• Counter :
  • 724
  • Date :
  • 10/23/2011

Peshawar Nights: Hadith that both Hasan and Hussein are foremost of youth of paradise

Fifth Session-part 3


*Slanders by Abu Taimiyya

*Abu Huraira's character and ahadith calling for his condemnation

*Reply to the supposed hadith that Allah said "I am pleased with Abu Bakr ‌ is he also pleased with Me?"

*Ahadith in praise of Abu Bakr and Umar and their disqualification

*Hadith that both Hasan and Husain are foremost of youth of paradise



One of your most irreligious ulema is Ahmad Bin Abdu'l-Halim Hanbali, known as Ibn Taimiyya (died 728 A.H.). He had extreme malice toward the Shias, the Commander of the Faithful, Ali, and the descendants of the Prophet. His Minhaju's-Sunna is filled with his bitter enmity against Ali and the progeny of the Holy Prophet. Anyone who is even slightly acquainted with the facts would be astounded to hear his lies. For example, he writes that "There is no larger group of liars than the Shia sect, and it is for this reason that the authors of Siha's did not include in their books hadith narrated by them." In Volume X, page 23, he says that the Shias believe in four fundamentals of religion - tauhid (Oneness of God); adl (justice of Allah); nabuwat (prophethood); and imamate (vicegerency). In fact, in Shia books of faith, available everywhere, it is written that the Shia faith consists of three fundamentals: tauhid, nabuwat, and ma'ad (the Day of Judgement); adl is part of tawhid and the imamate is part of nabuwat.

In Volume I, page 131, he states that the Shias do not gather in the mosques. They do not offer jum'a or congregational prayers. If they ever offer prayer, they do it individually. (Laughter among the Shias .) But of course we place great emphasis on congregational prayers. In many cities of Iraq and Iran, which are centers of the Shias, our mosques are crowded with worshippers offering congregational prayers. On the same page, he writes that the Shias do not make the pilgrimage to the Ka'ba. "Their Hajj (pilgrimage) consists only in visiting the tombs, which they consider superior to the Pilgrimage to Mecca. They condemn those who do not go for ziarat to the tombs." (Laughter.) Shia books of prayer contain a special Chapter for the Hajj prayer (Kitabu'l-Hajj). Shia theologians have written many books prescribing the rituals for the Hajj, wherein special instructions have been given to perform the Hajj rites. Many hadith from our Imams insist that if a Muslim (Shia or Sunni) has the means, and yet fails to perform the Hajj, he is excommunicated from Islam. When he dies, he is told: "Die whatever death you can, be it the death of a Jew, a Christian, or a fire-worshiper." Can you believe that in the face of such instructions Shias would refrain from performing the Hajj? In addition to these misrepresentations, this wicked man has said that a great Shia Scholar, Muhammad Bin Muhammad Bin Nu'man (Sheikh Mufid), wrote Manasikhu'l-Hajj li'l-Mashahid. The correct title is Mansikhu'z-Ziarat, which is available everywhere and which contains instructions about the visit to the places of ziarat, including the holy shrines of the most revered Imams. If you consult these books of ziarat, you will find that a visit to the tombs of the Holy Prophet and the Imams is commendable, not obligatory. The best proof against the allegation of this irreligious man is the practice followed by Shias, who make the pilgrimage by the thousands every year. Another false accusation of this liar can be found in Volume I, page 11, where he says that the Shias call their dogs by the name of Abu Bakr and Umar and always curse them (Abu Bakr and Umar). (Laughter among the Shias .) This is ridiculous. According to the Shia belief, the dog is utterly polluted. A Muslim house with a dog is deprived of Allah's blessings. Therefore, Shia Muslims are strictly forbidden to domesticate dogs except under certain conditions (hunting, protecting the house, or herding sheep). One of the many reasons for discord between Yazid and the grandson of the Prophet, Imam Husain, was that Yazid was fond of dogs and domesticated them without good reason. Ibn Taimiyya also writes that since the Shias are awaiting the reappearance of the last of their Imams, in many places, particularly in the sardab (underground hall) of Samarra (where the holy Imam disappeared), they keep ready a horse. They call for their Imam to appear, saying that they are fully armed to serve him. He also writes that the Shias turn toward the East during the last days of Ramadhan and call for the Imam to appear. Some of them even forego their ritual prayers, thinking that if they were busy saying their prayers and the Imam appeared, they might be deprived of their service to him (laughter by the Sunnis and the Shias ). We are not so much surprised at this wicked man's ridiculous stories. But we are surprised at the behavior of the present ulema of Egypt and Damascus who, without asking the Shias with whom they live, follow the absurdities of men like Ibn Taimiyya. It would be tiring to give a long list of the inaccurate reports of Ibn Hajar Makki, Hafiz, and Qazi Ruzbahan. Their books are known, although from the point of view of authenticity, they have no value.

For instance, the Milal wa'n-Nihal of Muhammad Ibn Abdu'l-Karim Shahrastani (died 548 A.H.), in the eyes of scholars, has not the least value. One will not find anything in it except utterly false beliefs attributed to Shias, like the worship of Ali and belief in the transmigration of the soul. Obviously he was not a man of learning. Writing about Ithna Ashari Shias, he says that the tomb of Ali Ibn Hadi Muhammad Naqi, who came after Imam Muhammad Taqi, is in Qum. But even children know that the holy shrine of Imam Ali Naqi is located adjacent to the shrine of his son, Imam Hasan Askari, in Samarra. I don't think further references of this nature are necessary to prove that the Sunni ulema have concocted false reports concerning the Shias. And I am not alone in levelling charges against the integrity of Abu Huraira. The Sunni ulema have also exposed his bad character in their own books.



Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali, in his commentary on the Nahju'l-Balagha, Volume I, page 358, and in Volume IV, reports from his Sheikh and teacher, Imam Abu Ja'far Asqalani, that Mu'awiya Bin Abu Sufyan organized a group of companions of the Holy Prophet and the children of the companions for the purpose of fabricating hadith. Among those who concocted filthy hadith against Ali were Abu Huraira, Amir Bin As, and Mughira Ibn Shaba. Giving details of these stories, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid narrates that Abu Huraira once entered the Kufa mosque and saw a huge gathering of people who had come to welcome Mu'awiya. He shouted to the crowd: "O people of Iraq. Do you think that I would tell a lie in opposing Allah and His Prophet and buy Hellfire for myself? Hear from me what I have heard from the Prophet. 'Every Prophet has a Haram (sacred dwelling place) and my Haram is Medina. One who is responsible for innovation in Medina is cursed by Allah, by His angels, and by all humanity.' I swear by Allah that Ali was responsible for an innovation." (That is, Ali incited dissension among the people and so, according to the Prophet, should be cursed). When Mu'awiya learned of this (that Abu Huraira did such a thing for him and did it in Ali's capital, Kufa), he sent for him, gave him a reward, and made him the governor of Medina. Aren't his misdeeds sufficient to prove that he deserves condemnation? Is it proper that a man who mistreats the most noble of the caliphs should be regarded as pious simply because he had once been a companion of the Prophet?

Sheikh: On what grounds do Shias consider him accursed?

Well-Wisher: There are many arguments in support of our view. One of them is that one who abuses the Prophet is, according to both sects, condemned. According to the hadith which I mentioned earlier, the Holy Prophet said, "One who abuses Ali, abuses me; one who abuses me, abuses Allah." It is clear that Abu Huraira was one of those who not only abused Ali Bin Abu Talib, but who fabricated hadith to incite others to abuse him.


We also condemn Abu Huraira for his collusion with Busr Ibn Artat in the massacre of thousands of Muslims. It has been reported by your own historians, including Tabari, Ibn Athir, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, Allama Samhudi, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Khallikan, and others that Mu'awiya Ibn Abu Sufyan sent the cruel Busr Ibn Artat with 4,000 Syrian soldiers to Yemen via Medina to crush the people of Yemen and the Shias of Ali. The assailants murdered thousands of Muslims in Medina, Mecca, Ta'if, Tabala' (a city of Tihama), Najran, Safa, and its suburbs. They did not spare the young or old of the Bani Hashim or the Shias of Ali. They even murdered the two small sons of the Holy Prophet's cousin, Ubaidullah Bin Abbas, the governor of Yemen, who had been appointed by Ali. It is said that more than 30,000 Muslims were killed on the order of this tyrant. The Bani Umayya and their followers committed these insane atrocities. Your beloved Abu Huraira witnessed this slaughter and was not only silent but actively supported it. Innocent people, like Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari, and Abu Ayyub Ansari sought refuge. Even the house of Abu Ayyub Ansari, who was one of the Prophet's chief companions, was set on fire. When this army turned towards Mecca, Abu Huraira remained in Medina. Now I ask you to tell us, in the name of Allah, whether this deceitful man who had been in the company of the Holy Prophet for three years, and who narrated more than 5,000 hadith from the Prophet, had not heard those famous hadith regarding Medina. The ulema of both the sects (like Allama Samhudi in Ta'rikhu'l-Medina, Ahmad Bin Hanbal in Musnad, Sibt Ibn Jauzi in Tadhkira, page 163) have quoted from the Holy Prophet, who said repeatedly: "He who threatens the people of Medina with oppression will be threatened by Allah and will be cursed by Allah, by His angels, and by humanity. Allah will not accept anything from him. May he be cursed who threatens the people of Medina. If anyone harms the people of Medina, Allah will melt him like lead in fire." So why did Abu Huraira join the army which devastated Medina? Why did he fabricate hadith in opposition to the rightful successor to the Prophet? And why did he incite people to revile the man about whom the Prophet had said: "To abuse him is to abuse me"? You decide whether a man who fabricated hadith in the name of the Prophet was not cursed.

Sheikh: It is unkind of you to call the most reliable companion of the Holy Prophet an irreligious fabricator.



Well-Wisher: It is not I alone who am "unkind" to Abu Huraira. The first man who was unkind to him was the second Caliph, Umar Bin Khattab. Ibn Athir and Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in his Sharhe-Nahju'l-Balagha, Volume III, page 104 (printed in Egypt), and several others have reported that after Caliph Umar appointed Abu Huraira governor of Bahrain in 21 A.H., the people informed the Caliph that Abu Huraira had amassed great wealth and had purchased many horses. Umar therefore deposed him in 23 A.H. As soon as Abu Huraira entered the court, the Caliph said: "O enemy of Allah and enemy of His Book! Have you stolen Allah's

property?" He replied, "I never committed theft, but the people have given me gifts." Ibn Sa'ad in Tabaqat, Volume IV, page 90, Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Isaba, and Ibn Abd-e-Rabbih in Iqdu'l-Farid, Volume I, write that the Caliph said: "'When I made you the governor of Bahrain, you had not even shoes on your feet, but now I have heard that you have purchased horses for 1,600 dinars. How did you acquire this wealth?' He replied, 'These were men's gifts which profit has multiplied much.' The Caliph's face grew red with anger, and he lashed him so violently that his back bled. Then he ordered the 10,000 dinars which Abu Huraira had collected in Bahrain be taken from him and deposited in the account of the Baitu'-Mal."

This was not the first time that Umar beat Abu Huraira. Muslim writes in his Sahih, Volume I, page 34, that during the time of the Prophet, Umar Bin Khattab beat Abu Huraira so severely that the latter fell down on the ground. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid writes in his commentary on Nahju'l-Balagha, Volume I, page 360: "Abu Ja'far Asqalani has said: 'According to our great men, Abu Huraira was a wicked fellow. The hadith narrated by him were not acceptable. Umar beat him with a lash and told him that he had changed hadith and had attributed false sayings to the Holy Prophet.'" Ibn Asakir in his Ta'rikh Kabir and Muttaqi in his Kanzu'l-Umma report that Caliph Umar lashed him, rebuked him, and forbade him to narrate hadith from the Holy Prophet. Umar said: "Because you narrate hadith in large numbers from the Holy Prophet, you are fit only for attributing lies to him. (That is, one expects a wicked man like you to utter only lies about the Holy Prophet.) So you must stop narrating hadith from the Prophet; otherwise, I will send you to the land of Dus." (A clan in Yemen, to which Abu Huraira belonged.) Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, in his commentary on Nahju'l-Balagha, Volume I, page 360 (printed in Egypt) reports from his teacher, Imam Abu Ja'far Asqalani, that Ali said, "Beware of the greatest liar among the people, Abu Huraira Dusi." Ibn Qutayba, in Ta'wil-e-Mukhtalifu'l-Hadith, and Hakim in Mustadrak, Volume III, and Dhahabi in Talkhisu'l-Mustadrak and Muslim in his Sahih, Volume II, reporting about the characteristics of Abu Huraira, all say that A'yesha repeatedly contradicted him and said, "Abu Huraira is a great liar who fabricates hadith and attributes them to the Holy Prophet." In short, it is not we alone who have rejected Abu Huraira. According to Caliph Umar, the Commander of the Faithful, Ali, Ummu'l-Mu'minin A'yesha, and other companions and followers of the Prophet said that he was completely unreliable. Accordingly, the Sheikhs of the Mu'tazilites and their Imams and the Hanafi ulema generally reject the hadith narrated by Abu Huraira. Moreover, in his commentary on Muslim's Sahih, Volume IV, Nadwi emphasizes this point: "Imam Abu Hanifa said, 'The companions of the Prophet were generally pious and just. I accept every hadith with evidence narrated by them, but I do not accept the hadith whose source is Abu Huraira, Anas Ibn Malik, or Samra Bin Jundab."

We reject the same Abu Huraira, whom Caliph Umar lashed and called a thief and a liar. He was rejected by Ummu'l-Mu'minin A'yesha, Imam Abu Hanifa, and by many companions and followers of the Holy Prophet. We reject the same Abu Huraira who was rejected and called a liar by our master, the chief of the monotheists, Ali, and by the holy Imams and descendants of the Prophet. We reject Abu Huraira who was a belly-worshiper, who, despite knowing the superiority of Ali, ignored him. He preferred his patron, the damned Mu'awiya, sat at his table to relish dainty dishes, and concocted hadith in opposition to Ali. In view of our discussion so far, you and I are obliged to see to it that when a hadith from the holy Prophet is under consideration, we should first refer it to the Holy Qur'an. If the hadith agrees with the Qur'an, we should accept it, otherwise not.



The hadith which you narrated earlier (although it is one-sided) may be referred to the Holy Qur'an. If there is no hindrance, we will surely accept it. One ayat of the Qur'an, however, says: "And certainly We created man and know what his mind suggests. We are nearer to him than his jugular vein." (50:16) You are aware that hablu'l-warid (jugular vein) is a common expression used to express extreme nearness. The meaning of this verse is that Allah is All-Knowing. Nothing is hidden from Him, however deep it may be in man's breast. Allah knows the secrets of our hearts. And in the Chapter of "Yunus" He says: "And you are not (engaged) in any affair, nor do you recite concerning it any portion of the Qur'an, nor do you do any work but We are witnesses over you when you enter into it. And there does not lie concealed from your Lord the weight of an atom in the earth or in heaven, nor anything less than that nor greater, but it is in a clear book." (10:61) According to these verses, and according to common sense, nothing is hidden from Allah. He knows what man does or thinks. Now compare this hadith with these two verses and see whether they can be reconciled. How is it possible that Allah Almighty would not be aware of the pleasure of Abu Bakr, so that He Himself might be obligated to ask him whether he was pleased with Him or not? Common sense and the Holy Qur'an indicate that this "hadith" is false.



Sheikh: There is no doubt that the Holy Prophet said: "Allah will show Himself to all the people in general and to Abu Bakr in particular." He also said, "Allah did not put anything into my breast that He did not put into Abu Bakr's breast." He also said: "I and Abu Bakr are like two horses who are equal to each other in a race." Again he said: "In the sky there are 80,000 angels who pray for blessings for him who is a friend of Abu Bakr and Umar. And in the next level of the sky there are 80,000 angels who curse him who is an enemy of Abu Bakr and Umar." The Holy Prophet also said: "Abu Bakr and Umar are the best of all mankind from beginning to end." Abu Bakr's and Umar's rank can be assessed from the hadith in which the Holy Prophet said: "Allah made me from His light, Abu Bakr from my light, and Umar from Abu Bakr's light, and my followers from Umar's light. Umar is the lamp of the People of Paradise." There are many such hadith recorded in our authentic books. I have narrated only a few so that you may know the real position of the caliphs.

Well-Wisher: The meaning of these hadith leads to heresy and infidelity, which clearly proves that the Holy Prophet could not have said such things. The first hadith implies that Allah has a body and it is infidelity to believe that Allah has a body. The second hadith indicates that Abu Bakr shared in what was revealed to the Holy Prophet. The third hadith implies that the Holy Prophet was in no way superior to Abu Bakr. The other hadith conflict with innumerable hadith, which are accepted by both sects, that the best people of the world are the Prophet Muhammad and his descendants.

Apart from these clear facts, your own distinguished ulema, like Muqaddasi in his Tadhkiratu'l-Muzu'a, Firuzabadi Shafi'i in his Safaru's-Sa'adat, Hasan Bin Athir Dhahabi in Mizanu'l-I'tidal, Abu Bakr Ahmad Bin Ali Khatib Baghdadi in his Ta'rikh, Abu'l-Faraj Ibn Jauzi in Kitabu'l-Muzu'a, and Jalalu'd-Din Suyuti in Al-Lu'ali'l-Masnu'a fi'l-Abadusi'l-Muzu'a - all concluded that these hadith are fabricated. They all insisted that these hadith are forged. They conflict with The Holy Qur'an and with common sense.

Sheikh: But consider another hadith, which surely is authentic. The Holy Prophet said: "Abu Bakr and Umar are the masters of the old men of Paradise."

Well-Wisher: If you would examine this supposed hadith more closely, you might find that, apart from the fact that your own ulema have rejected it, this hadith cannot possibly be from the Holy Prophet. Everyone knows that Paradise will not be inhabited by old people. There are no gradual changes there. There are many reports accepted by both sects which relate to this matter. One of them is the affair of Ashja'iyya, an old woman who came to the Prophet. In the course of his talk, the Prophet said: "Old women will not enter Paradise." The woman was deeply saddened and she said, weeping, "O Prophet of Allah, this means I shall not enter Paradise." Saying this, she departed. The Prophet said: "Tell her that on that day she will be young and will enter Paradise." Then he recited the following verse of the Holy Qur'an: "Surely We have made them to grow into a (new) growth, then We have made them virgins, loving, equals in age, for the sake of the companions of the right hand." (56:35-38)

In another hadith accepted by both you and us, the Holy Prophet said: "When the inhabitants of Paradise enter Heaven, they will be youthful with pure clean faces, curly hair, charming eyes, 33 years of age."

Sheikh: Your statements are true as they are, but this is a specific hadith.

Well-Wisher: I don't understand. What do you mean by a "specific hadith"? Do you mean that Allah will send a group of old men to Paradise so that Abu Bakr and Umar may be their masters? Besides, your own prominent ulema regard this hadith as fabricated. The Prophet gave us a procedure for validating hadith. I stated earlier that any hadith which is not consistent with the Holy Qur'an is to be rejected. Our own scholars reject several hadith purported to have originated with the Prophet or with the holy Imams on the basis of the principle enunciated by the Prophet: "Whenever a hadith is reported as having come from me, refer it to the Holy Qur'an; if it is consistent with it, accept it; otherwise, reject it." Accordingly, our scholars do not accept hadith which are inconsistent with the Holy Qur'an. I stated earlier that your own ulema have written treatises on the rejection of fabricated hadith. For example, Sheikh Majdu'd-Din Muhammad bin Yaqub Firuzabadi in Safaru's-Sa'ada (p. 142), Jalalu'd-Din Suyuti in Kitabu'l-Lu'ali, Ibn Jauzi in Muzu'a, Muqaddasi in Tadhkiratu'l-Muzu'a, and Sheikh Muhammad bin Darwish (Mashhur be Hut-e-Beiruti) in Asna'l-Talib - all have said that the chain of narrators of the hadith stating that Abu Bakr and Umar are the masters of the old men of Paradise includes Yahya bin 'Anbasa. Dhahabi says that this Yahya is an unreliable narrator, and Ibn Jan held that Yahya used to fabricate hadith.

Thus, apart from my previous arguments, even your own ulema consider it a false hadith. In fact, it is probable that it was fabricated by the followers of Abu Bakr, the Umayya family. In order to humiliate the Bani Hashim and the progeny of the Holy Prophet, they used to fabricate hadith parallel to those authentically narrated in praise of the family of the Prophet. Men like Abu Huraira, in order to gain access to the ruling coterie of the Bani Umayya, often fabricated hadith. Because of their hostility to the descendants of the Prophet, they concocted hadith parallel to those accepted by both Shia and Sunni ulema.

Nawab: Which is the accepted hadith in this case?



Well-Wisher: The authentic hadith is that the Prophet said: "Hasan and Husain are the foremost of the youth of Paradise and their father is superior to them." Many ulema have narrated this hadith. For example, Khatib Khawarizmi in Manaqib, Mir Seyyed Ali Abu Abdu'r-Rahman Nisa'i in Khasa'is-il-Alawi (three hadith), Ibn Sabbagh Maliki in Fusulu'l-Muhimma, page 159, Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, Chapter 54, Sibt Ibn Jauzi in Tadhkira, quoting from Tirmidhi, Ibn Maja and Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Sibt Ibn Jauzi on p. 133 of Tadhkiratu'l-Mawadda, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal in Musnad, Tirmidhi in Sunan, and Muhammad bin Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in Kifayatu't-Talib, Chapter 97, recorded this hadith and the latter added that the great narrator of hadith, Imam Abdu'l-Qasim Tibrani, also recorded this hadith in Mu'ajamu'l-Kabir and listed all its various narrators, such as the Commander of the Faithful, Ali, Umar bin Khattab (the second Caliph), Hudhaifa Yamani, Abu Sa'id Khadri, Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari, Abu Huraira, Usama bin Zaid, and Abdullah bin Umar. Thereafter, Muhammad bin Yusuf has commented that it is an unquestionably genuine hadith. The unbroken continuity of the chain of narrators of this hadith is a proof of its being authentic. Further, Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Isfahani in Hilyatu'l-Auliya, Ibn Asakir in Ta'rikh Kabir, Volume IV, page 206, Hikam in Mustadrak, Ibn Hajar Makki in Sawa'iq Muhriqa - in short, all of your eminent scholars have confirmed the authenticity of this hadith.

Sheikh: But consider this hadith, the authenticity of which no one will deny. The Holy Prophet said: "In whatever nation Abu Bakr lives, it is not proper that any other person be preferred to him." This hadith proves that Abu Bakr is superior to the whole umma.

Well-Wisher: I regret that you accept a hadith so uncritically. Had this hadith been narrated by the Prophet, he himself would have acted upon it. But he gave preference to Ali in the presence of Abu Bakr.

 Was Abu Bakr not present at the time of Mubahala when Ali was chosen as the Prophet's self? In the Battle of Tabuk, when the older and more experienced Abu Bakr was there, why did the Prophet make Hazrat Ali his deputy and Caliph? Why was Abu Bakr deposed by divine command in favor of Ali when the older man had been sent to Mecca to preach Islam and to recite verses from the ninth Chapter of the Qur'an, "The Immunity"? While Abu Bakr was present, why did the Prophet take Ali with him to Mecca to break the idols, letting him mount his own shoulders, ordering him to smash the idol Hubal? Why, in the presence of Abu Baker, did the Prophet send Ali to preach among the people of Yemen? Finally, why did the Prophet make Ali his successor and Vicegerent instead of Abu Bakr?

Sheikh: There is a very strong hadith from the Holy Prophet which cannot be contradicted. It is related by Amr bin As who said: "One day I asked the Prophet: 'O Prophet of Allah! Whom do you love most among the women?' He replied, 'A'yesha.' I said: 'Whom do you love best among the men?' He replied, 'A'yesha's father, Abu Bakr.'" Since the Prophet preferred Abu Bakr over all other men, he was superior to the whole community. This fact in itself is the most compelling proof of the legitimacy of Abu Bakr's caliphate.

Other Links:

Peshawar Nights: Third Session-part 6

Peshawar Nights: Martyrdom of Shahid-e Thalis

Peshawar Nights: The position of Infallible Imams

Peshawar Nights: Discussion regarding Imamate

Peshawar Nights: The Sunni Ulemas condemnation of Abu Hanifa

  • Print

    Send to a friend

    Comment (0)

  • Most Read Articles