Part 4: Interpretation of Hadeeth Khalifatayn by RELIGIOUS DECEIVERS under Microscope


 Exposing the deception of religious deceivers regarding Hadeeth e Ghadeer.

This part is a continuation of Part 3. In this article we will be exposing that how shiatu dajjal tried to deceive lay people by misinterpreting narrations of Ghadeer and Wilayah.

Deception (1)

Shiatu dajjal stated:

[Quote] There is a SECOND mutawatir Hadith in favour of the Khilafah of Imam Ali (عليه السّلام). It is Hadith al-Ghadir. Shaykh al-Albani in his Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Sahihah, vol. 4, p. 330, Number 1750 states that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said:

من كنت مولاه , فعلي مولاه , اللهم وال من والاه , و عاد من عاداه

Whomsoever I am his master, Ali is also his master. O Allah, love those who love him, and be the enemy of those who are enemies to him.[Quote]

This is again a deceptive and false interpretation given to this narration. Though the narration is authentic but this is interpreted in deceptive manner by shiatu dajjal.

The Definition of the Word “Mawla”:

The Shia claim that the word “Mawla” here means “master.” It is based on this erroneous translation of the word that they claim that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) nominated Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as his successor. In fact, the word “Mawla”–like many other Arabic words–has multiple possible translations. The Shia lay-person may be shocked to know that indeed the most common definition of the word “mawla” is actually “servant” and not “master.”

Importantly we should always remember that most of narrations have a context related to them, and they could only be understood in correct perspective if we understood the context in which those words were spoken, then we can correctly understand the meaning of that Hadees. The word used in the narration is Mawla to which the dajjalis translated as master in order to support their motives, but the word mawla have got different meanings, the word (mawla) in the Arabic language could only mean:

rabb = Lord

malik = owner

mun`im = benefactor

mu’tiq = liberator

naser = helper

muheb = lover

haleef = ally

aabd = slave

sihr = brother-in-law

ibn al `am = cousin

Al-Jazari said in al-Nihaayah: “The word Mawla is frequently mentioned in the Hadith, and this is a name that is applied to many. It may refer to a lord, to an owner, to a master, to a benefactor, to one who frees a slave, to a supporter, to one who loves another, to a follower, to a neighbor, to a cousin (son of paternal uncle), to an ally, to an in-law, to a slave, to a freed slave, to one to whom one has done a favor. Most of these meanings are referred to in various Hadith, so it is to be understood in the manner implied by the context of the Hadith in which it is mentioned.”

Imam Shafi’i said with regards to Mawla in this particular Hadith of Ghadir Khumm:
“What is meant by that is the bonds (of friendship, brotherhood, and love) of Islam.”

Al-Teebi said: it is incorrect to interpret the mawla as referring to the imam who conducts the affairs of the believers, because the only person who was in charge of the Muslims’ affairs during the lifetime of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was the Prophet himself and no one else, so the word mawla must be interpreted as referring to love, the bonds of Islam and so on.” [Adapted from Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi Sharh al-Tirmidhi, Hadeeth 3713.]

Allah says in the Quran: “So today no ransom shall be accepted from you nor from those who disbelieved; your abode is the fire; it is your Mawla(beloved friend) and an evil refuge it is.” (Quran, 57:15)

Even the Shia translator(sarwar) didn’t  translate this to mean “Imam” or “Caliph”, as that would make the verse meaningless. The Hell-fire above is referred to as Mawla to the disbelievers because of their extreme closeness to it, and it is this definition of Mawla that is being referred to in the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm (i.e. closeness to the Prophet, Ali, and the believers). Indeed, the word “Mawla” comes from “Wilayah” and not “Walayah”. Wilayah refers to love and Nusrah (help and aid), and is not to be confused with Walayah, which refers to the leadership.

The hadeeth of ghadeer has no evidences for the imamah (leadership) or Caliphate because if the prophet ( peace be upon him ) wanted to mean khilafah or imamah, he wouldn’t have used a word that can have all these meanings. He would have said something like: Ali is your khalifa (or imam) after me, or when I die, listen and obey to Ali ibn Abi Talib. But the prophet didn’t use any of these clear words.

Let us give you some examples for a better understanding:

Example 1:

وقال لزيد: أنت أخونا ومولانا

Prophet: said to zaid, “You are our brother and our Mawla.” [sahi bukhari, 3:863]

Now if we apply the shia interpretations which they give to word Mawla, then zaid (ra) was also declared Khalifa of Prophet just because prophet termed him Mawla. But before the dajjalis who possess the characteristics of donkeys claim that this is another contradiction in Sunni reports due of their lack of understanding skills as we have seen before, We would like to clear that the word Mawla was not used to denote Master or Caliph rather it was used to denote freed slave, Similarly even in hadeeth of Ghadeer the word Mawla was used to denote friend not master.

Example 2:

Sahi muslim Bk 31, Number 6121: Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Quraish, Ansar, Muzaina, Juhaina and Ghifar, they are my friends[mawalli] and there is no friend of theirs besides Allah and His Messenger.

Mawaalii is the plural word for Mawla, Now if we apply the dajjali interpretations then it will mean that the tribes mentioned in the above narration were declared as Masters or Khaliphs, but it would be stupidity to claim since the word Mawalii used in here was for denoting friends and Protectors. So as we have said earlier just addressing someone with the word Mawla doesn’t means that a person was declared as Khaliph, word Mawla has got different meaning and is to be understood depending upon the context.

Interestingly if we are to examine the narration of Ghadeer from an unbiased and logical manner, to find out that in which context was that statement made by prophet(saw) we will find that it had no relation to any sort of Caliphate as the dajjali claim, but it was just regarding friendship. This fact is been proved brilliantly by our brothers where they analyzed the context of shia and sunni sources for this incident. Inshort these words were said by Prophet(Saw) when he came to know that some people from the army of Ali(ra) who were under his command started developing grudge against him, thinking that Ali(ra) did injustice with them, So in that situation Prophet(Saw) said those words, inorder to remove that grudge from the hearts of those people. This correct interpretation remains irrefutable for the shiatu dajjal, So Please refer this article where you will find a detailed explanation from the historical point of view.[Hadith of Ghadir Khumm]

Moreover even Ali (ra) himself rejected the ghadeer misconception:

Here is the hadith in which some companions from the Ansars called Ali (ra) their Mawla (Close Ally, loved Friend, Supporter..) and He doesn’t understand what they’re talking about:

عن رياح بن الحارث قال : ( جاء رهط إلى على بالرحبة فقالوا السلام عليك يا مولانا قال كيف أكون مولاكم وأنتم قوم عرب قالوا سمعنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يوم غدير خم يقول من كنت مولاه فان هذا مولاه قال رياح فلما مضوا تبعتهم فسألت من هؤلاء قالوا نفر من الأنصار فيهم أبو أيوب الأنصاري ) .
رواه الإمام أحمد في المسند 5/419 قال شعيب الأرناؤوط إسناده صحيح ، وأورده في فضائل الصحابة 2/570 حديث رقم 967 .

Narrated Rayeh bin al harith: A Group of Ansars came to Ali (ra) in al Rahbah and said: Al Salamu Aleykum Ya Mawlana, He replied: How Can I be your Mawla and you are Arabian people? They Said: We heard the Prophet of Allah PBUH say on the Day of Ghadeer Khum: Whomsoever’s Mawla I am, this (Ali) is also his Mawla. Riyah said: When they left I followed them and asked whom they were, They said some folks from the Ansars and amongst them was Abu Ayoub al Ansari.

Comment: So this is Ali Bin Abi Talib (ra) Who did not understand the saying of Ansars ” Al Salamu Aekum Ya Mawlana” as ” Al Salamu Aleykum O CALIPH/MASTER”. Then when they explained to him that it was the Muwalat of Lovers, Supporters and Allies Then he agreed with them.

Example from Umar(ra) clears the reality:

عن سالم قال: قيل (للخليفة) عمر: نراك تصنع بعلي شيئاً لا تصنعه بأحد من أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم؟ فقال: إنه مولاي.

