The third and fourth Shi’a tradition

For once, Answering-Ansar actually makes the attempt of addressing the Isnad. It should be noted that Answering-Ansar only attempted to weaken Hisham ibn Salim in the first and second narrations, but then they failed in this task because I showed how Al-Islam.org called Hisham ibn Salim an “authority” figure of Hadith. Thus, I have established that the first two narrations are Sahih, and this would be enough to conclude the debate since the third and fourth narrations are simply redundant and reinforce the first two Hadith.

Having said that, let us examine the haphazard attempt made by Answering-Ansar in casting doubt on the third and fourth narrations.

I opened up Allamah Hilli’s book, and far from calling him “aam”, Allamah Hilli actually calls Humayd ibn Ziyad an “aalim” (scholar). In fact, we find that Allamah Hilli also says that Humayd ibn Ziyad is “Thiqah” (trustworthy) on page 129 of “al-Khulasah” by Allamah Hilli (the same book quoted by Answering-Ansar). He also cites the opinion of Najashi who declared Humayd ibn Ziyad to be “Thiqah.”

This is a blatant lie of Answering-Ansar when they claim that Allamah Hilli deemed Humayd ibn Ziyad to be a non-Shia. In fact, we ask our readers to actually open up the book that Answering-Ansar cited and we find that it is filled with praises of Humayd and calls him an “aalim” and not a non-Shia at all.

As Answering-Ansar grudgingly admitted, Humayd ibn Ziyad was the teacher of Imam Al-Kulayni. So how then can Answering-Ansar claim that Humayd was a Sunni? That is non-sensical. Answering-Ansar has tried to justify this by claiming that Imam Bukhari was taught by Shia scholars. But no knowledgeable or rational person can accept this proposition. Yes, there are some Sunnis who believe that Jafar as-Sadiq might have taught Imam Bukhari, but all Sunnis believe that Imam Jafar was Sunni! We revere Jafar as-Sadiq just like we revere Ali ibn abi Talib. The Shia believe that the Prophet, Ali, Fatima, Hasan, Hussain, Muhammad Baqir, Jafar as-Sadiq, Salman Al-Farsi, and many others were Shia, but this is something that a Sunni would never accept! All of these individuals were Sunni, and this is why we find there to be no problem with Imam Jafar teaching Imam Bukhari if indeed he did. The Shia claiming that Jafar as-Sadiq was Shia is just like they claim that Ali ibn Abi Talib was Shia.

It is inconceivable that the teacher of Imam Kulayni was Sunni, or that the teacher of Imam Bukhari was Shia. Therefore, the fact that Humayd ibn Ziyad was the teacher of Imam Al-Kulayni negates Answering-Ansar’s claims that he was a Sunni. If Answering-Ansar could find even one place in which Humayd ibn Ziyad is properly condemned as a non-Shia, then surely they would have provided it. The one source they cite is a lie, for Allamah Hullee praised Humayd ibn Ziyad and called him an “aalim.”

The truth is that Humayd ibn Ziyad was the teacher of Imam Al-Kulayni, and this just shows how immensely reliable he is to the Shia. If he was a reliable enough source for Imam Al-Kulayni, then surely he should be reliable enough for Answering-Ansar. We find that no reliable Shia book of Rijal questions Humayd ibn Ziyad.

To completely end all debate on this issue, we find that Al-Islam.org affirms the reliability of Humayd ibn Ziyad and narrates a Hadith (which is considered Sahih) via him. Based on the narrators, an Isnad can be deemed as munqati’ (broken) or muttasil (continuous). Ibn al-Salah defines a Sahih Hadith by saying: “A Sahih Hadith is the one which has a continuous (muttasil) Isnad.” It should also be noted that this is Ayatollah Khomeini’s work “Forty Hadith” translated in English on Al-Islam.org; this in itself is enough to confirm that Humayd ibn Ziyad is considered reliable, because–as Ayatollah Khomeini clearly said–his book “Forty Hadith” contains only Sahih Hadith “narrated through the Prophet and his Ahl al-Bayt.”

We see that this is another evidence in support of the claim that Humayd is considered reliable by the Shia. Why would Humayd ibn Ziyad be reliable enough that the above Hadith from Al-Islam.org could be considered Sahih, but suddenly another Hadith cannot be Sahih based on the same Humayd ibn Ziyad? And more importantly, Ayatollah Khomeini’s famous book “Forty Hadith” only contains Sahih Hadith with reliable chains of transmission. Therefore, there is no way that Answering-Ansar can doubt Humayd ibn Ziyad, unless they doubt the words of Ayatollah Khomeini who was the sole representative of the Hidden Imam.

