobedient. We have a clear example of one of the children of Noah (as) who disobeyed.
“And Noah called to his Lord and said, “My Lord, indeed MY SON IS OF MY FAMILY (AHLI) and indeed, Your promise is true; and You are the most just of judges! He said, “O NOAH, INDEED HE IS NOT OF YOUR (AHLIKA) FAMILY; indeed, he is one whose work was other than righteous, so ask Me not for that about which you have no knowledge. Indeed, I advise you, lest you be among the ignorant. Noah said, “My Lord, I seek refuge in You from asking that of which I have no knowledge. And unless You forgive me and have mercy upon me, I will be among the losers.” (Qur’an 11:45-47)
Also, look at verses Qur’an17:2-3 quoted above. “From the seeds carried along with Noah” came evil beyond evil. In fact, it is interesting that if we continue to read the passage it says:
“And We conveyed to the seeds of Israel in the Scripture that, “You will surely cause corruption on the earth twice, and you will surely reach [a degree of] great haughtiness.” (Qur’an 17:4)
“Those were the ones upon whom Allah bestowed favor from among the prophets of the seeds of Adam and of those We carried [in the ship] with Noah, and of the seeds of Abraham and Israel, and of those whom We guided and chose. When the verses of the Most Merciful were recited to them, they fell in prostration and weeping.” (Qur’an 19:58)
So why didn’t that guidance and choice descend to their progeny? If Allah (swt) saved Noah (as) and wiped out the evil, it is only reasonable that evil manifested from among the descendants of Noah (as)
Allah (swt) clearly said that the seeds of Israel would cause corruption and become haughty.
Just like one of the seeds of Adam was a murderer.
Just like Allah (swt) put a clause in Ibrahim’s du’a request.
It’s almost as if these people would own a chain of hotels across Europe one day that sells alcohol. It is as if these people one day would preoccupy themselves with the worldly life and marry supermodels.
“Also, from their fathers and their seed and their brothers-and, We chose them and We guided them to a straight path.” (Qur’an 6:87)
“Those are they unto whom We gave the Scripture and command and prophet-hood. But if these disbelieve in that, then indeed We shall entrust it to a people who will not be disbelievers in that.” (Qur’an 6:89)
Allah (swt) chose and guided them, but if they were to disbelieve therein, they would be replaced by those who would not disbelieve therein. So the possibility of disbelieve is there. This is also confirmed to me by our experience meeting people who are descendants of the Blessed Messenger (saw) who are atheists.
Look at what he says above about “Obey Allah and Obey the Messenger” (Quran 4:59)
Mohib Ebrahim continues:
“For, it is self-evident that if “those who are in authority” were also not pure, like Allah and the Messenger, they will make mistakes and, thus by definition, cannot be rightly guided. Consequently, to avoid being misled by such leaders, others with more knowledge would have to double-check them rendering such leaders redundant and undermining the legitimacy of their claim as rightly guided leadership.”
Wait a minute. When did tahara (purity) become equated with infallibility? No, that is certainly not the case. We hope no one thought they could sneak that one past us.
“So they ask you about menstruation. Say, “It is harmful, so keep away from wives during menstruation. And do not approach them until they are pure (tatahharna). And when they have purified themselves, then come to them from where Allah has ordained for you. Indeed, Allah loves those who are constantly repentant and loves those who purify themselves.” (Qur’an 2:222)
We hope no one is seriously suggesting that we do not approach our wives until they become infallible?
“Truly, it is a noble Quran in a protected book. None touch it but the purified.” (Qur’an 56:79)
Ibn Abbas said concerning the verse, “None touch it except the purified,” that this refers to the Book in the heavens and “the purified” refers to the angels.
To say that people who are in ritual impurity touch the Qur’an is true. However, to turn around and apply an esoteric meaning to a plain word ‘touch‘ doesn’t help the ‘thread‘ case at all. Nowhere is that word in Arabic used for touch means to interpret.
Notice he says, “Consequently, to avoid being misled by such leaders, others with more knowledge would have to double-check them, rendering such leaders redundant and undermining the legitimacy of their claim as rightly guided leadership.”
The Qur’an itself subjects itself to a falsification test by even the most uncouth of people. How is that the Qur’an is subject to a falsification test and these supposed Imams are not?
In fact, this whole argument used by Shi’i is critiqued here:
As we noted, one would have to prove the odd assertion that purity equates to infallibility. If that is the case, then we know that Ali is not pure because he made a colossal error in the battle of Siffin.
