Prophet Muhammad PBUH VS Muslim Scholars (1st Part)

13/02/2018

Written by © Atabek Shukurov

Edited by Sonia Nisa

In the previous article, we mentioned the influential scholars of hadeeth from the past and present. We observed their viewpoints and translations of the mass-transmitted hadeeth in an unexpected manner and we were all left gobsmacked. Majority of the Muslims are under the misconception and religious sentiment that our scholars of Islam have always accepted and acted upon the authentic words of our Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). However, we witnessed the contrary to this belief.

After understanding and accepting how our scholars have dealt with the mass-transmitted hadith in an unusual manner, I think it is time for us to witness their opinion concerning the Kharijites. I hope the readers will still remember the reason why the Prophet (PBUH) was warning us repeatedly towards the end of his life concerning this treacherous group. I want to remind the reader about the stance of the beloved Prophet PBUH towards the Kharijites. The Prophet PBUH thought about them;

· Worst creature!

· They leave Islam

· They leave religion

· They kill Muslims

· Wherever you catch them, kill them!

· God rewards anyone who kills them!

· They are the people of Hell!

· Quran doesn't pass their throats

· They leave Islam as an arrow leaves the bow when shot!

· If I would be alive when they appear, I would kill them!

· After leaving Islam, they never come back to it!

· They will be quoting the words of the best of the creation

I think now we should review the stance of our scholars towards the Kharijtes and what they have said about them, then compare the stance of the Prophet PBUH with the stance of the Muslim Scholars. In my last article I have proven that Muslim scholars do not, always, agree with the Prophet PBUH, but some times they rather follow their own opinion instead of following the mass-transmitted words of the Prophet PBUH. 

I will review on the chief members of this Kharijite sect and the demeanour of Muslim scholars towards them (Khawrijite). It is advised to every reader to first read my previous article named 'The correct way of treating the Authentic Narration" before one, continues to read this article.


Imran bin Hitaan: the Kharijite

Imran bin Hitaan was the head of Sufri branch within the Kharijite cult. He was one of the primary scholars and Imam of the Kharijite movement. He was a poet of his time, too. Imran praised Abdurrahman bin Muljim who killed Ali (ra); the adopted son of the Prophet (PBUH). This is the actual 'sacred and divine' poem written by Imran:

"How amazing is this strike [strike by sword that killed Ali] by the righteous person [the killer of Ali], which was not performed for anything but to please God, the owner of the Arsh.

Indeed, I remember it time to time, and think that it is the most highest rewarded deed in front of God."

Imran is making the following points:

  • The Killer of Ali is ''Righteous''
  • The Killer striking Ali by his sword was done only to ''please God''
  • This strike which killed Ali is "amazing and great "
  • Imran thinks that this deed is ''the most highest rewarded by God''

Our Muhaddiths and historians like Dhahabi, Ibn Jawzi and Ibn Hajar have confirmed that this poem was written by Imran to praise the killer of Ali. I say, for me, this poem is sufficient to reject everything which is from Imran bin Hitaan because;

  • Killing a human is one of the top two taboos of real Islam (I am aware that in the fabricated Islam the highest sin is rejecting the opinions of a few people such as Ikrima, Bukhari, Muslim, Shafei etc).
  • What do you think about the killing of none other than the greatest of all, Ali the ranking ahlul-bayt, the adopted son of the Prophet (PBUH), his beloved son in law, the husband of Fatima, the father of Hasan and Husain and grandfather of Baqir, Sadiq, Sajjad, Zaid, and Abdullah Al-Mahdh?

This is the best ever example to show the reason why the Prophet PBUH was so concerned about this sect towards the end of his life. This also explains why the Prophet PBUH was giving this cult such a negative labels.

Now, I want to see what scholars of Islam say about these type of people. On the same page above, Dhahabi speaks about ibn Muljim the killer of Ali:

[In the green box] according to Rawafidh, Ibn Muljim is the most unlucky person on the day of judgement. [In the blue box] but according to us, we hope that he goes to hell, but it is possible that God will forgive him.

