Part 5: Interpretation of Hadeeth Khalifatayn by RELIGIOUS DECEIVERS under Microscope

Exposing the deception of religious deceivers regarding Hadeeth Manzila

This part is a continuation of Part 4. In this article we will be exposing that how shiatu dajjal tried to deceive lay people by misinterpreting narration of Manzila.


Shiatu dajjal stated:

[Quote] Shaykh Muhammad Ja’far al-Kataani in his Nazam al-Mutanathir Min al-Hadith al-Mutawatir (Egypt edition), p. 195 states:

أما ترضى أن تكون مني بمنزلة هارون من موسى )- أورده فيها أيضا من حديث ( 1 ) أبي سعيد الخدري ( 2 ) وأسماء بنت عميس ( 3 ) وأم سلمة ( 4 ) وابن عباس ( 5 ) وحبشي بن جنادة ( 6 ) وابن عمر ( 7 ) وعلي ( 8 ) وجابر بن سمرة ( 9 ) والبراء بن عازب ( 10 ) وزيد بن أرقم عشرة أنفس ( قلت ) ورد أيضا من حديث ( 11 ) مالك بن الحويرث ( 12 ) وسعد بن أبي وقاص ( 13) وعمر ابن الخطاب وقد تتبع ابن عساكر طرقه في جزء فبلغ عدد الصحابة فيه نيفا وعشرين وفي شرح الرسالة للشيخ جسوس رحمه الله ما نصه وحديث أنت مني بمنزلة هارون من موسى متواتر جاء عن نيف وعشرين صحابيا واستوعبها ابن عساكر في نحو عشرين ورقة

The hadith “Are you not pleased to be to me what Harun was to Musa” has been narrated by (1) Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (2) Asma bint Umays (3) Umm Salamah (4) Ibn Abbas (5) Habashi ibn Junadah (6) Ibn Umar (7) Ali (8) Jabir ibn Samurah (9) al-Bara ibn Azib (10) Zayd ibn Arqam (11) Malik ibn al-Huwayrath (12) Sa’d ibn Abi Waqas and (13) Umar ibn al-Khattab. Ibn Asakir has compiled further chains of the hadith in his book, and has narrated it from MORE THAN TWENTY SAHABAH.

Shaykh Jasus, may Allah’s mercy be upon him, said in his book Sharh al-Risalah: “The hadith, ‘Are you not pleased to be to me what Harun was to Musa’ is MUTAWATIR and has been narrated by more than twenty Sahabah and Ibn Asakir recorded it in over twenty pages’.[Quote]

Indeed this narration is mutawattir, but we request our readers to pay attention at the words of narration which the scholar cited, {“Are you not pleased to be to me what Harun was to Musa”},  this narration doesn’t have any addition like “AFTER ME”. Those additions are munkar since the authentic narrations are free of these additions.

But notice that how the dajjalis after quoting the statement of scholar that the hadeeth Manzila is mutawattir, tries to push the narration which has munkar part(i.e “after me”) in it. Shiatu dajjal stated:

[Quote] Imam al-Nisai in his al-Sunan al-Kubra, vol. 5, p. 112, Number 8409 (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, 1991) records that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said to Imam Ali (عليه السّلام):

أما ترضى أن تكون مني بمنزلة هارون من موسى إلا أنك لست بنبي ثم قال أنت خليفتي يعني في كل مؤمن من بعدي

Are you not pleased to be to me what Harun was to Musa  except that you are not a prophet? YOU ARE MY KHALIFAH OVER EVERY BELIEVER AFTER ME.

Allamah Ahmad Shakir in his annotation of Musnad Ahmad, vol. 5, p. 25, Number 3062 (or Number 2903 in some versions) states about the above Hadith:

إسناده صحيح

Its chain is Sahih.[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 misled by the dajjalis when they quote the verdicts of scholars for a certain hadeeth, such 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).]

As for the shiatu dajjal there is a perfect example to make them understand regarding this terminology. So here is the view of Sheik Albani regarding this narration. He accepts the chain as being hasan, but he rejects part of the hadith completely which didn’t go down the throat of dajjalis. In Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Sahihah, vol. 4, p. 343, Number 1750, shiek albani states:

أما ما يذكره الشيعة في هذا الحديث و غيره أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال في علي رضي الله عنه : ” إنه خليفتي من بعدي ” . فلا يصح بوجه من الوجوه , بل هو من أباطيلهم الكثيرة التي دل الواقع التاريخي على كذبها لأنه لو فرض أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قاله , لوقع كما قال لأنه ( وحي يوحى ) و الله سبحانه لا يخلف وعده

As for what the Shiites mention about this Hadith (i.e. Hadith al-Ghadir) and in others that the Prophet said about Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, that “He is my Khalifah after me”, it is not authentic in any way or by any means. Rather, it is part of their several lies which history has refuted. This is because if the Prophet, peace be upon him, had indeed said it, it would have occurred as predicted, because it is revelation revealed, and Allah never fails in His promises.

2. The view of mutakir(scholars from later generation) cannot precede the the views of  Mutaqaddimin(early) scholars. For example views of sheikh albani cannot precede 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 Hadeeth and it is that the explained jarh(critism on narrator) takes precedence over ta’deel

Firstly let us bring it to the attention of our readers about a “word” present in this narration, which shiatu dajjal deliberately left in their translation, because it would have destroyed whole of their argument. Here is the correct translation with the word that was deliberately missed by shiatu dajjal.

