Why do Ahlesunnah reject some traditions which appear to be virtues of Ahlebayt?


Why do Ahlesunnah reject some traditions which appear to be virtues of Ahlebayt?

This misconception is widely propagated by the shia-of-dajjal that  Ahlesunnah reject traditions which appear to be virtues of Ahlebayt because they posses hatred for Ahlebayt in their hearts and are Nasibis, because of which they reject those traditions. So innocent people who don’t have much knowledge about these issues fell into the traps of shian e dajjal and they start thinking that there is some truth in this claim of the shian e dajjal. So in this article we will clear before you the actual reasons that why Ahlesunnah reject some traditions which appear to be virtues of Ahlebayt, So that people can easily distinguish between truth and falsehood.

Firstly, the fact is that we Ahlesunnah only reject those traditions which are  very weak or fabricated and cannot be attributed to Prophet(Saw), since everything that glitters and appears to be Gold is not always Gold.  As for Ahlesunnah denying traditions speaking of virtues of Ahlebayt, then know that the authentic virtues reported about Ahlebayt (May Allah be pleased with them) are many, yet many people(shian e dajjal) did not think that they were sufficient so they fabricated many traditions for them(specially for Ali(ra)), just as other groups fabricated traditions in regards to other companions (May Allah be pleased with them all).

We seek refuge in Allah from denying anything “authentic” about anyone stated by the Messenger of Allah, but rather we deny those “fabricated” and “weak” traditions out of our love for the Messenger of Allah (Salah Allah ‘Alaihi wa Salam), We deny those fabricated traditions out of our love for the Message he brought us, and out of our care not to attribute to him that which he(saw) did not say. For it was reported by Imam Al Bukhari(rah) that the Messenger of Allah [Salah Allah ‘Alaihi wa Salam] said:”Whoever tells lies about me deliberately, let him take his place in Hell”. We seek refuge in Allah from being from among those.


Ahlesunnah affirms many authentic traditions about virtues of Ahlebayt(ra)

This is an established fact in the sight of people of Knowledge. We even have an article which contains many authentic narrations which talks about the virtues of Ahlebayt(namely Ali(ra)) and After reading those virtues which we affirm for Ahlebayt. No sane and honest person could dare to accuse Ahlesunnah for hating Ahlebayt. If they do so then they are lying to their ownselves.

Here is the article which contain many narrations regarding virtues of Ahlebayt.

[Merits of Prophetic Ahlebayt]


Why should true lovers of Ahlebayt be more cautious while determining and accepting the traditions about virtues of Ahlebayt?

The reason is that, the innovators and the exaggerators who claimed to be followers of Ahlebayt, exceeded every limit while fabricating narrations for virtues of Ahlebayt.

1. Hafidh shaykh-ul islam ibn Hajar said:
واما الفضايل فلا تحصى كم وضع الرافضة في فضل اهل البيت

As for narrations about /fadail/, it’s impossible to count how many of them were fabricated by rawafidh about ahlel-bayt“. Source: “Lisanul mizan” 1/13.

2. Al-Hafidh Abu Yala al-Khaleele said: Rawafidh fabricated 300 000 narrations about Ale and ahlel-bayt“. Source: ibn Qayum “Al manar wa munif fi saheeh wa dhaif” p 292, Darul “Karincha”.

3. In his ‘Tadreeb ar-Raawi’ (vol. 1, #239), As-Suyooti writes:

وكان غلاماً جليلاً يتزهد ويهجر شهوات الدنيا ، وغلقت أسواق بغداد لموته ومع ذلك كان يضع الحديث . وقيل له عند موته : حسن ظنك ؟ قال : كيف لا وقد وضعت في فضل عليّ سبعين حديثاً

“Ghulaam Khaleel used to be an ascetic and shun worldly pleasures, and (upon his death) the marketplaces of Baghdad closed for his funeral (because he was so popular with the people due to his religious piety). However (even like this), he used to fabricate hadeeth and upon his deathbed, he was asked to think good throughts. He said: “(How can I when) I have invented 70 hadeeth about the virtues of ‘Ali!”

Thus true lovers of Ahlebayt should always keep in mind these facts while determining and accepting the narrations about virtues of Ahlebayt, So that they might not end up attributing a fabricated narration to Prophet(saw). And Ahlesunnah shows similar attitude towards narrations about virtues of Sahaba. But we will find more fabrications by the shian e dajjal regarding virtues of Ahlebayt compared to fabrications by other deviants regarding virtues of Sahaba.

