Question About Hadith in Sahih Muslim (Re:Debate With a Shia)

[Sad ibn Abu Waqqas]

Salam 'Alaykum,

I have recently been dealing with a Rafidi Shi'i on another forum, and he tried to justify his stance of rejecting the Shaykhayn, may Allah be pleased with them, by saying the following:

"My view about Abu Bakr and 'Umar is the same view that Imam 'Ali (as) had about them, as recorded by Sahih Muslim in his
Sahih; hadeeth #4349
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4349"

The translation reads as follows:

[Umar(ra) said] "Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) had said:" We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity." So both of you thought him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that he was true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. When Abu Bakr passed away and (I have become) the successor of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him), you thought me to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that I am true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth."

I am just wondering what the 'ulama have said about this narration, especially as regards the words "liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest".

I know very well that this is merely a single-chained (ahad)hadith, whose words are not even those of Ali(ra), and that as evidence it does not compare with the mutawatir narration from 'Ali to the effect that "Abu Bakr and Umar are the two best of this Ummah after its Prophet" (this is mutawatir in Kufa alone) nor does it compare with the evidence of love and affection between the caliphs (e.g. Ali(ra) marrying his daughter to Umar(ra)). My guess is that if this version is accurate, Umar(ra) misunderstood Ali(ra), and Allah knows best.

Still, I would like to know what the commentators have said about it.

Are the words I quoted above soundly translated? Are there any other explanations offered of these words?

I have noticed that the same event is related by two different chains in Sahih Bukhari, with even stronger chains (stronger because they satisfy Bukhari's standards,and because they are shorter) without the words "liar, sinful, treacherous, dishonest". My hypothesis is that these words are anomalous(shadh), and hence weak in an otherwise sound report, but I'd like some confirmation from those who know something about hadith sciences, or who have access to the commentaries.

If anybody could clarify the way the 'ulama have analyzed this hadith, I'd be grateful.

Wa al-Salam......

[salman]

Salamu Alaikum

Odd - I was just sent the same question a while back.

I took a check at Fath Al Bari of Ibn Hajar and came up with the following.

NOTE: This is incomplete and I will try to complete the second half in a few days.

Firstly, before addressing the core issue, everyone has to be aware that unlike the Shias we do not consider anyone Infallible (ma'sum) save the Prophet[s] - Allah bless them -. Thus, whatever errors may be attributed to Sayyidina Ali or Sayyidina Abu Bakr or Sayyidina Abbas are a result of what arises due to human nature. You will see disagreements and quarrels between Sayyidina Umar and Abu Bakr aswell, even between the Ahly Bayt themselves.

However, there are numerous versions of this narration - some of which state the phrase and others which do not. In the Sahih of Imam Bukhari, this phrase is not mentioned, and in the narration of Sahih Muslim, it is. As the student of hadith knows, the most authentic hadith are those present in both Sahih Bukhari and Muslim (meaning: both of them agreed on a hadith and both mentioned it in there books) and then the Sahih of Bukhari and then the Sahih of Muslim. Since the Sahih Bukhari is more authentic then the Sahih of Muslim, the text of the hadith present in Bukhari is given more weight then that of Sahih Muslim, unless proven otherwise.

There are two parts to the narration:

1. Abbas calling Ali a Liar and treachorous.
2. Umar saying Ali thought of Abu Bakr as a liar.

We shall go over each:

1. In Bukhari the hadith states:

فقال عباس يا أمير المؤمنين اقض بيني وبين هذا وهما يختصمان فيما أفاء الله على رسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم من مال بني النضير

without mentioning the phrase "decide (the dispute) between me (Abbas) and this sinful, treacherous, dishonest liar (Ali)."

Shaikh Al Islam In Hajar stated in his Sharh on Sahih Bukhari i.e. Fath Al Bari that there are variant versions:

زاد شعيب ويونس ‏"‏ فاستب علي وعباس ‏"‏

- Shuayb and Yunus added that Ali and Abbas called each other names.

