Consensus among Ahlesunnah Scholars that Wives of Prophet(saw) are included in Ahlebayt mentioned in Ayat al-Tatheer (33:33)


Consensus among Ahlesunnah Scholars that Wives of Prophet(saw) are included in Ahlebayt mentioned in Ayat al-Tatheer(33:33)

In The Name of Allah, The Most Beneficent, The Most Merciful.

Many Shias are misinformed by their scholars, that even the Sunni Mufassirs of Quran, believed that wives of Prophet(saw) were not included in verse of purification(33:33). Therefore inorder to clear this misconception, we are presenting a list of Mufassirs of Quran, who believed that wives of Prophet Muhammad(Saw), were included in the verse of purification/Ayat al-tatheer.

1. Al-Razi, al-Tafsir al-Kabir (6:615): “Allah Most High quit using the feminine pronoun in his address and turned to the masculine by saying {liyudhhiba `ankum al-rijsa = to remove uncleanness far from you [masculine plural]}, so as to include both the women of his [i.e. the Prophet’s] house and the men. Explanations have differed concerning the ‘Ahl al-Bayt’ but the most appropriate and correct is to say they are his children and wives; al-Hasan and al-Husayn being among them and `Ali being among them… due to his cohabitation with the daughter of the Prophet and his close companionship with the Prophet .”

2. Al-Baghawi, Ma`alim al-Tanzil (2:393): “In this verse [Hud 73] there is a proof that wives are part of Ahl al-Bayt. … (3:428) He means by Ahl al-Bayt [in 33:33] the wives of the Prophet because they are in his house and this is the narration of Sa`id ibn Jubayr from Ibn `Abbas.”

3. Al-Baydawi, Anwar al-Tanzil (4:374): “The Shi`a’s claim that verse 33:33 is specific to Fatima, `Ali, and their two sons – Allah be well-pleased with them – … and their adducing it as proof of their immunity from sin (`ismat) and of the probative character of their consensus, is weak, because restricting the meaning to them is not consistent with what precedes the verse and what follows it. The thread of speech means that they are part of the Ahl al-Bayt, not that others are not part of it also.”

4. Al-Khazin, Lubab al-Ta’wil fi Ma`ani al-Tanzil (3:490): “They [Ahl al-Bayt] are the wives of the Prophet because they are in his house.” Then he mentions the other two explanations, namely, that they are the `Itra or that they are the families of `Ali, `Aqil, Ja`far, and al-`Abbas.

5. Al-Nasafi, Madarik al-Tanzil wa Haqa’iq al-Ta’wil (3:490): “There is in it [verse 33:33] a proof that his wives are part of the Folk of his Household (min ahli baytihi). He said ‘from you [M] (`ankum)’ because what is meant are both the men and women of his family (âl) as indicated by {wa yutahhirakum tathûran = and cleanse you [M/F] with a thorough cleansing} from the filth of sins.”

6. Al-Tabari, Tafsir (22:7) [after citing reports explaining Ahl al-Bayt to mean the `Itra] and al-Wahidi, Asbab al-Nuzul (p. 299 #734): From `Ikrima concerning 33:33: “It is not as they claim, but the verse was revealed concerning the wives of the Prophet .”

7. Al-Zamakhshari, Tafsir al-Kashshaf (2:212): “In this [33:33] there is an explicit proof that the wives of the Prophet – Allah bless and greet him – are among the People of his House (min Ahli Baytihi).”

8. Al-Shawkani, Fath al-Qadir (4:278-280)  “Ibn `Abbas, `Ikrima, `Ata’, al-Kalbi, Muqatil, and Sa`id ibn Jubayr said the wives of the Prophet are specifically meant [in 33:33], and by house are meant the houses of his wives as mentioned before in the verses. While Abu Sa`id al-Khudri, Mujahid, and Qatada – it is also related from al-Kalbi – said that those meant are specifically `Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn. They adduced the fact that the pronouns are in the masculine, but this was refuted by the fact that the noun Ahl is masculine and therefore necessitates a masculine gender as in the verse [Hud 73]…. A third group stands midway between the two and includes both [the wives and the `Itra]… A number of the verifying authorities consider this the most correct explanation, among them al-Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir, and others.”

Al Shawkani says in his tafsir al fath al qadeer the various views, and he says:

فمن جعل الآية خاصة بأحد الفريقين فقد أعمل بعض ما يجب إعماله وأهمل ما لا يجوز إهماله. وقد رجح هذا القول جماعة من المحققين منهم القرطبي وابن كثير وغيرهما

“and whoever makes this verse refer specifically to either group exclusively (the wives) OR (fatima, ali, hassan, hussein) then he has included part but excluded part which is forbidden to exclude. And to this position a group of scholars has gone, including Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir, and others.”

9. al-Mubarakpuri, Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi (9:48-49) : “Ibn `Abbas, `Ikrima, `Ata’, al-Kalbi, Muqatil, and Sa`id ibn Jubayr said the wives of the Prophet are specifically meant [in 33:33], and by house are meant the houses of his wives as mentioned before in the verses. While Abu Sa`id al-Khudri, Mujahid, and Qatada – it is also related from al-Kalbi – said that those meant are specifically `Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn. They adduced the fact that the pronouns are in the masculine, but this was refuted by the fact that the noun Ahl is masculine and therefore necessitates a masculine gender as in the verse [Hud 73]…. A third group stands midway between the two and includes both [the wives and the `Itra]… A number of the verifying authorities consider this the most correct explanation, among them al-Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir, and others.”

10. Al-Jalalayn: “Ahl al-Bayt [in 33:33] i.e. the wives of the Prophet(saw)”

11. Al-Sawi, Hashiyat al-Jalalayn: “It was said the verse [33:33] is comprehensive (`âmma) to mean the People of his House in the sense of his dwelling and these are his wives, and the People of his House in the sense of his lineage and these are his offspring.”

12. Al-Suyuti, al-Durr al-Manthur (6:603): [after citing the narrations of the `Itra] Ibn Sa`d narrated from `Urwa that he said: “Ahl al-Bayt [in 33:33] means the wives of the Prophet and it was revealed in the house of `A’isha.”

13. Ibn al-Jawzi, Zad al-Masir fi `Ilm al-Tafsir (6:378): “Then He showed their superiority over all women when He said: {You [feminine] are not like anyone [masculine] of the women} (33:32). Al-Zajjaj [the philologist] said: ‘He did not say, “like any other woman” in the feminine, because the masculine form denotes a general exclusion of both male and female [human beings], one and all.'”

14. Ibn Juzayy, Tafsir (p. 561): “The Ahl al-Bayt of the Prophet are his wives, his offspring, and his near relatives such as al-`Abbas, `Ali, and all for whom receiving sadaqa is unlawful.”

15. Al-Bukhari, Sahih: Hadith from Anas: The Prophet visited `A’isha and, upon entering her house, said: “As-Salâmu `alaykum Ahl al-Bayt! wa rahmatullah.” Whereupon she responded: “Wa `alayka as-Salam wa rahmatullah, how did you find your wives [ahlak]? May Allah bless you.” Then he went around to see all of his wives and said to them exactly what he had said to `A’isha.

16. Al-Wahidi, al-Wajiz fi Tafsir al-Kitab al-`Aziz (2:865): “Ahl al-Bayt [in 33:33] meaning, the wives of the Prophet and the men [and women] of the People of his House.”

17. Al-Tha`alibi, Jawahir al-Hisan fi Tafsir al-Qur’an (2:212): “This verse [Hud 73] shows that the wife of a man is part of the People of his House (min Ahli Baytihi)… and ‘the House’ in Surat al-Ahzab [33:33] refers to the dwelling quarters [i.e. of the wives].”

18. Ibn Kathir, Tafsir (3:532) and al-Wahidi, Asbab al-Nuzul (p. 299 #733): From Ibn `Abbas: “This verse [33:33] was revealed concerning the wives of the Prophet .”

19. Ibn Jama`a, Ghurar al-Tibyan fi Ma lam Yusamma fi al-Qur’an (p. 421 #1201) and al-Suyuti in Mufhamat al-Aqran fi Mubhamat al-Qur’an: “Ahl al-Bayt in verse 33 are the Prophet and his wives. It was also said they are `Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn, and it was also said they are those for whom sadaqa is unlawful [i.e. Âl `Aqil, Âl `Ali, Âl Ja`far, and Âl al-`Abbas].”

20. Al-Zarkashi, al-Burhan fi `Ulum al-Qur’an (2:197): “The phrasing of the Qur’an [in Surat al-Ahzab] shows that the wives are meant, that the verses were revealed concerning them, and that it is impossible to exclude them from the meaning of the verse. However, since others were to be included with them it was said with the masculine gender: {Allah desires to remove uncleanness far from you [masculine plural], O Folk of the Household}. It is then known that this desire comprises all the Folk of the Household – both male and female – as opposed to His saying {O wives of the Prophet} and it shows that `Ali and Fatima are more [specifically] deserving of this description [“Ahl al-Bayt”] than the wives.”

21. Al-Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur’an (4:378-379): “It [the verse Hud 73] shows that the wives of the Prophet – Allah bless and greet him – are of the People of his House (min Ahli Baytihi) because the angels names Ibrahim’s wife as being of the People of his House, and so has Allah Most High said when addressing the wives of the Prophet – Allah bless and greet him – when He said:… [33:33]. His wives are part of those meant because the beginning of the address concerns them.”

22. Abu al-Su`ud, Irshad al-`Aql al-Salim ila Mazaya al-Qur’an al-Karim (7:103):”This [33:33], as you see, is an explicit verse and a radiant proof that the wives of the Prophet – Allah bless and greet him – are among the People of his House (min Ahli Baytihi), ruling once and for all the invalidity of the opinion of the Shi`is who narrow it to mean only Fatima, `Ali, and their two sons – Allah be well-pleased with them. As for what they claim as their proof [hadith of the Mantle], it only shows that they [the Four] are part of Ahl al-Bayt, not that other than them are excluded.”

