Abu Talib (a.s)

The Narrators

Now we discuss the series of narrators of these traditions to see their positions and their weights in the scales of the men of Hadith. 1. The first tradition:

a. Obeidillah al-Qawareeri: we didn't find any mention of him in Mizanul I'tidal. We found one tradition in al-Ghadeer that Obeidillah was one of the narrators but the author said about him: "Al-Bukhari mentioned only five traditions narrated by Obeidillah al-Qawareeri and Muslim mentioned forty traditions. Ahmed bin Yahya heard from him one hundred thousand traditions. So what about this rubbish narrated by this man that al-Bukhari and Muslim didn't quote from this man save a few traditions and brushed the rest aside? It was not possible that they hadn't known the rest of his traditions." (1)

b. Muhammad bin Abu Bakr al-Maqdimi: we didn't find any mention of him save Muhammad bin Abu Bakr only and it was said that he was unknown. (2)

A false tradition was mentioned in al-Ghadeer and one of its narrators was Muhammad bin Abu Bakr al-Maqdimi. (3)

c. Muhammad bin Abdul Melik al-Amawi: It was enough for him to be an Umayyad man to fabricate such a tradition or to narrate traditions like it against Abu Talib.

If he was Muhammad bin Abdul Melik bin Marwan bin al-Hakam, it would be enough for us that his father was that Umayyad tyrant and his two grandfathers were cursed by the Prophet (s), who called them as the deviants.

____________ 1 Al-Ghadeer, vol.9 p.295 from Tahtheeb at-Tahtheeb vol.7 p.41. 2 Mizanul I'tidal, vol.3 p.96. 3 Al-Ghadeer, vol.9 p.270.

Al-Hakam and his offspring were cursed by the Prophet (s). The Prophet (s) had expelled al-Hakam from Medina. Marwan was but a leftover of the curse of the Prophet (s) as Aa'isha had said. As for this Muhammad, Abu Dawood said about him: "He was not sane." (1)

d. Abu Owana: we couldn't know who he was.

e. Abdul Melik bin Omayr: ath-Thahabi said about him: "He became the judge of Kuffa after ash-Shi'bi. He lived for a long time and so his memory became weak."

Abu Hatim said about him: "He was not a good memorizer. His memory changed. Imam Ahmed said about him: "He was weak and often mistook." Ibn Mo'een said: "His mind was muddled." Ibn Kharash said: "Shu'ba wasn't satisfied with him." Al-Kawsaj mentioned that Ahmed said: "He was very weak." Ibn Habban said: "He concealed when narrating traditions." (2)

Among the oddities of this bad judge -and how many oddities the umma was afflicted with- was that he passed by Abdullah bin Baqtar after the tyrant Obeidillah bin Ziyad had thrown him from above the palace to the ground. The victim was still alive but this merciful (!!!) judge finished him off with his dagger. (3)

Here is another event about this judge, who was the example of the judges of that time. He gave his judgements according to his emotion and fancy! Kulthom bint (4) Saree' came to him, when he was the judge of Kuffa, with a claim against her family. He

____________ 1 Mizanul I'tidal, vol.3 p.96. 2 Dala'il as-Sidq, vol.1 p.45. 3 A'yan ash-Shia, vol.4 p.222. 4 "Bint" means the daughter of and "bin" means the son of.

unthoughtfully judged for her against her family. His judgement was suspected and doubted by people. The poet Huthayl bin Abdullah al-Ashja'iy recited a poem about this event:

Waleed came to him with witnesses, Confirming his right of property and the servants, and Kulthom came to him with her sweet talks, which recovered from illness and madness. Waleed proved his right he was eloquent and disputatious. But she had coquetry and black eyes. She flirted and exposed her kohl. She fascinated al-Qubtiy (1) so he judged for her with other than the judgement of Allah revealed in the Quran. If those in the palace knew his news, they wouldn't employ him in any job. When he judged for women, he glanced furtively. If a woman complained to him, He coughed and hastened to judge for her. He flashed his eyes and chewed his tongue, that he saw everything as nothing save her. (2)

  1. The narrators of the second tradition:

a. The series of the narrators began as usual with this obscure name: ibn Abu Omar!

b. After that came Sufyan ath-Thawri, who we talked about when we discussed the first tradition fabricated against Abu Talib and we found that he was a liar.

  1. As for the narrators of the third tradition, we already talked about them before; they were Muhammad bin Hatim, Yahya bin Sa'eed and Sufyan.

