The Validation by the People of the Sunnah of the Killer of the Prophet’s Grandson, and of Ibn Ḥiṭṭān — and Their Hostility toward Imam al-Ṣādiq, with a Rebuttal
A Discussion in Rijāl Criticism, Theology, and the Ethics of Transmission
They validated the killer of al-Ḥusayn and the praiser of his assassin — and rejected the Imam whose excellence was proclaimed by the Quran itself. The author documents this double standard with precision, marshalling the admissions of their own scholars against them.
The killer of al-Ḥusayn and the eulogist of Ibn Muljam — both men of al-Bukhārī
It suffices you that among the men they validate and entrust — by their own claim — with bearing the Sunnah, is ʿUmar ibn Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ: the commander of the army that killed the Master of the Youth of Paradise, the grandson of the Messenger of God and his cherished one — may God’s blessings and peace be upon him and his household.
Al-Sayyid Ṣārim al-Dīn (peace be upon him) said in ʿUlūm al-Ḥadīth:1 The ḥadīth scholars have adulterated their books by including the enemies of the household (peace be upon them) — venerating them, approving of them, and validating them — to the point that some had the audacity to validate ʿUmar ibn Saʿd, the killer of al-Ḥusayn (peace be upon him).
Al-ʿIjlī said of him: A trustworthy Successor-generation scholar; the people transmitted from him.
And it is stated in Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb:1 The people transmitted from him; he is a trustworthy Successor-generation scholar — and he is the one who killed al-Ḥusayn. End of quote verbatim; mentioned by the scholar Ibn ʿAqīl.2
Among them also: ʿImrān ibn Ḥiṭṭān al-Khārijī — one of the heads of those who broke out of the religion, among the worst of creation, among the dogs of the Fire, the one who praised the most wretched of the latter peoples, Ibn Muljam, the killer of the Master of the Trustees (may God be pleased with him).3 And this tyrannical, rebellious, apostate hypocrite is among al-Bukhārī’s men — those who meet his standard and from whom he transmitted in his Ṣaḥīḥ. In the mention of these two rebellious figures there is sufficient proof without needing to cite others: take heed and weep.
Their own ḥāfiẓ, Ibn Ḥajar, testified against them in his introduction, acknowledging that they generally validate Nāṣibī narrators and unconditionally undermine Shīʿī ones. He said: Especially given that it has been transmitted regarding ʿAlī: “None loves him but a believer, and none hates him but a hypocrite.”4
Avoided in transmission, attacked in character
This is in addition to the fact that al-Bukhārī avoided transmitting from the masters of the household of Muḥammad (peace be upon them), such as Imam Zayd ibn ʿAlī, and Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq, and ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Ḥasan al-Kāmil, and their like (peace be upon them).1
And he applied to the transmission chain of Uways al-Qaranī — the Master of the Successor generation, who was martyred alongside the Master of the Trustees at Ṣiffīn2 — the expression: “there is something to be examined.”3
Al-Ṣādiq’s thumbnail outweighs a hundred of the likes of al-Bukhārī
How well said is this poem:†
A matter most resembling calamity —
this al-Bukhārī, Imam of the faction:
the Truthful One, the Confirmed by others, he did not use
in his Ṣaḥīḥ, yet used the Murjiʾite;
and the like of ʿImrān ibn Ḥiṭṭān, or
Marwān, or the son of the erring woman —
a blemished problem, driving the minds
of the people of reason to perplexity!
By the right of a House toward which all people journey,
hastening in their pace, or moving slow —
the chosen, truthful Imam, of whose excellence
the verses came as heralds —
a single clipping from his thumbnail
outweighs a hundred of the likes of al-Bukhārī.
— Al-Sayyid al-ʿAllāma Abū Bakr ibn Shihāb al-Ḥusaynī†Thus the fair-minded person understands that they attempted to close off the channels for bearing the Sunnah from the Companions of the Book — and whoever among those they could speak against, they seized upon, belittled, and showed no shame before God Almighty or before the grandfather of those they maligned, the Messenger of God; and they showed no fear of God regarding the most excellent of his close kindred — just as they supposedly showed that fear — by their own claim — regarding the most contemptible of his Companions.
“You shall come to know, O Arwā, which religion you have pledged yourself to, and which creditor among creditors is yours when the debt is called in.”
Mujālid is more preferable to me than him
Al-Sayyid Ṣārim al-Dīn (peace be upon him) said in ʿUlūm al-Ḥadīth, known as al-Falak al-Dawwār,3 regarding the statement of Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān — the teacher of the teachers of both al-Bukhārī and Muslim — concerning the Imam of the household of Muḥammad, Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq ibn Muḥammad al-Bāqir (peace be upon them):
“Mujālid is more preferable to me than him.”
Ṣārim al-Dīn comments: This statement indicates that al-Qaṭṭān was among the Nāṣibīs of Basra of the ʿUthmānī persuasion. Had the client of Tamīm been granted success, he would not have belittled this great Imam. And if this is what their own ḥāfiẓ said about al-Ṣādiq, what do you suppose was said about others? I myself once said:
Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd sought to diminish you, O Jaʿfar,
and said of you words that left all ears deaf.
And I see the client of Tamīm blind
to the path of truth.
Nāṣibī zealotry overcame him,
and so he fell to wandering in delusion.
He reversed the scales of preference
when the wretched man lost all understanding.
O sons of the Chosen One — may no one
who sought to diminish and blame you be held sacred.
The victor is only he who followed you
in war and in peace.
And your enemy is wretched,
attaining neither knowledge nor forbearance —
and tomorrow he shall be gathered with those
who denied the martyred one water,2
Upon whom God’s wrath descended,
and they were burned with fire and guilt.
— Al-Sayyid Ṣārim al-Dīn (peace be upon him)3A partisan of the household — and his ancestor’s rebuke to Muʿāwiya
This Mujālid is among the partisans of the household of Muḥammad (peace be upon them); yet they attacked him for precisely that reason. Thus preferring him over al-Ṣādiq is a tremendous injustice. He is Mujālid ibn Saʿīd ibn al-Mujālid al-Hamdānī. Of the last-mentioned Mujālid, the author of al-Iklīl, al-Ḥasan ibn Aḥmad al-Hamdānī, said in his tenth volume:4 Al-Mujālid ibn Dhī Marrān — and he is the one who said to Muʿāwiya when he perceived the deception of Muʿāwiya and that of ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ upon the people regarding the blood of ʿUthmān:
O son of Hind, you have burdened yourself with a matter
in which you have transgressed, and your companions spoke falsehood.
For ʿAmr, and ʿUtba when they aided you,
and Marwān, and al-Walīd, and Busr —
If they were to taste what they have perpetrated,
they would find the taste of those words bitter.
And by my life, though they reviled him —
he is the most radiant of stars in purity.2
For him hearts took flight when the brown spears
amid the dust were reckoned as embers.
A horseman who strikes the battle ranks with his sword
ceaselessly, and thrusts at the people slantwise.
He witnessed the Conquest, and al-Naḍīr, and Uḥud,
and Ḥunayn, and Khaybar, and then Badr.3
And his is the greatest account at Qurayẓa,
when the cavalries were driven back shattered.
And his is the declaration of allegiance over the people
at Khumm4 — and those words were proclaimed aloud.
Then the Day of Disavowal — he was sent with the revelation,
and this man is among the greatest in worth.
Not like one who sold his religion — the most ruinous of sales —
in Egypt, and one who gulped down wine.5
And Abū al-Awar the wretched, and Marwān,
and Busr — they all shared the affair with ʿAmr.
— Al-Mujālid ibn Dhī Marrān al-Hamdānī, cited in al-IklīlHe said: Mujālid was a jurist and a scholar. Mujālid fathered Saʿīd, who was a jurist, a horseman, and a champion — killed by Shabīb al-Ḥarūrī in the days of al-Ḥajjāj. Saʿīd then fathered Mujālid, who is also a jurist.
I say: This shows that al-Hamdānī, the author of al-Iklīl, was not wholly averse to the household — otherwise he would not have transmitted this and other accounts from the biography of al-Hādī (peace be upon him) and his descendants, in whose era he lived. It also shows that the Hamdānī disposition resists turning away from the household of Muḥammad (peace be upon them), regardless of who its bearer may be. Mujālid ibn Saʿīd was a learned, distinguished scholar, among the trustworthy ḥadīth scholars of the Shīʿa.
Even he conceded that al-Qaṭṭān had slipped
Al-Dhahabī himself condemned al-Qaṭṭān’s statement — so what of anyone else?!
Al-Sayyid Ṣārim al-Dīn (peace be upon him) said:1 Al-Dhahabī said:2
“This is among the slips of al-Qaṭṭān — indeed, the scholars of this discipline have unanimously agreed that Jaʿfar is more trustworthy than Mujālid, and they paid no attention to Yaḥyā’s statement.”
And in the words of their own ḥāfiẓ concerning the truthful one of the Prophet’s progeny — their scholar, their Imam, and the son of their Imam — there is evidence enough that spares the need for elaboration.
The following footnotes are editorial additions accompanying the text and are not the author’s own words.
“He himself is not accused of wrongdoing — but he took direct part in fighting al-Ḥusayn and did what he did.”And yet he is described as not accused of wrongdoing. If you marvel at this, O reader, then marvel at al-Dhahabī’s words at the end of his Mīzān, where he said:
“I take refuge in God from partiality and caprice — for I do not know myself to have intentionally pursued either in this Mīzān.”
“It would have been more appropriate to assign the weakness to Ṣāliḥ or someone after him, for ʿImrān is truthful in himself. Al-ʿIjlī said: A trustworthy Successor-generation scholar. And Abū Dāwūd said: There are none among the people of deviant sects with sounder ḥadīth than the Khārijīs — and he mentioned ʿImrān ibn Ḥiṭṭān.”Ibn Ḥajar gave him a biography in Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb (8/108), no. 5365, and said in al-Taqrīb: “Truthful, though he adhered to the Khārijī doctrine.”
The following footnotes are editorial additions accompanying the text and are not the author’s own words.
“He has no corroboration on his ḥadīth.”Al-Dhahabī cited this from him in Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl (3/591). Their great ḥadīth scholar Abū ʿAwāna went so far as to accuse the Pure Soul Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdullāh and his brother the Virtuous Soul Ibrāhīm (may God’s blessings be upon them both) of being Khārijīs — may God protect them from that. Ibn Ḥajar cited this in Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb (9/218). Abū Dāwūd said:
“What an evil thing he said — this is the view of the Zaydīs.”Likewise they spoke against Imam Mūsā ibn ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Ḥasan, to the point that al-Bukhārī said: “There is something to be examined in him” — cited by al-Dhahabī in Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl (4/211). Some went further: Ibn Ḥajar cites in his Tahdhīb (2/93) that Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd was directly asked about Imam al-Ṣādiq’s ḥadīth and replied: “I do not want it” — yet then added: “But he was a precise memoriser.” Al-Dhahabī, in his abridgement of al-Ḥākim’s Mustadrak, spoke against Imam al-Ḥusayn ibn Zayd ibn ʿAlī — the worshipping, ascetic one surnamed Dhū al-Damʿa — regarding a ḥadīth with the chain: Ḥusayn ibn Zayd → ʿUmar ibn ʿAlī → Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad → his father → ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn → his father → ʿAlī, that the Prophet ﷺ said to Fāṭima:
“God is angered by your anger, and is pleased by your pleasure.”Al-Ḥākim declared its chain sound; al-Dhahabī said: “Rather, Ḥusayn ibn Zayd is of objectionable ḥadīth.” Al-Dhahabī also said of Imam al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī al-Fakhkhī in Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ (7/443): “The one killed at the Battle of Fakhkh — a man of little good.” And in Tārīkh al-Islām (10/36): “Al-Ḥusayn was killed in the battle, and God gave relief from him.”
“Al-Bukhārī said: A Yamānī, of the Murād tribe — there is something to be examined in his transmission chain in what he narrates. Al-Bukhārī also said in al-Ḍuʿafāʾ: There is something to be examined in his chain — referring to transmission from Uways in that chain.”Al-Dhahabī comments:
“Had al-Bukhārī not mentioned Uways in his al-Ḍuʿafāʾ, I would not have mentioned him at all — for he is among God’s truthful saints, and the man never transmitted anything that could be used to weaken or authenticate him.”See also: al-Iṣāba of Ibn Ḥajar (1/219), no. 500.
The following footnotes are editorial additions accompanying the text and are not the author’s own words.
“Al-Aṣmaʿī, Abū ʿUbayda, Ibn al-Kalbī, and others used to say: al-Walīd ibn ʿUqba was a libertine and a drinker of wine.”His accounts regarding drinking wine and carousing with Abū Zubayd al-Ṭāʾī are many. See also: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, no. 4457; Musnad Aḥmad (2/95), nos. 1184 and 1229 — both with sound chains according to Shaykh Shākir.
The following footnotes are editorial additions accompanying the text and are not the author’s own words.
The following footnotes are editorial additions accompanying the text and are not the author’s own words.
Lawāmiʿ al-Anwār fī Jawāmiʿ al-ʿUlūm wa-l-Āthār (Radiant Lights in the Compendium of Sciences and Traditions), by Majd al-Dīn ibn Muḥammad al-Muʾayyidī (d. 1428 AH). Chapter: The Validation by the People of the Sunnah of the Killer of the Prophet’s Grandson, and of Ibn Ḥiṭṭān — and Their Hostility toward Imam al-Ṣādiq, with a Rebuttal.