Translation: Are you not pleased to be to me what Harun was to Musa except that you are not a prophet? You are my khalifah MEANING over every believer after me.

The narration the dajjalis brought had the word (يعني) which translates as “MEANING”, which they deliberately left out from the translation because this word proves that the later part of the narration was the addition by the shia narrator.

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).

This narration comes via  Abu al Balaj from amro bin maymoun from ibn Abbas…

First narrator who inserted the phrase “after me” in narration.

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 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).

Moreover, al-Thahabi considered this hadith to be munkar in Mizan Al-I’itidal under the biography of Abu Balj, and it is one of his late books. His comments on al-Mustadrak was written when he was a lot younger and he himself admitted that it needed some work. Check out Siyar A’alam Al-Nubala under the biography of Al-Hakim.

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 “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.”


Now the second narrator to use this munkar phrase “After me” was Ja’afar Ibn Sulaiman

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..

As for the innovators it is renowned principle in science of hadith that, If an Innovator narrates something to further his innovation then it is rejected even if the narrator is trustworthy. This hadith was only narrated through him in this form thus his addition to the Hadith is rejected.

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

There are other authentic hadiths which expound on this hadith, such as:

وعن علي أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قالخلفتك أن تكون خليفتي. قال: أتخلف عنك يا رسول الله؟ قال:”أما ترضى أن تكون مني بمنزلة هارون من موسى؟ إلا أنه لا نبي بعدي*.

رواه الطبراني في الأوسط ورجاله رجال الصحيح

The Prophet said to Ali (may God be pleased with him):”Khalaftak antakun Khalifatih” – I have choosen you as my successor.Ali replied (may God be pleased with him): Will I succeed you O Prophet of God ?The Prophet replied: Aren’t you satisfied with being unto me what Aaron was unto Moses but with this exception that there would be no prophet after me. [Tabarani, authentic]
Comment: here prophet clearly removed the doubt of successorship after him. He said “ARE NOT U SATISFIED”!

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. Some people misunderstand when we say that “after me” was added by the shia narrators, they argue that were those narrators liars to add that phrase? The answer to this ignoramus argument is that we don’t say that shia narrator 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 their innovation. It isn’t because they are lying, but because their understanding of hadith is incorrect.

Explanations for authentic narration of Manzila

We request our readers to refer this article also which covers answers to most of the arguments which the religious deceivers could raise. (click here)

Lets us give a brief account of the context in which these words were said by Prophet(Saw), so that people could understand them properly and in a correct manner, which will be free of deceptive dajjali interpretations:

“After a major number of the Muslims leaving al-Madinah, the hypocrites who remained back and those who returned from the way, in the event of the defeat of the Muslim army, which `Abdullah Ibn Ubay expected, they planned to invade the Prophet’s home and loot it and send away the members of his family from al-Madinah. There was also danger from people who had not as yet embraced Islam and were defeated in the battles that they fought with them. Such people might see an opportunity to plunder the properties and assets of the Muslims. In these circumstances, it was the demand of farsightedness that a person should be left in al-Madinah who could face any eventuality with courage and control things from going awry. Therefore, the Prophet (a.s) decided to leave behind `Ali (a.s) whose fear was already embedded in the hearts of the Arabs because of his recent successes in the battles. The hypocrites of al-Madinah did not like this arrangement. When they were unable to find any excuse, they said: “The Prophet (a.s) considering him a burden, has left him behind!” `Ali (a.s) who was continuously winning in the battles with the infidels, was feeling for being dropped from the contingent going for the new Campaign. When he heard this taunt from the hypocrites, he could not control himself and put on the arms and started moving behind the army at some distance. After sometime, he caught up with them and went to the presence of the Prophet (a.s). He complained to the Prophet (a.s) that the hypocrites say that he was left behind because he would be a burden during the campaign. The Prophet (a.s) said that they were liars and I am leaving you behind in al-Madinah because the administration there should be either with me or with you. He also said that in his Ahl al-Bayt and in his Ummah, he was his successor. He added: “Are you not happy that you have the same relationship with me as Harūn (a.s) had with Mūsa (a.s). The only difference is that there will be no prophet after me.” [Shia author Mufti Jafar Husayn , “Sirat amir al-muminin” (p 293) ]”

Another shia scholar Ibn Muttahar al-Hilli in his book on bio of Ali (p 136) wrote: “The Messenger of Allah who had taken march towards Tabuk seriously, to carry out God’s order, departed with a group of believers toward Tabuk, appointing `Ali as his successor to protect Medina and to act as guardians of families, saying to him: The security of this city will not be guarded by anyone except you and me. The Messenger of Allah knew that the Arabs residing around Mecca and those who had suffered life losses in the battles were looking for a chance to invade Mecca when the Holy Prophet was not in that city. It was due to this reason that he vigilantly endeavored to safeguard it. Now that the Holy Prophet was in the battle, he appointed `Ali to safeguard Medina which was feared to face chaos in the absence of the Messenger of Allah. Hearing this, the blind-hearted hypocrites and gossipmongers inside Medina were extremely worried and jealous of `Ali, for they knew that with the presence of `Ali no danger could threaten Medina and in this way their plot was foiled. Hence, they started the so-called cold war, spreading the rumor by saying: As the presence of `Ali in this battle is heavy for the prophet, he does not wish to take him with himself. Therefore, he leaves `Ali in Medina which means he does not honor `Ali, though they knew how much the Holy Prophet was interested in `Ali! This kind of rumors was heavy for `Ali. So he immediately left Medina for meeting the Messenger of Allah.”

