Thursday, November 6, 2008

Hating Mawdudi‏ and Khomeini - 6

Khomeini and Mawdudi "The Two Brothers"

Read A book mentioned below to know as to what kind of Filthy Language Mawlana Mawdudi and his brother Khomeini used against Prophets [PBUT] and against the Companions [May Allah be pleased with everyone of them] of Prophet Mohammad [PBUH]. The book has provided the original quotes from Mawdudi’s book with the editions and page number. Mudodi Khumeni do bhai, Moudoodi and Khumeni(shia) two Brothers

For example Khomeini once made a statement which was published in the Tehran times (Kitaab be Noujawanaan - P8) that if he conquers Madina Munawwarah, he will remove the two idols (Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar (May Allah be pleased with them) besides Prophet Mohammad (Peace be upon him). I am certain that no believer will accept such a statement against the great luminaries of Islam. Brother Amin, are we then to condemn only Khomeini and condone Mawdudi knowing well that Mawdudi was a close friend of Khomeini and was sympathetic to his course. In a book titled, 'Two brothers - Maududi and Khomeini' page 129, the following statement of Dr Ahmad Farouk Maududi (son of Abul-A'ala Maududi) was published in Roz Naame, Lahore - 29 September 1979, "Allama Khomeini had a very old and close relationship with Abba Jaan (father). Aayaatullah Khomeini translated his (fathers) books in Farsi and included it as a subject in Qum. Allama Khomeini met my father in 1963 during Hajj and my father's wish was to create a revolutionary in Pakistan similar to Iran. He was concerned about the success of the Iranian revolution till his last breath.'

TSidd wrote:

Dear Brothers, ASA

Let us be clear that I have studied minutely all the literature and writings of Maulana Merhoom and whatever he has written is all quotes from the Salf-al-Saleheen. So, please don't blame him at all. Blame all your Salaf if you have the courage to blame anyone of them.

Shamim Siddiqi

Dear Sir,

Salaf Al Saleheen [Pious Predecessors i.e. Three Blessed Generations after Prophet Mohammad PBUH ] didn't insult the Companions [May Allaah be pleased with them] of the Prophet Mohammad [PBUH]. Mawdoodi for insulting the Companions of the Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] in his so-called Research Books quoted the following Liars [Kazzab] and they were far from Salaf Al Saleheen [Pious Predecessors]

Unreliable Historical References of Mawdoodi which he used in his books to insult the Companions of the Prophet Mohammad [PBUH]:

1 - Abu Mukhnif Lut bin Yahya Azdi Ghamidi, 2 - Muhammad bin Umar Waqidi,

3 - Hisham bin Muhammad Kalbi, 4 - Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah by Ibn Qutayibah


1 - Abu Mukhnif Lut bin Yahya Azdi Ghamidi:

Abu Mikhnaf: Mohsin writes in his book "Ayyan-ush-Shia" in a chapter on Shia writers: "Abu Mikhnaf is Lut bin Yahya Azdi Ghamidi. Najashi believes that he was one of the historians of Kufah. He complied a number of books. The most noteworthy books are the ones dealing with the conquests of Syria, Iraq, Khorasan, Jamal, Safin, Nahr and Gharat and the book dealing with the murder of Hussain. Ibn Nadim in "Al-Fehrist" has recorded the comments of Ahmad bin Harith Khazzaz who thinks that Abu Mikhnaf is more will-in-formed than others about the conquest of Iraq, Madaini is more well-informed about Kharasan, India and Persia while Waqidi excels them in his grasp of facts about Hijaz and a psychological understanding of people. The information about Syria is evenly distributed among them and they can not claim any edge over one another. But it should be noted that two of these three i.e., Abu Mikhnaf and Waqidi are Shias".

