Sunday, October 19, 2008

Personal Preferences of Jamat-e-Islami - 9

syed-mohsin naquvi wrote:

You wrote to me saying most historians are Shia and all history is unlreliable. How come you are now quoting from the same unreliable history that has been mostly written by the Shia to support any of your arguments?

Thank you.


Syed-Mohsin Naquvi

Dear Naquvi Sahab,

Yes I did write that and let me repeat it again I right that in the context that most of the narrators who are used by Tabari in his history and tafseer particularly in respect of differences amongst Hazrat Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] and Hazrat Muawiyah [May Allah be pleased with him], Siffin, Jamal, and Karbala were Shias. And some narrations by the same narrtors are quoted by Salaman Rushdie in his book Satanic Verses [this was also discussed by Shahid Masood in one of his program in GEO and earlier ARY Views on News, when Salman Rushdie was given the tilte of Sir]. Behind this liquor controversy I myself have seen three narration by Tabari one is alleging that Hazrat Ali [May Allah be pleased with him], consumed the Liquor, another is of Abdul Rahman Ibn Auf [May Allah be pleased with him], and in the third narration there was no name.

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Unreliable Historical References of Mawdoodi which he used in his books to insult the Companions of the Prophet Mohammad [PBUH]: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

1- Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk or Tarikh al-Tabari

2- Al-Musamma Jami al-bayan fi ta'wil al-Qur'an or Tafsir al-Tabari

Veracity of Sunni Tabari:


Tafsir al-tabari and Tarikh al-tabari(history compiled by Tabari) are just a bunch of reports that Imam Tabari has complied. He says in the beginning of the books(either both or one of them) that he has just merely compiled all the reports that have cone to him, and that he will leave it up to future scholars to decide which ones are authentic.

Tabari himself, in a disclaimer at the end of his introduction (vol. 1 p. 24) declares that in terms of authenticity the material in his book is only as good as the chains of narration through which it has come down to him. "

Laymen like us looking through Tabari is the worst thing in the world. Tabari is not for people like us. The orientalists translated the entire Tarikh Tabari, and now, any non muslims goes and looks in it and thinks that it is authentic. Imam Tabari just collected everything that came to him and he said that he will leave it up to future muhaditheen [Traditionalists] to look for the authenticity of the reports.

Why Tabari is important for Rafizis?

It is a lie that Mu’awiyah ordered to insult Ali from the pulpits. There is no rightful or clear evidence about that. Mu’awiya’s biography and manners refuses this accusation. What some of the historians mention about that has no value because when these historians present these words about Mu’awiyah, they do not differentiate between true or false stories? In addition, most of these historians are Shia. But some of the Historians narrated in their books sound stories and false stories, but they are excused when they attributed these stories to their narrators so that we could judge these stories, whether to accept them or reject them. Among these historians is Al-Tabari, who lived in a time of Shia’s growing power. Al-Tabari says in the introduction to his history: “Let the person who reads through our book know that my reliance on whatever I recorded is on news and history with attribution to their narrators, without using intellect except in rare occasions. The knowledge of what had happened before, and what is going to happen at present time, is not reached to those who did not see and their time did not allow them for it without being told by people and without the interference of intellect. Therefore, whatever news you find in my book about history that the reader may deny it, or the listener may abhor it because he did not find it truthful according to him, then let him know that we did not present it ourselves, but it came from some of the people who narrated the story to us. We just presented what we have been told.”

[Tareekh Al-Tabari, Introduction, p.13]

Abu Makhnaf narrates this story. Abu Makhnaf’s full name is Loot bin Yahaya Al-Azday Al-Koufay [Tareekh Al-Tabari, vol.3, p.232, and year of 51H]. Al-Thahabi and Ibn Hajar said about him: “Ekhbaray Talif” (This is a phrase for the Scholars of hadeeth. Ekhbaray is the person who narrates stories, and talif is the one who lies when he narrates stories) [ Meezan Al-E’tidal by Al-Thahabi, vol.3, p.419 #6992 and Lisan Al-Meezan by Ibn Hajar, vol.4, p.492] Abu Hatim and others did not take him, and Al-Darqutnay said: “He is weak,” Ibn Mu’een said: “Not a trustworthy,” Marrah said: “He is nothing,” and Ibn Uday said: “A burned Shia!”) [Meezan Al-E’tidal, vol.3, p.419-420] and Al-Aqeelay accounted him as a weak [Al-Du’afa by Al-Aqeelay, vol.4, p.18-19 #1572]. Therefore, this story is false and hence is not an argument.