He is the same as the killers of Uthman, Zubair, Talhah, Saeed bin Jubair, Ammar, Kharijah, and Hussain. We all disown the killers of all of the above and hate them for the sake of God, and refer them to God.

I understood the following points:

  • The killer of Ammar according to the hadeeth, which is narrated in many sources including Bukhari, has to go to hell, unless if Prophet (PBUH) had made an error, lied, or the hadeeth of Bukhari is fabricated. I do not think that Dhahabi accepts that the killer of Ammar goes to hell!
  • Dhahabi is saying, ''we hate them, disown them'' is not very accurate as this claim of ''disowning'' has never happened. There are lists of many killers of the Sahabah who are classed as ''authentic'' narrators and "imams" by the top scholars of Islam, including Dhahabi himself. So, the act of ''disowning'' these people never happened. 
  • Dhahabi says about the killer of Ali (ra) that, ''we hope he enters hell, but it is possible that he enters paradise'', obviously, it is another inconsistency of Dhahabi specifically and the general attitude of muhaddith scholars. This is because Prophet (PBUH) said, ''No one hates Ali, except a hypocrite''. Hypocrites never enter paradise! It is a sufficient proof to show that, ''followers'' of Sunnah saying, ''Why do you oppose Hadeeth?'' is just a game. In actuality, they do not accept  the authentic or even mass-transmitted hadeeth all the time.

Going back to discussing Imran bin Hitaan, who praised the killer of Ali (and did not ''disown'' neither ''hated him for the sake of God'').

Imam al-Darqutni (died 385 Hijri) has written a book in the refutation of Saheeh Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim. In the book, he mentioned 218 issues criticising both, Bukhari and Muslim. Ibn Hajar endeavoured to respond to these issues and answered half of them. In that book Darqutni said, ''Bukhari has narrated from Imran bin Hitan even though he is a weak for his evil beliefs and opinions!''

For me Darqutni has nailed it! However, his opinion was rejected by the Muhaddiths who have tried their best to defend Imran.

Here is evidence that Ibn Hajar defended Imran bin Hitaan:

[In the brown box] Imran was the head of the Qa'di branch of Sufris. He was their Lecturer and Poet.

[Red box] Imran was one of the Da'ees [propagating their school].

[Blue box] He is the one who has written a poem mourning for Abdurrahman bin Muljim, the killer of Ali (RA).

Further, Ibn Hajar mentions the muhaddiths who praised Imran and confirmed him being ''reliable.''

[Light green box] Bukhari only narrated one hadeeth from him. 

[Red box] Bukhari only narrated this hadeeth as 'Mutabe' [means not as a proof].

[Blue box] I saw some of the Imams saying, Bukhari narrated from him only what he narrated prior to becoming Kharijite. [Ibn Hajar refuted this opinion].

[Green box] Mawsilli mentioned from someone that he repented from Kharijite School at the end. If it is authentic then it is a good excuse.

[Red box] However, it is not a problem to narrate from him as mutaba'aat [i.e. not as the main proof]

I say:

Sufri sect of Kharijites to whom Imran bin Hitaan belongs to, is the same sect to which Ikrima the slave of Ibn Abbas (ra) belongs. As we continue the article one will come to know more about the "Sufri Kharijites".

  • When ibn Hajar was defending Ikrima he said; ''Bukhari narrating from Ikrima is not problematic even though if he was a Kharijite as he was not one of the Da'ees.'' However, as we can see here ibn Hajar confirmed Imran to be ''Da'ee'' but then contradicting himself as he disregarded this fact. Ibn Hajar knew Ikrima was a Da'ee but then said that narrating from Ikrima is fine because he was not a Da'ee. Ibn hajar is being very inconsistent with his viewpoints.
  • We know that Imran has written poems to praise the killer of Ali (ra), however Ibn Hajar is confirming that Imran has also written ''Ratha'' poem to mourn that the killer was killed in revenge. Moreover, we know that the ones who applied the revenge were Sahaba such as Hasan and Husain, and the top scholars of Tabein.
  • Ibn Hajar listed the muhaddiths who confirmed the reliability of Imran. How can this person be ''reliable'' even if he is praising the killer of Ali? We all acknowledge just by questioning Mu'awia is more than enough for the narrator to be sent to everlasting hell by the Muhadditheen. Nevertheless, why is it so easy to oppress Ali (ra)? Is it because Ali is a "hypocrite" as ibn Taimia has "proven"?

Ibn Hajar saying that Bukhari only narrated one hadeeth is incorrect. However, he narrated two hadeeths and ibn Hajar certainly knows this. One is the hadeeth, which Ibn Hajar mentioned in regards to wearing silk clothes for males. The (isanaad) chain is from Bukhari from Muhammad bin Bishar from Usman bin Umar from Ali bin Mubarak from Yahya bin Katheer from Imran bin Hitan from Aishah.

The second hadeeth is the one below about destroying the pictures in the houses. The chain is from Bukhari from Muhadh bin Fadhalah from Hisham from Yahya from Imran bin Hitan from Aishah.

5. As we can see, there are two completely different hadeeths with two separate chains and ibn Hajar commented on both of them in his book 'Fath al-Bari.' Further, we will review what ibn Hajar said regarding both narrations.

6. Further, Ibn Hajar says that 'Bukhari only narrated from him as a mutabe'. This is incorrect as Bukhari narrated two different hadeeths with different chains. One of them was as a Mutabe', but the second was not, nonetheless, it was the main hadeeth of the chapter! Ibn Hajar commented on this hadeeth in Fath al-Bari and spoke about Imran, too.

7. Besides, ''someone'' mentioning that Imran repented, must show adequate evidence before using it as an excuse. Otherwise, false claims about narrations of ''repenting'' is very popular from nearly everyone. A popular example of this is that of Imam Abu Hanifah who many claim falsely that he 'repented' from 'Kufr' twice. The proof of this "repentance" being a lie and deception is that the one who is narrating this hadeeth from Imran is Yahya bin Abu Katheer himself. It is confirmed, that Yahya narrated from Imran while he was hiding from the excision of Kharijites. It is strange why Ibn Hajar mentions this falsehood however, does not explain it to be a lie.

8. At the end, Ibn Hajar justified the narration of Bukhari from Imran by saying that ''it was only in mutaba'aat'' but we saw that he is wrong.

This was our comment on what Ibn Hajar said in the introduction of his commentary on Saheeh Bukhari. Now let us review what Ibn Hajar exactly said in each of the two narrations of Imran bin Hitaan. Remember, Ibn Hajar claimed that Bukhari narrated from Imran ''only once'', and that was only as a ''Mutabe.' However, I have proven that he narrated twice and the second narration of Imran was not Mutabe', but it was actually Hujjah.

Here is the second Hujjah narration from Imran ibn Hitaan, and Ibn Hajar further commented on it:

In the second red box, Ibn Hajar says, 'Imran bin Hitaan is already mentioned earlier on in the chapter of Clothing.'

This demonstrates that Ibn Hajar has clarified that Imran is ''reliable'' in the first narration from him. So, let us understand what Ibn Hajar exactly said:

In the red box, Imran al-Sadusi was one of the Aqdi branch of Kharijites (so at least Ibn Hajar accepted that he is a Kharijite, and did not hide this truth as he did earlier with Ikrima). He was the head of the branch and their Poet. He is the one who has praised Ibn Muljim [the murderer of Ali] by his famous poems... Bukhari narrated from him because he narrates from any innovator as long as he is truthful and righteous. Some said that Imran repented from his innovation, however, this narration is weak! Some said that Yahya bin Abu Katheer (who narrated this hadeeth from Imran) narrated from him prior to becoming an innovator. That is because he married one of his relatives who was kharijite so he said this just to make her to repent from it, but she converted him to a kharijite. Bukhari did not narrate from him except for one hadeeth as a Mutabe' which is this one and another one in the chapter of Removing the pictures.

As a result, we can deduce, Ibn Hajar made the following points in order to defend Imran:

  • Bukhari narrates from any innovator as long as he is truthful and righteous.
  • Imran repented from his innovation, but then Ibn Hajar confirmed that it is incorrect!
  • This hadeeth of Bukhari is narrated from Imran through Yahya who received it from him prior to innovating.
  • The reason why Imran became kharijite is because he married one of his relatives who was a kharijite.
  • Bukhari only narrated one hadeeth from Imran as Mutabe'
  • Ibn Hajar mentioned the last point perfectly that gives an impression that even the second narration of Imran is also Mutabe'

Although I have already responded to all of these ''defences'' of Ibn Hajar. However, summarising everything briefly:

  • The Prophet (PBUH) said that only the hypocrites would hate Ali (RA). Therefore, it is a strange point that Imran is a hypocrite according to the Prophet (PBUH) but 'Righteous' accordingly to Bukhari and Ibn Hajar!
  • If authenticity in narrating the "repentance" is not necessary then Pharaoh and Abu Jahl similarly repented! As we read, Ibn Hajar narrates that Imran repented but then confirmed that the narration of repentance is weak!!!
  • Yahya only met Imran when he was hiding from Hajjaj bin Yusuf who was after Kharijites. Therefore, the 100% confirmed period of Imran being Kharijte is when Yahya met him!
  • Who cares about the reason why he became Kharijite? Actually if Imran changes his religious views according to the women he marries then maybe towards the end of his life he married some apostate! Prove I am wrong! Furthermore, we have adequate evidence to label Imran as a non-academic for changing his religious views because of a woman he married! Ridiculosity at its best!
  • As we read, Imam Bukhari narrated from him twice, thus Ibn Hajar claiming that he narrated once is very strange! If it would not cause a public panic attack of few Muslim celebrities, I would say Ibn Hajar knowingly lied.
  • The second narration is not Mutabe', but an actual hadeeth of the chapter! Ibn Hajar undoubtedly knew that the second narration of Imran is not Mutabe'. He actually commented on this second narration. A question to Ibn Hajar, you know that Bukhari narrated from Imran twice, so why do you claim he narrated once? In addition, you know that the second narration is not Mutabe', so why do you claim it to be Mutabe'?

I already know that majority of the Muslims if not all, will defend and say; Ibn Hajar did not contradict himself but it is your 'filthy' brain that is hindered from the truth. Who are you to question the scholars? Your role is merely to follow everything they said and nothing more!

Well, I know this is the mentality of the vast majority of the "Muslims" in our age. Just for their information, Ibn Hajar is also ''muqallid''. We are only obliged to follow ''mujtahids'' such as, Ali but not the ''muqallids'' such as, Ibn Muljim, Imran bin Hitaan and Ikrima.

Question, why are ''Muslims'' ordering us to follow the ''Muqallids'' who killed the ''Mujtahids'', and praised their killers?

It is just a ''sacred inconsistency'' of ''Muslims.''

Dhahabi (died 748 Hijri) mentioned Imran bin Hitaan in Siar A'lam volume 4 and said: ''One of the greatest scholars, even though he is one of the heads of Kharijites...''

Then he only mentioned the statement praising him from Abu Dawud who said, ''There is no more truthfulness amongst innovators in comparison to the Kharijties, such as Imran bin Hitaan and Abu Hassan A'ra.

Further, he praised his poetic talent, and mentioned his poem praising the killer of Ali.

It is strange why he did not mention what Darqutni said concerning him? Nor mention what the Prophet (PBUH) said about the ones who hate Ali; the Greatest!

In addition, I labelled Imran as a hypocrite therefore; I assume some people will be offended. Merely for their information, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said to Ali, ''Only believers love you and only hypocrites hate you!'' This hadeeth is undoubtedly authentic and has been narrated by many authors including Muslim, Nasai, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, Baghawi, Hakim Naisapuri, Bazzar and many others! Is there any stronger proof needed for Imran hating Ali than him praising his killer? Why experts of hadeeth did not mention this side of the story? Is it because they were only concerned to defend Imran? If that is the case then is it only Imran with whom they have disregarded the other (dark) side of the story? Maybe there are some other narrators whose dark side is hidden by these same people? Is it only one or two narrators or maybe hundreds of them?

Finally, I want to ask a few questions:

  • Why did the narrators, experts of hadeeth and fuqaha take the murder case so carelessly?
  • Further, they did not take any murder case so easily but only when it came to specific people such as, Ali, Husain, Ammar, Zaid, Abdullah Mahdi, Abu Hanifa, and mainly the ones who are murdered by Umayyads and Abasids.
  • Why did the scholars say, ''we disown these killers'' but then they narrate their hadeeths and spread their knowledge?
  • Do these type of personalities deserve to be defended? Or followed blindly in a manner where we have to close our eyes upon witnessing the truth and pretend it does not exist?
  • What does God say about the people who hate the earliest Muslims (Muhajirs and Ansar), kill them and praise their killers?
  • Why do the "reliable" muhadditheen and narrators hate Ali or show their hate for Ali (ra)?
  • Hating Ali is hypocrisy according to the Prophet (PBUH), but why is it a virtue and righteousness, according to Muslim historians and muhaddiths?
  • Why did Ibn Hajar scoop to the level of false testimony in order to defend Kharijites? He says, that Bukhari only narrated one hadeeth when he undoubtedly knew that Bukhari narrated two hadeeths with two separate chains. Then claims ''Bukhari only narrated from Imran as Mutabe'' when he very well knew that Bukhari narrated from Imran as Hujja too?
  • What is the reason that Kharijites such as, Imran and Ikrima have perfect protection of Ibn Hajar, Dhahabi, Ibn Taimia and many other muhaddiths and nearly all sects of modern day 'Islam'?
  • Is lying permissible concerning the religious matters?
  • Is it permissible to hide the truth concerning the religious matters using fabricated arguments?
  • Ibn Hajar defending Ikrima said, ''Even if Ikrima was Kharijite, but he was not da'ee!'' First of all Ibn Hajar repeatedly gave false testimony, as he knew that the doctrines of Kharjites spread in Africa by Ikrima (as he confirmed himself). Further, we understood from this statement of Ibn Hajar, that Ikrima is perfect even if he is Kharijite because he is not a Da'ee. Nevertheless, here Ibn Hajar is confirming that Imran was a Da'ee of Kharijites and their leader, spokespersons and a poet. Therefore, why being a Da'ee of innovators did not affect Imran? Ibn Hajar it seems initiated another excuse in two words, implying: ''Ok people, I present 'not being da'ee' as an excuse for Irkima. However, here I cannot reject that Imran was not da'ee that is why I will make a different excuse and say 'Bukhari accepts the narrations of even da'ee innovator as long as he is truthful'?"

To conclude the argument, I say:

Firstly, how do you know whether this is the condition of Bukhari or not? Secondly, we know what the Prophet (PBUH) said concerning Kharijites (especially the ones who will fight against Ali and the ones who will kill Ali) and then someone comes and says, ''O Muslims just ignore what the Prophet (PBUH) said, and instead believe what I say blindly!'' Well, not this time! Imran bin Hitaan is going to hell because he left Islam and never repented. Without doubt, if our beloved Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) would be alive, he would eradicate him (Imran) and God would reward him for doing so! All above excuses and ridiculous arguments to defend Imran are immensely weak to overthrow the statements of our Prophet (PBUH). Therefore, let us stop rejecting the authentic Hadeeths and accepting the false narrators who attribute God knows what to the Prophet (PBUH).