23. Sayyid Abul Ala Mawdoodi, Tafheem ul Quran (commentary 33:33) states: rather the more correct thing is that the verse is actually addressed to the wives and the children become included in the household only because of the sense of the word. That is why according to lbn ‘Abbas and ‘Urwah bin Zubair and `Ikrimah, the word ahl al-bait in this verse implies the wives of the Holy Prophet.

24. Mufti Shafi Uthmani, Maarif ul quran vol 7, pg 150: The sound position is that under the word ahlebayt  the blessed wives are included in any case, because they themselves are the cause for the revealation of this verse. And the inclusion of the direction addresses of the revelation cannot be subjected to any doubts. And sayyiduna Fatima, ali, hasan , hussain (may allah be pleased with them all) too in accordance with the saying of prophet(saw) are included in ahlebayt.

25. Sayyid qutub, In the shade of Quran vol XIV , pg. 55-59 : The passage we are currently discussing now includes an address to the Prophet’s wives giving them instructions concerning their relations with other people, their own status and their relations with God. This address also includes a gentle directive expressed in fine style: “God only wants to remove all that is loathsome from you, you members of the [Prophet’s] household, and to purify you fully.” (Verse 33)

26. Ibn Hajar al Haytami; al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, Ch. 11, section 1, p220) He mentions what he considers is the correct opinion which is that ahl al bayt are his wives, Fatimah, Ali, al Hasan, al Husain, and Bani Hashim and Muttalib.

27. Imam Qurtubi: He states that it was Al Zajjaj’s opinion that the wives of the Prophet peace be upon him are included in the Ahlel Bayt

28. Sheikh Sha’raawi:He gives a nice argument from an Arabic linguistic point of view that the verse is including the wives of the Prophet peace be upon him he states: And it is noted in this verse as well: {Allah only wishes to remove from you impurity, people of household, and to purify you completely}[al-Ahzab: 33] that it is narrated regarding the women, rather it is an issue considered covering the men; thus consider the pronoun mentioned {…to remove from you (masculine plural)}[al-Ahzab:33] and it does not say “from you (feminine plural), and it is the same in: {…and to purify you completely}[al-Ahzab:33] and it proves true that by people of the household is intended the men and women altogether.

29. Maulana syed mohammad Naeem-ud-Deen Muradabadi (who was khalifa of ahmed raza khan barelwi): from this verse the fazilat of ahle bayt is proved, In ahlebayt wives of prophet(saw) and hz Fatima(ra), hz ali(ra). Hz hassan(ra), hz hussain(ra) are included . This is the conclusion when verse and narrations are referred and this was even the view of Imam Abu Mansoor Maturudi.( Khazaain-ul-Irfan, under verse 33:33)

30. Al-samarkandi said: [“Ahl al Bayt” is a masculine word, that’s why the verse switches from feminine to masculine when referring to “Ahl al Bayt”.] Now this means that he considered the previous verses of tatheer which were referring to wives of prophet(saw) compatible with the masculine form because he didn’t say the tense changes because of inclusion of males in it or a group in which some males were present was being referred, rather he said the change in gender of tenses is because of the word Ahlebayt itself being Masculine. (tafsir bahrul ulum by al-samarkandi (d. 375 AH)).

31. The ‘Allamah al-tahir ibn ‘Ashur, in his al-Tahrir wa al-Tanwir wrote:

وأَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ: أَزوَاج النبيء صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، وَالْخِطَابُ مُوَجَّهٌ إِلَيْهِنَّ وَكَذَلِكَ مَا قَبْلَهُ وَمَا بَعْدَهُ لَا يُخَالِطُ أَحَدًا شَكٌّ فِي ذَلِكَ، وَلَمْ يَفْهَمْ مِنْهَا أَصْحَاب النبيء صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ والتابعون إِلَّا أَن أَزوَاج النبيء عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ هُنَّ الْمُرَادُ بِذَلِكَ وَأَنَّ النُّزُولَ فِي شَأْنِهِنَّ
The Ahl-al-Bait are the wives of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and the statement is addressed to them, may Allah be pleased with them. So none can doubt that…the companions(sahaba) and those who followed them(Taba’een) did not understand from the verse except that the wives of the Prophet are the ones meant with that, may Allah be pleased with them. [Tafsir al-Tahrir wa al-Tanwir, Vol. 22, p. 15].

32. Ali Muhammad Sallabi wrote:

The divine will referred to in the verse is His legislative will, which is different from His universal decree…Undoubtedly Allah removed ar-rijs from Fatimah, al- Hasan, al-Husayn, ‘Ali and the wives of the Prophet (may Allah be pleased with them all), but the divine will referred to in this verse is the legislative will. Hence it says in the hadith that when the Prophet(saws) wrapped them in the cloak, he said: “O Allah, these are the people of my household, remove from them ar-rijs.” The supplication of the Prophet(saws) settles the matter. If there was any indication in the verse of purification that purification of the people of the cloak had already taken place, the Messenger of Allah(saws) would not have covered them with the cloak and prayed for them by saying, “O Allah, these are the people of my household, remove from them ar-rijs.” This is clear evidence that the verse was revealed concerning the wives of the Prophet(saws), the Messenger of Allah(saws) wanted the people of the cloak to be included in this divine revelation of purification, so he gathered them and covered them with the cloak and prayed for them, and Allah accepted his supplication for them  and purified them as He(swt) purified the wives of the Prophet, as indicated by the text of the verse. [Ali Ibn Abi Talib, vol 2, page 365-366, by Ali Muhammad Sallabi]

 

The Scholars who declared that the majority of scholars include wives of prophet(saw) in Ahlebayt

1. Imam Ibn katheer(rah) said:

قوله تَعَالَى:
إِنَّما يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنْكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيراً وَهَذَا نَصٌّ فِي دُخُولِ أَزْوَاجِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي أَهْلِ الْبَيْتِ هَاهُنَا، لِأَنَّهُنَّ سَبَبُ نُزُولِ هَذِهِ الْآيَةِ وَسَبَبُ النُّزُولِ دَاخِلٌ فِيهِ قَوْلًا وَاحِدًا إِمَّا وَحْدَهُ عَلَى قَوْلٍ أَوْ مَعَ غَيْرِهِ عَلَى الصَّحِيحِ.

Allah(swt) said: {Allah wishes only to remove Ar-Rijs from you, O members of the family, and to purify you with a thorough purification}.This is a clear statement/text that the wives of the Prophet are included among the members of his family (Ahl Al-Bayt) here, because they are the reason why this Ayah was revealed, and the reason of revelation is included in the ruling of the verse, hence some say, only they are included and other say, they, as well as others too, and the later saying is the correct view. (Tafseer ibn katheer, vol 6, page 364 ; Urdu page 671)

Comment: So what Imam Ibn Katheer is saying implies the scholars are unanimously agreed that wives of Prophet(saws) were the reason for revelation of this verse, and either way, they are part of the reason for the verse to be revealed.

2. Imam sakhawi(rah):

وقال السخاوي في القول البديع في بيان صيغة الصلاة في التشهّد: فالمرجع أنّهم من حرمت عليهم الصدقة، وذكر أنّه اختيار الجمهور ونصّ الشافعي، وأنّ مذهب أحمد أنّهم أهل البيت، وقيل: المراد أزواجه وذرّيّته… (عن هامش الصواعق المحرقة لعبد الوهاب عبد اللطيف: 146 ط. مصر 1385 هـ ).

Al Sakhawi says in “Al Qawl al badee fee bayaan Seeghat al Salaat fee altashahud”: and the conclusion is that they are those for whom charity is forbidden, and it has been mentioned that this is the opinion of the majority, and this is related from Al Shaf’ee, and in the school of Ahmed bin Hanbal that those are the Ahl al Bayt, and it was said: what is meant are his wives and his descendents.

3. Imam Qastalani(rah):

وقال القسطلاني: ان الراجح أنّهم من حرمت عليهم الصدقة، كما نص عليه الشافعي واختاره الجمهور ويؤيده قوله صلّى الله عليه وسلّم للحسن بن عليّ: إنّا آل محمّد لا تحل لنا الصدقة، وقيل المراد بآل محمّد أزواجه وذرّيّته.

Al Qastalani said: the correct answer is that they are those for whom charity is forbidden, as was recorded by al Shaf’ee and what was selected by the majority and supported by what was said by al Hassan bin Ali: The family of Muhammad, charity is not permitted for us, and it was said that what is meant by the family of Muhammad are his wives and descendents. [Al Kashf wal Bayaan by Al Thaalabi]

 

Decisive proof:

Here we will be providing proofs from two great authorities of Tafseer ul  quran. Because their knowledge of Quran and their views takes precedence over the view of general scholars( if the view of general scholars is not backed by any authentic ahadees) if it contradicts the views of these two great scholars of tafseer.

1. Abdullah ibn Abbas(ra)

[Sahi bukhari 1.75:] Narrated Ibn `Abbas: Once the Prophet embraced me and said, “O Allah! Bestow on him the knowledge of the Book (Qur’an).

Now this same ibn abbas(ra) for whom prophet(saw) made dua, that he be granted knowledge of Quran believed that, the verse of tatheer was revealed for wives of prophet(saw).

عن ابن عباس : ?إنما يريد الله ليذهب عنكم الرجس أهل البيت ( [ الأحزاب : 33 ] . قال : نزلت في أزواج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم خاصة .
الراوي: عكرمة المحدث: الذهبي – المصدر: سير أعلام النبلاء – لصفحة أو الرقم: 2/221
خلاصة حكم المحدث: إسناده صالح

Ibn Abbas RAA: “Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet’s] household,” He said: It was revealed especially about the wives of the prophet PBUH.

Siyar A’alam al nubalaa
Rank: Good Isnad.

2.  Ikrima mawla ibn Abbas.

He was a master of tafseer of quran and also viewed that the verse of tatheer was revealed for wives of prophet(Saw).

Ibn Jarir recorded that `Ikrimah used to call out in the marketplace:(Allah wishes only to remove Ar-Rijs from you, O members of the family, and to purify you with a thorough purification.(33:33)) “This was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet.”(tafseer ibn katheer, for 33:33).