Tareekh at-Tabari was a voluminous text compiled by Imam Ibn Jarir at-Tabari (may Allah be pleased with him). Imam at-Tabari followed the classic methodology of early Islamic historians, a process which differed greatly from modern day historical writers. Islamic historians would simply compile all the known narrations about a certain event, regardless of how authentic or reliable each of those narrations were. They would copy the Isnads (chains of transmitters) into their books, in order that the Muhaditheen (scholars of Hadith) could determine which narration was Sahih/Hasan (authentic/good) and which was Dhaeef (weak) or even Mawdoo (fabricated). In other words, the historians compiled the narrations, and the Muhaditheen authenticated them.

Therefore, based on the above, we find that Tareekh at-Tabari is simply a collection of narrations on certain events; some of these narrations are accurate, whereas others are not. The authenticity of each narration depends on the Isnad (chain of transmitters): if the narration was transmitted by reliable narrators, then it would be accepted as valid, but if it was transmitted by unreliable people, then the narration was to be disregarded. As such, we find that it is ignorant of the enemies of Islam that they assume that we Sunnis accept every narration in Tareekh at-Tabari as valid, when in fact this is not the case nor has any Sunni scholar ever accepted this–not even Imam at-Tabari himself! Imam at-Tabari clearly says in the introduction of his book that the narrations found in his book are only as good as the people who narrate them. If the compiler of the book does not view all of the narrations as authentic, then it is indeed absurd for the Shia
to assume that we accept each and every single narration in Tareekh at-Tabari. Tabari says in a disclaimer in the introduction of his book:

I shall likewise mention those (narrators) who came after them, giving additional information about them. I do this so that it can be clarified whose transmission (of traditions) is praised and whose information is transmitted, whose transmission is to be rejected and whose transmission is to be disregarded…The reader should know that with respect to all I have mentioned and made it a condition to set down in this book of mine, I rely upon traditions and reports which have been transmitted and which I attribute to their transmitters. I rely only very rarely upon (my own) rationality and internal thought processes. For no knowledge of the history of men of the past and of recent men and events is attainable by those who were not able to observe them and did not live in their time, except through information and transmission produced by informants and transmitters. This knowledge cannot be brought out by reason or produced by internal thought processes. This book of mine may contain some information mentioned by me on the authority of certain men of the past, which the reader may disapprove of and the listener may find detestable, because he can find nothing sound and no real meaning in it. In such cases, he should know that it is not my fault that such information comes to him, but the fault of someone who transmitted it to me. I have merely reported it as it was reported to me.

(Tareekh at-Tabari, Vol.1, Introduction)

Imam at-Tabari’s book was simply an attempt to place Hadiths into a chronological order so that they would read out like a historical narrative; therefore, Tabari–like Ibn Ishaq–did a wonderful job of creating one of the first books which placed Hadiths in a chronological order. However, Imam at-Tabari only placed them in the right order, but he did not authenticate them, nor did he claim that. It should be known that to the Sunnis, the only two books of Hadith which are considered completely authentic are the Sahihayn (Bukhari and Muslim). After these two books, there are four other books which are considered reliable, but which contain some authentic and some unauthentic Hadiths. As for Tareekh at-Tabari, it is considered less reliable than any of these six books of Hadith! If, for example, a Shia were to quote a Hadith from Sunan at-Tirmidhi, then we would have to look up the Isnad in order to verify its authenticity. If this is the case with Sunan at-Tirmidhi, one of the six books of Hadith, then what can be said of a book (i.e. Tareekh at-Tabari) which is of a lower status than the six? For that matter, Tareekh at-Tabari is not even a book of Hadith, but it is lower than that: it is a book of history, and as is well-known, the scholars of Hadith would criticize the historians for their lack of scruples when it came to using weak narrations.

