Explanation Of Hadith Ath-Thaqalayn

IMPORTANT: Please Refer Our Latest Article on Hadeeth Thaqalayn: [“Hadeeth Al-Thaqalayn(Two weighty Things) — The correct understanding and a Spot-on perspective of Sunnis“]

الحمد لله و الصلاة و السلام على محمد و أزواجه و ذريته و صحبه الكرام.

Who are those the Messenger of Allah(saw) intended by Itrati? Is what they claim really the Messenger of Allah’s intend by the mention of the Itra?

Answer:

We are not interested in discussing the authenticity of Hadith Thaqalayn in this arctile, because regardless of the authenticity of this narration(whether it be authentic or not), it will in no way affect what Ahl Al-Sunnah are already upon, and nothing in it will be found to support the religion of the Shia.

Who are intended by Itra?

Now the Shia keep propagating matters that defy both language and religious basics. There is nothing in either, that would restrict it to those whom the Shia literature we  went through restricts them to.

Some people have a misconception that ‘itra’ is specific to the lineage of the Prophet(saw), But this is incorrect! Why then would Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] be part of the Itra?  Like a great shia scholar Baqir Majlisi said:

ہر چند کہ ظاہر لفظ عترت اں حضرت را شامل نیست اما پدر عترت است و مہتر

Even though in the apparent meaning of Itrah, He (i.e Ali) is not included, but he is their father and is better than them.[Hayat ul Quloob 3/45]

If someone say Ali(ra) is not part of the Itra, because it is only restricted to the lineage then they cannot say that “shias can use this hadith to bolster their argument as they claim to follow the itra”.

If they say that Ali(ra) is part of Itra because of his marriage to Fatima(ra), then that would include also the husbands of the Messenger’s other daughters, who are taken as enemies by the Shia, and taken as allies by Ahl Al-Sunnah.

If they say Ali(ra) is the only one included because Fatima is the only daughter to have outlived the Messenger then did Ali(ra) lose his Itra “status” after the death of Fatima(ra)?

If they say that it is because he is the cousin of the Messenger of Allah(saw), then they should also include the other cousins of the Messenger of Allah. Those whom Ahl Al-Sunnah affirm their high status in both scholarship and nobility because of their relationship to the Messenger of Allah.

Something else to note, some people claim that “wisdom was taken from the itra, from Ali(ra) to Jafar Al-Saduq (ra)”. However, it is important for us not to be confused by the Shia propaganda. What we mean is what is special about that route that was mentioned? Why are they restricting the Itra to the route of the lineage of Al-Husien(ra). What about the lineage of Al-Imam Al-Hasan(ra)? What about the lineage of Al-Abbas(ra)? What about the Itra who the Shia neglect and disrespect.

We will get into other details soon, but just wanted to point out the importance of not being deceived by the propaganda that shias spread to support what they claim in being followers of the Itra, when in fact they are the furthest from them possible.

In any case, the first thing we should ask ourself is that: Who are those intended by the word Itra and what evidence do shias have for claiming who are the Itra of prophet(Saw)? We will  find that the Shia have absolutely no evidence or no way to support their claims.

On a side note, Shaykh Al-Albani [Rahimahu Allah] specifically states that the Itra includes the wives of the Messenger of Allah, rather they are from the most significant members of it, and Aisha(ra) is one of them. So as  we can see even Shaykh Al-Albani’s view is furthest away as possible from the view of the Shia, since he gives an interesting discussion after discussing the chain for the narration of Thaqalayn.

Also, the readers should note that, there isn’t any authentic report in Sunni sources which states that Itra or Ahlelbayt are 12 Imam. If Shias say the word Ahlelbayt was used to denote Imams, then we say the same word was used for Wives of Prophet(saw) in several authentic reports and also for other members from bani hashim, this word was used. Even in Quran we find that, the wife of Ibrahim(as) was called Ahlelbayt.

 

Is what they(shias) claim really the Messenger of Allah’s intend by the mention of the Itra?

As we hinted in the beginning , the matter of whether the tradition is authentic or not would not affect our belief in any way, and will not support the Religion of the Shia in anyway, unless they attempt to distort meanings and play tricks, even if we consider the tradition authentic.

A brother asked very important question he said: “Though we do narrate from the itra, we narrate as much, if not more from other companions (eg Abu Huraira (ra)).” and also questioned: “One possible explanation is that a lot of wisdom was taken from the itra, from Ali(ra) to Jafar Al-Saduq (ra)…so maybe the Ahlus Sunnah do follow them in that sense? But nevertheless, a lot is taken from the companions, so why did the Prophet (saw) not state ‘I leave behind Quran and itra and ahlul bait and noble companions’ for example?”

This seems to also be propagated by many Shia, who claim that the intention of the Messenger is that the Itra are the ones the Religion should be taken from, and had the Messenger intended that: “a lot is [to be] taken from the companions, [then] why did the Prophet (saw) not state ‘I leave behind Quran and itra and ahlul bait and noble companions’ for example?”

This claim is easily pushed back by pondering over some facts:

1) The narrations from which we form our deen which are narrated from companions of prophet(saw) are infact narrations of prophet(saw). Companions of prophet(saw) are just narrators of the  sayings of prophet(Saw). Thus we Ahlesunnah have got the narrations directly related to Prophet(unlike the shias) who is the Head of Itra. So we find that companions of prophet(saw) who were the best generation of followers present on earth, who were praised multiple times in quran are the ones who are narrating the sayings of prophet(Saw) to us, Now if we compare the same with shias we will find the flaw in the claim, because though the shias have the saying of their infallible Imams(whom they call as Itra) but the ones who narrate the sayings of these Infallible Imams , that is the shia narrators(companions of shia imams) can no way be comparable to the companions of prophet(Saw), Since the companions of prophet(saw) are those who were praised in the Quran. Thus from a logical point of view we have got the sayings of prophet(Saw) from the narrators who were praised by Allah, where as the ones from whom the shias got the sayings of their infallible imams doesn’t possess such merit.