As is well known, Najashi has rated him among the Shia authors and, besides the list furnished by Mohsin, he is also supposed to have complied the following books:

"Kitab-us-Saqifah" , the book of Shura, the book on the murder of Uthman, Kitab-ul-Hikmin, the murder of Amir-ul-Momini, the murder of Hussain, the murder of Hajr bin Adi, Akhbareul-Mukhtar, Akhbar-uz-Ziyat, Akhbar Muhammad bin abi Bakr and the murder of Muhammad etc. He has also mentioned that he was one of the distinguished historians and writers of Kufah. He derived a great deal of consolation from relating his traditions. He has also borrowed a number of traditions from Jafar bin Muhammad.

Tusi is of the opinion that his father was included among the companions of Hadhrat Ali. Tusi has therefore mentioned him in his study of men. Hilli states in Thaqat that his father was one of the companions of Baqir and he himself was one of the companions of J’afar.

Qummi refers to him in his book: "Lut bin Yahya bin S’aid bin Mikhnaf bin Salim Azdi was a tutor of historians in Kufah. He died in 157 A.H. Hishman Kalbi attributes it to Imam J’afar that his grand father Mikhnaf bin Salim was a companion of the Prophet (peace be upon him) who was one of the companions of Hadhrat Ali during the battle of Jamal and he was carrying the flag of the tribe of Azd. He drank the cup of martyrdom in the same battle in 36 A.H. Abu Mikhnaf was one of the most distinguished Shia historians. Though he had a gook reputation among the Shias, Tabri and Ibn Athir, the two Sunni scholars, have also acknowledged the credibility of his reporting. Abu Mikhnaf has written a number of books on history and biography of which the murder of Hussain is especially noteworthy. Therefore, even the most distinguished scholars have reported from it and relied on its veracity".

Thus the Shia scholars themselves have confirmed his existence and the list of books provided by Najashi clearly establishes his Shiaism and extremism.

Abu Mikhnaf and Sunni Scholars:

Hafiz Ibn Hajr Asqalani has summed up the attitude of Sunni scholars towards Abu Mikhnaf. He observes that he is an uncultured, unreliable and unveracious historian. Imam Abu Hatim etc. have called him obsolete and outdated. Imam Dar Kutni calls him a weak source. Yahya bin Mu’in considers him unauthentic and disparages him as if he is a nonentity. Ibn ‘Adi regards him an extremist Shia and a historian. Hafiz Ibn Hajr is of the opinion that he has followed his authority. He died before the advent of the year 170 A.H. Abu Ubaid Ajri relates that when he asked Abu Hatim about him, he rubbed his hands and said that there was hardly any need to inquire about him (which reflected his insignificance as a reporter). ‘Uqaili has placed him among the weak sources of information.

Allama Zahbi in his book "Mizan" has mentioned him in the same strain and in the abridgement of "Minhaj-us-Sunnah" by Shaikh-ul-Islam Ibn Taimiyah which is known as "Muntaqa", he has identified him with those who are notorious for palming off fibs. He has also referred to a statement by Ashhab bin Abdul Aziz Qaisi which he made in response to a question put to Imam Malik about the Rafidhis. He replied that they should neither be conversed with nor reported from because they are liars. Hurmilah bin Yahya has quoted Imam Sharfi’I that he never found anyone who excelled the Rafidhis in cooking up the evidence. Momil bin Wahab Ribi is reported to have heard from Yazid bin Harun that, with the exception of Rafidhis, the traditions of each innovator can be recorded as long as he does not force or persuade people to accept his innovation. The traditions of Rafidhis cannot be recorded because they speak lies.

Muhammad bin S’aid Isfahani heard it from Sharik bin Abdullah Nalhfi that knowledge should be gained from each and every person except the Rafidhis. Knowledge should not be gained from them because they invent the traditions and raise them to the level of hadith. Abu Mu’awiyyah is reported to have heard from Amash that people generally regarded the Rafidhis as liars. Then, following the authority of Shaikh-ul-Islam, he believes that any one who cares to study well-reasoned and cogently-argued books on the subject will be automatically led to the conclusion that the Shias are comparatively greater liars than other groups and sects. When a Rafidihi stresses Yaqiyyah, he indirectly confesses his lie".

