[SawbasyWrab]

al-Imamah wal-Siyasah written by ibn Qutaybah al-Baghdadi ?


السلام عليكم

Let me translate a part of the research done on al-Imamah wal-Siyasah by al-Ustath Dr. Khaled Kabir 'Alal "الأستاذ الدكتور خالد كبير علال" in his book "Naqd Kitab al-Imamah wal-Siyasah al-Mansoub li Ibn Qutaybah".

'Abdullah ibn Qutaybah al-Dinawari (born 213 - died 276 AH).

Part one: Studying the Asaneed of the book.

The author mainly relied in his history book on two narrators in which he declared hearing from them directly, the first is: Sa'eed bin Katheer bin 'Ufayr al-Masri (d.226 AH) and he relied on him a lot in most of his narrations. The second is: Ibn abi Mariam, and he relied on him a lot less than the previous narrator . While relying on those two he did not mention their Isnad a lot in the narrations that he narrated from them, he mentioned some of them in five locations, and often he would find it enough to simply say: ((And he said: they mentioned...)).

(1) The first Isnad in the book was mentioned by the author:
عن ابن أبي مريم ، قال : حدثنا العرياني ، عن أبي عون بن عمرو بن تيم الأنصاري رضي الله عنه
((From ibn abi Mariam that he said: al-'Ariyani told us, from abi 'Aoun bin 'Amro bin Taym al-Ansari may Allah be pleased with him))

And the author is considered the first man in this chain because he used " 'An'anah " when he said: FROM ibn abi Mariam, and since this book is attributed to ibn Qutaybah then we must mention his condition in the light of Jarh and Ta'adeel, he is 'Abdullah bin Muslim bin Qutaybah al-Dinawari, born in 213 Hijri in al-Kufa at the end of the Caliphate of al-Maamoun, he was on the Madhab of the Salaf and was given the title "Khateeb Ahlul-Sunnah", he lived in Baghdad and narrated his works in it until his death in 276 Hijri, one can not find among his Shuyoukh (those whom he narrated from) anyone holding the name "ibn abi Mariam".

As for the second man or second narrator in this chain, he is Ibn abi Mariam and he is mentioned in a vague and unclear way, the author should have specified because there are a group of narrators who hold the name or Kuniyah of "ibn abi Mariam" such as Sa'eed ibn abi Mariam and Saleh ibn abi Mariam and 'Ubeid ibn abi Mariam and Malik ibn abi Mariam [refer to al-Dhahabi's al-Kashif]. What is clear to me is that he means the first one and he is abu Muhammad Sa'eed bin abi Mariam al-Masri (b.144 - d.224 AH), he lived in Egypt and he is trustworthy. It was never mentioned anywhere that ibn Qutaybah narrated from this man nor is there anyone that goes by the name of al-'Ariyani among his shuyoukh [refer to al-Mezzi in Tahtheeb al-Kamal]. Although it is not very likely that ibn Qutaybah who was born in 213 hijri would narrate from ibn abi Mariam who died in 224 hijri as he was only 11 years old at the time, also it was never mentioned anywhere that ibn Qutaybah went to Egypt or anywhere else to seek knowledge, he spent his entirelie in Baghdad and died there [al-Khatib al-Baghdadi in the previous source].

As for the third narrator he is al-'Ariyani and the author never specified who he was, and I only came across one narrator that holds this name and he is: Muslim bin Mikhraq al-'Ariyani, he was one of the followers and he narrated from some of the Sahaba [al-Mezzi in the previous source]. So this third man is either Majhool (unknown) or he is Muslim bin Mikhraq and he is from the Tabi'een (followers) and Ibn abi Mariam who was born in 144 hijri could not have caught up to him nor is al-'Ariyani mentioned among his shuyoukh, so the Isnad is disconnected here.

The fourth narrator in the first chain is abu 'Aoun bin 'Amro bin Taym al-Ansari, it is apparent from the words of the author that this man was an eye witness to the events and that he was a companion and this is why he followed his name with "may Allah be pleased with him", but I searched a lot and never found any companion or follower holding such name but I found a narrator and he is most likely to be the man and his full name is: abu 'Aoun 'Amro bin 'Amro bin 'Aoun bin Tamim al-Ansari, ibn Hajar mentioned him n "Lisan al-Meezan" and said: Majhool.

So the first Isnad is incorrect because of a disconnection between the first and second narrators and another disconnection between the second and third narrator and because the fourth narrator is unknown and his narrations are unacceptable in the light of Jarh wal-Ta'adeel.

(2) The second Isnad in the book was mentioned by the author:
و حدثنا سعيد بن كثير ، عن عفير بن عبد الرحمن ، قال
((Sa'eed bin Katheer told us, from 'Ufayr bin 'Abdul-Rahman, he said:...))