Thus we realize through the context of these reports that Ali(ra) was disappointed with the decision because it meant he would have to stay behind with women and children. The Prophet (pbuh) was consoling him by comparing him to Aaron when Moses left Aaron in charge. In the case of battle, all able-bodied Muslims are required to join the Prophet (pbuh) unless they have a legitimate excuse, otherwise they were usually considered hypocrites. The Prophet (pbuh) would have had told a good and trustworthy person to stay behind himself, because nobody would have wanted to stay behind, and even if they did, it would not have been a positive mark on their sincerity of faith.

So the Prophet (pbuh), as not to make someone upset for staying behind, had to select someone to do a necessary but otherwise unglamorous duty – something which nobody would have liked to volunteer to do. In normal circumstances, we would want the most pious and brave soldiers to join the Prophet (pbuh), not to volunteer to stay behind. So the Prophet (pbuh) should hand-pick someone to stay behind otherwise an unworthy person might be left behind instead.

Most importantly, the context was not near the Prophet’s (pbuh) end of life. Rather, the Prophet (pbuh) was appointing Ali (may God be pleased with him) to govern Medina while the Prophet (pbuh) was leaving to battle. That is why the scholars did not consider it an appointment of Caliphate due to being early and limited context as leaving Ali in charge of Medina in his absence

Caliph is a word which denotes being the Caliph of the Muslims. But it’s also the right word to use if you are deputizing someone over an area. For example, the Prophet (pbuh) gave the same job to many other companions in many other battles. He deputized people other than Ali to look after Medina in his absence:

فقد استخلف في غزوة بدر: عبد الله ابن أم مكتوم، واستعمل على المدينة في غزوة بني المصطلق: أبا ذر الغفاري وفي غزوة الحديبية: نُمَيْلَةَ بن عبد الله الليثي كما استعمله أيضاً في غزوة خيبر، وفي عمرة القضاء استعمل: عويف بن الأضبط الديلي، وفي فتح مكة: كلثوم بن حصين بن عتبة الغفاري، وفي حجة الوداع: أبا دجانة الساعدي (السيرة النبوية لابن هشام في سيرته2/650،804،806، 3/ 1113،1133،1154،1197، 4/1241،1457)

In seerah Ibn Hisham, the Prophet (pbuh) appointed the following people as leaders of Medina in his absence during various battles:

Abdullah ibn Um Maktoom
Abu Dharr al Ghafari
Numaylah bin Abdulah Allaythi
Uyaaf bin Al Adhbat al Deeli
Kulthum bin Hussein bin Utbah al Ghafari
Abu Dujannah al Sa’di

ولهذا خرج عليّ إلى النبي وقال « خلّفتني على النساء والصبيان»؟ فقال له  ذلك، وأراد أن يطيب قلبه وأبان له أن الاستخلاف لا يوجب نقصاً له،eالنبي  لأن موسى استخلف هارون على قومه فكيف يعدّ ذلك نقصاً، فرضي علي بذلك (فقال: رضيت رضيت) كما جاء في رواية ابن المسيب عند أحمد (فتح الباري7/92)

In fact, Ali (may God be pleased with him) was upset with being left behind from battle, as he said: Have you appointed me as the Caliph of the women and children? And the Prophet (pbuh) replied that Moses (pbuh) left Aaron (pbuh) in charge of the children of Israel while he went to speak to God.  So Ali said “I am pleased, I am pleased” [Narrated by Ahmed bin Hanbal, in Fath al Bari by Ibn Hajar al Asqalani]

Comparision of Ali(ra) with Haroon(as): SOME FACTS FROM HISTORY

Allah (تبارك و تعالى) tells us in the story of Musa (عليه السّلام) in Qur’an 7:142:

وَقَالَ مُوسَى لِأَخِيهِ هَارُونَ اخْلُفْنِي فِي قَوْمِي وَأَصْلِحْ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ سَبِيلَ الْمُفْسِدِينَ

And Musa said to his brother, “Be my Khalifah among my people, act in the Right Way and do not follow the way of the mischief-makers.

We know that even Haroon(as) was not made Khaliph in permanent manner rather his appointment was temporary, that is until Musa(as) returns. But the permanent Khaliph of Musa(as) was Yusha bin noon, who became caliph after death of Musa(as) it was not Haroon(as) since he was made as caliph for a particular moment, that is why Prophet(Saw) compared Ali(ra) with Haroon.

Another Example from History:

Here Another incident from history which further strengthens our explanation. When the people of Syria asked Umar for help against the people of Palestine, he appointed Ali as the ruler (in his absense).

لما استمد أهل الشأم عمر على أهل فلسطين استخلف عليا
When Umar went to Palestine , he appointed Ali as his Khaliph.
Sources: Tabari Vol. 4 p. 159
Siyyar Alam al nubla, Vol. 2, p. 85
Kanzul Ammal Vol. 7 , p. 69

This is the incident in which Umar(ra) appointed Ali(ra) as his Caliph, in a temporary manner similar like Musa(as) made to Haroon(as) and as Prophet(Saw) made to Ali(ra), but after the death of Umar(ra) neither Ali(ra) nor others claimed that since Ali(ra) was made a caliph in temporary manner for particular moment then he should be the Caliph after him, Nothing as such happened in fact Umar(ra) himself gave a list of members who were eligible to be made as Caliphs after him.

