1.
Name:
Abū Mikhnāf Lūṭ bin bin Yaḥyā bin Sa’īd bin Mikhnaf
bin Sulaym
1.
Residence:
Kufa, the city in which the tree
of Shiasm grew very strongly. Abū Mikhnaf Lūṭ bin Yaḥyā grew up in the cradle
of Shiasm, and his family was well known for their Shia-related activities.
2.
Beliefs:
Abū Mikhnaf Lūṭ bin Yaḥyā’s Shiasm is a point of agreement between the
Ahl-us-Sunnah wal Jamā’ah and the Shia. His narrations clearly indicate this.
3.
Statements of the Ahl-us-Sunnah wal Jamā’ah ‘Ulamā’ on
Abū Mikhnaf:
The ḥadīth
scholars have reached consensus that Abū Mikhnaf is weak, nay, he must be left
out.
▶ Abū Ḥātim
said raḥimahullāh, “Abū Mikhnaf is matrūk
al-ḥadīth.”
▶
Ibn Ma’īn raḥimahullāh said, “Laysa bi Thiqah,
i.e. he is not trustworthy.”
▶
Ibn Ma’īn raḥimahullāh was asked, “Is Abū Mikhnaf
like ‘Amr bin Shamr?” He replied, “He is worse than him.” Jauzjānī raḥimahullāh said about ‘Amr bin Shamr,
“He is a deviant liar (zā’igh kadh-dhāb).”
▶
Ibn Ḥibbān raḥimahullāh said about Abū Mikhnaf: “He
is a Rāfiḍī, who swears the Ṣaḥābah, and he narrates fabrications from
trustworthy narrators.”
▶
Sulaymānī raḥimahullāh said, “He would fabricate for
the Rawāfiḍ.”
▶
Ibn ‘Adī raḥimahullāh said, “He is a Shī’ī,
aberrant, their historian…he has disliked reports that I do not like to
mention.” [Shī’ī, Muḥtariq, Ṣāḥib Akhbārihim]
▶
Ad-Dārquṭnī raḥimahullāh said, “Lūṭ bin Yaḥyā al-Kūfī
Abū Mikhnaf the history reporter is weak, i.e. ḍa’īf.”
▶
Dhahabī raḥimahullāh said, “Lūṭ bin Yaḥyā Abū
Mikhnaf is abandoned, i.e. matrūk.” He also said, “Sāqiṭ,” “Hālik.”
▶
Ibn Ḥajar raḥimahullāh said, “Lūṭ bin Yaḥyā is a reporter that
cannot be trusted. Abū
Ḥātim and others
have left him out.”
▶
Ibn al-Jawzī raḥimahullāh said, “Abū Ṣāliḥ al-Kalbī and Abū Mikhnaf, they are
all liars.”
▶
Suyūṭī raḥimahullāh said, “Lūṭ and al-Kalbī are
two liars.”
▶
Az-Zabīdī said raḥimahullāh, “He is a narrator of
reports, Shī’ī, corrupted and abandoned.”
▶ Ziraklī raḥimahullāh said, “Imāmī, from the people
of Kufa.”
Summary & Conclusion of the above:
1.
The above statements
and judgements clarify the position of Abū Mikhnaf Lūṭ bin Yaḥyā in terms of ḥadīth.
Hence, no ḥadīth reported by him can be accepted.
2.
If he is known for
lying and fabricating, then despite the presence of his reports in the works of
history, he cannot be relied upon or trusted to be true, especially if it is
about the Ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum and Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
3.
Once the status of the
narrator and his beliefs have come to light, and it is realised that he was not
just a Shia, but a Rāfiḍī and would swear the Ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum, then his
history reports about them must be dismissed totally. The reason for this is
that the matter of the Ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum and
Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam is a matter of īmān,
and dubious fabrications cannot be accepted from a Shia reporter like Abū
Mikhnaf Lūṭ bin Yaḥyā without intense scrutiny, according to the principles
laid down by the Muḥaddithīn. The Shia and the Rawāfiḍ use reports like those
mentioned by him to issue judgements on the Ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum, and this,
quite clearly, contradicts the principles of the Noble Qur’ān and the beliefs of
the Ahl-us-Sunnah wal Jamā’ah regarding the Ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum.
4.
Moreover, if his lies
on one issue are denied and refuted, then his lies and fabrications must be
refuted across the board, in ḥadīth, and history.
4.
Statements of the Shia scholars on Abū Mikhnaf:
The Shia
are content and rely on the reports of Abū Mikhnaf.
▶ An-Najāshī and al-Ḥillī said, “Abū Mikhnaf was the
Shaykh of the people of Kufa and their leader. They were content with what he
narrated.”
▶
‘Abbās al-Qummī
said, “Abū
Mikhnaf was from the greatest of the Shia historians.”
