Jump to content
Goswami

A problematic narration in Al-khisal

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Salam . I came across a problematic narration in which prophet (saw) asked Imam Ali (as) to kill a person without even investigating the matter. Furthermore , Qur'an says that capital punishment can be only applied in two cases 1- Fasad Fil Arz and 2- For committing Murder , so why prophet (saw) asked in this narration to behead a person who had allegedly committed fornication ? I will be thankful of any knowledgeable brother or sister can shed some light on this. Here is the Narration :

Sheikh Al-Sadooq (r.a):

Then the Prophet (saw) said, ‘O Alee! Go and kill him.’ Once I started to go, the Prophet (saw) told me, ‘Kill him if you find him there.’ Once I returned I said, O Prophet of God (saw)! I did not find anyone there.’ Then the Prophet (saw) said, ‘Would you have killed him if you found him there?’’ They replied, ‘By God. Yes.’ Then Alee (a.s) said, ‘I swear to you by God! Is there anyone amongst you about whom the Prophet (saw) said, ‘Your friends are in Paradise and your enemies are in Hell’, other than me?’ They replied, ‘By God; no.’ Then Alee (a.s) said, ‘I swear to you by God! Do you know that A'isha told God’s Prophet (saw), ‘Ibraheem (the son of Mariya al-Qabti) is not your son. He is the son of so and so Al-Qabti.’ The Prophet (saw) told me, ‘O Alee! Go and kill him!’ Then I asked God’s Prophet (saw), ‘Are you sending me there as a heated iron to execute this decree as soon as I get there, or do you want me to discover the truth?’ The Prophet (saw) replied, ‘No. Go and discover the truth.’ Then I went after that Al-Qabti man. Once he saw me, he ran away into a garden. I followed him into the garden. Then he climbed up a date palm tree. I pursued him to the top of the tree. Once he realized that I was chasing him, he took off his under shorts and I noticed that he had been totally castrated. Then I returned and told the Prophet about it. The Prophet (saw) said, ‘Thanks God for removing this accusation from the Household.’ Wasn’t it done by me?’ They replied, ‘By God. Yes.’ Then Alee (saw) said, ‘O God! Please be a witness to this.’”

Source: Al-Khisal. Chapter Section Forty And Above Numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Goswami said:

Salam . I came across a problematic narration in which prophet (saw) asked Imam Ali (as) to kill a person without even investigating the matter. Furthermore , Qur'an says that capital punishment can be only applied in two cases 1- Fasad Fil Arz and 2- For committing Murder , so why prophet (saw) asked in this narration to behead a person who had allegedly committed fornication ? I will be thankful of any knowledgeable brother or sister can shed some light on this. Here is the Narration :

Sheikh Al-Sadooq (r.a):

Then the Prophet (saw) said, ‘O Alee! Go and kill him.’ Once I started to go, the Prophet (saw) told me, ‘Kill him if you find him there.’ Once I returned I said, O Prophet of God (saw)! I did not find anyone there.’ Then the Prophet (saw) said, ‘Would you have killed him if you found him there?’’ They replied, ‘By God. Yes.’ Then Alee (a.s) said, ‘I swear to you by God! Is there anyone amongst you about whom the Prophet (saw) said, ‘Your friends are in Paradise and your enemies are in Hell’, other than me?’ They replied, ‘By God; no.’ Then Alee (a.s) said, ‘I swear to you by God! Do you know that A'isha told God’s Prophet (saw), ‘Ibraheem (the son of Mariya al-Qabti) is not your son. He is the son of so and so Al-Qabti.’ The Prophet (saw) told me, ‘O Alee! Go and kill him!’ Then I asked God’s Prophet (saw), ‘Are you sending me there as a heated iron to execute this decree as soon as I get there, or do you want me to discover the truth?’ The Prophet (saw) replied, ‘No. Go and discover the truth.’ Then I went after that Al-Qabti man. Once he saw me, he ran away into a garden. I followed him into the garden. Then he climbed up a date palm tree. I pursued him to the top of the tree. Once he realized that I was chasing him, he took off his under shorts and I noticed that he had been totally castrated. Then I returned and told the Prophet about it. The Prophet (saw) said, ‘Thanks God for removing this accusation from the Household.’ Wasn’t it done by me?’ They replied, ‘By God. Yes.’ Then Alee (saw) said, ‘O God! Please be a witness to this.’”

Source: Al-Khisal. Chapter Section Forty And Above Numbers.