2) How pathetic is the argument that why are companions of prophet(Saw) narrators of his saying, and portraying it to be a negative thing. Whereas this applies to the shias method of taking narrations, because neither the narrators who narrated the sayings of infallible shia imams were from Itra nor were they praised in Quran.

3) More importantly, when prophet(Saw) taught his companions and when they received the teaching from prophet(saw), Prophet(saw) was not under any threat(of life, etc) nor were the companions who narrated the ahadees of prophet(Saw), thus we have pure and clear narrations narrated from prophet(Saw) which are not much complicated to understand. Where as on the other hand when the companions of infallible shia imams narrated the sayings of shia imams, the shia imams were under the threat to their lives(acc to shias) , so they had to practice taqiyyah, that is why we find narrations contradicting each other, which make it really tough for a normal person to judge that which narration from the imam was reported under taqiyyah and which was narrated when Imam wasn’t under taqiyyah.

That is why a big shia scholar said:

قال: فإن جُلَّ الاختلاف في أخبارنا بل كله عند التأمل والتحقيق إنما نشأ من التقية

“The majority of contradictions in our narrations after observation and research or even all of the contradictions originate from Taqqiyah.”

In another place he also said:

صاحب الحدائق في التقية حيث ذكر: فلم يعلم من أحكام الدين على اليقين إلا القليل؛ لامتزاج أخباره بأخبار التقية

“Not much was known for sure from the rulings of the religion because their narrations were mixed with the narrations of Taqqiyah” . Source: al-Hadaeq al Nadirah by Yusuf al Bahrani 1/5,8.

The biggest scholar of the Shia sect “Shaykh al taefa” at-Tusi says:

لا يكاد يتفق خبر إلا وبإزائه ما يضاده، ولا يسلم حديث إلا وفي مقابله ما ينافيه.. إلى أن ذكر أنه وبسبب ذلك ترك الكثير من الشيعة مذهبهم

“There is no information that we agree on which doesn’t have another that contradicts it, and no narration is safe from another which denies it …(until he said)… and this is why many of the shia left the Madhab.” [Source: Tahtheeb al Ahkam 1/8 by sheikh of the sect al Tusi.]

And seriously there is no academic tool to separate the narration which were said under taqiyyah by shia Imams and which were said when Imam wasn’t under taqiyyah. It just lies on the wish/desires of shia scholars, they label a narration to be said under taqiyyah just based on their desires.(For examples refer this link, you will find that for every contradictory narration, shia scholars label it as taqiyyah)

4) Not only this but even the same is the case for the reliability of the companions of shia imams you will find a similar problem, for example the companion of shia imam, whose name was Zurarah ibn A`yan who narrated many of shia narrations, was accused of being a liar in the shia books by shia imams ( refer this link , under title Zurarah ibn A`yan), and there even exists reports where shia imams praised him. But this isn’t the case with the companions of prophet(Saw). You will not find Ahlesunnah taking narrations from a companion who was accused by prophet(Saw) for lying, and later any sunni scholar making a lame excuse(like shias) that prophet(saw) was under Taqiyyah.

5) The companions of prophet(Saw) from whom Ahlesunnah take the narrations and teachings of prophet(saw) were not only the ones who talked, prayed etc, along with Prophet(saw) [who was the primary source of Islamic teaching] or were praised only by Allah, But the companions of Prophet(Saw) were even praised by Prophet(Saw).

Narrated Abdullah: The Prophet (may peace be upon him) said,”The best people are those living in my generation, and then those who will follow them, and then those who will follow the latter.Then there will come some people who will bear witness before taking oaths, and take oaths before bearing witness.” (Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Number 3)

Similar report is even mention in shia ahadees:

وعن موسى بن جعفر عن آبائه عليهم السلام قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: (القرون أربع: أنا في أفضلها قرناً، ثم الثاني، ثم الثالث، فإذا كان الرابع التقى الرجال بالرجال والنساء بالنساء، فقبض الله كتابه من صدور بني آدم، فيبعث الله ريحاً سوداء، ثم لا يبقى أحد سوى الله تعالى إلا قبضه الله إليه بحار الأنوار: (22/309)

From Musa bin Jafar from his fathers who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: There will be 4 generations, the best of generations is the one in which I am living, then the second, then the third [Biharul Anwar Volume:22 Page:309]

Where as the companions of shia Imams/shias were insulted and dishonored by their own Imams:

خالد بن حماد قال: حدثني الحسن بن طلحة رفعه، عن محمد بن إسماعيل عن علي بن يزيد الشامي قال: قال أبو الحسن (ع): قال أبو عبد الله (ع): ” ما أنزل الله سبحانه آية في المنافقين إلا وهي فيمن ينتحل التشيع

“Narrated Khalid bin Hammaad saying: narrated to me al-Hasan bin Talha (quoting) Muhammad bin Ismael, from Ali bin Yazeed al-Shaami saying: Abul-Hasan [as] said: Abu Abdullah [as] said: No verse revealed by Allah concerning  hypocrites, but it perfectly fits those who are of Shi’a persuasion.” [Reported by al-Majlisi, Bihaar al-Anwaar, vol. 65, p. 66; Rijaal al-Kash-shy, p. 254, Ali Akbar al-Ghifary, Studies in the Science of Dirayah, p. 155; Rijaal at-Tusi, vol.2, p. 589; Mu’jam Rijaal al-Kho’ei, vol.15, p.265] (online reference)

6) And we hope that, the shias wouldn’t make a senseless and foolish claim, to somehow answer us to calm their audience, by claiming that it was mandatory for the companions of prophet(Saw) that they should take knowledge via Itra, and it was not allowed to take knowledge directly from prophet(Saw) except via Itra. We hope the shias have not reached to that level of stupidity, but we don’t know what some times happens to shias when they try to answer Ahlesunnah out of their frustration. So we like to make an assumption that if suppose the shias do believe this, then we ask them to please bring us a clear statement from prophet(saw) or from Itra which explicitly states this. Moreover how will you reply those who will ask that were the teachings only restricted to his Itra, since one cannot take narrations from his companions? And if we proof from shia books that this was not any condition then the senseless proof shias will be bringing will be void, and they should correct their misunderstandings.