Imaam Sa’eed used to criticize Imaam Ikrimah based on the differences between the two in some fiqhi issues, and in return Imaam Ikrimah also used to criticize Imaam Sa’eed. Therefore, the Jarh of both contemporaries on each other is rejected.

Aqil ibn Muhammad al-Jurjani informed us (through a verbal authorisation)> al-Mu‘afa ibn Zakariyya al-Qadi> Muhammad ibn Jarir> Ibn Humayd> Yahya ibn Wadih> al-Asbagh> ‘Alqamah> ‘Ikrimah who said, regarding the words of Allah, exalted is He (Allah’s wish is but to remove uncleanness far from you, O Folk of the Household): “This verse was not revealed about whom you think it was revealed. Rather, it is about the wives of the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace”. ‘Ikrimah used to proclaim this in the marketplace.

Ikrimah said: “Whoever disagrees with me that it was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet , I am prepared to meet with him and pray and invoke the curse of Allah upon those who are lying.” (tafseer ibn katheer  for 33:33)

The praise of scholars regarding Ikrima’s knowledge of tafseer of quran and answer to some arguments against him.

Qatada said: “Most knowledgeable from people in halal and haram is Hasan, and most knowledgeable in rituals of haj Ata, and most knowledgeable in tafsir Ikrima”. (Juzz fihi zikri hal Ikrima mawla ibn Abbas” by  Hafidh Munziri.p 23, #25).

Jabir ibn Ziyad Abu Shatha said: “He is most knowledgeable of people”. (Juzz fihi zikri hal Ikrima mawla ibn Abbas” by  Hafidh Munziri.p 24, #26).

Salam ibn Miskin said: “Ikrima is most knowledgeable of people in tafsir”. (Juzz fihi zikri hal Ikrima mawla ibn Abbas” by  Hafidh Munziri.p 24).

Sufayn as-Sawri said: “Take tafsir from Ikrima, Saeed ibn Jubayr, Mujahid and Dahhak”.(Juzz fihi zikri hal Ikrima mawla ibn Abbas” by  Hafidh Munziri.p 25, #29).

Shabe said: “No one remained more knowledgeable in book of Allah, than Ikrima”. (Juzz fihi zikri hal Ikrima mawla ibn Abbas” by  Hafidh Munziri.p 22, #19).

Ibn Hajar in “Taqrib” (#4673) said: Thiqat, steady, a`lim bi tafsir,and it’s not proved that he was accused in lie by ibn Umar, and it’snot proved innovation from him”

Ibn Hibban mentioned him in “Thiqat” and said: “From scholars of his time in fiqh and tafsir”. (“Tahzib at-tahzib” 7/240)

Zirikli in “Alam” (4/244) said: “From most knowledgeable people in tafsir and magazi”.

As for criticism on Ikrima:

1. Abu Khalaf Abdullah bin Isa Al-Khazzaz from Yahya Al-Bakka’ who said: “I heard that Ibn Umar used to say to Nafi’: ‘O Nafi’, fear God and don’t attribute lies to me, as ‘Ikrima who attributes lies to Ibn Abbas.’.”

Answer: This narration is severely weak and Fabricated because, Its original source and full chain of this narration is not known. Secondly, Yahya al-Bakaa is Matrook and severely weak.

2. Jarir bin Abd Al-Hamid from Yazid bin Abi Ziyad who siad: I went to Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas [i.e., son of Ibn Abbas (ra)], while ‘Ikrima was fastened to the gate of the garden of palm trees. So, I said [to Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas]: “Why is this man in this position?!” He replied: “Because he attribute lies to my father!

Answer:  Its chain contains Yazeed bin Abi Ziyaad who is weak according to the consensus of Muhadditheen.

3. Ikrima himself confessed that he attributed fabricated saying to ‘Ibn Abbas. The following Sahih narration shows that ‘Ikrima used to make his fake beliefs as the Hadith of Ibn Abbas (ra).

Answer: This is from Ibn Hajar regarding that report of Ikrima:

قال الحافظ: وأما قصة القاسم بن معن، ففيها دلالة على تحريه فإنه حدثه في المذاكرة بشيء فلما رآه يريد أن يكتبه عنه، شك فيه، فأخبره أنه إنما قاله برأيه، فهذا أولى أن يحمل عليه من أن يظن به أنه تعمد الكذب على ابن عباس رضي الله عنه

Ibn Hajar basically says: “As for the story of Qassim bin Ma’an then it is to take in support of Ikrima, because he said it in normal talk and when he saw that Abdul Rahman is about to write he prevented him. [هدي الساري (ص428)]

What should be noticed is that, Why would Ikrima prevent Abdulrahman from writing if he was intentionally lying? It seems, Ikrima uttered that by slip of tongue or by mistake, until he realized it. He wanted to say something and unintentionally he attributed it to ibn Abbas, but then he corrected this to prevent this from being propagated.

4. Even Imam Malik did not trust Ikrima and as Az-Zahabi said that Malik avoided his Hadiths.

Answer:  Imaam Ibn Abi Haatim ar-Raazi asked his father (Abu Haatim) about Ikrimah, so he said: “He is Thiqah” His son asked: “Is evidence taken from him?” He replied: “Yes, when Thiqah people narrate from him, and those who rejected him: Yahya bin Sa’eed al-Ansaari and Maalik then it was only due to his raye (opinion)” It was said to him, how are the clients of Ibn Abbaas? So he said: “They are Kurayb, Sumay’, Shu’bah, Ikrimah and Ikrimah was the most knowledgeable of them” His son asked him about Ikrimah and Sa’eed bin Jubayr as to which one of the two is more knowledgeable of Tafseer? So he replied: “The companions of Ibn Abbaas was children to Ikrimah”
[Al-Jarh wat Ta’deel: Vol. 7 T. 32]

Imam Dhahabi said: “He has been criticized for his opinion not his memory”
[Meezaan: 3/93]  At another place, he said: “He is Thiqah Thabat”
[Deewaan ad-Du’afa: 1/278]

So, Ikrima was rejected by Imam Malik, not because of his memory, but because of his opinions. Interestingly, Imam Dhahabi in his famed work Meezan al-Eitidal, Volume 1 No. 1519 records the view of Imam Malik about Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) in this manner: “Musa’ab ibn Abdullah said: ‘Malik would not narrate from Jafar until he linked it with those narrators who are high, then he would put his (Jafar’s) narration after it” [Meezan al-Eitidal, Volume 1 No. 1519]

The correct view is that Imam Malik generally doesn’t include weak narrators in his Muwatta, but we find Imam Malik quoting Imam Ja’afar quite a few times, the same goes for Ikrima as well.

5. Imam Sa’eed Al-Mosayyeb said that Ikrama used to attribute lies to Ibn Abbas (Siyar A’lam An-Nubala, 5, page 22).

Answer:  Imaam Sa’eed used to criticize Imaam Ikrimah based on the differences between the two in some fiqhi issues, and in return Imaam Ikrimah also used to criticize Imaam Sa’eed. Therefore, the Jarh of both contemporaries on each other is rejected.

Dhahabi says: The speech of peers against one another is not given any attention, especially if it becomes clear that it is a result of personal animosity, partisanship against a particular school of thought, or envy. None is free of this trait except those whom Allah protects, and I am not aware of any era whose people were free of this trait save the prophets and the siddiqin. If I wished, I could compile many volumes expounding upon this topic. [Taken from Al-Raf ʿ Wa  Al-Takmil of Imam Abd al-Hayy al-Laknawi.]

The author of Fath al-Mughith states: ibnʿAbd al-Barr dedicated an entire chapter to discussing the speech of contemporaries against one another in his Jami ʿBayan al – ʿIlm wa Fadlih. He viewed that the criticism of the people of knowledge is not accepted except when there is clear evidence for it. If such criticism is coupled with any sort of personal animosity, then it is even less worthy of being accepted. [Taken from Al-Raf ʿ Wa  Al-Takmil of Imam Abd al-Hayy al-Laknawi.]

Al-Dhahabi states in Siyar Aʿlam al-Nubala’ regarding the great exegete, AbuʿAbd-Allah Muhammad b.Hatim al-Baghdadi (d. 235AH): ibnʿAdi and al-Daraqutni declared him trustworthy. Abu Hafs al-Fallas stated regarding him, ‘He is nothing.’(laysa bi shay,’meaning he is unreliable) I say: This is from the speech of peers, which is not to be given any heed, for the man is a highly reliable narrator (thabt hujjah). [Taken from Al-Raf ʿ Wa  Al-Takmil of Imam Abd al-Hayy al-Laknawi.]

Al-Dhahabi mentions under the biographical entry of Abu Bakr b. Abu Dawud al-Sijistani (d. 316 AH) in his book Tadhkirat al-Huffaz,after mentioning his being declared trustworthy(thiqah) by a group of reliable hadith scholars and his being declared weak by ibn Saʿid and some other scholars: I say: It is not befitting to accept ibn Saʿid’s statement regarding him, just as we do not give any consideration to his (al-Sijistani’s)declaring ibn Saʿid a liar. Likewise, ibn Jarir’s speech against him is not given any heed. This is due to the fact that there was clear enmity between them, so avoid the speech of contemporaries against one another. [Taken from Al-Raf ʿ Wa  Al-Takmil of Imam Abd al-Hayy al-Laknawi.]