This is not a narration related to fiqh. It is a narration related to:

Absolute obedience to prophet by Imam Ali

Knowledge of the prophet about the state of the Qubti man

Prophet sent imam ali to kill and instead imam ali became a witness of the innocence of the man

It is a historical narration that tells a different story about the famous verse of Ifk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What everyone needs to do before going further into this conversation is ascertain what the grading of this narration is, first of all. If it's weak, there's no point arguing over it. 

Alternatively, we can look at the Matn and see if there's anything that is odd. I'm not qualified to do either, but it does strike me as odd the behaviour of the Prophet (saw) in this narration. Imagine had Ali [as] just gone ahead and killed the man, whether or not the Prophet [saw] would have commanded him to kill an innocent person. Furthermore the Prophet [saw] never acted out of his whims and opinions , to declare this necessitates he had some divine knowledge. The entire text and story of this tradition just seems extremely odd, however i will let someone more knowledgable than me grade it and elucidate.

This is a little bit of the problem with going through traditions. The Sunnis have pretty much added gradings on their English translations, but we don't seem to have done that.  If you found out this Hadith was narrated by an accused extremist who was cursed by our Imam and known to be a liar , and if you found out the tradition has two fabricators in it, and is the only such report of this kind, would it change your mind about it? If so, best we find out who it was that narrated this, who are the men in the chain, and what is said about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Event of Ifk

 
 

The Event of Ifk (Arabic: حادثة الإفك) refers to an event in the history of early Islam to which the verses 11-26 of Sura al-Nur refer. This event took place in 5/626, when a group of people accused a Muslim of adultery, who was, as famously narrated, Aisha, the Prophet's (s) wife. In the mentioned verses, God blames people for slandering and spreading rumors. According to another narration which is mentioned in Shi'a sources, the person who was the subject of slander was Mariya al-Qibtiyya, another wife of the Prophet (s), mother of Ibrahim, son of the Prophet (s). The historical authenticity of both contexts of revelation or their relations with the mentioned verses have been questioned and doubted by some researchers.

 

http://en.wikishia.net/view/Event_of_Ifk

incident of Ifk

Event of ifk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the narration is not germane to Fiqh but its content is very problematic. Qur'an says Holy Prophet (saw) was sent as a mercy and Prophet (saw) was the best in terms of Akhlaq . Keeping this in mind , how Prophet (saw) could have ordered the killing of any person without even investigating the matter ? Also what Prophet (saw) said in this hadith has no basis in Qur'an

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Goswami said:

Despite the narration is not germane to Fiqh but its content is very problematic. Qur'an says Holy Prophet (saw) was sent as a mercy and Prophet (saw) was the best in terms of Akhlaq . Keeping this in mind , how Prophet (saw) could have ordered the killing of any person without even investigating the matter ? Also what Prophet (saw) said in this hadith has no basis in Qur'an

The same way Khidr (as) killed the boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sumerian said:

The same way Khidr (as) killed the boy.

This is not a good argument or is it ? The Qur'anic verses say that he was destined to be a transgressor but in the above Hadith we find that the man was innocent . If the case was opposite as you are implying then Imam Ali (as) wouldn't have left the man 

Edited by Goswami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Goswami said:

This is not a good argument or is it ? The Qur'anic verses say that he was destined to be a transgressor but in the above Hadith we find that the man was innocent . If the case was opposite as you are implying then Imam Ali (as) wouldn't have left the man 

The difference also is, the Quran is true and everything in it is true. We haven't even established if the Hadith is reliable, and it does indeed contain issues in it that don't seem to really bode well with what we know about the knowledge of the Prophet and the Imams, their mannerisms, and so on. As i said, maybe someone with better knowledge will find the grading for us, and elaborate further. 

When i go through traditions, i look at:

1. Gradings

2. Content

3. Corroboration

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Goswami said:

This is not a good argument or is it ? The Qur'anic verses say that he was destined to be a transgressor but in the above Hadith we find that the man was innocent . If the case was opposite as you are implying then Imam Ali (as) wouldn't have left the man 

No, I was replying regarding you saying there needs to be an investigation. I'm saying the Prophets and ma'soomeen don't always need to investigate for crimes. Imam Al-Mahdi (as) will not ask for evidence when he judges crimes.