وعن الباقر قال: جاء أعرابيان إلى (الخليفة) عمر يختصمان، فقال عمر: يا أبا الحسن، اقض بينهما. فقضى على أحدهما، فقال المقضي عليه: يا أمير المؤمنين، هذا يقضي بيننا؟ فوثب إليه عمر فأخذ بتلبيبه ولبّبه، ثم قال: ويحك ما تدري من هذا؟! هذا مولاي ومولى كل مؤمن، ومن لم يكن مولاه فليس بمؤمن
المصدر:
البحار: ص 124 ج 40

Narrated Salem: they said to caliph Umar: we see you treating Ali like you treat no other of the Companions of the Prophet PBUH? he said: He is my Mawla(friend).
Imam al Baqir said: Once two wondering Arabs came to the caliph Umar so that he may Judge between them, So umar said to Ali: O Abu al Hassan why don’t you Judge between them. So he made his ruling on one of the two, Then That wondering Arab said: o Ameer al mumineen(Umar) Do you let this(man) judge between us!? So Umar quickly stood up and shouted at the Man: How dare you, do you not know who this is? He is my Mawla(friend) and the Malwa of every believer and if he’s not your Malwa then you’re not a believer.[Shia Source: bihar al Anwar 40/124.]

Similar is reported in sunni books:

Imam Ibn Hajar al-Makki in his al-Sawaiq al-Muhriqah (Musassat al-Risalat, Beirut, first print, 1997; annotators: Abdul-Rahman ibn Abdullah al-Turki and Kamil Muhammad al-Khurat) 1/110 states about Umar:

الدارقطني و أخرج أيضا أنه قيل لعمر إنك تصنع بعلي شيئا لا تصنعه بأحد من أصحاب النبي فقال إنه مولاي

Darqutni has narrated that someone said to Umar: “Why do you treat Ali differently from the other Sahabah of the Prophet?”. He said: “Because Ali is my Mawla“.

Comment: We see here that Umar(ra) EVEN during his caliphate called Ali(ra) as his mawla, in the same way as he did at the time of incident of Ghadeer. People whom Allah gave wisdom can realize that, here Umar(ra) didn’t mean to say that Ali(ra) was his Caliph, if someone tries to argue then it will be stupidity, because why would Umar say so during his caliphate? Umar was actually rebuking the Arab by saying that, Ali was close friend[Mawla] of Umar, that is why he treats Ali in a special manner.

Even members from Ahlebayt refuted the false interpretations of shiatudajjal:

The Rafidhi (a person who rejects the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar) said to him (Al Hasan ibn Hasan), “Did not the Messenger of Allah say to Ali: ‘If i am Mawla of someone, Ali is his Mawla?’” He (Al Hasan) replied, “By Allah, if he meant by that Amirate and rulership, he would have been more explicit to you in expressing that, just as he was explicit to you about the Salah, Zakat and Hajj to the House. He would have said to you, ‘Oh people! This is your leader after me.’ The Messenger of Allah gave the best good counsel to the people (i.e. clear in meaning). “If it is like what you say, that Ali was chosen for this after the Prophet (pbuh), then he would be the most flawed from all the people, because he didn’t do as the Prophet (pbuh) commanded””(Source: Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Volume 5) Similar is present in Ibn `Asakir (volume 4, page 166) and (awaasim min qawaasim page 115).

Thus the fact is that Hadeeth of Ghadeer in no way proves the Caliphate of Ali(ra) and the occurrence of incident of Saqifah itself sufficient to establish this reality, we will be dealing with this in the next Part(5).

NOTE: There exists various and different versions for Hadeeth of Ghadeer, with some different wording , some additions, or where two different narrations were mixed by lenient narrators, etc. But we want to make our readers aware that NOT all versions can be authentic because Prophet(saw) could have just stated one version at that time, he didn’t state different, different versions at the same time. That is why we find that scholars of Hadeeth Science DIDN’T AUTHENTICATE THOSE NARRATIONS(AHADEES) AS A WHOLE, we may find their verdicts as “Isnad Sahi” or “Isnad hasan” these terms means that the text of that narration could be faulty. Imam Ibn Katheer said: The fact that the isnaad is deemed to be saheeh or hasan does not necessarily mean that the same applies to the text, because it may be shaadhdh (odd) or mu’allal (faulty). [Ikhtisaar ‘Uloom al-Hadeeth (p. 43).]. Thus they gave this verdict because they believed that the text of those narratios to be faulty or odd.

 

Deception (2)

Shiatu dajjal stated:

[Quote]In case al-Hindi al-Nasibi (لعنه الله) thinks Hadith al-Ghadir is about friendship, rather than about Khilafah, we have already examined that argument in this article.[Quote]

If we refer to that article which the dajjalis referred, then we come across another stupidity of Dajjalis. We find there a narration from  Sa‘d bin Abī Waqās where he says that he heard Allāh’s Messenger describe THREE qualities of ‘Alī and if he would have possessed anyone of them, it would have been dearer to him than red camels, and one of those three things were that prophet said to Ali Whomsoever I am his mawla, Ali is also his mawla”. Then the shiatu dajjal goes on to make a ridiculous argument that:

[Quote]If “mawla” in that hadith really means “friend”, the only implication is that Sa’d was an infidel. Every Muslim is a friend of all the others as the Qur’an claims. But since Sa’d considered himself a Muslim, it is then clear that “mawla” means “master”. [Quote]

Since we know the shiatu dajjal possess the characteristic of behaving like donkeys, so its not weird to find such foolish arguments from them. The qualities sa’d bin abi waqas was referring to in this narration was that Prophet(saw) connecting his friendship with friendship of Ali(ra), This is because prophet(Saw) NEVER connected friendship of sa’d ibn abi waqas with his friendship. This was the uniqueness which sa’d wished for, while talking about the virtues of Ali(ra).

So claiming on this argument that mawla doesn’t mean friend but Master is another stupidity of the shiatu dajjal.

Then the dajjalis proceed with another hilarious argument, Shiatu dajjal stated :

[Quote] [al-hilali and khan 9:71] The believers, men and women, are Auliya’ (helpers, supporters, FRIENDS, protectors) of one another, they enjoin (on the people) Al-Ma’rûf (i.e. Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam orders one to do), and forbid (people) from Al-Munkar (i.e. polytheism and disbelief of all kinds, and all that Islam has forbidden); they perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat) and give the Zakat, and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah will have His Mercy on them. Surely Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

This means that, going by Sunni logic, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was really not announcing anything new. He was only repeating what Allah had already revealed about all Muslims. So, the hadith was no unique merit for Imam Ali (as).

Sa’d claims that he was not the mawla of the believers like Ali, and even wished to be like him. If “mawla” in that hadith really means “friend”, the only implication is that Sa’d was an infidel. Every Muslim is a friend of all the others as the Qur’an claims. But since Sa’d considered himself a Muslim, it is then clear that “mawla” means “master”.[Quote]

We find here that due to misunderstanding the verse of Quran the shiatu dajjal raised three arguments:

1. If mawla in hadees of Ghadeer means Friend then Prophet(saw) didn’t announce anything different he just repeated what was said in Quran.

2.If mawla in the hadith meant Friend then sa’d(ra) would be infidel, since every muslim is friend of other muslims as Quran says.

3. Sa’d claimed that he was not the mawla(friend) of the believers like Ali.

So let us destroy the deceptions of these religious deceivers:

1.For the first argument that Prophet(Saw) didn’t announce anything new, or why would prophet(saw) announce the thing which was already revealed that Quran(i.e believers are friends of each other)? Then the answer to this idiocy is in the Quran itself. We know that often shias bring narration in which prophet(saw) used to go infront of the house of Fatima(ra) and would say time for prayer , time for prayer, now if we apply the stupid dajjali logic then why would Prophet(saw) remind of Prayer to Ahle kisa(people of cloak) when Allah had already said believers perform Salat(prayer)?