  2. The narrators of the fourth tradition:

a. Abu Bakr bin Abu Shayba: Ath-Thahabi considered

____________ 1 It was the surname of the judge Abdul Melik bin Omayr. Refer to Mizanul I'tidal, vol.2 p.151. 2 Al-Bayan wet-Tebyeen vol.3 p.371.

this name as one of the unknown names. (1) b. We couldn't know who Wakee' was. If he was Wakee' bin aj-Jarrah, then ibn al-Medeeni said about him: "Wakee' often mistook and if I narrated from him, it would be so odd. He often said: Ash-Shi'bi told us from Aa'isha...! (2) Ahmed bin Hanbal was asked: "If Wakee' and Abdur Rahman bin Mehdi disagreed about something, whose saying we would depend upon?" He said: "Abdur Rahman is more fit especially if Sufyan was there." And this tradition was narrated by Wakee' from Sufyan. Ath-Thahabi thought that he might complete the ring of criticism by saying about ibn al-Medeeni in his book at-Tahtheeb: "He had a little thing of Shiism."

This tone of ath-Thahabi was clear in expressing his abominable sectarianism. If he wanted to exaggerated in criticizing someone, he would ascribe him to Shiism, which was considered by him as worse than unbelief and blasphemy. We wouldn't argue with him about this but we wanted to show that he had contradicted himself. If this narrator was not trusty because of his Shiism then why did they depend upon his tradition? If he was really a Shia, this tradition wouldn't be his because it would contradict his actual belief about Abu Talib.

Any how it was not important for us whether he was a Shia or not. It was important for us that the man was untrusted and unreliable for those, who stuck to the tradition of ad-Dhihdhah.

  1. The narrators of the fifth tradition:

a. Qutayba bin Sa'eed: Ath-Thahabi said about him:

____________ 1 Mizanul I'tidal, vol.3 p.395. 2 There were a long period between ash-Shi'bi and Aa'isha.

"No one knew who he was!" (1)

b. Al-Layth: there were many persons having this name. Most of them were either unknown or weak or whose traditions were denied or confused ... etc. If he was al-Layth bin Sa'eed -as the author of Sheikhul Abtah said (2)- then Yahya bin Mo'een said about him: "He took traditions from the old men unthoughtfully and depended upon hearing from this and that." An-Nabatiy mentioned him in his commenting on the book al-Kamil as one of the weak narrators. (3)

c. Yazeed bin Abdullah bin al-Had: Abu Abdullah al-Hadda' mentioned him among those, who were accused of being unreliable. Ibn Mo'een said about him: "He narrated fro every one." (4)

d. Abdullah bin Khabba: aj-Jawzajani said about him: "No one knew him." (5)

  1. The narrators of the sixth tradition:

a. Abu Bakr bin Abu Shayba: we talked about him in the fourth tradition.

b. Affan: who was he?!

He might be Affan bin Muslim because he narrated from Hammad bin Salama and this was mentioned by ath-Thahabi when talking about a tradition of his. It was this one, about whom ibn Adiy said: "... by Allah, if he tried his best to narrate one correct tradition from Shu'ba, he couldn't. He was slow and bad in memorizing and he was slow in perceiving." (6)

____________

! MIzanul I'tidal, vol.2 p.345. 2 Sheikhul Abtah p.75. 3 Mizanul I'tidal, vol.1 p.361, Sheikhul Abtah p.75. 4 Ibid p.314. 5 Ibid vol.2 p.33 6 Ibid vol.2 p.302.

Abu Kaythama said: "We denied (tradition of) Affan some days before his death." (1) c. Hammad bin Salama: Ath-Thahabi said about him that he had illusions. Ibn al-Medeeni said: "Yahya bin ad-Dhareer had ten thousand traditions from Hammad." Amr bin Salama said: "I have written down more than ten thousand traditions from Hammad bin Salama." (2) Did you see this plentifulness of traditions; one said that he had ten thousand traditions and the other said that he had more than ten thousand? It was said that it was not known that Hammad had these traditions until he went to Abadan one day. He began to narrate these traditions. The sayer said: "As if I thought that a Devil came out of the sea and threw these traditions to him (Hammad)."

Ibn ath-Thahabi said: "I heard Abbad bin Shuhayb saying: Hammad didn't memorize (traditions) and it was said that the traditions were inserted in his books. it was said that ibn Abul Awja', who was Hammad's stepson, inserted traditions in his books." (3) It was enough to refute the trustiness and reliability of this man as it was pretended by some ones that ath-Thahabi itself, after praising and defending Hammad, mentioned some of Hammad's traditions violating the exaltedness of Allah the Almighty. He had embodied the Exalted Creator in the ugliest way of embodiment! Glory be to Him, and highly exalted is He above what they ascribe to Him. Hammad narrated a tradition saying: "Thabit narrated that Anass had said: "The Prophet (s) recited: (... but when his Lord manifested His glory to the mountains He made it crumble ...