These are the opinions of the leading scholars about Abu Mikhnaf. These scholars have made a comparative study of the sources of information and have backed up their conclusions with logic and reasoning. And similar and the views of the traditionists and religious scholars about the reliability of the Shias as vehicles of information.

The gist of the matter is that both Shias and Sunnis believe that Abu Mikhnaf was a Shia, that he was unveracious and untruth-worthy and Qummi’s words that Tabri and other Sunni scholars have relied on him inspite of his being a Shia, are nothing but a basket of bubbles and it is quit consistent with their nature which finds its exclusive nourishment in stringing up lies and fibs. Any one who had studied Tabri knows that he has nowhere indicated the option to stress only the veracious traditions. It is a mixed bag and he has explained the hodge-podge complexion of the book in his preface:

"There are certain traditions in this book which have come down to us from people who are disliked by the readersand the audience alike. These traditions are neither valid nor have they any link with realith. It should, however, be noted that these traditions are not invented by us but have been reportedby people who have conveyed htem to us. We have recorded them verbatim without making any alterations in them, and as they have been communicated to us".

Ibn Athir has also explained in the preface of his book that he has reported them from Tabri and relied on his authority: He observes:

"I have collected materials in my book that lay scattered and was not accessible in the form of a single book. Any one who cares to reflect will soon grasp the truthfulness of my statement. First of all I have picked up "Tarikh-I-Kabir" written by Imam Abu Jafar Tabri because all people depend in this book and they revert to it when differences crop up among them, and I have relied on all the various translations and left out not a single one-of them".

This is the reality behind the trust of Tabri and Ibn Athir on Abu Mikhnaf.

2 - Muhammad bin Umar Waqidi:

Ibn Nadim has commented that he was a Shia and declared Taqiyyah obligatory for them. He has originated the tradition that Hadhrat Ali was the miracle of the Prophet (peace be upon him) as the rod was the miracle of Moses and raising the dead was the miracle of Christ. Waqidi was a scholar of social convulsions, conquests and history. When he died, he left behind six hundred bags packed with books, Two persons could barely lift each one of the bags, though some time back some of his books had been sold for a sum of two thousand dinar. Two of hired slaves wrote
books for him day and night. Among his writings are Ar-Tarikh-ul- Kavir, Al-Maghazi, Al-Mabath, Akhbar Makkah, Futu-ush-Sham, Futuh-ul-Iraq, Al-Jamal, Maqtal-I-Hussain, and a number of books on men and history".

Qummi has mentioned this fact in the following words:

"Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Umar bin\ aqidi Mandi was a scholar of international repute. He wrote a number of books dealing with intellectual controversies and conquests of cites. He is also the author of Kitab-ur-Ridah. He is rated Al-Mughazi’ and his other inter pretations have also been dubbed in English. His scribe Muhammad bin S,aad and may other scholars have pointed ouut that, inspite of his extensive knowledge and scholarship, he could not memorize the holy Quran. It is related that once Mamun asked him to lead the Friday prayer. He apologized and tried to wriggle out of it. But when Mamun insisted, he explained: By God! O Amir-ul- Mominin, I can’t lead the prayers because I have not been able to memorixxe even half of Surah Juma. Mamun told him to commit it to memeoty. But when he memorized the first part, the second part slipped out of his memory, and when he memorized the second part, the first part slipped out of his memory. When Mmamun asked Ali bin Sabah to help him commit it to memory, he also replied that it was beyond his capacity to memorize it. Mamun said to him: Go and lead the Friday prayer and reite whatever Surah you like. Anan reports that he also offered the Friday prayer behind Waqidi and he recited the last two verses of Surah Ali.

He was a practising Shia. He declared Taqiyyah obligatory and believed that Hadrat Ali was the miracle to the Prophet (peace be upon him) as ht erod was the miracle of Christ, He had also concocted a number of other lies and traditions".

