Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi

Atiyah Al Aufi - عطية بن سعد العوفي كوفي - I got some questions and i want to discuss with both shia-sunnis!

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Bismillah

Well we know, many scholors has called him weak, and some gave him tawtheeq

So Salafis especially, and Barelvis from Subcontinent, say he used to narrate from Abu Saed Al-kalbi instead of Abu Saed Al-Khudri (رضي الله عنه) thus such a person can't be relied upon. And using this, a bunch of scholors called him weak and unreliable, not to be trusted etc

Now lets write some views of Scholors here  (Content taken from hadithtransmitters) :

1. Ibn Ḥibbān (d. 965 CE) - al-Majrūḥīn ابن حبان - المجروحون 
 

سمع من أبي سعيد الْخُدْرِيّ أَحَادِيث فَمَا مَاتَ أَبُو سعيد جعل يُجَالس الْكَلْبِيّ ويحضر قصصه فَإِذا قَالَ الْكَلْبِيّ قَالَ رَسُول الله بِكَذَا فيحفظه وكناه أَبَا سعيد ويروي عَنهُ فَإِذا قيل لَهُ من حَدثَك بِهَذَا فَيَقُول حَدثنِي أَبُو سعيد فيتوهمون أَنه يُرِيد أَبَا سعيد الْخُدْرِيّ وَإِنَّمَا أَرَادَ بِهِ الْكَلْبِيّ فَلَا يحل الِاحْتِجَاج بِهِ وَلَا كِتَابَة حَدِيثه إِلَّا عَلَى جِهَة التَّعَجُّب

Translation from Google: He (Atiyah) heard hadiths of Abu Saed Al-Khudri,  and when Abu Saed died, he used to sit with Al-Kalbi and listen to his stories. So when Al-Kalbi said Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said so and so, he used to preserve it . If he was asked who spoke to you about this, then he said narrated to me, Abu Saed, so they assumed that it was Abu Saed Al-Khudri but it was Al-Kalbi. It is not permissible to rely upon him or write his hadith except by expressing admiration.

The black bold part is conclusion of Ibn-Hibban.

So point is on what narration or proof, he rely to prove that he used to sit with Al-Kalbi and gave him nick Abu Saed and made some sort of evil tadlees?

In the very next line, ibn Hibban mentions it, here it is:

سَمِعت مَكْحُولًا يَقُول سَمِعت جَعْفَر بن أبان يَقُول بن نمير يَقُول قَالَ لي أَبُو خَالِد الْأَحْمَر قَالَ لي الْكَلْبِيّ قَالَ لي عَطِيَّة كنيتك بِأبي سعيد قَالَ فَأَنا أَقُول حَدثنَا أَبُو سعيد

Google: I heard someone, he said, I heard Ja`far bin Aban say, Bin Numeir  said to me, that Abu Khalid al-Ahmar said to me that Al-Kalbi said to me: that Atiyah Al Aufi said to me: Your Nickname is Abu Saed and i will say narrated to me Abu Saed.

So that narration that ibn-e-hibban used, to conclude that Attiyah used to goto Al-Kalbi and gave him Kuniyah of Abu Saed and then decieved people thus he should'nt be relied upon is actually a narration of the liar and forger Al-Kalbi himself. And Dahabi said his hadiths are fabricated, so how can we rely on this to accuse Attiyah? Thus conclusion of ibn-e-hibban is nullified isn't it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. Ibn ʿAdī al-Jurjānī (d. 976 CE) - al-Kāmil fī ḍuʿafāʾ al-rijālابن عدي الجرجاني - الكامل في ضعفاء الرجال

 حَدَّثَنَا ابن حماد، حَدَّثني عَبد اللَّه بن أحمد، عن أبيه، قَال: كَانَ سفيان الثَّوْريّ يضعف حديثه عطية قَالَ وسمعتُ أَبِي وذكر عطية العوفي قَالَ هُوَ ضعيف الحديث ثم قَالَ بلغني أن عطية كَانَ يأتي الكلبي فيأخذ عنه التفسير قَالَ وكان يكنيه بأبي سَعِيد فيقول قَالَ أَبُو سَعِيد وكان هشيم يضعف حديث عطية

bn Hammad told us, Abdullah bin Ahmed told me, on the authority of his father, he said: Sufyan al-Thawri was weakening his hadith and He said, I heard my father and mention Atiya al-Awfi, he said he is weak hadith. Then he told me that Atiyah was coming to Al Kalbi and he would take the explanation from him. He said that he used to call him Abu Saeed, and hashem weakened hadith of Attiyah.

And right after it, he mentions another narration from same people where Sufyan presents proof of this weakness of attiyah,

حَدَّثَنَا ابن حماد، قَال: حَدَّثني عَبد اللَّهِ بْن أحمد، حَدَّثني أبي، حَدَّثَنا أبو أحمد سمعت سفيان الثَّوْريّ يقول: سَمعتُ الكلبي يقول: قَالَ كناني عطية أبا سَعِيد.

Ibn Hammad told us, he said: Abdullah bin Ahmed told me, my father told me, Abu Ahmed told us, I heard Sufyan al-Thawri say: I heard al-Kalbi say: Attiyah called him Abu Saed.

Thus again, a narration of liar, forger Al-Kalbi himself, who said the same.

Thus again all kalaam on Attiyah by Jurjani, Sufyan and his father is nullified becuase its basis is narration of liar and forger Al-Kalbi himself isn't that so?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3. Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (d. 855 CE) - al-Jāmiʿ li-ʿulūm imām Aḥmad: al-Rijālأحمد بن حنبل - الجامع لعلوم إمام أحمد: الرجال

قال عبد اللَّه: سمعت أبي ذكر عطية العوفي فقال: هو ضعيف الحديث

Abdullah said: he heard his father regarding Attiyah Al-Aufi, he siad: Weak in hadith

Ahmed Bin Hanbal said he is weak, but why? in the very next line, reason is mentioned.

