The Ahlus Sunnah surely surpassed the Rawafid in the science of Hadith, the Rawafid are not but followers of the Ahlus Sunnah in this science, rather they are dependent upon the Ahlus Sunnah in the authoring of books in it. They have not presented to us anything new which is specific to their school, to the extent that they even cited the very examples which appear in the books of the Ahlus Sunnah and were unable to present new examples from their side, except very rarely.
The Rafidah admit that they played no intellectual role in the science of Hadith and that they derived it, as is their wont (in all other matters), from the Ahlus Sunnah. The first scholar to author a book in this regard, following in the footsteps of the Ahlus Sunnah, was Zayn al Din al ‘Amili, who is accorded the title al Shahid al Thani (the second martyr) due to being killed in 965 A.H.
In this regard, their scholar al Ha’iri mentions:
ومن المعلومات التي لا يشك فيها أحد، أنه لم يصنف في دراية الحديث من علمائنا قبل الشيهيد الثاني، وإنما هو من علوم العامة
From the facts which no one doubts is that none had authored a book regarding the comprehension of Hadith before al Shahid al Thani. It is from the sciences of the commonality.
This is an attestation from an individual from amongst them of the truth; the comprehension of Hadith is from the specialties of the Ahlus Sunnah. As for the Rafidah, this science only emerged by them with the emergence of al Shahid al Thani.
Al Hurr al ‘Amili (d. 1104) says whilst talking about al Shahid al Thani:
وهو أول من صنف من الإمامية في دراية الحديث، لكنه نقل الاصطلاحات من كتب العامة، كما ذكره ولده وغيره
He is the first person from the Imamiyyah to write on the comprehension of Hadith. However, he copied its nomenclature from the books of the commonality, as is stated by his son and others.
And ‘Abdul Hadi al Fadli says:
إن أقدم كتاب إمامي وصل إلينا في هذا العلم هو كتاب الدراية للشهيد الثاني المتوفى سنة 966 ه
The oldest Imami book that has reached us in this science is the book al Dirayah of al Shahid al Thani who died in 966 A.H.
Furthermore, a person who studies the books of the Shia will find that the categorization of Hadith according to them into Sahih, Hassan, Da’if, and Muwatthaq came about from the interaction of the Shia with the Ahlus Sunnah and due to being influenced by them. In addition, it represents an attempt by the Shia to regain status for some of their narrations. The approach they took, however, was one of deception and trickery in which they fumbled about in a discipline whose foundations were laid by the Sunni Hadith experts.
In this regard, al Hurr al ‘Amili says:
الاصطلاح الجديد-تقسيم الحديث- موافق لاعتقاد العامة-أهل السنة- واصطلاحهم، بل هو مأخوذ من كتبهم كما هو ظاهر بالتتبع، وكما يفهم من كلام الشيخ حسن وغيره، وقد أمرنا الأئمة عليهم السلام باجتناب طريقة العامة، وقد تقدم بعض ما يدل على ذلك في القضاء في أحاديث ترجيح الحديثين المختلفين وغيرها
The new terminology (of the categorization of Hadith) is in accordance with the belief of the commonality and their nomenclature. In fact, it is taken from their books as is clear after observation, and as is understood from the statements of Sheikh Hassan and others. The Imams have ordered us to avoid following the way of the commonality. Some statements which allude to this have passed in the chapter of Qada’ (Judicial law) under the discussion of giving preference to two contradictory narrations.
And he also says:
إن هذا الاصطلاح مستحدث في زمان العلامة-يقصد ابن مطهر الحلي- أو شيخه أحمد بن طاووس- المتوفي سنة 673-كما هو معلوم، وهم معترفون به، وهو اجتهاد وظن منهما
This terminology was contrived in the era of al ‘Allamah (lit. the erudite scholar, referring to Ibn Mutahhar al Hilli) or his teacher Ahmed ibn Tawus (d. 673 A.H.), as is known. They acknowledge this and this was based on their theorizing and assumption.
The author of al Wafi says:
أول من اصطلح على ذلك وسلك هذا المسلك
He is the first person to coin this terminology and tread this path.