 

Ahlesunnah maintain the same attitude with the traditions about virtues of Sahaba

Shian e dajjal may propagate as much false allegations and lies against Ahlesunnah they want, but the fact is that we don’t behave in biased manner when accepting traditions about virtues of even Sahaba(companions) of Prophet(saw). Here are few examples:

Example 1:

Reported by Tirmizi:
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو سَعِيدٍ الأَشَجُّ، حَدَّثَنَا تَلِيدُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ، عَنْ أَبِي الْجَحَّافِ، عَنْ عَطِيَّةَ، عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ الْخُدْرِيِّ، قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏”‏ مَا مِنْ نَبِيٍّ إِلاَّ لَهُ وَزِيرَانِ مِنْ أَهْلِ السَّمَاءِ وَوَزِيرَانِ مِنْ أَهْلِ الأَرْضِ فَأَمَّا وَزِيرَاىَ مِنْ أَهْلِ السَّمَاءِ فَجِبْرِيلُ وَمِيكَائِيلُ وَأَمَّا وَزِيرَاىَ مِنْ أَهْلِ الأَرْضِ فَأَبُو بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرُ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ غَرِيبٌ ‏.‏ وَأَبُو الْجَحَّافِ اسْمُهُ دَاوُدُ بْنُ أَبِي عَوْفٍ ‏.‏ وَيُرْوَى عَنْ سُفْيَانَ الثَّوْرِيِّ ‏.‏ حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو الْجَحَّافِ وَكَانَ مَرْضِيًّا وَتَلِيدُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ يُكْنَى أَبَا إِدْرِيسَ وَهُوَ شِيعِيٌّ ‏

Abu saeed Al khudry reports that the prophet(Saw) said: No prophet was sent except that he had two ministers from the heaven and two on earth. As for my minister from heaven , they are jibreel and Mikaa eel. And as for my ministers on earth, they are Abubakar and umar.( reported by At tirmidhi)

Now this narrations shows the virtues of Abubakar(ra) and Umar(ra), yet we consider this narration weak because Chain is extremely weak. Narrator Atiya Awfe  is matrook. Narrator Taled ibn Sulayman weak.

Verdict: In comments on Sunnan, sheikh Albani said it’s weak.

Example 2:

My Companions are like the stars: whichever of them you follow, you will be rightly-guided.” Related by Ibn `Abdul-Barr in Jaami` Bayaan al-`Ilm [2/91] & Ibn Hazm in al-Ihkaam [6/82]

This narration shows merits of Sahaba, yet it was considered weak.

Verdict: Imam Ahmad(rah) said, “This hadeeth is not authentic”, as quoted in al-Muntakhab [10/199/2] of Ibn Qudaamah.

Example 3:

أخبرنا : أبو القاسم بن السمرقندي ، أنا : أبو القاسم إسماعيل بن مسعدة ، أنا : حمزة بن يوسف ، أنا : عبد الله بن عدي ، أنا : أبو خولة ميمون بن مسلمة ، نا : عبد الله بن محمد الأذرمي ، نا : وهب بن وهب ، عن محمد بن أبي حميد الأنصاري ، عن إبن شهاب ، عن سعيد بن المسيب ، عن أبي بن كعب قال : قال رسول الله (ص) : أول من يسلم عليه الحق يوم القيامة ، وأول من يصافحه الحق ، وأول من يحط له في الجنة بعمله عمر (ر).
“Al-Hakim Al-Nisaburi (in his book AI-Mustadrak, part 3, page 84), reported that Ubayy Ibn Ka’b said the following:”I heard the Messenger of God saying: The first one the Almighty will embrace on the Day of Judgement is ‘Umar. The first one the Lord will shake hands with will be ‘Umar, and the first one the Almighty takes by His hand and admits to paradise is ‘Umar.”

Verdict: Al-Thahabi states that this hadith contains narrator Wahb bin Wahb who was a liar. Thus this narration is fabrication.

Example 4:

أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو غَالِبِ بْنُ الْبَنَّا ، أنا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ النَّرِسِيِّ ، نا أَبُو بَكْرٍ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ الْوَرَّاقُ ، نا عَلِيُّ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَحْمَدَ الْمِصْرِيُّ ، نا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى بْنِ خَالِدِ بْنِ حَمَّادِ بْنِ الْمُبَارَكِ ، نا حَمَّادُ بْنُ الْمُبَارَكِ ، نا صَالِحُ بْنُ عُمَرَ الْقُرَشِيُّ ، نا عُمَرُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ بْنِ خَالِدٍ ، عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي ذِئْبٍ ، عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي لَبِيبَةَ ، عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكِ ، قَالَ : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : حُبُّ أَبِي بَكْرٍ ، وَشُكْرُهُ وَاجِبٌ عَلَى أُمَّتِي
Tarikh Madina wa Dimishq

The love of Abu Bakr and thankfulness to him is wajib(obligatory) on my ummah.