قال أبي: بلغني أن عطية كان يأتي الكلبي فيأخذ عنه التفسير، وكان يكنيه بأبي سعيد، فيقول: قال أبو سعيد، 

My father said: I was informed that Atiyah used to come to Al-Kalbi, and he would take the explanation from him. and he gave him kunniyah Abu Saed and he used to say: Abu Saed said...

and then same narration from Abdullah comes via his father:

وقال عبد اللَّه: حدثني أبي قال: حدثنا أبو أحمد الزبيري قال: سمعت سفيان الثوري قال: سمعتُ الكلبي قال: كناني عطية أبا سعيد.

here again Sufyan heard from Al-Kalbi who says the rest of narration.

then comes another quote:

ال عبد اللَّه: قال أبي: وكان سفيان يعني: الثوري يضعف حديث عطية.

taht Sufwan deemed him weak which I already mentioned in above post that he used narration of Al-kalbi the liar himself to deem attiyah weak and accuse him of narrating from Al-kalbi as Abu Saed instead of Abu Saed Al Khudri

Again Ahmed Bin Hanbal relied on a reason, that has its basis in words of a liar and forger Al-Kabli. Since there are only two narrations and both are from Al-Kalbi himself.

Thus Jarah of Ahmed Bin Hanbal is nullified as well, and so is the jarah of other scholors who deemed attiyah weak since almost everyone acuused attiyah of going to Al-Kalbi and narrating from him with Kunniyah of Abu Saed.

 

Edited by Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 Rejecting the view of Dahabi

In Mizaan Al Etadal Volum 5 page 122 narrator number 5673

Dahabi says: "A famous Taabi, weak in hadith" then he quotes Jarah of Ahmed Bin Hanbal which has been refuted.

Then he mentions Yaha Bin Mue'en who says "He (Attiyah) is Saaleh" (There are conflicting narrations from yahya Bin Mue'en which need to be discussed)

And Abu hatim Al-Razi called him weak and said his hadith can be noted.

In the End, Dahabi says: "I say: He (Attiyah) wanted to create a confusion, that he meant Abu Saed Al-Khudri and Nisai and one group has said: This narrator is weak"

So now we can understand, why Dahabi called him weak, since he hinted towards that accusation on Attiyah that he wanted to confuse people in two names:
1. Abu Saed Al-Khudri 2. Abu Saed Al-Kalbi

Which i showed that it comes from narration of Al-Kalbi the liar, thus the Jarah of Dahabi is also based on the thing, that has no basis. And is also nullified!

Edited by Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5. Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Rāzī (d. 938 CE) - al-Jarḥ wa-l-taʿdīlابن أبي حاتم الرازي - الجرح والتعديل

ابن ابى خالد ومسعر وابن ابى ليلى وقرة بن خالد سمعت أبي يقول ذلك، نا عبد الرحمن أنا عبد الله بن أحمد بن محمد بن حنبل فيما كتب إلى قال سمعت أبي وذكر عطية العوفى فقال هو ضعيف الحديث بلغني ان عطية كان يأتي الكلبى فيأخذ عنه التفسير، وكان الثوري وهشيم يضعفان حديث عطية

Ibn Abi Khalid, Mas'ar, Ibn Abi Laila and Qara bin Khalid. I heard my father say that. Na Abd al-Rahman, I am Abdullah bin Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Hanbal. As he wrote to he said, I heard my father and mentioned Atiyah al-Awfi. He said he is weak. He told me that Atiyah used to come to Al-Kalbi and he would take the explanation from him. The Sufyan and Hashem were weakening Hadith of Attiyah

So in the end, we see that Abu Hatim Razi has relied on others to call Attiyah weak (Dahabi said he (Abu Hatim Razi) called Attiyah weak) like Ahmed Bin Hanbal and Sufyan who based their weakness on the accusation on Attiyah that he narrated from Abu Saed Al-Kalbi instead of Abu Saed Al Khudri which has been proven as false accusation.

then he quoted another narration:

 نا عبد الرحمن قال سألت ابى عن عطية العوفى فقال (ضعيف الحديث يكتب حديثه وابو نضرة احب إلى من عطية، سئل أبو زرعة عنه فقال كوفى - ) لين

Abd al-Rahman said: I asked father about Atiyah al-Awfi, and he said: “Hadith is weak, he writes his hadith 
And Abu Nadra loved the one that was from Attiyah. Abu Zaraa was asked about it, and he said Kufi - Laen

Thus now one can easily say why these people have called him weak just like all these scholors. The reason is obvious. Its that evil tadless that he was accused of, and that accusation has no basis thus all this jarah of Abu Hatim Razi on Attiyah is null and void.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then by the Grace of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), later scholors of Sunnis and Salafis followed there elders in issuing fatwa of weakness on Attiyah Al Aufi thus it would be a waste of time to find and quote them since its all based on "He narrated of Al-kalbi actually" which is false as I proved.

 No we will go to "Yahya Bin Mue'en" 

1st Quote is: ( Ibn ʿAdī al-Jurjānī (d. 976 CE) - al-Kāmil fī ḍuʿafāʾ al-rijālابن عدي الجرجاني - الكامل في ضعفاء الرجال)

حَدَّثَنَا علي بن أحمد بن سليمان، حَدَّثَنا ابن أَبِي مريم سألت يَحْيى بْن مَعِين عن عطية العوفي فقال ضعيف إلاَّ أنه يكتب حديثه

Ali bin Ahmed bin Suleiman told us. Ibn Abi Maryam told us. I asked Yahya Bin Ma’in about Attia al-Awfi and he said he is weak, but he writes his hadith

2nd Quote is: (  arikh ibn Moin by al-Daqaq, p27 quoted by shiapen.com)

Imam Yahyah bin Moin said: ‘Nothing bad about him’ (Tarikh ibn Moin by al-Daqaq, p27)

while Sunni scholar Mahmood Saeed Mamdoh said in his book Rafe al-Manara, page 163:

‘Yahya bin Moin declared that about whom he said ‘nothing bad about him’, it means that he is Thiqah.’