Ali(ra) himself rejects the dajjali interpretations for this narration:

Sahi bukhari 5.728: Narrated `Abdullah bin `Abbas: `Ali bin Abu Talib came out of the house of Allah’s Apostle during his fatal illness. The people asked, “O Abu Hasan (i.e. `Ali)! How is the health of Allah’s Apostle this morning?” `Ali replied, “He has recovered with the Grace of Allah.” `Abbas bin `Abdul Muttalib held him by the hand and said to him, “In three days you, by Allah, will be ruled (by somebody else ), And by Allah, I feel that Allah’s Apostle will die from this ailment of his, for I know how the faces of the offspring of `Abdul Muttalib look at the time of their death. So let us go to Allah’s Apostle and ask him who will take over the Caliphate. If it is given to us we will know as to it, and if it is given to somebody else, we will inform him so that he may tell the new ruler to take care of us.” `Ali said, “By Allah, if we asked Allah’s Apostle for it (i.e. the Caliphate) and he denied it us, the people will never give it to us after that. And by Allah, I will not ask Allah’s Apostle for it.”

Comment: so this narration proves that even hz ali(ra) didn’t knew until the last hours of prophet(Saw) that who will be the caliph. Which proves that he never understood hadeeth al manzila to be a declaration of his Caliphate.

One of the most sacred book of shias, Nahjul balagha states:

والله ما كانت لي في الخلافة رغبة و لا في الولاية إربة ولكنكم دعوتموني إليها و حملتموني عليها فلما أفضت إليّ نظرت إلى كتاب الله و ما وضع لنا و أمرنا بالحكم

Ali(ra) said: By Allah, I had no liking for the caliphate nor any interest in government, but you yourselves invited me to it and prepared me for it. When the caliphate came to me, I kept the Book of Allah in my view and all that Allah had put therein for us, and all that according to which He has commanded us to take decisions.[sermon 205]

Comment: This sermon of Ali(ra) was made after more than 20 years had passed after the death of Prophet(saw) , Even this sermon of Ali(ra) proves that Ali(ra) never considered that he was already appointed as Caliph, instead he said here that, “WHEN CALIPHATE CAME TO ME”  which signifies that he wasn’t the Caliph during that time neither did he wanted to be a Caliph. Had it been that Ali(ra) was appointed Caliph when prophet(Saw) stated Hadeeth al Manzila, then he would have responded the people who came to appoint him as Caliph by stating that why are you coming now to make me a caliph when Prophet(Saw) appointed me before his death.


Points to ponder:

1. Why wasn’t Ali(ra) initially happy if he was appointed as a Caliph or as the shias say divinely appointed Caliph?  Well it just proves that nothing was related to divine appointment by Allah nor was it related to Permanent Caliphate.

2. It was not said as an address to Ummah or muslims, but it was an address just to Ali(ra). Because prophet(Saw) said “YOU” are to “ME” as haroon to musa, He didn’t say” o believers, Ali is to me as harun to musa”. Or he would have said: “Ali to YOU(muslims) is like Haroon to Bani Israel”, but he didn’t say anything as such.This clearly shows that this wasn’t any kind of declaration before muslims, but it was rather a consolation to Ali(ra) ONLY. [Irnoically shias claim that Ali(ra) was made caliph in Ghadeer, but we find that he was made caliph(according to shias) on this occasion. Silly contradiction.]

3. Shiites also fail to take into consideration that Hadhrat Ali was made the caretaker of the Ummah not only in the absence of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه و سلم, but also in the absence of Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar رضي الله عنهم. This shows that the narration in question has no relevance to the Shiite claim of the caliphate rightfully belonging to Hadhrat Ali رضي الله عنه over Siddiqe-Akbar.

4. If the appointment of one as leader over the people by the Messenger of Allah was sufficient enough proof for the position of Caliphate, then why do Shiites ignore that Hadhrat Abu Bakr Siddiq رضي الله عنه was nominated as Ameer-ul-Hajj by the Messenger of Allah ? And even when Hadhrat Ali رضي الله عنه was sent as a minister to make the formal announcement in Makkah and was asked by Siddiqe-Akbar “امبرٌ ام مأمور ” (Are you sent as Amir or Ma’mur/follower) to which Hadhrat Hadhrat Ali رضي الله عنه replied “بل مأمور” (Indeed, as a follower). What answer do Shiites have to the fact that at the time of Hijrah, the Messenger of Allah appointed Hadhrat Ali رضي الله عنه to stay in his place to return the possessions of the people of Makkah, but it was Hadhrat Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه who Allah decreed to accompany the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم. Why has no Shiite ever been able to explain why did the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه و سلم appointed Hadhrat Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه as the Imam to lead the prayers on his musalla and not Hadhrat Ali?

5.Harun عليه السلام died during the lifetime of Musa عليه السلام so he was never a successor after Musa(as). The Hadith al-Manzilah does not at all help the Shia cause, but rather it is a strong proof against the Shia claims. Had the Prophet wished to imply that Ali was his successor, then he would have likened Ali to Yusha bin nun rather than Prophet Haroon(as).