Yusuf al Bahrani says:
قد صرح جملة من أصحابنا المتأخرين بأن الأصل في تنويع الحديث إلى الأنواع الأربعة المشهورة هو العلامة أو شيخه جمال الدين ابن طاووس
A number of our later scholars have stated that the primary scholar to categorize Hadith into its four popular categories was al ‘Allamah or his teacher Jamal al Din ibn Tawus.
This Ibn Mutahhar is the same scholar whom Ibn Taymiyyah refuted in his magnum opus Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah. Ibn Mutahhar died in 726 A.H.
Ibn Taymiyyah argued against him that the narrations of the Imamiyyah are contradictory and that there isn’t any Shar’i standard on the basis of which preference is given. Thus, Ibn Mutahhar realized the flaw of his legacy and started categorizing the narrations into Sahih, Da’if, etc. But when? When everything was already done and dusted and the tools of knowledge by way of which authentication and falsification of narrations could be achieved were missing.
Muhsin al Amin says:
ومن علماء الشيعة جمال الدين أحمد بن موسى ابن جعفر الحسني-وهو ابن طاووس- وهو واضع الاصطلاح الجديد في تقسيم الحديث عند الإمامية إلى أقسامه الأربعة: الصحيح والحسن والموثق والضعيف، وقد توفي عام 673 ه
And from the scholars of the Shia was Jamal al Din Ahmed ibn Musa ibn Jafar al Hassani (Ibn Tawus). He is the founder of the new terminology of the categorisation of Hadith according to the Shia into: Sahih, Hassan, Muwaththaq, and Da’if. He died in 673 A.H.
Al Hurr al ‘Amili says:
الاصطلاح الجديد يستلزم تخطئة جميع الطائفة المحققة في زمن الأئمة، وفي زمن الغيبة كما ذكره المحقق في أصوله
The new terminology necessitates considering the truth-seeking sect in the era of the Imams and in the era of the occultation wrong, as has been stated by al Muhaqqiq in his Usul.
From the aforementioned statements of al Hurr al ‘Amili and others it is clear that the study of the Shia of this science only started in the belated seventh century. This is clear proof that the Shia in this matter are dependent upon the Ahlus Sunnah and are unable to detach themselves from following them in the science of Hadith and its compilation. They also indicate that the motivating factor for their engagement was not to reach the authenticity of a Hadith, as much as it was to save the dogma from being critiqued by their opponents and to defend it.
Baqir al Iwani says:
السبب في تأليف النجاشي لكتابه هو تعيير جماعة من المخالفين للشيعة بأنه لا سلف لهم ولا مصنف
Hence, the Shia are foreigners to this copious science, which they then plagiarized from the Ahlus Sunnah. Even then, they did not utilize it well nor did they implement it well. But they are excused in this regard, due to most of their narrations not holding firm under the microscope of the sciences of Hadith.
Some Shia claim that they enjoy the feat of surpassing all else in the field of Hadith comprehension and its categorization into its four popular categories. To substantiate this, they advance the book Ma’rifah ‘Ulum al Hadith of al al Hakim al Nisaburi (d. 405 A.H.)
They claim that his book was the first book written in this field and that al Hakim was a Shia. But, even if we hypothetically accord credence to this claim, they very conveniently ignore the books and compilations which were previously enlisted under our discussion regarding the development of the sciences of Hadith by the Ahlus Sunnah, books which were written much prior to the book of al Hakim.
But was al Hakim really a Shia as they claim? The answer to that will come at the end of this discussion, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala willing.