7) Do shias believe that all the companions of prophet(saw) after death of prophet(saw), went to Itra of prophet(Saw) to reconfirm the teachings which they had already received directly from prophet(Saw)? (if so please produce some evidence).

8. If a narration present in shia books which is connected to prophet(saw) and was reported by a companion(whom they consider shia, like abu dhar, miqdad, salman al farsi etc) , but there is no member of Itra in the chain of that narration, then that narration is to be rejected because it didn’t come via any member of Itra ?

9) If the shias believe that it wasn’t mandatory for the companions of prophet(Saw) to take teachings of islam via Itra then what is the problem when Ahlesunnah take their deen directly from prophet(Saw) as reported by the blessed companions of prophet(Saw) who saw the prophet, sat with him , talked with him , received teachings directly from him, etc. Since at the end of the day the primary source of Islamic knowledge was prophet(saw)?

10) How does the basis of Ahlesunnah becomes weaker if seen from the point of view of “hadith science”, when we take narrations directly from prophet(saw) as narrated by companions of prophet(Saw) who were praised in quran, who saw the prophet(Saw) , talked with him shared his company, etc. Compared to narrations you have which are mostly from your 5th and 6th Imam who didn’t even see the prophet(saw), and which were narrated when there was threat to their lives, So they had to practice taqiyyah(so you find lot of contradictions in their sayings) , and importantly from the companions of your imams, who weren’t even praised in Quran, like the companions of prophet(saw)? Actually, from an unbiased view the basis of Ahlesunnah is much stronger if the methodology of deriving knowledge is criteria to judge between Ahlesunnah and Shias.

11) If the shias say that this narration shows that the Islamic Jurisprudence(Fiqh), is valid only if it comes from the itra, Firstly we would like to raise the similar question to shias like the one they asked us, “Why didn’t prophet(Saw) say: I leave behind, Quran, and Itra and Companions?” , We too ask the same question now that, “Why didn’t prophet(Saw) say: I leave behind Quran, Itra and ULAMA(so called shia ayatullahs)?” .

Secondly, we say that shias are the foremost ones who violate this condition, because  after  some years of the major occultation of  12th shia imam, the ones who are issuing the Fiqh verdicts are the non-itra ayatuallahs. That is why the grand scholar of shiism sheikh at tusi in his book “Uddat al-Usul” (1/354) said:

فاني وجدتها مختلفة المذاهب في الاحكام، يفتي أحدهم بما لا يفتي به صاحبه في جميع أبواب الفقه من الطهارة إلى أبواب الديات من العبادات

“I have found different ways (schools) in the legal rulings (ahkam). One of them issues a fatwa, which his contemporary does not. These differences exist in all chapters of jurisprudence from those concerning the laws on ritual purity (al-tahara) to the chapter on indemnity (al-diyat) and on the questions of worship…..”

Not only this but there even exist major differences among the shia faqihs, for example, some believe in wilayat takweeniyah(eg, khomeini), but others don’t like Ayatullah Fadlullah. (refer this link). And on the same link he seems to differ on the issue of saying “Ya ali madad” with other shia scholar.

This is the same when it comes to belief in Quran, that whether it is uncorrupted or not. Shia scholars differed even on this issue.(refer this link) . And there are many more such contradictions in the (fiqh)rulings given by shia scholars.

So how can the shias justify their blame on Ahlesunnah, for not taking Islamic Jurisprudence from the Itra, while on the other hand they do the exact same thing?

12) The shias often claim that because they follow the Itra, they are following the school of thought of Ahlebayt, and on the other hand they claim that Ahlesunnah are those who follow the school of thought of companions. But if this claim is seen from the perspective of the shias(i.e the reason they called Ahlesunnah to be the followers of school of thought of companions) then from that perspective the shias are to be called the followers of school of thought of  “tabe-tabe’in” not Ahlebayt/Itra.

The shias just try to fool people by making this claim that they are following the school of thought of Ahlebayt whereas their opponets aren’t. But this doesn’t have any basis, beause Ahlesunnah are following the school of thought of  Prophet(Saw) not companions.

The fact is that Ahlesunnah are the followers of school of thought of Sunnah of prophet(saw), which was incumbent for the companions as well as Ahlebayt/itra to follow.

13) This tradition of Al-Thaqalayn was reported from the way of Zayd ibn Thabet, Zayd ibn Al-Arqam, Jaber, Abu Saeed, Jubayr ibn Mut’am [May Allah be pleased with them] … all non-Itra companions of the Messenger of Allah. That in itself should present an issue for those who claim that the Messenger intended the Religion and wisdom are to be taken from the Itra.

Let’s explain more … If we were not to take the religion from the companions, then why should we even accept even this tradition from them?! And if we accept this from them, then why are we not to accept other matters of the Deen from them? If we accept this from them then why would it be strange to accept from them Aqeedah, how one is to pray, to fast, and other matters of the deen.

Accept both or Reject both…

14) The Messenger of Allah who was the most caring and devout to the Message of Allah, and he did not even rely solely on his Itra in conveying the Deen.

For example, when the Messenger sent Messengers to the kings of Egypt, Persia, Rome, etc … most of those sent were companions not part of the Itra … and that Messenger was calling these kings to the Most important foundation of the Religion … If the tradition meant: Take your Religion Only from Quran and Itra then we can say that the Message of Islam did not reach these kings in an acceptable form and thus they were not obligated to obey, since a trustworthy reliable companion’s word are not to be taken.

