BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
The person who authored Bayt al ‘Ankabut spun his web on one main pillar, which is the backbone of this book, and the objective behind its compilation. It is clear from his claim that the books of Hadith by the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah (who represent 90% of the Muslim Ummah)—especially Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim—represents the religion of the Umayyads and not the religion of Islam. The narrations of the Umayyads (who are accused of leading a coup upon Islam) were then interpreted as that of Islam, whereas it does not represent the true Islam.
Concerning this claim, the author of Bayt al ‘Ankabut writes:
Whatever is presented in these books i.e. al Bukhari, Muslim, and other books of Hadith by the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah represents the Umayyad narrations for religion. Al Bukhari supported the Banu Umayyah. Therefore, he did not narrate anything about the Battle of Karbala’ (61 AH, 180 CE) nor did he narrate a single word from Hassan and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. We have established through decisive proofs that most of the material in these books have been brought to represent the views of the Umayyad; and Sahih al Bukhari and Muslim have been compiled to promote the Umayyad state. Their object is to destroy the leaders of the Ahlul Bayt.[1]
Is this claim, which the author of Bayt al ‘Ankabut claims to be substantiated through decisive proofs, correct or is it the shadow of the truth? Let us unravel his web.
Continuing in his delusion, the author of Bayt al ‘Ankabut further writes:
Similarly, when we come to the stage of compilation of the Sunnah, the compilers did not have sufficient knowledge required for the task. Foremost was keeping up with the intellectual climate that was prevalent at that time and selection of such narrations which conform to the religious practices in accordance to the Umayyad formulation of Islam.
Is this correct?
What is certain is that Fiqh and Hadith have never been interpreted according to the views of any state, be it the Umayyad Empire or the Abbasid.
The person who authored Bayt al ‘Ankabut quotes Ibn Shihab al Zuhri (58-124 AH/678–742 CE):
امرنا عمر بن عبدالعزيز بجمع السنن فكتبناه دفترا دفترا فبعث الي كل ارض له عليها سلطان دفترا
‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz instructed us to compile the Sunnah. We wrote it in registers. He then sent one register to all the areas that had governors.[2]
Assuming that the above quotation is correct, even then, this compilation of the Sunnah, in the era of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz cannot have any possible link to what the author of Bayt al ‘Ankabut calls “the formation of the Umayyad Islam”. This is so because ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz is one of those people who the Shia are happy with. They said such poems in his praise that poets actually competed with each other. The Umayyad leaders despise him because he confiscated their wealth and properties, and returned it to the public treasury (like stolen goods). It is said that their hatred for him reached such a stage that they conspired against him and poisoned him, which eventually caused his death.
So where are those compilations of hadith which are interpreted as the ‘formation of the Umayyad Islam?
It has been established that whatever was compiled during the Umayyad era, besides the era of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz, was actually compiled by those opposed to the Umayyads. Whatever was compiled during the Abbasid era was completed a long time after the fall of the Umayyad Empire. In the intellectual climate where the Umayyad Empire was already a discarded history.
The author of Bayt al ‘Ankabut, continuing to weave his web, writes:
ان كتب الحديث السنية وخاصة البخاري و مسلم لم ترو كثيرا للامام علي بن ابي طالب
Indeed, the books of hadith by the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah, especially al Bukhari and Muslim, do not narrate much from Imam ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.[3]
This author forgot or is pretending to forget that all these books of hadith narrate many, many times more from ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu than Abu Bakr al Siddiq (51 BH-13 AH/573–634 CE), ‘Umar ibn al Khattab (40 BH–35 AH/584–644 CE), and ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan (47 BH–35AH/577–656 CE).
The author of Bayt al ‘Ankabut continues to beg for that which will testify to his claim. He says:
ان كتب الحديث السنية لم ترو خبر وقعة كربلاء
The books of hadith by the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah, do not narrate anything of the incident of Karbala’.[4]
This author forgot or is pretending to forget that the incident of Karbala’ is a historical event and not from the Sunnah of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Its place is in the books of history. The historians of the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah have narrated it with detail and sympathised with Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu (4–61 AH/625–680 CE).