IMPORTANT: Decisive Fact from History which alone is sufficient to destroy all the deceptions of Shiatu dajjal.

Praise be to Allah, Though we have already destroyed all the deceptions of religious deceivers(shiatu dajjal) which were based on either fabricated narrations or deceptive interpretations given to narrations. But now we are going to present before our readers a historical FACT which is self sufficient to destroy and bury all the deceptions of dajjalis in just one Knock. If seen from a correct prespective then it quite smoothly establishes that Prophet(saw) had never appointed any Caliph to succeed after him. Thus all those fabrications or misinterpretations, whether present in books of Ahlesunnah or Shias goes into trash. We request all the truthseekers to ponder over this fact in an unbiased manner.

The occurrence of incident of Saqifah itself is the irrefutable proof that Prophet(saw) had never appointed any Caliph in particular to succeed after him.

Let us show you the relevant things that occurred in saqifah in a nutshell, before raising some thought provoking points. The incident of Saqifah in detail can be read from this article. [click here]

We know that most of Ansar and Mujahireen were in strong disagreement regarding the issue that who is going to be the Caliph after Prophet(Saw). And both parties wanted that the Caliph should be from their group. Thus we read that:

(The) Ansar said: “In case they reject our Caliph, we shall drive them out from Al-Medinah at the point of our swords.” However, the few Muhajirs in the assembly protested against this attitude and this led to a dispute and disorder of a serious nature and a war between the Muhajirs and Ansars seemed possible. When the situation took this ugly turn, Mughirah ibn Shubah left the trouble spot and came to the Prophet’s Mosque to relate what was going on in Saqifah Banu Sa’idah. (Tareekh Al-Islam, Vol.1, p.273-274)

Saad ibn Ubaadah (رضّى الله عنه) conveyed the following message to his fellow Ansar stating: “O Company of the Ansar! You have precedence in religion and merit in Islam that no other tribe of the Arabs can claim. Muhammad remained ten-odd years in his tribe, calling them to worship the Merciful and to cast off idols and graven images, but only a few men of his tribe believed in him, and they were able neither to protect the Apostle of Allah, nor to render his religion strong, nor to divert from themselves the oppression that befell them all. “Until, when He intended excellence for you (O Ansar); He sent nobility to you and distinguished you with grace. Thus Allah bestowed upon you faith in Him and in His Apostle, and protection for him and his companions, and strength for him and his faith, and Jihad against his enemies. You (O Ansar) were the most severe people against his enemies who were not from among you, so that the Arabs became upright in Allah’s Cause, willingly or unwillingly…through you (O Ansar) Allah made great slaughter (of the infidels) in the earth for His Apostle, and by your swords (O Ansar) the Arabs were abased for him. When Allah took (the Prophet) to Himself, he was pleased with you (O Ansar) and consoled by you.  “So keep control of this matter (i.e. the Caliphate) to yourselves, to the exclusion of others, for it is yours and yours alone.”  (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.10, p.2)

But the Quraish disagreed over this, that is why Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) said: ‘O Ansar! You deserve all (the qualities that you have attributed to yourselves, but this question (of Caliphate) is only for the Quraish as they are the best of the Arabs as regards descent and home, and I am pleased to suggest that you choose either of these two men(Umar and Abu Ubaidah), so take the oath of allegiance to either of them as you wish.” (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817)

The Ansar made their counter-offer, saying:“O Quraish. There should be one ruler from us and one from you.”(Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817)

Then the Ansars and Muhajirs fell into argumentation, and then Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) said:“O Saad (ibn Ubaadah)! You know very well that the Prophet had said in your presence that the Quraish shall be given the Caliphate because the noble among the Arab (masses) follow their (Quraish) nobles and their ignobles follow their (Quraish) ignobles.”(Musnad Ahmad, vol. 1, p.5)

Finally, the Ansar assented and said:“What you say is correct: we are your advisors and you are our rulers.” (Musnad Ahmad, Vol.1, p.5)

Shaykh al-Albani in his Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Sahihah, Vol. 3, p. 146, Number 1156 records that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said:

قريش ولاة هذا الأمر , فبر الناس تبع لبرهم و فاجرهم تبع لفاجرهم

Quraysh are the possessors of this affair (i.e the caliphate). The pious ones among mankind will follow the pious ones of Quraysh while the evil ones among mankind will follow the evil ones among Quraysh.

It was narrated from Zirr that ‘Abdullah said: When the Messenger of Allah died, the Ansar said; A leader from among us and a leader from among you. ‘Umar went to them and said: O Ansar, do you not know that the Messenger of Allah(SAWS) ordered Abu Bakr to lead the people in prayer? Which of you would like himself to be given precedence over Abu Bakr? The Ansar said: We seek refuge with Allah from being given precedence over Abu Bakr. [Musnad Ahmad vol 1, page 96, #133, Isnad Hasan]

This Hadith was reported by Abubakr(ra) at Saqifah and this is what happened after Abubakr narrated it:

فقال له سعد : صدقت , نحن الوزراء و أنتم الأمراء

Sa’d said to him (Abubakr): “You have said the truth. We (Ansar) are the ministers while you (Quraysh) are the rulers.[Shaykh al-Albani grades the whole report as Sahih.]