Verdict: Dhahabi said it’s extremely rejected. Mizan 3/180

There are many of such examples where narrations which appeared to be regarding virtues of Sahaba(ra) were weakened by scholars of Ahlesunnah. Thus it should not leave any doubt in the mind of readers that we Ahlesunnah remain “just and unbiased” when analyzing and accepting traditions be it for Ahlebayt or Sahaba.

Now since we know that shian e dajjal accused Ahlesunnah of being Nasibis just because they weakened some pro-Ahlebayt narrations, So now we want to know their verdict on Ahlesunnah for weaking many narration about virtues of Sahaba. Do they consider Ahesunnah rafidis for denying those narrations? If no, then similar is the case why we deny the weak and fabricated narrations regarding the virtues of Ahlebayt. We expect to get a double standard answer on this.

 

Why did Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal say, “No one  among the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (saw) had more virtues than Ali ibn Abi Talib” ?. 

The statement of Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal(rah) basically means that there were many virtues recorded/narrated regarding Ali ibn Abi talib(RA) in comparison to other companions of Prophet Muhammad(SAW), but this statement isn’t to be misunderstood to mean that Ali(RA) was the most virtues of companions; as it is known from Mutawattir reports from Ali(RA) that the best people after Prophet Muhammad(SAW) were Abu Bakr(RA) and Umar(RA).

So now the the real question is WHY do the books contain more ‘authentic’ merits for `Ali(RA)?

Fabricated virtues of `Ali:

Why we concentrate on ‘authentic’ is because the majority of the fabricated merits of `Ali were pretty much all made up quite a while later, in the time of Banu al-`Abbas when the Rafidah finally emerged to the surface. While the Koufans(people of Kufa) spoke of both correct and false virtues for `Ali, yet these texts wouldn’t be circulated as much due to the composition of society at the time, mainly Banu Umayyah who were in full control and other parts of the lands that were run by the Khawarij who also cursed `Ali.

According to some of our scholars at the time, the Shia fabricated more than 300,000 narrations in his virtue and these texts began to spread in the time of banu al-`Abbas. The Qummies continued what the Koufans started at this point.

Authentic virtues of `Ali:

The main reason was that the government policy at the time of Banu Umayyah was aimed at lowering the status of `Ali (for political purposes), their governors would harshly criticize `Ali and verbally abuse him on the pulpits, a lot of greedy people who wanted to win the favor of the government would participate. Secondly, we had the Khawarij who also controlled some of the lands and wouldn’t narrate the man’s virtues instead they would curse him (for religious reasons).

Anyone who reviews the condition of the scholars of Ahlul-Sunnah at the time realizes that they placed a huge emphasis on propagating `Ali’s virtues to counter the government propaganda. There was no real fear for Abu Bakr and `Umar due to the fact that they were loved and revered by the vast majority of Muslims, the government saw them in a positive light and the Khawarij as well. As for `Uthman, there was also no fear for him due to the fact that his family controlled the government and so he was often honored even though the Khawarij cursed him. The Khawarij in principal were god-fearing people, they would never fabricate reports and they saw lying as being equal to Kufr as opposed to Rawafid, therefore they never really did any real damage to `Uthman’s character nor would the government allow their ideas to spread.

The virtues of the first three Caliphs:

When the time of bani Umayyah had passed and when banu al-`Abbas came into power the nation witnessed the rise of certain Shia factions, many of them loved Abu Bakr and `Umar although they preferred `Ali, but some of these groups were extremist Rawafid. At that time, the scholars of Ahlul-Sunnah had to propagate whatever popular virtues were known about the first three Caliphs. However, at that point in time the people who had accompanied the Prophet(saw) and accompanied his companions were all dead, so the scholars of Ahlul-Sunnah (since they don’t accept lying as a means to promote their beliefs) were only limited to a smaller amount of virtues for Abu Bakr, `Umar and `Uthman.

It is interesting to note that: The rank and status of the first three was preserved based on the fact that their love was Mutawatir among Muslims, the belief that Abu Bakr and `Umar were the greatest Muslims after the Prophet(saw) was mass transmitted and common knowledge to the average layman (until this day) without the need of any texts (Although texts do exist).

 

Refutation of the accusation on scholars of Ahlesunnah by Shian e dajjal for being pro-banu ummayah

Scholars of Ahlesunnah are often attacked by shian e dajjal because they are/were seen to be puppets of Bani Ummayah. This is an weak and baseless accusation since the vast majority of scholars who grade hadiths didn’t even live during the time of the Ummayads. In any case, this section will revolve more around the efforts of the scholars of Ahlul Sunnah when it comes to their reliability in authenticating and weakening hadiths. Were they really as biased as Shias believe them to be? Would they bend over backwards to fulfill their “nasibi” tendencies?