2. Secondly though we have already discussed above that why did Sa’d considered prophet(saw) calling Ali as Mawla to be unique, but now let us prove before you that if Prophet(saw) made an announcement for friendship of Ali(ra) does it appears to be something weird? We should keep in our mind that Quran doesn’t says that believers can’t possess grudge against each other. Nor does anyone becomes an infidel if he doesn’t considers some of his muslims brethren to be his friends. This is even established from Quran: “If two parties amongst the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the Command of Allah; but if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just). The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: so make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers..(49:9).

We find here that Allah himself considers the ones who quarrel with each others as believers, and in many of such cases people start developing a kind of grudge with whom they quarrel so it becomes a necessity to make peace and reconciliation between them, and in such situations its not weird if the one who is making peace asks both parties to befriend each other, its quite obvious and understandable. But it doesn’t mean that if any of the believers possess grudge towards his fellow muslim then that believer becomes an infidel, as the dajjalis who possess the characteristics of behaving like donkeys tried to portray. Here is an example from narrations: (Sahi bukhari 3.856): Narrated Anas:It was said to the Prophet “Would that you see `Abdullah bin Ubai.” So, the Prophet went to him, riding a donkey, and the Muslims accompanied him, walking on salty barren land. When the Prophet reached `Abdullah bin Ubai, the latter said, “Keep away from me! By Allah, the bad smell of your donkey has harmed me.” On that an Ansari man said (to `Abdullah), “By Allah! The smell of the donkey of Allah’s Apostle is better than your smell.” On that a man from `Abdullah’s tribe got angry for `Abdullah’s sake, and the two men abused each other which caused the friends of the two men to get angry, and the two groups started fighting with sticks, shoes and hands. We were informed that the following Divine Verse was revealed (in this concern):−− “And if two groups of Believers fall to fighting then, make peace between them.” (49.9)

We find here that though two groups of believers fought yet they were considered as believers, though during the fight they didn’t consider the other party of believers to be their friends. Lastly if the dajjalis who showed their khawariji inclinations while calling a sahabi infidel just because he didn’t consider Ali(ra) to be his friend(according to dajjali understanding) then we ask those dajjalis to present us any Fatwa from their scholars that if any shia doesn’t considers his fellow shia to be his friend THEN THAT SHIA becomes an infidel. We  want to expose the dajjalis infront of the world, because if they bring such fatwa then they will be proved as Khawarijites and if they don’t then their deception and stupidity will be exposed before their own people.

3. The last argument of shiatu dajjal that “Sa’d claimed that he was not the mawla(friend) of the believers like Ali”  is again a deception from the religious deceivers because this is nowhere mentioned in the narration, its just the insertion of shiatu dajjal and their interpretation inorder to prove their satanic motives.

Points to Ponder:

1. The later part of the narration which the dajjalis themselves cited proves that mawla in this narration is referring to friendship and not some divine leadership, because the later part of the narration says, {“O Allah, love those who love him, and be the enemy of those who are enemies to him”} Now had it been an indication for any sort of leadership or mastership then prophet would have said O Allah love those who FOLLOW or OBEY him, and be the enemy of those who don’t FOLLOW or OBEY him, Similar to what is mentioned in Quran: (3:31) Say (O Muhammad to mankind): “If you (really) love Allah, then FOLLOW me (i.e.Muhammad), Allah will LOVE you). So similarly even here Prophet(saw) would have asked Allah to love the people who would FOLLOW or OBEY the appointed Leader/Master, why would he pray before Allah to love those who LOVE Ali(ra)? This is just because it was simply related to friendship and love not leadership, which is even backed by the context of that historical incident because those words were said when Prophet(Saw) came to know that some people were developing grudge against Ali. That is why this declaration of friendship had to be made, our readers can read the context in detail by referring to this link.

2. Well this is one of the question for which the dajjalis could never provide a sensible reply that why didn’t Prophet(saw) made this declaration in Makkah where all the muslims from different parts of the world were gathered, since it would have been appropriate place to do that. But several tribes didn’t accompanied muslims when they were at Ghadeer during their return to Madinah.

 

Deception (3)

Shiatu dajjal stated:

[Quote] But in order to get the message more clearly to him, Shaykh al-Albani again in his Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Sahihah, vol. 5, p. 261, Number 2223 records that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said:

إن عليا مني و أنا منه و هو ولي كل مؤمن بعدي

Verily, Ali is from me and I am from him, AND HE IS THE WALI OF EVERY BELIEVER AFTER ME.

Shaykh al-Albani says:

من طريقه الحاكم ( 3 / 132 – 133 ) و قال : ” صحيح الإسناد ” , و وافقه الذهبي , و هو كما قالا . و هو بمعنى قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم : ” من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه .. “

Narrated by al-Hakim (3/132-133) who said: “It has a Sahih chain”, and Al-Dhahabi seconded him, AND IT IS INDEED AS THEY HAVE BOTH SAID. It is of the same meaning as the statement of the Prophet, peace be upon him: “Whomsoever I am his master, Ali is his master….

Shaykh al-Albani then goes ahead to try to explain away the meaning of ولي in the above Hadith. He claims that it means “friend”, and denies, quite surprisingly, that it can mean “master”. [Quote]

Before we destroy the glass house of deception of dajjalis we would like to clear some points.

1. We want to repeat before our readers that please do not be mislead by the dajjalis when they quote the verdicts of scholars for a certain hadeeth which states as “sahih Isnad(chian is authentic)” because as we have said earlier that this statement is not an approval for hadeeth being authentic.

Imam Ibn Katheer said:

” الحكم بالصحة أو الحسن على الإسناد لا يلزم منه الحكم بذلك على المتن ، إذ قد يكون شاذاً أو معللاً ”

The fact that the isnaad is deemed to be saheeh or hasan does not necessarily mean that the same applies to the text, because it may be shaadhdh (odd) or mu’allal (faulty). [Ikhtisaar ‘Uloom al-Hadeeth (p. 43).]

And we see that the same opinion was given  to the above hadeeth by Sheik Albani.

2. The view of mutakir(scholars from later generation) scholars cannot be preferred over the the views of  Mutaqaddimin(early) scholars. For example views of sheikh albani cannot be preferrred over views of Imam Bukhari regarding a narration/narrator if they are contradictory and if Imam Bukhari’s view is supported by other classical scholars.

3. There is a famous principle in the science of jarh and ta’deel and it is that the explained jarh(critism on narrator) takes precedence over ta’deel.

4. THE MOST IMPORTANT: The narrations from innovators are not to be accepted, If that particular narrations which the innovator is narrating supports his beliefs, even if the narrator who is an innovator is not declared to be weak. This is general rule, for details refer this [link].

5. Shia quoted al-Dhahabi above, they don’t know that al-Dhahabi said that this specific narration is one of the Manakeer of Ja’far bin Suleiman in al-Meezan. and al-Tirmithy weakened it and al-Mubarakfuri and Ibn Taymiyah and ibn Katheer and others.

It also contradicts the verse the Shia quoted as the verse says “Waliyukum is Allah and the Messenger and the believers who…” Which grammatically and linguistically means that they are our Awliyaa at the same time whereas in the weak addition it says “Waliyukum After me“.

Keeping these important points in mind let us shatter the deception of religious deceivers.

Here we are going to prove that the text is SAHIH but there is an Addition in the text which is {“AFTER ME”…} This addition is only found in the Narrations of three people.

One of them is weak and his entire narration is Munkar. The second and the third narrators are Shia who have narrated Sahih hadiths but the addition of “after me” in their reports is Munkar and we only find it in the Version narrated by these two Shia narrators whereas the rest of the Hadiths narrated through various and stronger chains Do Not contain this Addition (thus it is rejected outright) because the Matn is Ghareeb.

The Sahih and famous narrations which all the Muslims know do not contain the added formula “AFTER ME”, this was most likely spread by Shia as rumours to strengthen their Madhab and some people might have heard it and mixed it up with what is known to be said from the Prophet(saw).

The additional phrase which is Munkar i.e “After me” is found in three places.