So let us bring before you some very important points from the above short summary of Saqifah. And we request all of our esteemed readers to PAY ATTENTION on these points and think about them in an unbiased manner:

1. If supposedly as the shiatu dajjal claim that Ali(ra) was made caliph before death of Prophet(saw), then why didn’t  99% of companions of Prophet(Saw) , didn’t understand this declaration to be appointment of caliph?

If the shias claim that they did that purposely to gain power, then the first thing that should come in the mind is that why would these people who risked their life to follow Prophet(saw), left their homes, land, wealth, etc for following Prophet(saw) would do so? These were the people who followed the prophet(saw) when no one knew that one day they were going to get leadership over Arabia, yet they risked lives just to follow Prophet(Saw).

Moreover people who are aware of the characteristics of companions of Prophet(saw) which are outlined in Quran , they could never raise such foolish arguments. For example read this verse of Quran: (It is) for the poor who fled their homes and their possessions, seeking grace of Allah and (His) pleasure, and assisting Allah and His Messenger: these it is that are the truthful. And those who made their abode in the city and in the faith before them love those who have fled to them, and do not find in their hearts a need of what they are given, and prefer (them) before themselves though poverty may afflict them, and whoever is preserved from the niggardliness of his soul, these it is that are the successful ones.(59: 8-9). More can be read [here]

Thus its not possible that 99% of Companions of Prophet would have done so, these  non-sensical and absurd arguments could only be expected from the brainless shiatu dajjal because they are the biggest enemies of Islam.

2. If we read arguments raised by Ansar and Muhajireen, we will find that both of the groups were arguing by referring their virtues, their sacrifices for Islam and their SUPPORT AND OBEDIENCE TO PROPHET(SAW), So it would be non-sensical to assume that people who are so much related to Islam and Prophet(saw) that they want to attain a position because of their virtues and deeds would ignore any sort of declaration of prophet(saw) regarding the issue they were arguing.

3. Moreover if we analyze the dispute between Muhajirs and Ansars at Saqifah, we will realize that none of them had any idea of Ali(ra) being already appointed as Caliph, because even when Abubakar(ra) tries to calm down Ansar, he says to them that caliph would be from Quraysh. Interestingly according to shias almost all the companions including the Ansar knew that Ali(ra) was made caliph on ghadeer, yet abubakar(ra) said to them that Caliph should be from Quraysh, BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT PROPHET SAID, and when they listened to the command of prophet they didn’t reject it.

Now, if we analyze this logically then, if at all Ansar knew that Ali(ra) was already made caliph BY PROPHET, then nothing would have stopped them from making Ali(ra) caliph because, they stepped back from their demand that caliph should be from Ansar because they were made aware of the command of Prophet(saw). So respected readers, just think that why would such people leave their demand because of saying of prophet and on other hand negate other command of Prophet regarding same issue?

Let us put this in other way, that why would Ansar drop their claim, which they were willing to take by sword just because of command of Prophet that caliph would be from Quraysh , BUT on the other hand reject the command of Prophet(saw), that Ali(ra) was to be the Caliph over muslims?

4. And why would they agree on the Caliphate of Abubakar(ra)? Because they didn’t get the Caliphate since they were made aware of the command of Prophet that Caliph should be from Quraysh by Abubakr(ra). So why would they allow Abubakar to become Caliph if at all Ali(ra) was ALREADY declared as Caliph by Prophet.

Infact they would have argued with Abubakar(ra) that , if he is showing them the mirror to follow command of Prophet(saw), then why isn’t he doing the same OR they would have refuted Abubakr(ra) by saying that when you are not following the command of Prophet(Saw) regarding taking Ali(ra) as Caliph then you have no right to stop us from demanding Caliphate.

5. When Ansar wanted to take Caliphate even with the force of sword dropped the idea just because of command of Prophet(saw), then its not possible that such people have let anyone reject the command of Prophet(saw) regarding the issue of Caliphate, if at all Ali(ra) was made Caliph by Prophet(saw). They would have again raised the swords to follow the command of Prophet(saw), and would have demanded to make Ali(ra) as Caliph and nothing could have stopped them from doing so. But nothing as such occurred, which proves that Prophet(saw) had never appointed a Caliph to succeed after him.

Ali(ra) affirmed that methodology used in Saqifah to be correct:

In one of the most sacred books of shia Ali(ra) said:

إنه بايعني القوم الذين بايعوا أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان ، على ما بايعوهم عليه ، فلم يكن للشاهد أن يختار ولا للغائب أن يرد ، وإنما الشورى للمهاجرين والأنصار ، فإن اجتمعوا على رجل وسموه إماماً كان ذلك لله رضى فإن خرج منهم خارج بطعن أو بدعة ردوه إلى ماخرج منه فإن أبى قاتلوه على اتباعه غير سبيل المؤمنين ، وولاه الله ما تولى

Verily, the people who payed allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have payed allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them. So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah. If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him. (Nahjul-Balaghah, Letter #6)

Comment: This proves that Caliphate of first three Caliphs was with the pleasure of Allah, according to Ali(ra). Subhanallah! Moreover Ali(ra) didn’t accuse anyone for using wrong methodology for making a Caliph, he didn’t object that the mode of making caliph to be incorrect,  infact he approves the way Muhajirs and Ansar elected the Caliph to be correct.