Anyway, I found another version of this same hadith with a reliable chain even though it is from Tafsir Al-Qummi, and what it said in it was that Imam Ali (as) after he saw the state of that person, he returned to the Prophet and asked the Prophet that if he sent him regarding an issue, should he carry it out or verify first? And the Prophet says he should verify first. And then Imam Ali (as) explains the issue to the Prophet of what he saw.

So this explains that an investigation did happen. 

Finally the punishment for adultery is not lashing, that's the punishment for fornication. The punishment for adultery is different in the Shari'ah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Sumerian said:

The same way Khidr (as) killed the boy.

Salam because also like prophet David (as) & prophet Solomon (as) can judge just by seeing inner of people'mind &khidr (as) sees past &future of everything & everybody & Prophet  Isa (as) knew that what people hided in their house & mind prophwt mohammad  (pbu) & Imam (as) doesn't talk based on their desire prophet knew the truth but order it to Imam Ali (as) that to shows to people that  Imam Ali (as) like him can judge by inner of men without needing any clue & this is same for other Imams (as) just by seeing peoplet can judge about them as Imam Mahdi (aj) will judge between people that shows they have divine justice that nobody except them is not Qualified for that.

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sumerian said:

No, I was replying regarding you saying there needs to be an investigation. I'm saying the Prophets and ma'soomeen don't always need to investigate for crimes. Imam Al-Mahdi (as) will not ask for evidence when he judges crimes.

Anyway, I found another version of this same hadith with a reliable chain even though it is from Tafsir Al-Qummi, and what it said in it was that Imam Ali (as) after he saw the state of that person, he returned to the Prophet and asked the Prophet that if he sent him regarding an issue, should he carry it out or verify first? And the Prophet says he should verify first. And then Imam Ali (as) explains the issue to the Prophet of what he saw.

So this explains that an investigation did happen. 

Finally the punishment for adultery is not lashing, that's the punishment for fornication. The punishment for adultery is different in the Shari'ah.

Good find brother. No doubt you're aware that the chain to Tafsir al-Qummi itself is hotly disputed, and a portion of that book is full of bizarre traditions, but what you have brought does paint a different light on this whole issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

What everyone needs to do before going further into this conversation is ascertain what the grading of this narration is, first of all. If it's weak, there's no point arguing over it. 

Alternatively, we can look at the Matn and see if there's anything that is odd. I'm not qualified to do either, but it does strike me as odd the behaviour of the Prophet (saw) in this narration. Imagine had Ali [as] just gone ahead and killed the man, whether or not the Prophet [saw] would have commanded him to kill an innocent person. Furthermore the Prophet [saw] never acted out of his whims and opinions , to declare this necessitates he had some divine knowledge. The entire text and story of this tradition just seems extremely odd, however i will let someone more knowledgable than me grade it and elucidate.

This is a little bit of the problem with going through traditions. The Sunnis have pretty much added gradings on their English translations, but we don't seem to have done that.  If you found out this Hadith was narrated by an accused extremist who was cursed by our Imam and known to be a liar , and if you found out the tradition has two fabricators in it, and is the only such report of this kind, would it change your mind about it? If so, best we find out who it was that narrated this, who are the men in the chain, and what is said about them.

Weak and strong hadith are important in fiqh issues. The book of Al Khisal (merits/characters) is not a fiqh book. It is an Ethic book. So going after the chain is not the most important point when one discusses a narration in that book.

Hitting immediately on the chain strength is very narrow minded way. 

20 hours ago, Goswami said:

Despite the narration is not germane to Fiqh but its content is very problematic. Qur'an says Holy Prophet (saw) was sent as a mercy and Prophet (saw) was the best in terms of Akhlaq . Keeping this in mind , how Prophet (saw) could have ordered the killing of any person without even investigating the matter ? Also what Prophet (saw) said in this hadith has no basis in Qur'an

 و ما ينطق عن الهوى

ان هو الا وحي يوحى

these verses are the bases of this narration in Quran. Those who believe in the prophet, will have no problem in executing his orders. It shows how much they are comfortable with what they believe in and no matter how bizarre it looked, it is the truth at the end. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Chaotic Muslem said:

Weak and strong hadith are important in fiqh issues. The book of Al Khisal (merits/characters) is not a fiqh book. It is an Ethic book. So going after the chain is not the most important point when one discusses a narration in that book.

Hitting immediately on the chain strength is very narrow minded way. 

 

Also in Aqeedah, in fact maybe moreso in Aqeedah. If we're going to make sure people in the chain are reliable before we decide to place our feet further or closer apart in Salah, why won't we check they are reliable if they claim to tell us about fundamental aspects of our creed? Not to say this Hadith is an Aqeedah one but it could indirectly influence that.