Taj al-Din al-Subki states in his Tabaqat al-Shafiʿiyyah:

ينبغي لك أيها المسترشد أن تسلك سبيل الأدب مع الأئمة الماضين، وأن لا تنظر إلى كلام بعضهم في بعض، إلا إذا أتى ببرهان واضح، ثم إن قدرت على التأويل وتحسين الظن فَدُونَك، وإلا فاضرب صفحًا عما جرى بينهم، فإنك لم تُخْلَق لهذا، فاشتغل بما يعنيك ودع ما لا يعنيك، ولا يزال طالبُ العلم عندي نبيلاً حتى يخوض فيما جرى بين السلف الماضين، ويقضي لبعضهم على بعض، فإياك ثم إياك أن تصغي إلى ما اتفق بين أبي حنيفة وسفيان الثوري، أو بين مالك وابن أبي ذئب، أو بين أحمد بن صالح والنسائي، أو بين أحمد بن حنبل والحارث المحاسبي، وهلُمَّ جرًّا إلى زمان الشيخ عز الدين بن عبد السلام والشيخ تقي الدين ابن الصلاح، فإنك إن اشتغلت بذلك خشيتُ عليك الهلاك، فالقومُ أئمةٌ أعلام، ولأقوالهم مَحامِلُ ربما لم يُفهم بعضُها، فليس لنا إلا الترضي عنهم، والسكوتُ عما جرى بينهم، كما يُفعل ذلك فيما جرى بين الصحابة رضي الله عنهم
It would behoove you, oh seeker of guidance, to observe proper etiquette with the past imams and not to pay any attention to their criticisms against one another unless they are supported with clear proof. Therefore, if you are able to give an alternate explanation or interpret the criticism in a more favourable manner, then do so. If that is not possible, then disregard it and move on, for you were not created for this purpose. Busy yourself with that which concerns you and leave that which does not. A student of knowledge remains noble until he delves in to the problems that arose between the early scholars. You must beware of devoting your attention to the disputes that took place between Abu Hanifah and Sufiyan al-Thawri, Malik and ibn AbiDhi’b, Ahmadb.Salih andal-Nasa’i, Ahmadb.Hanbal and al-Harith al-Muhasibi,etc.,all the wayuntil the time of al-ʿIzzb.ʿAbd al-Salam and al-Taqib.al-Salah. If you occupy yourself with such matters, then I fear for your ruin, for those men are from amongst the most eminent of imams. Their statements have proper interpretations, some of which we may not have properly understood, so our only responsibility is to ask Allah to be pleased with them and remain silent about what occurred between them, just as is done regarding the disputes that took place amongst the Sahabah, may Allah be pleased with them.[Tabqaat ash-Shafiya (2/ 39)].

He further states: One must be careful not to understand the maxim ‘narrator criticism (jarh)is given precedence over accreditation (taʿdil)’ in an absolute, unrestricted sense. Rather, the preponderant opinion is that when it comes to a scholar whose status as an imam and whose integrity is already well-established,whose supporters are many and detractors are few, and for whom there is some evidence to indicate that his criticism stemmed from sectarian partisanship or something similar, such criticism is not given any credence.

He further states: We have mentioned that a person’s criticism is not accepted, even if he explained the reasoning behind it(i.e.jarh mufassar),if it is directed towards a scholar whose good deeds far outweigh his misdeeds, whose supporters are far more prevalent than his detractors, and those who testify to his character are far more prevalent than those who criticize him, if there is an indication that there is an unacceptable motive behind this criticism, such as sectarian partisanship, worldly competition, or another such reason, as often occurs between peers. Therefore, one should not entertain the speech of al-Thawri against Abu Hanifah, ibn Abi Dhi’b and others against Malik, ibn Maʿin against al-Shafiʿi, al-Nasa’i against Ahmad b.Salih, etc. If we gave preference to criticism over praise without any restriction, than no imam would remain untouched, because there is not a single imam that has not been criticized or attacked. [Taken from Al-Raf ʿ Wa  Al-Takmil of Imam Abd al-Hayy al-Laknawi.]

The conclusion is as what Haafidh Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani said about Ikrima:

He is Thiqah Thabat, the Scholar of Tafseer, the accusing of lying on him from Ibn Umar is not proven, nor is the Bid’ah (of any kind) is proven from him”
[Taqreeb: 4673]

Or what  Imaam Bayhaqi said about Ikrimah:  “Ikrimah is from the Thiqah Thabat people according to the Majority of A’immah” [As-Sunan al-Kubra lil Bayhaqi: 8/234]

And what Imaam Ibn Adee said about Ikrima:  “He is Mustaqeem ul-Hadeeth except if a weak person narrates from him…. The A’immah of Hadeeth do not prevent from narrating from him, and the Authors of Sihaah have entered his hadeeth in their authentic books when a Thiqah person narrates from him….There is nothing wrong in him”. [Al-Kaamil: 2/292]

Now, we’ll present the evidences that, Imaam Ikrimah was one of the biggest Fuqaha of his time and a highly reliable and truthful person in the field of Hadeeth.

1-    Uthmaan bin Hakeem narrates that: “I was sitting with Abu Umaamah Sahl bin Haneef (radiallah anhu) when Ikrimah arrived. So he said: O Abu Umaamah mention the name of Allaah, did you hear Ibn Abbaas saying, ‘Accept whatever Ikrimah narrates to you from me, for verily he does not lie upon me’ so Abu Umaamah said, ‘Yes’”
[Taareekh Ibn Ma’een, narrated by ad-Dauri: 2/413, Chain Saheeh]

2-    Imaam Amr bin Deenaar said that Jaabir bin Zayd sent some masaail to me that I ask Ikrimah about them, he said: “Ikrimah is the Mawla (freed slave) of Ibn Abbaas; he is an ocean (of knowledge), therefore ask him
[Tabaqaat al-Kubra by Ibn Sa’d: 2/293-294, Chain Saheeh]

3-    Imaam Sa’eed bin Jubayr said: “If Ikrimah stops narrating his hadeeth to them, people would travel to him
[Tabaqaat al-Kubra: 2/294, Chain Saheeh]

4-    The same was said by Imaam Tawoos.
[Tabaqaat al-Kubra: 2/294, Chain Saheeh]

5-    Imaam Yahya ibn Ma’een narrated from Jareer bin Abdul Hameed from Mu’aawiyah bin Miqsam that he said: “It was said to Sa’eed bin Jubayr: Do you know anyone who is more knowledgeable than you?” He replied: “Yes, Ikrimah
[Taareekh Ibn Ma’een by ad-Dauri: 3/358]

6-    Imaam Salaam bin Miskeen said: “Ikrimah was the biggest Scholar of Tafseer among all men
[Tabaqaat al-Kubra: 2/294, Chain Saheeh]

7-    Imaam Ikrimah himself said: “When I go out to the market and hear a person speaking with a (good) speech, thus (even) this opens up fifty doors of knowledge for me”
[Tabaqaat al-Kubra: 2/294, Chain Saheeh]

8-    Imaam Abu Ishaaq as-Sabi’ee said that: “Ikrimah came and started narrating, while Sa’eed bin Jubayr was also present there, thus he made a knot of 30 (with his fingers) and said, he narrated the hadeeth correctly
[Tabaqaat al-Kubra: 2/294, Chain Saheeh]

9-    Imaam Ikrimah said: “Ibn Abbaas (was so strict about my education that he) would teach me the Qur’aan and Sunan by tying a chain on my feet”
[Tabaqaat al-Kubra: 2/294, Chain Saheeh]

10-          Imaam Hammaad bin Zayd said that a man said to Ayyoob (As-Sakhtiyaani), “O Abu Bakr, has Ikrimah been accused (of lying)” Ayyoob remained silent, then he said: “As for me, then I do not accuse him
[Tabaqaat al-Kubra: 5/221, Chain Saheeh]

Imaam Ayyoob also said: “The Huffaadh of (the hadeeth of) Ibn Abbaas have unanimously consented upon Ikrimah, among them are: Sa’eed bin Jubayr & Ataa bin Abi Ribaah, they would ask him about the hadeeth of Ibn Abbaas
[Ad-Du’afa al-Kabeer by al-Ukaylee: 3/376, Chain Saheeh]

11-          Imaam Sufyaan ibn Uyaynah said, I heard Ayyoob (as-Sakhtiyaani) saying: “If I were to tell you that Hasan (al-Basari) quit narrating a lot of Tafseer when Ikrimah (the expert of Tafseer) entered upon us in Basrah until he went out of it, then I said the truth”
[Ad-Du’afa al-Kabeer by al-Ukaylee: 3/373, Chain Saheeh]

12-          Imaam Qataadah bin Di’aamah said: “The most knowledgeable of all people about Halaal and Haraam is Hasan (al-Basari), and the most knowledgeable of them in Manaasik is Ataa bin Abi Ribaah, and the most knowledgeable of them in Tafseer is Ikrimah
[Al-Ma’rifah wal Taareekh: 1/702, Chain Saheeh]

13-          Imaam Yahya ibn Ma’een declared him “Thiqah”
[Taareekh Uthmaan ad-Daarimi: 357, 581, & 604]

14-          Imaam Abu al-Hasan al-Ijlee said: “He is Taabi’ee Thiqah and he is from the whatever people accuse him of  Khaarijiyyah”
[Thiqaat by al-Ijlee: 1/339]

15-          Imaam Bukhaari said: “There is no one among our companions except that he would take evidence from Ikrimah
[Al-Taareekh al-Kabeer by al-Bukhaari: V. 7 T. 218]

Imaam Bukhaari also narrated from him in his Saheeh.

16-          Imaam Tirmidhi authenticated numerous ahaadeeth of Ikrimah in his Sunan.