The following appears in the book al Shia wa Funun al Islam of Hassan al Sadr (d. 1354 A.H.) under the title: ‘the advancement of the Shia in founding the science of the comprehension of Hadith and its categorisation into its popular categories:
أول من تصدى له أبو عبد الله الحاكم النيسابوري، وهو محمد بن عبد الله المشهور، المتوفى سنة خمس وأربع مائة، صنف فيه كتاب سماه معرفة علوم الحديث في خمسة أجزاء، ونوع فيه الحديث إلى خمسين نوعا، وقد نص على تقدمه في ذلك في كشف الظنون. قال: أول من تصدى له الحاكم، وتبعه ابن الصلاح
والحاكم من الشيعة-باتفاق الفريقين. فقد نص السمعاني في الأنساب والشيخ أحمد بن تيمية، والحافظ الذهبي في تذكرة الحفاظ على تشيعه، بل حكى الذهبي في تذكرة الحفاظ عن ابن طاهر أنه قال: سألت أبا إسماعيل الأنصاري عن الحاكم، فقال: ثقة في الحديث، رافضي خبيث
قال الذهبي: ثم قال ابن طاهر: كان الحاكم شديد التعصب للشيعة في الباطن، كان يظهر التسنن في التقديم والخلافة، وكان منحرفا عن معاوية وآله، متظاهرا بذلك ولا يعتذر منه
قلت-الكلام لحسن الصدر-: وقد نص أصحابنا على تشيعه، كالشيخ محمد بن الحسن الحر في آخر الوسائل، وحكى عن ابن شهر آشوب في معالم العلماء في باب الكنى، أنه عده في مصنفي الشيعة، وأن له الأمالي وكتابا في مناقب الرضا، وذكروا له كتاب فضائل فاطمة الزهراء عليها السلام، وقد عقد له المولى عبد الله أفندي في كتابه رياض العلماء ترجمة مفصلة في القسم الأول من كتابه المختص بذكر الشيعة الإمامية
The first to undertake this was Abu ‘Abdullah al Hakim al Naysaburi, he is the famous Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah (d. 405 A.H.). He authored a book in this regard which comprised of five volumes and named it Ma’rifah ‘Ulum al Hadith. Therein he categorized Hadith into fifty categories. In Kashf al Zunun his excelling is explicitly stated. Hence, the author says, “The first person to undertake this was al Hakim who was subsequently followed by Ibn al Salah.”
Furthermore, al Hakim was from the Shia, as per the consensus of both the sects. For al Sam’ani, Ahmed ibn Taymiyyah, and al Dhahabi have all explicitly noted his Shi’ism. In fact, al Dhahabi has cited in Tadhkirat al Huffaz from Ibn Tahir that he said, “I asked Abu Ismail al Ansari about al Hakim and he said, “He is reliable in Hadith and is a wicked Rafidi.” Al Dhahabi further says, “Thereafter Ibn Tahir said, “Al Hakim was a staunch fanatic of the Shia covertly, but overtly he would show agreement with the Sunni viewpoint with regards to the Caliphate. He was a depreciator of Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his family; he would openly proclaim that and would not be apologetic about it.”
I say (Hassan al Sadr), “Our scholars have also emphatically stated his Shi’ism. For example, Muhammad ibn al Hassan al Hurr has stated that at the end of al Wasa’il. He has also cited from Ibn Shahr Ashub in Ma’alim al ‘Ulama’ under the ‘chapter of agnomens’ that he has considered him from the Shia authors; and that to him belong the books al Amali and also a book regarding the merits of al Rida. They have also enlisted Fada’il Fatimah al Zahra’ ‘Alayha al Salam as his book. Likewise, ‘Abdullah Afandi has dedicated a detailed biography to him in the first section of his book dedicated to the mention of the Imami Shia.
Thereafter Hassan al Sadr says:
وصنف بعد أبي عبد الله الحاكم في علم دراية الحديث، جماعة من شيوخ علم الحديث من الشيعة: كالسيد جمال الدين أحمد ابن طاوس أبو الفضائل، وهو واضع الاصطلاح الجديد للإمامية في تقسيم أصل الحديث إلى الأقسام الأربعة: الصحيح والحسن والموثق والضعيف، كانت وفاته سنة 673
ثم صنف السيد العلامة علي بن عبد الحميد الحسني شرح أصول دراية الحديث. يروي عن الشيخ العلامة الحلي ابن المطهر، وللشيخ زين الدين المعروف بالشهيد الثاني البداية في علم الدراية وشرحها المسمى بالدراية. وللشيخ الحسين ابن عبد الصمد الحارث الهمداني وصول الأخيار إلى أصول الأخبار، وللشيخ أبي منصور الحسن بن زين الدين العاملي -المتوفى 1011- مقدمة المنتقى. ذكر أصول علم الحديث، وللشيخ بهاء الدين العاملي كتاب الوجيزة في علم دراية الحديث، وقد شرحتها أنا وسميت الشرح نهاية الدراية، وقد طبعت بالهند ودخلت المدارس
After Abu ‘Abdullah al Hakim, a number of Shia hadith experts authored books regarding the science of the comprehension of hadith. Among them is al Sayed Jamal al Din Ahmed ibn Tawus Abu al Fada’il. He is the founder of the new terminology of the Imamiyyah regarding the categorization of hadith into four types: al Sahih, al Hassan, al Muwaththaq, and al Da’if. He died in 673 A.H.