As we are all aware, the hadith scholars of Ahlul Sunnah have become somewhat notorious in the sight of shian e dajjal due to their weakening of hadiths that are pro-Ahlul Bayt. However, does this imply that they are pro-Bani Ummayah? We are all aware that there are many pro-Ahlul Bayt hadiths out there that have been authenticated by scholars of Ahlesunnah for example Hadith Al-Manzila, Al-Kisa, etc.

Anyways let us shatter this false accusation and propaganda of shian e dajjal by quoting before you decent amount of pro-Mu’awiyah(ra) hadiths, along with their hadith level from the scholars of Ahlesunnah. This will Inshallah leave no doubt in the mind and heart of honest and unbiased truthseekers regarding the fairness of Scholars of Ahlesunnah.

1) The hadith of Anas bin Malik that the Prophet said, “Oh Mu’awiyah, this is a pen given to you by your Lord.” This hadith has been called a fabrication by Ibnul Jawzi in his Mawdoo’aat 2/250, Al-Thahabi in Al-Siyar 3/129, and Al-Shawkaani in Al-Fawa’id Al-Majmoo’a #403.

2) The hadith of Abdullah bin Omar that the Prophet said that Mu’awiyah will receive ajir every time someone reads Ayatul Kursi because he wrote it. This hadith has been called a fabrication by Ibnul Jawzi in his Mawdoo’aat 2/251.

3) The hadith of Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari that the Prophet said after Mu’awiya wrote down Ayatul Kursi, “May Allah forgive your sins up until the day of judgement O’ Mua’wiyah.” Weakened by Al-Thahabi in Siyar A’alam Al-Nubalaa’ 3/129.

4) The hadith of the Prophet , “Those that are trustworthy are three, me, Jibreel, and Mu’awiyah.” This has been called a fabrication by Al-Nasa’ee, Ibn Hibban in Al-Majrooheen 1/160, Ibn Adi in Al-Kamil 1/315, Al-Khateeb Al-Baghdaadi in Tareekh Baghdad 8/12, Ibnul Jawzi in his Mawdoo’aat 2/253, Al-Thahabi in Al-Siyar and Mizan Al-I’itidal 3/130 – 1/126+503, Ibn Katheer in Al-Bidaya 8/123, and Ibn Hajar in Al-Lisan 1/568.

5) The hadith of Abdullah bin Bisr that the Prophet said, “Mu’awiyah is strong and trustworthy.” This hadith is mursal according to Ibn Abi Hatim in his Ilal 4/46.

6) The hadith of Jabir bin Abdullah, Ali bin Abi Talib, and Ibn Abbas that Jibreel came to the Prophet and told him to let Mu’awiya write because he is trustworthy. A fabrication according to Ibnul Jawzi in his Mawdoo’aat 2/252+254, and weak according to Ibn Adi in Al-Kamil 2/99, Al-Thahabi in Al-Mizan 3/630, Al-Zayla’ee in Takhreej Al-Kashaf 1/445, Ibn Katheer in Al-Bidaya 8/123, Al-Haythami in Majma’a Al-Zawa’id 9/360, Al-Suyuti in Al-La’ali’I Al-Manoo’a 1/419, and Al-Shawkaani in Al-Fawai’d # 404.

7) The hadith of Anas and Abu Huraira that the Prophet gave Mu’awiyah an arrow and said to him, “Take this arrow until we meet in heaven.” Weak and fabricated by Ibnul Jawzi in Al-Mawdoo’at 2/258, Ibn Adi in Al-Kamil 8/375, Al-Thahabi in Al-Siyar and Al-Mizan 3/130 – 3/332, Ibn Hajar in Al-Lisan 6/297 + 8/377, Al-Shawkaani in Al-Fawa’id #405, and Al-Ma’alami in Al-Anwar Al-Kashifa #209.

8. The hadith of Huthaifa bin Al-Yaman in which the Prophet says, “Mu’awiya will appear in cloak of light. Fabrication by Ibn Hibban, Ibn Al-Qaysaraani, and Al-Thahabi.

9) The hadith of Anas in which the Prophet says that he meets his companions in heaven with the exception of Mu’awiya who he meets after seventy to eighty years. Then Mu’awiya says that he was in a garden under the throne of Allah. A fabrication according to Ibnul Jawzi, Al-Thahabi, Ibn Adi, Al-Khateeb Al-Baghdaadi, Ibn Asaakir, and Al-Shawkani.

10) The hadith of Uthman bin Affan that the Prophet said, “Congratulations O’ Mu’awiyah, you have become trustworthy of the news from the heavens.Fabrication according to Al-Thahabi in Al-Siyar.