Khu Ansari in his book has conferred on him the title of "the most leading scholar". Thus the Shias have them-selves acknowledged that Waqidi was a Shia, that he had the worst possible memory, that he lacked a sense of retraint and self-discipline and both his mind and heart were allergic to Quran.

Waqidi and the Sunnis.

Now I shall try to reproduce the views of the Sunni scholars and biographers about Waqidi invented the traditions".

"He used to relate inverted and dubius traditions from authentic traditionalists. Ahmad bin Hanbal controverted him and Ali bin Madini declared that waqidi invented traditions".

Zahbi believes that the scholars have unanimously rejected him. Imam Nisai declared that he cooked up the traditions. Hafix ibn Hajr Hajr has compiled the whole gamut of views and opinious about him in the form of a book. He relates on the authority of Imam Bokhari that Waqidi was a madani, he lived in baghdad and his traditions are obsolete. Ahmad Ibn Mubarik, Ibn Numair and Ismail bin Zikriyyah have declared him out of use and circulation. Mu’awiyyah bin Saleh reports Imam Ahmad bin Hambal to have said:

"Waqid is a liar"

Yahya bin Munin Stated:

"He is weak"

Sometimes he declared,

"He is nothing" (he is a nonentity-he does not carry any weight) Ibn Madini said:

"Haitham bin ‘Adi is more reliable to me than Waqidi and as a reporter of traditions he possesses greater popularity and credibility" .

Imam Shafi’i affirms:

"All the books of Waqidi are bundle of lies ".

Imam Nisai comments in his book "Adh-Doafa".

"Four liars are nototious for imputing bogus traditions to Prophet (peace be upon him)

(1) Waqidi in Madinah

(2) Muqati in Kufah

(3) Muhammad bin Said Maslub in Syria and then he also mentioned the forth


Ibn ‘Adi asserts:

"The traditions reported by him are untrust-worth" .

Ibn Madini declares:

"I know twenty thousand traditions which are baseless (which have no authentic origin). Ibrahim bin Yahya is a liar also but he is better than Waqidi in my view". Imam Abu Daud declares:

"I neither record any tradition reported by him nor do I relate it nor have I any doubt about his capacity for inventing traditions". Binder says:

"In my view he is one of those who cooked up tradintions" .

Ibn-ul-‘Arabi has cited a statement made by Imam Shafi’i.

"There were seven persons in Madinah who invented traditions: one of them was Waqidi"

Imam Abu Zar, Abu Bashir Dulabi and Uqaili are collectively of the opinion that "his traditions were obsolete"

Imam Abu Hatim Razi remarks:

"The scholars in Madinah disacknowledge the validity of his traditions".

Ibn Jauzi has quoted the statement made by Abu Hatim Razi:

"He fabricated the traditions".

Hafiz Ibn Hajr has related an episode which revels the extent of his audacity in telling lies. Umro Naqid told me that he asked Waqidi: Do you remember any hadith about the curse of visiting graves through Thauri, through Ibn Khaitham, through Abdur Rahman bin Nabhan, through Abdur Rahman bin Hitham bin Thabit? He replied in the affirmative and qoted Sufiyan as its source. I asked him to dictate it and he started dictating it on the authority of Abdur Rahman bin Thauban. I said: all praise is to God Who has made you slip! you claim to be an expert on the geneo-logy of Jinns but you don’t remember its authentic source! Safi is of the opinion that it refers to a tradition which other people besides him have reported from Sufiyan. Imam Navi says;

"By the unanimous opinion of Muhaddithim, Waqidi is weak"

Allama Zahbi writes in Mizan:

"A consensus has been achieved on Waqidi’s weakness"

Imam Dar Qutni says:

"His hadith reflects weakness"

Jauzani remarks:

"He did not reply on moderation in inventing hadith"

These are the opinions of the Sunni scholars about Waqidi. The Shias have themselves acknowledged that he is not just a plain Jane of a Shia but is also one of those hard-shell Shias who declare lying obligatory as part of their Taqiyyah and for whom the art of lying is a sure passport to salvation!

