Hadeeth: “Ali is with truth, and truth is with Ali”.


Hadeeth: “Ali is with truth, and truth is with Ali”.

Al-Heythami in “Majmau zawaid” (#12031) said: “It was narrated by al-Bazzar, in the chain Sad ibn Shuayb, I don’t know him, and other narrators are people of “Saheeh”.

I’d like to note that saying “narrators from people of “Saheeh”, doesn’t mean chain us upright.

It was also narrated by Hateeb in “Tarih” (14/322, 6/312 shamela) from Umma Salamah, with wording: “Ali is with truth, and truth is with Ali, and they would never separate until they would reach me at pool”.

In the chain Yusuf ibn Muhammad ibn Ali, from him people narrated manakeer (“Mizanul itidal” 4/473/#9885). In the chain Ali ibn Hisham ibn Burayd with his father. Both known for their extreme shia beliefs. Ibn Hibban said about this Ali: “Extreme in at-tashayu, narrated rejected (data) from famous (narrators)”. Ibn Numayr said he’s munkar-alhadith. Ibn Maeen said he was thiqat  (“Mizanul itidal” 3/160/№5960).

Also in the chain Abdussalam ibn Salih. 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”. (“Mizanul itidal” 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”. Naqash said: “Narrated manakir”. Muhammad ibn Takhar said: “Liar”. (“Tahzib attahzib” 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”.

Next problem in this chain is Abu Saed at-Tayme, his name was Uqayza. He also was shia. Nasai said about him: “Not strong”. Daraqutni said: “Matruk al-hadith”. Saade said: “Not truthful”. Ibn Maeen said: “Nothing”. Bukhari said: “They spoke against him”. (“Lisanul mizan” 2/p 433). Also in the chain Abu Thabit mawla of Abu Dharr, and I couldn’t find any info on him.