15) If someone try to respond by saying that these companions were sent before the Prophet said that tradition (which is around the time of his return from Hajj), then that can easily be shown to be false too, since we have the tradition of Moaz (as well as others) whom the Messenger sent to Yemen to convey the religion … and that occurred close to the time of his Death … He asked Moaz to call the people to Tawheed, salah, Zajah, Fasting … the whole religion.
So it becomes obvious that The Messenger did not intend that the itra as the sole reference to the religion with the Quran, else the Messenger would have sent someone from his Itra … rather even Ali(ra) when he became Khalifa you will see him assigning and appointing judges and teachers not from the Itra. So was Ali(ra) not following the Messenger(saw) in assigning a non-Itra judge to a state.

Many traditions shows the Messenger(saw) assigning, sending, appointing, referring back to a companion in different matters of the Religion.

16) Now if a person in Yemen received the message of Islam from a non-Itra member (ex. Moaz), and it was made clear to him, would he have been obligated to follow or not?

17) Would that Yemeni be permitted to transmit the religion he followed or does the obligation fall from him? The Messenger of Allah did say: May Allah brighten the face of he who hears my statement, understands, and delivers it as he heard it …

Now if you agree with any of the above then by knowing that the number of the companions were much more than those who were from his Itra, and that these companions were all eager to spread the Message of Islam by Jihad of the Sword or Jihad of the Tongue, and that many of the people who embraced Islam by their hands strived to spread the Religion too … then naturally the knowledge received from the way of the companions is more.

Are all these people’s Islam void for not getting the religion directly from the Itra? we do not know of a Muslim that would say that

18) Ahl Al-Sunnah hold that Abu Bakr was the most knowledgeable of all the companions, and more knowledgeable than even Umar … with that you will find that we narrated from Umar more. Rather you will see that we narrate more from Abu Huraira than Abu Bakr and Umar combined.

That in no way means that ahl Al-sunnah neglected Abu Bakr, rather many factors led to this …He died soon after the Messenger(saw), was busy because of his Khilafa, was busy during his Khilafa, etc … Which is also the case with Umar(ra), Uthman(ra), Ali(ra), Al-Hasan(ra), and Al-Husien(ra) … some companions and Itra members were busy with establishing the foundations of the Muslim Ummah and trying to bring stability to it, others with spreading the knowledge, others participated in Jihad …

19) Now that tradition being discussed mentions the Quran as one of, rather the major, Thaql … so when he says the Quran was left behind that requires another pause … The brother as well as others should know, that there is not a single Quran between the hands of the Muslims today recited by them that is solely from the narration of the Itra i.e. a member of the Itra to another to another, etc.
As you know, The Messenger did not leave a fully compiled bound Quran … so our question becomes: With whom did the Tawatur of the Quran come into being?

This is a very important question, so let me repeat it again: With whom did the Tawatur of the Quran come into being?
If you say by the Itra … i.e. the members of the Itra that had the Quran memorized would achieve and fulfill the condition of Tawatur of the Quran … then who were those? … Something they(shias) cannot prove, if you say instead the Tawatur was accomplished through them and others, then you needing others in accomplishing the first Thiqal’s Tawatur shows that you are not restricting when it comes to taking your religion to the Itra only.
Neither the Messenger of Allah relied on this, nor did Ali(ra), or Aisha(ra), or Ibn Abbas(ra), or the companions, or the members of the Itra that followed. Rather, they will not produce a Quran narrated solely by the Itra … so that claim too can be rejected. I can go on about all the evidence that will go against what they claim and that understanding put forth. Thus to save time, I would like to note that the Religion of Islam should be taken in its entirety … all of it explains each other, and is understood together … This is the only way you can ensure you have arrived at a proper understanding of the Religion and of the words of the Messenger, and through that you can realize that what they claimed is definitely not the Prophet’s intend behind the mention of the Itra.

20) Now, if some claim that the intention of the Messenger was to … to give them the Bayaa, then will fall into more issues. Why did Ali(ra) let go of that Adherance? Why did remainder of the Itra, Why did Ali(ra) say as was reported in the Nahjul Balagha: I will make a better wa zeer for you than ameer? Why did Al-Hasan(ra) go for the Sulh letting go of this claimed adherence and letting the Bayah go to someone else? why did the Messenger of Allah praise al-Hasan(ra) for agreeing to that Sulh, and calling him a Sayed? If the intention was a Caliph, why didn’t the messenger clearly state who from the Itra to adhere too?

Many issues would come up if they claim that this is what was intended?

In any case, you will see that the falsehood in whatever they claim will be made more apparent when examined against historical facts and the other authentic evidence of the Sunnah, and that is what we should use to evaluate all their other claims.

 

Ahl Al-Sunnah on the other hand …

Realize that honoring the Quran is from the reverence of Allah, and the honoring of the Prophet’s household is from the reverence of the Messenger of Allah, and both these are heaviest of pillars in the religion of Islam.

For this you will see Ahl Al-Sunnah holding the Prophet’s wives, daughters, lineage, cousins, and relatives in the highest of regards. They are the closest in following the guidance received from them, which they received from the Messenger of Allah. They honor anyone for being related to their Messenger from close or from far, and the evidence for that is plenty. They gave weight and value to the Quran as was ordered by Allah and his Messenger, and with that you will not see them prostrating to the Quran or worshipping its papers. Similarily, they gave respect and reverence to the Household as signified by Allah and his Messenger. Their love upon us is a matter that we draw near to Allah by. You will see that evident in the actions of the companions and how the honored the Messenger’s household, and you will see the fact that spreading the knowledge is not restricted to the Itra since you will find Ibn Abbas going to a companion to take knowledge from him, Ja’far Al-Sadiq from the way of his father narrated several traditions and took knowledge from Jaber … a companion, so they themselves who were brought as an example did not restrict the routes where they take knowledge to members of the Itra as themselves.