17-          Imaam Ibn Abi Haatim ar-Raazi asked his father (Abu Haatim) about Ikrimah, so he said: “He is Thiqah” His son asked: “Is evidence taken from him?” He replied: “Yes, when Thiqah people narrate from him, and those who rejected him: Yahya bin Sa’eed al-Ansaari and Maalik then it was only due to his raye (opinion)” It was said to him, how are the clients of Ibn Abbaas? So he said: “They are Kurayb, Sumay’, Shu’bah, Ikrimah and Ikrimah was the most knowledgeable of them” His son asked him about Ikrimah and Sa’eed bin Jubayr as to which one of the two is more knowledgeable of Tafseer? So he replied: “The companions of Ibn Abbaas was children to Ikrimah”
[Al-Jarh wat Ta’deel: Vol. 7 T. 32]

18-          Imaam Ibn Adee said: “He is Mustaqeem ul-Hadeeth except if a weak person narrates from him…. The A’immah of Hadeeth do not prevent from narrating from him, and the Authors of Sihaah have entered his hadeeth in their authentic books when a Thiqah person narrates from him….There is nothing wrong in him”
[Al-Kaamil: 2/292]

19-          Imaam Ibn Khuzaymah authenticated his hadeeth in his Saheeh

20-          Imaam Ibn Hibbaan mentioned him in ath-Thiqaat
[5/229]

21-          Imaam Ad-Daaraqutni authenticated his hadeeth saying, “Its chain is Hasan Saheeh”
[Sunan ad-Daaraqutni: H. 2233, 2374, 2380, ]

22-          Imaam al-Haakim authenticated his hadeeth to be on the conditions of al-Bukhaari
[Mustadrak al-Haakim: H. 210, 216…]

At another place, he graded one of his hadeeth saying, “All the narrators of this hadeeth are Thiqaat”
[H. 553]

23-          Imaam Bayhaqi said: “Ikrimah is from the Thiqah Thabat people according to the Majority of A’immah”
[As-Sunan al-Kubra lil Bayhaqi: 8/234]

24-          Imaam Ikrimah and Kuthayyir Azzah (the famous poet of Arabs) died on the same day, so the people of Madeenah said: “The biggest Faqeeh of people and the biggest poet of people died today”
[Al-Ma’rifah wal Taareekh: 2/6; Tabaqaat Ibn Sa’d: 5/292]

25-          Imam Dhahabi said: “He is Thiqah Thabat”
[Deewaan ad-Du’afa: 1/278]

26-          Haafidh Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani said: “He is Thiqah Thabat, the Scholar of Tafseer, the accusing of lying on him from Ibn Umar is not proven, nor is the Bid’ah (of any kind) is proven from him
[Taqreeb: 4673]

27- Infact the hadeeth of Ikrima were Narrated by: Al-Bukhaari – Muslim – Abu Dawood – Tirmidhi – Nasaa’ee – Ibn Maajah, which means Ikrima is narrator of Sihah Sittah.

28 – From “Juzz fihi zikri hal Ikrima mawla ibn Abbas” by  Hafidh Munziri.

Munziri said: “Bukhari relied upon his ahadeth in his saheeh, and narrated from him Abu Dawud Sijistane, Abu Isa at-Tirmizi, Abu Abdurrahman an-Nasai, Abu Abdullah ibn Majah al-Qazwini in their books. And his ahadeth were authenticated by Tirmizi”. (p 18, #6).

Bukhari said: “There is no one from our companions who wouldn’t rely on Ikrima” (p 18, #8). Abu Abdurrahman an-Nasai said he was thiqat. (p 18, #9) . When Ayub was asked about him, he said: “If he wouldn’t be thiqat in my view, I wouldn’t record from him”. (p 19, #10). Abdurrahman ibn Abu Hatim asked his father about him, and he said: “He’s thiqat”. I asked: “Would you rely on his ahadeth?” He said: “Yes, if he narrated from thiqat”.  (p 19, #11).  Marwazi said: “I asked Ahmad ibn Hanbal: “Would you rely on ahadeth of Ikrima?”  He said: “Yes, he’s to be relied on”. (p 19, #12).

Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Nasr Al-Marwazi said: “Majority of people of knowledge agreed upon, that ahadeth of Ikrima should be relied on. And agreed upon that leaders of ahlal hadith in our time, from them: Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ishaq ibn Rahaweyh, Abu Thawr, Yahya ibn Maeen. I asked Ishaq ibn Rahaweyh about relying upon ahadeth of Ikrima, he said: “Ikrima in my view is imam of world”, and he surprised from my question to him. And narrated to me more than one man, that when Yahya ibn Maeen was asked about relying upon ahadeth of Ikrima, he showed his astonishment (by such questions)”. (p 21, also see “Tahzib at-tahzib” 7/241)

Shabe said: “No one remained more knowledgeable in book of Allah, than Ikrima”. (p 22, #19).

Yahya ibn Ayub said: Ibn Jurayj said to me: He (Ikrima) came to you in Misr? I said: Yes. He asked: And you wrote from him (ahadeth)? I said: No. He said: 2/3 of knowledge left you. (p 22, #21).

Ali ibn Madene said: “Ikrima was from people of knowledge”. (p 23, #22).

Uthman ibn Hakim said: “Ikrima came to Umama ibn Sahl ibn Hunayf, and I was sitting near him. He asked: “O Abu Umama! Did you hear ibn Abbas saying: “Whatever Ikrima narrated to you from me, confirm him, because he wouldn’t lie upon me?” He answered: “Yes”. (p 23, #24, also see “Tahzib at-tahzib” 7/236).

Qatada said: “Most knowledgeable from people in halal and haram is Hasan, and most knowledgeable in rituals of haj Ata, and most knowledgeable in tafsir Ikrima”. (p 23, #25).

Jabir ibn Ziyad Abu Shatha said: “He is most knowledgeable of people”. (p 24, #26).

Salam ibn Miskin said: “Ikrima is most knowledgeable of people in tafsir”. (p 24).

Sufayn as-Sawri said: “Take tafsir from Ikrima, Saeed ibn Jubayr, Mujahid and Dahhak”.(p 25, #29).

 

“Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish.” (Quran 17:81)

Article by Ibn Ahmed al-hindi

8 thoughts on “Consensus among Ahlesunnah Scholars that Wives of Prophet(saw) are included in Ahlebayt mentioned in Ayat al-Tatheer (33:33)

  1. وأَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ: أَزوَاج النبيء صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، وَالْخِطَابُ مُوَجَّهٌ إِلَيْهِنَّ وَكَذَلِكَ مَا قَبْلَهُ وَمَا بَعْدَهُ لَا يُخَالِطُ أَحَدًا شَكٌّ فِي ذَلِكَ، وَلَمْ يَفْهَمْ مِنْهَا أَصْحَاب النبيء صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ والتابعون إِلَّا أَن أَزوَاج النبيء عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ هُنَّ الْمُرَادُ بِذَلِكَ وَأَنَّ النُّزُولَ فِي شَأْنِهِنَّ
    http://shamela.ws/browse.php/book-9776#page-7385
    The ‘Allamah al-tahir ibn ‘Ashur, in his al-Tahrir wa al-Tanwir wrote: The Ahl-al-Bait are the wives of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and the statement is addressed to them, may Allah be pleased with them. So none can doubt that…the companions and those who followed them did not understand from the verse except that the wives of the Prophet are the ones meant with that, may Allah be pleased with them. [Tafsir al-Tahrir wa al-Tanwir, Vol. 22, p. 15]

  2. The divine will referred to in the verse is His legislative will, which is different from His universal decree…Undoubtedly Allah removed ar-rijs from Fatimah, al- Hasan, al-Husayn, ‘Ali and the wives of the Prophet (may Allah be pleased with them all), but the divine will referred to in this verse is the legislative will. Hence it says in the hadith that when the Prophet(saws) wrapped them in the cloak, he said: “O Allah, these are the people of my household, remove from them ar-rijs.”

    The supplication of the Prophet(saws) settles the matter. If there was any indication in the verse of purification that purification of the
    people of the cloak had already taken place, the Messenger of Allah(saws) would not have covered them with the cloak and prayed for them by saying, “O Allah, these are the people of my household, remove from them ar-rijs.” 292 This is clear evidence that the verse was
    revealed concerning the wives of the Prophet(saws) the Messenger of Allah(saws) wanted the people of the cloak to be included in this divine revelation of purification, so he gathered them and covered them with the cloak and prayed for them, and Allah accepted his supplication for them 3 and purified them as He(swt) purified the wives of the Prophet, as indicated by the text of the verse. [Ali Ibn Abi Talib, vol 2, page 365-366, by Ali Muhammad Sallabi]

  3. Ibn Athaker reported it in “Tareeh madinatool dimashk” 69/150:
    أخبرنا أبو القاسم بن السمرقندي أنا أبو الحسين بن النقور أنا أبو طاهر المخلص نا عبد الله بن محمد بن زياد نا علي بن حرب نا زيد بن الحباب حدثني حسين بن واقد عن زيد النحوي عن عكرمة عن ابن عباس ” إنما يريد الله ليذهب عنكم الرجس أهل البيت قال نزلت في أزواج النبي ( صلى الله عليه وسلم ) خاصة

    Imam Qurtubi said after quoting Hadeeth Kisa
    قال القرطبي بعد أن ذكر الحديث :
    فهذه دعوة من النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لهم بعد نزول الآية أحب أن يدخلهم في الآية التي خوطب بها الأزواج فذهب الكلبي ومن وافقه فصيرها لهم خاصة وهي دعوة لهم خارجة من التنزيل
    (Tafseer Qurtubi, for verse 33:33)

    Imam Dhahabi States in Siyar alam al Nubala vol 2, page 208
    ومن فضل أمهات المؤمنين قوله تعالى : يا نساء النبي لستن كأحد من النساء إن اتقيتن إلى قوله : وأقمن الصلاة وآتين الزكاة وأطعن الله ورسوله إنما يريد الله ليذهب عنكم الرجس أهل البيت ويطهركم تطهيرا واذكرن ما يتلى في بيوتكن من آيات الله والحكمة فهذه آيات شريفة في زوجات نبينا صلى الله عليه وسلم .

    Abu Ishaq Zajjaj(d.311 AH)
    قوله تعالى : وأقمن الصلاة وآتين الزكاة وأطعن الله ورسوله أي فيما أمر ونهى إنما يريد الله ليذهب عنكم الرجس أهل البيت ويطهركم تطهيرا قال الزجاج : قيل يراد به نساء النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم .
    Imam Qurtubi: He states that it was Al Zajjaj’s opinion that the ones meant in these verses(incl. tatheer verse) were the wives of the Prophet peace be upon him.(Tafseer Qurtubi, for verse 33:33)

  4. Ibn Hajar states:

    واستدل به البيهقي على أن الأزواج من أهل البيت وأيده بقوله – تعالى – إنما يريد الله ليذهب عنكم الرجس أهل البيت .
    Al-Bayhaqi made an Istidlal that wives of Prophet(saws) are from Ahlelbayt and he supported this from the verse, “Allah only wishes to remove from you impurity, people of household” .(Fath al-Baari, vol 13, hadeeth#5999, Book of invocations).
    http://islamport.com/w/srh/Web/2747/6415.htm#

  5. a) Mahmud Shukri Alusi on Ibn Hajar Haytami
    Sayyed Mahmud Shukri al Alusi baghdadi said regarding him:
    فإن غالب كتب ابن حجر مشحونة بالكذب، والافتراء، وقول الزور، والآراء التي لم تستند إلى كتاب ولا سنة صحيحة، والدعوة إلى غير الله، ونحو ذلك من البدع والضلالات
    Many of the books written Ibn hajar are filled with lies, Slanders, .. False opinions which are against the Book and authentic Sunnah, call towards other then Allah, Innovations.. [Ghayat al Imani fe Radd al Nabhani 2/313]Ibn Hajar Haytami on Mawlid]

    b) Mulla Ali al Qari correcting the mistakes of Ibn Hajar Haytami.

