DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Allegations against Sayyadina Mu'awiyah (RA) and Ghurmis

**AlexanderDrew** · 10-23-2010, 04:07 AM

السلام عليكم

As I said before, Abdur Razzaq got confused during his later age, and the narrations which he narrated duroing this time is to be considered weak.

Imam Ahmed said, "Abdur-Razzaq narrated to us two years before his eyes were lost. Hearing of those who heard from him after his eyesight were lost, is weak".
Nasai said, "He is to be looked upon. Those who wrote (narrations) from him during his old age, they wrote Munkar narrations".
Bukhari said, those narrations which he narrares from his books are authentic. Ahmed said similar thing.. [Refer to "Tahdheeb At-Tahdheeb" (6/278), "Meezan Al-E'etedal" (2/609)]

So the narration under discussion remains unauthentic even based on its Isnad. As for matan, then it has even bigger problem, which anyone aware of Islamic history can realize.

From what i Know the Book that you have taken this narration out of "Ansab al Ashraf" by Balathree... This book is unacceptable and unreliable, Before you waste your time with the Sanad. The Book in itself is unauthentic and so is the Author. Not to mention that the Man appears to be an employee of the Abbasi caliphs and he used to compliment them to get money.

Although Al-Baladhuri wasn't famous as hadith scholar, but he was also not that bad. At least I am not aware of any valid criticism on him which serves the purpose here. The things like, him drinking Baladhur and loosing mind control, is not a criticism as this happened before his death. As for his service for Abbasid then again its not a criticism which serves our purpose here. You probably cannot say the same for Imam Malik and Imam Zuhri. The point is, this has nothing to do with the status of Baladhuri as a hadith narrator. And Allah knows best.

The Narrator Abdul Razzaq bin Hammam is a Shia and HATES anyone who opposes Ali RA or disagrees with him. Scholars have different approach when it comes to accepting the hadith of innovator. They accept the narration of innovator who is Thiqah and doesn't preach his wrong views. Many add to it the condition that the narration must not support his innovations. Scholars like Ahmed Al-Ghumari [in Fath Al-Malik Al-Aliyy] would reject this final rule by saying that it was formulated by Al-Jawzjani who was Nasibi, even though Ibn Hajar accepr it. The point is, not everyone accept the rule of rejecting the narrations of ''trustworthy'' innovator when it support his innovation. This is one.

Applying this rule to Imams like Abdur-Razzaq would be even more problematic. Like Ibn Mu'een said, "we will never leave narrations of Abdur-RAzzaq even if he becomes apostate". This shows his importance in hadith. So this would be difficult for the opponents to digest.

Thirdly, the report qouted by you, in which Abdur-Razzaq talks bad about Mu'awiyah, contains Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Yazeed who was weak.

Fourthly, the report in which he talks bad of Umar, is mursal till Abdur-Razzaq, and this was said by Imam Dhahabi himself in "Al-Meezan" (2/611). This is besides the fact that Abdur-Razzaq preferred Shaykhain over Ali, as he himself stated this.

10-23-2010, 04:07 AM	#15
AlexanderDrew Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 609 Senior Member	السلام عليكم As I said before, Abdur Razzaq got confused during his later age, and the narrations which he narrated duroing this time is to be considered weak. Imam Ahmed said, "Abdur-Razzaq narrated to us two years before his eyes were lost. Hearing of those who heard from him after his eyesight were lost, is weak". Nasai said, "He is to be looked upon. Those who wrote (narrations) from him during his old age, they wrote Munkar narrations". Bukhari said, those narrations which he narrares from his books are authentic. Ahmed said similar thing.. [Refer to "Tahdheeb At-Tahdheeb" (6/278), "Meezan Al-E'etedal" (2/609)] So the narration under discussion remains unauthentic even based on its Isnad. As for matan, then it has even bigger problem, which anyone aware of Islamic history can realize. From what i Know the Book that you have taken this narration out of "Ansab al Ashraf" by Balathree... This book is unacceptable and unreliable, Before you waste your time with the Sanad. The Book in itself is unauthentic and so is the Author. Not to mention that the Man appears to be an employee of the Abbasi caliphs and he used to compliment them to get money. Although Al-Baladhuri wasn't famous as hadith scholar, but he was also not that bad. At least I am not aware of any valid criticism on him which serves the purpose here. The things like, him drinking Baladhur and loosing mind control, is not a criticism as this happened before his death. As for his service for Abbasid then again its not a criticism which serves our purpose here. You probably cannot say the same for Imam Malik and Imam Zuhri. The point is, this has nothing to do with the status of Baladhuri as a hadith narrator. And Allah knows best. The Narrator Abdul Razzaq bin Hammam is a Shia and HATES anyone who opposes Ali RA or disagrees with him. Scholars have different approach when it comes to accepting the hadith of innovator. They accept the narration of innovator who is Thiqah and doesn't preach his wrong views. Many add to it the condition that the narration must not support his innovations. Scholars like Ahmed Al-Ghumari [in Fath Al-Malik Al-Aliyy] would reject this final rule by saying that it was formulated by Al-Jawzjani who was Nasibi, even though Ibn Hajar accepr it. The point is, not everyone accept the rule of rejecting the narrations of ''trustworthy'' innovator when it support his innovation. This is one. Applying this rule to Imams like Abdur-Razzaq would be even more problematic. Like Ibn Mu'een said, "we will never leave narrations of Abdur-RAzzaq even if he becomes apostate". This shows his importance in hadith. So this would be difficult for the opponents to digest. Thirdly, the report qouted by you, in which Abdur-Razzaq talks bad about Mu'awiyah, contains Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Yazeed who was weak. Fourthly, the report in which he talks bad of Umar, is mursal till Abdur-Razzaq, and this was said by Imam Dhahabi himself in "Al-Meezan" (2/611). This is besides the fact that Abdur-Razzaq preferred Shaykhain over Ali, as he himself stated this.
	Quote