4- Hisham bin Muhammad Kalbi:

Mohsin Amin has included a reference to Muhammad bin Saib and his so Hisham in his grading of Shia historians. Ibn Nadim, who is himself a Shia, has mentioned him in his "Fehrist" Najashi comments on Hisham bin Muhammad:

"Hisham bin Muhammad bin Saib bin Bashir bin Zaid bin Umro bin Harith bin Abdul Harith bin Azzi bin Umra-ul-Qais Amir bin N’oman bjn Amir bin Abdu bin ‘Auf bin Kinanah bin Auf bin Zaid-ul-lat Raqidah bin Thaur bin Kalb bin Vibra Manzir was a geneologist and a historia-grapher. He was a distinguished scholar in his field and was a sincere follower of our faith. Once he was suffering from a serious follower of our faith. Once he was suffering from a serious illness.

As a result of the disease he lost his memory and knowledge. Then he sought the kind patronage of J’afar bin Muhammad who made him quaff a tumbler of knowledge which restored his memory and scholarship. Abu Abdullah also patronized him. He composed a number of books of which Mathalib-Thaqif, Mathalib-i-Hussain, and Kitab Akhbar Muhammad bin Hanfiyyah are especially not worth.

Imam Daud Hilli has stated in the fist part of his study of men that his father was one of the companions of Imam Baqir. He has also observed that his son Hisham was much patronized by Imam J’afar Tusi has included Muhammad bin Saib among the companions of Sadiq and Baqir. He was an extremely fanatic Shia and his lapses are immeasurable.

The Shia scholar, Abbas Qummi observes:

"Kalbi, who is also known as Ibn Kalbi, was a geneologist. His name was Abul Manzir Hisham bin abi Nafr Muhammad bin Saib bin Bashr Kalbi Kufi. He was an expert in tracing pedigree. Some of the knowledge relating to the geneological tree he had obtained from his fater Abu Nafr Muhammad bin Saib who was one of the companions of Sadiq and Baqir. Abu Nafr had gathered information about Quraish pedigree from Saleh who had collected it from ‘Aqil bin abi Talib. Ibn Qatibah observes that Bashr was his grandfather, and his two sons Said and Ubaid-ur-Rehman had participated in the battles of jamal and Safin on Ali’s side. Saib received martyrdom along with Musab bin Zubair and Muhammad bin Said Kalbi participated in may battles along with Ibn Rashat. He was a geneologist and an exegete. He died in Kufah. Samani, in an account of muhammad bin Saib, writes that he was an exegete. He was a native of Kufah and believed in the return’. His son Hisham was a man of high stature and was an extremist Shia.

It is recorded in "Ar-Rijal-ul- Kabir" that Hisham bin Muhammad bin Saib Abul Manzir was a geneologist of international fame. He was paragon of knowledge and scholarship, and a historian of great reputation. He was a true devotee of our faith. It is also recorded that once he fell into the clutches of sanguine disease. As a consequence, his memory was completely washed out. He approached J’afar bin Muhammad (to seek and antidote against the disease). J’afar offered him a glass (of some liquid) to drink which totally restored his knowledge and memory. Abu Abdullah patronized him a great deal. He was also an enviable semasiologist and, on account of his stupendous memory, had memorized the holy Quran within a span of only three days. And three is nothing to feel dazed about. A man who quaffs a glass (of any liquid etc.) at the hands of Imam Sadiq, and memorize the Quran within the span of even less than three days". Kalib died either in 206 A.H. or in 204 A.H.

I believe that the account of Hisham and his father Muhammad is quite adequate and which is enough to establish his credentials as a Shia of old vintage.