Thereafter the erudite scholar al Sayed ‘Ali ibn ‘Abdul Hamid al Hassani wrote Sharh Usul Dirayah al Hadith. He narrates from Ibn Mutahhar al Hilli. Likewise, Zayn al Din (commonly known the al Shahid al Thani [the second martyr]) authored al Bidayah fi ‘Ilm al Dirayah and its commentary titled: al Dirayah. And al Hussain ibn ‘Abdul Samad al Hamdani authored Wusul al Akhyar ila Usul al Akhbar. And Abu Mansur al Hassan ibn Zayn al Din al ‘Amili (d. 1011 A.H.) authored Muqaddimah al Muntaqa wherein he has made mention of the principles of the science of hadith. And Baha’ al Din al ‘Amili authored the book al Wajizah fi ‘Ilm Dirayah al Hadith. Upon it I have written a commentary titled Nihayah al Dirayah, which has been published in India and has made its way into many institutes.
Above, the claim of Hassan al Sadr regarding al Hakim being the first scholar to undertake writing a book regarding the science of hadith and that he was a Shia has passed. So, was al Hakim really a Shia?
هو من أبطال الشيعة وسدنة الشريعة
Meaning he considers him to be Rafidi like himself.
And al Khatib al Baghdadi says:
وكان ابن البيع-وهو الحاكم- يميل إلى التشيع، فحدثني أبو إسحاق إبراهيم بن محمد الأرموي بنيسابور وكان شيخا صالحا فاضلا عالما قال: جمع الحاكم أبو عبد الله أحاديث زعم أنها صحاح على شرط البخاري ومسلم يلزمهما أخراجها في صحيحيهما، منها حديث الطائر، ومن كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه، فأنكر عليه أصحاب الحديث ذلك، ولم يلتفتوا فيه إلى قوله ولا صوبوه في فعله
And Ibn al Bayyi’, i.e., al Hakim, was inclined toward Shi’ism. Hence, Abu Ishaq Ibrahim ibn Muhammad al Armawi told me in Naysabur (and he was a pious and noble scholar), “Al Hakim Abu ‘Abdullah has compiled narrations which he claims are Sahih as per the requirement of al Bukhari and Muslim, narrations which they ought to have cited in their books. Such as the narration of the bird, and ‘Whoever’s friend I am then ‘Ali should be his friend as well”. Hence, the scholars of hadith condemned that from him. They did not accord credence to his statements nor did they deem him correct in his action.”
And al Sam’ani says:
وكان فيه تشيع قليل
And al Dhahabi says:
وصنف وخرج، وجرح وعدل، وصحح وعلل، وكان من بحور العلم على تشيع قليل فيه
And Jalal al Din al Suyuti says:
ثقة يميل إلى التشيع
An authority who was inclined to Shi’ism.
Firstly, due to him not narrating some narrations which have featured regarding the merits of some of the opponents of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in the chapter of ‘the merits of the Sahabah’ in his book al Mustadrak, like Muawiyah and ‘Amr ibn al ‘As radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. In fact, he was harassed because of that.
Abu ‘Abdur Rahman al Sulami says:
دخلت على الحاكم وهو مختف من الكرامية لا يستطيع أن يخرج منهم. فقلت له: لو خرجت حديثا في فضائل معاوية لاسترحت مما انت فيه، فقال: لا يجيء من قبلي، لا يجيء من قبلي. وفي بعض الروايات: لا يجيء من قبلي، لا يجيء من قبلي
I visited al Hakim whilst he was hiding from the Karramiyyah and was unable to emerge due to them. I said to him, “If you extract one narration regarding the merits of Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu you will be at ease from the situation you find yourself in.” He said, “It will not come from my side; it will not come from my side.” And in some narrations: “It will not come from my side; it will not come from my side.”
The reality is that this was not his stance regarding all the opponents of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, rather it was specific to Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu. This is because he has dedicated separate chapters to document the merits of Talhah, al Zubair and Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anhum and he has not denigrated them in the least.
This suggests that he followed hadith. And probably he was not aware of any narrations which are authentically established regarding Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Otherwise, Talhah and al Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhuma had also fought ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu just as Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu did.