First narrator: There is a very Long narration by Abu al Balaj from amro bin maymoun from ibn Abbas…

الكامل في ضعفاء الرجال ج7/ص229
2128 يحيى بن أبى سليم أبو بلج الفزاري ثنا علان ثنا بن أبى مريم سمعت يحيى بن معين يقول أبو بلج يحيى بن أبى سليم سمعت بن حماد يقول قال البخاري يحيى بن أبى سليم أبو بلج الفزاري سمع محمد بن حاطب وعمرو بن ميمون فيه نظر .

وقول البخاري رحمه الله : فيه نظر
The Book ” Al Kamil fi Dua’fa’a al Rijal ” 7/229, Bukhari says Abu Balaj al fazari is WEAK.

وذكر عبد الغني بن سعيد المصري الحافظ أن أبا بلج أخطأ في اسم عمرو بن ميمون هذا ، وليس هو بعمرو بن ميمون المشهور، إنما هو ميمون أبو عبد الله مولى عبد الرحمن بن سمرة، وهو ضعيف.
Abdul Ghani bin Sa’eed al masri al Hafiz mentioned that Abu Balaj made a mistake in the name of amro bin Maymoun and this is not the famous amro bin maymoun but it is Maymoun Abu abdullah the Mawla of abdulRahman bin Samrah and he is WEAK.

The proof for this is that Amr bin Maymoon never narrated the hadith of Ibn Abbas(which is true if we actually search through his hadiths). This is also the opinion of Imam Ahmad.

وقد قال البخاري عنه: فيه نظر.
Imam Al Bukhari said: “Fih Nazar” and when bukhari says this it means he is very weak.

ونقل ابن عبد البر وابن الجوزي: أن ابن معين ضعفه، وقال أحمد: روى حديثا منكرا.
And Ibn Abdul Barr and Ibn al jawzi both transmitted That ibn Ma’een had weakened him, Ahmad said: He narrated MUNKAR hadith

وقال الحافظ ابن حجر في (التقريب): صدوق ربما أخطأ.
Al Hafiz Ibn hajar said in “al taqreeb”: Saduq but makes mistakes.

وقال السعدي: أبو بلج الواسطي غير ثقة.
Al Sa’adee said: Abu Balaj al Wasiti is not trustworthy.

وقال الذهبي في (المقتنى): لين.
Al Thahabi said in “al Muqtana”: Lenient (meaning he may narrate false things and doesn’t care much about parts of the Hadith if there are additions or deletions to the text)

وقال الجوزجاني في (أحوال الرجال): كان يروج الفواخت؛ ليس بثقة.
Al jawzjani said in “Ahwal al Rijal”: Untrustworthy

قال ابن حبان في (المجروحين): كان ممن يخطئ ، لم يفحش خطؤه حتى استحق الترك ، ولا أتى منه ما لا ينفك البشر عنه فيسلك به مسلك العدول، فأرى أن لا يحتج بما انفرد من الرواية، وهو ممن أستخير الله فيه
Ibn Habban said in “al Majrouheen” that he was amongst those who made mistakes in Hadith and the Narrations which only come through him (meaning he is the only one who narrates it) are rejected and not a Hujjah.

It is well known that this Man narrates a LOT of Munkar hadiths, al thahabee mentioned an example of these Munkar Hadiths of his in “Al Meezan”:

قال الذهبي في (الميزان): ومن مناكيره عن عمرو بن ميمون عن ابن عباس أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أمر بسد الأبواب إلا باب علي رضي الله عنه، رواه أبو عوانة عنه، ويروى عن شعبة عنه.
“And from his Manakeer(rejected/unacceptable) narrations from amro bin maymoun from ibn abbas that the Prophet PBUH ordered that all doors be shut except that of Ali, Abu Awanah narrated it from him and it is narrated from Shu’ubah from him.”

Second Narrator: Now the second narrator to use this munkar phrase “After me” was Ja’afar Ibn Sulaiman… as we can see below he is the only source for the narrations containing this addition:
صحيح ابن حبان ج: 15 ص: 373
6929 أخبرنا أبو يعلى حدثنا الحسن بن عمر بن شقيق حدثنا جعفر بن سليمان عن يزيد الرشك عن مطرف بن عبد الله بن الشخير عن عمران بن حصين قال ثم بعث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم سرية واستعمل عليهم عليا قال فمضى علي في السرية فأصاب جارية فأنكر ذلك عليه أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقالوا إذا لقينا رسول الله بما صنع علي قال عمران وكان المسلمون إذا قدموا من سفر بدؤوا برسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فسلموا عليه ونظروا إليه ثم ينصرفون إلى رحالهم فلما قدمت السرية سلموا على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقام أحد الأربعة فقال يا رسول الله ألم تر أن عليا صنع كذا وكذا فأعرض عنه ثم قال آخر فقال يا رسول الله ألم تر أن عليا صنع كذا وكذا فأعرض عنه ثم قام آخر فقال يا رسول الله ألم تر أن علينا صنع كذا وكذا فأقبل إليه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم والغضب يعرف في وجهه فقال ما تريدون من علي ثلاثا إن عليا مني وأنا منه وهو ولي كل مؤمن بعدي ذكر البيان بأن علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه كان ناصر كل ما ناصره رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم

موارد الظمآن ج: 1 ص: 543
2203 أخبرنا أبو يعلى حدثنا الحسن بن عمر بن شقيق حدثنا جعفر بن سليمان عن يزيد الرشك عن مطرف بن عبد الله بن الشخير عن عمران بن حصين قال بعث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم سرية واستعمل عليهم عليا فمضى في السرية فأصاب جارية فأنكر ذلك عليه أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وقالوا إذا لقينا رسول الله بما صنع علي وكان المسلمون إذا قدموا من سفر بدأوا برسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فسلموا عليه ونظروا إليه ثم ينصرفون إلى رحالهم فلما سلموا على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقام أحد الأربعة فقال يا رسول الله ألم تر أن عليا صنع كذا وكذا فأعرض عنه ثم قام آخر فقال يا رسول الله ألم تر أن عليا صنع كذا وكذا فأعرض عنه ثم قام آخر فقال يا رسول الله ألم تر أن عليا صنع كذا وكذا فأقبل إليه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم والغضب يعرف في وجهه فقال ما تريدون من علي ثلاثا إن عليا مني وأنا منه وهو ولي كل مؤمن بعدي

سنن الترمذي ج: 5 ص: 632
20 باب مناقب علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه 3712 حدثنا قتيبة حدثنا جعفر بن سليمان الضبعي عن يزيد الرشك عن مطرف بن عبد الله عن عمران بن حصين قال ثم بعث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم جيشا واستعمل عليهم علي بن أبي طالب فمضى في السرية فأصاب جارية فأنكروا عليه وتعاقد أربعة من أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقالوا إذا لقينا رسول الله بما صنع علي وكان المسلمون إذا رجعوا من السفر بدءوا برسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فسلموا عليه ثم انصرفوا إلى رحالهم فلما قدمت السرية سلموا على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقام أحد الأربعة فقال يا رسول الله ألم تر إلى علي بن أبي طالب صنع كذا وكذا فأعرض عنه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ثم قام الثاني فقال مثل مقالته فأعرض عنه ثم قام الثالث فقال مثل مقالته فأعرض عنه ثم قام الرابع فقال مثل ما قالوا فأقبل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم والغضب يعرف في وجهه فقال ما تريدون من علي ما تريدون من علي ما تريدون من علي إن عليا مني وأنا منه وهو ولي كل مؤمن بعدي قال أبو عيسى هذا حديث حسن غريب لا نعرفه إلا من حديث جعفر بن سليمان