3rd Quote is: Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Rāzī (d. 938 CE) - al-Jarḥ wa-l-taʿdīl ابن أبي حاتم الرازي - الجرح والتعديل

عبد الرحمن قال قرئ على العباس بن محمد الدوري قال قيل ليحيى بن معين كيف حديث عطية؟ قال صالح

Abd al-Rahman said: Read on Al-Abbas bin Muhammad Al-Douri. He said it was said to Yahya bin Mu’in, how is the hadeeth of Atiyah? Saleh (Good) he said

Last time Salafis said, shia pen didn't mention other statment of Yahya Bin Mue'en lol here, have it 

Lets use the best case,

All statements were said by Yahya Bin Mue'en, and that means, he did change his opinions which salafis agreed to at Ts.net

Now we can have two futher possibilities:

1. He first considered him Thiqa then Called him Weak

2. He first considered him Weak then Called him Thiqa

How much logic is there in Case 1:

It literally means, that Yahya Bin Mue'en used to consider him Thiqa, then he saw narration of Al-Kalbi about whom he said:

 نا عبد الرحمن قال قرئ على العباس بن محمد الدوري عن يحيى بن معين أنه قال الكلبى ليس بشئ. (  Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Rāzī (d. 938 CE) - al-Jarḥ wa-l-taʿdīl ابن أبي حاتم الرازي - الجرح والتعديل )

Abd al-Rahman said, Reciter of al-Abbas bin Muhammad al-Douri, on the authority of Yahya bin Mu'in, that he said al-Kalbi is nothing.

and accepted narration of such a person and called Attiyah weak. (Logic is flawed)

How much logic is there in Case 2:

It would mean that Yahya Bin Mue'en considered him weak just like others but then realized that behind the accusation on Attiyah Al Aufi, is Al-Kalbi the liar himself thus later changed his views and call him thiqa. ( This seems much more logical )

Also for a moment, imagine even if case one is true, then Jarah of Yahya Bin Mue'en also becomes weightless since we know that the only thing they have to weaken Attiyah is accusation that he narrated from Al-Kalbi instead of Al-Khudri which comes from a liar and thats what has been used by scholors to denounce him.

And this can only be the reason that can be there to make Yahya Bin Mue'en change his statement. Even in this case, is earlier opinion of tawtheeq holds more weight.

Thus This is 1st Tawtheeq for Attiyah Al-Aufi from Yahya Bin Mue'en

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://hadithproofsfortawassul.blogspot.com/2005/11/hadith-6-response-to-salafis.html

in this article, Sunnis themselves refuted accusation on attiyah being a shia as follows:

Inclination towards Shi'ism

al-Juzjani in Ahwal ur Rijal has called him mail (inclined). Shaykh Mamduh says that al-Juzjani is a Nasibi and his statement proves that `Atiyyah was not a Shi'a because if there were even a hint of shi'ism in him al-juzjani would have labelled him a shi'a, since he has only referred to him as inclined towards shi'ism, out of his hatred for Kufi people, this shows that there is no such thing in `Atiyyah.

And what al-`Uqayli has quoted from Salim al-Muradi (?) in Kitab al-Dhu`afa' and what adh-Dhahabi has quoted from him in al-Meezan regarding `Atiyyah being inclined towards shi'ism is not of benefit in this reard because Salim al-Muradi (?) is not one of the Huffaz or of those opinions are referred to in matters of jarh. And he is himself Shi'i like `Atiyyah al-`Awfi and `Atiyyah is one of his mashaikh so he is far removed from being able to condemn `Atiyyah.

And further they wrote:

Now, something else which is extremely interesting was brought to light by Sidi Abul Hasan [of Sunniforum] which appears to have been overlooked by contemporary scholars of Hadith! Let me quote him below [with slight editing]:


"Basically, the argument that Atiyya did not clarify if he actually heard from the Sahabi Abu Sa'eed - since in all the routes that people have presented to us these days - Atiyya always used the word: "An" - meaning - FROM - which is a vague form of transmitting - Hence he was also accused of Tadlees!

We can dismiss this allegation of Tadlees now at last! Because: I [Abul Hasan] have located a narration from the Amali of ibn Bushran - where Atiyya used the phrase: Haddathani - which is a very clear way of transmitting the narration and discredits any claim of Tadlees now for this route in the Amali and hence applicable to all the other simlar versions, bi-idhnillah.

Here is the text from the Amali:

أَمَالِي ابْنِ بِشْرَانَ مَجْلِسُ يَوْمِ الْجُمُعَةِ الْعِشْرِينَ مِنْ شَهْرِ رَبِيعٍ الْأَوَّلِ سَنَةَ أَرْبَعٍ وَعِشْرِينَ مَا مِنْ رَجُلٍ يَخْرُجُ مِنْ بَيْتِهِ إِلَى الصَّلَاةِ ، فَقَالَ753 وأخبرنا دعلج ثنا جعفر بن أحمد الساقاني ، ثنا محمد بن يحيى بن ضريس ، ثنا ابن فضيل ، ثنا أبي ، عن عطية ، حدثني أبو سعيد الخدري ، قال : قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : " ما من رجل يخرج من بيته إلى الصلاة ، فقال : اللهم إني أسألك بحق السائلين عليك ، وبحق ممشاي هذا ، لم أخرج أشرا ، ولا بطرا ، ولا رياء ، ولا سمعة ، خرجت اتقاء سخطك ، وابتغاء مرضاتك ، أسألك أن تعيذني من النار ، وتغفر لي ذنوبي ، إنه لا يغفر الذنوب إلا أنت ، إلا وكل به سبعون ألف ملك يستغفرون له ، وأقبل الله عز وجل عليه بوجهه حتى يقضي صلاته

No doubt, Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-Asqalani declared the above narration from Hadrat Abu Sa'eed al-Khudri (رضي الله عنه), via the route of his student: Atiyya al-Awfi to be HASAN in his Nata'ij al-Afkar (1/272), but let me add that just as in the riwaya above from Ibn Bushran, Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani also mentioned in the above named work (Nata'ij al-Afkar, 1/273) that he has also seen in the work known as Kitab al-Salah of Abu Nu'aym (Fadl ibn Dukayn) the fact that Atiyya also used the phrase: Haddathani when relating from Abu Sa'eed al-Khudri (رضي الله عنه), though this was a Mawquf narration and not Marfu hence lifting further the accusation of Tadlees against Atiyya on this specific narration under discussion.