Similarly, the author of Bayt al ‘Ankabut continues to beg:
Why is it that the books of hadith by the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah, which al Bukhari and Muslim narrate, do not narrate from Hassan (3–50 AH/624–670 CE) and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma?
Yet again he forgets or is pretending to forget that Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu was 7 years old at the time of the demise of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu was 6 years old at that time. Hence, for them to memorise and narrate hadith was difficult. There is no stance of opposing them here. Otherwise, their father, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was more worthy of being opposed [according to the Shia allegation].
He then alleges that al Bukhari and Muslim narrated from those who were the same age as Hassan and Hussain like ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair (1-73 AH/622 -692 CE), ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar (10 BH–73 AH/613–692 CE), and ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas (3 BH–68 AH/619–686 CE). This is incorrect because these people were much older than them.
Why is it that this person, who authored Bayt al ‘Ankabut, did not expound on al Bukhari and Muslim’s narrations from ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhu? He is one of the greatest opponents to the Umayyads. He revolted against them and set up his own state and Caliphate against them. Despite this, al Bukhari and Muslim narrated from him. This is a fact that shatters his illusions completely.
The books of hadith by the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah are filled with the virtues of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and the two leaders of the youth of Jannat, Hassan and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. A fact that will make any intelligent person ask, “Where is the support for the Umayyads in these ahadith? Where is the enmity for the Ahlul Bayt, which this person made the main object against al Bukhari, Muslim, and other books of hadith?”
When al Bukhari was born, bred, and passed away during the Abbasid era, to level accusations against him of being loyal to the Umayyad and operating according to their desires, is such ignorance and stupidity that it would make a bereaved person laugh.
We have mentioned before, in the praise of this great Imam, how he ran away from the state, leadership, and its leaders during the Abbasid era. He refused to accept the request of the leader of Bukhara to go to the palace and narrate hadith in his court. He said to the messenger of the leader:
Tell him that I will not disgrace knowledge, nor will I take to the doors of the kings. If he has any need for it then he should present himself by my masjid or my house. If you do not like this then you are the leader. Stop me from having these gatherings, so that on the Day of judgement I have an excuse by Allah that I did not hide knowledge.
This created ill feelings between the leader of Bukhara and al Bukhari, because of which, the leader—Khalid ibn al Dhuhali—expelled him from Bukhara.[5]
This man was not loyal to the Abbasids although he was living in their era, then how can he be loyal to the Umayyads, whose empire and kingdom ended decades before he was born, as the ignorance of the author of Bayt al ‘Ankabut suggests?
However, what becomes obvious is that ignorance is a mercy unto its people, just as knowledge is a mercy unto its people, and just as all disbelief is one religion.
Proceeding into deeper ignorance, the author of Bayt al ‘Ankabut claims that Imam al Shafi’i (150-204 AH/767–820 CE) is the only Imam who chose to support the Umayyads willingly during his era, contrary to Imam Malik (93–179 AH/712-795 CE) who was persecuted by the Umayyads because of his fatwa (ruling) regarding the oath of a forced person, and Abu Hanifah (80–150 AH/699–767 CE) who refused to support them.
Meanwhile, the historic facts state that al Shafi’i was born and lived during the Abbasid era.
The persecution of Malik and Abu Hanifah also ended during the Abbasid era.[6]
This is how ignorance led to negligence with regards to reading of historical dates, let alone understanding the realities of history.
NEXT⇒ Books of Hadith and the Fiqhi Mazhabs (Jurisprudential Schools of Thought)
[1] Ahmed Rasim al Nafis: Bayt al ‘Ankabut, pg. 186, 187, 212, 213, 214, Cairo print, 2010.
[2] Ibid., pg. 148.
[3] Ibid., pg. 187.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Da’irah al Ma’arif al Islamiyyah, 6/1622.
[6] Nasr Hamid Abu Zaid: al Imam al Shafi’i wa Ta’sis al Aydiyulujiyyat al Wastiyyah, pg. 16, 17, Cairo print, 1992; al Tafsir al Marikisi li al Islam, pg. 79–84, Cairo print, 1996.
BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
The person who authored Bayt al ‘Ankabut spun his web on one main pillar, which is the backbone of this book, and the objective behind its compilation. It is clear from his claim that the books of Hadith by the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah (who represent 90% of the Muslim Ummah)—especially Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim—represents the religion of the Umayyads and not the religion of Islam. The narrations of the Umayyads (who are accused of leading a coup upon Islam) were then interpreted as that of Islam, whereas it does not represent the true Islam.
Concerning this claim, the author of Bayt al ‘Ankabut writes:
Whatever is presented in these books i.e. al Bukhari, Muslim, and other books of Hadith by the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah represents the Umayyad narrations for religion. Al Bukhari supported the Banu Umayyah. Therefore, he did not narrate anything about the Battle of Karbala’ (61 AH, 180 CE) nor did he narrate a single word from Hassan and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. We have established through decisive proofs that most of the material in these books have been brought to represent the views of the Umayyad; and Sahih al Bukhari and Muslim have been compiled to promote the Umayyad state. Their object is to destroy the leaders of the Ahlul Bayt.[1]
Is this claim, which the author of Bayt al ‘Ankabut claims to be substantiated through decisive proofs, correct or is it the shadow of the truth? Let us unravel his web.
Continuing in his delusion, the author of Bayt al ‘Ankabut further writes:
Similarly, when we come to the stage of compilation of the Sunnah, the compilers did not have sufficient knowledge required for the task. Foremost was keeping up with the intellectual climate that was prevalent at that time and selection of such narrations which conform to the religious practices in accordance to the Umayyad formulation of Islam.
Is this correct?
What is certain is that Fiqh and Hadith have never been interpreted according to the views of any state, be it the Umayyad Empire or the Abbasid.
The person who authored Bayt al ‘Ankabut quotes Ibn Shihab al Zuhri (58-124 AH/678–742 CE):
امرنا عمر بن عبدالعزيز بجمع السنن فكتبناه دفترا دفترا فبعث الي كل ارض له عليها سلطان دفترا
‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz instructed us to compile the Sunnah. We wrote it in registers. He then sent one register to all the areas that had governors.[2]
Assuming that the above quotation is correct, even then, this compilation of the Sunnah, in the era of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz cannot have any possible link to what the author of Bayt al ‘Ankabut calls “the formation of the Umayyad Islam”. This is so because ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz is one of those people who the Shia are happy with. They said such poems in his praise that poets actually competed with each other. The Umayyad leaders despise him because he confiscated their wealth and properties, and returned it to the public treasury (like stolen goods). It is said that their hatred for him reached such a stage that they conspired against him and poisoned him, which eventually caused his death.
So where are those compilations of hadith which are interpreted as the ‘formation of the Umayyad Islam?
It has been established that whatever was compiled during the Umayyad era, besides the era of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz, was actually compiled by those opposed to the Umayyads. Whatever was compiled during the Abbasid era was completed a long time after the fall of the Umayyad Empire. In the intellectual climate where the Umayyad Empire was already a discarded history.
The author of Bayt al ‘Ankabut, continuing to weave his web, writes:
ان كتب الحديث السنية وخاصة البخاري و مسلم لم ترو كثيرا للامام علي بن ابي طالب
Indeed, the books of hadith by the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah, especially al Bukhari and Muslim, do not narrate much from Imam ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.[3]
This author forgot or is pretending to forget that all these books of hadith narrate many, many times more from ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu than Abu Bakr al Siddiq (51 BH-13 AH/573–634 CE), ‘Umar ibn al Khattab (40 BH–35 AH/584–644 CE), and ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan (47 BH–35AH/577–656 CE).
The author of Bayt al ‘Ankabut continues to beg for that which will testify to his claim. He says:
ان كتب الحديث السنية لم ترو خبر وقعة كربلاء
The books of hadith by the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah, do not narrate anything of the incident of Karbala’.[4]
This author forgot or is pretending to forget that the incident of Karbala’ is a historical event and not from the Sunnah of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Its place is in the books of history. The historians of the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah have narrated it with detail and sympathised with Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu (4–61 AH/625–680 CE).
Similarly, the author of Bayt al ‘Ankabut continues to beg:
Why is it that the books of hadith by the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah, which al Bukhari and Muslim narrate, do not narrate from Hassan (3–50 AH/624–670 CE) and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma?
Yet again he forgets or is pretending to forget that Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu was 7 years old at the time of the demise of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu was 6 years old at that time. Hence, for them to memorise and narrate hadith was difficult. There is no stance of opposing them here. Otherwise, their father, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was more worthy of being opposed [according to the Shia allegation].
He then alleges that al Bukhari and Muslim narrated from those who were the same age as Hassan and Hussain like ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair (1-73 AH/622 -692 CE), ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar (10 BH–73 AH/613–692 CE), and ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas (3 BH–68 AH/619–686 CE). This is incorrect because these people were much older than them.
Why is it that this person, who authored Bayt al ‘Ankabut, did not expound on al Bukhari and Muslim’s narrations from ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhu? He is one of the greatest opponents to the Umayyads. He revolted against them and set up his own state and Caliphate against them. Despite this, al Bukhari and Muslim narrated from him. This is a fact that shatters his illusions completely.
The books of hadith by the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah are filled with the virtues of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and the two leaders of the youth of Jannat, Hassan and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. A fact that will make any intelligent person ask, “Where is the support for the Umayyads in these ahadith? Where is the enmity for the Ahlul Bayt, which this person made the main object against al Bukhari, Muslim, and other books of hadith?”
When al Bukhari was born, bred, and passed away during the Abbasid era, to level accusations against him of being loyal to the Umayyad and operating according to their desires, is such ignorance and stupidity that it would make a bereaved person laugh.
We have mentioned before, in the praise of this great Imam, how he ran away from the state, leadership, and its leaders during the Abbasid era. He refused to accept the request of the leader of Bukhara to go to the palace and narrate hadith in his court. He said to the messenger of the leader:
Tell him that I will not disgrace knowledge, nor will I take to the doors of the kings. If he has any need for it then he should present himself by my masjid or my house. If you do not like this then you are the leader. Stop me from having these gatherings, so that on the Day of judgement I have an excuse by Allah that I did not hide knowledge.
This created ill feelings between the leader of Bukhara and al Bukhari, because of which, the leader—Khalid ibn al Dhuhali—expelled him from Bukhara.[5]
This man was not loyal to the Abbasids although he was living in their era, then how can he be loyal to the Umayyads, whose empire and kingdom ended decades before he was born, as the ignorance of the author of Bayt al ‘Ankabut suggests?
However, what becomes obvious is that ignorance is a mercy unto its people, just as knowledge is a mercy unto its people, and just as all disbelief is one religion.
Proceeding into deeper ignorance, the author of Bayt al ‘Ankabut claims that Imam al Shafi’i (150-204 AH/767–820 CE) is the only Imam who chose to support the Umayyads willingly during his era, contrary to Imam Malik (93–179 AH/712-795 CE) who was persecuted by the Umayyads because of his fatwa (ruling) regarding the oath of a forced person, and Abu Hanifah (80–150 AH/699–767 CE) who refused to support them.
Meanwhile, the historic facts state that al Shafi’i was born and lived during the Abbasid era.
The persecution of Malik and Abu Hanifah also ended during the Abbasid era.[6]
This is how ignorance led to negligence with regards to reading of historical dates, let alone understanding the realities of history.
NEXT⇒ Books of Hadith and the Fiqhi Mazhabs (Jurisprudential Schools of Thought)
[1] Ahmed Rasim al Nafis: Bayt al ‘Ankabut, pg. 186, 187, 212, 213, 214, Cairo print, 2010.
[2] Ibid., pg. 148.
[3] Ibid., pg. 187.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Da’irah al Ma’arif al Islamiyyah, 6/1622.
[6] Nasr Hamid Abu Zaid: al Imam al Shafi’i wa Ta’sis al Aydiyulujiyyat al Wastiyyah, pg. 16, 17, Cairo print, 1992; al Tafsir al Marikisi li al Islam, pg. 79–84, Cairo print, 1996.