Hadith 8. Rafidi Abdulhusayn said:
Consider his statement peace be upon him and his progeny “O you group of the Ansars! Shall I lead you to that which as long as you adhere to it you shall never go astray? It is `Ali; love him as you love me and respect him as you respect me for Gabriel has commanded me to say so to you on behalf of Allah the Almighty the Omniscient.”
In the footnote we can see him saying: “This is quoted by al-Tabrani in his Kabir and it is hadith number 2625 of the ones included in Kanz al-`Ummal Vol. 6 page 157”.
As usual when it’s not suitable, slave of Husayn simply omitted saying of Muttaqi al-Hindi. Author of “Kanz” (#33007) right after hadith quoted ibn Kathir saying: “This hadith is munkar”. Sheikh Albani said it’s fabrication. (“Silsila ad daifa” 4890).This hadith was reported by Tabarani in “al-Kabir” and Abu Nuaym in “Hiliyah” via chain: Muhammad ibn Uthman ibn Abu Shayba – Ibrahim ibn Iskhaq as-Sine – Qays ibn ar-Rabia – Layth ibn Abu Sulaym – ibn Abu Layla or from Abu Layla – Hasanibn Ali: “Prophet (sallahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) said: “Call to me master of Arabs!”. Meaning Ali ibn Abu Talib. Aisha asked: “Are not you master of Arabs?” He answered: “I am master of all children of Adam, and Ali master of arabs”. (This part of hadith was also reported via other chain. Dhababi in “Talkhees al-ilal” (p74, #164) said: “In it Harajat ibn Musab – extremely weak – he narrated from ibn Jurayj from Ata from Ibn Abbas). When Ali came, prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) send to ansars, and said: “Shall I lead you to that which as long as you adhere to it you shall never go astray? It is `Ali; love him as you love me and respect him as you respect me for Gabriel has commanded me to say so to you on behalf of Allah the Almighty the Omniscient”.
This chain is extremely weak:
1) Muhammad ibn Uthman ibn Abu Shayba. I talked about him before.
2) Ibrahim ibn Iskhaq as-Sine. Daraqutni said about him: “Abandoned”. (“Mizanul itidal” 1/18/31).
3) QaysibnRabia. IbnMuinand Daraqutni said: “Weak”. Ahmad noticed that he was a shia with bad memory. Ibn Madini and Wakiya also consider him weak. Nasai said: “Abandoned”. (“Mizanul itidal” 3/393/6911).
4) Layth ibn Abu Sulaym. Upright narrator, but was consider weak due to his bad memory.
Hadith 9, and 10. Rafidi said:
9) Consider his statement peace be upon him and his progeny “I am the city of knowledge and `Ali is its gate; whoever aspires to attain knowledge let him approach through the gate.”10) Consider his statement peace be upon him and his progeny “I am the house of wisdom and `Ali is its gate.”
We would discuss these two ahadeth together, as it was done by many scholars.
Sayed Mahmud Aloose (rahimuhullah) said in “Tukhwa isna ashariya”:
Yahya ibn Muin said about this hadith: “There is no base for it”. (See Mawdudi “Rasail wa masail” 3/169). Buhari said: “Rejected (munkar), there is nothing from authentic in it”. Tirmizi said: “Qareeb (strange, odd) and rejected (munkar)”. (Tirmizi said that right after he narrated this hadith in his “Sunnan”, Abdulhusayn quoted him, but as usual omitted his opinion, as non suitable). Ibn Jawzi said: “It’s fabricated”. Ibn Daqiq al-Iyd said: “Not established”. Nawawi, Dhahabi and Jazari also said it’s fabrication”. (“Tukhwa isna ashariya” p 203, chapter “12 ahadeth that used by shias”, hadith #5). Daraqutni said: “Hadith is mixed there is no base for it”. Abu Khatim and Yahya ibn Said said: “There is no base for it”. (Ajluni “Kashful hawa” #618). Ibn Jawzi said: “Hadith isn’t authentic even if consider all ways of transmission”. (“al–Mawdua” 1/353)
Ibn Adi said: “This hadith fabricated, it’s known as (fabrication) of Abu Salt (Abdussalam ibn Salih), and it was narrated by group of people that stolen this hadith from him”. Abu Khatim ibn Hibban said: “No base for this hadith from prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam), and that was not narrated by ibn Abbas, or Mujahid, or al-Amash, and this isn’t hadith of Abu Moawiyah. Each one who narrated hadith with similar text, stole it from Abu Salt, and fabricated chain of narrators”. Imam Ahmad was asked about this hadith, and he said: “May Allah whip Abu Salt”. (“al–Mawdua” 1/354).