May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) reward Sidi Abul Hasan's efforts. Ameen.

There should be no doubt now in any "salafi's" mind that the grading of this hadith is as the scholars of Hadith like Ibn Hajar RH mentioned - it is hasan!

Edited by Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now what about these two narrations:

Hussein Bin Yazid said narrated to me Saeed Bin Khusaem from Fuzail from Attiyah Al Aufi from Abu Saed Al-Khudri who said:

"When 26th ayah of Surah 17 (Al-Isra) was revealed, Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) called Fatimah (عليه السلام) and gave her fadak"

:حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ الْمُنْذِرِ، - كُوفِيٌّ - حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ فُضَيْلٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا الأَعْمَشُ، عَنْ عَطِيَّةَ، عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ،

قَالاَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ إِنِّي تَارِكٌ فِيكُمْ مَا إِنْ تَمَسَّكْتُمْ بِهِ لَنْ تَضِلُّوا بَعْدِي أَحَدُهُمَا أَعْظَمُ مِنَ الآخَرِ كِتَابُ اللَّهِ حَبْلٌ مَمْدُودٌ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ إِلَى الأَرْضِ وَعِتْرَتِي أَهْلُ بَيْتِي وَلَنْ يَتَفَرَّقَا حَتَّى يَرِدَا عَلَىَّ الْحَوْضَ فَانْظُرُوا كَيْفَ تَخْلُفُونِي فِيهِمَا ‏"‏

Narrated Abu Saed, may Allah be pleased with him:
that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:"Indeed, I am leaving among you, that which if you hold fast to them, you shall not be misguided after me. One of them is greater than the other: The Book of Allah is a rope extended from the sky to the earth, and my family - the people of my house - and they shall not split until they meet at the Hawd, so look at how you deal with them after me."

and Al-Amash is 2nd grade mudalis and also in Kitab Us Sunnah pg 644 its written that Amash used pharase "FaHadasna Attiyah"

Guess that makes the two narrations Authentic now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2020 at 4:36 AM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

And then by the Grace of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), later scholors of Sunnis and Salafis followed there elders in issuing fatwa of weakness on Attiyah Al Aufi thus it would be a waste of time to find and quote them since its all based on "He narrated of Al-kalbi actually" which is false as I proved.

 No we will go to "Yahya Bin Mue'en" 

1st Quote is: ( Ibn ʿAdī al-Jurjānī (d. 976 CE) - al-Kāmil fī ḍuʿafāʾ al-rijālابن عدي الجرجاني - الكامل في ضعفاء الرجال)

حَدَّثَنَا علي بن أحمد بن سليمان، حَدَّثَنا ابن أَبِي مريم سألت يَحْيى بْن مَعِين عن عطية العوفي فقال ضعيف إلاَّ أنه يكتب حديثه

Ali bin Ahmed bin Suleiman told us. Ibn Abi Maryam told us. I asked Yahya Bin Ma’in about Attia al-Awfi and he said he is weak, but he writes his hadith

2nd Quote is: (  arikh ibn Moin by al-Daqaq, p27 quoted by shiapen.com)

Imam Yahyah bin Moin said: ‘Nothing bad about him’ (Tarikh ibn Moin by al-Daqaq, p27)

while Sunni scholar Mahmood Saeed Mamdoh said in his book Rafe al-Manara, page 163:

‘Yahya bin Moin declared that about whom he said ‘nothing bad about him’, it means that he is Thiqah.’

3rd Quote is: Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Rāzī (d. 938 CE) - al-Jarḥ wa-l-taʿdīl ابن أبي حاتم الرازي - الجرح والتعديل

عبد الرحمن قال قرئ على العباس بن محمد الدوري قال قيل ليحيى بن معين كيف حديث عطية؟ قال صالح

Abd al-Rahman said: Read on Al-Abbas bin Muhammad Al-Douri. He said it was said to Yahya bin Mu’in, how is the hadeeth of Atiyah? Saleh (Good) he said

Last time Salafis said, shia pen didn't mention other statment of Yahya Bin Mue'en lol here, have it 

Lets use the best case,

All statements were said by Yahya Bin Mue'en, and that means, he did change his opinions which salafis agreed to at Ts.net

Now we can have two futher possibilities:

1. He first considered him Thiqa then Called him Weak

2. He first considered him Weak then Called him Thiqa

How much logic is there in Case 1:

It literally means, that Yahya Bin Mue'en used to consider him Thiqa, then he saw narration of Al-Kalbi about whom he said:

 نا عبد الرحمن قال قرئ على العباس بن محمد الدوري عن يحيى بن معين أنه قال الكلبى ليس بشئ. (  Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Rāzī (d. 938 CE) - al-Jarḥ wa-l-taʿdīl ابن أبي حاتم الرازي - الجرح والتعديل )

Abd al-Rahman said, Reciter of al-Abbas bin Muhammad al-Douri, on the authority of Yahya bin Mu'in, that he said al-Kalbi is nothing.

and accepted narration of such a person and called Attiyah weak. (Logic is flawed)

How much logic is there in Case 2:

It would mean that Yahya Bin Mue'en considered him weak just like others but then realized that behind the accusation on Attiyah Al Aufi, is Al-Kalbi the liar himself thus later changed his views and call him thiqa. ( This seems much more logical )

Also for a moment, imagine even if case one is true, then Jarah of Yahya Bin Mue'en also becomes weightless since we know that the only thing they have to weaken Attiyah is accusation that he narrated from Al-Kalbi instead of Al-Khudri which comes from a liar and thats what has been used by scholors to denounce him.

And this can only be the reason that can be there to make Yahya Bin Mue'en change his statement. Even in this case, is earlier opinion of tawtheeq holds more weight.

Thus This is 1st Tawtheeq for Attiyah Al-Aufi from Yahya Bin Mue'en

Nasibis Old Response:

Yahya bin Ma’een even weakened Atiyya awfi, and this was related by Al-Uqaili according to Mughlatai. Ibn Shaheen also quoted Ibn Ma’een’s weakening of Attiyyah in his book of weak narrators (p. 273).