While there is no doubt there is more to look at than merely the chain - such as aspects like Matn and the content of the text, if anyone is going to bring me a tradition of something the Prophet [saw] or Aimmah [asws] said or did that is in anyway not either just a basic Dua or virtue, i'm going to have to ask if reliable people transmitted that.

If someone came up to you and make a comment about your local Shaykh ordering brother x to do act y, would you not enquire what the sources were and whether or not they were reliable? We do it for everything in our lives, why don't we do it for the Prophet and Aimmah?

Having said that, i accept there is more to Hadith criticism than just the chain, but it is an important tool in the tool box. I don't reject weak traditions, but anything odd, different, and weak that is not corroborated and brought to me by liars, ghulat, untrustworthy accursed individuals, i don't act on. I've always been saying this.  I've had this same view for years.

If someone down the road comes and tells me he heard a rumour or saw something, and i know he is a liar, i'm not going to believe him unless i have corroborating evidence or something stronger. I do it for the guy down the road about a inconsequential person, and i'm going to do it for anyone who claims they heard an Imam or heard someone hear from an Imam say or do anything.

This is why i haven't ever bothered to read Tafsir al-Qummi. I don't consider the book reliable as many of our scholars have affirmed. There are better Tafsir works out there. Eitherway if i were ever to read it, it would be many years down the line inshAllah when i gain more understanding.

Edited by Intellectual Resistance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

Also in Aqeedah, in fact maybe moreso in Aqeedah. If we're going to make sure people in the chain are reliable before we decide to place our feet further or closer apart in Salah, why won't we check they are reliable if they claim to tell us about fundamental aspects of our creed? Not to say this Hadith is an Aqeedah one but it could indirectly influence that.

While there is no doubt there is more to look at than merely the chain - such as aspects like Matn and the content of the text, if anyone is going to bring me a tradition of something the Prophet [saw] or Aimmah [asws] said or did that is in anyway not either just a basic Dua or virtue, i'm going to have to ask if reliable people transmitted that.

If someone came up to you and make a comment about your local Shaykh ordering brother x to do act y, would you not enquire what the sources were and whether or not they were reliable? We do it for everything in our lives, why don't we do it for the Prophet and Aimmah?

Having said that, i accept there is more to Hadith criticism than just the chain, but it is an important tool in the tool box. I don't reject weak traditions, but anything odd, different, and weak that is not corroborated and brought to me by liars, ghulat, untrustworthy accursed individuals, i don't act on. I've always been saying this.  I've had this same view for years.

If someone down the road comes and tells me he heard a rumour or saw something, and i know he is a liar, i'm not going to believe him unless i have corroborating evidence or something stronger. I do it for the guy down the road about a inconsequential person, and i'm going to do it for anyone who claims they heard an Imam or heard someone hear from an Imam say or do anything.

This is why i haven't ever bothered to read Tafsir al-Qummi. I don't consider the book reliable as many of our scholars have affirmed. There are better Tafsir works out there. Eitherway if i were ever to read it, it would be many years down the line inshAllah when i gain more understanding.

This is a historical not Aqidah hadith.

anyways, the whole topic has been studied already: http://ar.wikishia.net/view/آيات_الإفك

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chaotic Muslem said:

This is a historical not Aqidah hadith.

anyways, the whole topic has been studied already: http://ar.wikishia.net/view/آيات_الإفك

Well, take the Hadith of the mother of the twelfth Imam AJFS. You have a common myth that she is a roman princess, and was the daughter of the Caesar of Rome. The reality is, that tradition has liars, known fabricators, and extremist Ghulat on the chain. You might argue its only a historical tradition, but the reality is, if we began to accept anything and everything someone said without checking on who they were and if they were reputable, not only would the world be unstable, we would allow many false lies to creep into what we accept happened.

While the tradition discussed in the OP is a historical one, the reality is, it talks about some quite important issues. Would the Prophet [saw] ask Ali [as] to murder someone without verifying? Did the Prophet [saw] need to be told by Ali [as] he needed to verify if someone was innocent before killing them? I would love for someone to break down the chain of the tradition and let us know if there were any liars, fabricators of extremist Ghulat in the chain. 

As i have said, i will let someone grade it and maybe elaborate on the Matn further. As a general rule, i treat anything claimed of the Prophet or Imams the way i would treat anyone claiming my local shaykh said or did something. The idea that i have more care about investigating claims about what my local shaykh did, but not the Prophet or Aimmah to me, is not something that is palatable. 