 

The idea that “deen” could only be taken from Itra of prophet(Saw) is completely false:

Here are names of people from whom Jafar Sadiq(6th shia imam) narrated. Taken from “Tahzib” of ibn Hajar:

روى عن أبيه ومحمد بن المنكدر وعبيد الله بن أبي رافع وعطاء وعروة وجده لأمه القاسم بن محمد ونافع والزهري ومسلم وابن أبي مريم

Between them Muhammad ibn al-Munkadir, Ubeydullah ibn Abu Rafe, Ata, Urwa and others.

Regarding Imam Zaynul Aabideen(4th shia imam):

Imam Dhahabi states in Siyar (4/387): “(besides his fathers) he has narrated from Safiyyah Ummul Mu’mineen, that is in Bukhari and Muslim, and from Abu Hurairah, and Aaisha, his narration from her is in Muslim, and from Abu Rafi’, his uncle Hasan, Ibn Abbas, Umm Salama, Miswar bin Makhrama, Zainab bint Um Salamah and others.
Among the Tabi’een he narrates from Marwan,Ubaidullah bin Abi Rafe’, Sa’eed bin Al-Musayyab,………..Amr bin Uthman bin Affan, and he was not among mukathhir (who narrates lots of narrations).”

Imam Dhahabi also records some reports according to which, Imam Zainul Aabideen used to sit in the majlis of Zaid bin Aslam. So once Nafe’ bin Jubayr said to him, ”you are Sayyid and you are sitting in the majlis of a slave.” to which Imam replied, ”knowledge is to be taken, no matter from where it comes”. (4/388).
Similarly he also used to sit in the majlis of Ubaidullah bin Abdullah.

Comment: We see here that the shia imams who were part of Itra, used to narrate the ahadees from people who were non-itra, If atall, acquiring Islamic knowledge was restricted to Itra only then we wouldn’t have found these noble personalities from the Itra narrating ahadees from non-itra. Secondly these members of Itra used to take knowledge and teachings from people who were non-itra.

 

Should the narrations of shia Imams be a touchstone to verify the narrations of Prophet(saw)?

Some ignorant shias raise some foolish arguments that to check narrations of Prophet(saw) reported by SAHABA E RASOOL whether they are authentic or not, one should use the narrations of shia IMAMS narrated by companions of shia imams.

But the fact is that Ahlesunnah follows the narrations from Prophet(saw) and Sahaba(companions of prophet) are reporters of those narrations. And Shias have narrations from their Imams, So the companions of their(shia) Imams were narrators of the narrations of Imams, Shias can’t claim that the narrations they have from their Imams were whispered to them directly by their Imams. Those narrations reached them through the route of the companions of their Imams. Now here is where the greatest stupidity lies, because the shias want to reject the narrations reported by Sahaba of Prophet(Saw) but they have no problem in accepting traditions from the companions of their Imams. On the contrary the shias are comparing the narrations by their Imams WITH the narrations narrated by companions of Prophet(Saw), but they completely missed the point that the narrations they want to use as touchstone were reported by the companions of their Imams, their Imams didn’t deliver those reports directly to shias.

So how on earth can the narrations of Imams be a touchstone to verify which narrations are correct? Infact the narrations of Prophet(saw) should be the touch stone to verify which of the narrations were authentically narrated from the companions of shia Imams. Because the companions of Prophet(Saw) who narrated the narrations of Prophet were those with whom Allah was pleased, who learned the religions directly from Prophet(Saw), multiple verses of Quran were revealed in their honor and praise. Where as the companions of Shia Imams were those who were always under taqiyyah that is why we find contradictory narrations from them. They were insulted by their OWN IMAMS. They were called hypocrites by their Imams, etc etc. All these points were already given and discussed in brief above. So the Rafidah by bringing up this silly argument have actually exposed the extreme weakness in their arguments, because what Rafidah do is actually the opposite of what should be done. Since prophet(Saw) is the basic source of Islamic knowledge, so his narrations are to be the touchstone to verify the reports coming from shia Imams(who too were under taqiyyah), And the narrations of shia Imams can never be a touchstone to verify the narrations of Prophet(saw) since it is he(saw) from whom mankind got the teachings of Islam.

 

Refutation of some arguments raised by the shias:

Argument 1: Shaykh al-Albani considered the wives of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) to be part of his ‘itra, Shaykh Uthman al-Khamis EXCLUDES them! Shaykh Uthman al-Khamis states in his Hiqbah min al-Tarikh, page 203 (Egypt: Dar al-Iman):

من عترة النبي ؟ عترة الرجل هم أهل بيته ، وعترة النبي هم كل من حرمت عليه الزكاة وهم بنو هاشم، هؤلاء هم عترة النبي

Who are the ‘itra of the Prophet? The ‘itra of a man are his Ahl al-Bait, and the ‘itra of the Prophet are all those to whom charity has been forbidden. These are the Banu Hashim. They are the ‘itra of the Prophet.

We have two sunni giants contradicting each other here! One of them claims that the wives were part of the ‘itra! The other says they were not!

Answer: Firstly we want to ask this shia that does he believes that all the bani hashim for whom to accept zakat was forbidden were the itra of prophet(Saw)? if yes then why don’t the shias take their deen from the other itra of prophet(Saw).