“Furthermore and notwithstanding the above, the Sunni position — that “those in authority” do not need to be pure and faultless — is just an interpretation since there aren’t, to my knowledge, any verses in the Qur’an stating that Allah left mankind free to choose their own leaders .” -Mohib Ebrahim
Are there any verses in the Qur’an where Allah (swt) categorically tells mankind that we are not free to choose our leaders?
So should Western Democracy’s be wary of being too cozy to Aga Khan and the Ismail’i since their doctrine is that democracy is at its core an aberration of what Allah (swt) wants?
Mohib Ebrahim wants us to believe in even more circular reasoning:
“Since we are unable to judge — perfectly and without error — who are the pure, Thread III will address the apparently impossible command not to follow disbelievers or those who have sinned. Indeed, Allah has said He will judge wherein we differ (42:10,22:67-69,5:48,39:46,6:164, etc.), thus precluding us from even making such assessments.”
“Since we are unable to judge or assess..perfectly and without error.”
Ponder that for a moment.
Question: Are we supposed to believe in perfect error-free Imams?
Answer: Yes you are.
Question: Are we able to judge perfectly and without error who these Imams are?
Answer: No you are not.
So these infallible Imams are objectively useless.
Which ahurf or qir’aat are the masses of Muslims to follow?
These ‘infallible pure imams‘ could simply throw it up in the air and pick one.
Who was the divine guide for 700 years between Jesus (as) and Muhammed (saw)?
It doesn’t matter because these ‘infallible pure imams’ don’t have an answer, and you are in no position to judge.
The Qur’an itself subjects itself to a falsification test; these imams do not.
We will tell you what is really convenient. It’s really convenient that we only have one infallible pure imam at a time. Apparently, in the time of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw), we had him, Ali, and his two sons.
Wouldn’t it have been quite cool to have put Ali and his two sons in isolated rooms and give them a couple of questions and see if they come up with the same answers?
Question: What are the people to do when there become violent fractious splits between these infallible Imams?
Answer: Pick up your sword and hope to Allah that you start stabbing the wrong one. You have no way of objectively knowing which one is the right one!
Conclusion.
The “No Smoking Gun” Admission: We seized on Ebrahim’s acknowledgment that there is no single, clear, and unambiguous verse in the Quran that establishes the Imamate of infallible leaders or names Ali specifically. We argue that this admission is fundamentally damaging to the Shia case, forcing them into circular reasoning.
The Flawed “Purity = Infallibility” Equation: We refuted the Shii attempt to equate the Quranic term for purity (tahara) with theological infallibility (‘isma). We provided clear counter-examples, such as the verse about menstruation (2:222) and the interpretation of “none touch it but the purified” (56:79) referring to angels, to show the word has a different, context-dependent meaning.
The Problem of Progeny and Sin: We used several Quranic examples (Adam’s son, Noah’s son, the prophesied corruption from the seed of Israel) to demonstrate that being a descendant of a prophet does not guarantee righteousness or leadership. This directly challenges the Shia concept of a lineage-based, infallible Imamate.
The Practical Uselessness of an Unidentifiable Infallible Imam: Which is a brilliant logical critique. If ordinary people are unable to “judge perfectly and without error” who the infallible Imam is, then the Imam’s existence provides no practical guidance. How can people be commanded to follow someone they cannot reliably identify? This stands in stark contrast to the Quran, which issues a clear challenge of falsification and is accessible to all.
The Question of Choice: We challenge the notion that Muslims are not free to choose their leaders, asking for the Quranic verse that prohibits this. This highlights the fundamental political and theological difference: Shiaism posits divine appointment.
“Travel through the land and observe how He began creation. Then Allah will produce the final creation. Indeed Allah, over all things, is competent.” (Qur’an 29:20)
﷽
Our colleague recounts their encounter with Shi’i
Now when I say, “My experience with the Shi’i”, I should clarify that by that I mean the 12er Shi’i. The bulk of my experience has been with them.
When I was studying at Zaytuna before it became Zaytuna college, a fellow student and I named Wasif and I went for an afternoon stroll. I recall how he was telling me, “C’mon brother, just one more burger before we walk the straight and narrow.” He had a love for American burgers and was bound and determined to have just one more before going completely halal.