11) The hadith of Al-Shadad bin Aws that the Prophet said, “Mua’wiyah is the most generous from my ummah. A fabrication according to Ibn Asakir, Ibnul Jawzi, and Ibn Hajar.

12) The hadith of Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudari that the Prophet said, “Mu’awiyah rises from the grave on the day of judgement wearing a cloak from sundus…” A fabrication according to Al-Thahabi in Al-Siyar. 3/130

13) The hadith of Abdullah bin Omar that the Prophet said, “A man will appear from this door and he will be one of the people of paradise,” then Mu’awiya entered. A fabrication according to Ibn Adi, Al-Thahabi, and Ibn Hajar.

—————————–

In conclusion, yes, a lot of Nasibi fabricators out there, and a lot of fabrications have been attributed to Mu’awiyah(ra). We also need to point out that one can also find false hadiths in praise of the Abubakar(ra), Umar(ra) and Uthman (ra). However, the hadith scholars of Ahlul Sunnah made sure that nothing that is falsely attributed to the Prophet can go through, even if it is in praise of one of his companions that they admire.


Where the likes of Sahih Bukhari and Muslim influenced and distorted by Banu Abbas and Banu Ummayah?

This claim is nothing new and has been propagated by shian of dajjal  for centuries in order to spell doubts and confusions, and it has been refuted a long time back. First and most Important there are plenty of external and internal evidences which prove the opposite of the above shiite claims. Our classical works prepared during that era contain narrations/ahadeeth that go against the doctrines and methodology of the ruling authorities of that time period. For example The Banu Abbasid Caliphs adopted the Mutazillite doctrine and severly persecuted those who believed or promoted any opposing ideas/faiths. Yet ironically we find that in the likes of Sahih Bukhari and Muslim[ works that were prepared at the same time] narrations/ahadeeth that speak of “seeing Allah in Paradise” which goes totally against the official Mutazillite Aqeedah

If Banu Abbas influenced the works of Bukhari, Muslim etc. then how come one finds reports/ahadeeth in those sources that go against the offical belief system and doctrines?Also we find in the same works as well in the other sihaahs, sunans, musnafs, musnads etc. plenty of narrations that speak in praise and highly of Ali[ra] and his family and transmit traditions of fiqh, aqeedah, tazkiyatunufus etc. from them. Since , according to the Shiites, the Banu Abbas and Banu Ummayah were enemies of the Ahlul bayt and Alawites and persecuted them severly, then how come one finds in our classical works, narrations of praise and virtue about the Ahlul bayt and their transmitted traditions/opinions , if indeed those classical works were influenced by the likes of Banu Abbas and Banu Ummayah caliphs?

Also keep in mind that amongst the teachers of Imam Bukhari , and amongst the prominent figures from whom he has narrated hadeeth in his Sahih, was a Yemenite scholar Abdurrazzaq as Sinani who was a staunch partisan of Ali ibn Abi Talib and a staunch opponent of Banu Ummayah. Another prominent source from which Bukhari, Muslim, Ibnu Majah etc. report narrations from in their respective works, is “Sufiyan at Thawri” who was also a staunch admirer of Ali in so much that he regarded him to be higher in rank than Uthman ibn Affan. This Sufiyan was severly persecuted by the Abbasid Caliph Abu Jaffar al Mansour in so much that he went into hidding and eventually ended up in Makkah. When Caliph al Mansur learnt about at Thawri’s presence in Makkah he set off in order to arrest and torture him. at Thawri prayed by the holy Haram in order to be spared from al Mansur. His prayers were answered and Caliph al Mansur died at the perimeters of Makkah before entering the city.

One of the most profilic reporter of Hadith from amongst the Madinians in our Sihaahs, Musnads, Sunans etc. is Ibnu Shihab az Zuhri. This Ibnu Shihab az Zuhri is well known for the defense of Ali ibn Abi Talib in the court of the Ummayad Caliph AbdulMalik ibnu Marwan ibn al Hakam when he and the other banu ummayah in his court mocked and disrespected Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib.(Refer Sunnah wal Makanatuha fi Tashriy al-Islami” p 283, abriged)

Another prominent source in our classical works is al Hasan al Basri, who too is well known for his love and partisanship for Ali ibn Abi Talib. If indeed the reports found in our sihahs etc, were influenced by Banu Ummayah then how come we find “Abdullah ibn az Zubayr” to be one of the prominent figures who transmitted traditions and opinions? And we all know who Abdullah ibn az Zubayr is. He was the same figure who opposed the caliphate of Yazid ibn Muawiyah, rebelled against him in Makkah, continued opposition against Banu Ummayah till he was martyred by Hujjaj ibn Yusuf, the commander of the Ummayad caliph Abdul Malik ibn Marwan.