If no! then this shia should understand that any scholar is not free from making mistakes.. And though the answer of shaik al Uthman al-khamees  isn’t clear enough to deduce anything conclusion, since he didn’t mention in explicit manner that he don’t considers that wives of prophet(Saw) are included in itra or that he considers them to be a part of Itra… though sheikh uthman have said that “Itra of a man are his Ahlebayt” and he considers wives of prophet(saw) to be a part of Ahlebayt, But for the sake of argument lets consider that he doesnt think so, but the bottom line is that sheikh al khamis considers the ones for whom sadaqa was forbidden to accept as itra of prophet(Saw), AND WE HAVE AUTHENTIC NARRATION from hz ayesha(ra) who was the wife of prophet(Saw) that even the wives of prophet(Saw) were not allowed to accept sadaqa. So naturally the view of shiekh albani will be preferred as it is in accordance with the view of hz ayesha(ra).

 

Argument 2: let us see which view is right!

Ibn Manzur, the classical Arabic linguist, in his Lisan al-‘Arab, Volume 4, page 538 (Beirut, Lebanon: Dar Sadr, first edition) states:

أبو عبيدة وغيره : عترة الرجل وأسرته وفصيلته رهطه الأدنون. ابن الأثير : عترة الرجل أخص أقاربه .وقال ابن الأعرابي : العترة ولد الرجل وذريته وعقبه من صلبه ، قال : فعترة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ولد فاطمة البتول

Abu Ubaydah and others said: “The ‘itra … of a man are his closest blood relations”. Ibn al-Athir said: “The ‘itra of a man are his most special blood relations”. Ibn al-A’arabi said: “The ‘itra of a man are his children, offspring and descendants, and the ‘itra of the Prophet, peace be upon him, are the descendants of the virgin Fatimah”.

Answer: This shia missed something while quoting, here it is what he missed:

4/536 Lisan ul-Arab by Ibn Manthur

والمشهور المعروف أَن عتْرتَه أَهلُ بيته وهم الذين حُرّمَت عليهم الزكاة والصدقة المفروضة وهم ذوو القربى الذين لهم خُمُسُ الخُمُسِ المذكور في سورة الأَنفال

“And what is famously recognized is that his ‘Atrah’ are the People of his Household, and they are those upon whom Zakaah and the mandatory Sadaqah is prohibited; and they are the relatives (Thuw al-Qurbaa) who are due a fifth of the spoils of war, mentioned in Surat al-Anfal.”

 

Argument 3: Further supporting the above definitions is this Hadith recorded by Shaykh al-Albani himself, in his refutation of the fabricated Hadith “Al-Mahdi is from the descendants of my uncle, al-‘Abbas”, in his Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Da’ifah, Volume 1, page 181. Number 80 (Maktabah al-Maa’rif):

ومما يدل على كذب هذا الحديث أنه مخالف لقوله صلى الله عليه وسلم:
” المهدي من عترتي من ولد فاطمة ” ، أخرجه أبو داود ( 2 / 207 – 208 ) وابن ماجه ( 2 / 519 ) والحاكم ( 4 / 557 ) وأبو عمرو الداني في ” السنن الواردة في الفتن ” ( 99 – 100 ) وكذا العقيلي ( 139 و300 ) من طريق زياد بن بيان عن علي بن نفيل عن سعيد بن المسيب عن أم سلمة مرفوعا ، وهذا سند جيد رجاله كلهم
ثقات ، وله شواهد كثيرة ، فهو دليل واضح على رد هذا الحديث

Part of what proves that this Hadith (“Al-Mahdi is from the descendants of my uncle, al-‘Abbas”) is a lie is its contradiction to the statement of the Prophet, peace be upon him: “Al-Mahdi is from my ‘itra, FROM THE DESCENDANTS OF FATIMAH.” Abu Dawud (2/207-208), Ibn Majah (2/519), al-Hakim (4/557), Abu ‘Amr al-Dani in a-Sunan al-Waraadah fee al-Fatan (99-100) and al-‘Aqili (139 and 300) recorded it from the route of Ziyad bin Bayan, from ‘Ali bin Nafil, from Sa’id bin al-Musaiyab, from Umm Salamah, from the Prophet. THIS CHAIN IS GOOD, AND ALL ITS NARRATORS ARE TRUSTWORTHY. This Hadith also has lots of corroborative witnesses. It is a clear refutation of the Hadith (“Al-Mahdi is from the descendants of my uncle, al-‘Abbas”).

Answer: We failed to understand that how on earth is this contradicting the answers of shiekh albani’s previous answer or sheik uthman al khami’s response? Indeed you don’t even have common sense.

The narration which shiekh albani brings here contains the words “from the descendants of fatima(ra)“, so naturally this hadees states that mahdi is from descendant of hz abbas(ra) is unauthentic, even when hz abbas(ra) is a partof itra of prophet(saw). But how on earth does this narration proves that no other members are from itra of prophet(Saw) except descendants of fatima(ra)?

As we had said before, when the shias try to answer us, out of frustration. They make a mockery of their ownselves.

 

Argument 4: Writing about this same Imam al-Mahdi (عليه السلام), Shaykh al-Albani in his Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Sahihah, Volume 4, pages 39-40, Number 1529 (Maktabah al-Maa’rif), states that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said:

” لا تقوم الساعة حتى تملأ الأرض ظلما و جورا و عدوانا , ثم يخرج رجل من عترتي أو من أهل بيتي يملؤها قسطا و عدلا , كما ملئت ظلما و عدوانا ” . أخرجه أحمد (3 / 36 ) و ابن حبان ( 1880 ) و الحاكم ( 4 / 557 ) و أبو نعيم في “‎الحلية ” ( 3 / 101 ) , و قال الحاكم : ” صحيح على شرط الشيخين ” . و وافقه الذهبي و هو كما قالا

“The Hour will not come until the earth has become completely filled with injustice, crimes and aggression. Then a man from my ‘itra, or from my Ahl al-Bayt, will come. He will fill the earth completely with justice and equity, just as it was previously filled with injustice and aggression.”