Here, the kids at Answering-Ansar decided to become scholars themselves and declare one of their most reliable narrators of Hadith to be unreliable and even outside the folds of Shi’ism. In fact, there is no such reliable report about Hisham ibn Salim believing in the idea that “you could see Allah.” The report that Hisham ibn Salim said anything of this sort was deemed false by the Grand Ayatollah of the Shia. Let us see what the Grand Ayatollah Al-Khoei has to say on Hisham ibn Salim (instead of the Answering-Ansar high school and college students).

In “Mujam Rijal Al-Hadith” (Vol.20, p.325), Grand Ayatollah Al-Khoei said with regards to Hisham bin Salim:

Al-Khoei related the narration by which Hisham has been criticized in Rijjal Al-Kashi and commented:

This is the ruling on the authority of Hisham ibn Salim and it is the accepted position of the Maraje’ (top scholars) of the Shia. So how then can Answering-Ansar question his reliability? It is indeed a sign of their desperation to cast doubt on even one of the narrators in this Hadith. First, they tried to cast doubt on their most reliable book Al-Kafi, and then they tried to cast doubt on one of their most reliable Hadith narrators…all of this in an attempt to further their argument against those whom they so flipplantly call “Nasibis.”

As can be seen from the Answering-Ansar article, they were unable to find an authoratative Shia text which stated that Hisham ibn Salim was not reliable to narrate Hadith; the only quote they could find was one that questioned a specific belief that he had. So Answering-Ansar, unable to find a text that deemed Hisham ibn Salim as unauthentic, had to use what little they had against him and then jump to the conclusion that having one errant belief makes a person unreliable, a view that is not held by any of the Shia scholars.

To completely negate the Answering-Ansar claim, we shall quote from Al-Islam.org, which is the most reliable Shia website available. It is a site made by Shia scholars, and I doubt any Shia could take the word of Answering-Ansar over that of Al-Islam.org. We find then that Al-Islam.org actually declares that Hisham ibn Salim is an authority of Hadith.

And then Al-Islam.org narrates a Hadith which was narrated through him. Therefore, we see that Al-Islam.org finds him not only a reliable source of Hadith, but also finds him an authority figure. It is strange then that Answering-Ansar would reject their own authority figures, all in an attempt to bolster their polemical stance against the Sunnis. This is a very irresponsible attitude of the Answering-Ansar high school and college students.

Answering-Ansar has tried to make the claim that being a Waqfi means that a narrator automatically becomes unreliable. But this is not what the Shia Rijal critics have said. Although having such a belief is incorrect, a person can still very much be reliable according to Shia criterion. Even though Ibn Sama’ah had the beliefs of a Waqfi, that does not automatically make him unreliable according to the Shia rules of Rijal. There are many other narrators in the Shia texts of Rijal that have been declared Waqfi and Thiqah (trustworthy) at the same time. Similarly, the pioneers of the Shia science of narrators have also declared Ibn Sama’ah as reliable while recognizing his Waqfi beliefs.

Ahmad ibn ‘Ali al-Najashi, who is the author of one of the most earliest and reliable works on Shia narrators, has said regarding Ibn Sama’ah:

Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Tusi, the author of two of the Kutub al-Arba’ah and the one whose editorial revision of Rijal al-Kashi the Ayatollahs use today, has himself said in his independent work on narrators of Hadith:

Therefore, if Answering-Ansar has quoted Rijal Al-Kashi, let them at least tell us the opinion of Al-Tusi, who is the editor of Rijal Al-Kashi. Although Al-Tusi (the editor of Rijal Al-Kashi) acknowledges that Ibn Sama’ah had Waqfi beliefs, he still deemed his writings to be “jayyid” (good).

And we have already seen that in the Shia book of Rijal “Jami’ ar-Ruwat”, Ibn Sama’ah is declared: “kathir al-hadith, faqihun thiqah” (a prolific narrator of hadith, a jurist, reliable). (Jami’ ar-Ruwat, vol. 1 p. 225)

Another Shia heavyweight who affirmed Ibn Sama’ah’s reliability is Ibn Mutahhar al-Hullee, who the Shia call the Mujaddid (reviver of Islam) of his century. The Shia consider Allamah Hullee to be an expert in the field of narrators. In fact, Answering-Ansar has earlier cited al-Hullee’s position on Humayd ibn Ziyad and used it as a basis for argument; therefore, there can be no question on al-Hullee’s authoratative nature to the Shia. Let us then see what Allamah Hullee says regarding Ibn Sama’ah, in the very same book used by Answering-Ansar earlier:

All these experts of the Shia science of narrators have declared Ibn Sama’ah as trustworthy while accepting him to be a Waqfi. The kids at Answering-Ansar are flouting their scholarship when they claim that being a Waqfi automatically means that a narrator is not reliable in terms of narration. The truth is that Answering-Ansar could not find a single word against the reliability of Ibn Sama’ah so they therefore had to use what they could against him hoping that nobody would see the dramatic jump in assumptions made by Answering-Ansar, a jump which is not sanctioned by the Shia scholarship.

To add yet another point which affirms Ibn Sama’ah’s character in the eyes of the Shia, we see that Al-Tusi declares in his book al-Fehrist (p.103) that Ibrahim ibn Muhammad al-‘Alawi prayed over the body of Ibn Sama’ah. Ibrahim ibn Muhammad al-‘Alawi is revered by the Shia as one from the pure progeny of the Prophet who traces his lineage to the people “created from Allah’s Light.” We see proof of this in Rijal al-Tusi (p.409) in which Ibrahim ibn Muhammad al-‘Alawi’s lineage traces back to Ali ibn Abi Talib himself. If Ibn Sama’ah were destined to Hell-Fire, then why would such a great person (according to the Shia) pray over his body?

Much in the same way that Answering-Ansar has cast doubt on Hisham ibn Salim (despite the fact that the more authoratative Al-Islam.org affirms him as an “authority” figure), we find that Answering-Ansar has taken a similar approach to Ibn Sama’ah. Again, Al-Islam.org considers him reliable and narrates many Hadith through him.

Al-Islam.org affirms the reliability of Ibn Sama’ah and narrates a Hadith (which is considered Sahih) via him. As we have stated earlier, based on the narrators, an Isnad can be deemed as munqati’ (broken) or muttasil (continuous). Ibn al-Salah defines a Sahih Hadith by saying: “A Sahih Hadith is the one which has a continuous (muttasil) Isnad.” It should also be noted that this is Ayatollah Khomeini’s work “Forty Hadith” translated in English on Al-Islam.org; this in itself is enough to confirm that Ibn Sama’ah is considered reliable, because–as Ayatollah Khomeini clearly said–his book “Forty Hadith” contains only Sahih Hadith “narrated through the Prophet and his Ahl al-Bayt.”

The Sanad is affirmed as continuous (muttasil), which means in the Hadith sciences that every chain of narrators is reliable and affirmed, including Ibn Sama’ah. Again, we find that Answering-Ansar has taken a position that is not in conformity with their scholars in order only that their polemical position against the Sunni is bolstered. This is a very irresponsible attitude. Why would Ibn Sama’ah be reliable enough that the above Hadith from Al-Islam.org could be considered Sahih, but suddenly another Hadith cannot be Sahih based on the same Ibn Sama’ah? Should we take the opinion of Ayatollah Khomeini (who affirmed Ibn Sama’ah’s reliability) or the position of Answering-Ansar (which has no basis in Shia scholarship)?

The position that Ibn Sama’ah is reliable is backed by what Ansar.org already mentioned, namely that the Shia book of Rijal, Jami’ ar-Ruwat, declares that Ibn Sama’ah was “kathir al-hadith, faqihun thiqah” (a prolific narrator of Hadith, a jurist, reliable). It is difficult to take a different position when we consider that he was one of the foremost Shia fuqaha of Kufa.

Earlier, Answering-Ansar claimed that one of Imam Al-Kulayni’s teachers was a Sunni. And now they are claiming that one of his students was a Sunni. This is like an Ayatollah being taught from a Deobandi or Salafi scholar. It is an absurd proposition. As their evidence again, Answering-Ansar states that Imam Muhammad Baqir was a Shia and his student was Imam Bukhari. But all Sunnis believe that Muhammad Baqir was a Sunni, and not Shia. Like I said earlier, we revere Jafar as-Sadiq and Muhammad Baqir just like we revere Ali ibn abi Talib. The Shia believe that the Prophet, Ali, Fatima, Hasan, Hussain, Muhammad Baqir, Jafar as-Sadiq, Salman Al-Farsi, and many others were Shia, but this is something that a Sunni would never accept! All of these individuals were Sunni, and this is why we find there to be no problem with Imam Bukhari being a student of Imam Muhammad Baqir if he was. The Shia claiming that Muhammad Baqir was Shia is just like they claim that Ali ibn Abi Talib was Shia.

Therefore, Answering-Ansar has still failed to respond to the fact that according to them Sulayman was a student of one of their Infallible Imams. And he was such a good student that the Infallible Imam was horribly grieved by his death. It is therefore difficult to simply brush aside Sulayman ibn Khalid.

Perhaps the Answering-Ansar team has reading comprehension issues, because the Ansar article clearly mentioned who considered him “thiqah.” Brother Afriki clearly quoted the Shia book of Rijal, Jami’ ar-Ruwat, which said this.

Actually, Grand Ayatollah Al-Khoei refutes such claims of Sulayman’s weakness and rather establishes that he is “thiqah” (reliable) based on the opinion of such greats such as Sheikh Mufid himself. At minimum, Grand Ayatollah Al-Khoei says, Sulayman is to be regarded as a Hasan narrator. (A Hasan Hadith is considered “good” and therefore sound.) Grand Ayatollah Al-Khoei says in “Mujam Rijal Al-Hadith” (vol.9, p.261):

“The reliability of Sulayman Ibn Khalid should not be doubted, because of what you have known from the testimony of Ayoub Ibn Nuh and the testimony of Shaikh Mufid regarding his reliability. This is also supported by what Al-Najashi mentioned that he was a Faqih and an authority (كان فقيها وجها،). Even if this does not prove that he is thiqah, it surely proves that he is hasan, for it is apparent that he meant that he was an authority in narration (فإن الظاهر أنه يريد بذلك أنه كان وجها في الرواية،) and since he is a narrator, he depended upon him in narration. Thus, it is apparent that there is no reason for Ibn Dawuud to include him in his book amongst the second section–the section of weak narrators. Nor is there a reason for (what is mentioned) in Al-Madarik regarding…the claim that the reliability of Sulayman Ibn Khalid is not established.”

Grand Ayatollah Al-Khoei goes on to say that it is incorrect to condemn Sulayman ibn Khalid, and that those who did so–including the author of Rijal Al-Kashi–did it based on a weak narration against him:

“As for what Al-Kashi narrated …If the deduction is considered correct as to condemning Sulayman Ibn Khalid, then it is weak because of Abdul Rahman Ibn Abi Al-Dulaym, and that his reliability is not established.”

Grand Ayatollah Al-Khoei also refuted the claim that Sulayman was Zaydi, and that even the last narration of Rijal Al-Kashi confirms this fact (which proves that Answering-Ansar did a magnficient job of taking Rijal Al-Kashi out of context). He continues in his book:

“Even though Sulayman Ibn Khalid joined Zayd (’s revolution), this does not prove that he was Zaydi and there is no proof for it. Rather the last narration of Al-Kashi proves that he was an Imami who extremely preferred Imam Sadiq (as) over Zayd. As for what is apparent from Al-Barqi’s statement, then it only shows that he committed something that is not lawful, and Allah shed his bounties on him and he repented. He might mean by the matter, revolting without the permission of the Imam.”

Grand Ayatollah Al-Khoei also mentioned from the Book of Saad:

“He [Sulayman] revolted with Zayd and then escaped [from Zayd]. By Allah’s bounty he repented and returned after that.”

Answering-Ansar has been so quick to pass Takfeer on their scholars that they have gone against their Shia Maraje’ (top scholars). It should be noted that the Shia followers place immense importance on following the Maraje’ and we wonder why Answering-Ansar is straying from them? Do we need to remind them of the strict Taqleed on the Maraje’ that is required of them in Shi’ism?

And once again, we find that the more reliable Al-Islam.org affirms that Sulayman Ibn Khalid was reliable and in fact narrates Hadith–considered Sahih–via him.

In fact, this is a very famous Shia Hadith that they commonly use against Sunnis. Once again, the question must be asked: why is Sulayman ibn Khalid reliable enough to use in this Hadith (used against Sunnis) but suddenly he becomes unreliable when it becomes convenient to the Shia? (Of note is that Hisham ibn Salim is also one of the narrators, giving yet another example of how Al-Islam.org considers him reliable.)

For narrations 1 and 2, Answering-Ansar was only able to question Hisham ibn Salim, but this was rejected by Al-Islam.org which called him an “authority” figure. For narrations 3 and 4, we find that Isnad with Humayd ibn Ziyad and Ibn Sama’ah in them were considered “muttasil” by Al-Islam.org. As for Sulayman ibn Khalid, he too was narrated by Al-Islam.org in what is considered a Sahih narration, and his reliability is affirmed by Grand Ayatollah Al-Khoie, Shaikh Mufid, and others. The truth is that the quotes brought forth against any of the above narrators by Answering-Ansar were taken dramatically out of context in an attempt to obfuscate the reality, namely that all of them are considered reliable by the Shia and in fact Al-Islam.org routinely narrates from them. Why does Al-Islam.org find these narrators reliable enough to narrate Hadith (and many of these Hadith aimed against the Ahlus Sunnah), but suddenly when this works against the Shia, then the Shia super-hero ability of weakening Hadith comes into play?

Here, the Answering-Ansar team tries to play mathematical acrobatics in order to throw doubt on the life of Umm Kulthoom. Answering-Ansar claims that there is no way that Umm Kulthoom married the sons of Jafar after the death of Umar, of course ignoring all the Shia texts to that effect. However, I have chosen not to respond to this argument of Answering-Ansar, because I don’t see its relevance.

OK, fine; let’s say that Umm Kulthoom didn’t marry the sons of Jafar. What does that have to do with her marriage to Umar? Absolutely nothing. The debate is about Umm Kulthoom’s marriage to Umar bin Khattab, and has nothing to do with what happened near the end of her life. I think this is another attempt of Answering-Ansar to distract from the main point of the debate, and notice that they jammed this extraneous argument in their discussion of the third and fourth Shia traditions. Tell me, what relevance does this argument have to the third and fourth Shia traditions?

Let’s say that we were having a debate as to wether or not Germany invaded France in World War II; you are arguing that it didn’t attack France in WWII, but I show you proof that shows that yes indeed Germany attacked France then. You then produce “counter-evidence” that Germany didn’t invade Alaska in 1975. How does an event thirty years later have any relevance to what we were debating about, which was Germany attacking France in World War II? The two events are independant of each other, and have no bearing on the other.

Whatever happened to Umm Kulthoom after Umar’s death, this is all irrelevant to the debate between Sunni and Shia. For all we care, after Umar’s death, Umm Kulthoom could have married anyone else or nobody at all. If the Shia want to debate every single historical event in Islam, then we will be sitting here for a very long time. So let us at least limit our debate to relevant points.

If Answering-Ansar were claiming that there was another Umm Kulthoom (i.e. not Umm Kulthoom bint Ali but another one) that married the sons of Jafar as-Sadiq, then perhaps there would have been some relevance to this debate. But this is not the case, and no Shia would claim that another Umm Kulthoom married the sons of Jafar. Answering-Ansar claims that the Umm Kulthoom in question is another one, and they point to Umm Kulthoom bint Abu Bakr, Umm Kulthoom bint Jarweela, and Umm Kulthoom bint Junth. According to both Sunni and Shia sources, none of these three women married any of the sons of Jafar. Therefore, the argument of the Shia is pointless.

Reply 7 entitled “Imam Muhammad Baqir (as) referred to Abu Bakr and Umar as Zaalim”

Here, the Shia quote a Hadith from a Shia source saying that this is evidence that Imam Muhammad Baqir referred to Abu Bakr and Umar as Zaalim. What kind of argument is this!? There is an overabundance of Shia Hadith to the effect that the Prophet, Ali, and others supposedly claimed that Abu Bakr and Umar were so many things. We know this. These are all Shia fabrications.

Reply 8 Entitled “Umar’s disgraceful ancestry means that he would never be the kuff (equivalent) to Umme Kalthum in marriage”

Once again, we reach the same conclusion: the third and fourth Shia Hadith are considered Sahih according to the Shia standards, without a single weak narrator in them.

Response to Chapter 10 Entitled “The third and fourth Shi’a tradition”