|
[Are there] rafidah narrators in the ahlal sunna texts ?
With regard to the title of this thread let it be said right away that
there are no Rafidis in the Hadith compilations of the Sunni Masters.
i am tempted to this post this as a follow up to a comment about the
views
of certain ahlal sunna authorities on the Shi'i.
I wish you had resisted the temptation. Discussing hadith transmission is
not a Shiʿa forte and fosters many misconceptions which then have to be
cleaned up.
The reader will notice the term Rafidi every now and then in the
following
biographies. The Sunni scholars generally define a Rafidi as a Shi'ah
who
openly criticizes or rejects the legitimacy of the Caliphs before 'Ali
(a).
I.e. one who disparages and violates the Consensus of the Companions. I
find it useful at this point - unfortunately - to remind the readers of
the pains taken by the pious Sunni Salaf in defining the status of the
Rafidis Shiʿa with a clear conscience. For truly, as ʿUmar said, you
cannot swindle a Believer.
1. Rafidi = "He who insults Abu Bakr and ʿUmar" (Imam Ahmad)
2. Rafidi = "Whoever disrespects the Two Shaykhs [Abu Bakr and ʿUmar]
while accepting the validity of their imamate." (al-Dhahabi)
3. Extreme Rafidis = "those who not only insult the two Shaykhs - Abu Bakr
and ʿUmar, Allah be well-pleased with them - but also reject the validity
of their imamate." (al-Dhahabi)
4. Al-Tabari considers Rafidis kafir and al-Shafiʿi forbade praying behind
them.
5. According to some Hanafis, to insult the two Shaykhs (Abu Bakr and
ʿUmar) constitutes disbelief (kufr). BUT the claim that Abu Hanifa
declared Shiʿis Kafir is a lie.
6. Cursing the Companions deserves corporeal punishment according to the
vast majority, while according to some of the Malikis and Hanafis the
offender is (to be) executed.
7. To insult the Companions is a "major grave indecency" (al-Nawawi)
8. Rafidis have nothing to do with the moderate Shiʿis of the pious Salaf.
9. To prefer ʿAli to ʿUthman is neither Rafd (rejectionism) nor a bidʿa
(heretical innovation), for several of the Companions and Successors did.
...
'Abbad b. Ya'qub al-Rawajini (died 250 AH)
Sahih Bukhari [kitab al-tawhid] Sahih al-Tirmidhi [kitab al-manaqib]
Sunan
Ibn Majah [kitab ma ja' fi al-jana'iz]
He was a trustworthy Rafidi and his hadith is in (Sahih of) al-Bukhari.
[Ibn
Hajar al-'Asqalani, Taqrib al-Tahdhib, under "'Abbad b. Ya'qub
al-Rawajani"]
The term Ibn Hajar used is saduq. I would translate saduq not as
"trustworthy," which I reserve for thiqa - a higher grade than saduq -,
but "truthful" or "reliable" as you yourself quote below.
Abu Hatim said: He was a shaykh, reliable. Ibn 'Adi said: He used to
denounce the Salaf. In him was extremism of Shi'ism. Salih b. Muhammad
said: He used to denounce 'Uthman. I heard him saying, "Allah is more
just
than that he would admit Talhah and al-Zubayr into heaven after they paid
allegiance to 'Ali and then fought him." Ibn Hibban said: He was a Rafidi
inviting (others to his belief). He narrated this hadith �, "If you see
Mu'awiyah on my pulpit, kill him!" [Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani, Tahdhib
al-Tahdhib, under "'Abbad b. Ya'qub al-Rawajani"]
You should have also quoted from IH that this ʿAbbad used to say in
public "ʿAli dug out the seas of the world and al-Husayn caused them
to flow"! Ibn Hajar also narrates from al-Khatib that Ibn Khuzayma stopped
narrating from ʿAbbad. And you may know that Ibn Khuzayma, like Sufyan
al-Thawri, prefers ʿAli to ʿUthman (see e.g. Lisan al-Mizan 1:78), so the
reason he stopped was not the acceptable, moderate Shiʿism of preferring
ʿAli to ʿUthman but the unacceptable Rafidism of attacking Abu Bakr and
ʿUmar.
Concerning the quotes of Ali Zahra and other Shiʿi contributors on the
question of ʿAbbad ibn Yaʿqub from Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (5:95), of the
words:
(1) "Narrated from him, al-Bukhari, al-Tirmidhi..."; (2) "Ibn 'Adi: He
used to denounce the Salaf. " (3) Ibn Hibban: He was a Rafidi inviting
(others to his belief). These translations - I am sorry to say - bear the
now-familiar stamp of Shiʿi light-handedness. For the original actually
states:
(1) "Narrated from him: al-Bukhari - a single hadith, and coupled with
another chain, - al-Tirmidhi..." etc. The answer to the Shiʿis is in these
additions that they usualy avoid to mention. Furthermore, what al-Bukhari
took is a hadith that has nothing to do with his politics or his Rafidism,
just as the rest of his narrations in the other Sunni compilations.
(2) "Ibn ʿAdi: He used to insult (yashtum) the Salaf." I suppose
"denounce" sounds noble whereas "insult" is ignominious, but "yashtum" can
hardly be translated other than as "insult" or "curse." And the Salaf here
include Abu Bakr and ʿUmar, so this fits the above definitions of Rafidis.
(3) Ibn Hibban: "He was a Rafidi inviting others to his belief and, on top
of that, narrating denounced reports from well-established authorities and
so he deserves to be abandoned [as a narrator]."
'Abd al-Malik b. A'yan al-Kufi
Sahih al-Bukhari [kitab al-tawhid] Sahih Muslim [kitab al-'iman] Sahih
al-Tirmidhi [kitab tafsir al-Qur'an] Sunan al-Nasa'i [kitab al-'iman wa
al-nudhur] Sunan Abu Dawud [kitab al-buyu'] Sunan Ibn Majah [kitab
al-zakah]
All together, the above narrate a total of THREE hadiths through him
through six chains and, in Bukhari and Muslim's cases, only as
*corroborative chains* not as stand-alone! Finally, none of these hadiths
bear on doctrine.
He was Rafidi Shi'i, one of (the people of) opinion. [Abu Ja'far
al-'Uqayli,
Du'afa al-'Uqayli, under "'Abd al-Malik b. A'yan"]
He was Rafidi, reliable (saduq). [Al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-Kamal, under "'Abd
al-Malik b. A'yan"]
Al-'Ijli said: He was from Kufah, a Tabi'i (Successor), reliable. Sufyan
said: 'Abd al-Malik b. 'A'yan the Shi'i narrated to us, he was a Rafidi
to
us, a man of opinion. Hamid said: Those three brothers, 'Abd al-Malik,
Zurarah, and Hamran were Rawafid all of them. Abu Hatim said: He was one
of
the earliest to embrace Shi'ism, (he was) on the position of
truthfulness,
having good traditions, and his traditions are written. [Ibn Hajar
al-'Asqalani, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, under "'Abd al-Malik b. A'yan"]
It is funny that in the first instance you quote Ibn Hajar's Taqrib but
not in the second. This is because the Taqrib is Ibn Hajar's final word
and, in this case, it does not suit you. The final word on ʿAbd al-Malik
ibn Aʿyan is that he is "saduq shiʿi" (Taqrib 1:362 #4164), a truthful
shiʿi, - most likely weak ("daʿif", cf. Tahrir Taqrib al-Tahdhib 2:379
#4164)- but *not* a Rafidi.
So the most accurate opinion of those cited by Ibn Hajar in the Tahdhib
then retained by him in the Taqrib is that of Abu Hatim al-Razi, except
that it is typically mistranslated in a way that cajoles Shiʿi illusions.
The correct translation is not "He was one of the earliest to embrace
Shi'ism, (he was) on the position of truthfulness, having good traditions,
and his traditions are written" but "He was one of
the early Shiʿis [=moderate], he can be considered reliable [as a
narrator] (mahalluhu al-sidq = less than saduq), he is passable in his
traditions (salih al-hadith), and his hadiths are written."
The expression "his hadiths are written" in the terminology of hadith
scholars means: they should not be discarded but retained as
corroborations of other chains, not as independent reports.
'Abd al-Razzaq al-San'ani (died 211 AH)
This Shaykh from whom al-Bukhari narrated is also an example of a moderate
Shiʿi, NOT a Rafidi. BTW it is related that when AR wanted to leave Sanʿa
the people were depressed at losing this great ʿAlim from their city. One
of them advised in their Shura: "Put chains on him." So they married him
off to a beautiful lady.
confident that this will invite comments,
You should have included Imam al-Nasa'i and Imam al-Hakim, they were both
also accused of (moderate) Shiʿism. Imam al-Nasa'i actually died - Allah
have mercy on him - from a savage beating at the hands of some Nasibis
(haters of ʿAli).
The rule of the hadith masters was to accept the narration of
innovators - even Rafidis if they are not considered disbelievers - on one
condition: _that their narration has nothing to do with promoting their
innovation_.
There may be other reasons for acceptance. For example: the Kharijis'
narrations were accepted because according to Kharijis themselves, lying
entails kufr. The hadith scholars took this into consideration to conclude
that it was highly improbable or nearly impossible that a Khariji narrator
lie. If he also happened to have accuracy (dabt), That made them
trustworthy (thiqa) as a narrator of this or that particular narration.
There are, as a rule, *no Rafidis* among the narrators of Sunni hadith
compilations, except within the narrow parameters seen in the case of
al-Rawajini whom you cited. As for your example of 'Abd al-Malik b. A'yan
al-Kufi, it supports the opposite of what you claim. You live and you
learn.
Back in September of last year I gave up on a discussion thread entitled
"Re: 100 Shi'ite Narrators of Hadeeth Relied Upon By The Sunnites" with
someone who was also keen on "inviting comments," by the name of
shams_tabriz@hotmail.com. Evidently you and he used the same website to
toss up this salad - alas - for the purposes of confusion and
misrepresentation.
Hajj Gibril
GF Haddad ©
[2000-07-18]
| 