    Mulla Ali al Qari said:
    قصة رحلة بلال ثم رجوعه إلى المدينة بعد رؤيته عليه الصلاة والسلام في المنام وأذانه بها وارتجاج المدينة لاأاصل لها وهي بينة الوضع وكأن ابن حجر المكي ما اطلع عليه وذكرها في كتابه الموضوع للزيارة
    The story of traveling of Bilal towards Madinah after he saw Prophet peace be upon him in dream. And saying Adhaan.. There is no base of this story and it is clear fabrication. Ibn Hajar Makki was not informed on it as He mentioned this athar in his book on Ziyarah. [Al Modhuaat al Sughraa by Mulla Ali Qari]

  6. Abu Hanifa’s praise for ‘Ikrimah Hadith scholar Abdullah b. Muhammad al-Ustadh al-Harithi al-Sabadhmuni (d. 340)[3] writes: ثنا أبو حمزة الأنصاري قال: سمعت عبد الله بن داود الخريبي يقول: قلت لأبي حنيفة: من أدركت من الكبراء؟ قال: القاسم وسالم وطاوس وعكرمة ومكحول وعبد الله بن دينار والحسن البصري وعمرو بن دينار وأبا الزبير وعطاء وقتادة وإبراهيم والشعبي ونافع وأمثالهم. Abu Hamza Al-Ansari reported that he heard Abdullah bin Dawud saying; I asked Abu Hanifa: “Who do you count among the great?” Abu Hanifa said, “Al-Qasim, Salim, Tawus, ‘Ikrimah, ‘Abdullah bin Dinar, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, ‘Amr bin Dinar, Abu Al-Zubair, ‘Ata’, Ibrahim, Sha’bi, Nafi’, and the likes of them.
    https://icraa.org/abu-hanifas-opinion-of-ikrimah/

    Response to Atabek Shukurov on ‘Ikrimah the Mawlā of Ibn ‘Abbās

    ‘Ikrimah Abū ‘Abdillāh (25 – 105 H), the slave of the great ṣaḥābī ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abbās (d. 68 H), was an accepted transmitter of the knowledge of his master. ‘Ikrimah was of African descent, and a man of great learning. Apart from his master Ibn ‘Abbās, he was a student of a number of prominent ṣaḥāba, including: Ibn ‘Umar, Ibn ‘Amr, ‘Ā’ishah, Abū Hurayrah and Jābir ibn ‘Abdillāh (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum). Like Ibn ‘Abbās, he is an authority in a number of fields: ḥadīth, maghāzī/sīrah (history), tafsīr and fiqh. He is regarded by some as the main inheritor of the knowledge of Ibn ‘Abbās. His narrations are found in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and the four famous Sunans.

    Atabek Shukurov, who we encountered earlier distorting and misrepresenting the Ḥanafī madhhab – which he has yet to reply to [1] –, has recently gone on a rampage attacking this immense personality of the salaf. Although later Ḥanafīs have unequivocally accepted ‘Ikrimah as an imām, Atabek clearly implies that the early Ḥanafīs rejected him, and that this is the authentic Ḥanafī position. According to Atabek, although early Ḥanafīs narrated from him and quoted narrations from him, there is no proof that they considered him reliable or regarded his narrations as proof. These claims are demonstrably false.

    We will demonstrate below that:

    1. The early Ḥanafīs accepted his transmissions as authentic. Four examples will be given from four different personalities from amongst the great early Ḥanafī imāms.

    2. Ironically, Atabek adopts a late Ḥanafī/Shāfi‘ī stance when it comes to the issue of an imām from the salaf narrating from a ḥadīth-transmitter:

    a) According to the early Ḥanafī scholars, if an imām from the salaf, e.g. Imām Abū Ḥanīfah, narrates from an individual, then this automatically entails that the imām believes him to be trustworthy, unless the imām explicitly clarifies that the individual he is narrating from is unreliable according to him.

    b) However, according to a later Ḥanafī view (and the view of many of the muḥaddithīn), it will only entail that the narrator is reliable according to the imām, if it is known from the imām’s normal practice to narrate only from those he believes to be reliable.

    Atabek adopts the latter view while discarding the principle of the early Ḥanafī school, although he castigates others for doing the same!

    3. There are double-standards in Atabek’s dismissal of a report from Abū Ḥanīfah that is not in his favour, as compared to his ready acceptance of a report from Abū Ḥanīfah that is in his favour. For the first, he uses the established apparatuses of critically testing a ḥadīth to rule it inauthentic and spurious. On the latter, however, he didn’t even bother to scrutinize it! We will show that while he rejects a quote from Abū Ḥanīfah primarily on the grounds that there is an unreliable informant in the chain, he quotes a narration of Abū Ḥanīfah to support his case that contains one, if not two, established liars in the chain!

    4. The following claim by Atabek is clearly untrue: ‘We know that he is “fine” according to later scholars who never met him, but the Salaf who actually met him do not consider him authentic at all’. This statement is also demonstrably false, as several of those who interacted with him including his greatest teacher and master, Ibn ‘Abbās, considered him reliable and trustworthy.

    We will demonstrate these four issues in turn, followed by a brief defence of ‘Ikrimah (raḥimahullāh) from the words of the salaf and the early scholars.

    The early Ḥanafīs Accepted his Transmissions as Authentic

    Imām Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shaybānī (132 – 189 H)

    Imām Muḥammad states in al-Aṣl:

    محمد قال: أخبرنا وكيع عن سفيان الثوري عن سماك بن حرب عن عكرمة أن أعرابياً شهد عند النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم – في رؤية الهلال، فقال: “تشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأني رسول الله؟ ” فقال: نعم، فأمر الناس فصاموا. فهذا مما يدلك على أن شهادة الواحد في الدين جائزة

    ‘Wakī‘ reported to us from Sufyān al-Thawrī from Simāk ibn Ḥarb from ‘Ikrimah that a Bedouin gave testimony to the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) of having seen the crescent moon. He said: ‘Do you bear testimony that there is no deity but Allāh and I am the Messenger of Allāh?’ He said: ‘Yes.’ So he instructed the people to fast. This is of that which proves to you that the testimony of one individual in religious affairs is valid.’ (al-Aṣl, Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 2:248)

    The ‘Ikrimah here is ‘Ikrimah the freed-slave of Ibn ‘Abbās, as clarified in other places of al-Aṣl itself. Hence, Imām Muḥammad quotes a narration from ‘Ikrima and presents it as proof. And it is well-known that when a mujtahid presents a ḥadīth as proof, this is tantamount to him grading it ṣaḥīḥ. (For evidences of this principle from the speech of Ibn al-Humām, Ibn Ḥajar, Ibn al-Jawzī and others, see Qawā‘id fī ‘Ulūm al-Ḥadīth, Maktab al-Maṭbū‘āt al-Islāmiyyah, p. 57 – 59)

    Imām Ṭaḥāwī (239 – 321 H)

    Al-Ṭaḥāwī quotes a narration with an authentic chain to ‘Ikrimah from Ibn ‘Abbās (without presenting any supporting chains), and then says: ‘Hence, this is Ibn ‘Abbās conveying that…’ (Sharḥ Ma‘ānī al-Āthār, 1:116-7), his positive assertion (jazm) of it showing that he believes it is authentic.

    [في جزم كل مجتهد بحديث دليل على صحته عنده]

    Imām Abū Bakr al-Jaṣṣāṣ (305 – 370 H)

    Imām Abū Bakr al-Jaṣṣāṣ quotes the same narration as Imām Muḥammad mentioned earlier, clearly presenting it as proof:

    والدليل على قبول خبر الواحد فيه: ما رواه سماك بن حرب عن عكرمة عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما قال: جاء أعرابي إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال: إني رأيت هلال شهر رمضان، فقال: أتشهد أن لا إله إلا الله؟ قال: نعم. قال: أتشهد أن محمدًا رسول الله؟ قال: نعم. قال: يا بلال! أذن في الناس أن صوموا غدًا”، فدل هذا الخبر على معنيين:

    ‘The proof of accepting Khabar al-Wāḥid in this is what Simāk ibn Ḥarb narrated from ‘Ikrimah from Ibn ‘Abbās (may Allāh be pleased with him): A Bedouin came to the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) and said: “I saw the crescent of Ramaḍān.” He said: “Do you bear testimony that there is no deity but Allāh.” He said: “Yes.” He said: “Do you bear testimony that Muḥammad is the messenger of Allāh?” He said: “Yes.” He said: “Bilāl, announce to the people to fast tomorrow.” This report proves two things…’ (Sharḥ Mukhtaṣar al-Ṭaḥāwī, 2:453)

    Imām al-Qudūrī (362 – 428 H)

    Imām al-Qudūrī states in his work al-Tajrīd:

    قال أبو أويس: وحدثني ثور بن يزيد مولى بني الديل بن بكر بن كنانة، عن عكرمة عن ابن عباس مثله، وهذا طريق صحيح، لكن أبا أويس ضعيف

    ‘Abū Uways said: Thawr ibn Yazīd…narrated to me from ‘Ikrimah from Ibn ‘Abbās the like of it. This [i.e. the chain that Abū Uways mentioned] is a ṣaḥīḥ route, although Abū Uways [himself] is weak.’ (Tajrīd, 3:1371)

    Besides the four imāms quoted above, there are other early Ḥanafī imāms who also presented his narrations as proof, like al-Sarakhsī and al-Mawṣilī. We will also see in the next section that based on the principles of the early Ḥanafī school, Imām Abū Ḥanīfah himself has accepted him to be reliable.