Kalbi and Sunni Scholars:

Iamam Ibn Asqalani has mentioned the views of Sunni scholars about Kalbi in his account of Muhammad bin Saib. He refers to a statement made by Mu’amar bin Suleiman. His father had stated that there were two liars in Kufash. One of these liars was Kalbi. Layth bin S’add has endorsed the view and said that the other liar was Sudu. Dauri relates on the authority of Imam Yahya bin Mu’in that it is flimsy and lacks the ballast of reality. Mu’awiyyah bin Saleh reports from Imam Yahya that it is a weak tradition. Abu Musa says he has no evidence that either Yahya or Abdur rahman had heard it from Sufiysn. Imam Bokhari is of the opinion that Yahya and Ibn Mehdi have declared it obsolete. Dauri relates it on the authority of Yahya bin Yala Muharibi: When Zaida was asked why had not he reported form Ibn abi Layla, Jabir J’ofi and Kalbi, he replied he did not remember much about Ibn abi Layla but Jo’fi was a liar and believed in the ‘return’: I also visited Kalbi off and on but I heard from him that his mind had been drained of all knowledge as a result of some disease but was eventually restored through the pouring of some liquid into his mouth by one of the descendants of Muhammad, I gave him up and stopped visiting him.

Asma’I reports frm Abu Awanah: I had heard certain things from Kalbi which turn a believer into an infidel but when I asked him about it, he simply back-tracked. Abdul Wahid bin Ghiyyath relates on the authority of Ibn Mehdi that abu Jaz’ came over and sat with us at Abu Umro bin ‘lla’,s gate and declared: I withness that Kalbi is an infidel. When I mentioned it to Yazid bin Zuray, he also confirmed he had heard him saying that Kalbi was an infide. When he was asked to explain it, he replied: I have heard him saying that once Gabriel came over to the Prophet (peace be upon him) to reveal to him the divine message.

The Prophet went out to do some errand. Hadhrat Ali was sitting there at that time. So Gabriel conveyed the divine revelation to him. Yazid does not confirm hearing it from him buthe withnessed that he used to beat his chest with his hands and repeatedly declared: I am a Sabai, I am a Sabai. Uqili believes that Sabais are a group of Rafihis and are the companions of Abdullh bin S aba. Fudhail reports from Mughirah’. Zayd Habab has heard from Thauri That he doubted the sanity of a person who relied on Kalbi as a source of his information.

Ibn abi Hatim says: I asked my father why did Thauri report from Kalbi? He replied: His object is not to report from Kalbi but to vent his senseof shock and outrage by quoting his statements, but the audience have mistaken it for a tradition.

Ali bin M’asher reports from Abu Janab Kalbi that Abu Saleh had declared on oath he had not learnt the art of exegesis from Kalbi at all. Abu Asim attributes to Sufiyan Thauri that Kalbi had told him to discount whatever he had reported from Abu Saleh who had in this turn reported it on the authority of ibn Abbas because it was web of lies and therefore should not be passed on as authentic tradition.

Asam’I reports from Qurrah bin Khalid the opinion of the enlightened scholars who believed that he was a liar. Yazid bin Harun relates that when Kalbi grew up, he fell a prey to amnesia. Abu Harim is of the opinion that people had unanimously discarded his hadiith. His traditons are not reliable and can not be entertained by any sane and sensible person. Ibn ‘Adi states that, in addition to what has been already expressed, some good traditions have been ascribed to him, especially the ones he had reported from Abu Saleh. He had carved a name for himself in the art of explication.

No one has compiled a longer exegesis than him. Some confirmed traditioists have also relied on his reports. He is a likeable figure in the field of exegesis but he is notorious for his excesses in the field of hadith. His hadith can, at least, be relied upon as it is reputed to walk on crutches.