وفي رواية عقيل عن ابن شهاب في الفرائض ‏"‏ اقض بيني وبين هذا الظالم؛

- In the version of Uqayl from Ibn Shihab (Zuhri) in 'The shares of Inheritance' (it says) 'Decide between me (Abbas) and this unjust one (Ali)'.

وفي رواية جويرية ‏"‏ وبين هذا الكاذب الآثم الغادر الخائن ‏"

- In the version of Juwariyya, 'Between this perfidous, deceitful, wrongdoing liar.'

The above variants, one can be found in the Sahih of Imam Muslim which states that Abbas said to Umar:

- Commander of the Faithful, decide (the dispute) between me and this sinful, treacherous, dishonest liar.

Therefore, the hadith in Muslim is not only negative to Abu Bakr (or so it seems) but it is certainly negative to the Prophets Family aswell.

The Shias - if they accept the Sahih Muslim version - would have to agree that Sayyidina Abbas - the senior member of Ahly Bayt and the uncle of the Prophet - called Ali a "Liar" and "treacherous".

So then why condemn Ali for thinking this way of Abu Bakr when Abbas thought this way of Ali? Was it because Ali was "actually" a liar that Abbas said this or because of a disagreement and heated emotions? The Shias can answer this for themselves.

(Rest to be added later -)

Wasalam

[Sad ibn Abu Waqqas]

Salamu Alaikum

Odd - I was just sent the same question a while back.

Wa Alaykum as-Salam,

Probably the same Rafidi is stirring up fitna in different forums!!

Thank you for your quick response. Your explanations sound very plausible, and I look forward to hearing the rest.

Wa al-Salam.....

[salman]

Salamu Alaikum

Continuing with Allahs help:

2. We have already discussed the first part of the narration where Sayyidina Abbas called Sayyidina Ali a liar and so forth. We shall now go onto the second part regarding Sayyidina Umar and Abu Bakr.

Firstly, once again, this version is only mentioned in the Sahih of Imam Muslim, and not in Bukhari. In Bukhari it merely states:

ثم توفى الله نبيه صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال أبو بكر أنا ولي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقبضها أبو بكر فعمل فيها بما عمل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم والله يعلم إنه فيها لصادق بار راشد تابع للحق ثم توفى الله أبا بكر فكنت أنا ولي أبي بكر فقبضتها سنتين من إمارتي أعمل فيها بما عمل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وما عمل فيها أبو بكر والله يعلم إني فيها لصادق بار راشد تابع للحق

without the use of the phrase "Deceitful, treachorous, liar" but simply enumerating the trustworthiness and truthfulness of Abu Bakr and Umar.

Further, in the Fath Al Bari it states:

"‏ وفي رواية مسلم من الزيادة ‏"‏ فجئتما، تطلب ميراثك من ابن أخيك، ويطلب هذا ميراث امرأته من أبيها، فقال أبو بكر قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم‏:‏ لا نورث ما تركنا صدقة، فرأيتما كاذبا آثما غادرا خائنا ‏"‏

meaning, in the narration of Muslim there was more, and then Ibn Hajar went on to show the narration stating what Umar said Ali and Abbas thought regarding Sayyidina Abu Bakr.

Ibn Hajar follows this by stating:

وكأن الزهري كان يحدث به تارة فيصرح،

meaning, the narrator of the hadith Zuhri would sometimes not mention it and sometimes he would.