    According to the Early Ḥanafī School an Imām of the Salaf’s Transmission from a Narrator Amounts to Declaring Him Reliable Unless Stated Otherwise

    Abū Bakr al-Jaṣṣāṣ said in al-Fuṣūl fi l-Uṣūl:

    أما من تقدم ممن لم نشاهدهم فإن نقل العلماء عنهم من غير طعن منهم تعديل منهم

    ‘As for those we have not seen, the transmission of the scholars from them without criticism from them [of them] amounts to an accreditation from them [of them].’ (Quoted and referenced in Dirāsāt fī Uṣūl al-Ḥadīth ‘alā Manhaj al-Ḥanafiyyah, p. 159)

    Al-Jaṣṣaṣ quotes this position from the pioneer of Ḥanafi uṣūl al-ḥadīth, ‘Īsā ibn Abān (d. 221), a student of Imām Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shaybānī. (al-Fuṣūl fi l-Uṣūl, 3:134) It is also clear from al-Jaṣṣāṣ’s discussion that this principle is limited to the first three generations. (ibid. 3:136)

    Imām al-Qudūrī said in Tajrīd:

    رواية الأئمة تعديل

    ‘The transmission of the imāms [from an individual] amounts to accreditation [of him].’ (Quoted and referenced in Dirāsāt fī Uṣūl al-Ḥadīth ‘alā Manhaj al-Ḥanafiyyah, 159)

    He also said:

    قد روى أصحابنا عن الحجاج بن أرطاة، وهذا تعديل منهم

    ‘Our imāms [i.e. Abū Ḥanīfah and his students] narrated from Ḥajjāj ibn Arṭāt, which is an accreditation from them [of him].’ (ibid.)

    Qudūrī suffices on the mere transmission of our imāms from an individual to determine that the imāms consider him reliable.

    Note: This is despite the fact that Ḥajjāj ibn Arṭāt was criticised by others. In other words, Imām al-Qudūrī rejects the criticism of him on only the grounds that our imāms narrated from him! He mentions this explicitly elsewhere.

    Imām al-Dabūsī (d. 430) said in Taqwīm al-Adillah:

    رواية المشهور بالعدالة من غير رد عليه تعديل إياه

    ‘The transmission of one recognised for his integrity [from an individual] – without refuting him – amounts to accreditation of him.’ (Quoted and referenced in Dirāsāt fī Uṣūl al-Ḥadīth ‘alā Manhaj al-Ḥanafiyyah, 160)

    It is clear from some of the above quotes that if the imām reporting from an individual expressly rejects the narrations of that individual, that will be excluded from the above-mentioned principle. With respect to the fact that Abū Ḥanīfah narrated from Jābir al-Ju‘fī, despite Jābir being weak according to him, al-Kardarī (d. 827) says:

    ونقل الخبر الكذب إنما لا يصح بلا بيان أنه كذب لأن رواية العدل تعديل له، فيكون موهما، أما مع البيان فلا مانع منه

    ‘Quoting a false report is only unacceptable when it has not been explained that it is false, since the transmission of a reliable person is accreditation of (the one he transmitted from), so it will create suspicion. But when there is an explanation, there is no obstacle [to a reliable individual narrating from someone unreliable according to him].’ (Quoted and referenced in Dirāsāt fī Uṣūl al-Ḥadīth ‘alā Manhaj al-Ḥanafiyyah, p. 160)

    Some later Ḥanafī scholars adopted the view that it only amounts to accreditation if it is known from his normal practice that he narrates from those he believes to be reliable. But the view of the early Ḥanafī imāms, like ‘Īsā ibn Abān, al-Jaṣṣāṣ and Qudūrī, is what we have demonstrated above. Mawlānā Ẓafar ‘Uthmānī, who Atabek attacks for apparently not following the early Ḥanafī scholars on some points, states that according to him the first view – the view of the early Ḥanafī imāms – is stronger. (Qawā‘id fī ‘Ulūm al-Ḥadīth, p. 215) The irony here is that Atabek is the one following a later principle, while Mawlānā Ẓafar, who he lambasts for supposedly leaving the early Ḥanafī imāms, is following the early one! For a fuller treatment of this principle, see: Dirāsāt fī Uṣūl al-Ḥadīth ‘alā Manhaj al-Ḥanafiyyah (p. 159 – 161)

    Imām Abū Ḥanīfah heard directly from ‘Ikrimah and even went on to transmit ḥadīths from him. (Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, 29:419) Based on the principle of the early Ḥanafī imāms mentioned above, therefore, this amounts to Abū Ḥanīfah accrediting him and regarding him as reliable, as there is no report from Abū Ḥanīfah stating that he regarded him as weak (unlike Jābir al-Ju‘fī, who he clearly discredited).

    Hence, it seems Atabek will only follow the principles of the “early Ḥanafī imāms” when it suits him. But otherwise, if it doesn’t fit his agenda, he will discard them for an opposing view.

    Atabek’s Double Standards in Assessing Reports from Abū Ḥanīfah

    Regarding a particular report from Abū Ḥanīfah that he regarded ‘Ikrimah as being from the ‘seniors/great ones’ (kubarā’), Atabek rejected it primarily on account of a problematic narrator in its chain of transmission. But at the same time he quotes the following with full confidence:

    “Imam Abu Hanifa said; “Do not take knowledge from the scholars of Royal Palace. I do not say they lie, but they do not always tell the truth, how it really is.””

    And:

    “But, just to underline the dishonesty and poor level of Islamic knowledge on display, Abu Hanifa said; ”Take the knowledge from everyone except the following” and he listed the ones who are around the royals and rulers (as Ikrima most certainly was and as his erstwhile interlocutors accept). He said; ”But don’t take from the ones who are around the royals! I don’t say they lie, but they don’t say the truth as it is!””

    He did not give a source for this quote. (My guess is he got it from the footnotes to Qawā‘id fī ‘Ulūm al-Ḥadīth).

    The original source for this quote is al-Kifāyah fī ‘Ilm al-Riwāyah of al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī as follows:

    أخبرني أبو بشر محمد بن عمر الوكيل قال: ثنا عمر بن أحمد بن عثمان الواعظ: قال: ثنا محمد بن الحسن المقري قال: ثنا عبد الله بن محمود المروزي قال: ثنا أحمد بن مصعب قال: ثنا عمر بن إبراهيم قال: سمعت ابن المبارك يقول: سأل أبو عصمة أبا حنيفة: ممن تأمرني أن أسمع الآثار؟ قال: من كل عدل في هواه، إلا الشيعة، فإن أصل عقدهم تضليل أصحاب محمد صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم، ومن أتى السلطان طائعا، أما إني لا أقول إنهم يكذبونهم أو يأمرونهم بما لا ينبغي، ولكن وطأوا لهم حتى انقادت العامة بهم، فهذان لا ينبغي أن يكونا من أئمة المسلمين

    ‘Abū Bishr Muḥammad ibn ‘Umar al-Wakīl (350 – 438 H) reported to me, he said: ‘Umar ibn Aḥmad ibn ‘Uthmān al-Wā‘iẓ [Ibn Shāhīn] (297 – 385) narrated to us, he said: Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Muqri’ [al-Naqqāsh] (266 – 351) narrated to us, he said: ‘Abdullāh ibn Maḥmūd al-Marwazī (d. 311) narrated to us: Aḥmad ibn Muṣ‘ab narrated to us, he said: ‘Umar ibn Ibrāhīm (d. ca. 220 H) narrated to us, he said: I heard Ibn al-Mubārak say:

    ‘Abū ‘Iṣmah asked Abū Ḥanīfah: “From whom do you order me to listen to narrations?” He said: “From every moderate one in his deviation, besides the Shī‘ah, since the foundation of their doctrine is to regard the companions of Muḥammad (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) as misguided; as well as those who attend the ruler wilfully. Pay attention, I am not saying that they lie to them or command them what is not appropriate, but they pave the way for them so the masses are loyal to them. These two ought not be from the imāms of the Muslims.”’ (al-Kifāyah fī ‘Ilm al-Riwāyah, p. 126)

    First, one will notice the clear differences between the actual account and the “translation” of Atabek. Atabek’s translation (deliberately?) omits the unfavourable reference to Shī‘ah. Atabek’s translation is also inaccurate, as the actual report says: ‘I am not saying that they lie to them or command them what is not appropriate’ from which Atabek somehow got: ‘I do not say they lie, but they do not always tell the truth, how it really is’.

    But secondly, and more importantly, this narration is inauthentic. There are two highly problematic narrators in this chain:

    1. Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Muqri’ al-Naqqāsh (266 – 351). Ṭalḥa ibn Muḥammad al-Shāhid said: ‘He would lie in ḥadīth.’ (Lisān al-Mīzān, 7:78). Abū Bakr al-Barqānī said: ‘Every narration of Naqqāsh is rejected’ (ibid.); Khatib said: ‘In his narrations are absurdities despite the chains being famous’ (ibid. 7:79). Al-Dāraquṭnī regarded him as extremely weak (ibid.). Ibn al-Jawzī mentioned two ḥadīths which he believes al-Naqqāsh falsified (ibid.). Dhahabī said: ‘My heart is not satisfied with him; according to me he is suspect [i.e. of being a liar].’ (Siyar A‘lām al-Nubalā’, 15:576)

    2. ‘Umar ibn Ibrāhim ibn Khālid al-Kurdī (d. ca. 220). Al-Dāraquṭnī said: ‘A rotten, flagrant liar.’ (kadhdhāb khabīth). (Lisān al-Mīzān, 6:62) Al-Khaṭīb said: ‘He narrates absurdities from reliable narrators.’ (Lisān al-Mīzān, 6:62)

    These are the most serious issues with the chain. As one can see from the above, it can never be accepted according to the standards Atabek applies to the other narration. Yet he accepts this report and rejects the other. Is this anything but clear double standards (i.e. agenda-driven bias)?

    Was ‘Ikrimah Reliable According to those who Met Him?