Ahmad (3/36), Ibn Hibban (1880), al-Hakim (4/557) and Abu Na’im in al-Hilya (3/101) recorded it. Al-Hakim said: “It is sahih on the conditions of the Two Shaykhs (i.e. al-Bukhari and Muslim). Al-Dhahabi agreed with it, and the Hadith is indeed sahih on the conditions of the Two Shaykhs as both (al-Hakim and al-Dhahabi) have said.

Answer: So now the shia quoted another book of shiekh albani, but he  failed to prove us that how does this prove that other members(as explained by shiekh albani) are excluded from the itra of prophet(Saw). How does it contradicting the previous answers of sheikh albani(rah)? As you boldly claimed.

Let us give this shia a simple example so that he understand it in a better manner.

Example: If you have 3 sons and each of your sons have one son , now if you say that the owner of my house is from my itra and he is son of my first son. So does it mean that the rest of the two sons of your’s are not from your itra? Only a shia who is left answerless and wants to remain ignorant would conclude things like this. So I advice you that learn some basics and stop fooling your ownself and your shia brothers.

 

Argument 5: So, the primary meaning of ‘itra is “progeny”! The ‘itra of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) are his lineage, his descendants. Was any of his wives part of his descendants? The answer is NO! Were all of Banu Hashim his descendants? The answer is NO. Therefore, BOTH al-Albani and al-Khamis are WRONG!

Answer: As we have proved above that who was wrong, and who made blunders and who wasn’t able to even understand a simple thing. We will inshallah try to answer this question is a more detailed manner.

4/536 Lisan ul-Arab by Ibn Manthur

والمشهور المعروف أَن عتْرتَه أَهلُ بيته وهم الذين حُرّمَت عليهم الزكاة والصدقة المفروضة وهم ذوو القربى الذين لهم خُمُسُ الخُمُسِ المذكور في سورة الأَنفال

“And what is famously recognized is that his ‘Atrah’ are the People of his Household, and they are those upon whom Zakaah and the mandatory Sadaqah is prohibited; and they are the relatives (Thuw al-Qurbaa) who are due a fifth of the spoils of war, mentioned in Surat al-Anfal.”

They are the people of Alee, Ja’far, Abbas, and Aqeel, and the People of Knowledge added all of Bani Hashim to that as well, which is the above 4 plus the people of al-Harith. This is reported by Ibn Abd al-Barr in his Sharh of the Muwata of Imam Malik, Ibn Qudamah of the Hanbalis, and Ibn Raslan declared a consensus on it.

Ash-Shawkani in his Nayl al-Awtar states the agreement of the majority of Hanafis, the most authentic statement of the Shafi’ees and Hanbalis, and the majority of the Zaydis, that any Sadaqah that is given to his household as Sadaqat ut-Tatawwu, or voluntary charity, is permissible to them. Some said that it is prohibited the same as Zakah, as transmitted from Abu Yusuf.

In terms of the wives of the Prophet being included in the prohibition, then Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in his Fath al-Bari reports that Ibn Battal transmitted the agreement of the Fuqaha on their not entering into that prohibition, and ash-Shawkani says that this should be investigated. Ibn Qudamah reports the Athar on authority of A’ishah that Sadaqah was prohibited to her since she is from the people of Muhammad, demonstrating the wives entering into the prohibition as well. Ibn Hazm reports in his book of Ijma, that it is Zakah that is not permitted to Bani al-Abbas and Abu Talib, their men and women. There appears to be a difference of opinion on this.

This is the authentic narration which proves that wives of prophet(Saw) are also forbidden to receive sadaqa:

Musannaf ibn abi shaybah (chapter Laa tahillu al-sadqa ala bani hashim)
ابن أبي مليكة أن خالد بن سعيد بعث إلى عائشة ببقرة من الصدقة فردتها وقالت إنا آل محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم لا تحل لنا الصدقة

Narrated with sahi sanad From Ibn Abu Malika [narrated] that: Khaled Ibn Saeed sent a cow from the Sadaqah to Aisha, so she sent it back and said: We are the Aal (the family) of Muhammad(saw) the sadaqah is not permissible for us.

Moreover, Imam ibn qayyim(rah) in his book discusses this issue in a great detail clearing the doubts who believed that wives of prophet(Saw) were allowed sadaqa. He said that, the relation of wives of prophet(Saw) was similar to nasab(lineage) because the wives of prophet(saw) remained haram on other men even after the death of prophet(Saw) and they were his wives even in his life and will be his wives even in hereafter, so their relation to prophet(Saw) was like of nasab(lineage). That is why sadaqa was even haram for the wives of prophet(Saw). Then he said that even Imam Ahmed(rah) was from the madhab who held this same belief. And he refuted all the arguments and claims of the people who denied that wives of prophet(Saw) were eligible to receive sadaqa in an satisfactory. So for detailed answer refer the book Jila al afhaam by imam ibn qayyim page 331-333.)

So since wives of prophet(Saw) are also not eligible to receive sadaqa, they too are from “itratu ahlebayti”.

Moreover, a wife of prophet(Saw) who resides with prophet(Saw) knows better rulings regarding their own family than outsider .. this is common sense. And she knows better that what is forbidden for her and what is not forbidden for her instead of an outsider knowing that what is forbidden for her and what is not. And on the contrary she was the teacher of many of the companions of prophet(Saw).

Imam Tirmizi narrated in his “Sunnan” (#3883) that Abu Musa said: “There was not ever any problem in hadith for us companions of prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam), except we asked Aisha, and found a knowledge (regarding it) with her”. Report is saheeh.

Tabarani narrated in “al-Kabir” that Urwa said: “I haven’t seen woman more knowledgeable in medicine, fiqh, or poetry than Aisha”. Al-Heythami said in “Majmau zawaid” (#15317) said that chain is hasan.

 

Argument 6: Some shias have posed arguments that Abu Hurayra(ra) narrated too many hadith. They have assumed that it was not possible for Abu Hurayra to have done this and therefore he is a liar.