Ibn abi Hatim states that Imam Bokhari has recorded somewhere that Muhammad bin Bashr heard from Umro bin Abdullah J’afar who passed it on to Muhammad bin Ishaq. Ibn Hatim has confirmed him to be Kalbi. Muhammad bin Abdullah Jafri states that he died in Kufah in 146 A.H. Ibn S’aad has traced his lineage down to Kalb bin Vibrah. His grandfather was Bashr. His sons Saib, Ubaid and Abdur Rahman had fought in the battle of Jamal on Ali’s side. Muhammad bin Saib also appeared in Jamajam with Ibn Ash’at. He was an exegete, a historian and an expert on Arab pedigree. He died in Kufah in 146 A.H. I have gathered all this information from his son Hisham. The scholars call him a nonentity and his traditions are lame ducks.

Ali bin Junaid, Hakim, Abu Ahmad and Imam Dar Qutni declare his traditions obsolete. Jouz-Jani identifies them as a bag of fibs. Ibn Haban believes that his lie is so glaringly obvious that it hardly needs any gloss or commentary. He has reported his exegetical explications from Abu Saleh but Abu Saleh’s dependence on Ibn Abbas has not been confirmed. Therefore his
exegesis is utterly unreliable.

Saji again beats out the drum of his out-datedness and unreliability. On account of his hideous extremism, his traditions are reduced to paper props. The scholars unanimously condemn his reports as obsolete. imam Abu abdullah Hakim says that he has reported the traditions from Abu Saleh".

The status of Kalbi has been amply substituted by the views and opinions of the scholars and he is found to be a fabricator of the lowest brand whose fibs and fictions spin out like the devil’s intestine. As far as his son Hisham is concerned, he is also stamped with the same insignia of concoction. Therefore he is also a Rafidhi and a liar as has been attested by Zahabi and other scholars of his status who specialize in the art of comparison based on logic and reasoning.

This Kalbi has also churned out a book on the companions which has been referred to by Ibn Mathar Hilli in this book "Minhaj-ul-Karamah" .

Shaikh-ul-Islam, Imam Ibn Taimiyah has mentioned his in his book and has also quoted the views of the distinguished Imamas to support his findings:

"Hisham Kalbi was the most scabby liar. He belonged to the Shia community. He relied for his reports on his father and Abu Mikhnaf Lut bin Yahya. Both of them are obsolete and are crusty liars. Imam Ahmad is of the opinion that nobody can rely on his reports because he was only a geneolgist and a teller of fictitious tales. Imam Dar Qutni states that he was out of circulation. Ibn ‘Adi remarks that he usually indulged in fantasy and had no role in the compilation of hadith. His father was also a spat on liar and therefore thoroughly unreliable. Zaida, Layth and Sulaiman Tamimi have called him a taleteller and a shammer. Yahya has labeled him a trickster and an impostor. Ibn Haban states that his legerdemain is obvious that it hardly needs any explanation.

4 - Kitab "Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah" is attributed to Ibn Qutayibah Al-Daynoori, for the following reasons:

1. The scholars who wrote the biography of Ibn Qutayibah did not mention any book of Ibn Qutayabah named "Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah". Ibn Qutayibah’s books include "Al-Ma'arif", and the books that is mentioned by the author of "Sahib Al-Dhonoon".

2. If a person reads Al_Imamah wa Al-Siyasah, he would notice that Ibn Qutayabah lived in Damascus and Maghrib, whereas in reality he did not leave Baghdad but to Daynoor.

3. The method and the course that the real author of "Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah" used, differs completely from the method and the course of Ibn Qutayabah in his books that we have. One of the main characteristics in the methods of Ibn Qutayabah is that he writes long prefaces or introductions explaining his method and the reasons for the writing of the book. In the opposite side, we see the author of "Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah" has a very short preface, not more than 3 lines..

4. The real author of Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah narrated from Ibn Abi Layla in a way that you feel he got it from him personally, that the authoer met Abi Layla face to face (Talaqa a'anhu). The full name of Ibn Abi Layla is Muhamed bin Abdulrahman bin Abi Layla the jurisprudent, the judge of Kufah, who died in 148H, and it is known that Ibn Qutayabah was born in 213H, after the death of Ibn Abi Layla by 65 years.