The time for Maghrib came upon us and there was a mosque on the side of a street. We walked in, and it was certainly a 12er Shi’a Mosque. You can see pictures of various Imams on the wall. We did not hesitate to join the congregation for the Maghrib prayer. I only noted to myself afterward that it was interesting that the whole prayer was out loud. Of course, when we went back to Zaytuna, the brothers were sharing their day-to-day things, and the subject came up. One brother approached Wasif and I said, “You prayed behind the Shi’i. Your prayer may not be valid. You better go and talk to Shaykh Mohamed Yaqubi.”
Well, low and behold, we were advised to do our prayer over again. I cannot speak for Wasif, but I didn’t take the advice. I saw no valid reason to. They prayed and I prayed. My prayer is not for them or their school. It is for Allah (swt).
Then there was the time I went for the ATMT (Awareness Through Mosque Tour) training course in Manama, Bahrain. Very beautiful team, great host, and amazing instructors! Unfortunately, during my first Friday prayer there, after everyone does there two nawafil many gather in small groups to simply chit-chat. So, one of the people with us nearby was talking about how “The Shi’i are spreading like cock roaches”. I was really disgusted by the fact that he would like this about other Muslims, and in the mosque no less! So I told him, “We should not talk about other Muslims like this.”
On another occasion, we (the trainees) were going on a guided tour of museums. A Mualif (convert) sister, who came from either the Czech Republic or Hungary was talking to a very stout Arab man. As we were walking they were discussing the current(then) volatile situation in Iraq. I made the comment that, “Sunni and Shi’i Muslims should unite.” To which he quipped: “Who said they are Muslims?” I responded, “What do you mean?” He replied, “The Shi’i who said they are Muslims?” I responded, “Our scholars (Sunni) say they are deviant, but Muslims nonetheless.” At that time I was still following the Maliki School.
The adhaan had sounded. Frustrated with what I had just heard, I stormed off from the group and happened upon a local mosque just a few blocks away. I sat in the front row waiting for the Imam to come forward. The congregants of the Mosque seemed primarily Indo-Pakistani from what I could tell. One brother said the Iqama and an elderly man was pushing me to lead the salaah! I looked around and was wondering if the actual Imam would come forward, and they kept pushing me to lead the prayer. Well, I did just that. Let me tell you it is a huge thing to lead the prayer. It was like a huge weight to lead the congregational prayer. My respect to every Imam of every Masjid on the planet. You can really feel the weight of doing something that one would think is a simple task. After the salaah, I made du’a, did more rakats and left.
Later, that robust Arab brother came up to me during dinner and apologized to me. That took me by surprise because, to be honest, he did not strike me as the type of person who would do that. I later found out from some organizers of ATMT that this brother’s family was killed by a Shi’i death squad in Iraq. May Allah (swt) soften his heart and grant him ease.
Let me tell you, you need to choose your words very carefully when traversing this Earth. Once, in what I thought was a casual conversation, when talking about the region (I being from the States), I called the waters around Bahrain, the “Persian Gulf”. Boy! That’s a blunder! “It is the Arabian Sea!” One man interrupted. I responded with, “Why not call it the sea of Islam, or the Gulf of Allah?”
I remember not far from the hotel we were staying I went out one evening to do dhikr by the “Gulf of Allah” all the while staring off into the direction of Iraq. The cool breeze of the water filled the surrounding air. It was surreal because just a few hundred kilometers was the closest I ever was physically to a war zone. I reflected on the events of the day and made du’a that Allah (swt) would fill the region with peace.
Another encounter was with when I was in Singapore. A brother I met at the Sultan Masjid. Brother Ali Al Ausi, a very kind and jovial brother. I do not want to take from his good deeds by publicly stating the many good things he has done, but Al hamdulillah I saw first hand how he was there to help those in need (fisabilillah). We were roommates for a while, and sometimes I would lead the salaah and other times he would. l was sometimes amused by his method of salah because he would wear jeans that have loops (where the belt goes through) and he would put his thumbs there and hang them during the prayer. Quite cavalier I thought to myself! Haha.
He told about his family leaving Najaf and going to Russia and from there eventually settling in the United Kingdom. His father worked in pizza shops until he became a manager and worked very hard to put his family on a proper footing.
He also told me about his doubts concerning Shi’sm and that he agreed Muslims should be Qur’an centric. He told me about how Shi’i get worked up in the Mosque during sermons on Karbala and that they would want to go out and beat up the first Sunni they saw. By Allah, these are his words, not mine.