مصنف ابن أبي شيبة ج: 6 ص: 372
32121 حدثنا عفان قال ثنا جعفر بن سليمان قال حدثني يزيد الرشك عن مطرف عن عمران بن حصين قال بعث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم سرية واستعمل عليهم عليا فصنع علي شيئا أنكروه فتعاقد أربعة من أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أن يعلموه وكانوا إذا قدموا من سفر بدأوا برسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فسلموا عليه ونظروا إليه ثم ينصرفون إلى رحالهم قال فلما قدمت السرية سلموا على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقام أحد الأربعة فقال يا رسول الله ألم تر أن عليا صنع كذا وكذا فأقبل إليه رسول الله يعرف الغضب في وجهه فقال ما تريدون من علي ما تريدون من علي علي مني وأنا من علي وعلي ولي كل مؤمن بعدي

مسند أحمد ج: 4 ص: 437
حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا عبد الرزاق وعفان المعنى وهذا حديث عبد الرزاق قالا ثنا جعفر بن سليمان قال حدثني يزيد الرشك عن مطرف بن عبد الله عن عمران بن حصين قال ثم بعث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم سرية وأمر عليهم علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه فأحدث شيئا في سفره فتعاهد قال عفان فتعاقد أربعة من أصحاب محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم ان يذكروا أمره لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال عمران وكنا إذا قدمنا من سفر بدأنا برسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فسلمنا عليه قال فدخلوا عليه فقام رجل منهم فقال يا رسول الله ان عليا فعل كذا وكذا فأعرض عنه ثم قام الثاني فقال يا رسول الله ان عليا فعل كذا وكذا فأعرض عنه ثم قام الثالث فقال يا رسول الله ان عليا فعل كذا وكذا فأعرض عنه ثم قام الرابع فقال يا رسول الله ان عليا فعل كذا وكذا قال فأقبل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم على الرابع وقد تغير وجهه فقال دعوا عليا دعوا عليا ان عليا مني وأنا منه وهو ولي كل مؤمن بعدي

مسند الروياني ج: 1 ص: 124
119 حدثنا ابن اسحاق حدثنا خالد القطربلي حدثنا جعفر بن سليمان عن يزيد لرشك عن مطرف عن عمران بن حصين قال بعث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم سرية فاستعمل عليهم عليا فمضى على في السرية قال فأصاب على جارية فانكروا ذلك عليه فتعاقد اربعة من اصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قالوا اذا لقينا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم اخبرناه بما صنع قال عمران وكان المسلمون اذا قدموا من سفر بدأوا برسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ثم انصرفوا فلما قدمت السرية سلموا على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقام احد الاربعة فقال يا رسول الله ألم تر ان عليا صنع كذا وكذا قال فأعرض عنه ثم قام آخر فقال يا رسول الله ألم تر ان عليا صنع كذا وكذا فأقبل اليه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يعرف الغضب في وجهه فقال ما تريدون من علي ثلاث مرار ان عليا منى وانا منه وهو ولي كل مؤمن بعدي

مسند الطيالسي ج: 1 ص: 111
829 حدثنا أبو داود قال حدثنا جعفر بن سليمان الضبعي حدثنا يزيد الرشك عن مطرف بن عبد الله بن الشخير عن عمران بن حصين ثم أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بعث عليا في جيش فرأوا منه شيئا فأنكروه فاتفق نفر أربعة وتعاقدوا أن يخبروا النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بما صنع علي قال عمران وكنا إذا قدمنا من سفر لم نأت أهلنا حتى نأتي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وننظر إليه فجاء النفر الأربعة فقام أحدهم فقال يا رسول الله ألم تر أن عليا صنع كذا وكذا فأعرض عنه ثم قام الثاني فقال مثل ذلك فأعرض عنه ثم قام الثالث فقال مثل ذلك فأعرض عنه ثم قام الرابع فقال مثل ذلك فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ما لهم ولعلي إن عليا مني وأنا منه وهو ولي كل مؤمن بعدي

مسند أبي يعلى ج: 1 ص: 293
355 حدثنا عبيد الله حدثنا جعفر بن سليمان حدثنا يزيد الرشك عن مطرف بن عبد الله عن عمران بن حصين قال ثم بعث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم سرية واستعمل عليهم علي بن أبي طالب قال له يا علي السرية قال عمران كان المسلمون إذا قدموا من غزوة أتوا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قبل أن يأتوا رحالهم فأخبروه مسيرهم قال فأصاب علي جارية فتعاقد أربعة فأخبروه بمسيرهم فقام أحد الأربعة فقال يا رسول الله وأصاب علي جارية فأعرض عنه ثم قام الثاني فقال يا رسول الله صنع علي كذا وكذا فأعرض عنه ثم قام الثالث فقال يا رسول الله صنع علي كذا وكذا فأعرض عنه ثم قام الرابع فقال يا رسول الله صنع كذا وكذا قال فأقبل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم مغضبا الغضب يعرف في وجهه فقال ما تريدون من علي علي مني وأنا منه وهو ولي كل مؤمن بعدي

الآحاد والمثاني ج: 4 ص: 278
2298 حدثنا العباس بن الوليد والفضل بن حسين قالا نا جعفر بن سليمان عن يزيد الرشك عن مطرف بن عبد الله عن عمران بن حصين رضي الله عنه قال قال عمران ثم بعث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم سرية فاستعمل عليهم عليا رضي الله عنه فلما مضى علي رضي الله عنه في السرية أصاب علي جارية فانكروا ذلك عليه قال وتعاقدوا أربعة من أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قالوا إذا لقينا رسول الله بما صنع علي رضي الله عنه وكان المسلمون إذا قدموا من سفر بدأوا برسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فسلموا عليه ونظروا إليه ثم ينصرفون إلى رحالهم فلما قدمت السرية سلموا على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقام أحد الأربعة فقال يا رسول الله ألم تر أن عليا صنع كذا وكذا ثم قام الرابع فقال يا رسول الله ألم تر أن عليا رضي الله عنه صنع كذا وكذا قال فأقبل عليه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم والغضب يعرف فيه فقال ما تريدون من علي علي مني وأنا منه وهو ولي كل مؤمن بعدي

المعجم الكبير ج: 18 ص: 128
265 حدثنا عبد الله بن أحمد بن حنبل ثنا العباس بن الوليد النرسي ح وحدثنا معاذ بن المثنى ثنا مسدد ح وحدثنا بشر بن موسى والحسن بن المتوكل البغدادي ثنا خالد بن يزيد العدني قالوا ثنا جعفر بن سليمان عن يزيد الرشك عن مطرف بن عبد الله عن عمران بن حصين قال ثم بعث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم سرية فاستعمل عليهم عليا فمضى على السرية فأصاب علي جارية فأنكروا ذلك عليه فتعاقد أربعة من أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قالوا إذا لقينا رسول الله بما صنع قال عمران وكان المسلمون إذا قدموا من سفر بدأوا برسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فسلموا عليه ثم انصرفوا فلما قدمت السرية سلموا على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقام أحد الأربعة فقال يا رسول الله ألم تر أن عليا صنع كذا وكذا فأعرض عنه ثم قام آخر فقال يا رسول الله ألم تر أن عليا صنع كذا وكذا فأعرض عنه ثم قام آخر منهم فقال يا رسول الله ألم تر أن عليا صنع كذا وكذا فأعرض عنه ثم قام الرابع فقال يا رسول الله ألم تر أن عليا صنع كذا وكذا فأقبل عليه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يعرف الغضب في وجهه فقال ماذا تريدون من علي ثلاث مرات إن عليا مني وأنا منه وهو ولي كل مؤمن بعدي

حلية الأولياء ج: 6 ص: 294
حدثنا سليمان بن أحمد ثنا معاذ بن المثنى ثنا مسدد ح وحدثنا أبو عمرو بن حمدان ثنا الحسن بن سفيان ثنا بشر بن هلال وعبد السلام بن عمر قالوا ثنا جعفر بن سليمان عن يزيد الرشك عن مطرف عن عمران بن حصين قال بعث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم سرية واستعمل عليهم عليا كرم الله وجهه فاصاب على جارية فانكروا ذلك عليه فتعاقد أربعة من أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قالوا إذا لقينا رسول الله صلى الله عليه بما صنع علي قال عمران وكان المسلمون إذا قدموا من سفر بدؤا برسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فسلموا عليه ثم انصرفوا فلما قدمت السرية سلموا على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقام أحد الأربعة فقال يا رسول الله ألم تر أن عليا صنع كذا وكذا فاعرض عنه ثم قام آخر منهم فقال يا رسول الله ألم تر أن عليا صنع كذا وكذا فاعرض عنه حتى قام الرابع فقال يا رسول الله ألم تر أن عليا صنع كذا وكذا فأقبل عليه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يعرف الغضب في وجهه فقال ما تريدون من علي ثلاث مرات ثم قال إن عليا مني وأنا منه وهو ولي كل مؤمن بعدي