The most authentic book of Shia Hadith is Al-Kafi, compiled by Imam al-Kulayni, i.e. “Thiqat al-Islam”. Yet, many times the Shia will adamantly deny Hadiths found in that book, and even go as far as to say that the book contains thousands of unauthentic Hadith. If this is the Shia attitude towards the book they claim is the most authentic, then it is absurd for the Shia to expect us to accept every narration found in at-Tabari’s book, when in fact we Sunnis view Imam at-Tabari’s book with less honor than the Shia view Imam al-Kulayni’s book. In Al-Kafi there are narrations from the mouths of the Shia Imams that mention how Ali ibn Abi Talib wed his daughter to Umar ibn al-Khattab. Yet, the Shia will claim that these are falsely attributed to the Imam; then why do the Shia balk when we say that not every narration in Imam at-Tabari’s book is authentic?

What we have stated above applies to books written by Islamic historians in general; as for Imam at-Tabari in particular, then it should be known that he was specifically criticized for his over-reliance on weak and unauthentic narrators. Imam at-Tabari wished to create a well-balanced book, which would contain both Sunni and Shia narrations. He felt that his book would be incomplete if he only included one side to the exclusion of the other. In fact, Imam at-Tabari used so many Shia narrators and included so many Shia narrations that he was accused of being a Shia Rafidhi. Furthermore, the rumors that Imam at-Tabari did not recognize the jurisprudential superiority of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal further fueled the discontent towards Imam at-Tabari amongst the ranks of the Sunni orthodoxy. The Hanbalis–whom the Shia of today would refer to as the founding fathers of the “Wahabis”–rioted outside Imam at-Tabari’s home in protest.
Franz Rosenthal of Yale University writes:

He [Tabari] was denounced by Abu Bakr b. Abi Dawood to the influential chamberlain of al-Muqtadir, Nas al-Qushoori. He [Tabari] was accused of Jahmite inclinations and extremist [Shia] Rafidhi views and was forced to issue a denial…[of the] general accusations of dogmatic heresy and extremist Shi’ah sympathies which we hear about mainly in connection with quarrels with the Hanbalites…They [the Hanbalites] propagated the idea that he was a Shi’ah extremist and, ultimately, a heretic…Enraged Hanbalites thereupon stoned his residence and caused a serious disturbance which had to be subdued by force.

(Franz Rosenthal, General Introduction to “The History of al-Tabari”)

According to some sources, Imam at-Tabari issued a formal apology to the Hanbalis before his death; we read:

Tabari secluded himself in his house and produced his well-known book containing his apology to the Hanbalis. He mentioned his own legal views and dogmatic beliefs. He declared unreliable those who thought differently about him with respect to those matters…He extolled Ahmad ibn Hanbal and mentioned his legal views and dogmatic beliefs as being correct. He continued to refer to him constantly until he died.

(Irshad, Vol.6, p.437)

Therefore, it is not at all surprising that Tareekh at-Tabari would contain some narrations that the Shia would use against us; this was a consequence of Imam at-Tabari’s decision to compile both Sunni and Shia narrations, without commenting on their authenticity. Of course, the accusations against Imam at-Tabari that he was a Shia Rafidhi were one hundred percent incorrect; there is no doubt that Imam at-Tabari was a very respectable Imam of the Sunnis. He merely included Shia narrations/narrators based on the tradition of Islamic historians to simply compile Hadiths and to leave the authenticating to the Muhaditheen. So while we do not question the “Sunni-ness” of Imam at-Tabari, we bring up the point that people accused him of being a Shia Rafidhi to prove that the narrations found in Tareekh at-Tabari were never accepted by the mainstream Muslims as being one hundred percent authentic, and whoever would claim such a thing is a liar. The Shia narrations found in Tareekh at-Tabari were rejected back then, as they are now.