As for Mahmood Seed Mamdoh, then he is a biased innovator, who has been criticized by Scholars for his ignorance of Hadeeth science, bias and his unacademic approach. Hence his view holds no weight in the sight of Ahlesunnah.

la ba’asa bihi (he is not bad).”The usage of the term amongst ahlul hadeeth suggests that he is not of a high degree of trustworthiness, if he were, then Yahya ibn Moin would have simply said: Thiqa, but he didn’t.

Now the fact is that there are other views repored from Yahya ibn Moin, regarding Atiyya, which proves that Ibn Moin changed his view on Atiyya and considered him weak:

وقال يحيى بن معين _ في رواية ابن الجنيد (رقم 234) _ : ( كان ضعيفاً في القضاء ، ضعيفاً في الحديث ).

In one of the narration of Ibn Junaid, it is narrated from Yahya bin Moin: “he (Atiyya) was weak in Qadha and also weak in hadith.

وقال _ في رواية أبي الوليد بن أبي الجارود كما في الضعفاء للعقيلي (3/359) _ : (كان عطية العوفي ضعيفاً ).
In the report from Ibn Abi Jarood, Imam Ibn Moin said: “Atiyya was weak”. [Adh-Dhu’afa of Al-Uqailee (3/359)]

وقال _ في رواية ابن أبي مريم كما في الكامل (7/84) _ : ( ضعيف إلا أنه يكتب حديثه ).
In the report of Ibn Abi Maryam from Ibn Moin, Imam said: “he was weak. except his hadith to be written.” [Al-Kamil (5/369) Daar Ul-Fikr]

So, We find that Yahya ibn Maeen has conflicting opinions on Atiyya awfi, and what has reached through multiple routes is that, He considered Atiyya weak, which proves that Yahya ibn Maeen changed his view on Atiyya and considered him weak, as this is even the view of majority of experts and pioneers of Ilm ul Rijaal(science of narrators) and his contemporaries, thus this will be preffered.

.This has already been refuted in above post. The argument that yahya would rely on narration of a ""liar"" to call atiyah weak is flawed and logically un acceptable. Even if he did so, the opinion of yahya gets weakened!

Then they said:

Also, we would like to clarify that, Shias might quote another statement of Yahya ibn Maeen regarding Atiyya which says (Saalih) “ففي سؤالات الدوري ( 2 / 407 ) : قيل ليحيى كيف حديث عطية ؟ قال : صالح”

Scholars like Ibn Hajar explained that, “the term Saalih is not same as Saalih Al-Hadith(good in hadith), the former has nothing to do with adalah or worthiness as narrator”. Its similar to terms like, Mashoor(famous) or Tabe’i, which doesn’t have relation to their reliability as narrator. So this term (Saalih) used by Ibn Maeen has nothing to do with Tawtheeq of Atiyya. (Also refer Nukat ‘ala muqaddimah ibn salah v 2 p 280)

.My dear viewers, look at these liars:

 قيل ليحيى كيف حديث عطية ؟ قال : صالح

Yahya Bin Mue'en was not asked about Atiyah, as said by these nasbis, he was asked about HADITH OF ATIYAH "حديث عطية" and he said: Saleh

This comment of Yahya Bin Mue'en is on hadith and not Attiyah. but they did tehreef in actual statement to deceive people but failed again.

And as they said Yahya Bin Mue'en changed his view.

As i said above, is it logical for him to change his view to weaken atiyah based upon a narration of liar Al-Kalbi? Indeed opposite of this is much more logical and possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

COMMENTS OF IJLI:

Again, Shiapen displayed their deceit by half quoting al-Ajli.
– معرفة الثقات – العجلي – ج 2 – ص 140 ، ط1 ، مكتبة الدار ، 1405 هـ ، المدينة المنورة .
الموسوعة الشاملة – معرفة الثقات
( 1255 ) عطية العوفي كوفي تابعي ثقة وليس بالقوي .

al-Ajli said “thiqah wa laysa bil qawi” i.e. he was thiqah and not strong.

This appears to be an oxymoron, but Al-Ajli’s words refer to Atiyyah’s truthfulness, not his ability to narrate narrations, which is clear from his words “not strong”. So this doesn’t serve shi’i opinion.

As for al-Ajli’s view, then he is considered Mutasahil(Lenient) by scholars of hadeeth. Al-Mu’allimi and Al-Albani considered him Mutasahil. Hence even if his view is supposed to be Tawtheeq, which isn’t the case, yet it wouldn’t be given preference since it goes against the majority of Imams of Jarh wa Tadeel, who considered Atiyya as weak.

In Tamam Al-Mina p. 231 Sheikh Albani states: “And it appears as though he followed Al-Ajli who mentioned him in the thiqaat, and so did Ibn Hibban, and their tawtheeq isn’t reassuring, since they are known for being lenient”.

.

Here is response by Wajahat Hussein Al-Hanafi on calling him Mutasahil:

 

they said:

Hence even if his view is supposed to be Tawtheeq, which isn’t the case, yet it wouldn’t be given preference since it goes against the majority of Imams of Jarh wa Tadeel, who considered Atiyya as weak..

Their tawtheeq indeed should be given preference because earlier scholors relied on Liar Al-Kalbi himself to call atiyah weak and later scholros just did their taqleed in pronouncing Atiyah weak.

Thus its the opposite actually, the jara'h on atiyah shouldn't be given preference since it is based upon narration of a liar and forger!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(v). Shiapen stated: 

Quote

 Imam Muhammad Ibn Saad said: ‘Thiqah’ (Tabaqat al Kubra, v6 p304). [End Quote]

Response:

But Ibn Saad then further states after stating this opinion:

ومن الناس من لا يحتج به

“there are people who don’t consider him for evidence”.