Keep in mind that our compilers and transmitters of hadith faced severe persecution from the likes of Banu Abbas and others for upholding the truth and promoting it. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal author of his famous “Musnad” and high ranking scholar of the Sunni Hanbali school of jurisprudence was beaten, tortured and imprisoned by the Abbasid Caliph al Mutasim billah just because he did not accept the official Mutazillite doctrine and spoke against it. Yet despite of all hardship he remained as staunch on the truth as always. So in noway one can assume that Imam Ahmad in person or the works he prepared beared hallmarks of Abbasid influence since as we have shown earlier that he remained staunch on the truth and promoted it even if it went against the official doctrines/restrictions. Imams Bukhari and Muslim were pupils of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Imam Abu Dawud prepared his Sunan under his supervision. at Thirmidhi [ author of Sunan/Jami at Thirmidhi] in turn was a student of Imam Bukhari and an Nasai was a student of Imam at Thirmidhi.

Imam Malik author of the famous “Muwatta” was lashed severly and tortured by the Abbasid Caliph Abu Jaffar al Mansur for not accepting al Mansur’s innovation of declaring marriage unlawful due to forced divorce on the couple. Yet inspite of all hardship Imam Malik remained opposed to al Mansur on this issue. Also it is noteworthy that Imam Malik supported the armed uprising of Muhammad al Mahdi ,who was an Alawite from the descendent of al Hasan ibn Ali Ibn Abi Talib[ra], against the authority of Abbasid caliph al Mansur, and issued fatwa in his support.

At the same time Imam Abu Hanifa also supported the uprising of Muhammad al Mahdi’s brother Suleiman in Iraq. Imam Abu Hanifa was imprisoned and poisoned by the Abbasid Caliph al Mansur for not accepting the position of being a judge under him. He was martyred because of this poisoning. An Nasai author of Sunan was beaten till death By Nawasibs in Damascus for praising and honoring Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib[ra].

So after going through all this, one comes to the conclusion that the claim “Sunni hadeeth books (i.e) sunans, sihaahs, musnaafs, and musnads” were influenced by the likes of the oppressive Abbasid and Ummayad caliphates, is absurdity and far from reality and just a fairy tale of khomseating shian e dajjal and their blind followers.

Note:We  even recommend reading this article which covers arguments related to this issue in detail: Was the methodology of the muhadditheen from Ahlesunnah,  just and fair ?


What was the reason there were differences between few scholar’s verdicts for few traditions regarding virtues?

We would like to clear before our readers that these differences were NOT JUST restricted to traditions about virtues of Ahlebayt but similar was the case regarding virtues of Sahaba(companions). Such differences occurred rarely, not always but the shian e dajjal often pick those narrations and verdicts of scholars in order to deceive people. We felt that there was a need to discuss even this issue because often the shian e dajjal quote a verdict from scholar of Ahlesunnah who authenticated a narration which was about virtues of Ahlebayt, but many other scholars weakened that narration, so based on these differences the shian e dajjal accuse scholars of Ahlesunnah who weakened the narration for being Nasibis. So let us clear before our readers the reasons why rarely such differences occurred  and does the accusation of shian e dajjal on those scholars holds any weight?

What we are going to discuss here applies to traditions about Ahlebayt as well as Sahaba.

1. Firstly, some scholars authenticated some weak narrations which indeed had slight weakness in them but due collaboration of multiple weak chains that narration had, the status of the narration was upgraded from weak to good(hasan)[This principle is ONLY applicable to narrations regarding virtues which has slight weakness had multiple weak routes, some other conditions too apply]. But the other scholars weakened those narrations since they verified those narrations based on their individual chains, thus they resulted in weakening those. So this scenario none of the scholars could be blamed, unless people remain sensible, honest and unbiased.

2. Secondly, Scholars of Ahlesunnah, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn al-Mahdi, ‘Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak said, “When we narrate in regards to the lawful [halal] and unlawful [haram] we exercise extreme strictness and when we narrate in regards to virtuous and the like (stories and narratives) then we are more lenient. (See Suyuti’s Tadrib al-rawi)

Imam Ahmad  said: When we narrate hadeeth concerning halaal and haraam, we are very strict; but when we narrate reports about acts of virtue, we are more lenient, because no rulings depend on reports about acts of virtue; rather they are like the virtue of fasting, jihad, prayer and so on. (Majmû’ al-Fatâwâ” Vol. 18/40)

So we find that some of the scholars of Ahlesunnah used to be lenient while authenticating narrations that is why few times they ended up erroneously authenticating narrations. While the other scholars used to be strict that is why they resulted in weakening those narrations(which indeed had weakness). This is the reason we find differences in verdicts between few scholars of Ahlesunnah regarding traditions about virtues, be it for virtues of Ahlebayt or virtues of Sahaba. But none of the scholar is to be blamed because all of them had a good intention behind their work, since those who were lenient in their verification , did so because of their love for those personalities be it either Sahaba or Ahlebayt and those who were strict and weakened them did that out of love for the Message Prophet(saw) brought us, and out of their care not to attribute to him that which he(saw) did not say. It is important to mention that you will find those scholars who had weakened the weak narrations because of their strict analysis have authenticated several other narrations about virtues regarding the same personalities, regarding whom they had weakened the narration.