____________ 1 Mizanul I'tidal, vol.2 p.203. 2 Ibid, vol.1 p.277. 3 Ibid, vol.1 p.478.

Quran 7:143) then He extended the end of His pinkie and hit His thumb then the mountain sank." Hameed at-Taweel said to Thabit: "Do you narrate such things?" He hit Hameed on the chest and said: "Do want me to conceal what Anass and the Prophet (s) have said?" Hammad also narrated a tradition that the Prophet (s) had said: "I saw my God! Curled, beardless and wearing a green garment ... young ... there was a curtain of pearls before Him. His feet and legs were in green ...!" (2)

Ath-Thahabi forgot his previous praise to Hammad when he commented on such traditions by saying: "This is one of the most denied oddities of Hammad bin Salama. It was just a vision of sleep if it was true." (3) Then he said that ibn Adiy had mentioned some of single-narrated traditions of Hammad. Also he mentioned that al-Bukhari had avoided Hammad and hadn't narrated any of his traditions. (4) d. Thabit: we didn't know who he was!

There were many persons having this name; among them there were the liars, the weak, the unknown and those, whose traditions were denied. (5) We didn't know where his place would be among these categories. He might be Thabit bin Abu Thabit, the brother of Habeeb bin Abu Thabit, who was the first one we talked about in discussing this distortion and fabrication against Abu Talib. If it was him, so ath-Thahabi considered him as unknown. (6)

____________ 1 Mizanul I'tidal, vol.1 p.278. 2 Ibid p.228. 3 Ibid p.28. 4 Ibid p.279. 5 Ibid p.168-172. 6 Ibid p.168.

Of course it was him, from whom Hammad bin Salama narrated traditions and it was enough evidence for us to brush him aside that he agreed with Hammad in narrating the tradition that embodied Allah the Almighty. Hence whoever dared to violate the exaltedness of Allah, would definitely not refrain from violating the sanctity of people.

e. Abu Othman an-Nahdi: he was unknown. (1)

  1. The narrators of the seventh tradition:

a. Musaddad: we couldn't know who he was. There was no one with this name in Mizanul I'tidal save al-Musaddad bin Ali, who was not so careful about traditions (2) but we didn't know if he was the same one or another.

b. The rest of the series; Yahya, Sufyan and Abdul Melik. We talked about each of them and knew their situations.

  1. The narrators of the eighth tradition:

a. Abdullah bin Yousuf: if he was Abdullah bin Yousuf at-Taneesiy as the author of Sheikhul Abtah mentioned, then he was considered by ibn Adiy as one of the weak narrators (3) but if he was Abdullah bin Sulayman bin Yousuf, who narrated traditions from al-Layth, then he was not reliable (4) and was suspected. (5) He narrated a tradition about the virtues but it was denied by at-Thahabi (6) and it would be denied by every prudent one.

b. Thus the series of the narrators reached al-Layth and then to the last one of the series we mentioned in the fifth tradition.

____________ 1 Mizanul I'tidal, vol.3 p.370. 2 Ibid p.162. 3 Sheikhul Abtah p.74. 4 Mizanul I'tidal, vol.2 p.89. 5 Ibid p.42. 6 Ibid p.42.

  1. The narrators of the ninth tradition:

a. Ibraheem bin Hamza: we didn't find anything leading to know him. b. Ibn Abu Hazim, whose name was Abdul Azeez; ibn Sayyid an-Nass considered him as not so firm in his traditions as it was mentioned by al-Aqeeli in his book about the weak narrators. It was said that he used to narrate from his father but the books he had were not of his father. It was said that the books of Sulayman bin Bilal became with him and that Sulayman didn't know that he distorted them.

Al-Fallas said: "I haven't found ibn Mehdi narrating even a single tradition from ibn Abu Hazim."

Ahmed bin Hanbal said: "It was not known that he cared for traditions. It was said that he was weak except in his father's traditions." Ibn al-Madeeni said: "Hatim bin Isma'eel often criticized him about some traditions, which he narrated from his father. Hatim said to me: I forbade him from that but he paid no attention." (1)

c. Ad-Daraward, whose name was Abdul Azeez bin Muhammad: (2) Imam Ahmed said about him: "If he narrated out of his memory, he would imagine. He was nothing. When he narrated traditions, he told of false things." Abu Hatim said: "No one depended upon him." Abu Zar'a said: "He was a bad memorizer." (3)

d. Yazeed: we didn't know who he was. If he was Yazeed bin Kayssan, we knew him previously. He was not reliable and no one depended upon him.

____________ 1 MIzanul I'tidal, vol.2 p.135. 2 Sheikhul Abtah p.75. 3 MIzanul I'tidal, vol.2 p.137, 139.

A Look at the Tradition

This round we did about the narrators of the tradition didn't leave for us a bit of trust in them so that we might accept any tradition narrated by any of them. We found in every series a group of liars, weak narrators, malicious men, unknown persons and those, whom we couldn't find anything about. If we found something unacceptable in one of the narrators of the tradition, we wouldn't trust in the tradition at all, so how about it when all the members of the series were suspected and doubted especially when the tradition was about the faithfulness of the man, who supported and defended Islam?

There were other sides that made us not trust in this tradition and brush it aside even if its narrators were trusty ... so how would it be where the narrators were liars or unknown persons and the tradition was false? Here we discuss the other sides that confirmed the invalidity of the tradition: 1. There was a contradiction in the text of the tradition that made the meaning different from one narration to another. In some narration we found that the pretended answer of the Prophet (s) was: "Yes, he is in a shallowness of Fire and without me (without my intercession) he will be in the lowest bottom of Hell."

This showed that the intercession of the Prophet (s) was immediate and that it actually occurred. This appeared clearer in the second way of the tradition: "Yes, I found him in the deepest bottom of fire and I took him out to shallowness." We didn't know why the Prophet (s) hadn't completed his favor upon his uncle whereas he had the power to take him out of the lowest bottom of Hell to a shallow place! Why did the Prophet (s) leave his favor uncompleted?

Al-Mutanabbi, the poet, said:

I haven't seen among the defects of people something worse than a shortage in a favor of those who are able to complete it.

The Prophet (s) was the perfect ideal example of mankind and he was chosen by Allah to perfect the morals and nobilities and it was him, who had been educated by his God so perfectly! Would he then leave his favors uncompleted? Some ways of the tradition said: "... my intercession may benefit him in the Day of Resurrection." This wording just showed a kind of praying. The linguists said that it had the meaning of "hoping" that the Prophet (s) hoped that the intercession might benefit his uncle. It might benefit him and it might not. If it was supposed that it would benefit, then it would be delayed until the Day of Resurrection!

Some other ways of the tradition said: "The least tortured one among the people of Hell is Abu Talib where he wears two shoes, from which his brain boils." This didn't show that he was the least tortured one among the people of Hell because of an intercession that interceded for him or because that he deserved the least torture among the tortured in Hell.

How would it be possible for an unbeliever to be the least tortured one among the people of Hell? Was unbelieving easier than disobedience or committing a sin to be said that this one would be tortured less than that one? Then was that the least torment among the people of Hell? Did it have a thing of rest and comfort? Was this torment easy where it would make "his brain" flow over his feet"? (1)

____________ 1 As-Seera an-Nabawiyya, vol.1 p.84.

This saying contradicted the other that was said by someone, who justified this torture by saying that Allah would concentrate the torture on Abu Talib's feet because he (Abu Talib) had fixed them on his old religion and so the punishment would conform to the guilt. (1) If the torture would be concentrated upon his feet only, then why would his brain boil, melt and flow over his feet? Was his brain an eternal spring that wouldn't be empty?

O Allah! We seek Your protection against this silliness and superstition!

  1. How would the Prophet (s) intercede for his uncle, who was unfaithful -as they pretended- whereas he had been forbidden from less than this according to the Quranic verses, because intercession was much greater than being loving or kind to the unfaithful people?

What was the reason behind the Prophet's intercession for his uncle if he was forbidden from doing that?

Was the reason that because his uncle had supported him and his mission?

Then what made his uncle do that? And what made the Prophet (s) accept this support from an unfaithful man whereas the Prophet (s) himself had said: "O Allah! Don't make a dissolute or an unbeliever have a chance of getting my kindness"?

What made the Prophet (s) intercede for his uncle -if he was unfaithful- whereas there were many Quranic verses confirming that unfaithful people would be perpetuated in Hell for ever, wouldn't get the mercy of Allah at all, their punishment wouldn't be lessened and no intercession would benefit them?