And according to Ibn Hajar, Ibn Saad is not to be relied on, when he is on odd with majority of experts and pioneers of Ilm ul Rijaal(science of narrators), specially like in this case. (End)

.We see, they again came up with non sense,

Ok fine, he can be odd, but in case of Atiyah, we see that Scholors like Yahya Bin Mue'en authenticated him and so did ijli. And views of scholors against Atiyah are based on narration of liar Al-Kalbi, thus in this case, Tawtheeq of Atiyah from ibn Saad isn't odd at all. It rather makes more sense and even has support of other scholors.

 

Edited by Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is nonsense that people weaken Atiyah basically because he is Shi'i. We all know how subjective 'ilm al-rijal really is. You might be interested to see my topic on Identifying Sulaym ibn Qays who I believe is Qays ibn Abbad al Qaysi a reliable Sunni narrator. I have posted it in the general section brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree weakening  narraters because of their " shia inclination" for the sake of objectivity is laughable esp since Sunni muhadith will take hadith without question from many pro establishment pro ummayyad narraters [ hell even aisha as I always say should be considered a weak narrater by the same criteria they use against shia narraters ] 

Btw which ibn Kalbi is being discussed here ? The great genealogist?

Share this post


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

I agree weakening  narraters because of their " shia inclination" for the sake of objectivity is laughable esp since Sunni muhadith will take hadith without question from many pro establishment pro ummayyad narraters [ hell even aisha as I always say should be considered a weak narrater by the same criteria they use against shia narraters ] 

Btw which ibn Kalbi is being discussed here ? The great genealogist?

Its مُحَمَّد بن السَّائِب الْكَلْبِيّ

Famous for lies and forgery among Ahle-Sunnah and probably Majhool according to us Shias 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, gharib570 said:

It is nonsense that people weaken Atiyah basically because he is Shi'i. We all know how subjective 'ilm al-rijal really is. You might be interested to see my topic on Identifying Sulaym ibn Qays who I believe is Qays ibn Abbad al Qaysi a reliable Sunni narrator. I have posted it in the general section brother.

InshaAllah, Soon

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Its مُحَمَّد بن السَّائِب الْكَلْبِيّ

Famous for lies and forgery among Ahle-Sunnah and probably Majhool according to us Shias 

Isnt he the father of hisham ibn Kalbi?

How is he majhool ? His descendants have documented probably more biographical details than the greatest scholars 

Opinion of Sunni muhadith on any historian is largely irrelevant as they an ideological axe to grind against them they even considered oceans of knowledge like abu mikhanaf and waqidi as liars or unreliable 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

Isnt he the father of hisham ibn Kalbi?

How is he majhool ? His descendants have documented probably more biographical details than the greatest scholars 

Opinion of Sunni muhadith on any historian is largely irrelevant as they an ideological axe to grind against them they even considered oceans of knowledge like abu mikhanaf and waqidi as liars or unreliable 

I am not into this alot but see this:

10820 - 10815 - 10842 - محمد بن سايب الكلبي: تقدم في محمد بن سايب بن بشر " المجهول المتقدم 10817 ".

Muhammad Al Jawahiri in Al Mufeed Min Mujam Al Rijal e Hadith.

And i think i heard in a video that Allamah Mamqani also listed Al-Kalbi as Imami Majhool

And yes, he is father of Hisham ( Bin Muhammad Bin Saib )

Edited by Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atiyyah al Awfi narrated from Ibn Abbas, Abu Huraira,Abdullah Ibn Umar, Jabir Bin Abdullah Ansari, Abu Saeed Khudri

Out of all of them  why he needed to lie regarding Abu Saeed Khudari Only?

Was he accused of lying  because he narrated hadiths from Abu Saeed Khudri regarding

1.Hadith al Thaqalayan with  the wording “  'Verily, I leave behind  two weighty things amongst you: if you hold fast to it  will never go astray, the Book of Allah and my Ahlul BaytVerily, the two will never separate until they come back to me by the side of the Pond.'"

2. Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) gifted fadak to H. Fatima (sa) when the verse “ and give his due to near of kin” revealed.

3. Verse of Purification is for five Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), Ali(عليه السلام), fatema(sa), hasan(عليه السلام) and Hussain (عليه السلام)

4. prophet (saw)) said: “O `Ali! Nobody is permitted to remain in the state of janaba in this mosque other than I and you”.

where as Atiyyah (died 111 A.H)  was senior to al Kalbi( died 146 A.H) as Atiyyah directly narrated from Ibn Abbas where as Al Kalbi narrated though Abi Salih from Ibn Abbas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2020 at 3:37 PM, elite said:

Atiyyah al Awfi narrated from Ibn Abbas, Abu Huraira,Abdullah Ibn Umar, Jabir Bin Abdullah Ansari, Abu Saeed Khudri

Out of all of them  why he needed to lie regarding Abu Saeed Khudari Only?

Awesome brother. It makes sense. Why would he decieve people regarding Abu Saed Khudri only? Great question.

On 7/19/2020 at 3:37 PM, elite said:

1.Hadith al Thaqalayan with  the wording “  'Verily, I leave behind  two weighty things amongst you: if you hold fast to it  will never go astray, the Book of Allah and my Ahlul BaytVerily, the two will never separate until they come back to me by the side of the Pond.'"

2. Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) gifted fadak to H. Fatima (sa) when the verse “ and give his due to near of kin” revealed.

3. Verse of Purification is for five Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), Ali(عليه السلام), fatema(sa), hasan(عليه السلام) and Hussain (عليه السلام)

4. prophet (saw)) said: “O `Ali! Nobody is permitted to remain in the state of janaba in this mosque other than I and you”.

And its hard for them to accept all of this and still be a Sunni.