Here the author declares hearing directly from Sa'eed bin Katheer and his full name is: Sa'eed bin Katheer bin 'Ufayr al-Masri al-Ansari (b.146 - d.226 AH) he was trustworthy and he specialized in history [al-Dhahabi in al-Siyar and Tathkirat al-Huffadh]. Since the author declared hearing this means that he met this man and directly heard from him and this is not proven because ibn Qutaybah never left Baghdad and nor did Sa'eed bin Katheer enter Baghdad and narrate in it at any point in ibn Qutaybah's life or before it (If he did al-Khatib al-Baghdadi would have wrote his biography in Tareekh Baghdad). Ths is why we don't find among the Shuyoukh of ibn Qutaybah anyone with the name: Sa'eed bin Katheer bin 'Ufayr [check al-'Awasem min al-Qawasem researched by Muhibb al-Deen al-Khateeb].

The second narrator is 'Ufayr bin 'Abdul-Rahman and it appears that he is Majhool, I found absolutely no trace of him in the books of Tarajim and History nor in the compilations of Jarh and Ta'adeel. This narrator was not an eye witness to the Baya'ah of Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (ra), since Sa'eed bin Katheer narrated from him and he was born in 144 hijri, so if we assume that he heard from him in 156 hijri then this unknown narrator 'Ufayr can not be an eye witness to the Baya'ah of the first Caliph in 11th Hijri. This Isnad is considered incorrect because it is disconnected and the narrator is unknown.

(3) The third Isnad in the book was mentioned by the author:
و حدثنا قال : حدثنا ابن عفير ، عن أبي عون ، عن عبد الله بن عبد الرحمن الأنصاري رضي الله عنه
((And he told me and said: ibn 'Ufayr told me, from abi 'Aoun from 'Abdullah bin 'Abdul-Rahman al-Ansari may Allah be pleased with him))

And this chain is obscure, since the author never mentioned who told him "And he told me and said".

The second narrator is Sa'eed bin Katheer bin 'Ufayr and we discussed him previously and said that he never met ibn Qutaybah.

The third narrator is: abu 'Aoun, and it is very hard to say who he is since many narrators hold the Kuniyah of "abu 'Aoun" and I found more than five [ibn Hajar in Taqreeb al-Tahtheeb]. Apparently he most likely means abu 'Aoun bin 'Amro who was mentioned in the first Isnad because he is from the Shuyoukh of Sa'eed bin Katheer bin 'Aoun and he is Majhool.

The fourth narrator is: 'Abdullah bin 'Abdul-Rahman al-Ansari and he is a companion but none of those who narrated from him are called "abu 'Aoun" [ibn 'Abdul-Barr in al-Istee'ab and al-Mezzi in Thatheeb al-Kamal]. So after studying the third Isnad it is incorrect because of disconnection and the unknown narrators.

(4) The fourth Isnad in the book was mentioned by the author:
قال عبد الله بن مسلم : حدثنا ابن أبي مريم ، و ابن عفير قالا : حدثنا ابن عون ، قال : أخبرنا المخول بن إبراهيم ،و أبو حمزة الثمالي
(('Abdullah bin Muslim bin Qutaybah said: ibn abi Mariam and ibn 'Ufayr told me: ibn 'Aoun told us: al-Mukhawwal bin Ibrahim and abu Hamza al-Thamali told me...))

This Isnad is also incorrect because ibn Qutaybah whom the book is attributed to, never heard from ibn abi Mariam or from ibn 'Ufayr and this was discussed earlier. And because of the third narrator whom the author named: ibn 'Aoun and he is abu 'Aoun 'Amro bin 'Amro bin 'Aoun al-Ansari one of the unknown Shuyoukh of ibn 'Ufayr. As for the third and fourth narrators they were criticized, al-Mukhawwal bin Ibrahim is an extremist Rafidhi who attacks the senior companions, and abu Hamza al-Thamali is a weak narrator [Al-'Uqayli in al-Du'afa and al-Dhahabi in Meezan al-I'itidal and al-Kashif].

(5) The fifth Isnad in the book was mentioned by the author:
قال عبد الله بن مسلم : و ذكر ابن عفير ، عن عون بن عبد الله بن عبد الرحمن الأنصاري ، قال
(('Abdullah bin Muslim bin Qutaybah said: ibn 'Ufayr mentioned from 'Aoun bin 'Abdullah bin 'Abdul-Rahman al-Ansari that he said...))

This is also an incorrect Isnad because of what we stated earlier regarding ibn 'Ufayr and because the third narrator was not an eye witness to the event he narrated because he never declared it, it is very unlikely that he would be an eye witness to the death of 'Uthman bin 'Affan (ra) since ibn 'Ufayr was born in 144 hijri had narrated from him. Also the narrator himself is unknown as we previously mentioned.