فضائل الصحابة لابن حنبل ج: 2 ص: 605
1035 حدثنا عبد الله قال حدثني أبي نا عبد الرزاق وعفان المعني وهذا حديث عبد الرزاق قالا نا جعفر بن سليمان قال حدثني يزيد الرشك عن مطرف بن عبد الله عن عمران بن حصين قال ثم بعث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم سرية وأمر عليهم علي بن أبي طالب فأحدث شيئا في سفره فتعاهد قال عفان فتعاقد أربعة من أصحاب محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم ان يذكروا أمره لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال عمران وكنا إذا قدمنا من سفر بدأنا برسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فسلمنا عليه قال فدخلوا عليه فقام رجل منهم فقال يا رسول الله إن عليا فعل كذا وكذا فاعرض عنه ثم قام الثاني فقال يا رسول الله إن عليا فعل كذا وكذا فاعرض عنه ثم قام الثالث فقال يا رسول الله إن عليا فعل كذا وكذا فأعرض عنه ثم قام الرابع فقال يا رسول الله إن عليا فعل كذا وكذا قال فأقبل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم على الرابع وقد تغير وجهه فقال دعوا عليا دعوا عليا إن عليا مني وأنا منه وهو ولي كل مؤمن بعدي

فضائل الصحابة لابن حنبل ج: 2 ص: 620
1060 حدثنا أحمد بن عبد الجبار قثنا أبو خيثمة وهو زهير بن حرب قثنا عفان بن مسلم قثنا جعفر بن سليمان قال أخبرني يزيد الرشك عن مطرف عن عمران بن حصين قال ثم بعث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم سرية فاستعمل يعني عليا فصنع شيئا انكروه فتعاقدوا أربعة من أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يعني شكاته وكانوا إذا قدموا من سفر بدأوا برسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فسلموا عليه ونظروا اليه ثم ينصرفون الى رحالهم فلما قدمت السرية سلموا على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقام أحد الأربعة فقال يا رسول الله ألم تر الى علي صنع كذا وكذا فأعرض عنه ثم قام آخر منهم فقال يا رسول الله ألم تر الى عليه صنع كذا وكذا فأقبل اليه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يعرف الغضب في وجهه وقال ما تريدون من علي علي مني وانا من علي وعلي ولي كل مؤمن بعدي

فضائل الصحابة لابن حنبل ج: 2 ص: 649
1104 حدثنا عبد الله قثنا أبو الربيع قثنا جعفر بن سليمان قثنا يزيد الرشك عن مطرف عن عمران بن حصين قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ثم علي مني وانا منه وهو ولي كل مؤمن بعدي

السنن الكبرى ج: 5 ص: 45
8146 أخبرنا قتيبة بن سعيد قال أنا جعفر وهو بن سليمان عن يزيد الرشك عن مطرف بن عبد الله عن عمران بن حصين قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ثم إن عليا مني وأنا منه وهو ولي كل مؤمن من بعدي

السنن الكبرى ج: 5 ص: 132
8474 أخبرنا قتيبة بن سعيد قال حدثني جعفر يعني بن سليمان عن يزيد عن مطرف بن عبد الله عن عمران بن حصين قال ثم بعث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم جيشا واستعمل عليهم علي بن أبي طالب فمضى في السرية فأصاب جارية فأنكروا عليه وتعاقدوا أربعة من أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إذا لقينا رسول الله بما صنع وكان المسلمون إذا رجعوا من السفر بدؤوا برسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فسلموا عليه ثم انصرفوا إلى رحالهم فلما قدمت السرية سلموا على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقام أحد الأربعة فقال يا رسول صلى الله عليه وسلم ألم تر إلى علي بن أبي طالب صنع كذا وكذا فأعرض عنه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ثم قام يعني الثاني فقال مثل ذلك ثم قام الثالث فقال مثل مقالته ثم قام الرابع فقال مثل ما قالوا فأقبل إليهم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم والغصب في وجهه فقال ما تريدون من علي إن عليا مني وأنا منه وهو ولي كل مؤمن من بعدي

Let us translate the blue part in Sunan al tirmithy above 5/632 in which is written:
قال أبو عيسى هذا حديث حسن غريب لا نعرفه إلا من حديث جعفر بن سليمان
Abu Isa said: This is a Hadith which is Hassan Ghareeb and we do not know it except through Ja’afar bin Suleiman.

So who is Ibn Suleiman?

في تهذيب التهذيب قال الدوري كان جعفر إذا ذكر معاوية شتمه وإذا ذكر عليا قعد يبكي وقال ابن حبان في كتاب الثقات حدثنا الحسن بن سفيان حدثنا إسحاق بن أبي كامل حدثنا جرير بن يزيد بن هارون بين يدي أبيه قال بعثني أبي إلى جعفر فقلت بلغنا أنك تسب أبا بكر وعمر قال أما السب فلا ولكن البغض ما شئت فإذا هو رافضي الحمار
In Tahtheeb al tahtheeb al Douri said about Ibn Suleiman: If Muawiyah was mentioned in front of him he would insult him and swear and if Ali was mentioned then he would cry, Ibn Habban said in the book “al thiqat” Al hassan bin Sufian narrated from Ishaq bin Abi Kamil from jurayr bin Yazeed bin Haroon in front of his father he said: My father sent me to ja’afar and I said to him: We heard that you insult Abu bakr and Umar, Ibn Suleiman replied: As for Cursing then No but I Hate them more than you can think of. So he was a rafidhi.

كونه شيعيا فهو بالاتفاق قال في التقريب جعفر بن سليمان الضبعي أبو سليمان البصري صدوق زاهد لكنه كان يتشيع
As for him being a Shia it is by consensus for he said in “al Taqreeb”: Ja’afar bin Suleiman al Dab’ee Abu Suleiman al Basri He is Saduq,  And has Zuhd but he was a Shia. this is also mentioned in al Meezan and others..

Now according to the renowned rule of Hadeeth Science, If an Innovator narrates something to further his innovation then it is rejected even if he is trustworthy. This hadith was only narrated through him in this form thus his addition to the Hadith is rejected. The Hadith was narrated from buraidah without this addition

Third narrator: In another weaker chain with the same addition but this time through Al Ajlah bin Sinan .

قال في التقريب أجلح بن عبد الله بن حجية الغرماء أبا حجية سنان يقال اسمه يحيى صدوق شيعي
In Al taqreeb he says: Al Ajlah bin Abdullah bin Sinan, he is trustworthy but is a Shia.