The fact which can never be neglected is that you will find the same scholars who weakened(because of their strict approach) the narrations for Ahlebayt maintains the similar approach while verifying narrations for Sahaba, that is why they even weaken narrations in virtues of Sahaba too.

So the cunning way of shian e dajjal to accuse those scholars of Ahlesunnah for being Nasibis has no leg to stand, and we challenge all the shias of this globe to point out us single scholar of Ahlesunnah who never authenticated traditions about virtues of Ahlebayt. But we know its too hard for the shias to meet up this challenge, because even they know what we said is the truth.

3. Thirdly, We also like to mention that we don’t consider our scholars to be infallible, they might some times weaken a narration which turns out to be authentic but it will be devilish on anyone’s part to accuse those scholars for their errors. Only sick shian e dajjal whose are taught only to accuse and hate mainstream muslims(Ahlesunnah) might do that, because they don’t even have knowledge about the works of their own scholars. Let us give few examples so that it might be helpful for the readers to understand the issue properly.

Here are some traditions or chains from Shia books along with the verdicts by shia scholars of hadith. You will find that their opinions are contradictory to each other for the same narration.

–  (مجلسي صحيح1/280 – بهبودي ضعيف)

مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَعْقُوبَ عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ أَبِي نَجْرَانَ قَالَ سَأَلْتُ أَبَا جَعْفَرٍ ( عليه السلام ) عَنِ التَّوْحِيدِ فَقُلْتُ أَتَوَهَّمُ شَيْئاً فَقَالَ نَعَمْ غَيْرَ مَعْقُولٍ وَ لَا مَحْدُودٍ فَمَا وَقَعَ وَهْمُكَ عَلَيْهِ مِنْ شَيْ‏ءٍ فَهُوَ خِلَافُهُ لَا يُشْبِهُهُ شَيْ‏ءٌ وَ لَا تُدْرِكُهُ الْأَوْهَامُ كَيْفَ تُدْرِكُهُ الْأَوْهَامُ وَ هُوَ خِلَافُ مَا يُعْقَلُ وَ خِلَافُ مَا يُتَصَوَّرُ فِي الْأَوْهَامِ إِنَّمَا يُتَوَهَّمُ شَيْ‏ءٌ غَيْرُ مَعْقُولٍ وَ لَا مَحْدُودٍ

مجلسي صحيح1/284 – بهبودي ضعيف)

عِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ خَالِدٍ الْبَرْقِيِّ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ النَّضْرِ بْنِ سُوَيْدٍ عَنْ يَحْيَى الْحَلَبِيِّ عَنِ ابْنِ مُسْكَانَ عَنْ زُرَارَةَ بْنِ أَعْيَنَ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبَا عَبْدِ اللَّهِ

–  (مجلسي صحيح1/302– بهبودي ضعيف)

مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحُسَيْنِ عَنِ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ عَلِيِّ بْنِ يُوسُفَ بْنِ بَقَّاحٍ عَنْ سَيْفِ بْنِ عَمِيرَةَ عَنْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ بْنِ عُمَرَ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبَا عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ( عليه السلام ) يَقُولُ إِنَّ أَمْرَ اللَّهِ

كُلَّهُ عَجِيبٌ إِلَّا أَنَّهُ قَدِ احْتَجَّ عَلَيْكُمْ بِمَا قَدْ عَرَّفَكُمْ مِنْ نَفْسِهِ

Basically in the above narrations we find that two renowned shia muhaddiseen(hadeeth scholars) contradict one another in their verdicts for the same narrations. Bahbudi says narrations are weak , where as Majlisi says they are authentic. We quote many of such narrations. But the bottom line is that either of these shia scholar is wrong, so now will the shias say that one of them was a Nasibi or was biased? Ofcourse not! they will behave in an apologetic manner that, their scholar are not infallible they do make mistakes. So now we say to those shian e dajjal that we agree with what you say, but why then you show your double standards when similar mistakes are done by scholars of Ahlesunnah?

This should clear before our readers the deceptive tactics of shian e dajjal and how cunningly they accuse scholars of Ahlesunnah and try to make innocent people believe in their filthy tricks. The fact is that the shias are taught to do so, since they consider it to be a part of their teachings as they have narrations from their Imams as well as verdicts from their scholars who encourage the shias to use such deceptive tactics. But praise be to Allah scholars of Ahlesunnah are free from such accusations of shian e dajjal.