Not only did Imam at-Tabari include Shia narrations in his book, but he also included Christian and Zoroastrian accounts. This was in line with his belief of compiling a “balanced” book that would document all the various accounts from a variety of segments of the society. It is for this reason that some of the narrations in his book with regards to the story of Creation are not in line with the Islamic belief. Indeed, as we have stated repeatedly, not all the narrations in Tareekh at-Tabari can be accepted.

The Shia are allied with the other enemies of Islam when they use weak narrations in Tareekh at-Tabari in order to attack the mainstream Muslims. It was, after all, Salman Rushdie who used a narration in Tareekh at-Tabari to prove the story of the “Satanic verses.” And yet, we know that even though this narration is found in Tareekh at-Tabari, it is unauthentic as mentioned by Ibn Katheer and others. The methodology the Shia use to attack the mainstream Muslims is very similar to that employed by the apostates and avowed enemies of Islam. If the Shia propagandist would mock us when we doubt the authenticity of Tareekh at-Tabari, then let us mock them when they doubt the authenticity of their most authentic book of Hadith (i.e. Al-Kafi). If they insist that we accept every narration in Tareekh at-Tabari, then we insist that they accept every narration in Al-Kafi, that book which is full of Shirk, Kufr, and utter blasphemy. If they seek to weaken the Sunni position by bringing up narrations in Tareekh at-Tabari, then let us respond by toppling the Shia position by bringing up narrations in Al-Kafi.

To conclude, we say as Ibn Katheer said:

In these volumes, he [Tabari] reported the various narrations as they were transmitted and by whom. His discussion is a mixed bag of valuable and worthless, sound and unsound information. This is in keeping with the custom of many Hadith scholars who merely report the information they have on a subject and make no distinction between what is sound and what is weak.

(Ibn Katheer, al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, Vol.5, p.208)


Mawdoodi and Tabari:

1) Syed Abul 'Ala Mawdudi in, Khilafat o Mulukiyat, states:

"One more dis-liked innovation (bid'at) that reigned in the time of Hadhrat Muawiya [ra], that he himself (khud), and by his orders all (tamam) his governers, in their sermons (khutboon) through the pulpit reviled and insulted (sab o shatm) Hadhrat Ali [ra]. Even yet, in the mosque of the Prophet (S), through the pulpit (minbar) before the rawdah e nabawi, the dearest of the Prophet's (S) relatives were villified (gal'ian) and Hadhrat Ali's (ra) children and the nearest of his kin bore witness to these villifications (gali'an)."

The references from Mawdudi are to al Tabari, Tarikh, v4, p188, Ibn al Athir, al Kamil, v3, v4, p154, Ibn Kathir, al Bidaya, v8, p259, v9, p80.

2) Al Tabari writes in his work on history, they were,

"al Hasan had already made peace with Muawiyah on condition that he concede to him what was in his treasury plus the revenue of Darabjird and that 'Ali not be reviled in his hearing." (The History of al Tabari, Between Civil Wars: The Caliphate of Muawiyah, Section: The Rendering of Allegiance to al Hasan b. Ali).

3) "Marwan the architect of Umayyad dynastic rule, clearly recognized the importance of cursing as a tool of the government. He told 'Ali's grandson Ali b. al Husayn privately: 'No one [among the Islamic nobility] was more temperate (akaff) towards our master than your master'. The harmless son of al Husayn asked him: 'Why do you curse him then from the pulpits? 'He answered: 'Our reign would not be sound without that (la yastaqimu l-amru illa bi-dhalik)". (Baladhuri, AnsabII, 184-5 and ; Ibn Asakir, 'Ali, III, 98-9).

4) "Particularly useful for Muawiyas purpose was the public cursing of Ali in Kufa where he hoped it would bring out into the open the latent opposition of the Umayyad rule, thus facilitating his measures of repression. When he appointed al Mughira b Shuba governer of Kufa in Jumada 41/September-October 661, he instructed him: 'Never desist from abusing and censuring 'Ali, from praying for God's mercy and forgiveness for Uthman from disgracing the followers of Ali, from removing them and refusing to listen to them, and never cease praising the partisans of Uthman, may God be pleased with him, bringing them close to you and listening to them". (Tabari, II, 112).