In footnote abdulhusayn referred to “al-Kabir” and “Mustadrak”. In those two books, and in “Tahzib al-asar” of Tabari this hadith is going via chain: Abdussalam ibn Salih al-Harwi – narrated to me Abu Moawiyah from al-Amash from Mujahid from ibn Abbas. Al-Heythami in “Zawaid” (#14670) said: “Narrated by Tabarani, in the chain Abdussalam ibn Salih al-Harwi and he’s weak”.
Abul Hasan Ali ibn Muhammad ibn al-Arraq al-Kinani in “Tanziru sharia” (1/79/#166) said: “Abdussalam ibn Salih Abu Salt al-Harwi was accused in lie by more than one scholar”.
Abu Abdullah al-Hakim in “al-Madkhal ila sahih” (#139) said: “Abdussalam ibn Salih ibn Sulayman Abu Salt al-Harwi. Narrated from Khammad ibn Ziyad, Abu Moawiyah, Abbad ibn al-Awam and other rejected stories”. Same opinion was quoted by Abu Nuyam al-Isfahani in “Kitabu duafa” (#140).
Uqayli said about this narrator: “Rafidi habidh”, ibn Adi said: “Accused”. Nasai said: “Not tuthful”. Daraqutni said: “Habidh rafidi, was accused in fabrication of hadith: “Faith is by accepting by heart”. (“Mizanulitidal” 2/616/#5051).
Zakariya Saji said: “He narrated munkar stories, and he was weak due to their opinion”. And it was reported from Uqayli that he said about Abu Salt: “Liar”. Naqashsaid: “Narratedmanakir”. MuhammadibnTakharsaid: “Liar”. (“Tahzibattahzib” 6/286)
Hafidh al-Khalili in “Irshad” (3/873) said: “He wasn’t strong due to their opinion”. Imam Zeylai al-Hanafi in “Nasbu rayi” (1/345), ibn Rajab in “Fathkul bare” (6/412) and ibn Hajar in “Tahrij ahadeth kashaf” (2/465) said: “Abandoned”.
Other problem of this chain is al-Amash. He was truthful narrator, but well known mudalith. And he narrated this hadith in /anana/ form, without making clear, does he hear it himself or not. He narrated this hadith with from Mujahid.
Yaqub ibn Shayba said: “I asked from Ali al-Madini: “How many ahadeth al-Amash hear from Mujahid?” He answered: “Narrations (of al-Amash from Mujahid) are not established unless (al-Amash while narrating from him) said: “I heard (him saying)”. Narrations of al-Amash from Mujahid, are going via Yahya al-Qattan”. (“Tahzib at tahzib” 4/197)
Yahya ibn Sayed al-Qattan said: “I wrote narrations of al-Amash from Mujahid, all of them were connected by him, (he) didn’t hear from him (anything)”. (Ibn Abu Khatim “Jarh wa tadil” 1/241).
Ibn Muin said: “Hearing of Mujahid by al-Amash, nothing from what he narrated from him, he heard from him, without doubt they are disconnected, mudalis”. (“Rawayatu ibn Tahman” #59).
In the second way of transmission in “al-Mustadrak” (#4638) there is narrator Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Tamim al-Qantari. Ibn Furas noticed that there is lenience in him. (“Lisanul mezaan” 5/149/#166).
Also in this chain Husayn ibn Fahm. Daraqutni noticed that he wasn’t strong. Similar opinion was narrated from Hakim. ( “Mizanul itidal” 1/545/#2041)
Third problem in this chain is link al-Amash – Mujahid. I talked about it before.
Hakim narrated it via third chain in his “al-Mustadrak” (#4639). In it Ahmad ibn Abdullah ibn Yazeed al-Harrani. Dajal, liar as noticed Dhahabi in “Talkhees”.
Ibn Asakir in his history (42/378) narrated it via chain: Sherik – Salamah ibn Kuhayl – Sanabihi – Ali.
Daraqutni said: “Hadis is mixed, not proven, that Salamah hear from Sanabihi”. (“al-Mawdua” 1/353).
Shawkani in “Fawaid” said: “Al-Khatib narrated this from ibn Abbas in elevated form. Tabarani, ibn Adi, Uqayli from ibn Abbas. In the chain of Khatib narrator Jafar ibn Muhammad al-Baqdadi, and he was criticized. (He narrated it from Abu Moawiyah. Khatib right after this hadith wrote: “No one reliable narrated it from Abu Moawiyah”. “Tareeh” 7/172. By these words Khatib pointed that this Jafar isn’t reliable. Dhahabi in “Mizanul itidal” (1/415/#1525) noticed that there in suspense in this narrator. Then he quoted this hadith and said it’s fabrication). In the chain of Tabarani narrator Abu Salt al-Harwi, he was the one who fabricated this hadith. In the chain of ibn Adi, narrator Ahmad ibn Salamah al-Jurjani. He use to narrate fabricated stories, and refer them to reliable. In the chain of Uqayli, narrator Umar ibn Ismayel ibn Mujalad, he was liar. In the chain of ibn Hibban, narrator Ismayel ibn Muhammad ibn Yusuf, his ahadeth couldn’t consider as argument.
This hadith was also narrated by ibn Mardaweyh from Ali. In his chain narrators whose ahadeth can not be accepted”. (“Fawaidal–majmua” p 445, abriged).
Scholars of Islam differed in ruling of this narration. As I quoted from them were great group who consider it weak or fabricated.
Ali himself never claimed that he has some super natural, or special knowledge.
In shia sources we can read: “When people went to Amir al-mu’minin in a deputation and complained to him through what they had to say against `Uthman, and requested him to speak to him on their behalf and to admonish him for their sake, he went to see him and said: The people are behind me and they have made me an ambassador between you and themselves; but by Allah, I do not know what to say to you. I know nothing which you do not know, nor can I lead you to any matter of which you are not aware. You certainly know what we know, we have not come to know anything before you which we could tell you; nor did we learn anything in secret which we should convey to you”. (“Nahjul balagha” hutbah 163).
In Buhari (Volume 3, Book 30, Number 94) we read:
“Narrated ‘Ali: We have nothing except the Book of Allah and this written paper from the Prophet (where-in is written:) Medina is a sanctuary from the ‘Air Mountain to such and such a place, and whoever innovates in it an heresy or commits a sin, or gives shelter to such an innovator in it will incur the curse of Allah, the angels, and all the people, none of his compulsory or optional good deeds of worship will be accepted. And the asylum (of protection) granted by any Muslim is to be secured (respected) by all the other Muslims; and whoever betrays a Muslim in this respect incurs the curse of Allah, the angels, and all the people, and none of his compulsory or optional good deeds of worship will be accepted, and whoever (freed slave) befriends (take as masters) other than his manumitters without their permission incurs the curse of Allah, the angels, and all the people, and none of his compulsory or optional good deeds of worship will be accepted”.
And there is an another proof in Buhari, that this hadith isn’t authentic.
I used to get emotional urethral discharges frequently and felt shy to ask Allah’s Apostle about it. So I requested Al-Miqdad bin Al-Aswad to ask (the Prophet ) about it. Al-Miqdad asked him and he replied, “On has to perform ablution (after it).”
So if he was a “gate for knowledge”, why we can see him coming to “city of knowledge” from other “gate” – al-Miqdad?