 

Why Did the Hadeeth scholars include narrations which were weak in their compilations?

Imam Nawawi(rah) said: The scholars said: Ahaadeeth are of three types: saheeh (sound), hasan (good) and da’eef (weak). They said: It is only permissible to quote as evidence concerning rulings those ahaadeeth which are saheeh or hasan. As for those which are da’eef, it is not permissible to quote them as evidence with regard to rulings or beliefs, but it is permissible to narrate them and act upon them with regard to matters other than rulings, such as stories, virtuous deeds, and offering encouragements and warnings. (Al-Majmoo’ (1/98))

 

Ahlesunnah the group on middle course:

Our attitude towards narrations regarding virtues of Ahlebayt signifies that Ahlesunnah is that group which was prophesized in nahjul balagha by Ali(ra) and other hadeeth books. Who will remain on middle course and neither will exaggerate in love of Ahlebayt nor will Hate Ahlebayt.

Ali (ra) said in Sermon 126:“With regard to me, two categories of people will be ruined, namely he who loves me too much and the love takes him away from rightfulness, and he who hates me too much and the hatred takes him away from rightfulness. The best man with regard to me is he who is on the middle course.So be with him and be with the great majority of Muslims because Allah’s hand of protection is on keeping unity. (Nahjul balagha, sermon 126)

Thus all the signs mentioned here by Ali(ra) regarding the Group which is balanced and on middle course perfectly fits to Ahlesunnah wal jama’a(majority) , since they are the majority , they accept and believe in the authentic traditions which prove the virtues of Ali(ra) and Ahlebayt and on the other hand they reject those narrations(which is sign of middle course) about virtues of Ahlebayt which are actually fabrications made by shia exaggerators(ghulats). Moreover often the shias are in a misconception that they are included in the group which is on middle course, but its just their illusion. If you want the prove then its sufficient to see their belief regarding the status of their twelve Imams. Esteemed shia scholar Allamah Baqir Al-Majlisi says about the Imams:Their preference [is] over the prophets and all the people.” (Bihar Al-Anwar, Vol 26, Chapter 6) He further stated: “…our Imams are higher [and] better than the rest of the prophets…they are more knowledgeable than the prophets…this is the main opinion of the Imami (Shia), and is only rejected by one who is ignorant about the traditions.” (Bihar Al-Anwar, Volume 26, p.297). [There are many such statements from many other shia scholars]

Just see how the shias have exaggerated in regards to the status of their Imams, this one example from many leaves no doubt in the mind of sensible people that, in no way the shias are from the group which is on middle course as prophesized in Nahjul balagha. The only group to which that prophesy of middle course fits is Ahlesunnah wal Jama’ah.

 

Conclusion:

Thus the bottom line is that, you may find Ahlesunnah rejecting and weakening many traditions which appear to be regarding virtues of Ahlebayt(ra) or Sahaba(ra), but we don’t reject those traditions because we hate any of these two groups as the liars and deceivers try to portray. The actual reason is that we reject and weaken  those fabricated traditions out of our love for the Message he brought us, and out of our care not to attribute to him that which he(saw) did not say, So we make sure that nothing that is falsely attributed to the Prophet can go through, even if it is in praise of one of his companions that we admire. So do not be deceived by the propaganda of shian e dajjal. May Allah save all muslims from them.

Allah knows the best.

3 thoughts on “Why do Ahlesunnah reject some traditions which appear to be virtues of Ahlebayt?

  1. Ibn Asakir related that Hisham ibn Abdulmalik (Caliph from Umeyyah) asked Sulaiman ibn Yasar about explanation of this verse (24:11): “and (as for) him who took upon himself the main part thereof, he shall have a grievous chastisement”. Hisham asked who was this man who would have a grievous chastisement? Sulaiman answered that this was Abdullah ibn Ubay ibn Salul. Hisham said: “You lied, rather he was Ali ibn Abi Talib”. When Hisham asked the same question from imam az-Zuhri, he also said that it was ibn Ubay. Hisham again said: “You lied, rather he was Ali ibn Abi Talib”. Imam az-Zuhri answered: “I lied?! May you have no father! By Allah if a caller from sky would say me that lying is permitted, I wouldn’t lie. Such and such related to me that the one who would have greater share therein was Abdullah ibn Ubay ibn Salul”. (end 0f quote “Sunnah wal Makanatuha fi Tashriy al-Islami” p 283, abriged)

    Just see how imam az-Zuhri rejected accusation from Ali, and answered to caliph of Umawiyun! And this person was marwani?! Inna lillahu wa inna ilayhi rajiun!

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s