Answer: For a detailed answer to this question please refer these links:

Regarding the Narratives of Abu Hurairah( answering the shia claim)

Why Abu hurairah narrated too many ahadeeth

But we would like to inform the ignorants who raised this question, some facts which are present in their own books. And unfortunately due to lack of knowledge of their own books the propagandist shias make such silly claims, like Abu Huraira (RA) narrating 1,500 Hadiths [without repetition] {& 5374 with repetition} from the prophet(saw) and they say that this number is very huge  and thus they must be all lies by Abu Huraira (RA).

But if they would have atleast read once, their own books then they would have found an answer to this claim,

We read in an authentic report in Al-Kafi:…
أستأذن على أبي جعفر عليه السلام قوم من أهل النواحي من الشيعة، فأذن لهم فدخلوا فسألوه في مجلس واحد عن ثلاثين ألف مسألة فأجاب عليه السلام وله عشر سنين.
Ali bin Ibrahim from his father(Ibrahim ibn Hashim): A group of Shias requested to enter upon Abu Jafa’ar (as). So he let them in, and they asked him in one sitting about thirty thousand(30,000) issues, and he replied to them, and he was ten years old.(Usool Al-Kafi, 1/317).

Also, it is written in an  important Shia book written by one of their top Scholars and which discusses about those “trustworthy” companions of their Imams and they mention:

وكان من بين أصحاب ( الامام الصادق ) عليه السلام من فقهاء الكوفة : ( أبان بن تغلب بن رباح الكوفي ) نزيل كندة روى عنه عليه السلام ( 30000 ) حديثا .

And from the companions of Imam al Sadiq PBUH a Man who was a Faqih from the city of Kufah in Iraq, he is Abban bin Taghlub bin Rabah al Kufi and he narrated from al Sadiq 30,000 Hadiths.(hz abu huraira’s narrations are only 20% compared to the narrations narrated by this companion of shia imam)

ومنهم : ( محمد بن مسلم الكوفي ) روى عن ( الباقرين ) عليهما السلام ( 40000 ) حديثا

and amongst them was Muhammad bin Muslim al kufi who narrated from the two baqirs PBUT 40,000 Hadiths.

Source: Al Rawdah al bahhiyah by The First Shaheed Muhammad bin JamaluDeen al Makki al Amili & Al Shaheed al Thani, volume 1 page 33.

الروضة البهية في
(شرح اللمعة)
للشهيد السعيد
محمد بن جمال الدين مكي العاملي (الشهيد الأول) قدس سره

And this answer is sufficient for all those shias who might selectively pick a companion who is not from Itra and would ask the high number of the narrations they narrated from prophet(saw).

 

Argument 7: Narration of lake,  questions the credibility of companions of prophet(Saw).

Answer: Some shias who lack basic knowledge regarding the beliefs of Ahlesunnah, bring some narrations inorder to question the credibility of the companions of prophet(Saw), like the narration of lake. But people who have even basic knowledge knows that , Ahlesunnah considers only those people as sahaba/companions of prophet(Saw) who fulfilled one of the basic criteria to be called as a sahabi , i.e they should die as muslims.

Here is what Imam ibn hajar said defining the sahaba: The most correct of what I have come across is that a Sahaabee is one who met the Prophet (saw) whilst believing in him, and died as a Muslim. So that includes the one who remained with him for a long time or a short time, and those who narrated from him and those who did not and those who saw him but did not sit with him and those who could not see him due to blindness. (Al-Isaabah of lbn Hajr (1/4-5).)

Also refer (point #5) in the article.  And if shias still question the credibility of companions of prophet(saw) who were praised in quran, in ahadees, then how can the shias rely on the companions of shia Imams, who were not even praised in Quran ?

So only the ones who just want to fool people will use that narration against the credibility of the companions of prophet(Saw), neglecting various verses of Quran establishing the credibility of companions of prophet(saw) and narrations of prophet(saw) (which were even reported by Itra of prophet)

For example: Sheikh Saduq in his “Khisal” narrated:

كان أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله اثنى عشر ألف رجل
28-5 حدثنا أحمد بن زياد بن جعفر الهمداني رضي الله عنه قال: حدثنا علي ابن إبراهيم بن هاشم، عن أبيه، عن محمد بن أبي عمير، عن هشام بن سالم، عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال: كان أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله اثني عشر ألفا ثمانية آلاف من المدينة، وألفان من مكة، وألفان من الطلقاء، ولم ير فيهم قدري ولا مرجي ولا حروري ولا معتزلي، ولا صحاب رأي، كانوا يبكون الليل والنهار ويقولون: اقبض أرواحنا من قبل أن نأكل خبز الخمير.THERE WERE TWELVE THOUSAND COMPANIONS OF THE PROPHET
28-5 Ahmad ibn Zyad ibn Ja’far al-Hamedany – may God be pleased with him – narrated that Ali ibn Ibrahim ibn Hashim quoted his father, on the authority of Muhammad ibn Abi Umayr, on the authority of Hisham ibn Salim that Aba Abdullah as-Sadiq (alaihi salam) said, “There were twelve-thousand companions for God’s Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ali). Eight-thousand of them were from Medina, two-thousand of them were from Mecca and another two-thousand of them were the free atheist who had become Muslims. There were no Qadarites, Marajites, Kharajites, Mo’tazelites, nor any who act according to their own opinions. They cried day and night and said, ‘O God! Please take away our souls before we eat barley bread”.

Comment: So if there was no innovator among sahaba nor any who would act according to his own opinion then how come suddenly shias try to misinterpret narrations in sunni books by claiming that there were innovators among companions of prophet(saw)? Again as we said, the one who knows basic defination of companion in the sight of Ahlesunnah will not raise such illogical arguments. Except the ones who are there to create fitna and to deceive people.

Allah knows best.