Hence, al Nasa’i also did not document narrations regarding the merits of Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu. And when he was asked, he replied by saying that only the following narration was Sahih:
لا أشبع الله بطنه
May Allah never fill his stomach.
So probably al Hakim had the same reason (for not documenting any narrations regarding his merits).
Secondly, due to him documenting some narrations which bolster the position of the Shia and his relaxed approach in deeming them Sahih, like the hadith of the bird whereafter he says:
هذا حديث صحيح على شرط الشيخين ولم يخرجاه
This is a Sahih narration which meets the requirements of al Bukhari and Muslim, but they have not recorded it.
Likewise, the narration:
أنا مدينة العلم وعلي بابها
I am the city of knowledge and ‘Ali is its door.
Thereafter, he comments and says:
هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد ولم يخرجاه، وأبو الصلت مأمون
This chain of this hadith is Sahih, and they have not recorded it, and Abu al Salt is acceptable.
Also, the narration:
النظر إلى علي عبادة
Looking at ‘Ali is an act of worship.
Thereafter he says:
هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد وشواهده عن عبد الله بن مسعود صحيحة
This narration, its chain is Sahih, and its corroborative reports from ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud radiya Llahu ‘anhu are Sahih.
And many other such narrations.
I say: This reason is debunked by the fact that he has authenticated weak and fabricated narrations regarding the merits of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum. The leniency of al Hakim in authentication is well known. Hence, his authentication of the aforementioned narrations cannot be accepted as a valid proof; for he has been lenient in authenticating some fabricated narrations across the entire book, as is known.
Also, we can deduct from the aforementioned views of the scholars that al Hakim did have slight Shia leanings. But that was not Shi’ism as per its current understanding (i.e., Rafd), for he is free from that. Shi’ism initially did not exceed loving ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu more than what is desired in Shari’ah, or giving preference to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu over ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Hence, a Muslim should know that this was in the early eras when differences between Shi’ism and Rafd still existed. As for in the later times, both these words have become inseparable. They have become names used to refer to those who revile the Sheikhayn (Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma) and the vast majority of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Added to that, are the beliefs of the Qur’an being incomplete, Bada’, Raj’ah, Wasiyyah, Imamah, Taqiyyah, and all the other corrupt beliefs of the Rafidah.
So, al Hakim was from the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah and was better than many men of the Ahlus Sunnah who have been attributed to Shi’ism. Because they would give preference to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu over ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, whereas al Hakim gave preference to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu over ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. This is because he first brought the merits of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu then those of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, then ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and then ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
Ibn Taymiyyah says the following regarding al Hakim:
لكن تشيعه وتشيع أمثاله من أهل العلم بالحديث كالنسائي، وابن عبد البر، وأمثالهما لا يبلغ إلى تفضيله على أبي بكر وعمر، فلا يُعرف في علماء الحديث من يفضله عليهما، بل غاية المتشيع منهم أن يفضله على عثمان…
But his Shi’ism and the Shi’ism of his like from the scholars of hadith like al Nasa’i and Ibn ‘Abdul Barr and their like; it did not reach the extent of giving him preference over Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. For in the scholars of hadith there is no one who is known to have given preference to him over them. The furthest extent of their Shi’ism was giving preference to him over ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu…
And al Dhahabi quoted from Ibn Tahir that he asked Abu Ismail al Harawi about Abu ‘Abdullah al Hakim and the latter said:
إنه إمام في الحديث رافضي خبيث
He is a leading scholar in hadith who is wicked Rafidi.
But al Dhahabi rejected that saying:
الله يحب الإنصاف، ما الرجل برافضي، بل شيعي فقط
Al Dhahabi also says:
كلا! ليس هو رافضيا، بل يتشيع
He also said:
أما انحرافه عن خصوم علي فظاهر، وأما أمر الشيخين فمعظم لهما بكل حال، فهو شيعي لا رافضي
And he also said:
…ثم هو شيعي مشهور بذلك من غير تعرض للشيخين.
Ibn al Jazari says:
كان شيعيا مع حبه للشيخين
Ibn al Subki says:
غاية ما قيل فيه الإفراط في ولاء علي رضي الله عنه، ومقام الحاكم عندنا أجل من ذلك
The most that has been said about him is his excessive devotion to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. And the status of al Hakim according to us is greater than that. (i.e., greater than him being accused of Rafd, Allah knows best)
And he also says:
أوقع الله في نفسي أن الرجل كان عنده ميل إلى علي -رضي الله عنه-، يزيد على الميل الذي يطلب شرعاً، ولا أقول أنه ينتهي به إلى أن يضع من أبي بكر وعمر وعثمان -رضي الله عنهم-، ولا أنه يفضل علياً على الشيخين، بل أستبعد أن يفضله على عثمان -رضي الله عنهما- فإني رأيته في كتابه الأربعين عقد بابا لتفضيل أبي بكر وعمر وعثمان رضي الله عنهم، واختصهم من بين الصحابة، وقدم في المستدرك ذكر عثمان على علي رضي الله عنهما
Allah has placed in my heart that the man was overly inclined to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu beyond what is required in the Shari’ah. However, I do not claim that this inclination in him reached an extent that led him to denigrate Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum, or to give preference to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu over Sheikhayn radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. In fact, I even consider it farfetched that he gave preference to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu over ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. For I have noticed that in his book al Arba’in he has established a chapter to accord credence to Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum; he specifically mentioned them from among the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. And in his al Mustadrak he made mention of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu before ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
Finally, it is important to note that in the statement of Hassan al Sadr in his book al Shia wa Funun al Islam, which previously passed, wherein he says, “Our scholars have also emphatically stated his Shi’ism. For example, Muhammad ibn al Hassan Al Hurr has stated that at the end of al Wasa’il. He has also cited from Ibn Shahr Ashab in Ma’alim al ‘Ulama’ under the chapter of agnomens that he has considered from the Shia authors; and that to him belong the books al Amali and also a book regarding the merits of al Rida.”
This Shi’ism with which Hassan al Sadr describes him is not Shi’ism as per the definition which was discussed previously, rather it is Rafd. And his reliance in this regard is upon the opinion of al ‘Amili, and the reliance of al ‘Amili in his judgement is upon the statement of Ibn Shar Ashub, as is clear.
So, when I visited Ibn Shar Ashub in his book Ma’alim al ‘Ulama’ I found a subchapter titled: ‘Those who were known with their agnomens’. Therein he says:
أبو عبد الله النيسابوري الشيخ المفيد، له الأمالي ومناقب الرضا عليه السلام
Abu ‘Abdullah al Naysaburi is al Sheikh al Mufid. He has authored al Amali and Manaqib al Rida ‘alayh al Salam
It is now obvious that he is not the same al Hakim upon whom they have premised their argument. Added to that is the fact that al Mamaqani (one of their senior authorities in the sciences of hadith and transmitter biographies) has in more than one place in his book Miqbas al Hidayah fi ‘Ilm al Riwayah (a book on the sciences of hadith) stated that al Hakim is from the scholars of the commonality, i.e., the Ahlus Sunnah, and the researcher of the book has agreed with him!
In conclusion, after the historical study of the development of the sciences of hadith by the Ahlus Sunnah and by the Rawafid it has become clear that the Ahlus Sunnah are the masters of this field and that they enjoy the feat of excelling leaps and bounds ahead of the Shia in this science. It has also become clear that the Rawafid are nothing but dependents of the Ahlus Sunnah in hadith and its works.
 See: ‘Abbas al Qummi: al Kuna wa al Alqab, 2/384.
 Muqtabas al Athar, 3/73. By ‘the commonality’ he is referring to the Ahlus Sunnah.
 ‘Abbas al Qummi has said about him, “The leader of the Hadith scholars and the best of the bearers of deep knowledge.” See: al Kuna wa al Alqab, 2/176.
 Amal al Amil, 1/86; Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 8/385.
 Usul al Hadith, p. 11. Its author is a contemporary Shia scholar in the sciences of Hadith.
 Wasa’il al Shia, 30/259.
 Ibid., 30/262.
 Al Wafi, 1/11, the second introduction.
 Al Hada’iq al Nadirah, 1/14.
 A’yan al Shia, 1/149.
 Wasa’il al Shia, 30/259.
 Durus Tamhidiyyah fi al Qawa’id al Rijaliyyah, p. 86.
 I say that in the book Ma’rifah ‘Ulum al Hadith there are fifty-two categories.