When believers fight against each other, Allah did not call that act as "disbelieve" if the two warring factions had somehow valid arguments. Allah says in Surat Al-Hujurat, verse 9, “If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the Command of Allah; but if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just).”

Allah called the two warring factions as believers although they fought each other. Therefore, Muslim scholars had concluded that a Muslim is not a disbeliever if he committed a sin as the Khawarij did when they attributed disbelieve to Muslims when they commit a sin. However, to fight against a Muslim is a major sin, but it does not lead to disbelief. If affliction and different interpretation to events lead to the fighting, then it’s not disbelief.

If fighting is not disbelief, then how could slander and libeling is considered to be disbelief?

In Saheeh Al-Bukhari, the Prophet was giving a sermon while Al-Hasan was with him on the pulpit. Then the Prophet was looking to Al-Hasan, then to the listeners, and said, “My son (Al-Hasan) is a noble man, and perhaps Allah may establish peace between two great factions of Muslims through him.” And it happened as the Prophet predicted; Allah made peace between the people of Sham and people of Iraq after exhaustive years of wars and afflictions.

All of the above is on the occasion that Mu’awiyah did really slander and libel Ali bin Abi Talib. However, the truth is that Mu’awiyah never slandered Ali, and no one is able to prove otherwise with a valid argument.

History books are full of unbelievable stories. They contain both; true and false stories. These stories are examined by studying their narrators to distinguish the true stories from the false ones.

Most of history scholars who came after Al-Tabari like Ibn Katheer and Ibn Al-Atheer relied on Tareekh Al-Tabari as a source for their stories. The latter scholars narrate the stories without their chain of attribution. Thus, to know the authentic stories, we should refer back to Tareekh Al-Tabari because Al-Tabari is the one who narrated the stories by writing down the names of the narrators.

Let us look at the course of Al-Tabari in his books. Al-Tabari did not take an oath to write down only authentic stories, but he took an oath to write down the stories with their chain of narrators, false or true stories. Al-Tabari had handed over the task of examining the stories to the scholars. Al-Tabari says in his introduction, “Let the reader be aware that whatever I mention in my book is relied on the news that were narrated by some men. I had attributed these stories to their narrators, without inferring anything from their incidents …” [Tareekh Al-Tabari, 1/7-8]

The history of the affliction between the Companions is a very sensitive issue. Historical incidents relating to these times were filled with emotions and differences in political theories. Hence, it became difficult for historians to authenticate a particular story. Then, to issue a final judgment on a certain incident would be a very complex matter.

Therefore, Al-Tabari went on collecting all the different views of different stories, but he had mentioned the names of the people who narrated the stories. Al-Tabari says, “If a certain man gets horrified by a certain incident that we reported in our book, then let him know that it did not come from us, but we only wrote down what we received from the narrators.” [Tareekh Al-Tabari, 1/8]

Al-Astath Al-Mowdawi is an Islamic “thinker” (mufakir) and a mujahid. It had not known that he was a scholar in the fundamental of Islam, however. Hence, it is inappropriate to take him as a valid argument in these sensitive scholastic subjects. Al-Mowdawi did not authenticate the relevant stories; perhaps he was not aware of the course of the historians in narration.

The Peace stories between Mu’awiyah and Al-Hasan contain both authentic and false stories. The peace that occurred between Mu’awiyah and Al-Hasan is of great importance in the history of Islam due to the following reasons:

• Al-Hasan was a grand scholar.

• As a result of this treaty, Muslim bloods had been spared and Muslims united under one leader after years of disunity.

• That Al-Hasan became the first caliphate to relinquish his position without force and at the same time being on a strong foothold just to make peace between Muslims.

• That Al-Hasan believes in Mu’awiyah's faith and in his Islam. Otherwise, he would have not given him the leadership of Islam. This is a refutation to Shia’s claims.


No comments: