Abu Rayyah was nothing more than a copycat, repeating the claims and following the footsteps of those before him. He also adds a few comments, inspired by his whims and ignorance regarding various hadith. The result is that he created a mirage which attracts the thirsty, leaving him with nothing when he eventually gets to it. The reality, however, is that none of his writings are the product of his own effort, rather he is a thief who skilfully plagiarised the works of others —especially his teacher, ‘Abdul Hussain.
He grants generous praise to his erudite teacher; thus, we see the son of his teacher returning the favour by praising him excessively in his forward to the book. He describes the book of his teacher as an, ‘invaluable book’, whereas he mostly repeats his teacher’s arguments. After Dr. Siba’i laid waste to the claims stated in the book of his teacher, the son of the teacher came to the rescue by publishing this ‘wonderful’ book.
The following claim that he makes (whilst practising dissimulation) in his forward to the book of Abu Rayyah, does not correspond to reality:
لقد عرفته اول مرة فى كتاب “السنة” للدكتور السباعى اذا استهدفه هذا بنقد عاطفى دلنى على القيمة فى ابى رية – هكذا وجدته- وفى اضوائه الصافية, الامر الذى اتاح لى شرف الدفاع عن الحقىقة فىه و فى كتابه المذكور دون معرفة به ولا المام بكتابه و عرفته بعد ذلك من خلال اضواؤه فعرفت عالما متبحرا يلين بيده الموضوع الصعب…و فى الحق انه من انفس ما انتجته الدراسات الاسلامىة الحديثية و اههدانا فن الوصول الى الحقيقة…بقى ان السباعى و امثاله سيؤكدون للبسطاء من قراؤهم تهمة تشييع “ابو رية” و يسوقون التهمة…
The first time that I got to know him was when Dr Siba’i went on an emotional attack against him in his book, al Sunnah. This pointed out to me the true value of Abu Rayyah and his Adwa’ — a very refined book. This is what afforded me with the opportunity of defending the truth that is mentioned in it as well as the other book, without even knowing who he is or reading his book. Thereafter, I came to know him through his Adwa’. I found him to be a widely read scholar who is able to write on the most difficult subjects with utmost ease… the reality is that he is one of the best products produced by the (institutions of) Islamic studies on hadith and the most guided one as far as finding the truth is concerned… Al Siba’i and his ilk will emphasise their accusation of Abu Rayyah being a Shia to the simple-minded among their readers.
If he really did not know him, then why did he try so hard to offer a rebuttal on his behalf and on behalf of his book, to the extent that he describes him saying, “He is one of the best products produced by the (institutions of) Islamic studies on hadith”? There is no doubt that the son of the teacher was drowned in dissimulation, just as his father was when he was visited by al Siba’i rahimahu Llah. He refused to admit the reality. Let us look at the truth, as stated by al Siba’i:
بقى ان اقول كلمة عن صدر الدين الذى احتضن كتاب ابى رية الجدىد و طبعه و قدم له واتهمنى باننى ساطعن ابا رية بالتشيع كما طعنته من قبل و زعم انه وجد فيه العلم المحقق الذى لا يشق له الغبار وقد عذرته فى ذلك لان له معنا قصة تحدثت عنه فى العدد التاسع من السنة الاولى من مجلة حضارة الاسلام…ولقد قلت هناك ان ابا رية قد يرضى الشيعة فيما كتب و لم اقل ان ابا رية قد تشيع كما زعم صدر الدين…و قلت انه من العبث ان يتظاهر بعض الناس بالرغبة فى الوحدة وهم يؤلفون مثل هذه الكتب المثيرة الداعية للشقاق و النزاع, كما فعل عبد الحسين نفسه فقد كنت اتحدث اليه فى “صور” عن ضرورة وحدة الصف بين العاملين للاسلام ووجوب عقد مؤتمر من علماء الفريقين لهذه الغاية فكان يبدى حماسا بالغا لهذه الفكرة بينما كان يطبع كتابه عن ابلاى هريرة للطبعة الثانية و يبيع لجميع الناس ترجمة كتابه بمختلف اللغات …
It is necessary for me to comment regarding Sadr al Din, who promoted the new book of Abu Rayyah, published it, and wrote a forward to it. He claims that I have accused Abu Rayyah of being a Shia, just as I have accused him, and that he sees in Abu Rayyah a great researcher and scholar who is unsurpassable. I excuse him in this regard as we had an episode with him which I wrote about in detail in the ninth issue of the first year of the magazine Hadarat al Islam. There, we revealed how he earns support by means of fanaticism regarding his mazhab. This is the methodology adopted by him and his like.
In the preface to my book, al Sunnah, I commented regarding the book of his father ‘Abdul Hussain, concerning Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu. It is in this book that he claims that Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu was a disbeliever and that the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam himself prophesised that he would be from the dwellers of Hell. This is what ‘Abdul Hussain does to a Sahabi who narrated more than just one hadith concerning the love of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam for Hussain and his brother radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, his nurturing of them, and his supplication on behalf of those who love them. May Allah deal with him in a befitting manner!
His book served as a foundation for the lies that Abu Rayyah cooked up against Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, as well as the foul and derogatory language used against him. I had stated there that Abu Rayyah brings great pleasure to the Shia through his writings. I did not say that he is a Shia, as claimed by Sadr al Din. There is no doubt that this will open the door for others to rebuke them, as it will stir up the majority of the Islamic world, who view Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu as the leading Sahabi who preserved the Sunnah of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and conveyed it meticulously to the next generation (the Tabi’in). Thus, it is impossible for them to tolerate this kind of defamatory and malicious speech regarding him.
All this is done at a time when the sincere ones from the Ahlus Sunnah and the Shia are supposed to direct their efforts towards achieving unity, to dispel all the dangers that surround the Islamic world and Islamic beliefs, some of which target the very foundations thereof. There is a greater fear of the Shia youth abandoning their religion as opposed to Sunni youth.
I have stated that it is utterly ridiculous for some to display great enthusiasm as far as unity is concerned, when they continue to author books of this nature, which demand a breach of unity and stir up arguments. This is exactly what ‘Abdul Hussain did. I would discuss with him (in Suwar) the need for unity between those striving for the cause of Islam and the importance of holding a conference for the scholars of both parties in order to achieve this goal. He would reply by showing great fervour towards this idea, whilst at the same time he published the second edition of his book regarding Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He even sold the book in other languages to as many people as he could, seeking a reward from Allah.
This is what I stated regarding ‘Abdul Hussain in the preface of my book, al Sunnah. It is no surprise that this upset Sadr al Din, as he was overawed by his father, Hujjat al Islam, just as his father was impressed with him (as he stated in the preface of his sons book, Halif Makhzum)… with regards to his adoration of the knowledge of Abu Rayyah even though his ignorance and lies were exposed — as will appear shortly — this can only be the result of one of two things; his own ignorance or his biased stance on the subject. May Allah destroy sectarian fanaticism, which thrives upon hatred and allows those who hold onto it to be reviled in this era just as it brought upon them calamities in the previous eras due to their foul tongues.
Finally, we do not know which one of the two luminaries are worthy of admiration. Should we envy Sadr on account of him finding this invaluable treasure and unique knowledge in the form of Abu Rayyah, or should we envy ‘the reviver of Islam in the twentieth century’, as he finally found someone (Sadr) who is willing to appreciate his knowledge, acknowledge his virtue, and publish his book? Their condition is as described by Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, “And whoever is blinded from remembrance of the Most Merciful, We appoint for him a devil, and he is to him a companion. And indeed, they (i.e., the devils) avert them from the way (of guidance) while they think that they are (rightly) guided.”
Our comment: This is the reality; the son of the teacher only praised his father’s student on account of the formers praise for the father who was taken to be an outstanding scholar. He even went as far as saying that it is an invaluable book. Below, we will present a few examples wherein the student praises his teacher and his teacher’s book:
وقد كان ابو هريرة يسوغ كثرة رواياته بانه كان يلزم النبى (ص) وحده اما المهاجرون فكان يشغلهم الصفق بالاسواق و كان الانصار يشغلهم عمل اموالهم و قد فند هذا الزعم الباطل و دحضه العلامة عبد الحسين شرف الدين بادلة قاطعة
Abu Hurairah would justify his excessive narrations by claiming that he alone would accompany the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam under all circumstances, whilst the Muhajirin would engage in trade and business and the Ansar were preoccupied with their wealth. ‘Allamah ‘Abdul Hussain Sharaf al Din disproved and destroyed this claim on the basis of clear-cut proofs.
He states further:
ولان حديث بسط الثوب مهم فى تاريخ ابي هريرة واختلفت رواياته وهو فى نفسه يعتبر خرافة او من اهم غراءبه ولم نجد احدا وا اسفاه قد ناقش هذا الحديث مناقشة علمية تحليلية غير العلامة الكبير الاستاذ عبد الحسين شرف الدين فى كتابه “ابو هريرة”, فقد رءينا ان نمد القراء بملخص لما ناقش به هذا الحديث لان كلامه فى ذلك طويل قال…
The hadith regarding the spreading of the cloth holds a pivotal position as far as the biography of Abu Hurairah is concerned. The narrations in this regard vary. In essence, this narration is nothing but rubbish and one of his most important strange narrations. It is quite sad indeed that we have not found anyone who did an academic and critical study of this hadith besides the erudite scholar, the teacher, ‘Abdul Hussain Sharaf al Din in his book, Abu Hurairah. We deem it appropriate to present a synopsis of that discussion, as the entire discussion is quite lengthy.
The student once again praises his teacher:
ملاحظة دقيقة لمن يفهم للعلامة الكبير السيد عبد الحسين شرف الدين كلمة قيمة علق بها على كمية حديث ابى هريرة…
A convoluted reflection for those who understand, by the erudite scholar Sayed ‘Abdul Hussain Sharaf al Din. It is a priceless statement which was expressed by him concerning the volume of narrations by Abu Hurairah, which (as we have explained previously) are 5374 in total, as recorded in the books of hadith. He compared this unrealistically high number to that which was narrated from the four Khalifas. He deduced from this comparison that their narrations combined, authentic as well as unauthentic are equivalent to only twenty eight percent of his narrations. We wish to repeat a few lines of his discussion here, as it is the most suitable place in our book for this discussion. He (may Allah have mercy upon him and grant him retribution) says, “One should study Abu Hurairah using his intellect…”
He praises the book of his teacher in his footnotes:
من اراد ان يقف على كل ما قاله العلامة شرف الدين فليرجع الى كتابه “ابو هريرة ” وهو من الكتب القيمة
Whoever wishes to see all that which the erudite scholar Sharaf al Din has written, should read his book, Abu Hurairah. Indeed, it is among the best of books.
Our comment: I have a question which was neither answered by the son of the teacher nor the student. Why did the ‘erudite scholar’ not comment on the excessive narrations of his ‘reliable’ narrators? Instead, he praised them abundantly in his al Muraja’at, whereas their narrations are four times more than the narrations of Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu. His law with regards to the number of narrations of the ‘infallibles’ is “Narrate without any restriction or repercussion.”
As for the comparison of your teacher (the great scholar), it is, on account of a very simple reason, a laughable comparison. This reason is known even to the novice; hence, it is indeed astounding that this reason escaped the knowledge of the ‘erudite’ scholar. This is the kind of knowledge that one requires to please the likes of his protagonists. Al Siba’i explained the reason behind the low number of narrations attributed to the four khalifas radiya Llahu ‘anhum, especially Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. It was due to the fact that they were occupied with the responsibilities of caliphate and spreading Islam and not because they did not hear much from the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam or forgot whatever they had heard. Neither was it on account of them having suspicions regarding those Sahabah who devoted themselves towards the cause of listening to, memorising, and spreading hadith, as he repeatedly claims in his book. Previously, I have explained in detail that the abundance of his narrations is based on the following factors:
It is important to remember these factors.
It has now become clear to us that the author was nothing more than a copycat. It is inappropriate for an independent researcher to plagiarise the works of others. However, it is unfair to expect anything else from someone like him as he is a destitute as far as the subject of hadith and its narrators are concerned… Thus, do not be surprised when you see him exhibiting his cheap and baseless views on the subject. Despite all of this, the Shia have praised him greatly, to the extent that one of their influential men even penned down a biography of him in Persian, which was then published by one of their libraries. This is because the man offered a valuable service to them by displaying Rafd (dissociation) and reviling the Companions of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, especially the first three Khalifas.
It is possible for me to summarise my observations regarding his book and expose his lies in this treatise which is being written, despite time constraints, in the following manner; firstly, he uses Ibn Qutaybah’s name fraudulently on the cover of his book. Under the title, Abu Hurairah, he writes, “The first narrator to be suspected in Islam.” He then places Ibn Qutaybah’s name next to this unfounded statement and accusation, to create the impression that this was his statement. Ibn Qutaybah, on the other hand quoted the criticisms levelled by al Nazzam—the Mu’tazili—against the Sahabah of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam such as Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Ali, Ibn Mas’ud and Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Thereafter, he says:
هذا اقاويل النظام قد بيناها و اجبناه عنها
These are the claims of al Nazzam. We have explained them and presented the answers to his objections.
Can any degree of credibility be expected from the one who is so bold in attributing statements to the wrong people? He claims on page 154 and 203 of his Adwa’:
بان الكاتب صادق الرافعى قال فى ابى هريرة انه اول راوية اتهم فى الاسلام فى كتابه تاريخ ادب العرب
The writer Sadiq al Rafi’i mentions that Abu Hurairah was the first narrator who was suspected in Islam in his book Tarikh Adab al ‘Arab (1/2787).
If this writer is really Sadiq (truthful), then he should point out to us the source and proof of this accusation. If he cannot do so then he should wrap his statement up and throw it in the nearest dustbin. Besides Abu Rayyah’s excessive deception and manipulation of realities, he uses extremely foul and vulgar language in his blind attack on the great Sahabi, Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, such that it reflects his total lack of any manners and dignity. He scoffs him, mocks him, and swears him without any limits. No person of religion or integrity will be pleased if such words were used for some lowly person, so how can it be accepted regarding a noble Sahabi, who belongs to noble Arab family? It is part of the etiquette of writing on the subject of hadith that a person adopts the manners of the fountainhead thereof (the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), or at least that of the Imams of the field such as al Bukhari and his likes.
He says on page 213 of his Adwa’:
ولقد عرف بنو امية صنيعه معهم…فاغدقوا عليه من افضالهم و غمروه برفدهم و اعطيتهم…وبعد ان كان يستر جسمه بنمرة بالية صار يلبس الخز و الكتان الممشق
The Banu Umayyah were well aware of his manner of dealing with them… Hence, they spared none of their favours from him and drowned him in their bounties and gifts… He began wearing fine cloth of cotton and silk after being one who would just manage to cover his body with worn out material.
The ironic part is that after he wrote his book, he complained about those scholars who refuted his book. He tried defending himself as well as his book by saying:
فيه شيئ من العنف والتهكم
There is some harshness and mockery in the book…
He goes on to claim that he was forced to adopt this methodology and he did not choose it. He was compelled to do so. On the same page he claims:
ذلك بان هؤلاء القوم الذى نخاطبهم قد اتفقت كامتهم على عداوتنا و تظاهرو على سبنا و شتمنا و تمادوا فى قذفنا
This is because those who we are having this dialogue with have united in their stance of being our enemies and they have openly reviled us, sworn at us, and they have exceeded the limits in accusing us.
Our dear friend, who is the one who began this by selecting Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu as a target of enmity and openly reviled him, swore at him, and exceeded the limits in accusing him? Why do you now shed crocodile tears when you are the one who started this mockery by mocking such a great Sahabi as well as the intelligence of our scholars? Is this the brilliance that afforded the son of your teacher with the opportunity of defending you without even knowing you or having any idea of your book’? Is the mere mockery of a Sahabi all that it takes to classify a piece of writing as ‘a conclusive study’?
The student wrote on the cover of his book:
دراسة محررة تناولت حياة الحديث المحمدى و تاريخه و كل ما يتصل به من امور الدين والدنيا وهذه الدراسة الجامعة قامت على قواعد التحقيق العلمى هى الاولى فى موضوعها لم ينسج احد من قبل على منوالها
A conclusive study which covers the life and history of the Prophetic hadith as well as everything that is related to it from religious and worldly matters. This comprehensive study is based upon the laws of academic research. It is the first of its kind. None have written in this manner before.
What is it that makes this a conclusive study, the fact that you have named it Sheikh al Mudirah? Yes, for a change you mistakenly spoke the truth, it is the first of its kind in many aspects; manipulation of facts, foul language, mockery, evil, and lowliness. It is no surprise that you are unbeaten, as which sane person would author a book according to those principles? In fact, most of the statements and ahadith which he mentioned in his attack on Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the Sunnah were (as previously mentioned) a result of him aping his teacher who he refers to as ‘the outstanding erudite scholar ‘Abdul Hussain’, who in turn apes Ahmed Amin’s Fajr al Islam wa Duhahu, which is based upon the writings of Goldziher and other orientalists.
In summary, the student aped his teacher in every matter, big or small. He treaded the path of his teacher foot by foot, to the extent that he even mentioned some of his teacher’s statements without attributing them to him, thus committing academic theft. Thus, he did not manage to add on to his teacher’s writings except a few ahadith. To disprove this, we will produce undoubtable evidence and we will also prove the degree of deception employed by all those who say that their religion is Shi’ism. Their religion is as they have stated, “Dissimulation is my religion and the religion of my forefathers. There is no religion for the one who does not practice dissimulation.” He wishes to disprove all the ahadith of Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, just as his teacher wished to do so.
We will now present to you some of the rejections of this deceiver.
He rejects the ahadith of the two utensils, spreading of the cloths and of the provisions (page 9). He makes a mockery of them. He rejects the hadith in which it is stated that Allah created Adam upon his form (page 97). On page 207, he claims that Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu supported Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and that the Banu Umayyah showered him with favours. He quotes al Iskafi on page 243, who claims that Abu Hurairah would concoct ahadith against ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. He copied and pasted the argument of his teacher concerning the claim that ‘Umar struck Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhuma on page 104 and 105, just as he done so when accusing Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu of claiming that he witnessed certain events which he did not witness (the likes of the conquest of Khaybar and the Kufr of Abu Talib). He rejects the hadith in which the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam ordered the killing of shepherd dogs (page 143), the hadith of waking up impure (135-136), the hadith of bad omen (139), the hadith of the one who bathes a dead person (139), the hadith of mortar (61), the hadith, “There is no contagion…”, the hadith of the forgetting of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam (112), the hadith of the prohibition of walking in only one sandal (134), the hadith of the angel of death (244), the hadith of the debate between Jannat and Jahannam (245), the hadith of Nuzul (245), the hadith of Prophet Dawood ‘alayh al Salam (246), the hadith of the filling of Jahannam and the hadith of Sulaiman visiting one hundred women (269), the hadith of Shaitan interfering with the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, the hadith of viewing Allah (246), the hadith of the transformation of a nation from Banu Isra’il (246), the hadith of the Qur’an (Qira’ah) being made easy for Prophet Dawood ‘alayh al Salam (255), the hadith of Abu Hurairah being appointed to safeguard the zakat (255), as well as other ahadith.
He also accuses Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu of learning those ahadith from Ka’b al Ahbar and Wahb ibn Munabbih. In fact, he even accuses the great scholar of the Ummah, Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhum, of learning from the Jews. Thus, his accusations are not confined to Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu only. On page 23, Abu Rayyah says:
و كان ابو هريرة راوى الحديث تلميذا لكهان اليهود يتلقى عنهم و يبث ما يتلقاه بين الناس على انه من قول النبى (ص)
The narrator of the hadith, Abu Hurairah, was a student of the soothsayers of the Jews. He would learn from them and then spread it among the masses as if it was the words of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
On page 29, he claims:
كرواية الحبر عبد الله بن عباس…و ابى هريرة وانس و غيرهم عن كعب الاحبار هو و ابو هريرة و ابن عباس كانا اكثرا من نشر علم كعب الاحبار
Like the narration of the erudite ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas… and Abu Hurairah, Anas, and others, who narrated from Ka’b al Ahbar. Abu Hurairah and Ibn ‘Abbas went to great lengths to spread the knowledge of Ka’b al Ahbar…
On page 89 and 90, under the title, ‘Abu Hurairah studies under Ka’b al Ahbar’, he says:
ما كان ابو هريرة يرجع الى المدينة معزولا على ولايته بالبحرين حتى تلقفه الحبر الاكبر كعب الاحبار اليهودى و اخذ يلقنه من اسرائيلياته و يدس له من خرافاته…ولا يزال هذا السيل يتدفق بالاحاديث الخرافية والمشكلة وقد سمعت مرة من احد احرار الفكر المحققين ان ابا هريرة و كعبا هما اللذان افسدا الاسلام بما بثا فيه من الخرافات والاوهام وقد نال اكثر ما نال من كعب و اعتبره الصهيونى الاول
Abu Hurairah hardly returned to Madinah, after being fired from the governance of Bahrain, before the great rabbi Ka’b al Ahbar (the Jew) got hold of him and began teaching him the Isra’ili narrations, adding on some of his nonsense…This flood kept bringing forth nonsensical and non-comprehendible ahadith. I once heard from one of the free-thinking researchers that Abu Hurairah and Ka’b are the ones who have corrupted din by spreading absurdities and baseless narrations. He learnt most of his knowledge from Ka’b, who was considered the first Zionist.
He says on page 93:
و كان الاستاذ سعيد الافغانى قد نشر مقالا بمجلة الرسالة المصرية قال فيه:”…من هذه المجلة اثبت فيه بالادلة القاطعة ان كعب الاحبار الصهيونى الاول
The teacher Sa’id al Afghani published an article in the magazine al Risalat al Misriyyah, wherein he says, “In this magazine, I have proven by the means of clear proof that Ka’b al Ahbar was the first Zionist.”
Wahb ibn Munabbih is one of the greatest and most reliable Tabi’in. We do not know of anyone who doubted him or called him a fabricator besides the author. The narrations of Ka’b and Wahb from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam are not many in number and they are classified as mursal narrations (when the narrator omits the name of his teacher), as they did not meet the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Mursal narrations are not accepted by all as proof. It is highly unlikely that the Sahabah would accept the mursal narrations of Ka’b, when they were the same ones who would take pains in affirming that which another Sahabi had narrated. As for Wahb, he came much later. They have narrated a few statements from some of the Sahabah and Tabi’in, but the scholars of hadith have scrutinised these narrations, just as the narrations of other Tabi’in were scrutinised.
Further, we challenge Abu Rayyah to gather ten different narrations and prove that Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu narrated them from Ka’b rahimahu Llah. Also, if his claims regarding Abu Hurairah, Ibn ‘Abbas, and Ka’b radiya Llahu ‘anhum are correct, then this would mean that his great and leading scholars also narrated from Ka’b. I will briefly present examples wherein they have narrated from Ka’b al Ahbar. Al Majlisi, in his Mawsu’at Bihar al Anwar quotes the narrations of Ka’b as proof. Al Majlisi reports from al Khisal of al Saduq with this (the same as the previous one in the book) chain:
بهذا الاسناد عن الوليد بن مسلم عن صفوان بن عمرو عن شريح ابن عبيد عن عمرو البكائى عن كعب الاحبار قال…
Walid ibn Muslim — Safwan ibn ‘Amr — Shurayh ibn ‘Ubaid — ‘Amr al Buka’i-Ka’b al Ahbar…
…عن القاسم بن خلف قال سئل رجل كعب الاحبار فقال…
Abu al Mahasin — Abu ‘Abdullah al Sadiq rahimahu Llah — Muhammad ibn Ahmed ibn Sahl ibn ‘Abdullah — ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abdur Rahim — ‘Ubaidullah ibn Yaqub — Ishaq ibn Maymun — al Qasim ibn Khalaf, “A man enquired from Ka’b al Ahbar…”
Al Hurr al ‘Amili also quotes a few narrations from Ka’b al Ahbar in his book, Al Jawahir al Saniyyah fi Ahadith al Qudsiyyah. Thus, did his scholars and teachers also learn from the Jews? Are all their narrations also Isra’ili narrations? Why did he not attack his own people before interfering with Abu Hurairah, Ka’b, and Anas radiya Llahu ‘anhum? Who is the real deceiver and the real student of the Jews?
Let us see what he says about Wahb ibn Munabbih. On page 93, he says:
و كان الاستاذ سعيد الافغانى قد نشر مقالا بمجلة الرسالة المصرية قال فيه: ان وهب بن منبه هو الصهيونى الاول
The teacher Sa’id al Afghani published an article in the magazine Al Risalat al Misriyyah in which he said, “Wahb ibn Munabbih was the first Zionist.”
On page 24 he says:
ولقد كان على الشيخى عبد الحليم -خاصة- وجماعة دار الحديث عامة ان يرجعوا- قبل ان ياخذوا بهذا الحديث الى ما قاله العلماء فيه كالذهبى و ابن رجب والخطابى وما ذكره ابو نعيم فى الحلية من انه منقول وهب بن منبه اليهودى
It was necessary for Sheikh ‘Abdul Halim especially, and all the members of Dar al Hadith to have referred to (before accepting this hadith) the views of the scholars such as al Dhahabi, Ibn Rajab, al Khattabi as well as that which Abu Nuaim has stated in Hilyah that it is narrated from Wahb ibn Munabbih, the Jew…
He states on pages 151 and 262:
…و ينبوعى الخرافات هما كعب الاحبار و وهب بن منبه
The two fountainheads of nonsensical (ahadith) were Ka’b al Ahbar and Wahb ibn Munabbih.
On page 269, he says:
ولا ريب فى انه قد تاثر فى رواية غرائبه باستاذه الاكبر داهية اليهود كعب الاحبار الذى كان يبث الغرائب الاسرائيلية بين المسلمين…و تاثر كذلك وهب بن منبه الحبر اليهودى
There is no doubt that he was affected, as far as his strange narrations are concerned, by his most influential mentor—the Jewish luminary, Ka’b al Ahbar—who would spread strange Isra’ili narrations among the Muslims… Similarly, he was affected by the Jewish rabbi Wahb ibn Munabbih.
Our comment: Did the author forget that the books of the Shia, to which his most outstanding teacher ascribes, contain narrations which his leading scholars have narrated from Wahb ibn Munabbih? Al Majlisi states:
فى ذكر بعض ما لا بد من ذكره مما ذكره اصحاب الكتب الماخوذ منها فى مفتتحها…اسناد كتابى المبتداء عن وهب بن منبه اليمانى و ابى حذيفة. حدثنا القطيفى عن الثعلبى عن محمد بن الحسن الازهرى عن الحسين بن محمد العبدى عن عبد المنعم بن ادريس عنهما
We mention some extremely important things which have been mentioned in the beginning of the books of those whose books are relied upon… The chain of the two books of al Mubtada are from Wahb ibn Munabbih al Yamani and Abu Hudhayfah. Al Qatifi narrated to us — from al Tha’labi — Muhammad ibn al Hassan al Azhari — al Hussain ibn Muhammad al ‘Abdi — ‘Abdul Mun’im ibn Idris — Wahb and Abu Hudhayfah…
Al Majlisi quotes in the same volume of his book:
فى امالى المفيد عن لسماعيل بن محمد الكاتب عن عبد الصمد عن على عن محمد بن هارون بن عيسى عن ابى طاحة الخزاعى عن عمر بن عباد عن ابى فرات قال قرئت فى كتاب لوهب بن منبه
Amali of al—Mufid states: Ismail ibn Muhammad al—Katib — ‘Abdul Samad — ‘Ali —Muhammad ibn Harun ibn ‘Isa — Abu Talhah al Khuza’i — ‘Umar ibn ‘Ubad — Abu Furat: ‘I read in a book of Wahb ibn Munabbih…’”
Thereafter al Majlisi quotes the narrations of Wahb ibn Munabbih and Ka’b al Ahbar. Here is a brief presentation of a few of them:
و فى امالى المفيد: عن الحسين بن محمد التمار عن محمد بن القاسم الانبارى عن ابيه عن الحسين بن سليمان الزاهد قال سمعت ابا جعفر الطائى الواعظ يقول: سمعت وهب بن منبه يقول: قرات فى زبور داود اسطر
It is mentioned in the Amali of al Mufid: Hussain ibn Muhammad al Tammar — Muhammad ibn al Qasim al Anbari — his father — Hussain ibn Sulaiman ibn Zahid: “I heard Jafar al Ta’i the orator saying: ‘I heard Wahb ibn Munabbih saying, I read a few lines from the Psalms of Dawood…’”
فى حديث وهب بن منبه ان نوحا (ع) كان اول نبى…
In the hadith of Wahb ibn Munabbih that Nuh was the first Prophet…
فى علل الشرائع: الاسناد عن وهب قال
In ‘Ilal al Shara’i’: the chain is from Wahb ibn Munabbih who said…
عن قصص الانبياء: بالاسناد الى الصدوق باسناده الى وهب بن منبه عن ابن عباس
Qisas al Ambiya’: with a chain to al Saduq whose chain links up to Wahb ibn Munabbih who narrates from Ibn ‘Abbas.
عن قصص الانبياء: بالاسناد الى الصدوق باسناده الى وهب بن منبه
Qisas al Ambiya’: with a chain to al Saduq whose chain links up to Wahb ibn Munabbih…
عن قصص الانبياء: بالاسناد الى الصدوق باسناده الى وهب بن منبه
Qisas al Ambiya’: with a chain to al Saduq whose chain links up to Wahb ibn Munabbih
اقول: روى فى المجمع نحوا من ذلك عن وهب بن منبه
I say: “Something similar has been narrated from Wahb ibn Munabbih in al Majma’.”
Al Majlisi says:
اقول: قال الشيخ ابو الحسن البكرى استاذ الشهيد الثانى قدس الله روحهما فى كتابه المسمى بكتاب الانوار: حدثنا اشياخنا و اسلافنا الرواة لهذا الحديث عن ابى عمر الانصارى سالت عن كعب الاحبار و وهب بن منبه وابن عباس قالوا جميعا لما اراد الله ان يخلق محمدا
I say: Sheikh Abu al Hassan al Bakri, the teacher of the Shahid al Thani (may Allah sanctify their souls) states in his book, Kitab al Anwar, “Our scholars and predecessors, the narrators of this hadith have narrated to us from Abu ‘Amr al Ansari, ‘I asked Ka’b al Ahbar, Wahb ibn Munabbih, and Ibn ‘Abbas. All of them replied, ‘When Allah decided to create Muhammad…’”
It is stated in Kitab al Mi’raj from al Saduq from Wahb ibn Munabbih:
عن وهب بن منبه قال: ان موسى عليه السلام نظر ليلة الخظاب الى كل شجرة فى الطور و كل حجر و نبات ينطق بذكر محمد و اثنى عشر وصى له من بعده
Musa ‘alayh al Salam saw every tree, stone, and plant at al Tur taking the name of Muhammad and his twelve Awsiya’ on the night that he spoke to Allah.
Al Khisal of al Saduq:
…عن ابى اسامة عن ابن مبارك عن معمر عمن سمع وهب بن منبه
Abu Usamah — Ibn Mubarak — Ma’mar — those who heard from Wahb ibn Munabbih…
و ذكر وهب بن منبه عن ابن عباس
…from some of the old books on merits, Wahb ibn Munabbih narrates from Ibn ‘Abbas.
This narration is also established by their scholar al Nuri al Tabarsi in his Mustadrak from Wahb ibn Munabbih.
احمد بن ادريس عن ابن قتيبة عن الفضل عن مصبح عن ابى عبد الرحمان عمن سمع وهب بن منبه يقول ابن عباس فى حديث طويل انه قال…
Ahmed ibn Idris — Ibn Qutaybah — al Fadl — Misbah — Abu ‘Abdur Rahman — the one who heard from Wahb ibn Munabbih: “Ibn ‘Abbas says in a lengthy narration…”
عن وهب قال
Narrated from Wahb that he said…
عن جمال الاسبوع: رايت بخط حسن بن طحال-ره- وفى كتب لاصحابنا كذا ذكر جماعة عن وهب بن منبه والحسن البصرى و جعفر بن محمد بن على بن الحسين بن على بن ابى طالب(ع) عن النبى
Jamal al Usbu’: “I saw the writing of Hassan ibn Tihal, and in other books of our scholars, ‘This has been reported by a group from Wahb ibn Munabbih, Hassan al Basri, and Jafar ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Hussain ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib who narrate from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.’”
…من كتاب دستور المذكورين باسناده المتصل عن وهب بن منبه عن ابن عباس قال قال رسول الله
Ta’yin al A’mal: From that is the narration from the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, we found it from Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr al Madini al Hafiz from the book Dustur al Madhkurin with his unbroken chain from Wahb ibn Munabbih — Ibn ‘Abbas — the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
Al Hurr al ‘Amili quotes a few narrations from Wahb ibn Munabbih in his book Al Jawahir al Saniyyah fi Ahadith al Qudsiyyah.
عن الحسن بن احمد بن ادريس عن ابيه عن محمد بن احمد بن يحيى بن عمران الاشعرى عن احمد بن ابى عبد الله عن ابيه عن وهب بن منبه عن الصادق عن ابيه عن ابائه قال قال رسول الله
Hassan ibn Ahmed ibn Idris — his father — Muhammad ibn Ahmed ibn Yahya ibn ‘Imran al Ash’ari — Ahmed ibn Abi ‘Abdullah — his father — Wahb ibn Munabbih — al Sadiq — his father — his forefathers — the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said…
Our comment: I am sure that you have noticed that this chain goes through Wahb ibn Munabbih to the infallible Imam Jafar al Sadiq who narrates from his forefathers who narrate from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. It has become quite clear that the scholars of the Shia have taken the narrations of Wahb, Ka’b, and Ibn ‘Abbas as evidences. Did they also learn from the Jews and spread blasphemy among the Muslims?
Below, I will reproduce some of the narrations which were rejected by Abu Rayyah in detail. Before reproducing them, it is necessary to point out an important factor, the reason for citing the narrations of the Shia:
Firstly, because of the Shia beliefs of Abu Rayyah and his clear statement at the end of his book:
و هناك طوائف من المسلمين لا يعترفون بكتب السنة المشهورة ولهم كتب فى السنة والفقه خاصة بهم يتبعونها و ياخذون بها مثل الشيعة الامامية والزيدية و غيرهم والشيعة الامامية بخاصة لا يعتبرون من الاحاديث الا ما صح لهم من طرق اهل البيت عن جدهم يعنى ما رواه الصادق عن ابيه الباقر عن ابيه زين العابدين عن الحسين السبط عن ابيه امير المؤمنين عن رسول الله سلام الله عليهم اجمعين. اما ما يرويه مثل ابى هريرة و سمرة بن جندب و مروان بن الحكم و عمران بن حطان و عمرو بن العاص و نظائرهم فليس له عند الامامية اى اعتبار. و هؤلاء الطوائف جميعا لا يمكن لاحد ان يطعن فى دينهم او يستريب فى ايمانهم…ولكل قوم سنة و امامها
There are many groups of Muslims who do not accept the famous books of the Sunnah. They have their own books on fiqh and Sunnah which they follow, such as the Imamiyyah, Zaidiyyah, and others. The Imami Shia do not accept any ahadith except those which are authentically narrated through the Ahlul Bayt from their forefathers, i.e. from al Sadiq — his father, al Baqir — his father, Zayn al ‘Abidin — Hussain al Sibt, — his father Amir al Mu’minin, ‘Ali — from the Messenger, may the salutations of Allah be upon all of them. As for that which is narrated by the likes of Abu Hurairah, Samurah ibn Jundub, Marwan ibn al Hakam, ‘Imran ibn Hittan, ‘Amr ibn al ‘As and their likes; this holds no weight according to the Imamiyyah… No one is allowed to find fault with the religiousness of any of these groups or doubt their iman… Every nation has their own Sunnah and their own Imam.
Secondly, because the son of his teacher wrote a preface for his book and his book was translated to Persian. They also wrote prefaces for him.
A point worthy of mentioning is that Abu Rayyah criticised thirty odd ahadith in his biography of Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu. These ahadith are of different types;
 Sheikh al Mudirah Abu Hurairah, pg. 5, 6.
 Surah al Zukhruf: 36-37.
 Al Siba’i: Al Sunnah.
 Sheikh al Mudirah Abu Hurairah, pg. 124.
 Op. cit. pg. 212.
 Op. cit. pg. 132.
 Op. cit. pg. 212.
 Difa’ ‘an al Sunnah, pg. 179.
 Ta’wil Mukhtalif al Hadith, pg. 15-32.
 Difa’ ‘An al Sunnah, pg. 100.
 Abu Shahbah: Difa’ ‘an al Sunnah, pg. 70-71.
 This was obviously not on account of them suspecting the next Sahabi of fabricating the narration. Rather, this was due to the high standard maintained by them in preserving the ahadith of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and ensuring that nobody changes it, even by mistake.
 Al Anwar al Kashifah, pg. 101.
 Op. cit. pg. 178.
 Bihar al Anwar, 36/240, # 44.
 Bihar al Anwar, 97/48, # 35. Refer to 57/206 # 159, 77/43 # 11, 90/54 # 14, for more examples.
 Refer to pages 61 and 284 for the narrations of Ka’b al Ahbar. His exact words are:
رواية عن كعب الاحبار قال
Who narrates from Ka’b al Ahbar, that he said…
 Bihar al Anwar, 1/63.
 Bihar al Anwar, 1/89, # 15.
 Bihar al Anwar, 6/4 # 4.
 Bihar al Anwar, 11/299.
 Bihar al Anwar, 11/355 # 12, 14/179 # 15.
 Bihar al Anwar, 13/178 # 8, pg. 192, pg. 393 # 2.
 Bihar al Anwar, 11/357 # 15, 14/179 # 23.
 Bihar al Anwar, 14/161 #, pg. 340, pg. 364 # 6, pg. 367 # 6.
 Bihar al Anwar, 11/369 # 2.
 Bihar al Anwar, 15/26 # 48.
 Bihar al Anwar, 26/308 # 73. The Jews have invented concepts such as these; Awsiya’ (successors), reincarnation, and Bada… they are similar in nature.
 Muqtadab al Athar fi l-Nass ‘ala l-Ithna ‘Ashar, 51/149 # 24.
 Mustadrak al Wasa’il, 12/186./
 Bihar al Anwar, 36/240 # 42;.al Khisal, 2/76.
 Bihar al Anwar, 43/214 # 44. For more information, refer to this isnad in Bihar, 51/68 # 11 and 52/276 # 173.
 Refer to Mustadrak al Wasa’il, 2/186, 2/487, 7/420, 8/40, 6/289.
 Al Tusi: Al Ghaybah, pg. 27.
 Bihar al Anwar, 57/208 # 171, 75/19 # 12, 75/175 # 10, 75/19 # 20, 59/261 # 37, 65/62 # 19, 61/286 # 1, 70/16 # 6, 72/69 # 1, 77/42 # 10, 78/446 # 4, 97/48 # 36, 12/254 # 18, 15/276 # 24, 39/110.
 Bihar al Anwar, 90/54 # 14.
 Bihar al Anwar, 98/336 # 1.
 Al Jawahir al Saniyyah fi Ahadith al Qudsiyyah, pg. 13, 17, 56, 74, 75, 208, 209.
 Ibid., pg. 111.
 Sheikh al Mudirah, pg. 271.Back to top