If a liar is going to report something to me and only they do so and the content is rather unique, i'm not going to act on it. It's not proof on me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

Well, take the Hadith of the mother of the twelfth Imam AJFS. You have a common myth that she is a roman princess, and was the daughter of the Caesar of Rome. The reality is, that tradition has liars, known fabricators, and extremist Ghulat on the chain. You might argue its only a historical tradition, but the reality is, if we began to accept anything and everything someone said without checking on who they were and if they were reputable, not only would the world be unstable, we would allow many false lies to creep into what we accept happened.

While the tradition discussed in the OP is a historical one, the reality is, it talks about some quite important issues. Would the Prophet [saw] ask Ali [as] to murder someone without verifying? Did the Prophet [saw] need to be told by Ali [as] he needed to verify if someone was innocent before killing them? I would love for someone to break down the chain of the tradition and let us know if there were any liars, fabricators of extremist Ghulat in the chain. 

As i have said, i will let someone grade it and maybe elaborate on the Matn further. As a general rule, i treat anything claimed of the Prophet or Imams the way i would treat anyone claiming my local shaykh said or did something. The idea that i have more care about investigating claims about what my local shaykh did, but not the Prophet or Aimmah to me, is not something that is palatable. 

If a liar is going to report something to me and only they do so and the content is rather unique, i'm not going to act on it. It's not proof on me.

Maybe the context of a narration or a hadith and its comparison with the Quran and other ahadith/narrations should come first before you consider the science of Rijal (secondary nevertheless an important tool in my opinion). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Abbas. said:

Maybe the context of a narration or a hadith and its comparison with the Quran and other ahadith/narrations should come first before you consider the science of Rijal (secondary nevertheless an important tool in my opinion). 

This is a valid point and one the must be taken into account. As you have said , everything is a tool in the proverbial toolbox. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sumerian said:

No, I was replying regarding you saying there needs to be an investigation. I'm saying the Prophets and ma'soomeen don't always need to investigate for crimes. Imam Al-Mahdi (as) will not ask for evidence when he judges crimes.

Anyway, I found another version of this same hadith with a reliable chain even though it is from Tafsir Al-Qummi, and what it said in it was that Imam Ali (as) after he saw the state of that person, he returned to the Prophet and asked the Prophet that if he sent him regarding an issue, should he carry it out or verify first? And the Prophet says he should verify first. And then Imam Ali (as) explains the issue to the Prophet of what he saw.

So this explains that an investigation did happen. 

Finally the punishment for adultery is not lashing, that's the punishment for fornication. The punishment for adultery is different in the Shari'ah.

Brother can you kindly share the narration? Also is the Hadith of Al-khisal not authentic in terms of Chains ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Goswami said:

Brother can you kindly share the narration? Also is the Hadith of Al-khisal not authentic in terms of Chains ? 

Just as a warning , the route to Tafsir al-Qummi is not reliable, and it a book many of our great scholars have said is not necessarily reliable either. That's the problem, the book itself may be tampered with, added to and the like.  It's pretty sad whoever did it, if they did do it, and i'm quite sure if they did do it they're going to be punished severely, inshAllah. Misguiding people and lying on the Prophet [saw] and Aimmah [asws] is one way to go into hell, if Allah so wills.

 

Edited by Intellectual Resistance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do concur that the Infallibles don't need to investigate and they are aware of Person's character just like Khidr (as) was. But you guys are ignoring the fact that this hadith is giving a completely opposite message. Prophet (saw) said Imam (as) to kill a man and that man turned out to be an innocent . Hence , another problematic part. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Goswami said:

I do concur that the Infallibles don't need to investigate and they are aware of Person's character just like Khidr (as) was. But you guys are ignoring the fact that this hadith is giving a completely opposite message. Prophet (saw) said Imam (as) to kill a man and that man turned out to be an innocent . Hence , another problematic part. 

Brother, you still have not shared the exact reference of this narration. Should I conclude that you got this reference from an anti-shia website which I do not want to name here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Abbas. said:

Brother, you still have not shared the exact reference of this narration. Should I conclude that you got this reference from an anti-shia website which I do not want to name here?

1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Goswami said:

1.jpg

I would rather prefer that you tell me the exact reference. I ask this because I have this book in a language that I can read and understand and I want to read the narration in its entirety. Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×