On 7/19/2020 at 3:37 PM, elite said:

where as Atiyyah (died 111 A.H)  was senior to al Kalbi( died 146 A.H) as Atiyyah directly narrated from Ibn Abbas where as Al Kalbi narrated though Abi Salih from Ibn Abbas

Valuable information! Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw an article, where Abu Hurreira was being discussed and Khoei and other were criticized for using a weak narration in which imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) accused three people of lying which included Abu Hurreria and The Woman ( Aisha )

How can they argue with us on using that narration while tons if their scholors, Like Ahmad Bin Hanbal, Sufyan Thawri, Ibn e Hibban, Dahabi, Ibn e Adi Al Jurjani, Abu Hatim Al Razi and so on used narration of a Liar ( Al-Kalbi) to weaken a thiqa narrator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.Narrated to us Ibn Hammad who said narrated to me Abdullah bin Ahmad who said narrated to me my  father  who said narrated to us Abu Ahmad who said  I heard Sufyan al Thawari saying I heard al Kalbi saying  Atiyyah gave me the  kuniya “Aba Saeed”.[Al-Kamil fi Dhu'afa' al-Rijal vol 7 page 84]

So Atiyyah gave al Kalbi kuniya of “Aba Saeed” and not the “ Aba Saeed al Khudri”.

When we look in to the Hadith of Atiyyah he clearly mentioned that “ from Aba saeed al Khudri”

What Ahmad ibn Hambal(born 164 AH) had reported for Atiyyah in the following reports  is from the disconnected chain.and Sufyan ath-Thawri  (died 161 AH)

2.Narrated to us Ibn Hammad who said narrated to me Abdullah bin Ahmad from his father  who said Sufyan Al Thawri used to weaken the hadith of Atiyyah and he said I heard my father when mentioned the Atiyyah Al Awfi he said weak in hadith  then he said it has reached to me(balagani) that Atiyyah was used to come to Al Kalbi and  he used to take the tafsir from him and he said he gave him kuniya  “Aba saeed and then he used to say “ said Aba saeed”” .[Al-Kamil fi Dhu'afa' al-Rijal vol 7 page 84.]

3.My father said it has reached to me (balagani) that Atiyyah used to come to Al Kalbi and he used to take tafsir from al Kalbi and he gave him Kuniya Aba Saeed and he used to say “Said Aba Saeed”[Al Jami Li-ulum, Imam Ahmad : Al Rijal]

Now what is reported in the report 1 only mentioned that “ he gave kuniya of Aba saeed to al Kalbi.Report 2 & 3 are with word “ It has reached to me” with the addition of accused him of deception..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, elite said:

1.Narrated to us Ibn Hammad who said narrated to me Abdullah bin Ahmad who said narrated to me my  father  who said narrated to us Abu Ahmad who said  I heard Sufyan al Thawari saying I heard al Kalbi saying  Atiyyah gave me the  kuniya “Aba Saeed”.[Al-Kamil fi Dhu'afa' al-Rijal vol 7 page 84]

So Atiyyah gave al Kalbi kuniya of “Aba Saeed” and not the “ Aba Saeed al Khudri”.

When we look in to the Hadith of Atiyyah he clearly mentioned that “ from Aba saeed al Khudri”

What Ahmad ibn Hambal(born 164 AH) had reported for Atiyyah in the following reports  is from the disconnected chain.and Sufyan ath-Thawri  (died 161 AH)

2.Narrated to us Ibn Hammad who said narrated to me Abdullah bin Ahmad from his father  who said Sufyan Al Thawri used to weaken the hadith of Atiyyah and he said I heard my father when mentioned the Atiyyah Al Awfi he said weak in hadith  then he said it has reached to me(balagani) that Atiyyah was used to come to Al Kalbi and  he used to take the tafsir from him and he said he gave him kuniya  “Aba saeed and then he used to say “ said Aba saeed”” .[Al-Kamil fi Dhu'afa' al-Rijal vol 7 page 84.]

3.My father said it has reached to me (balagani) that Atiyyah used to come to Al Kalbi and he used to take tafsir from al Kalbi and he gave him Kuniya Aba Saeed and he used to say “Said Aba Saeed”[Al Jami Li-ulum, Imam Ahmad : Al Rijal]

Now what is reported in the report 1 only mentioned that “ he gave kuniya of Aba saeed to al Kalbi.Report 2 & 3 are with word “ It has reached to me” with the addition of accused him of deception..

2nd report has reached from this path:


وقال عبد اللَّه: حدثني أبي قال: حدثنا أبو أحمد الزبيري قال: سمعت سفيان الثوري قال: سمعتُ الكلبي قال: كناني عطية أبا سعيد.


Abdullah narrates from Ahmad Bin hanbal narrated from Abu Ahmad fron Sufyan thawri who heard from Al Kalbi again a narration of liar Al-Kalbi.

Origin of this allegation is narration from a liar thats it! Its not a all acceptable.

 

Edited by Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2020 at 6:00 PM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

I saw an article, where Abu Hurreira was being discussed and Khoei and other were criticized for using a weak narration in which imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) accused three people of lying which included Abu Hurreria and The Woman ( Aisha )

How can they argue with us on using that narration while tons if their scholors, Like Ahmad Bin Hanbal, Sufyan Thawri, Ibn e Hibban, Dahabi, Ibn e Adi Al Jurjani, Abu Hatim Al Razi and so on used narration of a Liar ( Al-Kalbi) to weaken a thiqa narrator.

The question would go right back at you.
How can the ithna ashari shia use the narrations from people like Zurarah ibn A'yan who was cursed by imam sadiq and imam accused Zurarah ibn a'yan of lying. So if you say that if a person is cursed and is accused of being a liar from ithna ashari sources by the imam then his narrations shouldn't be used the question arises how come you didn't discard all the narrations coming from Zurarah ibn a'yan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hassan7wolf said:

The question would go right back at you.
How can the ithna ashari shia use the narrations from people like Zurarah ibn A'yan who was cursed by imam sadiq and imam accused Zurarah ibn a'yan of lying. So if you say that if a person is cursed and is accused of being a liar from ithna ashari sources by the imam then his narrations shouldn't be used the question arises how come you didn't discard all the narrations coming from Zurarah ibn a'yan.

Let me throw it back at you again

When Ibn-e-Umar called Abu Hurreira a liar, why did you take narrations of Abu Hurreria?

