Response to: Farid and Hadith Al-Wilayah (part 3)


The following is a response to’s refutation, which was entitled: Response to Farid and Hadith Al-Wilayah (part 3), which can be found here. To follow our previous refutations please click here.

Like in our previous refutation, the matters that will solely be responded to are new allegations, or allegations that are worth a response. It is important to review the previous articles for the full picture.

The people’s main argument is that there is a lack of evidence suggesting that there is a mistake in the narration. On the other hand, evidence has been provided that there are reasons to believe that the addition of “Min Ba`di” (after me) is not authentic. The Ghadir site has unfairly claimed that Sunni scholars “invented” reasons to weaken this narration. They have also made the accusation that these were done to keep the “caliphate theory alive”, which is a very strange thing to say, since we have admitted previously that there are some Sunni scholars who have accepted this Hadith and had no issues in their beliefs in the caliphate of the Abu Bakr, `Umar, or `Uthman.

 Or does the Ghadir team not know that there are solid interpretations to even this odd wording?

In the name of Allah we begin addressing his simple issues,

Section 1: Response to the Argument that the Narrations of Amr bin Maymoon and Maymoon Abu Abdullah are Different in Wording.

The Ghadir folks say:

So in simple words Farid, one person related one event while the other narrated another (with additional things) and each from DIFFERENT companions…

There was no issue of a mistake or a hidden defect. Your scholars have only relied upon an ASSUMPTION to find a way out in keeping the Caliphate theory alive! “

The Ghadir site likes to stress this fact. But, we add that not only are they different in wording; they are also different in who they narrate the Hadith from. This is obvious and accepted. However, this does not stop Hadithists from identifying the culprits of fabricating such narrations.

The Ghadir site is suggesting that just because the wording is different then it cannot be a fabrication. The question that asks itself is: Is it not possible for a liar to provide two different narrations for a single event in order to strengthen it? The answer is obvious.

A simple answer is it not?

Section 2: Did Amr bin Maymoon Narrate from Ibn Abbas?

This question has been answered before, both by providing an explanation and by quoting the opinion of Imam Ahmad. However, the people at the Ghadir site have brought new evidence that needs to be refuted.

They argued:

The truth is, ‘Amr bin Maymūn saw Ibn ‘Abbās and bumped into him many times.

This is obvious. In none of the previous refutations has anything been posted that suggests that they did not meet each other. Both lived in Madinah during the first century. To assume that they didn’t meet one another is not logical.
However, the point that was made is that Amr bin Maymoon did not narrate from Ibn Abbas, not that he didn’t see him or meet him.

For instance, Al-Khateeb al-Baghadadi reported that Al-Azhari said that he saw Abu Al-Qassim bin Al-Muqri’ but never narrated from him. Tareekh Baghdaad 9/438.

Ibn Asakir al-Dimashqi said that he met `Abdul-Wahid bin Mohammad more than once, with his uncle, but never heard from him. Tareekh Dimashq 37/275.

Yahya bin `Abdullah said that he saw Haywa bin Shurayh but never heard from him. Al-Ma`rifah wal Tareekh 1/145.
The list goes on… again a very simple scientific answer.

Ghadir786 now writes the following:

Are you implying that it was against the pride of the Sahābah to narrate from younger Sahābah?

 Firstly, Amr bin Maymoon is not a Sahabi. There is no doubt in the mind of anyone that Ibn Abbas is better than Amr bin Maymoon, however, it is the simple truth that Amr bin Maymoon never narrated from Ibn Abbas, regardless of the reason. Refer to the previous refutation as to a possible reason.

Ghadir786 then provide two more evidences that Amr bin Maymoon heard from Ibn Abbas. This time, using relatively better evidence (since the previous evidences were all through one narrator and from one Hadith):

أَخْبَرَنَا الْقَاضِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ فِي كِتَابِهِ ، قَالَ : ثنا مُوسَى بْنُ إِسْحَاقَ ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَوْنٍ ، ثنا مَرْوَانُ بْنُ مُعَاوِيَةَ ، ثنا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عُبَيْدٍ الْكِنْدِيُّ ، قَالَ : سَمِعْتُ عَمْرَو بْنَ مَيْمُونٍ ، وَهُوَ يَقُولُ : ” اللَّهُمَّ إِنِّي أَسْأَلُكَ السَّلامَ ، وَالإِسْلامَ ، وَالأَمْنَ ، وَالإِيمَانَ ، وَالْهُدَى ، وَالْيَقِينَ ، وَالأَجْرَ فِي الآخِرَةِ وَالأُولَى ” ، أَسْنَدَ عَمْرُو بْنُ مَيْمُونٍ الأَوْدِيُّ عَنْ عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ ، وَعَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ ، وَعَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مَسْعُودٍ ، وَعَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَبَّاسٍ ، وَأَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ ، وَمُعَاذِ بْنِ جَبَلٍ ، وَأَبِي أَيُّوبَ الأَنْصَارِيِّ ، وَأَبِي مَسْعُودٍ ، عُقْبَةَ بْنِ عَمْرٍو رَضِيَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى عَنْهُمْ

Abī Na’īm in his Ḥilyah al-Awliyā’ mentions that ‘Amr bin Maymūn has also transmitted the above du’ā’ (supplication) from ‘Umar bin Khaṭṭāb and ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib and ‘Abdillāh bin Mas’ūd and ‘Abdillāh bin ‘Abbās…

The poor Arabic of the Ghadir786 people causes them to misunderstand a quote by Abu Nu’aym. Nothing in the Arabic text suggests that Amr bin Mayoon narrated the above dua`a from Ibn Abbas.

Next they say:

Al-Bayhaqī in his Al-Asmā’ was Safāt recorded the following:
خْبَرَنَا أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْحَافِظُ , أنا أَبُو بَكْرٍ أَحْمَدُ بْنُ إِسْحَاقَ الْفَقِيهُ , أنا أَبُو مُسْلِمٍ ثنا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ رَجَاءٍ , أنا مُصْعَبُ بْنُ سَوَّارٍ , عَنْ أَبِي يَحْيَى القتات , عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ مَيْمُونٍ , عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ

 The editor of the book Mohammad Muhib Al-Deen Abu Zaid commented: The chain is weak. Al-Haythami said in Al-Majma’ (7/200): In it is Abu Yahya Al-Qattat, who is weak amongst the majority, and he was strengthened by Ibn Ma’een in one narration and weakened in others. And Mus’ab ibn Siwar: I don’t know him. And the rest are narrators of the Saheeh.

It is important to also add that Abu Yahya Al-Qattat is a late narrator, who narrated from those that died after the end of this first century like Habeeb bin Abi Thabit (d. 119 AH) and Ata’a bin Abi Rabah (d. 114 AH). His earliest narration seems to be from Mujahid who also died after the first century. Therefore, it is very unlikely for him to have heard from Amr bin Maymoon who died in the seventh decade after the Hijra. The editor furthermore included that the narration can be found in Al-Mu`jam Al-Kabeer by Al-Tabarani (10606). Also, the narration can also be found in Tareekh Dimashq. Ironically, this was the case, and not only that, but the narration that was found comes from the path of Abu Yahya Al-Qattat (again) through Maymoon bin Mihran instead of `Amr bin Maymoon. This is much more logical, since Maymoon bin Mihran is a known student of Ibn Abbas. As we can see, one of the narrators made a mistake in the name of the student of Ibn Abbas, which resulted in a totally different chain. So as we can see, this proves once again that Imam Ahmad was correct in denying the existence of any narration in which Amr bin Maymoon narrates from Ibn Abbas.

And again, simple scientific logical answers to whatever arguments they feel the need to provide

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.