Here are some of the verse

____________ 1 As-Seera an-Nabawiyya, vol.l.1 p.84.

a. (Abiding in it; their chastisement shall not be lightened nor shall they be given respite) 2:162, 3:88.

b. (These are they who buy the life of this world for the hereafter, so their chastisement shall not be lightened nor shall they be helped) 2:86.

c. (And leave those who have taken their religion for a play and an idle sport, and whom this world's life has deceived, and remind (them) thereby lest a soul should be given up to destruction for what it has earned; it shall not have besides Allah any guardian nor an intercessor, and if it should seek to give every compensation, it shall not be accepted from it; there are they who shall be given up to destruction for what they earned; they shall have a drink of boiling water and a painful chastisement because they disbelieved) 6:70.

d. (And when those who are unjust shall see the chastisement, it shall not be lightened for them, nor shall they be respited) 16:85.

e. (And (as for) those who disbelieve, for them is the fire of hell; it shall not be finished with them entirely so that they should die, nor shall the chastisement thereof be lightened to them; even thus do We retribute every ungrateful one) 35:36.

f. (And those who are in the fire shall say to the keepers of hell: Call upon you Lord that He may lighten to us one day of the punishment. They shall say: Did not your messenger come to you with clear arguments? They shall say: Yea. They shall say: Then call. And the call of the unbelievers is only in error) 40:49-50.

g. (in gardens, they shall ask each other the guilty: What has brought you into hell? They shall say: What were not of those who prayed; and we used not to feed the poor; and we used to enter into vain discourse with those who entered into vain discourse and we used to call the day of judgement a lie; till death overtook us, so the intercession of intercessors shall not avail them) 74:40-48.

h. (And warn them of the day that draws near, when hearts shall rise up to the throats, grieving inwardly; the unjust shall not have any compassionate friend nor any intercessor who should be obeyed) 40:18.

i. There is a prophetic tradition saying: "When the people of Paradise enter into Paradise and the people of Hell enter into Hell, a caller stands up between them

calling: O people of Hell! No death is here. O people of Paradise! No death is here. It is eternality!" (1) j. Another tradition saying: "It is said to the people of Paradise: Eternality ... no death! And it is said to the people of Hell: O people of Hell! Eternality ... no death!" (2)

The mentioned above verses and prophetic traditions confirmed that the unbelievers would remain in the abasing torment for ever and that the torment wouldn't be lightened for the unbelievers even for a moment because intercession would include them. 3. This tradition (of ad-Dhihdhah) -besides the contradiction in its text and the contradiction with the Quranic verses, which denied interceding for the unbelievers, contradicted the tradition fabricated against Abu Talib when he was dying; the tradition, which was discussed in details in the previous chapter of this book.

So the tradition of ad-Dhihdhah and that of the dying of Abu Talib were contradicted and they couldn't be depended upon even if the narrators were reliable.

In spite of that, we found that some of the narrators of the tradition of the dying of Abu Talib participated in narrating the tradition of ad-Dhihdhah. The two traditions were contradicted whether in the text or in the meaning, so how did the narrators narrate two contradicted traditions?

Ibn Abu Omar, Muhammad bin Hatim and Yahya bin Sa'eed might forget, when narrating the next tradition, what they had fabricated in the previous one! They forgot that a liar had to have a good share of memory lest he would be involved in what they had been involved in of such contradicted falsehood in order that their ill -will wouldn't be uncovered so easily. But in any case, this would be the end of every falsehood and

____________ 1 Al-Bukhari's Sahih vol.4 p.84. 2 Ibid.

fabrication!

They mentioned in the tradition of the dying of Abu Talib that the Prophet (s) had asked his uncle to declare the shahada so that the Prophet (s) would witness for him with it in the Day of Resurrection and then he would deserve intercession. (1) they said that he hadn't declared shahada. According to their tradition, they considered declaring shahada as the condition for deserving intercession and so Abu Talib wouldn't deserve intercession without declaring shahada.

Therefore they didn't say that the Prophet (s) interceded for his uncle but they said that he prayed Allah to forgive him until Allah forbade him from doing that and made him know that he mistook all that time when he begged forgiveness for his uncle in spite of that there were many verses revealed to him forbidding him from that.

Then they said that the Prophet (s) had interceded immediately for his uncle without declaring shahada when saying: "Yes! I found him in the lowest bottom of Fire but I took him out to a shallow place." So how did the Prophet (s) interceded for his uncle, who hadn't declared shahada, if intercession was conditioned on declaring shahada? Had Abu Talib declared shahada or he hadn't?

If Abu Talib hadn't declared it as they said in the tradition of his dying, then how would the Prophet (s) intercede for him whereas the Quranic verses had confirmed that intercession would never include the unbelievers nor would their torment be lightened? But if he had declared shahada, then the meaning of the tradition of the dying wouldn't limit lightening the ____________ 1 Al-Ghadeer, vol.7 p.370-371 from two sources, vol.8 p.24 from six sources.