Check:


ومثله قول المروزي حدثنا اسحاق بن راهوية وأحمد بن عمرو قالا حدثنا جرير عن منصور عن حبيب ابن أبي ثابت عن طاوس قال كنت جالسا جالسا عند ابن عمر فأتاه رجل فقال أن أبا هريرة يقول أن الوتر ليس بحتم فخذوا منه ودعوا فقال ابن عمر كذب أبو هريرة جاء رجل إلى رسول الله فسأله عن صلاة اليل فقال مثنى مثنى فإذا خشيت الصبح فواحدة )

taoos said that we were sitting with ibn umar when a man came, and he said
“abu huraira said that witr is not compulsory/final; if u wish go for it or leave it”
so ibn umar said:
” abu huraira lied; a man came to holy prophet asws and asked him about the night prayer; so he asws said: two two rakat; but if you fear morning, then one rakat”
researcher of the book; abu al ashbaal al zahairi, termed it
ISNAAD SAHIH

[jami bayan ul ilm wa fadlaho, ibn abdul bar, tehqeeq by zahiri, vol 1, page 1101, narration 2148, printed dar ibn joozi]

 

 

Edited by Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Let me throw it back at you again

When Ibn-e-Umar called Abu Hurreira a liar, why did you take narrations of Abu Hurreria?

Check:


ومثله قول المروزي حدثنا اسحاق بن راهوية وأحمد بن عمرو قالا حدثنا جرير عن منصور عن حبيب ابن أبي ثابت عن طاوس قال كنت جالسا جالسا عند ابن عمر فأتاه رجل فقال أن أبا هريرة يقول أن الوتر ليس بحتم فخذوا منه ودعوا فقال ابن عمر كذب أبو هريرة جاء رجل إلى رسول الله فسأله عن صلاة اليل فقال مثنى مثنى فإذا خشيت الصبح فواحدة )

taoos said that we were sitting with ibn umar when a man came, and he said
“abu huraira said that witr is not compulsory/final; if u wish go for it or leave it”
so ibn umar said:
” abu huraira lied; a man came to holy prophet asws and asked him about the night prayer; so he asws said: two two rakat; but if you fear morning, then one rakat”
researcher of the book; abu al ashbaal al zahairi, termed it
ISNAAD SAHIH

[jami bayan ul ilm wa fadlaho, ibn abdul bar, tehqeeq by zahiri, vol 1, page 1101, narration 2148, printed dar ibn joozi]

Yeah bro it would be great if you asked this question to a sunni brother but as I'm not sunni I don't know how it is relevant to me. So now can you answer the question I asked instead of avoiding it?

11 hours ago, hassan7wolf said:

The question would go right back at you.
How can the ithna ashari shia use the narrations from people like Zurarah ibn A'yan who was cursed by imam sadiq and imam accused Zurarah ibn a'yan of lying. So if you say that if a person is cursed and is accused of being a liar from ithna ashari sources by the imam then his narrations shouldn't be used the question arises how come you didn't discard all the narrations coming from Zurarah ibn a'yan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, hassan7wolf said:

The question would go right back at you.
How can the ithna ashari shia use the narrations from people like Zurarah ibn A'yan who was cursed by imam sadiq and imam accused Zurarah ibn a'yan of lying. So if you say that if a person is cursed and is accused of being a liar from ithna ashari sources by the imam then his narrations shouldn't be used the question arises how come you didn't discard all the narrations coming from Zurarah ibn a'yan.

17. [17/172] Rijal al-Kashshi: Hamduwayh from Muhammad b. Isa from Yunus from Abdallah b. Zurara AND Muhammad b. Qulawayh and al-Husayn b. al-Hasan from Sa`d from Harun b. al-Hasan b. Mahbub from Muhammad b. Abdallah b. Zurara and his [Zurara’s] two sons al-Hasan and al-Husayn from Abdallah b. Zurara who said: Abu Abdillah عليه السلام said to me: convey my salutations of peace to your father and say to him: Verily, I only defame you as a way of defending you, for the masses and the enemy hasten to whomever we draw near and praise his station so as to cause harm to the one we love and bring close. They accuse such a one because of our love for him and his closeness and intimacy with us, and they consider causing him harm and even killing him as justified. On the other hand, they praise every one whom we fault even if his affair is not praiseworthy. Thus, I fault you because you have become notorious as a result of your association with us and your inclination towards us, which have caused you to become blamable in the eyes of the people and your works to be looked upon unfavourably, all this because of your love for us and your inclination towards us. So I wished to fault you so that they can praise your religious stand as a result of my denigrating and diminishing you, and this becomes a way of warding off their evil from you. Allah Majestic and Mighty says: “as for the boat then it belonged to the poor working at sea so I wished to damage it because there was a king after them who seizes every good boat by force” this is a revelation from Allah [including the word] ‘good’. No by Allah! he did not damage it except so that it be saved from the king and is not ruined in his hands. It was a ‘good’ boat which had no question of being defective Allah be praised, so comprehend the parable, may Allah have mercy on you! for you are by Allah! the most beloved of people to me and the most beloved of the companions of my father in my estimation both in life and after death. Indeed you are the best boat in that tumultuous and stormy sea, and there is a tyrannical and usurping king after you, keeping watch for the crossing of every good boat returning from the sea of guidance so that he can take it for himself and seize it and its owners, so may the mercy of Allah be upon you in life and His mercy and pleasure be upon you after death. And your two sons al-Hasan and al-Husayn brought me your letter, may Allah guard, defend, watch over and protect them because of the goodness of their father, the way He had protected the two boys (the orphans in Surat al-Kahf). Let not your heart constrict in grief if Abu Basir comes to you with the opposite of that which you were instructed by my father and by me, for by Allah! we did not instruct you and him except with an instruction that is fitting to act upon both for us and for you, and for each [instruction, even if seemingly contradictory] we have diverse expressions and interpretations which all agree with the truth. And if we were allowed [to explain] you would come to know that the truth is in that which we have instructed you. So refer back to us the matter and submit to us and be patient in acting according to our rulings and be satisfied with them. The one who has divided you is your shepherd who has been given authority by Allah over His creation. He [the shepherd] is more aware of what is in the interest of his flock and what can corrupt it. If he wishes he divides between them to safe-guard them, then he unites them once more so that it is secure from destruction and the fear posed by its enemy, in such a time as Allah permits, bringing it thereby safety from His place of safety and relief from Him......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...