We observe from our study of the Asaneed(Chains) that none of them are authentic, including those in which the author declared hearing from ibn 'Ufayr and ibn abi Mariam because he never actually heard from them, this shows that the author was not honest when he declared hearing.

Secondly it appears to me that the author was making Tadlees in the chains and manipulating them, in the first Isand he mentioned abu 'Aoun bin'Amro bin Taym al-Ansari as an eye witness and he follows his name by "May Allah be pleased with him". In the third Isnad however, he called the second narrator abu 'Aoun while in the fourth Isnad he called the narrator whom ibn abi Mariam and ibn 'Ufayr narrated from as ibn 'Aoun. It is clear that this narrator is one man whose full name is: abu 'Aoun 'Amro bin 'Amro bin 'Aoun bin Tamim al-Ansari and he is an unknown narrator from the Shuyoukh of ibn 'Ufayr.

To clarify more, I say: the author removed the name of this narrator from the first Isnad and mentioned him with his Kuniyah and Nasab: "Abu 'Aoun bin 'Amro bin Taym al-Ansari" and he mentioned him as a companion who was an eye witness to the event. In the third Isnad he mentioned him with his Kuniyah only "abu 'Aoun" and ibn 'Ufayr narrated from him without declaring hearing and not as an eye witness. In the fourth Isnad he mentioned him with his Nasab: "ibn 'Aoun" and stated that ibn 'Ufayr heard from him directly. This proves that the author is not honest as he makes Tadlees and manipulates the Asaneed and corrupts them, sometimes he makes a narrator a companion and an eye witness, then he makes him one of the Shuyoukh of ibn 'Ufayr.

Finally this book does not follow a scientific and academic Manhaj, the author mentions the full chain in five locations and then for the rest of the narrations he is simply satisfied with stating:
قال : و ذكروا
((He said: and they mentioned...))

So who are "They" and how can we grade his narrations if he doesn't even mention the chains? other historians such as al-Tabari and ibn 'Asakir and al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi would mention the full chain to every narration but in this obscure book the author leaves us with absolutely nothing, and by not mentioning a chain he also leaves a wide area for himself where he can manipulate the contents of the narrations. A book like this cannot be relied upon it contains many falsehoods and suspicious narrations, this is why it is condemned and so is its unknown author.

Part two: Criticizing some of the narrations in the book.

As for the manipulation of texts and the falsehoods and fabrications found within the book, they are too many to count but I site a few examples:

When the author of this book wanted to state the number of casualties as a result of the "Battle of al-Harra" at Madinah and this took place in the year 36 hijri, the author narrated in vol.2 pg.11:
قال أبو معشر : حدثنا محمد بن عمرو بن حزم ، قال : قُتل بضعة و سبعون رجلا من قريش ، و بضعة و سبعون رجلا من الأنصار ، و قُتل من الناس نحو من أربعة آلاف
((Abu Mu'shar said: Muhammad bin 'Amro bin Hazm said: "Around seventy men from Quraysh died, and around seventy from the Ansar died, and around four thousand people died...))

This text has reached the author through two narrators, the first one is abu Mu'shar who is mentioned vaguely, we do not know who this man is since there are three famous narrators holding this Kuniyah: abu Mu'shar Yusuf bin Yazid al-Sindi, abu Mu'shar Najeeh bin 'Abdul-Rahman and abu Mu'shar Ziad bin Kulayb. It was never mentioned anywhere that any of these three narrated from Muhammad bin 'Amro bin Hazm.

This "abu Mu'shar" has stated that he heard directly from Muhammad ibn 'Amro, which means that the chain is disconnected between abu Mu'shar and the author of the book, since ibn 'Amro was killed in 63 hijri while ibn Qutaybah was born in 213 hijri, meaning there is a 150 year gap and this cannot possibly be filled with just one man, it needs at best two narrators to fill it, so there s disconnection.

The impossibility of this narration lies in the fact that abu Mu'shar declared that he heard the number of casualties of the battle of al-Harra directly from Muhammad bin 'Amro bin Hazm, and as we know Muhammad ibn 'Amro was one of the leaders of the revolution against bani Umayyah in al-Harra and he died during the battle, after his death al-Madinah was attacked and robbed by the Umayyad army as stated in al-Istee'ab and al-Shatharat of a-Hanbali. So how can abu Mu'ashar hear from him if he died during the battle? and how can Muhammad tell him the number of casualties that resulted from the battle of al-Harra if he never survived that battle in the first place? What is funny is that the author himself mentioned this in vol.1 pg.312, he said that when Muhammad bin 'Amro died, the army of Madinah was defeated and the Umayyads entered it and started killing and robbing the people.

