Response to al-Imamiyyah: The Albanian Silences Two in a Single Scholarly Blow

Part Four: This analysis critically examines al-Imamiyyah's endeavor to discredit Shaikh al-Albani's assessment of a report attributed to the Prophet (salla-llahu-`alayhi-wa-sallam).

Al-Imamiyyah said:

"In the same scan, Al Hakim Al Nisabori it says that this narration fits the criteria of Al Shaykhain, and Al Dhahabi also says that the narrators are Thiaqt. So on what basis is it Mawdoo’? In Al Mustadarak Ala Al Sahiheen we see that it is graded Sahih but they did not narrate it. The same hadith can be found in Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal. The narrators: 1 Sahabi, 4 Thiqah, 1 Hasan hadith and 1 Faqih Mutafaq Alaih (Ijma’ on him)."

Response: It seems al-Imamiyyah possess no knowledge of `ilal al-hadith. Perhaps they are not even aware of its existence. They attribute their own oblivion unto the eminent hadith scholar, the Allama, Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani (Rahima-hu-llah). A referral back to al-Albani's work reveals that he conducted a detailed assessment on this tradition, concluding beyond doubt that this report is nothing short of a forgery attributed unto the Prophet (salla-llahu-`alayhi-wa-sallam). He writes (10:522-526):

"`O `Ali! You are a sayyid in the worldly life and a sayyid in the hereafter. He who loves you is dear to me. And he who is dear to me is dear to Allah. And your enemy is my enemy. And my enemy is an enemy to Allah. And woe to the one who hates you after me.'

Fabricated. ibn `Adiy mentioned it (2:308), al-Hakim (3:127-128), al-Khatib (4:41-42), and ibn Asakir (12:143) from the route of Abu al-Azhar Ahmad ibn al-Azhar, from `Abd al-Razzaq, from Mu`amar, from al-Zuhri, from `Ubaydullah ibn `Abdullah, from ibn `Abbas - may Allah be pleased with them both - who said:

"The Prophet (salla-llahu-`alayhi-wa-sallam) looked at `Ali and said [...] then he mentioned it (the tradition aforementioned). And al-Hakim commented:

"Authentic on the conditions of the Shaikhain (al-Bukhari and Muslim), and Abu al-Azhar is with consensus trustworthy, and if a trustworthy one is exclusive in narrating a hadith, then it is by origin authentic."

And al-Dhahabi responded with his statement:

"This narration, even if its narrators are trustworthy; is still 'munkar' (disapproved), it is not far from being forged, or else for what reason did `Abd al-Razzaq narrate it to him in secret, and did not dare to speak of it to Ahmad and ibn Ma`in and the people who went to him, and Abu al-Azhar is trustworthy."

I (al-Albani) say: "al-Dhahabi is pointing out that `Abd al-Razzaq narrated the ḥadīṯh in secret [...] and al-Khatib's context is more complete. He said: Abu al-Fadl said: I heard Abu Hatim say: I heard Abu al-Azhar saying: "I went out with `Abd al-Razzaq to his town, and I was with him on the road, so he said to me: "`O Abu al-Azhar, do you have in your hands a hadith which I have not narrated to other than you?" He replied: "He narrated to me this hadith."

Then al-Khatib narrated with his chain from Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Zuhayr al-Tustari, who said:

When Abu al-Azhar al-Naysaburi narrated this hadith of his from `Abd al-Razzaq in al-Fada`il, ibn Ma`in was informed of it. So while he was with him at the gathering of the people of hadith, ibn Ma`in said: "Who is this al-Naysaburi liar who narrated from `Abd al-Razzaq this hadith?" So Abu al-Azhar stood up and said: "It is me." So ibn Ma`in smiled and said: "You are not a liar." And he was surprised by his innocence. And said: "The fault is of someone else in this hadith."

I say that another thing which supports this statement of ibn Ma`in is the fact that someone other than Abu al-Azhar narrated the hadith. al-Khatib said:

"And it was (also) narrated by Muhammad ibn Hamdan al-Naysaburi, from Muhammad ibn `Ali ibn Sufyan al-Najar from `Abd al-Razzaq; so Abu al-Azhar is innocent if this narration was narrated by other than him."

I say that the defect has been centered on `Abd al-Razzaq himself, or on Mu`amar, and they are both trustworthy who were used as evidence in the Sahihain. However, this does not completely nullify the defect. As for Mu`amar, then the reason for the defect being on him is due to Abu Hamed al-Sharqi. al-Khatib has narrated with an authentic chain that he was asked about this hadith of Abu al-Azhar, to which he replied:

"This hadith is batil, and the reason for it is that Mu`amar had a nephew who was a Rafidi, and Mu`amar used to give him access to his books, so he added this hadith, and Mu`amar was an assertive man, no one could ask him or analyse it. So `Abd al-Razzaq heard it (this hadith) from the book of Mu`amar's nephew."

I say that this, if it is correct, is a clear defect on Mu`amar's ahadith in the virtues of the Ahl al-Bayt. However, I doubt the correctness of this because I have not see anyone else mention this in the biography of Mu`amar, like al-Dhahabi or al-`Asqalani, or other than them. And Allah knows best.

Then I saw al-Dhahabi mentioned this from Hamed al-Sharqi, and ibn Hajar likewise. However, it was in the biography of Abu al-Azhar. So al-Dhahabi said, after declaring him trustworthy:

"And they did not speak about him (i.e., criticism) except for his narration from `Abd al-Razzaq, from Mu`amar, a hadith in the virtues of `Ali, which the heart can testify that it is falsehood. And Abu Hamed said [mentioning a summary of his statement, then he said...] I say that `Abd al-Razzaq knew about the matter, so he did not dare to narrate this narration except in secret [...] so Abu al-Azhar was freed from him."

As for `Abd al-Razzaq, then his defect is closer (i.e., makes more sense); because even if he was trustworthy, they have spoken (or criticised) his act of narrating from his memory instead of his book.

Al-Bukhari said: "Whatever he narrates from his book is more authentic."

And al-Daraqutni said: "He is trustworthy, but he makes mistakes when narrating ahadith from Mu`amar."

And ibn Hibban said: "He was the type to make mistakes when narrating from his memory, while being upon the Shi'ism that was in him."

And ibn `Adiy said at the end of his biography:

"And they did not see any harm in his hadith, except that they attributed him to Shi`ism. And he narrated ahadith in the virtues (of the Companions and Ahl al-Bayt) which none of the trustworthy ones agreed with him on. So this is the biggest thing they accused him of. But as for truthfulness, then I hope there is no harm in him; except that there were some ahadith in virtues of Ahl al-Bayt, which came from him as well as other faults and manakir."

And al-Dhahabi said in his (`Abd al-Razzaq) biography in al-Mizan:

"I say that the weakest thing which he came with is the hadith of Ahmad ibn al-Azhar, and he is trustworthy, who said that `Abd al-Razzaq narrated to him - from his memory - that Mu`amar narrated [...] (the aforementioned hadith and said):

"I (al-Dhahabi) say while it is not authentic, its meaning is correct, except for the last part of it [...] it was not enough for him, until he added:

'[...] He who loves you is loved by Allah. And he who hates you hates Allah. And woe to the one who hates you after me.'

So woe to the one who hates him, and there is no doubt in this. Rather woe to the one who is enraged by him or enraged by his position, and does not love him as he was loved by those similar to him in al-shura, may Allah be pleased with them all."

And the hadith, al-Suyuti mentioned it in Dayl al-Ahadith al-Mawdu`a (p.61) and he mentioned the previous statement of al-Khatib, then said:

"And ibn al-Jawzi mentioned it in "al-Wahiyat" and said: It is fabricated, and its meaning is correct, so woe to the one who is responsible for its forgery, since there is, in it, no benefit."

And the same in "Tanzih al-Shari`a" by ibn al-`Arraf (1:398).

The Shi`ite (Sharaf al-Din al-Musawi) mentioned this in his "al-Muraja`at" (p.175), from the narration of al-Hakim, and said:

"He authenticated it on the conditions of the Shaikhain."

And as usual, he did not mention al-Dhahabi's response to him (i.e., to al-Hakim). Rather, he only mentioned the discussion of ibn Ma`in and Abu al-Azhar in the narration of al-Hakim, and at the end of it is the statement of ibn al-Azhar:

"`Abd al-Razzaq narrated to me--by Allah--then Yahya ibn Ma`in believed and apologised to him."

And what I would like to point out is that the trust of ibn Ma`in does not mean the trust in the authenticity of the hadith, as the Shi'ite portrays. But it is rather the trust in Abu al-Azhar's narrating from `Abd al-Razzaq. And that which makes this certain is the following narration of al-Khatib with the wording:

Yahya ibn Ma`in smiled and said: "Indeed you are not a liar." And he was surprised by his innocence. And he said: "It is someone else's fault in this hadith."

I say that this is a proof for what I said, and it is clear that the hadith was weak according to ibn Ma`in.

So if the Shi'ite was truly a scholar, and objective, and a fair person, then he would have mentioned this narration of al-Khatib, due to what it contains from the apparent clarity regarding the stance of ibn Ma`in on this hadith itself. And he would have responded to that, if he had a response." {End Quote}

[Reference: al-Albani, Muhammad Nasir al-Din, 1995. Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Da`ifa wa al-Mawdu`a. 1st ed. Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Maktaba al-Ma`arif]

In essence, al-Imamiyyah's opposition to Shaikh al-Albani's judgement is paradoxical. The Shaikh (Rahima-hu-`llah) had previously addressed al-Imamiyyah's apprehensions regarding this tradition in a response to their theological antecedent, al-Musawi. Nonetheless, al-Imamiyyah seems to prefer emulating al-Musawi's duplicity and parroting his argument, rather than constructing a cogent counterargument in his defense.

To be continued by the permission of Allah.