Interestingly enough, for those of you who remember the man in Iraq who took off his shoe and threw it at president George Bush Jr, well, that man (the man who threw the shoe) was going to marry his daughter to my friend Ali. They met in Damascus, Syria, and once Ali confided in her that he didn’t believe in some of the stuff about Shi’ism, she stormed off saying, “I would rather marry a Sunni than you!”
He also divulged to me about some rather wealthy Shi’a Arabs that would practice Muta with some of the poorer Arab women in Egypt, and he was rather disgusted by it all. I recall how he remarked, “If everyone is doing Muta, then who will get married?”
I just wanted to say that this book was given to me by my good friend Dr. Ali Al-Ausi, upon my request. He informed his mother that he had a friend wanting to know more about the 12er jurisprudence. The book is still in my collection. Brother Ali is one of the kindest, honest, generous, and most truthful Muslims I have ever met.
My meeting with the respected, Ali Larijani (The Former Speaker of the Parliament of Iran). This was an occasion at the Sultan Mosque in Singapore when his delegation came to Singapore. I was actually scheduled to give a talk to him and his delegation and there was a change of plans. I prepared before he came by trying to find out about his background. I saw that he studied Philosophy and particularly liked the philosopher Immanuel Kant.
His entourage created quite a shock at the Mosque because the ladies who were with them prayed in the main prayer hall (where the men usually pray). I was amused by it all. Nonetheless, after the prayer, I approached Ali Larijani, who had two bodyguards and one cleric with him. I greeted him, “Assalamu alaikum warahmutallahi wabaraktuh.” He replied the same. I then told him, “I am from America and I wish for peace between us and Iran.” He replied, “That they too wish for peace.” I then asked him what his favourite quote from Kant was. I could tell by his reaction. He was surprised. He responded with Kant quoting the golden rule: “Do not do that to others that you would not like them to do to you.”
Now that is the sum total of my personal experience and interaction with Shi’i or anything in relation to them in my lifetime. If you think, based upon what I shared above, that I hate Shi’i, that is really up to you.
That being said, when it comes to what I encounter online, via various social media platforms and what have you, I have found Shi’a (12er,especially) to be very dishonest, disingenuous and not very forward.
The one thing I do admire about Salafis, Sunnis of all stripes, even those who follow the Hafs Qur’an only religion. Ahmadiyyah etc. is there willingness to be forthright.
Their willingness to say, “I am such and such and this is where I stand.” With the Shi’i, I don’t get this. What I find is they often join groups posing that they are part of this or that and keeping quiet about being Shi’a.
Look! If we were in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon or other places where sectarianism is highly charged and a person’s life is in danger, I would get it. However, this skulking around various platforms pretending to be Hanafi, or Quranist. Anything else is simply just cowardly. It truly is.
All these people saying Ya Ali, Ya Ali Madad. How they would have loved to be at Karbala, or have lifted their sword for Ali. Look, mate, you cannot even be honest enough with yourself to say what you are openly.
And honestly, what I do see on YouTube, of the interactions of 12ers and Zaydi’s with Sunnis, is that the Shi’a end up getting intellectually owned, time and again.
“Indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are due and when you judge between people to judge with justice. Excellent is that which Allah instructs you. Indeed, Allah is ever Hearing and Seeing.” (Qur’an 4:58)
﷽
This is a sociological experiment our colleague conducted on their social media regarding the tale of some from among the Shi’i in relation to Umar (ra), Ali and Fatima (ra).
Narrated `Aisha:
Once, Fatima came walking and her gait resembled the gait of the Prophet (saw). The Prophet (saw) said, “Welcome, O my daughter!” Then he made her sit on his right or on his left side, and then he told her a secret and she started weeping. I asked her, “Why are you weeping?” He again told her a secret and she started laughing. I said, “I never saw happiness so near to sadness as I saw today.” I asked her what the Prophet (saw) had told her. She said, “I would never disclose the secret of Allah’s Messenger (saw).” When the Prophet (saw) died, I asked her about it. She replied. “The Prophet (saw) said: ‘Every year Gabriel used to revise the Qur’an with me once only, but this year he has done so twice. I think this portends my death, and you will be the first of my family to follow me.’ So I started weeping. Then he said. ‘Don’t you like to be the chief of all the ladies of Paradise or the chief of the believing women? So I laughed for that.”
If indeed the Shi’i believe that this narration is true and that Fatima (ra) would be the first from among the family of the Beloved Messenger (saw) to die, it cannot also be true that the “unborn” son of Fatima would die as he would technically be the ‘first of my family’ to follow.