3 thoughts on “Part 5: Interpretation of Hadeeth Khalifatayn by RELIGIOUS DECEIVERS under Microscope

  1. It was narrated from Zirr that ‘Abdullah said: When the Messenger of Allah died, the Ansar said; A leader from among us and a leader from among you. ‘Umar went to
    them and said: O Ansar, do you not know that the Messenger of Allah(SAWS) ordered Abu Bakr to lead the people in prayer? Which of you would like himself to be given precedence over Abu Bakr? The Ansar said: We seek refuge with
    Allah from being given precedence over Abu Bakr. [Musnad Ahmad vol 1, page 96, #133, Isnad Hasan]

  2. Is the killer of Ammar ibn Yasir going to hell?

    This article is adapted from an article written by Shaykh Irshadul Athari and published in the magazine “I’tisam” n 10 march 2007

    It is attributed to the Prophet (saw) that he said about Ammar ibn Yasir: ‘The killer of Ammar and the one who will take his materials (sword, shield…) will be in hell’

    It is also narrated that Ammar was martyred at the battle of Siffin and his killer was Abu Ghadiyah (“Musnad Ahmad” and “Isabah” v 4 p 14, and others)

    Abu Ghadiyah is not only a Sahabi, but he is among those who gave pledge of allegiance at the peace treaty of Hudaybiyah, as mentioned by Muhammad ibn Habib Al-Baghdadi in his ‘Muhbir’ (p296-296). Hafiz Az-Zahabi also said: ‘It is said that he witnessed Al-Hudaybiyah.’ (‘Sayr’ v 2 p 544)

    And the Prophet (saw) said about those who witnessed Badr and Hudaybiyah that the fire will not touch them, in Muslim v 2 p 303 and Ahmad v 3 p 250:

    ‘None of the people who gave allegiance under the tree will enter the fire if Allah wills (Insha Allah)’

    Also he (saw) said in Ahmad v 3 p 396-362:

    ‘None of those present at Badr and Hudaybiyah will enter the fire’

    Allamah Albani mentioned this narration in his ‘As-Silsilah As-Sahihah’ n 216, v 5 p 191. This narration opposes the narration: ‘The killer of Ammar and the one who will take his materials will be in fire’ that Shaykh Albani also put in his ‘Sahihah’ n 2008, v 5 p 18.

    Hafiz ibn Hajar said that the battles between the Sahabah are based on Ijtihad and Ta’weel and the one who is right will have two rewards (and the mistaken will have a single reward), when this is the case of normal Mujtahid, then Sahabah deserve this more. (‘Isabah’ v 4 p 148)

    But Shaykh Albani believes that this rule is general and when there is a Qat’i (certain) proof, then it will be an exception to this general rule.

    But this is a clear mistake from Shaykh Albani because the narration telling that none of those present at Badr and Hudaybiyah will go to hell is Qat’i and Rajih while the authenticity of the Hadith: ‘The killer of Ammar…’ is questionable.
    Shaykh Albani mentioned this narration with three Isnads:

    1) Reported by Imam Abu Muhammad Al-Makhlad in his ‘Thalatu Majalis minal Amali’ with Layth from Mujahid from Abdullah ibn ‘Amr. Shaykh Albani himself said that this Hadith is weak because of Layth ibn Abi Sulaym: “There is inqita’ (disconnection) in it”. The Sanad is disconnected. Ibn Abi ‘Asim also reported this narration with the way of Layth ibn Abi Sulaym in his “Al-Ahad wal Mathani” (v 2 p 102, Tabarani in his “Kabeer”, ibn ‘Asakir)

    2) This is also narrated by Hakim with Sanad: ‘AbdurRahman ibnul Mubarak narrated to us: Al-Mu’tamar ibn Sulayman from his father from Mujahid (“Mustadrak” v 3 p 387). Imam Hakim wrote: “’AbdurRahman ibnul Mubarak is alone in narrating this and he is Thiqah Mamun (trustworthy integer). If that Sanad is Mahfuz (preserved), then it will be upon the conditions of the two Shaykhs (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)”.

    Only Al-Bukhari narrated from ’AbdurRahman ibnul Mubarak, and not Imam Muslim, so it is upon conditions of Al-Bukhari only. Without doubts, ’AbdurRahman ibnul Mubarak is Thiqah but he opposed a group and Imam Hakim pointed to this: “People only narrated this from Mu’tamar from Layth from Mujahid”

    Among other narrators who narrated contrary to ’AbdurRahman ibnul Mubarak, there is ‘Abbas ibn Waleed Al-Namrosi as in “Al-Ahad wal Mathani” (v 2 p 102, n 803) but the Muhaqiq of this book declared the Layth of this Sanad to be Layth ibn Sa’d, and this is wrong as he is Layth ibn Abi Sulaym.

    Also among this group opposing ’AbdurRahman ibnul Mubarak, we have Imam Al-Musaddad as reported by Hafiz ibn Hajar in his “Al-Matalib Al-‘Aliyah” (p 35, p 165 n 4415) who quoted from Al-Musaddad’s Musnad.

    Also we have Salih ibn Hatim and ‘Amr ibn ‘Ali as reported by ibn ‘Asakir (v 43 p 426-474)

    So the narration of these four is Rajih (preponderant) and that of ’AbdurRahman ibnul Mubarak is Marjuh. Moreover there is in this narration Sulayman ibn Taymi who is a Mudallis and he reported with “’An” (from). An-Nasa’i, ibn Ma’in and others have declared him to be a Mudallis (“Tarikh ibn Ma’in” from narration of Ad-Dawri n 3600, “Tabaqat Al-Mudallisin” 22), Hafiz ibn Hajar placed him in second category.