 Al Shia wa Funun al Islam, p. 55, 56. Also see: A’yan al Shia, 1/149.
 Tarikh Baghdad, 5/473.
 Al Ansab, 1/433.
 Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 17/165.
 Tabaqat al Huffaz, 1/82.
 Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 11/355; Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 17/175; al Wafi bi al Wafayat, 1/427.
 Sahih Muslim: chapter of kindness, kinship, and etiquettes: sub-chapter: ‘Whoever Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam cursed or offended or prayed against and he was not deserving of that, it will be a source of purification, reward and mercy for him: hadith no. 2604. The scholars have interpreted this prayer in many ways. Hence, al Nawawi says,
إن ما وقع من سبه ودعائه ونحوه ليس بمقصود بل هو مما جرت به عادة العرب في وصل كلامها بلا نية. كقوله: تربت يمينك، وعقرى حلقى، وفي هذا الحديث: لا كبرت سنك، وفي حديث معاوية: لا أشبع الله بطنه، ونحو ذلك لا يقصدون بشيء من ذلك حقيقة الدعاء
The offending of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his prayers were not intended. In fact, they were, as per the convention of the Arabs, included into his speech without intention; like the statements: ‘May your hands become dusty’, ‘May she be killed and may she be afflicted with a disease in her neck’, and in this narration: ‘May you never age’, and in the narration of Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, ‘May Allah never fill his stomach’. All such statements are said by they do not purport prayer in reality by way of it.” See: Sharh al Nawawi ‘ala Sahih Muslim, 16/152.
 The narration is recorded by al Hakim with his transmission from Yahya ibn Sa’id, from Anas ibn Malik radiya Llahu ‘anhu:
كنت أخدم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم، فقدم لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم فرخ مشوي، فقال: اللهم ائتني بأحب خلقك إليك يأكل معي من هذا الطير. قال: فقلت: اللهم اجعله رجلا من الأنصار. فجاء علي رضي الله عنه. فقلت: إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم على حاجة. ثم جاء. فقلت: إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم على حاجة. ثم جاء، فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم: افتح. فدخل، فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم: ما حبسك يا علي؟ فقال: إن هذه آخر ثلاث كرات يردني أنس، يزعم أنك على حاجة. فقال: ما حملك على ما صنعت؟ فقلت: يا رسول الله سمعت دعائك، فأحببت أن يكون رجلا من قومي. فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم: إن الرجل يحب قومه. قال الحاكم: هذا حديث صحيح على شرط الشيخين ولم يخرجاه
I would serve Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. So, a roasted chick was presented to Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. He said, “O Allah bring to me the best of your creation to eat this bird with me.” Anas radiya Llahu ‘anhu says, “I supplicated, “O Allah let him be a person from the Ansar.” Thereafter ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu came. So, I told him, “Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is seeing to a need.” Then he came again and I again said to him, “Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is seeing to a need.” He came again and Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “Open,” and so he entered. Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “What held you back, O ‘Ali?” He replied, “This is the last of three times wherein Anas is sending me back, claiming that you are seeing to a need.” Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam asked, “What made you do what you did?” I replied, “O Rasul Allah! I heard your prayer and thus I wanted it to be a person from my people.” Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam replied, “A person loves his people.” Al Hakim comments, “This is a Sahih narration which meets the requirements of al Bukhari and Muslim, but they have not recorded it.” See: al Mustadrak, 3/143.
A number of scholars have deemed this narration to be a forgery, amongst them is Ibn Taymiyyah who says:
إن حديث الطير من المكذوبات الموضوعات عند أهل العلم والمعرفة بحقائق النقل، قال أبو موسى المديني: قد جمع غير واحد من الحفاظ طرق أحاديث الطير للاعتبار والمعرفة كالحاكم النيسابوري وأبي نعيم وابن مردويه، وسئل الحاكم عن حديث الطير، فقال: لا يصح. هذا مع أن الحاكم منسوب إلى التشيع
The hadith of the bird is a lie and a forgery according the people of knowledge and expertise regarding the facts of transmission. Abu Musa al Madini says, “Several scholars have collated the various transmissions of the narration of the bird for corroboration and to study them, like al Hakim al Naysaburi, Abu Nuaim, and Ibn Mardawayh. And al Hakim was asked regarding the hadith of the bird and he replied, “It is not established.” This is despite the fact that he is attributed to Shi’ism.” See: Minhaj al Sunnah, 7/371.