Ali bin Abi Talib said:
“When al Hassan was born, the Prophet (saw) came and said: Show me, my boy, what have you named him? I said: I called him Harb, he said: Nay,” He is Hassan When al Hussein was born, the Prophet (saw)said: Show me my boy, what have you named him? I said: Harb, he said: Nay, he is Hussein, and when the third was born, the Prophet (saw) came, then said: Show me, my boy, what have you named him? I said: Harb. He said: Nay, he is Muhassin, then he said: I have named them after the names of the children of Haroun(Aaron). They are Shibr, Shubeir, Mushabbar.”
Source: (Musnad Ahmad 1/98, Isnad is sound)
لمَّا وُلِد الحَسنُ فقال أروني ابنِي ما سمَّيْتُموه قُلْتُ حَرْبًا قال بل هو حَسنٌ قال فلمَّا وُلِد الحُسَينُ سمَّيْتُه حَرْبًا فجاء رسولُ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليه وسلَّم فقال أروني ابنِي ما سمَّيْتُموه قُلْتُ حَرْبًا قال بل هو حُسَينٌ فلمَّا وُلِد الثَّالِثُ سمَّيْتُه حَرْبًا فجاء النَّبيُّ صلَّى اللهُ عليه وسلَّم فقال أروني ابنِي ما سمَّيْتُموه قُلْتُ حَرْبًا قال بل هو مُحَسِّنٌ ثُمَّ قال سمَّيْتُهم بأسماءَ ولدِ هارونَ شَبَرٍ وشُبَيرٍ ومُبشِّرٍ [ وفي روايةٍ ] قال سمَّيْتُهم بأسماءِ ولدِ هارونَ جَبَرٍ وجُبَيرٍ ومُجَبِّرٍ. خلاصة حكم المحدث: رجالهما رجال الصحيح غير هانئ بن هانئ وهو ثقة الراوي: علي بن أبي طالب المحدث: الهيثمي المصدر: مجمع الزوائد الصفحة أو الرقم: 8/55 التخريج : أخرجه أحمد (769)، وابن حبان (6958)، والطبراني (3/ 96) (2773) جميعا بلفظه.
It’s not believable to say that Muhassin was aborted as a fetus and yet the above narration says that he was born.
Here is a video of Ayatollah Sayyid Fadhlallaha, a Shi’i Imam, who thinks this whole tale about Ali, Umar (ra) and Fatima (ra) is a big fat, juicy fabrication. For those who can’t click on English subtitles in the post, we have put the YouTube link where you can click on English subtitles.
Surely the Imam has his reward with Allah (swt) for seeking truth on the matter.
Also, remember the presence of a statement in a book does not necessarily make it authentic. We do not know of anyone who holds this position. The chains of narrators the isnad needs to be scrutinized. Do the reports contradict other pieces of evidence? This is what needs to be understood when engaging in dialogue with anyone from among the Muslims.
Now let us assume, for the sake of argument, that this incident took place as suggested by the Shi’i. Obviously, learned people like the Ayatollah above don’t buy it for a hot minute.
SOCIOLOGICAL EXPERIMENT ON FACEBOOK.I CALL THIS: “THE FATIMA EXPERIMENT”
So, knowing that Muslims have a vested interest in this alleged incident and there are emotional attachments to it, I decided to ask people who were absolutely clueless about this incident.
I decided that I would ask my non-Muslim friends about their thoughts concerning the characters of the two major individuals in this incident. So this is the data that I gave to them:
I want my non-Muslim friends to answer this question. Any Muslim who comments, I’ll delete it. This is a sociological experiment.
What would you say about a man (person A) who punched another man’s wife (person B) in the stomach and caused her to miscarry? Person B (a man) does absolutely nothing in response to person A (a man).
Later, person B marries one of his daughters to person A.
Person B names his son after person A.
In the Fatima experiment. Person A is Umar Ibn Al Khattab (ra) and Person B is Ali ibn Abu Talib.
What follows are their responses. Some of them are quite interesting. I have covered up their names to protect/respect their personal privacy. These are mostly U.S. Americans. They hold nothing back.
Well, so there you have it. 20 different responses to this scenario. Not favourable views of Umar (ra) and almost unanimously unfavourable views of Ali
Now we have The Lady of Heaven film that has created quite a controversy.
May Allah (swt) guide our tongues to speak the truth and our hearts to have the courage to say it. May Allah (swt) guide us from speaking falsely about any person’s incident or matter. Amin!
Prima Quran 