Another example is in vol.1 pg.7 when the author narrates this Hadith of when 'Abbas(ra) met 'Ali (ra) before the death of the Prophet (SAWS):
إن النبي –صلى الله عليه و سلم- يُقبض ، فاسأله إن كان الأمر لنا بينه ، و إن كان لغيرنا أوصى بنا
al-'Abbas (ra) said: "Allah's Apostle is dying, ask him if this matter is ours, so he may clarify it and if it is given to somebody else then he shall recommend us."

And the narration is famous and authentic and it is found in Sahih al-Bukhari except the author removed the part that did not suit him as it disproves the Shia concept of Imamah, here is that part from al-Bukhari with 'Ali's (ra) reply:

((By Allah, I think that Allah's Apostle will die from his present ailment, for I know the signs of death on the faces of the offspring of 'Abdul Muttalib. So let us go to Allah's Apostle to ask him who will take over the matter. If the authority is given to us, we will know it, and if it is given to somebody else we will request him to recommend us to him. " 'Ali said, "By Allah! If we ask Allah's Apostle for the rulership and he refuses, then the people will never give it to us. Besides, I will never ask Allah's Apostle for it."))

Of course the devious author did this because right on the next page he was going to narrate another one of his weak narrations in which 'Ali (ra) claims that he was the most deserving of the Caliphate, this is something that contradicts many of the authentic narrations in the books of hadith and history.

The Author mentioned that Haroun al-Rasheed died in 195 hijri in vol.2 pg.305. While ibn Qutaybah wrote in his famous book al-Ma'arif pg.87 that al-Rasheed died in 193 hijri.

The author wrote in vol.2 pg.304 that Haroun al-Rasheed said that the leadership would go to his son al-Maamoun first then to his son al-Ameen, and after al-Rasheed passed away, al-Ameen rebelled against al-Maamoun with an army. While ibn Qutaybah wrote in his famous book al-Ma'arif that al-Rasheed said that the leadership goes to al-Ameen then to al-Maamoun, al-Ameen would later break his father's will and appoint his own son Musa after him.

The author wrote in vol.2 pg.306 that right after al-Rasheed died, the two brothers started fighting for the Caliphate, al-Ameen fought his brother for the Caliphate and then al-Maamoun entered the castle of caliphate in Baghdad and arrested his brother then placed him in jail. While the real ibn Qutaybah wrote in al-Ma'arif pg.88 that it was al-Ameen who was ruling after al-Rasheed and after one year al-Ameen turned on his brother, and after two years from the death of al-Rasheed, al-Ameen sent an army to fight his brother al-Maamoun who was in Khurasan not in Baghdad and they had many wars that ended in 198 hijri after al-Ameen was killed by the soldiers of his brother al-Maamoun.

Conclusion:

ابن قتيبة الدينوري
قال : بأن غلو الرافضة في حب علي المتمثل في تقديمه على من قدمه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وصحابته عليه ، وادعاءهم له شركة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في نبوته وعلم الغيب للأئمة من ولده وتلك الأقاويل والأمور السرية قد جمعت إلى الكذب والكفر أفراط الجهل والغباوة
الاختلاف في اللفظ والرد على الجهمية والمشبهة ص 47 The Shia try to give the impression that ibn Qutaybah was a Shia, although it was reported from Ibn Qutaybah himself in the book "al-Ikhtilaf fi al-Lafdh wal-Radd 'ala al-Jahmiyyah wal-Mushabbiha" on pg.47 that he said concerning the Shia:

"The Ghulu of the Rafidhah in 'Ali which takes form by placing him before The prophet (SAWS) and his companions, and their claim that he had a share in the prophet-hood of our Prophet (SAWS) and they claim the knowledge of the unseen(al-Ghayb) to the Imams from his children, these sayings constitute lies and blasphemy(Kufr) resulting from extreme ignorance and stupidity."

As for "al-Imamah wal-Siyasah" we see that the entire book is weak, not one narration is acceptable, we see that the author is narrating from people that ibn Qutaybah never narrated from, although it is written in his biographies and Tarajim that ibn Qutaybah was from the scholars who refused to narrate much Ahadith and that he was a follower of the Madhab of the Salaf and that he was the speaker of Ahlul-Sunnah, yet the content of this book seems as though it came from a Shia let alone a big scholar from Ahlul-Sunnah, we also see that in this book are written historical reports that ibn Qutaybah himself contradicts in his other famous books.

Knowing the fact that ibn Qutaybah had plenty of works, it is a great possibility that someone forged this book and wrote it in his name as was the habit of Shia to write books and have the same names as Sunni scholars, either-way the book is worthless.

al-Salamu 'Aleykum,