Do sunnis rely on Rafidhis in Hadith?

[haters of Ahl al-Bayt], or Murji’a – may or may not be accepted along with Sunnis by the imams of hadith as trustworthy narrators. The moderate Shi`is of the Salaf were those who LOVED `Ali more than any other Companion but APPROVED of Abu Bakr and `Umar as Imams before any other Companion. For love Allah plants in the heart and it cannot be controlled, as al-Shafi`i said with the subtleness of the wise in his Diwan:

I call upon my Lord to witness that `Uthman is of high merit And that `Ali’s high merit is shared by none.
So to love `Ali more than any other Companion is a position Sunnism does not reject even today although an ignoramus may label it as heretical. It rejects only the aberrant extremes of the Shi`a who go against `Ali himself and the Ahl al-Bayt (not to mention Allah Almighty and His Prophet in spewing hatred for the Two Shaykhs and the remainder of the Companions. This is not accepted.

In the thread “Tabari” for example, it is clear that the excerpt with which the same person takes issue mentions extremist Rafidis – those who not only disrespect the two Shaykhs – Abu Bakr and `Umar, Allah be well-pleased with them – but also reject their imamate. These have nothing to do with the moderate Shi`is retained by al-Bukhari and the hadith masters. That is why al-Tabari considers them kafir, and al-Shafi`i forbade praying behind them. More extreme Shi`is yet consider `Ali the true messenger of Allah, and farther folly than that is the heresy that `Ali is Allah – we seek refuge in Allah from such beliefs. All these groups and their leaders are identified in al-Ash`ari’s Maqalat al-Islamiyyin and the heresiographies of al-Shahrastani, Ibn Hazm, `Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi etc. but our Shi`a brethren take refuge in pious ignorance. Worse, it seems rafd and extremism are the order of the day among Shi`is in our time.

The contributor cited four Shi`i narrators retained by the Sunni Imams of hadith, I looked into the first one and found enough to illustrate the points I am making above:

Ibrahim ibn Yazid
His name is Ibrahim ibn Yazid ibn `
Umer ibn al-Aswad al-Nakh`i al-Kufi, the faqih.

What he does not also say (as I indicated, either through ignorance or because accuracy and truth are secondary to him) is that Ibrahim ibn Yazid in Bukhari and Muslim narrated about 100 hadiths from `A’isha through his uncle al-Aswad ibn Yazid, the same `A’isha al-Siddiqa daughter of Abi Bakr al-Siddiq whose authority Rafidis reject. As the Prophet is related to say “The dogs of Haw’ab shall bark at her.” Not to mention the fact that Ibrahim ibn Yazid also narrates from Ibn Mas`ud, Abu Hurayra, and Ibn `Abbas – the same Ibn `Abbas who explains the verse {You are the best community ever brought forth among humankind} to refer to the Muhajirun, among whom are Abu Bakr and `Umar.

It would seem that the standards of internet Shi`i contributors are stricter than Ibrahim ibn Yazid’s. But the truth is: internet Shi`i contributors do not understand most of what they quote. They call Ahl al-Sunna the `Awamm [commonality] but it is they who act like the uneducated commonality in undiscerning imitation of their stray authorities. As I said: Rafidis have nothing to do with the moderate Shi`is of the pious Salaf.

Here is an important excerpt about the positions of the Sunni imams with regard to the multifarious Shi`i sects.

“To prefer `Ali [to `Uthman] is neither Rafd (rejectionism) nor a bid`a (heretical innovation), for several of the Companions and Successors did.1 Both `Uthman and `Ali possess great merits and precedence and are among the foremost martyrs. However, the vast majority of the Community agree to give precedence to `Uthman,2 and this is our position also; and better than both of them without doubt are Abu Bakr and `Umar. Whoever differs with this is a hardened Shi`i.3 Whoever disrespects the Two Shaykhs [Abu Bakr and `Umar] while accepting the validity of their imamate is a disgusting Rafidi.4 As for those who both insult them and reject the validity of their imamate, they are extremist Rafidis – may Allah lead them to perdition!”5

Source: al-Dhahabi, Siyar A`lam al-Nubala’ (Chapter on `Ali – may Allah be well-pleased with him).

Notes

1See al-Haytami, Fatawa Hadithiyya (p. 155) and Ibn Hazm’s al-Fisal and al-Muhalla as quoted in al-Ghumari’s al-Burhan (p. 85-88). This fact shows the weakness of the report from Imam Ahmad in al-Khallal’s al-Sunna (2:392) whereby “There was no disagreement among the Companions of Allah’s Messenger that `Uthman is better than `Ali.”

2As in Abu Hanifa’s al-Fiqh al-Akbar and al-Tahawi’s `Aqida.

3Al-Qanuji (d. 1307) said in Abjad al-`Ulum (3:163): “Among the sayings of Zayn al-`Abidin the son of Muhammad al-Bakri (d. 991) the son of Shaykh Abu al-Hasan al-Bakri al-Misri al-Shafi`i: `Abu Bakr is better than `Ali, however, love and attraction are a different matter.’ And this is my belief also.” Al-Qari said in Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar (p. 140): “It is patent that to prefer `Ali to the Two Shaykhs contravenes the doctrine of Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama`a according to what the totality of the Salaf follow.”

4Imam Ahmad is related to define the Rafidi as “He who insults Abu Bakr and `Umar” in al-Khallal, al-Sunna (3:493).

5Al-Qari said in Sharh al-Shifa’ (2:92): “Al-Nawawi said that cursing the Companions is one of the most depraved acts (min akbar al-fawahish), while the author (`Iyad) counts it among the major sins (kaba’ir). Such offense is punished with corporeal punishment according to the vast majority, while according to some of the Malikis and Hanafis the offender is executed.

In some of the books of the latter, it is stated that to insult the two Shaykhs (Abu Bakr and `Umar) constitutes disbelief (kufr).” Al-Nawawi said in Sharh Sahih Muslim: “Know that to insult the Companions is prohibited and constitutes one of the major grave indecencies (al-fawahish al-muharramat) whether with regard to those of them involved in a dissension or other than them, because they entered those conflicts on the conviction of their ijtihad and interpretation.”

 

————————————————————————————

(2) [Are there] rafidah narrators in the ahlal sunna texts ?

With regard to the title of this thread let it be said right away that there are no Rafidis in the Hadith compilations of the Sunni Masters.

i am tempted to this post this as a follow up to a comment about the views of certain ahlal sunna authorities on the Shi’i.
I wish you had resisted the temptation. Discussing hadith transmission is not a Shi`a forte and fosters many misconceptions which then have to be cleaned up.

The reader will notice the term Rafidi every now and then in the following biographies. The Sunni scholars generally define a Rafidi as a Shi’ah who openly criticizes or rejects the legitimacy of the Caliphs before ‘Ali (a).
I.e. one who disparages and violates the Consensus of the Companions. I find it useful at this point – unfortunately – to remind the readers of the pains taken by the pious Sunni Salaf in defining the status of the Rafidis Shi`a with a clear conscience. For truly, as `Umar said, you cannot swindle a Believer.

1. Rafidi = “He who insults Abu Bakr and `Umar” (Imam Ahmad)

2. Rafidi = “Whoever disrespects the Two Shaykhs [Abu Bakr and `Umar] while accepting the validity of their imamate.” (al-Dhahabi)

3. Extreme Rafidis = “those who not only insult the two Shaykhs – Abu Bakr and `Umar, Allah be well-pleased with them – but also reject the validity of their imamate.” (al-Dhahabi)

4. Al-Tabari considers Rafidis kafir and al-Shafi`i forbade praying behind them.

5. According to some Hanafis, to insult the two Shaykhs (Abu Bakr and `Umar) constitutes disbelief (kufr). BUT the claim that Abu Hanifa declared Shi`is Kafir is a lie.

6. Cursing the Companions deserves corporeal punishment according to the vast majority, while according to some of the Malikis and Hanafis the offender is (to be) executed.

7. To insult the Companions is a “major grave indecency” (al-Nawawi)

8. Rafidis have nothing to do with the moderate Shi`is of the pious Salaf.

9. To prefer `Ali to `Uthman is neither Rafd (rejectionism) nor a bid`a (heretical innovation), for several of the Companions and Successors did.

…

‘Abbad b. Ya’qub al-Rawajini (died 250 AH)
Sahih Bukhari [kitab al-tawhid] Sahih al-Tirmidhi [kitab al-manaqib] Sunan Ibn Majah [kitab ma ja’ fi al-jana’iz]

He was a trustworthy Rafidi and his hadith is in (Sahih of) al-Bukhari. [Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Taqrib al-Tahdhib, under “‘Abbad b. Ya’qub al-Rawajani”]

The term Ibn Hajar used is saduq. I would translate saduq not as “trustworthy,” which I reserve for thiqa – a higher grade than saduq -, but “truthful” or “reliable” as you yourself quote below.

Abu Hatim said: He was a shaykh, reliable. Ibn ‘Adi said: He used to denounce the Salaf. In him was extremism of Shi’ism. Salih b. Muhammad said: He used to denounce ‘Uthman. I heard him saying, “Allah is more just than that he would admit Talhah and al-Zubayr into heaven after they paid allegiance to ‘Ali and then fought him.” Ibn Hibban said: He was a Rafidi inviting (others to his belief). He narrated this hadith ÷, “If you see Mu’awiyah on my pulpit, kill him!” [Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, under “‘Abbad b. Ya’qub al-Rawajani”]
You should have also quoted from IH that this `Abbad used to say in public “`Ali dug out the seas of the world and al-Husayn caused them to flow”! Ibn Hajar also narrates from al-Khatib that Ibn Khuzayma stopped narrating from `Abbad. And you may know that Ibn Khuzayma, like Sufyan al-Thawri, prefers `Ali to `Uthman (see e.g. Lisan al-Mizan 1:78), so the reason he stopped was not the acceptable, moderate Shi`ism of preferring `Ali to `Uthman but the unacceptable Rafidism of attacking Abu Bakr and `Umar.

Concerning the quotes of Ali Zahra and other Shi`i contributors on the question of `Abbad ibn Ya`qub from Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (5:95), of the words:

(1) “Narrated from him, al-Bukhari, al-Tirmidhi…”; (2) “Ibn ‘Adi: He used to denounce the Salaf. ” (3) Ibn Hibban: He was a Rafidi inviting (others to his belief). These translations – I am sorry to say – bear the now-familiar stamp of Shi`i light-handedness. For the original actually states:

(1) “Narrated from him: al-Bukhari – a single hadith, and coupled with another chain, – al-Tirmidhi…” etc. The answer to the Shi`is is in these additions that they usualy avoid to mention. Furthermore, what al-Bukhari took is a hadith that has nothing to do with his politics or his Rafidism, just as the rest of his narrations in the other Sunni compilations.

(2) “Ibn `Adi: He used to insult (yashtum) the Salaf.” I suppose “denounce” sounds noble whereas “insult” is ignominious, but “yashtum” can hardly be translated other than as “insult” or “curse.” And the Salaf here include Abu Bakr and `Umar, so this fits the above definitions of Rafidis.

(3) Ibn Hibban: “He was a Rafidi inviting others to his belief and, on top of that, narrating denounced reports from well-established authorities and so he deserves to be abandoned [as a narrator].”

‘Abd al-Malik b. A’yan al-Kufi
Sahih al-Bukhari [kitab al-tawhid
] Sahih Muslim [kitab al-‘iman] Sahih al-Tirmidhi [kitab tafsir al-Qur’an] Sunan al-Nasa’i [kitab al-‘iman wa al-nudhur] Sunan Abu Dawud [kitab al-buyu’] Sunan Ibn Majah [kitab al-zakah]

All together, the above narrate a total of THREE hadiths through him through six chains and, in Bukhari and Muslim’s cases, only as *corroborative chains* not as stand-alone! Finally, none of these hadiths bear on doctrine.

He was Rafidi Shi’i, one of (the people of) opinion. [Abu Ja’far al-‘Uqayli, Du’afa al-‘Uqayli, under “‘Abd al-Malik b. A’yan”]
He was Rafidi, reliable (saduq). [Al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-Kamal, under “‘Abd al-Malik b. A’yan”]

Al-‘Ijli said: He was from Kufah, a Tabi’i (Successor), reliable. Sufyan said: ‘Abd al-Malik b. ‘A’yan the Shi’i narrated to us, he was a Rafidi to us, a man of opinion. Hamid said: Those three brothers, ‘Abd al-Malik, Zurarah, and Hamran were Rawafid all of them. Abu Hatim said: He was one of the earliest to embrace Shi’ism, (he was) on the position of truthfulness, having good traditions, and his traditions are written. [Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, under “‘Abd al-Malik b. A’yan”]

It is funny that in the first instance you quote Ibn Hajar’s Taqrib but not in the second. This is because the Taqrib is Ibn Hajar’s final word and, in this case, it does not suit you. The final word on `Abd al-Malik ibn A`yan is that he is “saduq shi`i” (Taqrib 1:362 #4164), a truthful shi`i, – most likely weak (“da`if”, cf. Tahrir Taqrib al-Tahdhib 2:379 #4164)- but *not* a Rafidi.

So the most accurate opinion of those cited by Ibn Hajar in the Tahdhib then retained by him in the Taqrib is that of Abu Hatim al-Razi, except that it is typically mistranslated in a way that cajoles Shi`i illusions. The correct translation is not “He was one of the earliest to embrace Shi’ism, (he was) on the position of truthfulness, having good traditions, and his traditions are written” but “He was one of the early Shi`is [=moderate], he can be considered reliable [as a narrator] (mahalluhu al-sidq = less than saduq), he is passable in his traditions (salih al-hadith), and his hadiths are written.”

The expression “his hadiths are written” in the terminology of hadith scholars means: they should not be discarded but retained as corroborations of other chains, not as independent reports.

‘Abd al-Razzaq al-San’ani (died 211 AH)
This Shaykh from whom al-Bukhari narrated is also an example of a moderate Shi`i, NOT a Rafidi. BTW it is related that when AR wanted to leave San`a the people were depressed at losing this great `Alim from their city. One of them advised in their Shura: “Put chains on him.” So they married him off to a beautiful lady.

confident that this will invite comments,
You should have included Imam al-Nasa’i and Imam al-Hakim, they were both also accused of (moderate) Shi`ism. Imam al-Nasa’i actually died – Allah have mercy on him – from a savage beating at the hands of some Nasibis (haters of `Ali).

The rule of the hadith masters was to accept the narration of innovators – even Rafidis if they are not considered disbelievers – on one condition: _that their narration has nothing to do with promoting their innovation_.

There may be other reasons for acceptance. For example: the Kharijis’ narrations were accepted because according to Kharijis themselves, lying entails kufr. The hadith scholars took this into consideration to conclude that it was highly improbable or nearly impossible that a Khariji narrator lie. If he also happened to have accuracy (dabt), That made them trustworthy (thiqa) as a narrator of this or that particular narration.

There are, as a rule, *no Rafidis* among the narrators of Sunni hadith compilations, except within the narrow parameters seen in the case of al-Rawajini whom you cited. As for your example of ‘Abd al-Malik b. A’yan al-Kufi, it supports the opposite of what you claim. You live and you learn.

———————————————————————————

My own comments:

In conclusion it can be seen that we must not confuse the term shia as used to describe this group today and the word ‘rafidh’. As the majority of shia of today belong to the same category that the classical sunni ulema referred to as ‘rafidh’. Shia in the early days did not necessarily mean those who act like the shia of today. It referred to those who were staunch supporters of Ali (RA). It was possible to be sunni and still be described as a ‘shia’ in the early days.
So all the ‘shia’ used by the likes of Bukhari in their hadith collections were:

1) Just moderate shias and NOT rafidhis

2) Even then, their narrations were not exclusively relied upon by the likes of Imam Bukahri as they were used as corrobative chains i.e. there were other chains (not containing shias) to support them and vice versa.

3) Just because a narrator was prone to a misguided aqida doesn’t necessarily mean they are liars, so long as they were considered trustworthy then they are used by the hadith compilers. i.e. the Khawarijites were extremely misquided by ignorance but because they were so firm and hard in their belief (however tainted by ignorance they were) they were considered as honest (though misguided people) and were used in some cases in hadith narration