Al Dhahabi also found the comment of al Hakim problematic due to him deeming the narration Sahih in his al Mustadrak. See: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 17/168.
 Al Mustadrak ‘ala al Sahihayn, 3/137. The scholars have spoken at length regarding this narration. And Khalifah al Kawari has collated their comments in his book Takhrij Hadith Ana Madinah al ‘Ilm. He has not left any room for anyone else to comment due to him encompassing all the discussions related to the narration.
Furthermore, Ibn Taymiyyah has deemed the narration a forgery. He says:
وأما حديث مدينة العلم وعلي بابها. فأضعف وأوهى. ولهذا إنما يعد في الموضوعات المكذوبات، وإن كان الترمذي قد رواه، ولهذا ذكره ابن الجوزي في الموضوعات وبين أنه موضوع من سائر طرقه، والكذب يعرف من نفس متنه لا يحتاج إلى النظر في إسناده… إلى أن قال رحمه الله: وهذا الحديث إنما افتراه زنديق أو جاهل ظنه مدحا. وهو من طرق الزنادقة إلى القدح في علم الدين إذ لم يبلغه إلا واحد من الصحابة
“As for the narration of the city of knowledge and ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu being its door, it is extremely weak. Therefore, it will be considered from the forgeries and lies even though al Tirmidhi has narrated it. That is why Ibn al Jawzi has mentioned it in al Mawdu’at and he has stated that it is a forgery in all of its transmissions. A lie is discerned from the very wording and no need remains thereafter to study the chain of transmission…” Till he says, “And this narration has been forged by a heretic or ignoramus who considered it to be a praise. This is one of the ways deployed by the heretics to tarnish the knowledge of Din, for no one besides one Sahabi has narrated it. See: Minhaj al Sunnah, 7/515; Majmu’ al Fatawa, 4/410.
 Al Mustadrak, 3/152. And al Dhahabi has commented in his al Talkhis saying, “A forgery.”
 Minhaj al Sunnah, 7/373.
 In reality, this accusation is exaggerated from al Harawi. In fact, even he himself was not free from denying pre-destiny and negating the wisdom of Allah and the existence of motives for his actions, despite his sternness against the innovators. Also, he was not free from exaggerated Sufiism as well, which Ibn al Qayyim tried to explain away and justify with difficulty in his book Madarij al Salikin. So pure is the one to who belongs all attributes of perfection.
 Mizan al I’tidal, 3/608.
 Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 17/174.
 Tadhkirah al Huffaz, 3/1045.
 Mizan al I’tidal, 3/608.
 Ghayah al Nihayah fi Tabaqat al Qurra’, 2/311.
 Tabaqat al Shafi’iyyah al Kubra, 4/87.
 Ibid,. 4/90.
 Ma’alim al ‘Ulama’, p. 167: entry number: 902.
 This is one of the ways of the Rafidah, i.e. they study the biographies of scholars and transmitters who are reliable according to the Ahlus Sunnah. Thereafter, whoever from amongst the Shoah they find having the same name and the same title they basically attribute the narration of that Shia to him, so that the impression is created that he from their scholars! Al Alusi says:
One of their ploys is that they study the biographies of scholars and transmitters who are reliable according to the Ahlus Sunnah. Thereafter, whoever from amongst the Shia they find having the same name and the same title they basically attribute the narration of that Shia to him, so that the impression is created that he is from their scholars. Hence, those who have no knowledge amongst the Ahlus Sunnah falsely assume that he is from their scholars and consequently they consider them reliable and accept his narrations. For example: al Suddi, for there are two people with this name: al Suddi al Kabir (big al Suddi) and al Suddi al Saghir (small al Suddi); the big one is from the reliable transmitters of the Ahlus Sunnah, and the second is a forger, a liar, and an extremist Rafidi. Likewise, ‘Abdullah ibn Qutaybah is an extremist Rafidi whereas ‘Abdullah ibn Muslim ibn Qutaybah is from the reliable scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah. The latter authored a book named: Al Ma’arif so the former also wrote a book and named it al Ma’arif in order to mislead. See: Mukhtasar al Tuhfah al Ithnay ‘Ashariyyah, p. 35.
 Miqbas al Hidayah, 1/242, and the researcher has agreed with him.