What is clear is that the addition of “After me” is only in the Hadith of these two Shia and that is because this is how they understood the Hadith so they made the addition. As the exact same hadith was also narrated by buraidah by trustworthy narrators but this time we do not see the addition of “after me”:

الفضل بن دكين حدثنا ابن أبي عيينة عن الحسن عن سعيد بن جبير عن ابن عباس عن بريدة قال غزوت مع علي اليمن فرأيت منه جفوة الحديث وفي آخره فقال يا بريدة ألست أولى بالمؤمنين من أنفسهم قلت بلى يا رسول الله قال من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه
Al fadl bin Dakeen bin abi Ayyeenah from al Hassan from Sa’eed bin Jubair from ibn Abbas from buraidah that he said: Me and Ali we partook in the Ghazwah of Yemen (until he says) The Prophet PBUH said: Man Kuntu Mawlah Fa Alyun Mawlah.

or this

أبي معاوية حدثنا الأعمش عن سعيد بن عبيدة عن ابن بريدة عن أبيه قال بعثنا رسول الله في سرية الحديث وفي آخره من كنت وليه فعلي وليه
Abu Muawiyah narrated from al A’amash from Sa’eed bin Ubaydah from Ibn Buraidah from his father that he said: The Prophet PBUH sent us in a brigade (until he says) The Prophet PBUH said: Man Kuntu Waliyuh fa Aliyyun Waliyuh.

or this

وكيع حدثنا الأعمش عن سعد بن عبيدة عن ابن بريدة عن أبيه أنه مر على مجلس وهم يتناولون من علي الحديث وفي خره من كنت وليه فعلي وليه
Wakee’e told us that al A’amash narrated from Sa’ad bin Ubaydah from Ibn buraidah from his father that he passed by a Majlis and they were listening to Ali (until he says) Man Kuntu Waliyuh fa Aliyyun Waliyuh.

So all of these trustworthy narrations and many more narrated through various chains do not contain the addition “after me” which is only found in the Hadiths of the Shia narrators.

It is written in:
ميزان الإعتدال في نقد الرجال ج: 2 ص: 136
1507 2530ت جعفر بن سليمان م
Meezan al i’itidal fi Naqd al Rijal 2/136 regarding Ja’afar bin Suleiman:

قال يحيى بن معين كان يحيى بن سعيد لا يكتب حديثه ويستضعفه
Yahya bin Ma’een did not write his hadith and found him weak.

وقال ابن سعد ثقة فيه ضعف وكان يتشيع
Ibn Sa’ad said: He is trustworthy and there is weakness in him, he is a Shia.

وقال أحمد بن المقدام كنا في مجلس يزيد بن زريع فقال من أتى جعفر بن سليمان وعبد الوارث فلا يقربني وكان عبد الوارث ينسب الى الاعتزال وجعفر ينسب الى الرفض
Ahmad bin al miqdam said: we were in a Majlis of yazeed bin Zurai’i and he said: He who meets up with Ja’afar bin suleiman and Abd al Warith Then let him not come near me, Abdul Warith was considered as a Muatazilite and Ib Suleiman was considered a Rafidhi.

وقال إذنه حدثنا محمد بن مروان القرشي حدثنا أحمد بن سنان حدثني سهل بن أبي خدوية قال قلت لجعفر بن سليمان بلغني أنك تشتم أبا بكر وعمر فقال أما الشتم فلا ولكن البغض ما شئت
Ithnuh told us that Muhamad bin Marwan al Qurashi told him that Ahmad bin Sinan told him that Sahl bin Abu Khadweih said: I said to ja’afar bin Sinan: We heard that you insult Abu bakr and Umar and he said: as for Insulting then no but as for hatred then I hate them a lot.

قال البخاري في الضعفاء له جعفر بن سليمان الحرشي ويعرف بالضبعي يخالف في بعض حديثه
al bukhari in al Duafa’a said: Ja’afar bin Suleiman al hurashi and known as al Dab’ee he contradicts (What is correct) in some of his Hadiths.

In Short This narrator is trustworthy BUT he is from the Ghulat of the Shia so this Hadith cannot be taken from him with this addition.

As for the third narrator who uses this formula is also a Shia Al Ajlah bin Sinan so the same applies to him as applies to the above.

Conclusion:

1- The Same Hadith was narrated from buraidah through many chain without this addition.

2- The Other narrator who mentions this addition from the hadith of Buraidah is the Shia called al Ajlah and it is a mistake ( Prophet PBUH didn’t say it).

3- The basic rule of accepting narrations from innovators(shias) is that the narration which they are reporting should not support their innovations, if their narrations are in any way supporting their innovations then their narrations will not be accepted. Refer this [link] for details.

4- The Other narrations from buraidah which do not contain this addition are much stronger in Isnad, Al Hafiz al Bazzar in his Musnad al Mua’allal says that the chains (that do not contain the addition) are the best and strongest chains for this hadith.

5. Hadith(with addition) is incorrect, we all know the narrations “Man Kuntu mawlah fa Aliyun Mawlah” BUT The “after me” part is added by the Shia. The SAHIH Hadiths we presented earlier are clear proofs of this being a lie attributed to the Prophet(saw).

6. al-Dhahabi said that this specific narration is one of the Manakeer of Ja’far bin Suleiman in al-Meezan. and al-Tirmithy weakened it and al-Mubarakfuri and Ibn Taymiyah and ibn Katheer and others.

It also contradicts the verse the Shia quoted as the verse says “Waliyukum is Allah and the Messenger and the believers who…” Which grammatically and linguistically means that they are our Awliyaa at the same time whereas in the weak addition it says “Waliyukum After me“.

7. Also the narration isn’t explicit as it can easily be explained in many other ways such as “The love and support of ‘Ali is second only to the love and support of the Prophet (SAWS)” and this is the saying “After me” so building a ‘Aqeedah based on this Mutashabih is not permitted, also it is opposed by other narrations which explicitly state that no successor was appointed by text and this breaks the Istidlal of the Shia.

Now after establishing before you in a clear and explicit manner that the addition in the narration “After me” was from the shia narrators, which is not present in other strong narrations, here we will show you that what does the narration mean. And to do that let us quote before you what the dajjali themselves cited from sheikh Albani. Shiatu dajjal Stated:

{Shaykh al-Albani then goes ahead to try to explain away the meaning of ولي in the above Hadith. He claims that it means “friend”, and denies, quite surprisingly, that it can mean “master”}.

Indeed it is true because “wali” in the narration was to denote friendship and love, that is why sheikh Albani said commenting on this narration, {It is of the same meaning as the statement of the Prophet, peace be upon him: “Whomsoever I am his mawla, Ali is his mawla}.

Scholarly views and explanation regarding hadeeth wilayah:

الحافظ ابن تيمية في منهاج السنة وكذلك قوله هو ولي كل مؤمن بعدي كذب على رسول الله بل هو في حياته وبعد مماته ولي كل مؤمن وكل مؤمن وليه في المحيا والممات فالولاية التي هي ضد العداوة لا تختص بزمان…

جعفر بن سليمان بقوله هو ولي كل مؤمن بعدي بل وقع هذا اللفظ في حديث بريدة ثم أحمد في مسنده ففي آخره لا تقع في علي فإنه مني وأنا منه وهو وليكم بعدي وإنه مني وأنا منه وهو وليكم بعدي قلت تفرد بهذا اللفظ في حديث بريدة أجلح سنان وهو أيضا شيعي

Al hafiz Ibn tayymiyah said in Minhaj al Sunnah That the Formula of “After me” is a lie attributed to the Prophet PBUH because not only is he the wali of every muslim after his death but also during his life because the Wilayah (Friendship, Love) is against Adawah (Enmity, hate) and needs no time to be specified for it.. Ja’afar bin Suleiman was not the only Shia to use this formula “after me” but so did Al Ajlah Sinan in the Hadith of Buraidah, he is also a Shia.

Al-Hafiz Abu al-‘Ala al-Mubarakpoori in his Tuhfat al-Ahwazi 10/199 states:

( وقد استدل به الشيعة على أنّ علياً رضي الله عنه كان خليفة بعد رسول الله (ص) من غير فصل واستدلالهم به عن هذا باطل ؛ فإن مداره على صحة زيادة لفظة > بعدي < وكونها صحيحة محفوظة قابلة للإحتجاج ، والأمر ليس كذلك ..

تفرد بها جعفر بن سليمان الضبي وهو شيعي غال في التشيّع ، ثم استدرك على نفسه بالقول : ( فإن قلت : لم يتفرد بزيادة قوله > بعدي بعدي < في هذا الحديث من وهم هذين الشيعيين

The Shi’ites have cited this hadith as proof that Ali was the immediate successor of the Messenger of Allah. But, their use of this hadith for this purpose is nonsense since their argument revolves entirely around the authenticity of the phrase “after me” in the hadith. They treat as though it is indeed authentic, secure and accepted as proof. Alas, they are wrong …
The phrase “after me” (in the hadith) is narrated only by Ja’far ibn Sulayman al-Dabi, and he is a Shi’a, in fact an extremist Shi’a. Well, if I say: No, Ja’far ibn Sulayman is not the only one to have narrated the phrase “after me” in the hadith, Ajli al-Kindi too has narrated it in his own report! … Yet, Ajli al-Kindi too is a Shi’a!! So, it is clear that the phrase “after me” in the hadith is only from the imaginations of these two Shi’ites!!

Answering the arguments on the explanation of Al-Mubarakpoori:

Shiatu dajjal stated:

[Quote] Mubarakpoori is completely wrong on all counts:

1. He accused Ja’far ibn Sulayan of dishonestly adding “after me” to the hadith to support his Shi’ite belief that Imam Ali (as) was the immediate successor of the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him and his family. However, as we all see, Ja’far does not invite to his creed, meaning that he never twists hadiths to support his creed. He always reports hadiths with total honesty. Thus, Mubarakpoori only made a false charge against him.[Quote]

We are not saying that he was a liar. However, being an innovator, and specifically narrating additions in hadiths that nobody else narrated implies that he narrated hadiths ACCORDING TO THEIR MEANING(i.e AS HE BELIEVED). Narrating the hadith according to the meaning is halal according to most scholars. However, when an innovator narrates it according to his beliefs, the hadith will sometimes slightly change. Because when Ja’afar(shia narrator) saw wali kul mu’min, he assumed that it referred to khilafah, so when narrating the meaning of the hadith, he added the word ba’dee(after me). This is due to his innovation. This is why scholars like Ibn Hajar reject the hadith of innovators if the hadith supports the innovation. It isn’t because they are lying, but because their understanding of hadiths is incorrect and it differ from Ahlul Sunnah.

Then the shiatu dajjal stated:

[Quote]2. The same hadith, with the phrase “after me” has been narrated through another sahih chain, which contains no Shi’a narratorat all. Rather, all its narrators are Sunnis.[Quote]

We have discussed this in detail in our refutation above. In narration is Abu Balj –> Amru bin Maymoon. As we have explained earlier that it is actually Abu Balj –> Maymoon Abu Abdullah. The original addition of ba’dee is from Maymoon Abu Abdullah. Wallahu a’alam.

Then the dajjalis stated:

[Quote] Shiekh albani said that he doesn’t find this narration to be problematic[Quote]

What an irony, firstly we found that dajjalis themselves criticizing sheikh albani when he said that this narration talks about friendship and love NOT leadership. But now the dajjalis are trying to use his view that he doesn’t find this narration problematic. This is an ultimate example of double standards from dajjalis,  the reason sheikh albani didn’t find this narration to be problematic is because he believed that this narration was to denote friendship NOT Mastership, and because of this reason dajjalis tried to criticize him.

Let us quote before you what shiatu dajjal said:

{Shaykh al-Albani then goes ahead to try to explain away the meaning of ولي in the above Hadith. He claims that it means “friend”, and denies, quite surprisingly, that it can mean “master”.}

So we find that sheikh albani considered that this narration denotes friendhip, that is why he said: { And thereis no disagreemnt among the scholars of Hadith that narrations of a truthful and excellent narrator are to be accepted as proof, even if there is heresy in him, as long as he DOES NOT invite towards his heresy.}, but if the dajjalis want reject the interpretation of sheikh Albani and want to interpret this narration in a way that it denotes Mastership but not friendship , then the rule which albani himself quoted will be applied here, and the narration will be unacceptable since what the shia narrator narrated in his narration is inviting towards his heresy.

To further explain this in more clear manner let us apply the stupid interpretations of religious deceivers to some other narrations in which prophet called some other individuals as “wali”.

1. Sa`id bin Mansur recorded that Ibn Mas`ud said that the Messenger of Allah said: Every Prophet had a Wali (best friend) from among the Prophets. My Wali among them is my father Ibrahim, the Khalil (intimate friend) of my Lord, the Exalted and Most Honored). It’s authentic “(Saheeh al-Jami” 2158)

2. Imam Ahmad recorded that Ibn ` Abbas said, “A group of Jews came to Allah’s Prophet .. They said, Tell us now about your Wali among the angels, for this is when we either follow or shun you. ‘He(prophet) said, `My Wali is Jibril, and Allah never sent a Prophet , but Jibril is his Wali. ‘ They said, `We then shun you. Had you a Wali other than Jibril, we would have followed you. ‘ On that , Allah, the Exalted revealed, (Say: “Whoever is an enemy to Jibril. . . ”) 2:97.

Comment: So if we apply the deceptive interpretations of dajjalis to these narrations then we will have start believing that the Wali, that is MASTER(acc. to shias) of prophet(Saw) was Ibrahim(as) and also Jibril(as). But we know that this doesn’t makes any sense, same as it doesn’t in the narration which dajjalis tried to use inorder to deceive people.

Some points to ponder:

If we analyze the matn(text) of this narration, we can realize from it that its not talking about Mastership but Friendship. If we ask any shiatu dajjal that who appoints the Caliph/Imam  the answer we are going to get is that, its Allah who appoints Caliph/Imam/Master. Then if we ask those shias that why would Ali(ra)  have been the Caliph they would say that because he was the most virtues and most righteous after Prophet(saw). This is a crucial point, But in regards to this narration, what seems to be weird is that if supposedly(for sake of argument) in the above narration prophet(saw) was appointing Ali(ra) as Master/Caliph then he should have directed the appointment of Master over muslims to Allah, like saying Verily Allah appoints wali so wali over every believer is Ali OR should have said that Ali is the most virtues after me so he is your wali , because the statements would have been correctly befitting if wali meant master, but there doesn’t seems to be any such thing rather we find that Prophet(saw) said: Verily, Ali is from me and I am from him…”  which doesn’t fits the context if Ali(ra) was being appointed as Caliph,  since the relation to a Prophet doesn’t  makes a person (divinely appointed)Master over believers, because its not relation but its Taqwa which makes a person superior to other. Moreover even in Quran we find that when Prophet(Saw) reminds of his relation with people he demands love/kindness for himself , { O Prophet, say to them: “I do not ask you any recompense except your love for being my close relatives.” (42:23)}.  So the most plausible reason for prophet referring his relation to Ali was to establish before the believers the bond of Love and friendship Ali(ra) owes as being related to Prophet(saw), Since even if someone incurs grudge against Ali(ra) as it happened that time, even then they will have to love and befriend Ali, by going against their feelings.

Lastly let us quote the opinions of Ali(ra) regarding wilayah(caliphate) from the most sacred book of shias, which will Nail down the arguments of shiatu dajjal:

قال علي رضي الله عنه أيضاً : (( والله ما كان لي في الولاية رغبة ولا في الإمارة إربة ، و لكنكم دعوتموني إليها. و حملتموني عليها )) – نهج البلاغة ج 1/ ص 322.

Ali RAA says: “I Have no desire for Wilayah(Caliphate) and no Love for the Emirate (heading the Islamic state), But you have called upon me and have pushed me(By Giving baya’a) to it (Wilayah).” Nahjul balagha Part 1 Page 322.

Comment: This statement of Ali(ra) was made after more than 20 years had passed after the death of Prophet(saw) , but we find here that Ali(ra) didn’t show any desire of wilayah(caliphate), had it been that he would have been declared Wali(master) by Allah and prophet(Saw), then surely he wouldn’t have dared to reject the proposal of people by saying he doesn’t have any desire for it, because a believer cannot say that he doesn’t have any desire for the position granted by Allah. Moreover Ali(ra) didn’t even say that why are you coming to me now when I was declared wali(master) long time back by the Prophet(saw)? It is just because even Ali(ra) never understood that declaration as mastership but rather he took it as friendship.

Thus the fact is that Hadeeth of Wilayah in no way proves the Caliphate of Ali(ra) and the occurrence of incident of Saqifah itself sufficient to establish this reality, we will be dealing with this in the next Part(5).

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