: Feb 04, 2015

In light of the crime committed by the modern day khawarij towards the Jordanian…

720 VIEWS
Featured, General : 0 Comments

In light of the crime committed by the modern day khawarij towards the Jordanian pilot, may Allah have mercy upon him, people from across the spectrum – supporters of ISIS and pro-secular intellectuals – have attempted to take on the role of explaining Sharia rulings whilst having no knowledge of them. They've attempted to prove the legitimacy of this crime in Islam by insisting that Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him, burnt al-Faja'a al-Silmi alive.

The problem herein lies in the fact that people want to engage in religious issues without the prerequisite knowledge to do so. They won't even resort back to the experts on Islamic law to ensure that the information they are transmitting is sound and authentic.

The report of Abu Bakr burning Fuja'a is invalid. The sanad (chain of transmission) of this report rests on Ulwan b. Dawud al-Balji who was considered as discredited by the scholars and experts of hadith narrator criticism (a science which critically analyses the biographies and soundness of hadith narrators). Here is what some of them said:

– Ibn Hajar in his Lisan Al-Mizan mentions that Imam Al-Bukhari said Ulwan was someone who was known for narrating ‘disclaimed’ hadith (munkar).*
– Imam Al-Hafiz Al-Haythami commented on this report in his Majma Al-Zawaid and mentioned that Ulwan is a weak narrator and that the report is ‘disclaimed’.
– Al-Uqayli in his Al-Duafaa al-Kabir – a specialist book that records biographies of the hadith narrators that were considered weak and rejected – mentioned that Ulwan was a robber.

Given this, how is it then possible that people accept a report by a man known to have been a robber and hasten to accuse Abu Bakr of burning someone alive? And they do this before referring to the people most qualified to comment on this issue. The experts and qualified scholars of hadith rejected the hadith Ulwan narrated and rejected him as a sound and acceptable hadith narrator.

The same people also accuse Khalid ibn Walid of burning the head of Khalid ibn Nuwayra. Again, this report is invalid because the chain of narrators contains someone called Muhammad ibn Humaid al-Razi. His classification among the scholars of hadith narrator criticism and the experts on the biographies of hadith narrators is ‘liar.’ Imam Ibn Hibban, a renowned expert and authority in this field, said of him that he used to differ from sound and authentic narrators by inverting reports. Abu Zar’a said of him that he was known to be a liar.

These two invalid reports are often used by sections of the Shia to provoke people against the companions of the Prophet ﷺ.

Herein is a lesson for anyone who rushes to accuse our predecessors without verifying the veracity of their claims through knowledge, just as therein lies a lesson for anyone who is quick to believe these claims and share them without confirming their validity or referring back to the people of knowledge.

* A ‘Disclaimed’ (munkar) hadith is one which is has been reported by a weak narrator and goes against another authentic narration of the hadith.

Comments

comments

Add a Comment