    3) The third Sanad of this narration is: “’Afan ibn Muslim, he said: Hammad ibn Salamah informed us, he said: Abu Hafs and Kulthum ibn Jibr from Abu Ghadiyah”. Reported in “Musnad Ahmad” (v 4 194) Ibn Sa’d (v 3 p 260).

    Shaykh Albani said about this Hadith in his “Sahihah” (v 5 p 19): “The Sanad is authentic, its men are Thiqah from men of Muslim.” The Muhaqiq of “Al-Matalib Al-Aliyah” said similarly but this is not correct. Hafiz Az-Zahabi said about this narration: “There is Inqita’ in its Isnad” (“Sayr” v 2 p 544)

    This saying of Allamah Az-Zahabi is correct because Kukthum ibn Jibr narrated from Abu Ghadiyah the details of the martyrdom of ‘Ammar ibn Yasir, then the words are: “Amr ibnul ‘As was informed about this and he said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) that the killer of Ammar and the one who will take his materials will be in hell”

    Who narrated this to ‘Amr ibnul ‘As and reported this from him, and it is clear that it is neither Abu Ghadiyah nor Kulthum ibn Jibr. Kulthum narrates from Abu Ghadiyah, Abdullah ibn Zubayr and Anas but not from ‘Amr ibnul ‘As. There is difference about ‘Amr ibn ‘As’ death. Hakim and ibn Abdil Barr said that the most correct is 43. This is also the saying of ibn Yunus (“Tahzib” v 8 p 57). People of knowledge know that ibn Yunus’ saying is more correct about the people of Egypt. Kulthum ibn Jibr died in 130. So if he died being more than 87 years old, then hearing this from ‘Amr is possible, else not. This is probably the reason why Az-Zahabi declared its Isnad to be Munqati’.

    This is also narrated through another Sanad from ‘Amr ibnul ‘As by ibn ‘Asakir (v 43 p 473), but there are unknown and criticized narrators in it.

    Also this opposes the narration of “Sahih Muslim”: ‘None of the people who gave allegiance under the tree will enter the fire if Allah wills (Insha Allah)’. So this is why the narration of Muslim is Rajih.
    The status of witnessing narrations

    There are some Shawahid to this Hadith, but they are all weak and Shaykh Albani did not mention them:

    First Shahid: From ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibnul ‘As: The Prophet (saw) said to ‘Ammar: “The transgressor group (Al-Fiatul Baghiyah) will kill you and your killer will be in the fire.” (“Al-Matalib Al-Aliyah” v 35 p 173 n 4419, ibn Asakir v 43 p 774). This is extremely weak as Amr ibn Malik Ar-Rasibi is weak and his teacher Yusuf ibn Atiyah is Matruk (“Taqrib” p 396-568)

    Second Shahid: Hafiz Az-Zahabi mentioned in “Sayr” (v 1 p 42) from Hadith via ‘Uthman: “Abu ‘Awannah with his Isnad and Abu Ya’la from Hadith: Ahmad ibn Muhammad Al-Bahili narrated to us, Yahya ibn ‘Isa narrated to us, Al-‘Amash narrated to us, Zayd ibn Wahb…” with words: “The transgressor group will kill you and his killer will be in the fire”

    Az-Zahabi did not mention the Sanad of Abu ‘Awanah, but the Sanad of Abu Ya’la is mentioned. It is in “Musnad Kabeer” and “Mu’jam” n 283 of Imam Abu Ya’la. Hafiz ibn Hajar mentioned it in “Al-Matalib” (n 4423, v 35 p 183) from “Musnad Kabeer” only.

    First, the Sanad in Musnad Abu Ya’la is as such: “Al-Fadl ibn Sikin narrated to us: Ahmad ibn Muhammad Ar-Ramli narrated to us: Yahya ibn ‘Isa Ar-Ramli narrated to us, Al-A’mash narrated to us…”

    Imam Ibn Ma’in declared Al-Fadl ibn Sikin to be a liar (“Lisan” v 4 p 441). Shaykh Irshadul Haqq could not find Tawthiq for Ahmad ibn Muhammad Ar-Ramli that Az-Zahabi wrote as Al-Bahili.

    At-Tabarani in his “Sagheer” (v 1 p 187) mentioned a follower (Mutabi’) for Ahmad ibn Muhammad, and he is Ahmad ibn Budayl, and he is Saduq. His teacher Yahya ibn ‘Isa Ar-Ramli is criticized (Mutakalam fihi).

    Secondly, the words: “his killer will be in the fire” are not present in words of Abu Ya’la and At-Tabarani. Allamah Al-Haythami also quoted this narration in his “Majma’ Az-Zawaid” v 7 p 242) from Abu Ya’la and At-Tabarani and these words are not present in it, so Az-Zahabi erred in adding these words in this narration.

    So in conclusion, this narration is weak, and Shaykh Irshad ul Haqq Al-Athari detailed in his book “Mushajarat As-Sahabah or Salaf ka Mawqif” that we should restrain from criticizing the Sahabah concerning their disputes, and their fights were based on Ijtihad.

    May Allah send Salah and Salam on the Prophet (saw), his family, companions and those who follow them

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s