5. Even the orientalists questioned the true identity of the book’s authoer First of them was De Gainjose in his book "The history of the Islamic rule in Spain", then Dr. R. Dozi supported him in his book "The Political and the Lecture History of Spain", and the book mentioned Brokilman in "Tareekh Al-Adab Al-Arabi", the Baron De Slan in the index of the "Arabic manuscripts" in Paris Library under the name of "Narrations of Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah", and Margholios in "Dirasat a'an Al-Mu'arekheen Al-Arab", and they all decided that the book is falsly attributed to Ibn Qutayabah and that he could not be the real author.

6. The narrators and the Sheikhs that Ibn Qutayabah usually narrates from in his books were never mentioned in any place in the book of Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah.

7. It seems from the book that the author tells the news of the invasion of the Andulus orally from people who contemporaried the invasion period, like "I was told by a Muwla for Abdullah bin Musa" and it is known that the Fath of Andulus was in 92H, before the birth of Ibn Qutayabah by about 120 yrs.

8. Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah contains horrible historical mistakes, like making Aba Al-Abbas and the Saffah (The Slayer) two different people, making Haroon Al-Rasheed the immediate successor to Al-Mahdi, saying that Haroon Al-Rasheed gave Wilayat Al-A'ahd for his son Al-Ma'moon then to Al-Ameen, but if we go back to Ibn Qutayabah book "Al-Ma'arif" we find that he gaves us correct infiormations about Al-Saffah and Haroon Al-Rasheed which disagrees with what the author of Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah said.

9. In the book, there are many narrators that Ibn Qutayabah never narrated from, e.g. Abi Maryam, and Ibn A'feer.

10. In the book, there are sentences that are not in the writings of Ibn Qutayabah, like "Qal Thuma Ina", "it was mentioned about some cheifs", and "some cheifs told us" and like these structures which are far from the methods and sentences of Ibn Qutayabah and were never mentioned in any of his books.

11. It is obvious that the author of Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah does not care about arrangements, organization, and order, for he states the information, then goes to another one and jumps to complete the first information. This chaos does not agree with the method of Ibn Qutayabah who looks for organization and order.

12. The author of Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah narrates from two of the biggest Egyptian scholars, and Ibn Qutayabah never entered Egypt and never was a pupil for these two scholars.

13. Ibn Qutayabah has a very high rank among the scholars, for he is from Ahl Al-Sunnah and Trust (Thiqah) in his knowledge and religion. Al-Salafi said: "Ibn Qutayabah was from the Thiqat and Ahl Al-Sunnah, Ibn Hazm said: "he was thiqah in his religion and knowledge", Al-Khateeb Al-Baghdadi said the same, Ibn Taymiyah said about him: "ibn Qutayabah belongs to Ahmad, Ishaq and one of who supports the famous Sunni schools", and he is the Speaker for Ahl Al-Sunna as Al-Jahidh is the speaker of Mu'atazilah. A man in this rank among the great scholars could not be the author of Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah which changed the history and attributed to the Companions what is not true.

14. In Ibn Qutayabah’s book "Al-Ekhtilaf fi Al-Lafd wa Al-Rad ala Al-Jahamiyah wa Al-Mushabiha" he said that the Rafidah are kafirs because they slandered the Companions of the Prophet (pbuh), then he says: "and I saw them too when they saw the Rafida's exaggeration in the love of Ali and prefer him on who the Prophet (pbuh) preferred, and their claims that Ali was a partner of Muhamed (pbuh) in his prophethood, and the knowledge of the unknown is for the Imams from his sons and these talks and the secret matters that consolidated to the lies, kufr, extreme ignorance and stupidity, and they saw them slandering the best Companions and their hatred towards them", then can someone attribute Al-imamah wa Al-Siyasah to him which is full of slanders against the great Companions?

Source: Kitab Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah fi Meezan Al-Tahqeeq Al-Elmi, Dr.Abdullah Aseelan


No comments: