Discussion regarding the Gifting of Fadak

The inconsistencies and contradictions of Shia narrations regarding Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gifting Fadak to Fatimah
January 30, 2018
A list of Shia books written on the Fadak issue in chronological order
January 30, 2018

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

Discussion regarding the Gifting of Fadak

 

Which claim was first, inheritance or gift?

Among the books mentioned above, Kashf al Haqq has mentioned the inheritance claim prior to the gift claim. It can be deduced from here that the author regards the inheritance claim greater than the other. In the Fadak discussion, clarity needs to be ascertained whether Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha made the inheritance claim first or the gift claim.

Generally, Shia scholars mention that she made two claims. They explain that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gifted her Fadak and she remained its controller and possessor. When Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu became khalifah, he dismissed her trustee and took possession over it. Hearing this, she approached him claiming that it was gifted to her, and demanding an explanation as to why he snatched it away from her. Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu demanded witnesses from her and she presented Sayyidina ‘Ali, Hassan, Hussain, and Umm Ayman radiya Llahu ‘anhum who all gave testimony in her favour. Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu dismissed their testimony explaining that it did not reach the desired amount. Hence, he did not return Fadak to her. At this, she became upset and then claimed her inheritance.

Accordingly, Dildar ‘Ali writes:

 

المسئلة الرابعة أن فاطمة هل ادعت ميراثا أولا ثم ادعت النحلة أو بالعكس و يستفاد من كلام أكثر العامة أن دعوى النحلة ظهرت منها بعد دعوى الميراث و قالت الإمامية بالعكس

The fourth mas’alah: Did Fatimah claim inheritance first then a gift or vice versa. It is grasped from the writings of the majority Sunni that the gift claim took place after the inheritance one whereas the Imamiyyah state the opposite.[1]

 

Clarification Regarding the Gift Claim

It becomes apparent from here that Dildar ‘Ali wishes to impress on the minds of the readers that the gift claim is also correct according to the Ahlus Sunnah, but it just took place after the inheritance claim. Whereas the reality is that the gift claim is not proven from any reliable or authentic narration. The Ahlus Sunnah do not accept that Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha made this claim. Thus, the entire building built on this narration is razed to the ground.

The false narration says that Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha was asked to present witnesses and she presented the testimony of Sayyidina ‘Ali, Hassan, Hussain and Umm Ayman radiya Llahu ‘anhum. However, Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not accept their testimony explaining that the testimony does not meet the desired amount according to the laws of Shari’ah and he subsequently rejected her claim. They then condemn Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu in different ways by accusing him of oppression and tyranny and assert that the Sunni believe that Sayyidah Fatimah, ‘Ali, Hassan, and Hussain were liars and concocted false testimony for worldly motives, etc.

Whereas the reality is that there is no authentic narration regarding this in the first place. The following saying aptly applies to it:

 

ثبت الجدار ثم انقش

Erect the wall and then decorate it.

 

So all the extensive theses the Shia scholars have written, all the vociferous lectures they have delivered, and all the proficient books they have authored in this regard are totally useless, futile, and ineffective. Following this, Shah ‘Abdul ‘Aziz writes the following after answering the inheritance claim in his renowned work Tuhfah Ithna ‘Ashariyyah – May Allah reward him abundantly:

 

در ینجا فائدہ عظیمہ باید دانست کہ شیعہ در اول در باب مطاعن ابو بکر منع میراث می نوشتند و چوں از عمل ائمہ معصومین و از روی روایات ایں حضرات عدم توریث پیغمبر ثابت شد از دعوی انتقال نمودہ دعوی دیگر تراشیدندہ و طعن دیگر بر آوردند کہ آن طعن سیزدہم ست کہ ابو بکر رضی اللہ عنہ فدک را بفاطمہ نداد حالانکہ پیغمبر براۓ او ہبہ نمودہ بود و دعوی فاطمہ را مسموع ںمود و ازوی گواہ و شاہد طلب ید الی قولہ جواب ازیں طعن آنکہ دعوی ہبہ از حضرت زہرا رضی اللہ عنہا و شہادت دادن حضرت علی رضی اللہ عنہ و ام ایمن یا حسنین رضی اللہ عنہما علی اختلاف الروایات در کتب اہل سنت اصلا موجود نیست محض از مفتریات شیعہ است و در مقام الزام اہل سنت آوردن و جواب آں طلب یدان کمال سفاہت ست

We should consider a very significant point here. To accuse Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, firstly the Shia fabricated that he prevented Rasulullah’s inheritance from her. When it was proven from the practice of the infallible Imams and their narrations that Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam inheritance is not distributed, the Shia then concocted yet another fabrication using it to indict him which he calls the 13th criticism. It goes as follows: Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not give Fadak to Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha whereas according to them Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gifted her the same. He did not accept her claim for Fadak and instead asked her to provide witnesses. The answer to this criticism of the Shia is that this claim of hers and Sayyidina ‘Ali, Hassan, Hussain, and Umm Ayman radiya Llahu ‘anhum giving testimony which is found in various narrations of the Shia do not feature anywhere in the books of the Ahlus Sunnah. They are nothing but Shia fabrications. To use them against the Ahlus Sunnah and on top of that to demand an answer is utter foolishness.

 

We do not wish to say a lot in this discussion. However, what we will point out is that the Shia scholars themselves have accepted that some narrations mention the inheritance claim before the gift claim. It is written in Lam’at al Bayda fi Sharh Khutbat al Zahra[2]:

 

و ما في بعض الروايات إنما ادعت الإرث أولا ثم ادعت النحلة فذلك على تقدير الصحة إنما هو بلحظ أنها في محل إرثها لا محالة فلما ألقوا الشبهة بنقل الرواية ادعت ما هو الواقع من حقيقة النحلة

What appears in some narrations that she claimed inheritance prior to claiming the gift, if accepted to be authentic it was only considering the fact that it falls into her share of inheritance at the end of the day. However, when they cast doubts by quoting the narration, she claimed that which was the reality, i.e. the gift.

 

Since the Shia scholars have mentioned the gift claim prior to the inheritance claim, we will follow this sequence. Advancing or regressing does not affect the actual contentious issue at hand, especially when according to us the gift claim never transpired.

 

Did Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gift Fadak to Fatimah or not?

The Imamiyyah claim that Fadak was gifted to Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha. When it was usurped from her, she went to Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu to claim her right. Now it devolves upon them to establish both these claims from reliable narrations of the Ahlus Sunnah. If they are able to, then it devolves upon us to answer the objections levelled against Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. However, if they fail to establish their claim, then it is not necessary for us to answer their baseless accusations and waste precious time in answering hypothetical happenings. For this, we will conduct a detailed analysis of the books mentioned above to show our readers what substantiations they have presented and what types of narrations from which types of books they have furnished for their claims.

 

Comprehensive study of the narrations attributed to the Ahlus Sunnah by Shia scholars

Al Shafi contains no hadith or narration from Sunni books regarding the gifting of Fadak. He sufficed on saying that Qadi ‘Abdul Jabbar wrote in his book al Mughni that the Shia claim that it is reported on the authority of Sayyidina Abu Sa’id al Khudri radiya Llahu ‘anhu that when the verse:

وَآتِ ذَا الْقُرْبَىٰ حَقَّهُ

And give the relative his right.[3]

 

was revealed, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gifted Fadak to Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha. ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz then returned it to Fatimah’s progeny. He sufficed on this narration. After quoting this claim of the Shia, Qadi ‘Abdul Jabbar wrote that the narration the Shia present in this regard is not authentic. ‘Alam al Huda brought no other narration to prove the gifting of Fadak. From here we learn that ‘Alam al Huda did not locate any other authentic narration in the reliable books of the Ahlus Sunnah. Otherwise, he would have presented it. Similarly, no other narration has been presented in Talkhis al Shafi in this regard.

We have not found any authentic sanad concerning the gifting of Fadak in Ibn Mutahhar al Hilli’s book Kashf al Haqq wa Nahj al Sidq.

The following narration appears in al Taraif from Bishr ibn al Walid, al Waqidi, and Bishr ibn Ghiyath:

 

روى غير واحد منهم بشر بن الوليد و الواقدي و بشر بن غياث في أحاديث يرفعونها إلى محمد نبيهم أنه لما فتح خيبر اصطفى لنفسه قرى من قرى اليهود فنزل جبريل بهذه الآية و آت ذا القربى حقه فقال محمد صلى الله عليه و سلم من ذا القربى و ما حقه قال فاطمة فدفعها إليها فدك ثم أعطاها العوالي بعد ذلك فاستغلتها حتى توفي أبوها محمد صلى الله عليه و سلم

Many of them have narrated – inter alia Bishr ibn al Walid, al Waqidi, and Bishr ibn Ghiyath – which they attribute to their Nabi Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam that when he conquered Khaybar, he selected for himself some villages of the Jews. Jibril then descended with this verse: And give the relative his right.

Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam enquired, “Who is the relative and what is his right?”

Jibril explained, “Fatimah.”

Hence, he gave her Fadak and then gave her al ‘Awali thereafter. Subsequently, she received the proceeds of it until her father Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam passed away.[4]

 

Besides the above, he quotes the narration of Sayed al Huffaz Ibn Mardawayh:

 

و من طريف مناقضاتهم ما رووهم في كتبهم الصحيحة عندهم رجالهم عن مشايخهم حتى استنده عن سيد الحفاظ ابن مردويه قال أخبرنا محي السنة أبو الفتح عبدوس بن عبد الله الهمداني إجازة قال حدثنا القاضي أبو نصر شعيب بن علي قال حدثنا موسى بن سعيد قال حدثنا الوليد بن علي قال حدثنا عباد بن يعقوب قال حدثنا علي بن عباس عن فضيل عن عطية عن أبي سعيد قال لما نزلت آية و آت ذا القربى حقه دعا رسول الله فاطمة فأعطاها فدك

One of the astonishing contradictions of the Ahlus Sunnah is what they have narrated in their reliable and authentic books from their Mashayikh on the authority of Sayed al Huffaz Ibn Mardawayh who says: Muhyi al Sunnah Abu al Fath ‘Abdus ibn ‘Abdullah al Hamdani informed me with ijazah (permission) saying: Qadi Abu Nasr Shu’ayb ibn ‘Ali reported to us saying: Musa ibn Sa’id narrated to us saying: Walid ibn ‘Ali narrated to us saying: ‘Abbad ibn Ya’qub narrated to us saying: ‘Ali ibn ‘Abbas narrated to us from Fudayl from ‘Attiyah from Abu Sa’id who reports:

When the verse: And give the relative his right was revealed, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam summoned Fatimah and gave her Fadak.

 

In the chapter concerning the revelation of verses regarding Fadak in Bihar al Anwar, al Majlisi writes in the shan nuzul of the verse and give the relative his right:

رواه كثير من المفسرين و وردت به الأخبار من طرق الخاصة و العامة

Scores of Mufassirin have narrated it. Many traditions regarding it have been reported from the chains of the Shia and Sunni.

 

He writes thereafter:

قال الشيخ الطبرسي قيل إن المراد قرابة الرسول

Sheikh al Tabarsi has said: “It has been said that the purport is Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam relative.”

 

He then quotes the following narration from him:

 

اخبرنا السيد مهدي بن نزار الحسني باسناد ذكره عن أبي سعيد الخدري قال لما نزلت قوله و آت ذا القربى حقه أعطى رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فاطمة فدك قال عبد الرحمن بن صالح كتب المأمون إلى عبيد الله بن موسى يسئله عن قصة فدك فكتب إليه عبيد الله بهذا الحديث رواه عن الفضيل بن مرزوق عن عطية فرد المأمون فدك على ولد فاطمة

Sayed Mahdi ibn Nazar al Hassani informed us with an isnad he mentioned till Abu Sa’id al Khudri who reports:

“When the verse: And give the relative his right was revealed, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gave Fadak to Fatimah.”

‘Abdul Rahman ibn Salih says, “Ma’mun wrote to ‘Ubaidullah ibn Musa asking him concerning the incident of Fadak. ‘Ubaidullah wrote to him this hadith which Fudayl ibn Marzuq narrated to him from ‘Attiyah. Subsequently, Ma’mun returned Fadak to the children of Fatimah.”

 

Al Majlisi omits the isnad here. Nevertheless, al Tabarsi has mentioned its isnad in the following way in the commentary of the verse and give the relative his right:

 

أخبرنا السيد أبو حميد مهدي بن نزار الحسني قرأة قال حدثنا الحاكم أبو القاسم بن عبد الله الحسكاني قال حدثنا الحاكم الوالد أبو محمد قال حدثنا عمر بن أحمد بن عثمان ببغداد شفاها قال أخبرني عمر بن الحسين بن علي بن مالك قال حدثنا جعفر بن محمد الأحمصي قال حدثنا حسن بن حسين قال حدثنا أبو معمر بن سعيد جيشم و أبو علي القاسم الكندي و يحيى بن يعلى و علي بن مسهر عن فضيل بن مرزوق عن عطية الكوفي عن أبي سعيد الخدري قال لما نزلت قوله و آت ذا القربى حقه إلخ

Sayed Abu Humaid Mahdi ibn Nazar al Hassani informed us qiraatan (someone was reading to him and we were listening) saying: Hakim Abu al Qasim ibn ‘Abdullah al Haskani narrated to us saying: Hakim al Walid Abu Muhammad reported to us saying: ‘Umar ibn Ahmed ibn ‘Uthman narrated to us in Baghdad face to face saying: ‘Umar ibn al Hussain ibn ‘Ali ibn Malik informed us saying: Jafar ibn Muhammad al Ahmasi narrated to us saying: Hassan ibn Hussain narrated to us saying: Abu Ma’mar ibn Sa’id Jaysham, Abu ‘Ali al Qasim al Kindi, Yahya ibn Ya’la, and ‘Ali ibn Mus-hir narrated to us from Fudayl ibn Marzuq from ‘Attiyah from Abu Sa’id al Khudri who reports:

“When the verse And give the relative his right was revealed …”

 

The same narration in the Persian language:

 

و نیز سعید أبو حمید مہدی بن نزار الحسنی از حاکم ابو القاسم بن عبد اللہ الحسکانی نقل می کند کہ در بغداد حاکم ابو محمد از عمر بن أحمد بن عثمان بمن حدیث کرد کہ عمر بن حسین بن علی بن مالک گفت کہ جعفر بن محمد الاحمصی بمن گفت کہ حسن بن حسین مرا حدیث کرد از ابو معمر بن سعید و علی بن سعید الخدری کہ گفتند چوں آیت و آت ذا القربی حقہ نازل شد حضرت رسالت باغ فدک را بفاطمہ عطا فرمودہ الخ

Sa’id Abu Humaid Mahdi ibn Nazar al Hassani heard from the lips of Hakim Abu al Qasim ibn ‘Abdullah al Haskani that in Baghdad Hakim Abu Muhammad reported to me via ‘Umar ibn Ahmed ibn ‘Uthman which Abu Ma’mar ibn Sa’id and ‘Ali ibn Sa’id al Khudri conveyed:

“When the verse: And give the relative his right was revealed, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam summoned Fatimah and gifted her Fadak.”

 

The second narration written by al Majlisi:

 

محمد بن العباس عن علي بن العباس المقانعي عن أبي كريب عن معاوية عن فضيل بن مرزوق عن عطية عن أبي سعيد الخدري قال لما نزلت قوله و آت ذا القربى حقه دعا رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فاطمة و أعطاها فدك

Muhammad ibn al ‘Abbas from ‘Ali ibn al ‘Abbas al Muqani’i from Abu Kurayb from Muawiyah from Fudayl ibn Marzuq from ‘Attiyah from Abu Sa’id al Khudri who reports:

“When the verse: And give the relative his right was revealed, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam summoned Fatimah and gifted her Fadak.”

 

The third narration is quoted from Sayed ibn Ta’us’s book Sa’d al Sa’ud:

 

روى سيد ابن طاؤس في كتاب سعد السعود من تفسير محمد بن العباس بن علي بن مروان قال روى حديث فدك في تفسير قوله تعالى و آت ذا القربى حقه عن عشرين طريقا فمنها ما رواه عن محمد بن محمد بن سليمان الأعبدي و هيثم بن خلف الدوري و عبد الله بن سليمان بن الأشعث و محمد بن القاسم بن زكريا قالوا حدثنا عباد بن يعقوب قال أخبرنا علي بن عابس و حدثنا جعفر بن محمد الحسيني عن علي بن منذر الطريقي عن علي بن عابس عن فضيل بن مرزوق عن عطية العوفي عن أبي سعيد الخدري قال لما نزلت قوله و آت ذا القربى حقه دعا رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فاطمة و أعطاها فدك

Sayed ibn Ta’us narrates in the book Sa’d al Sa’ud from the commentary of Muhammad ibn al ‘Abbas ibn ‘Ali ibn Marwan saying: he narrated the Fadak hadith in the tafsir of His statement: And give the relative his right from 20 chains. One of them he narrates from Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Sulaiman al A’badi, Haytham ibn Khalaf al Duri, ‘Abdullah ibn Sulaiman ibn al Ash’ath, and Muhammad ibn al Qasim ibn Zakariyya who said: ‘Abbad ibn Ya’qub narrated to us saying: ‘Ali ibn ‘Abis informed me; and Jafar ibn Muhammad al Hussaini narrated to me from ‘Ali ibn Mundhir al Tariqi from ‘Ali ibn ‘Abis from Fudayl ibn Marzuq from ‘Attiyah from Abu Sa’id al Khudri who reports:

“When the verse: And give the relative his right was revealed, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam summoned Fatimah and gifted her Fadak.”

 

Al Shustari has quoted the same narration in his book Ihqaq al Haqq. He then comments:

 

روى الواقدي و غيره من نقلة الأخبار عندهم و ذكروه في الأخبار الصحيحة عندهم أن النبي لما فتح خيبر اصطفى قرى من قرى اليهود إلخ

Al Waqidi and others – from the ahadith narrators of the Ahlus Sunnah – have narrated it and mentioned it in authentic narrations in their opinion that when the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam conquered Khaybar, he selected few villages of the Jews …

 

He reports the very same narration of al Tara’if in ‘Imad al Islam i.e. from Sayed al Huffaz Ibn Mardawayh:

 

فأقول يدل على ثبوت ذلك أعطى النبي فدك فاطمة ما رواه سيد الحفاظ ابن مردوية قال أخبرنا محي السنة أبو الفتح عبدوس بن عبد الله الهمداني إجازة قال حدثنا القاضي أبو نصر شعيب بن علي قال حدثنا موسى بن سعيد قال حدثنا الوليد بن علي قال حدثنا عباد بن يعقوب قال حدثنا علي بن عباس عن فضيل عن عطية عن أبي سعيد قال لما نزلت آية و آت ذا القربى حقه دعا رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فاطمة فأعطاها فدك

I say: what indicates to the authenticity of this – the Nabi gave Fatimah Fadak – is what Sayed al Huffaz ibn Mardawayh has narrated saying: Muhyi al Sunnah Abu al Fath ‘Abdus ibn ‘Abdullah al Hamdani informed me with ijazah (permission) saying: Qadi Abu Nasr Shu’ayb ibn ‘Ali reported to us saying: Musa ibn Sa’id narrated to us saying: Walid ibn ‘Ali narrated to us saying: ‘Abbad ibn Ya’qub narrated to us saying: ‘Ali ibn ‘Abbas narrated to us from Fudayl from ‘Attiyah from Abu Sa’id who reports:

“When the verse: And give the relative his right was revealed, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam summoned Fatimah and gifted her Fadak.”

 

He relates another narration from Kanz al ‘Ummal of Sheikh ‘Ali Muttaqi:

 

و ما في كنز العمال للشيخ على المتقي في صلة الرحم من كتاب الأخلاق عن أبي سعيد قال لما نزلت و آت ذا القربى حقه قال النبي يا فاطمة لك فدك رواه الحاكم في تاريخه و قال تفرد به إبراهيم بن محمد بن ميمون عن علي بن عابس بن النجار

It appears in Kanz al ‘Ummal of Sheikh ‘Ali Muttaqi regarding maintaining family ties in Kitab al Akhlaq (chapter concerning character) from Abu Sa’id who relates:

“When they verse: And give the relative his right was revealed, the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, ‘O Fatimah! Fadak is for you.’”

Al Hakim documented it in his Tarikh and remarked, “Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Maymun is the sole reporter from ‘Ali ibn ‘Abis ibn al Najjar.”

 

He narrates a third narration from Tafsir Durr Manthur of al Suyuti:

 

و في الدر المنثور للسيوطي في تفسير قوله تعالى و آت ذا القربى حقه دعا رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فاطمة فأعطاها فدك

It appears in Durr Manthur of al Suyuti in the commentary of Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala statement: And give the relative his right:

“Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam called Fatimah and gave her Fadak.”

 

He narrates a fourth narration from Ma’arij al Nubuwwah:

 

و ما في معارج النبوة الشهير بسير مولانا الهروي في وقائع السنة السابعة بعد واضع خيبر بهذه العبارة

در مقصد اقصی مذکور ست کہ بعضے گویند کہ حضرت رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم بسوی خیبر امیر المومنین علی را فرستاد و مصالحۃ بردست امیر واقع شد براں نہج کہ حضرت امیر قصد خون ایشاں نکند و حوائط خواص ازآں رسول باشد پس جبریل فرود آمد و گفت کہ حق تعالی می فرماید کہ حق خویشاں بدہ رسول گفت کہ خویش من کیستند و حق ایشاں چیست جبریل گفت فاطمہ است حوائط فدک را با و دہ و آنچہ از خدا و رسول اوست در فدک ہم باوبدہ پغمبر فاطمہ را بخواند و برای وی حجتی نوشت و آں وثیقہ بودہ کہ بعد از وفات رسول پیش ابو بکر آورد و گفت این کتاب رسول خداست برای من و حسن و حسین

The following text appears in Ma’arij al Nubuwwah commonly known as Siyar Moulana al Harawi among the incidents of the seventh year after the Conquest of Khaybar:

It is written in Maqsad Aqsa that some people say that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam despatched Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu towards Khaybar, and a compromise was reached with him to spare the blood of the people of Khaybar in lieu of some specified orchards which will be handed over to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Just then, Jibril ‘alayh al Salam descended and said, “Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala commands you to fulfil the rights of your relatives.”

Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam asked, “Who are my relatives and what are their rights?”

Jibril answered, “Give Fadak – the share of Allah and His Messenger – to Fatimah.”

Accordingly, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam summoned Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha and gave her Fadak and the document. After Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam demise, Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha showed this document to the khalifah of the time, Abu Bakr, saying, “This is Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam document for me, Hassan, and Hussain.”

 

After quoting the above four narrations, he declares:

 

و قال السيد المرتضى في الشافي و قد روى من طريقة مختلفة غير طريق أبي سعيد الذي ذكره صاحب الكتاب أنه لما نزل قوله تعالى و آت ذا القربى حقه دعا النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم فاطمة فأعطاها فدك و إذا كان ذلك مرويا فلا معنى لدفعه بغير حجة

Al Sayed al Murtada states in al Shafi that besides the narration of Abu Sa’id which the author has quoted, this narration appears from various chains wherein it is mentioned that when the verse: And give the relative his right was revealed, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam called Fatimah and gave her Fadak. When this has been narrated, there is no reason to reject it.

 

However, neither did Dildar ‘Ali in ‘Imad al Islam nor did al Sayed al Murtada in al Shafi report the narration from those various chains, besides the chain of Abu Sa’id. Just to claim that it has been narrated from other people is not sufficient and satisfying. Especially when Qadi ‘Abdul Jabbar attributed this narration to the Shia in his book al Mughni with the words:

 

و قالوا قد روي عن أبي سعيد الخدري

The Shia say that it has been reported from Abu Sa’id al Khudri.

 

He then writes in response:

 

و الجواب عن ذلك أن أكثر ما يردون في هذا الباب غير صحيح

The answer to this is that majority of what they narrate in this regard is unauthentic.

 

A little further, Qadi ‘Abdul Jabbar writes clearly:

 

و إن صح عقد الهبة …

If the gift contract was correct, then Fadak ought to be in Fatimah’s possession.[5]

 

From here we realise that Qadi ‘Abdul Jabbar does not have conviction on this narration. ‘Alam al Huda’s affirmation that it is undisputed that this narration has been reported from other chains, would not have been accepted and sufficient to prove his claim. It devolved upon him to quote those various chains which he claimed consensus of, strengthening his claim thereby.

In Ta’n al Rimah, Mujtahid Sayed Muhammad quotes from al Suyuti’s al Durr al Manthur, Sheikh ‘Ali Muttaqi’s Kanz al ‘Ummal, and Ibn Mardawayh as well as Al ‘Abbas regarding the gifting of Fadak:

 

روى السيوطي في تفسير الدر المنثور في ذيل تفسير قوله تعالى و آت ذا القربى حقه أخرج البزار و أبو يعلى و ابن أبي حاتم و ابن مردوية عن أبي سعيد الخدري قال لما نزلت هذه الآية و آت ذا القربى حقه دعا رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فاطمة فأعطاها فدك

و این روایت صریح ست در آنکہ ہر گاہ آیۃ و آت ذا القربی حقہ یعنی عطا نما صاحب قرابت را حق او نازل گردید آں جناب فاطمہ را طلب فرمودہ فدک رابآن حضرت عطا فرمود شیخ علی متقی در کتاب کنز العمال در باب صلہ رحم از ابو سعید روایت کردہ قال لما نزلت ہذہ الآیۃ و آت ذا القربی حقہ قال النبی یا فاطمۃ لک فدک و سید الحفاظ ابن مردویۃ در کتاب خود مسند ابو سعید روایت سابقہ را نقل کردہ و نیز صاحب روضۃ الصفا و معارج النبوۃ از مقصد اقصی روایت اعطاء فدک و نوشتن وثیقہ را نقل کردہ چنانچہ آنفا عبارت آں بمعرض بیان در آمد و عقل ہیچ عاقل باورنمی کند کہ با وصف اعطاء فدک و ہبہ آن و نوشتن وثیقہ براۓ آن از زمان فتح خیبر تا ہنگام وفات سرور کائنات اقباض آں بوقوع نہ پوستہ باشد بلکہ لفظ اعطاء نیز براں دلالت دارد کما لا یخفی و صاحب تاریح آل عباس کہ از معتمدین اہل سنت ست در تاریخ مذکور علی ما نقل عنہ نوشتہ کہ بعد از آنکہ جماعتے از اولاد حسنین نزد مامون دعوی فدک کردند مامون جمع نموڈ و صدکس از علماء حجاز و عراق و غیر ایشاں را و تاکید کرد کہ کتمان صواب ںمودہ از متابعت حق و راستی سرنہ پیچند پس ایشاں روایت واقدی و بشر بن الولید و غیرہ نقل کردند کہ بعد از فتح خیبر جبریل علیہ السلام با آیۃ و آت ذا القربی حقہ نازل شد پس رسول خدا گفت کیست ذا القربی و چیست حق او جبریل گفت فاطمہ است و فدک حق اوست پس رسول خدا فدک را بآنحضرت داد

Al Suyuti reports in Tafsir al Durr al Manthur under the commentary of Allah the Sublime’s words: And give the relative his right:

Al Bazzar, Abu Ya’la, Ibn Abi Hatim, and Ibn Mardawayh narrated from Abu Sa’id al Khudri:

“When the verse: And give the relative his right was revealed, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam summoned Fatimah and gave her Fadak.”

This narration is clear. When the verse and give the relative his right was revealed, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam summoned Fatimah and gave her Fadak. Sheikh ‘Ali Muttaqi in Kanz al ‘Ummal reports from Abu Sa’id that upon the revelation of this verse, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “O Fatimah, Fadak is yours.”

The authors of Rawdat al Safad and Ma’arij al Nubuwwah have also documented the gifting of Fadak and the writing of the document. No intelligent person’s mind can deny that from the conquest of Khaybar until his demise, although he gifted Fadak to her and wrote a document, Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha had no possession over it. So the meaning of giving it to her will be exactly as everyone understands, i.e. her expenses will be taken care of from that wealth. The author of Tarikh Al ‘Abbas, a renowned Sunni, writes in his book that when the sons of Fatimah claimed Fadak from Ma’mun, the Khalifah of the time, Ma’mun gathered over 200 scholars from Hijaz, Iraq, etc. and stressed upon them not to conceal the truth and not to divert away from honesty and following the ahkam of the Shari’ah. Subsequently, all the scholars quoted a narration from al Waqidi, Bishr ibn al Walid, etc. that after the Conquest of Khaybar, Jibril ‘alayh al Salam brought the verse And give the relative his right to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam asked, “Who is the relative and what is his right?”

Jibril explained, “Fatimah is the relative and Fadak is her right.”

Accordingly, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gifted her Fadak.

 

Muhammad Qilli, author of Tash’id al Mata’in, did not present any new narration than the ones mentioned previously.

A detailed discussion on Fadak appears in Kifayat Mawsum al Wilayah[6]. The following is written on page 360 concerning the verse, And give the relative his right:

 

از براۓ احدے از امت شبہ نبود درآنکہ فدک خالص بود از براۓ رسول خدا صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم واحدے رادراں حقے نبود از امت و اخبار طرفین از خاصہ و عامہ ناطق بایں امر ست و نیز ظاہر آیۃ و آت ذا القربی حقہ بہ تصدیق کثیرے از علماء و مفسرین و روایت عامہ آنکہ رسول خدا صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم آنرانحلہ و عطیہ داد بحضرت فاطمہ چوں ثعلبی و جوہری و یاقوت حموی صاحب کتاب معجم البلدان و شہرستنانی و صاحب تاریخ آل عباس و واقدی و بشر بن الولید و عبد الرحمن بن صالح و عمر بن شبہ و ابن حجر در صواعق و ابن ابی الحدید و ابو ہلال عسکری در کتاب اخبار الاوائل و حاکم ابو القاسم الحسکانی و حاکم ابو محمد و احمد بن عثمان بغدادی و قاضی عبد اللہ بن موسی انہ لما نزلت آیۃ و آت ذا القربی حقہ اعطی رسول اللہ فاطمۃ فدک فقط

No ummati has any doubt or misgiving that Fadak was exclusively for Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and no ummati had any right over it. The Shia and Sunni attest to this fact. Majority of the mufassirin have stated the evident commentary of this verse that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gave Fadak to Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha as a gift, e.g. Tha’labi, Jawhari, Yaqut Himawi – author of Mujam al Buldan – Shahrastani, author of Tarikh Al ‘Abbas, al Waqidi, Bishr ibn al Walid, ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Salih, ‘Umar ibn Shabbah, Ibn Hajar in al Sawa’iq, Ibn Abi al Hadid, Abu Hilal ‘Askari in Akhbar al Awail, Hakim Abu al Qasim al Haskani, Hakim Abu Muhammad, Ahmed ibn ‘Uthman Baghdadi, and Qadi ibn ‘Abdullah Musa.

 

Here the author has confused the narration of gifting Fadak, and claiming Fadak. He has not quoted the narrations and statements in favour of the latter. The only new name he brought is that of Tha’labi. The narration of his appears in page 358 of this book in the following words:

 

و ثعلبی کہ از اعاظم مفسرین ایشاں ست بسند خود از سدی و دیلمی روایت کردہ ست کہ حضرت علی ابن الحسین بہ یکی از اہل شام فرمود آیا قرآن خواندہ گفت بلے فرمود در سورہ بنی اسرائیل ایں آیۃ خواندہ کہ و آت ذا القربی حقہ آں شخص عرض کرد مگر شما آیۃ ذی القربی کہ حق سبحان اللہ تعالی امر فرمودہ کہ حق آنہارا برساںد فرمود بلے

Tha’labi – the celebrated Mufassir of the Sunni – has reported from al Suddi and al Daylami that ‘Ali ibn al Hussain (Zayn al ‘Abidin) asked a resident of Sham, “Have you read the Qur’an?”

He replied in the affirmative. He then asked, “Have you read this verse in Surah Bani Isra’il: And give the relative his right?”

The man asked, “Are you the relative whose rights Allah has commanded to fulfil.”

‘Ali ibn al Hussain replied, “Yes.”

 

Besides the above books, another book has recently been published in Iran by the name: Ghayat al Maram wa Hujjat al Khisam fi Ta’yin al Imam min Tariq al Khas wa al ‘Am. The author of this book is Sayed Hashim commonly referred to as ‘Allamah. Yusuf Bahrani has written in his book Luluat al Bahrayn concerning him:

 

السيد المذكور فاضلا محدثا جامعا متتبعا الأخبار بما لم يسبق إليه سابق سوى الشيخ المجلسي و كانت وفاته للسنة السابعة بعد المائة و الألف و صنف كتبا عديدة تشهد بشدة تتبعه و الطلاعة

The above mentioned Sayed is a scholar, muhaddith, compiler, and master of narrations. No one has surpassed him besides Sheikh al Majlisi. He died in the year 1107 A.H. He has authored many books which testify to the intensity and depth of his research and knowledge.

 

The above author has written Ghayat al Maram to establish the concept of Imamah. He has gathered therein all verses of the Qur’an and all the ahadith and narrations related to that verse whether related by the Ahlus Sunnah or Shia. He has listed in the bibliography of this book the names of all the books he quotes from. Undoubtedly, this book is very comprehensive and attests to his vast knowledge and perfect acquaintance. He has quoted all the narrations of both Sunni and Shia which deal with the verse And give the relative his right in maqsad 2, chapter 17, and 18. But despite its comprehensiveness, he has mentioned no other narration from the Ahlus Sunnah besides Tha’labi’s. However, he has quoted 11 ahadith from the Shia. He writes on page 323:

 

الباب السابع عشر قوله تعالى و آت ذا القربى حقه و المسكين الآية من طريق العامة و فيه حديث واحد الثعلبي في تفسيره في هذه الآية قال عنى بذلك قرابة رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم ثم قال الثعلبي روى عن السدي عن أبي الديلمي قال قال علي بن الحسين لرجل من أهل الشام أقرأت القرآن قال نعم قال فما قرأت في بني إسرائيل و آت ذا القربى حقه و أنكم القرابة التي أمر الله تعالى أن يوتى حقه قال نعم فقط

Chapter 17: Allah the Sublime’s statement: And give the relative his right and the needy.

From the chain of the Sunni. Herein is the hadith of al Tha’labi in the commentary of this verse. He says: “He meant by this Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam relative.”

Al Tha’labi then said: It has been reported from al Suddi and Abu al Daylami who said that ‘Ali ibn al Hussain (Zayn al ‘Abidin) asked a resident of Sham, “Have you read the Qur’an?”

He replied in the affirmative.

He then asked, “Have you read this verse in Surah Bani Isra’il And give the relative his right?”

The man asked, “Are you the relative whose right Allah has commanded to fulfil.”

‘Ali ibn al Hussain replied, “Yes.”

 

The Persian translation of this which appears in Kifayah has been quoted above.

He then writes:

الباب الثامن عشر في قوله تعالى و آت ذا القربى حقه و المسكين الآية من طريق الخامسة و فيه أحد عشر حديثا

Chapter 18: Allah the Sublime’s statement: And give the relative his right and the needy.

From the chain of the Shia, there are 11 ahadith herein.

 

Those narrations from ‘Attiyah al ‘Aufi have been reported which the Shia scholars have quoted from some Sunni books, as we have mentioned previously. He says:

 

الثامن العياشي بإسناده من عطية العوفي قال لما فتح رسول الله خيبر و أفاء الله عليه فدكا و أنزل الله عليه و آت ذا القربى حقه قال يا فاطمة لك فدك التاسع العياشي بإسناده عن عبد الرحمن بن صالح كتب المأمون إلى عبد الله بن موسى العبسي يسئله عن قصة فدك فكتب إليه عبد الله بن موسى بهذا الحديث و العاشر العياشي بإسناده عن فضيل بن مرزوق عن عطية أن المأمون رد فدكا على ولد فاطمة

Number 8: Al ‘Ayyashi with his isnad from ‘Attiyah al ‘Aufi who reports: “When Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam conquered Khaybar and Allah restored to him Fadak and Allah revealed, And give the relative his right, he said, ‘O Fatimah, Fadak is for you.’”

Number 9: Al ‘Ayyashi with his isnad from ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Salih who reports: “Ma’mun wrote to ‘Abdullah ibn Musa al ‘Abasi asking him concerning the incident of Fadak. ‘Abdullah wrote to him this hadith.”

Number 10: Al ‘Ayyashi with his isnad from Fudayl ibn Marzuq from ‘Attiyah that Ma’mun returned Fadak to the children of Fatimah.”

 

Munshi Subhan ‘Ali Khan, who is renowned in the science of literature, has written a book on Imamah. The Fadak discussion appears on page 74 of volume two. However, the author only copied from Ta’n al Rimah but gave it new wording. He writes:

 

ایں فاقد الادراک استیعاب دلائل اثبات حق بضعہ رسول برہماں کتاب مستطاب طعن الرماح حوالہ نمودہ بہ تقریبے آخر کہ خالے از تجددے نیست از ماجری فیہا ابطال خلافت خلیفہ اول و ثانی کہ بانی مبانی ایں اعتدا مشار الیہ است مے سازد فقط

 

There is no new narration therein worth quoting here.

The readers will realise from the above that we have quoted verbatim all the narrations which have been extracted from our Sunni books and recorded in the famous books of the Shia which discuss Fadak from the fourth century till the thirteenth century. Although it is apparent that there could be many other books which we did not find, however we have listed the books of prominent personalities and recognized luminaries of the Shia the likes of ‘Alam al Huda, ‘Allamah al Hilli, Sayed Ibn Ta’us, Mulla Baqir al Majlisi, Qadi Nur Allah al Shustari, Dildar ‘Ali, Mujtahid Sayed Muhammad, and Muhammad al Qilli. Most probably, there investigation has not located any other narration, especially the mujtahidin of Lucknow. So we have a reason to believe, with certainty, that they do not possess any more narrations than those they have presented.

We will now examine these narrations and prove to the readers that such ‘proofs’ are worthless, both rationally and textually. In fact, they are not proofs in the first place.

All of the narrations revolve around a narrator who is not only unreliable and untrustworthy, but is a liar and a Shia. One man is hiding behind all the decorated veils. Everyone has taken a different colour from this multi coloured man. It is a dirty source from which all these springs run. It is the root of one lie from which all these branches bloom.

Let us remove the veil from these narrations upon which they have erected a huge building, and due to which they criticise Sayyidina Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, which they quote in their heartfelt sermons to prove their oppression and tyranny, and around which they have erected many deceitful walls on the rejection of Sayyidah Fatimah’s radiya Llahu ‘anha claim. We believe that when the Shia scholars will realise the reality of those narrations which they boast over, and the veil will be lifted from their eyes, they will be flabbergasted and flummoxed. The same words al Shustari wrote concerning the Sunni after the publication of Kashf al Haqq will apply to them:

 

أن يتمنون أن يكونوا جمادا أو شجرا و يبهتون كأنهم انقموا حجرا

They will wish they were boulders or trees and will be left speechless as though they transformed into stone.

 

Detailed analyses of the narrations attributed to the Ahlus Sunnah

If we analyse all the above narrations the Shia have presented and attributed to the Ahlus Sunnah, we will find them to be of two types. One is where the entire chain of narrators has been mentioned, and the second is when only the book’s name has been mentioned, or only some narrators have been mentioned, not all. There are four narrations of the first type and five of the second.

Narrations with complete isnad:

a. Narrated from Ibn Mardawayh in al Tara’if[7] and quoted in ‘Imad al Islam and other books. The chain of narrators are as follows:

  1. Muhyi al Sunnah Abu al Fath ‘Abdus ibn ‘Abdullah al Hamdani
  2. Qadi Abu Nasr Shu’ayb ibn ‘Ali
  3. Musa ibn Sa’id
  4. Walid ibn ‘Ali
  5. ‘Abbad ibn Ya’qub
  6. ‘Ali ibn ‘Abbas
  7. Fudayl
  8. ‘Attiyah
  9. Abu Sa’id – the core of the isnad
 

b. Appears in Bihar al Anwar[8] without any isnad and in Majma’ al Bayan al Tabarsi with a detailed isna The narrators are as follows:

  1. Sayed Abu Humaid Mahdi ibn Nazar al Hassani
  2. Hakim Abu al Qasim ibn ‘Abdullah al Haskani
  3. Hakim al Walid Abu Muhammad
  4. ‘Umar ibn Ahmed ibn ‘Uthman
  5. ‘Umar ibn al Hussain ibn ‘Ali ibn Malik
  6. Jafar ibn Muhammad al Ahmasi
  7. Hassan ibn Hussain
  8. Abu Ma’mar ibn Sa’id Jaysham
  9. Abu ‘Ali al Qasim al Kindi
  10. Yahya ibn Ya’la
  11. ‘Ali ibn Mus-hir
  12. Fudayl ibn Marzuq
  13. ‘Attiyah al ‘Aufi
  14. Abu Sa’id al Khudri
 

c. Appears in Bihar al Anwar[9] quoted from Sayed Ibn Ta’us’s book Sa’d al Sa’ud who reported from the Tafsir of Muhammad ibn ‘Abbas ibn ‘Ali ibn Marwan. The narrators are:

  1. Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Sulaiman al A’badi
  2. Haytham ibn Khalaf al Duri
  3. ‘Abdullah ibn Sulaiman ibn al Ash’ath
  4. Muhammad ibn al Qasim ibn Zakariyya
  5. ‘Abbad ibn Ya’qub
  6. ‘Ali ibn ‘Abis (which in reality is ‘Ali ibn ‘Abbas)
  7. Jafar ibn Muhammad al Hussaini
  8. ‘Ali ibn Mundhir al Tariqi
  9. Fudayl ibn Marzuq
  10. ‘Attiyah al ‘Aufi
  11. Abu Sa’id al Khudri
 

d. Recorded by Majlisi in Bihar al Anwar [10]. The narrators are:

  1. Muhammad ibn ‘Abbas
  2. ‘Ali ibn ‘Abbas Muqali’i
  3. Abu Kurayb
  4. Muawiyah
  5. Fudayl ibn Marzuq
  6. ‘Attiyah al ‘Aufi
  7. Abu Sa’id al Khudri

 

Narrations without complete isnad:

a. Quoted in ‘Imad al Islam [11] from Kanz al ‘Ummal. It was taken from Hakim’s Tarikh. Some narrators names have appeared therein including:

  1. Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Maymun
  2. ‘Ali ibn ‘Abis ibn al Najjar

They have attributed their narration to Abu Sa’id.

 

b. Quoted in ‘Imad al Islam[12] from al Durr al Manthur without any isnad. Ta’n al Rimah added that al Bazzar, Abu Ya’la, Ibn Hatim, and Ibn Mardawayh have reported it from Abu Sa’id al Khudri.

 

c. Written in Bihar al Anwar[13] ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Salih reports that Ma’mun wrote to ‘Ubaidullah ibn Musa asking him concerning the incident of Fadak. ‘Ubaidullah wrote to him this hadith which Fudayl ibn Marzuq narrated to him from ‘Attiyah. Two names appear here:

  1. Fudayl ibn Marzuq
  2. ‘Attiyah
 

d. Reported in al Tara’if[14] from Bishr ibn al Walid, al Waqidi, and Bishr ibn Ghiyath. The isnad is omitted. Al Shustari quoted it in Ihqaq al Haqq citing al Waqidi.

 

e. Quoted in ‘Imad al Islam[15] from Ma’arij al Nubuwwah and Maqsad al Aqsa.

 

That is it. This is all the Shia scholars boast over. This is all they have which they passionately present against the Ahlus Sunnah to prove the gifting of Fadak. Since the narrations are reported with different wordings and at different places in the Fadak discussion, some naïve Sunni may see them and get worried thinking that these narrations appear in our books at the end of the day so they must be authentic. They thus become perplexed and doubts began to sprout in their hearts about their beliefs. However, now that we have gathered them at one place, the reader will realise that the core of all these narrations is Abu Sa’id al Khudri. ‘Attiyah narrated from him and Fudayl ibn Marzuq narrated from ‘Attiyah. Then the chain continues. In short, Abu Sa’id is the core of all the narrations they have presented. However, an amazing deception has been played with the name Abu Sa’id which leaves the readers into thinking that it is the Sahabi Abu Sa’id al Khudri radiya Llahu ‘anhu, whereas it is not him. Instead it is Abu Sa’id who is titled al Kalbi and is the exegete. He has many different names and agnomens, so many are misled by his name. Sometimes his name appears as Muhammad ibn Sa’ib al Kalbi, and sometimes Hammad ibn Sa’ib al Kalbi. He has three agnomens viz. Abu Nasr, Abu Hisham, and Abu Sa’id. ‘Attiyah al ‘Aufi reported from him. Since ‘Attiyah is a cunning Shia, he narrated these types of ahadith from his teacher Abu Sa’id al Kalbi in such a manner which misleads the reader into thinking that he is narrating from Abu Sa’id al Khudri radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He says haddathana or qala Abu Sa’id (Abu Sa’id narrated to us or said) and then remains silent. He does not say al Kalbi or any other famous name of his so that people are deceived into thinking that he is narrating from Abu Sa’id al Khudri radiya Llahu ‘anhu, not Abu Sa’id al Kalbi.

We will now present the condition of ‘Attiyah al ‘Aufi and Abu Sa’id al Kalbi from the books of Asma’ al Rijal and lift the veils which have concealed these narrations for a long time. We will consult the reliable books of Asma’ al Rijal for this study.

 

‘Attiyah al ‘Aufi

  • He makes plenty mistakes; he was Shia and a mudallis.[16]
  • A famous Tabi’i who is da’if.
  • Salim al Muradi said, “‘Attiyah had Shia tendencies.”
  • Ahmed said, “Da’if al hadith.”
  • Haytham would criticise ‘Attiyah
  • Ibn al Mada’ini reports from Yahya who said, “‘Attiyah, Abu Harun, and Bashir ibn Harb are all equal according to me [i.e. all are da’if].”
  • Ahmed said, “It reached me that ‘Attiyah would go to al Kalbi and learn tafsir from him. He would record it as Abu Sa’id and would say, ‘Abu Sa’id said,’ giving the impression that it is al Khudri.”
  • Al Nasa’i and a group labelled him da’if.[17]

 

Firstly, due to his abundance of mistakes, his narrations cannot be relied upon. Secondly, due to him practicing tadlis, they are not considered. Thirdly, he is Shia, so this narration is a Shia narration, not a Sunni one.

What is tadlis and what level of defect is it deemed in a narrator needs some elucidation so that the readers might evaluate the worth of this narration on the basis of tadlis.

Ibn al Jawzi regards tadlis as such a heinous and terrible crime that he writes in Talbis Iblis:

 

و من تلبيس أبليس على علماء المحدثين رواية الحديث الموضوع من غير أن يبينوا أنه موضوع و هذا خيانة منهم على الشرع و مقصودهم تنفيق أحاديثهم و كثرة رواياتهم و قد قال النبي من روى عني حديثا يرى أنه كذب فهو أحد الكاذبين و من هذا الفن تدليسهم في الرواية فتارة يقول أحدهم فلان عن فلان أو قال فلان عن فلان يوهم أنه سمع منه و لم يسمع و هذا قبيح لأنه يجعل المنقطع في مرتبة المتصل

One of the deceptions of Iblis upon the Muhaddithin ‘Ulama’ is narrating a fabrication without stating that it is a fabrication. This is treachery on their part upon the Shari’ah. Their intention is to market their ahadith and to increase their narrations whereas Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam has stated, “Whoever narrates a hadith from me knowing that it is false is one of the liars.”

Tadlis in the science of hadith is a narrator saying, “So-and-so from so-and-so” or “so-and-so said from so-and-so,” giving the impression that the former heard it from the latter, whereas he did not. This is scandalous since it equates munqati’ (broken chain – where one or more narrators are missing) with muttasil (unbroken chain – where no narrator is missing).

 

Al Sakhawi has discussed al Kalbi in Risalah Manzumah Jazari, which deals with the principles of hadith, under the chapter dealing with people who have various names and different descriptions. He says:

 

و هو أبو سعيد الذي روى عنه عطية العوفي موهما أنه الخدري

He is Abu Sa’id from whom ‘Attiyah al ‘Aufi reports giving the impression that it is al Khudri.

 

After we have disclosed the reality of ‘Attiyah’s tricks, it becomes clear as daylight that this narration is not from Abu Sa’id al Khudri radiya Llahu ‘anhu, the Sahabi, but rather from Abu Sa’id al Kalbi, the commentator.

 

Abu Sa’id al Kalbi

It is appropriate to disclose the condition of Abu Sa’id al Kalbi so that it becomes manifest in front of all that the core of all these narrations is a liar, fabricator of ahadith, and a Shia.

Al Sakhawi has written in Sharh Risalah Manzumah Jazari:

 

أن من أمثلة اي من له أسماء مختلفة و نعوت متعددة محمد بن السائب الكلبي المفسر هو أبو النضر الذي روى عنه ابن إسحاق و هو حماد بن السائب روى عنه أبو أسامة و هو أبو سعيد الذي روى عنه عطية الكوفي موهما أنه الخدري و هو أبو هشام روى عنه القاسم بن الوليد

One example of those who have different names and various descriptions is Muhammad ibn Sa’ib al Kalbi, the exegete. His agnomen is Abu Nadr. Ibn Ishaq uses this agnomen when reporting from him. His name is Hammad ibn Sa’ib; Abu Usamah uses this name of his when narrating from him. His agnomen is also Abu Sa’id; ‘Attiyah al Kufi reports from him using this agnomen to throw the unwary into thinking that it is al Khudri. His agnomen is also Abu Hisham which Qasim ibn al Walid uses when quoting him.

 
  • Muhammad ibn al Sa’ib ibn Bashir al Kalbi, Abu al Nadr al Kufi, the genealogist and exegete. He has been accused of lying and criticised of rafd. He is from the sixth category. He died in 146 A.H.[18]
  • Muhammad ibn al Sa’ib al Kalbi, Abu al Nadr al Kufi, the Exegete, Genealogist, and Akhbari.
  • Al Thawri says, “Be careful of al Kalbi.” He was asked, “But you narrate from him?” He explained, “I know his truths from his lies.”
  • Al Bukhari said, “‘Ali said, Yahya reported to us from Sufyan, al Kalbi said to me, ‘All that I narrated to you from Abu Salih is a lie.’”
  • Yazid ibn Zuray’ said, “Al Kalbi narrated to us and he was a Saba’”
  • Abu Muawiyah says, “Al A’mash says, ‘Fear this Saba’ I found that people had been poisoned by the liars.’”
  • Ibn Hibban said, “Al Kalbi was a Saba’i from that group who believe that ‘Ali did not die and will return to the world and fill it with justice just as it was filled with oppression. He saw a cloud and they said, Amir al Mu’minin is in it.”
  • Abu ‘Awnah reports, “I heard al Kalbi saying, ‘Jibril would dictate the revelation to the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. When the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam would enter the toilet, he would dictate the revelation to ‘Ali.”
  • Ahmed ibn Zuhayr said, “I asked Ahmed ibn Hambal if it was permissible to look to al Kalbi’s tafsi He replied in the negative.”
  • Al Juzajani and others said, “Kadhab (great liar).”
  • Al Daraqutni and a group said, “Matruk (suspected of hadith forgery).”
  • Ibn Hibban said, “His fabricating and lying are so evident that its needs no substantiation.”
  • One of his qualities is that he reports tafsir from Abu Salih from Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma whereas neither did Abu Salih ever see Ibn ‘Abbas, nor did al Kalbi hear Abu Salih. Nonetheless, whenever the need arises, he unearths his hidden treasures. It is not permissible to mention him in books. So what about using him as proof?[19]
 

In Tadhkirat al Huffaz, al Dhahabi has revealed that Muhammad ibn al Sa’ib al Kalbi is a Rafidi. This appears in the discussion of his son Hisham ibn al Kalbi[20] whom he declared as matruk and did not list among the Huffaz of hadith. He says:

 

هشام بن كلبي الحافظ أحد المتروكين ليس بثقة فلهذا لم أدخله بين حفاظ الحديث و هو أبو المنذر هشام بن محمد بن السائب الكوفي الرافضي النسابة

Hisham ibn Kalbi, the Hafiz. He is one of the matruk narrators and is unreliable. Due to this, I did not include him among the Huffaz of hadith. He is Abu al Mundhir Hisham ibn Muhammad ibn al Sa’ib al Kufi – the rafidi genealogist.

 

Yaqut al Himawi has recorded in Mujam al Buldan while listing the books of Muhammad ibn Jarir al Tabari:

 

و لم يتعرض أي الطبري تفسير غير موثوق به فإنه لم يدخل في كتابه شيئا عن كتاب محمد بن السائب الكلبي و لا مقاتل بن سليمان و لا محمد بن عمر الواقدي لأنهم عنده أظناه

Al Tabari did not entertain the tafsir of unreliable narrators. Accordingly, he did not include in his book anything from the books of Muhammad ibn al Sa’ib al Kalbi, Muqatil ibn Sulaiman, or Muhammad ibn ‘Umar al Waqidi since they were dubious according to him.

 

Muhammad Tahir Gujrati writes regarding al Kalbi in Tadhkirat al Mawdu’at:

 

قد قال أحمد في تفسير الكلبي من أوله إلى آخره كذب لا يجعل النظر فيه

Indeed, Ahmed has stated, “In al Kalbi’s tafsir, there is lies from the beginning to the end. It should not be looked at!”

 

This is the condition of Abu Sa’id al Kalbi which we have quoted from the Muhaqqiqin. He is from ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’s group in his beliefs. He believes in Raj’ah and that Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is hiding in the clouds. He is on such a lofty pedestal of truthfulness that he narrates from those he never saw and never heard from. He concocted whatever he felt and fabricated tales in their name. His integrity is on such a level that al Tabari considers it impermissible to quote him in his book. He is the fabricator or transmitter of the hadith of the gifting of Fadak. Moreover, ‘Attiyah is a Shia mudallis. He reports from the former to give credence to his crooked creed. He abstains from taking his name and says instead, “Abu Sa’id narrated to me,” to deceive people into believing that this is Sayyidina Abu Sa’id al Khudri radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

What has been established here that the Abu Sa’id who is the core of this narration is not Sayyidina Abu Sa’id al Khudri radiya Llahu ‘anhu, is not some philosophy. Rather it is confirmed by the former scholars from their writings and traditions. For example, the narration of Kanz al ‘Ummal, Hakim’s Tarikh, Ibn Mardawayh, al Durr al Manthur, al Bazzar, Abu Ya’la, and Ibn Abi Hatim only mention Abu Sa’id without al Khudri. This has only been added due to the deception

The false nature of the narration has now been verified after revealing the condition of ‘Attiyah and al Kalbi and its fictitiousness has been established beyond doubt. Although, there remains no reason to discuss the other narrators, however we will discuss them coupled with the text so that people realise that the isnad is filled with matruk, majhul, and kadhab Rawafid. Every person in the isnad reeks from the stench of Shiasm, tadlis, or majhuliyyah.

 

Fudayl ibn Marzuq al Kufi narrates from ‘Attiyah.

Fudayl ibn Marzuq al Kufi

  • Accused of having Shia tendencies. (Hence, he has been discarded.)[21]
  • Ibn Ma’in said, “Extreme in Shi’ism.”
  • Abu Hatim declared, “Truthful but makes plenty mistakes.”[22]
  • His ahadith can be written but he cannot be used as proof.
  • Al Nasa’i said, “Da’if.”[23]
  • Abu ‘Abdullah al Hakim says, “Fudayl ibn Marzuq does not meet the standards of sahih (authenticity). Muslim has been criticised for recording his ahadith in Sahih Muslim.”
  • Ibn Hibban commented, “Extremely munkar al hadith (reports weak narrations which contradict sahih narrations). He would err when reporting from reliable narrators. He reports fabrications from ‘Attiyah. I say, ‘Attiyah is more da’if than him.”
  • Ibn ‘Adi says, “When he concurs with reliable narrators, then his narrations will be used as evidence.”
  • Ahmed ibn Abi Khaythamah narrates from Ibn Ma’in, “Da’if.”[24]
 

‘Ali ibn ‘Abbas narrates from Fudayl ibn Marzuq al Kufi

‘Ali ibn ‘Abbas al Arzaq al Asadi al Kufi

  • He narrates from al ‘Ala’ ibn al Musayyab and Ibn Abi Sulaim and others. Ibn ‘Abbas reports from Abi Ma’in, “He is worthless.”
  • Al Juzajani, al Nasa’i, and al Azdi say, “Da’if.”
  • Ibn Hibban declares, “His blunders are numerous so he deserves to be abandoned.”
  • Al Qasim ibn Zakariyya says, “‘Abbad ibn Ya’qub narrated to us from ‘Ali ibn ‘Abbas from Fudayl ibn Marzuq from ‘Attiyah from Abu Sa’id who reports, ‘When the verse And give the relative his right was revealed, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam summoned Fatimah and gave her Fadak.’ I declare, This is utterly false. Had he given her this, Fatimah would not have come seeking something in her possession and control. There are other da’if narrators besides ‘Ali in the isna[25]
 

‘Abbad ibn Ya’qub narrates from ‘Ali ibn ‘Abbas

‘Abbad ibn Ya’qub al Rawajini[26]

  • Rafidi. His hadith appears in al Bukhari maqrunan (in a supporting nature).
  • Ibn Hibban emphasised, “He deserves to be abandoned.”[27]
  • One of the leaders of the Shia.
  • Ibn ‘Adi said about him, “He narrates many munkar ahadith (weak narrations contradicting sahih narrations) about the virtues of the Ahlul Bayt.”
  • Salih ibn Muhammad says, “He would curse ‘Uthman.”[28]
  • From among the extremist Shia and leaders of bid’ah (innovation). However, he is truthful in hadith from Sharik, Walid ibn Abi Thawr, and others. Al Bukhari narrated from him a hadith in Sahih al Bukhari in a supporting capacity.
  • Ibn Khuzaimah says, A reliable narrator reported to us, “‘Abbad is muttaham (accused) in his din.”
  • ‘Abdan al Ahwazi reports from someone reliable, “‘Abbad ibn Ya’qub would swear the Salaf (pious predecessors).”
  • Ibn ‘Adi says, “He reports many ahadith regarding virtues for which he has been criticised.”
  • Salih Jazarah says, “‘Abbad ibn Ya’qub would vilify ‘Uthman. I heard him saying, ‘Allah is more just than to enter Talhah and Zubair into Jannat who fought against ‘Ali after giving him bay’ah.’”
  • He invited to rafd. Coupled with this, he narrates weak narrations from well-known narrators, hence he is deserving of being abandoned.
  • Al Daraqutni says, “‘Abbad ibn Ya’qub is a truthful Shia.”[29]
 

These are the 5 names of this isnad we managed to locate in the books of Asma’ al Rijal. By Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala grace, they are all Shia, viz. ‘Abbad ibn Ya’qub, ‘Ali ibn ‘Abbas, Fudayl, ‘Attiyah, and Abu Sa’id.

Their tutor who is the core of this narration is Abu Sa’id al Kalbi who is an extremist in Shi’ism. As mentioned earlier, he does not believe in Sayyidina ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu demise and believes in Raj’ah.

The second narration which appears in Bihar al Anwar and Majma’ al Bayan, begins with Sayed Abu Humaid Mahdi ibn Nazar Hussaini and ends with Abu Sa’id al Khudri. The last three narrators are Fudayl, ‘Attiyah, and Abu Sa’id; and either unintentionally or a deliberate attempt to deceive, the last was thought to be Abu Sa’id al Khudri. One narrator who appears in the isnad is Yahya ibn Ya’la.

 

Yahya ibn Ya’la al Aslami Abu Zakariyya al Kufi al Qatrafi

  • Da’if. From the ninth category.[30]
  • He reports from Yunus ibn Khabbab and al A’mash. Jandal ibn Waliq and Qutaybah report from him.
  • Ibn Ma’in said, “He is worthless.”
  • Abu Hatim remarked, “Da’if al hadith.”[31]
 

The rest of the narrators have not been located in the books of Asma’ al Rijal by me. Nevertheless, there is no real need to verify their worth since even if hypothetically we agree that they are reliable, truthful, Sunni narrators, then too the isnad ends with 3 cunning Shia men. Moreover, the core of the isnad is Abu Sa’id; the liar, fabricator, and extremist Shia.

Besides this, this narration that appears in Bihar al Anwar has not been referenced to any book. It is nothing implausible, actually I can declare with almost certainty, that this narration is fabricated by the Shia and taken from their books.

With regards to the third narration quoted from Sa’d al Sa’ud, this has been quoted from the tafsir of Muhammad ibn ‘Abbas ibn ‘Ali ibn Marwan. Let us find out who this person is. After studying Muntaha al Maqal fi Asma al Rijal[32], we realised that he is one of the Shia scholars and exegetes. It appears in this book about him:

 

محمد بن عباس بن علي بن مروان بن الماهيار أبو عبد الله البزاز المعروف بابن الحجام ثقة في أصحابنا عين سديد كثير الحديث له كتاب المقنع في الفقه كتاب الدواجن كتاب ما نزل من القرآن في أهل بيت و قال جماعة من أصحابنا أنه كتاب لم يصنف في معناه مثله و قيل أنه ألف ورقة جش ، صه إلاّ ذكر الكتابين الأوّلين و في ست أخبرنا بكتبه و رواياته جماعة من أصحابنا عن أبي محمد بن هارون بن موسى التلعكبري عنه أقول في مشكا ، ابن عباس بن علي بن مروان ثقة عنه التلعكبري

Muhammad ibn ‘Abbas ibn ‘Ali ibn Marwan ibn al Mahyar, Abu ‘Abdullah al Bazzaz commonly known as Ibn al Hajjam. He is reliable and from our scholars. A straight spring and narrator of plenty ahadith. He has prepared Kitab al Muqni’ in Fiqh, Kitab al Dawajin, and Kitab Ma Nazala min al Qur’an fi Ahlul Bayt. A group of our scholars said, “It is such a book which is unparalleled in its field.” It comprises of 1000 odd pages. (Rijal al Najjashi)

The same is mentioned in al Khulasah except for the first two books.

A group of our scholars reported to us his books and narrations from Abu Muhammad ibn Harun ibn Musa al Tala’kabri from him.

I say, it is mentioned in al Mushtarikat: Ibn ‘Abbas ibn ‘Ali ibn Marwan the reliable, al Tal’ukbari narrated from him.

 

So the narration appearing in his book is accepted by the Shia, not the Sunni. Moreover, they did not write whether it was taken from a Shia book or a Sunni one. But it is the very same narration which we have been discussing. This narration appears from two chains. One is Muhammad ibn Muhammad, Haytham ibn Khalaf, ‘Abdullah ibn Sulaiman, and Muhammad ibn Qasim. They all say ‘Abbad ibn Ya’qub reported to us who reported from ‘Ali ibn ‘Abbas (which was mistakenly written as ‘Abis). The second isnad is Jafar ibn Muhammad Hussaini, from ‘Ali ibn Mundhir al Tariqi, from ‘Ali ibn ‘Abbas. Both these isnads run through ‘Ali ibn ‘Abbas, from Fudayl, from ‘Attiyah from Abu Sa’id. And the last three are well known.

 

One isnad runs via ‘Ali ibn Mundhir al Tariqi:

‘Ali ibn Mundhir al Tariqi[33] al Kufi

  • He is truthful and has Shia ideologies.[34]
  • Al Nasa’i said, “A proper Shia. Reliable.”[35]
 

Now that he is proven to be Shia, his narration which supports his corrupt beliefs is unacceptable.

Jafar ibn Muhammad al Hussaini reports from him who is not an ordinary Shia but rather a very truthful and reliable individual and one of the Mashayikh of ijazah of the Shia. It appears in Muntaha al Maqal:

 

جعفر بن محمد بن إبراهيم الحسيني الموسوي المصري يروي عنه التلعكبري و كان سماعه عنه سنة أربعين و ثلاث مائة بمصر و له منه إجازة و زاد في بعض النسخ أبو القاسم في الأول فانظر أنه يكنى به و كناه به الشيخ أيضا في محمد بن أبي عمير و عبر عنه ابن شريف الصالح و في عبد الله أحمد بن نهيك أيضا كونه من مشايخ الإجازة و ذلك مارة الوثاقة

Jafar ibn Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al Hussaini al Musawi al Misri. Al Tala’kabri narrates from him and heard him in the year 340 A.H. in Egypt and also secured ijazah from him. An addition of Abu al Qasim appears in some copies in the beginning. So most probably he was given this title. And Sheikh also gave him the title of Muhammad ibn Abi ‘Umair. Ibn Sharif al Salih makes mention of this. It appears in ‘Abdullah ibn Nahik’s book that he is from the Mashayikh of ijazah. And this is a sign of credibility.

 

It is written about ‘Abdullah ibn Nahik:

الشيخ الصدوق ثقة

He is a Sheikh, truthful, and reliable.

 

It also appears:

أخبرنا القاضي أبو الحسن محمد بن عثمان بن الحسن قال اشتملت إجازة أبي القاسم جعفر بن محمد بن إبراهيم الموسوى

Qadi Abu al Hassan Muhammad ibn ‘Uthman ibn al Hassan says, “I secured ijazah from Abu al Qasim Jafar ibn Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al Musawi.

 

Another narrator is Muhammad ibn Qasim Zakariyya

Muhammad ibn Qasim ibn Zakariyya al Asadi al Majazi al Kufi – originally from Syria

  • His title was kadhib (liar)[36]
  • A group criticised him
  • It is said he believed in raj’ah.
  • He sat and narrated Kitab al Nahy from Hussain ibn Nasr ibn Muzahim whereas he did not hear it from him. He passed away in 326 A.H.[37]
 

Another narrator is Muhammad ibn Sulaiman

Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Sulaiman

  • Al Tabarani declares, “A narrator accused of fabricating ahadith.”[38]
 

‘Abdullah ibn Sulaiman al Ash’ath al Sijistani, Abu Bakr al Hafiz

  • Reliable and author of many books.
  • Al Daraqutni called him reliable but said that he blunders in speech.
  • Ibn ‘Adi mentioned him and then said, “Had it not been for the condition I stipulated, I would not have mentioned him.” He said further on, “I heard Abu Dawood saying, ‘My son ‘Abdullah is a kadhab (great liar).’”
  • Ibn Sa’d comments, “Sufficient for us is what his father said about him.”
  • Ibn ‘Adi then said, “I heard Musa ibn al Qasim saying, ‘Abu Bakr told me that he heard Ibrahim al Isfahani saying that Abu Bakr ibn Abi Dawood is a kadhab (great liar).’”
  • Ibn ‘Adi said, “Initially, he was attributed to nasb so Ibn al Furat exiled him from Baghdad. Subsequently, ‘Ali ibn ‘Isa sent him back. He began narrating ahadith on the virtues of the Ahlul Bayt from his imagination and became a Sheikh among them.”
 

This is the condition of the two isnads Sayed ibn Ta’us quoted from Muhammad ibn ‘Abbas. He writes that this narration has 20 other isnads. So most probably, they are none the better on condition that they actually exist. What does not convince us that other isnads actually exist is that al Majlisi’s habit is to gather all narrations. He does not shy away from this. In fact, his book Bihar al Anwar is a shoreless ocean of narrations. So he would have definitely quoted these narrations to impress upon the reader the worth of the narration. But since he did not, we are sceptical about the claim.

 

The narrators of the fourth narration al Majlisi records in Bihar al Anwar are as follows:

  • Muhammad ibn al ‘Abbas
  • ‘Ali ibn al ‘Abbas al Muqani’i
  • Abu Kurayb
  • Muawiyah
  • Fudayl ibn Marzuq
  • ‘Attiyah
  • Abu Sa’id al Khudri
 

Since the last three narrators are the same, it does not appear to be another narration, despite the first few narrators being different. One narrator is Abu Kurayb who is majhul (unknown).

 

Abu Kurayb al Asadi

  • Abu Hatim said, “”[39]
 

In conclusion, the four narrations of the first type have been explained in detail. We have showed very clearly that the narration is actually only one, with various isnads leading up to the same source, and the last narrator is a Shia.

The narration of Kanz al ‘Ummal only mentions, “from Abu Sa’id”. The word al Khudri does not appear, nor does the rest of the isnad. The author has taken it from Hakim’s Tarikh. Hakim only says that Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Maymun narrated it from ‘Ali ibn ‘Abis. This narration is astonishing and disgusting. Firstly, Hakim had Shi’i leanings. Secondly, he records many fabrications in his book. Al Dhahabi records in Tadhkirat al Huffaz:

 

قال الخطيب أبو بكر أبو عبد الله الحاكم كان ثقة يميل إلى التشيع فحدثني إبراهيم بن محمد المودي و كان صالحا عالما قال جمع الحاكم أحاديث و زعم أنها صحاح على شرط البخاري و مسلم منها حديث الطير و من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه فأنكرها عليه أصحاب الحديث و لم يلتفتوا إلى قوله و لا ريب أن في المستدرك أحاديث كثيرة ليست على شرط الصحة بل فيه أحاديث موضوعة شان المستدرك بإخراجها فيه قال ابن طاهر سألت أبا إسماعيل الأنصاري عن الحاكم فقال ثقة في الحديث رافضي خبيث ثم قال ابن طاهر كان شديد التعصب للشيعة في الباطن

Al Khatib Abu Bakr stated: “Abu Abdullah al Hakim was reliable and had Shia tendencies. Ibrahim ibn Muhammad al Mudi who is a righteous ‘Alim narrated to me saying, ‘al Hakim gathered ahadith and thought they were sahih, meeting the standards of al Bukhari and Muslim [whereas the reality was the different]. One of them is hadith al tayr (the bird narration) and whoever’s mawla I am, ‘Ali is his mawla. The muhaddithin criticised him for such narrations and did not consider his statement. Undoubtedly, there are many ahadith in al Mustadrak which do not meet the standards of authenticity. In fact, there are plenty fabrications therein which have tainted al Mustadrak.’”

Ibn Tahir says, “I asked Abu Ismail al Ansari about al Hakim. He replied, ‘Reliable in hadith. A disgusting Rafidi.’” Ibn Tahir then said, “He had extreme ta’assub (favouritism, prejudice, bias) for the Shia.”

 

He narrates from Ibrahim ibn Maymun. This establishes his Shia inclinations because it appears in Muntaha al Maqal fi Asma al Rijal:

 

و من كتاب ميزان الاعتدال أنه من أجلاء الشيعة روى عن علي بن عابس انتهى و لعله بن ميمون

It appears in Mizan al I’tidal that he is reckoned among the high ranking Shia. He reports from ‘Ali ibn ‘Abis. Probably he is Ibn Maymun.

 

He writes at another juncture:

 

إبراهيم بن ميمون الكوفي صدوق و يأتي في ترجمة عبد الله بن مسكان أن إبراهيم هذا حمل جواب مسائل عبد الله عن أبي عبد الله فيظهر أن الإمام كان يعتمد فهو معتمد عليه وفاقا للجمع

Ibrahim ibn Maymun al Kufi is truthful. It appears in the biography of ‘Abdullah ibn Miskan that Ibrahim would convey the answer from Abu ‘Abdullah to the question of ‘Abdullah. This shows that the Imam had reliance upon him. Therefore, he is reliable by consensus.

 

This makes it clear that he was no ordinary Shia. Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah relied upon him. He reports from ‘Ali ibn ‘Abis, which ought to be ‘Ali ibn ‘Abbas, whom we learnt about earlier:

 

أنه كان من الضعفاء المتروكين

He was among the da’if and matruk narrators.

 

This isnad goes up until Abu Sa’id, but al Khudri has not been added so it shows that it was not the Sahabi but al Kalbi.

The second narration is quoted in ‘Imad al Islam etc., from al Durr al Manthur without any isnad. Ta’n al Rimah added that al Bazzar, Abu Ya’la, Ibn Hatim, and Ibn Mardawayh have reported it from Abu Sa’id al Khudri. Although the isnad is not mentioned, it seems to be the very same narration from Sayed ibn Mardawayh. Haydar ‘Ali has mentioned the isnad of this narration in one of his books as follows:

 

حدثنا عباد بن يعقوب حدثنا أبو يحيى التيمي حدثنا فضيل بن مرزوق عن عطية عن أبي سعيد

‘Abbad ibn Ya’qub narrated to us from Abu Yahya al Taymi from Fudayl ibn Marzuq from ‘Attiyah from Abu Sa’id.

 

The word al Khudri does not appear here. This confirms that it is al Kalbi from whom ‘Attiyah narrates. All the narrators here are Shia besides Abu Yahya al Taymi.

 

Abu Yahya al Taymi

  • Abu Hatim declared him da’if.[40]
 

In short, this narration is not a new one. It is the very same narration of al Kalbi.

The third narration as recorded in Bihar al Anwar[41] etc., is that ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Salih reports that Ma’mun wrote to ‘Ubaidullah ibn Musa asking him concerning the incident of Fadak. ‘Ubaidullah wrote to him this hadith which Fudayl ibn Marzuq narrated to him from ‘Attiyah.

This narration is wholly Shia. The first narrator till the last narrator are all Shia. It is reported from ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Salih.

 

‘Abdul Rahman ibn Salih al Azdi Abu Muhammad al Kufi

  • He was a Shia
  • Abu Dawood says, “He wrote a book disparaging the Sahabah. An evil man.”
  • Ibn ‘Adi stated, “He was drowned in Shi’ He passed away in 235 A.H.”[42]
  • He alighted in Baghdad. Truthful, with Shia ideologies.
  • Abu Dawood stated, “He fabricated criticisms against the Sahabah.”[43]
 

So it is nothing amazing for him to narrate this. In fact, even if we hypothetically agree to him being Sunni, then too the incident mentions that the answer given to Ma’mun was the very same narration Fudayl ibn Marzuq reports from ‘Attiyah, and both are unreliable. Hence, the narration is unreliable.

The fourth narration is reported in al Tara’if and Ihqaq al Haqq from Bishr ibn al Walid, al Waqidi, and Bishr ibn Ghiyath without any isnad. Most probably, this is the narration of Fudayl, ‘Attiyah, and Abu Sa’id. Furthermore, since it is narrated from al Waqidi and Bishr ibn Ghiyath in these two books, no attention needs to be paid towards it since al Waqidi books are filled with da’if and mawdu’ narrations. Majority of the Muhaqqiqin and ‘Ulama’ agree on his unreliability. Bishr ibn Ghiyath is even worse than al Waqidi to the extent that the Muhaqqiqin have labelled him a zindiq (heretic).

 

Muhammad ibn ‘Umar al Waqidi al Madani al Qadi

  • He settled in Baghdad. He is matruk despite his vast knowledge.[44]
  • Al Dhahabi states, “I did not mention his biography here since they are unanimous on discarding his ahadith. He is one of the containers of knowledge. However, he was not cautious when dealing with ahadith. Nonetheless, he is a leader in Maghazi and Siyar, but he narrates everything, sahih and da’if.”[45]
  • Al Bukhari said, “”[46]
  • Ahmed stated, “He is a kadhab (great liar).”
  • Ibn Ma’in said, “He is da’if.”[47]
  • Author of many books and one of the containers of knowledge. There is consensus upon his du’f (weakness). Sufficient proof for you is that Ibn Majah does not take the courage to take his name.
  • Ahmed ibn Hambal states, “He is a kadha He changes ahadith. He mixes the hadith of his nephew al Zuhri with Ma’mar, and vice versa.”
  • Ibn Ma’in stated, “He is unreliable,” and at another place, “His ahadith could be written.”
  • Al Bukhari and Abu Hatim commented, “”
  • Abu Hatim also remarked as well as al Nasa’i, “He fabricates ahadith.”
  • Ibn ‘Adi states, “His ahadith are not mahfuz (corroborated) and the problem lies with him.”
  • Abu Ghalib ibn Bint Muawiyah ibn ‘Amr said, “I heard ibn al Madini say, ‘Al Waqidi fabricates ahadith.’”
  • Abu Dawood says that it has reached him that ‘Ali ibn al Madini stated, “Al Waqidi would narrate 30 000 weak ahadith.”
  • Al Mughirah ibn Muhammad al Muhallabi states that he heard Ibn al Madini saying, “Haytham ibn ‘Adi is more reliable than al Waqidi to me. I do not sanction him in hadith, nor in genealogy, nor in anything else.”
  • I say, “Many of al Waqidi’s narrations have passed. Some of them and others are found in my Tarikh al Kabir. He passed away while executing the post of judge in 207 A.H in Dhu al Hijjah. There is consensus on al Waqidi’s du’f.”[48]
 

These reports prove that he was a renowned ‘Alim and celebrated author. However, he was unreliable, da’if, and matruk. What worse defect can a person have than fabricating ahadith? 30 000 weak ahadith are reported from him. the worth of his narrations can be gaged from the fact that reliable Mufassirin avoid quoting him, like al Tabari who did not quote from al Kalbi and al Waqidi in his tafsir since they are da’if and unreliable.

 

Some have gone to the extent of saying that the books that are published in his name are actually those of Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Yahya, a Shia author. Al Waqidi copied his books and published them in his name. Therefore, his books should be considered as Shia books. It appears in Muntaha al Maqal fi Asma al Rijal in the biography of Ibrahim ibn Muhammad:

 

إبراهيم بن محمد بن أبي يحيى أبو إسحاق مولى أسلم مدني روى عن أبي جعفر و أبي عبد الله و كان خصيصا و العامة لهذه العلة تضعفه و حكى بعض أصحابنا عن بعض المخالفين أن كتب الواقدي سائرها إنما هي كتب إبراهيم بن محمد بن أبي يحيى نقلها الواقدي و ادعاها و في فهرست الشيخ و ابن محمد بن يحيى أبو إسحاق مولى أسلم مدني روى عن أبي جعفر و أبي عبد الله و كان خاصا بحديثنا و العامة تضعفه لذلك ذكر يعقوب بن سفيان في تاريخه في أسباب تضعيفه عن بعض الناس أنه سمعه ينال من الأولين ذكر بعض ثقال العامة أن كتب الواقدي سائرها إنما هي كتب إبراهيم بن محمد بن أبي يحيى نقلها الواقدي و ادعاها و ذكر بعض أصحابنا أن له كتابا مبوبا في الحلال و الحرام عن أبي عبد الله الحسين بن محمد الأزدي إلى قوله و ما مر من أن العامة تضعفه لذلك و يشهد له ما من صاحب ميزان الاعتدال و هو كذاب رافضي

Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Yahya Abu Ishaq, Mawla of Aslam, Madani. He narrated from Abu Jafar and Abu ‘Abdullah. He was a pure Shia. The Sunni declare him da’if due to this. Some of our scholars quote from some opposition that the books of al Waqidi are in fact the books of Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Yahya which al Waqidi copied and ascribed to himself. It appears in the contents of Sheikh: Ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Yahya Mawla of Aslam, Madani. He narrated from Abu Jafar and Abu ‘Abdullah. He exclusively reported our ahadith. Due to this, the Ahlus Sunnah categorise him as da’if. Ya’qub ibn Sufyan reports in his Tarikh that among the reasons of him being labelled da’if is that he heard him condemning the former people [Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum]. Some reliable Sunni have mentioned that all of al Waqidi’s books are in reality the books of Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Yahya which al Waqidi copied and attributed to himself. Some of our scholars mentioned that he has a book with chapters regarding halal and haram from Abu ‘Abdullah al Hussain ibn Muhammad al Azdi.

What has appeared earlier that the Sunni declare him da’if due to this; evidence of this is the statement of the author of Mizan al I’tidal, “He is a kadhab (great liar); Rafidi.”[49]

 

By presenting such fabricators as proof in contentious discussions shows that the Imamiyyah could not locate any authentic narration in this regard. How is it possible for them to locate it when it is non-existent? When it is understood that al Waqidi actually copied the books of Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Yahya and published them in his name, then undoubtedly these are actually Shia books.

 

Bishr ibn Ghiyath al Muraysi

  • A deviant mubtadi (innovator). It is not proper to narrate from him.
  • Abu Nadr Hashim ibn al Qasim said, “Bishr al Muraysi’s father was a Jew butcher and tanner who lived in the market of Nasr ibn Malik.”
  • Al Marmuzi said, “I heard Abu ‘Abdullah speaking of Bishr saying, ‘His father was a Jew.’”
  • Bishr would appeal for help in the gathering of Abu Yusuf. Abu Yusuf told him, “You better desist or you will be crucified.”
  • Qutaybah ibn Sa’id said, “Bishr al Muraysi is a kafir.”
  • Al Khatib stated, “Many horrible statements have been reported from him. The scholars have made nasty comments about him, and majority of them have labelled him kafir for his statements.”
  • Abu Zur’ah al Razi said, “Bishr al Muraysi is a zindiq (heretic).”[50]
 

The fifth narration which is mentioned in ‘Imad al Islam is taken from Ma’arij al Nubuwwah. We are totally astonished that a mujtahid like Dildar ‘Ali presented this narration as proof. Elementary students will know that Ma’arij al Nubuwwah has absolutely no value to the ‘Ulama’. It is a beautiful example of poetry. However, it has absolutely no worth when it comes to authenticity. The author is among those historians who brought all types of logs to keep his fire burning. He presents these narrations with beautiful words to amaze, please, and surprise his audience. However, no one ever considered them worth presenting as proof and no one used them as evidence in any discussion. So to use any narration therein as proof is very far-fetched from the status of the ‘Ulama’. Nonetheless, even if we hypothetically regard its author as reliable, then too using it as proof is astonishing because there are many indications pointing towards its unauthenticity.

 

Indications

  • Despite the author taking the prerogative of quoting incidents, he did not label this narration as an incident. Instead, he labelled the narration before this one an incident which conflicts this one.
  • The author placed this narration last and placed the narration that conflicts it first.
  • He does not reference this narration whereas he referenced the conflicting narration to Maqsad Aqsa.
  • He does not attach any heading or reference to it. He just says that “some people have said…” and quotes this narration. These words indicate to a majruh (criticised) or majhul narration. On the other hand, he put the conflicting narration under a heading and referenced it which indicates to its authenticity and credibility.
 

This proves that the author indicated in many ways to the unauthenticity and unreliability of this narration. So even if we accept the reliability of the author and his book, then too we do not have to provide any answer to such a narration. All we have to say is that it is in polarity with the status of the ‘Ulama’.

Finally, we have disclosed the reality of all the narrations from the era of al Shafi until now which stretches over a period of 900 years. The following aptly fits these narrations:

Whenever he lifted his tail, he turned out to be female.

 

The core of all these narrations is Abu Sa’id al Kalbi. And due to their discrepancies, they are totally unreliable. Notwithstanding that all these narrations only have one source, we are totally shocked that ‘Alam al Huda and Dildar ‘Ali, who are ‘muhaqqiqin’ and ‘masters’ in Shi’ism had the audacity to claim:

 

قد روي من طريق مختلفة غير طريق أبي سعيد الذي ذكره صاحب الكتاب أنه لما نزل قوله تعالى و آت ذا القربى حقه دعا النبي فاطمة فأعطاها فدك و إذا كان ذلك مرويا فلا معنى لدفعه بغير حجة

It has been reported from various chains besides the chain of Abu Sa’id which the author of the book has documented. When the Sublime’s words And give the relative his right were revealed, the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam summoned Fatimah and gave her Fadak.

When this has been narrated, then there is no reason to reject it without any proof.

 

Is this not deplorable? It is astonishing that al Sayed al Murtada did not narrate this from any chain and only quoted the very same narration which the Shia have passed on from generation to generation – the very same narration Qadi ‘Abdul Jabbar mentioned in al Mughni and attributed to the Shia. Yet, he thinks it is sufficient just to claim that this narration appears from many other chains.

Is it not surprising that the Shia could not furnish one authentic narration despite the thousands of scholars who passed in this time, the hundreds of thousands of books that were written concerning this discussion, the grand claims they made with much vigour and force, and the heart touching lectures delivered?! They have analysed the books of the Ahlus Sunnah under microscope leaving no text, no footnote, no hadith book, and no history book; yet they could not locate one sahih hadith in a Sunni book. Had these great scholars and famous polemicists, whose fame has reached the skies and who boast over their victory over the Ahlus Sunnah, only furnished one sahih hadith instead of displaying their prowess in oratory and literacy, it would have been more appropriate and suitable. Their failure to do so has showed the world that such a sahih hadith is non-existent.

The authors of al Shafi, Kashf al Haqq, al Tara’if, Bihar al Anwar, ‘Imad al Islam, Ta’n al Rimah, and Tash’id al Mata’in could only present the fabrication of Fudayl ibn Marzuq, ‘Attiyah, and Abu Sa’id al Kalbi as evidence. We do not only challenge those who have passed on, we declare our challenge to all the Shia of Lucknow, Tehran, India, and Iran, and all the Shia of the entire world to establish their claim by presenting only one sahih hadith from any Sunni book, the narrators of which are Ahlus Sunnah, not Shia.

 

فَإِنْ لَّمْ تَفْعَلُوْا وَلَنْ تَفْعَلُوْا فَاتَّقُوا النَّارَ الَّتِيْ وَقُوْدُهَا النَّاسُ وَالْحِجَارَةُ أُعِدَّتْ لِلْكَافِرِيْنَ

But if you do not – and you will never be able to – then fear the Fire, whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers.

 

Now we have totally destroyed and refuted all those narrations which the Shia presented from our books. We will now display the inconsistencies and contradictions between the narrations of the Shia, confirming that their claim cannot even be proven from their own narrations.

 

NEXT⇒ The inconsistencies and contradictions of Shia narrations regarding Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gifting Fadak to Fatimah


[1] ‘Imad al Islam, chapter 10, benefit 4, mas’alah 4.

[2] Page 141.

[3] Surah Bani Isra’il: 26

[4] Al Tara’if pg. 68.

[5] The full text is as follows:

قال صاحب الكتاب شبهة لهم أخرى واحد إمام طعنوا به و عظموا القول في أمر فدك قالوا قد روي عن أبي سعيد الخدري أنه قال لما نزلت و آت ذا القربى حقه أعطى رسول الله فاطمة فدك ثم فعل عمر بن عبد العزيز ذلك و رده على ولدها قالوا و لا شك أن أبا بكر غصبها إن لم يصح كل الذي روى في هذا الباب و قد كان الأجمل أن يمنعهم التكرم مما ارتكبوا فضلا عن الدين ثم ذكر إنها استشهدت أمير المؤمنين و أم أيمن فلم تقبل شهادتهما هذا مع تركه أزواج النبي في حجرهن و لم يجعلها صدقة و صدقهن في أن ذلك لهن و لم يصدقها ثم قال الجواب عن ذلك أن أكثر ما يروون في هذا الباب غير صحيح و لسنا ننكر صحة ما روي من ادعائها فدك فأما أنه كان في يدها فغير مسلم بل لو كان في يدها لكان الظاهر أنه لها فإذا كان في جملة التركة فالظاهر أنه ميراث و إن صح عقد الهبة و هذا هو الظاهر لأن التسليم لو كان وقع يظهر ان كان في يدها فكان ذلك كافيا في الاستحقاق

The author of the book said: Another misconception of theirs is that the Imamiyyah criticise him and exaggerate over the Fadak issue. They say that it has been reported from Abu Sa’id al Khudri who said that when they verse And give the relative his right was revealed, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gave Fadak to Fatimah. ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz did the same and returned it to her children. They said that there is no doubt that Abu Bakr usurped it from her even if everything reported in this discussion is not authentic. It was better for honour to prevent them from what they perpetrated, if not religion. He then mentioned that Amir al Mu’minin and Umm Ayman bore testimony but their testimony was not accepted. This, together with leaving the wives of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in their rooms and not making it sadaqah. He believed them that it belonged to them, but did not believe her.

He then said, “The answer to this is that majority of what they narrate in this chapter is unauthentic. We do not reject the authenticity of the narration of her claim over Fadak. However, claiming that it was in her possession is not accepted. In fact, had it been in her possession, it would be apparent that it belonged to her. However, when it was with the rest of the estate, then it is apparent that it was inheritance. Had the gift contract been correct, and this is evident because had handing it over taken place, it would be manifest from her possession of it. And this would be sufficient proof for her right over it.” (al Shafi pg. 234, 235)

[6] Vol. 2 pg. 378 – 380.

[7] Page 17.

[8] Page 15, 16.

[9] Page 9.

[10] Page 9.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Page 13.

[14] Page 15.

[15] Page 17.

[16] Al Taqrib.

[17] Mizan al I’tidal.

[18] Al Taqrib.

[19] Mizan al I’tidal.

[20] The following is written in Ansab Sam’ani by Abu Sa’id ‘Abdul Karim ibn Muhammad al Marwazi al Shafi’i regarding father and son:

 

و ابو النضر محمد بن السائب ابن بشر بن عمر و ابن الحارث بن عبد العزى بن امرئ القيس بن عامر بن النعمان ابن عامر بن عبدود بن كنانة بن عوف بن عذرة بن زيد اللات بن افيدة ابن ثورين كلب صاحب التفسير من أهل الكوفة يروي عنه الثوري و محمد بن إسحاق و يقولان ثنا أبو النضر حتى لا يعرف و هو الذي عطية العوفي كنى أبا سعيد فكان يقول حدثني أبو سعيد يريد به الكلبي فيتوهمون أنه أراد به أبا سعيد الخدري و كان الكلبي يقول أسبابا من أصحاب عبد الله بن سبأ من اولئك الذين يقولون أن عليا لم يمت و أنه راجع إلى الدنيا قبل قيام الساعة فيملأها عدلا كما ملئت جورا و أن رأوا سحابة قالوا أمير المؤمنين فيها فاحذ منهم و قال من قوم إذا ذكروا عليا يصلون الصلوة على السحاب و مات الكلب 1046 و ابنه أبو المنذر هشام بن محمد بن السائب بن بشير الكلبي من أهل الكوفة صاحب النسب يروي عن أبيه و معروف مولى سليمان الغرائب و العجائب و الأخبار التي لا أصول لها روى عنه شباب العصفري و ابنه العباس بن هشام و محمد بن سعيد كاتب الواقدي و علي بن حرب الموصلي و عبد الله بن الضحاك الهداوي و أبو الأشعث أحمد بن المقدام العجلي و كان غاليا في التشيع أخباره في الأغلوطات أشهر من أن يحتاج إلى الإعراف في وصفها و كان هشام بن الكلبي يقول حفظت ما لم يحفظ أحد و نسيت ما لم ينسه أحد كان لي عم يعاتبني على حفظ القرآن فدخلت بيتا و حلفت أن لا أخرج منه حتى أحفظ القرآن محفظة في ثلاثة أيام و نظرت في المرأة و قبضت على لحيتي لآخذ ما دون القبضة فأخذت ما فوق القبضة قال عبد الله بن أحمد بن حنبل سمعت أبي يقول هشام بن محمد بن السائب الكلبي من يحدث عنه إنما هو صاحب سمر و نسب ما ظننت أن أحدا يحدث عنه. مات سنة أربع او ست و مائتين

Abu al Nadr Muhammad ibn al Sa’ib ibn Bishr ibn ‘Amr ibn al Harith ibn ‘Abdul ‘Uzza ibn Imra’ al Qais ibn ‘Amir ibn al Nu’man ibn ‘Amir ibn ‘Abdud ibn Kinanah ibn ‘Awf ibn ‘Adharah ibn Zaid al Lat ibn Afidah ibn Thawrin Kalb, author of the tafsir from the residents of Kufah. Al Thawri and Muhammad ibn Ishaq narrated from him. They say: Abu al Nadr narrated to us so that he may not be recognised. He is the same person ‘Attiyah al ‘Aufi titled as Abu Sa’id. Accordingly, he would say, “Abu Sa’id narrated to me,” referring to al Kalbi but people would think that he means Abu Sa’id al Khudri radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Al Kalbi is among the followers of ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’ who say that ‘Ali did not die, and will return to the world before the Day of Judgement and he will fill it with justice just as it was filled with tyranny and he saw a cloud and said, “Amir al Mu’minin is inside.” So be careful of him. He said: Some people when they take ‘Ali’s name, they send salutations upon the clouds. Al Kalbi died in 1046.

His son is Abu al Mundhir Hisham ibn Muhammad ibn al Sa’ib ibn Bashir al Kalbi from the resident of Kufah, the genealogist. He narrates from his father and Ma’roof the freed-slave of Sulaiman such amazing and astonishing narrations which are baseless. Shabab al ‘Asfuri, his son ‘Abbas ibn Hisham, Muhammad ibn Sa’id – al Waqidi’s scribe – ‘Ali ibn Harb al Mawsili, ‘Abdullah ibn al Dahhak al Hadawi, and Abu al Ash’ath Ahmed ibn al Miqdam al ‘Ijli narrate from him. He was an extremist Shia. His mistakes are very common and needs to introduction. Hisham ibn al Kalbi would say, “I remembered what no one remembered and forgot what no one forgot. I had an uncle who would censure me for not memorising the Qurʾan. So I entered a house and took an oath that I will not exit from it until I do not memorise the entire Qurʾan in three days. I looked in the mirror one day and caught hold of my beard to trip it below my first, but instead cut above my fist.” ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmed ibn Hambal says, “I heard my father saying: ‘Hisham ibn Muhammad ibn al Sa’ib al Kalbi whom they narrate from is just a story teller and a genealogist. I never thought anyone will narrate from him.’” He died 204 or 206 A.H.

 

[21] Al Taqrib.

[22] Tahdhib al Tahdhib.

[23] Al Tahdhib.

[24] Mizan al Itidal.

[25] Mizan al Itidal.

[26] The waw has no tashdid, the jim has a kasrah, and the nun has no tashdid.

[27] Al Taqrib; al Mughni.

[28] Tahdhib al Tahdhib.

[29] Mizan al Itidal.

[30] Al Taqrib.

[31] Tahdhib al Tahdhib.

[32] A very reliable book concerning Asma’ al Rijal among the Shia. It holds the same position in the eyes of the Shia as does Mizan al Itidal in the eyes of the Sunni.

[33] With a fathah on the ta’, a kasrah on the ra’, followed by a ya sakin and then a qaf.

[34] Al Taqrib.

[35] Mizan al Itidal.

[36] Al Taqrib.

[37] Mizan al Itidal.

[38] Ibid

[39] Tahdhib al Tahdhib.

[40] Al Tahdhib.

[41] Page 13.

[42] Mizan al Itidal.

[43] Al Taqrib.

[44] Al Taqrib.

[45] Tadhkirat al Huffaz; Tahdhib al Tahdhib.

[46] Tahdhib al Tahdhib.

[47] Al Tahdhib.

[48] Mizan al I’tidal.

[49] Muntaha al Maqal pg. 25.

[50] Mizan al I’tidal.

Back to top