    According to Atabek, ‘We know that he is “fine” according to later scholars who never met him, but the Salaf who actually met him do not consider him authentic at all’. In direct response to this, below, we will present a couple of reports which show that the Salaf who actually met him did consider him reliable.

    ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abbās

    Ibn Ḥajar quotes the following narration:

    Muḥammad ibn Fuḍayl said, reporting from ‘Uthmān ibn Ḥakīm: I was sitting with Abū Umāmah ibn Sahl ibn Ḥanīf (d. 100), when ‘Ikrimah came. He said: ‘Abū Umāmah, I remind you by Allāh, did you hear Ibn ‘Abbās say:

    ما حدثكم عني عكرمة فصدقوه، فإنه لم يكذب علي

    “Whatever ‘Ikrimah narrates to you from me, assent to him, for he does not lie about me.”’

    Abū Umāmah said: ‘Yes.’

    Ibn Ḥajar comments: ‘This is a ṣaḥīḥ chain.’ (Hady al-Sārī, p. 1142) [Primary sources for this narration are Tārīkh al-Dūrī and Ḍu‘afā’ of al-‘Uqaylī]

    [Abū Umāmah ibn Sahl (d. 100) was either a young ṣaḥābī or a senior Tābi‘ī born in the lifetime of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). He was a great imām whose narrations are found in the six famous collections of ḥadīths.]

    Atabek claims those who knew ‘Ikrimah personally rejected him, while he was accepted only by later individuals who did not interact with him directly. Who would know ‘Ikrimah better than his master, the scholar of this ummah, ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abbās? ‘Ikrimah was under the care and guidance of ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abbās for several decades. ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abbās advises us to believe whatever ‘Ikrimah reported from him, so who should we follow: Atabek who tells us to reject ‘Ikrimah’s reports, or Ibn ‘Abbās (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhumā) who tells us to accept them?

    Ayyūb al-Sakhtiyānī

    Ibn Abī Khaythama (d. 279) narrates with an authentic chain that Ayyūb al-Sakhtiyānī (68 – 131 H) was asked about ‘Ikrimah and he said:

    لو لم يكن عندي ثقة لم أكتب عنه

    ‘Had he not been trustworthy according to me, I would not have written from him.’ (Tārīkh Ibn Abī Khaythamah, 2382; Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, 20:275)

    Ayyūb al-Sakhtiyānī was one of the great imāms of the salaf from the Tābi‘īn, someone who interacted with ‘Ikrimah directly, and studied under him.

    ‘Aṭā’ ibn Abī Rabāḥ and Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr

    Ibn Sa‘d narrates with an authentic chain to Ḥabīb ibn Abī Thābit (d. 119), a reliable narrator from the students of several ṣaḥābah:

    ‘‘Ikrimah passed by ‘Aṭā’ (ibn Abī Rabāḥ) and Sa‘īd (ibn Jubayr), and narrated to them. When he got up (and left), I said to the two of them: “Do you disapprove of anything that he narrates?” They both said: “No.”’ (Ṭabaqāt Ibn Sa‘d, Maktabah al-Khānjī, 7:284)

    This is an authentic testimony from two of the greatest of Ibn ‘Abbās’s students that ‘Ikrimah’s narrations are unproblematic.

    More statements from the salaf and early scholars on ‘Ikrimah’s knowledge and greatness will be quoted in the next section.

    Brief Defence of ‘Ikrimah

    With regards to the attacks on ‘Ikrimah, a detailed defence was written by Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī in his introduction to Fatḥ al-Bārī. He says: Those who weakened ‘Ikrimah did so on account of one of three reasons: being untruthful, being from the Khārijī sect and accepting money from the government. (Hady al-Sārī, Dār Ṭaybah, p. 1136-1145) Ibn Ḥajar shows that the first allegation is not accurate, the second allegation is not proven, while the third is true but does not detract from a person’s reliability. Other accepted ḥadīth masters, like Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī, would also take money from the government. (Hady al-Sārī, p. 1141)

    Ibn Ḥajar shows that some of the critical statements are inauthentic, while some are interpreted in a positive way. For instance, Atabek claims that ‘Alī, the son of Ibn ‘Abbās, accused ‘Ikrimah of being untruthful, but this is reported through an unreliable narrator, Yazīd ibn Abī Ziyād (as pointed out by Ibn Ḥibbān), and is thus rejected. (Hady al-Sārī, p. 1140)

    Below, some statements from the salaf & early scholars will be presented to show the excellence and reliability of ‘Ikrimah – which, as demonstrated above, the early Ḥanafī imāms have generally accepted.

    Al-Bukhārī narrates:

    Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah reported from ‘Amr ibn Dīnār from Abu l-Sha‘tā’ Jābir ibn Zayd (d. 93), all three of them accepted imāms of the salaf, that the latter handed a parchment to ‘Amr ibn Dīnār containing some questions, saying: ‘Go ask ‘Ikrimah.’ ‘Amr ibn Dīnār appeared somewhat hesitant, so Jābir ibn Zayd snatched the parchment from his hand and said:

    هذا عكرمة مولى ابن عباس، هذا أعلم الناس

    ‘This is ‘Ikrimah, the freed-slave of Ibn ‘Abbās. This is the most knowledgeable of people.’ (al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr, 7:49)

    The same is narrated by Ibn Sa‘d from Ismā‘īl ibn ‘Ulayyah, his teacher, from Ayyūb al-Sakhtiyānī (68 – 131 H) from ‘Amr ibn Dīnār, but with the words: ‘This is ‘Ikrimah, the freed-slave of Ibn ‘Abbās. This is an ocean, so ask him.’ (Ṭabaqāt Ibn Sa‘d, Maktabah al-Khānjī, 7:284) These are authentic chains.

    This is a recognition from one of the prominent students of Ibn ‘Abbās, Jābir ibn Zayd, that ‘Ikrimah is the most knowledgeable of people.

    Al-Mizzī reports in Tahdhīb al-Kamāl that ‘Āmir al-Sha‘bī (d. 104), the great Kūfan imām from the Tābi‘īn, said:

    ما بقي أحد أعلم بكتاب الله من عكرمة

    ‘No one remains who is more knowledgeable of the Book of Allāh than ‘Ikrimah.’ (Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, 20:272)

    Sallām ibn Miskīn (d. 167) according to a report with an authentic chain said:

    كان عكرمة من أعلم الناس بالتفسير

    ‘‘Ikrimah was from the most knowledgeable of people in Tafsīr.’ (Ṭabaqāt Ibn Sa‘d, Maktabah al-Khānjī, 7:283)

    Ibn ‘Adī narrates with an acceptable chain to Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah that he said:

    كان عكرمة إذا تكلم فى المغازي فسمعه إنسان قال: كأنه مشرف عليهم يراهم

    ‘When ‘Ikrimah would talk about history, and a man heard him, he would say [to himself]: It’s like he is overlooking them, watching them.’ (al-Kāmil, Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 6:472)

    Ibn Ḥajar reports: Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr was asked: ‘Do you know anyone more knowledgeable than you?’ He said: ‘Yes, ‘Ikrimah.’ (Hady al-Sārī, p. 1143)

    Qatādah ibn Di‘āmah (60 – 118 H) said:

    كان عكرمة أعلمهم بسيرة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم

    ‘‘Ikrimah was the most learned of (the Tābi‘īn) about the Sīrah of the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace).’ (Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, 20:272)

    Muḥammad ibn Naṣr al-Marwazī (202 – 294 H) said:

    أجمع عامة أهل العلم على الاحتجاج بحديث عكرمة، واتفق على ذلك رؤساء أهل العلم بالحديث من أهل عصرنا منهم: أحمد بن حنبل وإسحاق بن راهويه وأبو ثور ويحيى بن معين، ولقد سألت إسحاق عن الاحتجاج بحديثه فقال: عكرمة عندنا إمام أهل الدنيا وتعجب من سؤالي إياه

    ‘The generality of the specialists of knowledge have reached consensus on accepting the ḥadīth of ‘Ikrimah as proof. The leaders of the specialists of knowledge in ḥadīth from the people of our time have agreed on this. Amongst them are Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Isḥāq ibn Rāhwayh, Abū Thawr and Yaḥyā ibn Ma‘īn. I asked Isḥāq about accepting his ḥadīth as proof. He said: “‘Ikrimah for us is the imām of the people of the Dunyā”, and he was astonished by my asking him (such)!’ (Hady al-Sārī, p. 1144)

    Aḥmad ibn ‘Abdillāh al-‘Ijlī (d. 261) said:

    عكرمة مولى ابن عباس: ثقة، وهو بريئ مما يرميه الناس من الحرورية، وهو تابعي

    ‘‘Ikrimah, the freed-slave of Ibn ‘Abbās: Trustworthy. He is innocent of what people accuse him of, of being from the Khārijites. He is a Tābi‘ī.’ (Tārīkh al-Thiqāt, Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, p. 339)

    Ibn Ḥajar also said: ‘His being an innovator is not (historically) proven.’ (Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb)

    Because Atabek admits in one place that ‘Yahya bin Ma’een is classed as a top expert of Rijaal’, we can also read what Yaḥyā ibn Ma‘īn said about ‘Ikrimah. Yaḥyā ibn Ma‘īn was asked who according to him is superior in terms of his narrations from Ibn ‘Abbās: Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr or ‘Ikrimah? His reply was: ‘Both are trustworthy’ (ثقة وثقة), and gave no preference. (Tarīkh ‘Uthmān ibn Sa‘īd al-Dārimī, p. 117)

    There are many more statements one can find in the detailed biographies of ‘Ikrimah in his praise. The fact that the ummah – including the early Ḥanafīs – have accepted his riwāyāt should be enough reason for us to seek the good about him, and hold a good opinion of him. When one’s judgements are agenda-driven, however, it doesn’t matter what the majority of the ummah said or did. The only thing that matters is whether they agree with his agenda, in which case he will take what he agrees with, or if they disagree, in which case he will gather whatever scraps he can find to serve his agenda. This is the case even when they oppose the very principles he has been pushing so aggressively.

    From this reply, and the earlier reply [1] to Atabek, it should be quite clear who it is that is distorting the authentic positions of the school of Abū Ḥanīfah for his own agenda-driven purposes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s