وتارة فيكنى وكذلك مالك وقد حذف ذلك في رواية بشر بن عمر عنه عند الإسماعيلي وغيره وهو نظير ما سبق من قول العباس لعلي وهذه الزيادة من رواية عمر عن أبي بكر حذفت من رواية إسحاق الفروي شيخ البخاري وقد ثبت أيضا في رواية بشر بن عمر عنه عند أصحاب السنن والإسماعيلي وعمرو بن مرزوق وسعيد بن داود كلاهما عند الدار قطني عن مالك على ما قال جويرية عن مالك،

meaning, Imam Malik did not mention it in Bishr ibn Umars narration from him, with Al Ismaili and others, which is the same as that of what was mentioned about Abbas and Ali. It was also not mentioned in Ishaq Al Farawis narration, Imam Bukharis Shaikh. It is also established in the narration of Bish ibn Umar by the writers of the Sunans and al Ismaili and Amr ibn Marzuq and Sa'id ibn Dawud, both of them with Daraqtuni from Malik....

Lastly, the issue is mostly regarding rhetoric i.e. concerning Arabic Balagha.

This phrase actually means:

- So you both think he was a liar, treacherous and dishonest?? (Note: he uses the words Sayyidina Abbas used for Sayyidina Ali verbatim to make a point.)

Further proof of this point is, if Sayyidina Ali and Abbas actually considered both Umar and Abu bakr to be liars and deceitful, why would they - with this opinion - go to Sayyidina Umar and ask him to make a decision between them regarding their dispute? Obviously our Shia friends will not be willing to accept this, but then again, reading narrations by means of English translations with limited understanding of the language does lead to false presumptions. However, the same type of rhetoric is also present in the English language.

This reminds of the narration that Shias use to slander Sayyidina Muawiyah that goes:

- The Prophet said of Muawiyah, "May Allah not fill his belly."

Had our Shia brothersbeen even remotely familiar with the Arabic language, they would know that this means "May his sustenance be without end". Actually, in Semitic cultures when someone is presumed to die soon they say so-and-so has reached his fill of food.

Regardless, I strongly advise these people to stop reading English translations and for once actually read the actual Arabic.


And Allah knows best

[Sad ibn Abu Waqqas]

Lastly, the issue is mostly regarding rhetoric i.e. concerning Arabic Balagha.

This phrase actually means:

- So you both think he was a liar, treacherous and dishonest?? (Note: he uses the words Sayyidina Abbas used for Sayyidina Ali verbatim to make a point.)

Further proof of this point is, if Sayyidina Ali and Abbas actually considered both Umar and Abu bakr to be liars and deceitful, why would they - with this opinion - go to Sayyidina Umar and ask him to make a decision between them regarding their dispute? Obviously our Shia friends will not be willing to accept this, but then again, reading narrations by means of English translations with limited understanding of the language does lead to false presumptions. However, the same type of rhetoric is also present in the English language.


Salam 'Alaykum, that is very interesting, and it's a nice explanation. Is it Ibn Hajar's own explanation?


My understanding so far is this: when Umar(ra) said "So you both thought he was a liar, treacherous and dishonest??", it was as if he was saying, incredulously,

"Did you seriously think that in this matter Abu Bakr was a liar, treacherous, and dishonest???"

In other words, Umar(ra) was implicitly appealing to the authority of Abu Bakr in settling this dispute between Ali(ra) and Abbas(ra), by suggesting that there is no way that the kind of adjectives Abbas(ra) had used for Ali(ra) could ever be used for Abu Bakr(ra), and that therefore the two of them should not go against Abu Bakr's(ra) decision and practices

This kind of analysis is lost on most Shi'is. At this point, they have nothing to add to the discussion, so they say "Oh, the truth is so clear, but you have to really want it", and then they disappear to get temporary marriages or curse Abu Bakr(ra) or beat themselves silly while screaming "Ya Ali!", or whatever it is these people do with their spare time.


Wa al-Salam......

[salman]

Salamu alaikum

I was unable to go through the whole Sharh of Ibn Hajar. I merely went through the part which stated how some versions did not mention this (the Sharh was quite long).

Your understanding is correct, and as far as our Shia brothers are cocnerned, then this line of thinking is perfectly in tact with the Arabic language, so if they must blame someone then it should not be us.

The best thing to do is ignore them at this point - unless they bring a valid reason as to why our interpretation is wrong.

Wasalam