▶ Khoei said, “He is reliable; one can be content with his
reports.”
A serious alarm is sounded when the Shia trust and rely on him for
their history, especially when it involves the noble Ṣaḥābah
raḍiyallāhu
‘anhum and Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
This is because the Shia use history to target the blessed Ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu
‘anhum and make baseless and false judgements on them, severely
impacting the īmān of a person, and
could end up taking a person totally out of Islām. May Allāh
Ta’ālā save us all. Āmīn
5.
What did Abū Mikhnaf report on?
Abū
Mikhnaf Lūṭ bin
Yaḥyā reported on the
demise of Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam,
the Saqīfah Banī Sā’idah incident, the Shūrā appointed by Sayyidunā ‘Umar raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu, the
martyrdom of Sayyidunā
‘Uthmān raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu, the
martyrdom of Sayyidunā
‘Alī raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu, the
battles of Jamal and Ṣiffīn, the martyrdom of
Sayyidunā Ḥusayn raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu, the
demise of Sayyidunā
Mu’āwiyah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu, the
martyrdom of Sayyidunā
‘Abdullāh bin
Zubayr raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu etc.
6.
How should the reports of Abū
Mikhnaf and other Shia historians be dealt with according to the ‘Ulama of
Deoband?
Mufti Muḥammad Shafī’ raḥimahullāh writes in
Maqām-e-Ṣaḥābah, ‘the famous
imām of ḥadīth and
Usūl ul Ḥadīth, Imām
Ibn Salāh raḥimahullāh states in
his book ‘Ulūm ul Ḥadīth,
‘This issue
is dominant among the historians, as they gather many narrations in which
authentic, unauthentic, and all types of narrations are mixed.’
In Tadrīb ur Rāwī, p.295, Suyūṭī raḥimahullāh has written
exactly the same thing. Similarly, Fatḥ ul Mughīth and other works state the same thing.
Ibn Kathīr raḥimahullāh was a famous
imām and well-known researcher. He had an outstanding quality of researching
and investigating narrations. However, when this very same luminary writes his
history work, Al Bidāyah wan Nihāyah, then this level of investigation and
inquiry does not remain.
After
mentioning a few historical narrations in Al Bidāyah wan Nihāyah vol.8 p.202,
he writes, “I doubt their authenticity. However, Ibn Jarīr Ṭabarī and
others have transmitted these narrations before me, which is why I have
followed suit. If they did not mention them, I would not have brought them
into my book.”
It is quite
apparent that in the research of a ḥadīth, he would have never said that
despite doubt of its authenticity, because some author has mentioned
it, that is why he wrote it. It was because of this status of history that
Ibn Kathīr raḥimahullāh classified
it as permissible.
This is even though Ibn Kathīr raḥimahullāh has refuted
many narrations of Ṭabarī and
criticized them in Al Bidāyah wan Nihāyah. All these things testify that
in the field of history, those who criticize have also understood it to be
appropriate that however many narrations are found regarding an incident, they
should all be gathered.
The Jarh and
Ta’dīl, the study and scrutiny of it, should be left to the scholars. This is
not the coincidental error of any individual, but this is the line of thinking
of all the imāms of the science that it is no fault to mention weak, unreliable
narrations in the science of history without criticizing them. The reason
for this is that they know that the beliefs in religion or laws of the sharīʿah
are not proven through them. Lessons, advice, and the experiences of
nations are learned. If a person wants to use these narrations as proof for a
ruling that deals with Islāmic belief or practical deeds, then it is his
responsibility to adopt the same laws to study and scrutinise them and delve
into the details of the narrator, as is necessary in the narration of ḥadīth. Without
this, it will not be permissible to draw rulings; and to say that this
narration is found in the history books of a reliable imām of ḥadīth will
not absolve the person of responsibility.
Understand
this from this example that there were many mujtahid imāms and jurists of the
ummah who were masters in the field of medicine as well, for example, Imām
Shāfi’ī raḥimahullāh. The works
of some of these scholars in the science of medicine are also present. If they
happen to write the specialities, effects of certain things in a book of
medicine, that liquor has specific qualities, effects, and these are the
specialities and effects of the flesh of swine, and now someone looks at their
words in this book of medicine and states that they are permissible. In drawing
his conclusion, he says that a certain imām or scholar has written in his book, and he did not state that it is ḥarām, so,
will this conclusion be correct? This is not a fabricated example. What a great
scholar of the ummah is Shaykh Jalāl ud Dīn Suyūtī raḥimahullāh? He has
written a book on probably every one of the shar’ī sciences. No one debates his
honour and piety. However, look at his book written on medicine called, ‘Kitāb
ur Raḥmah fī at Ṭibb wal Ḥikmah’. Many ḥarām things
are included in the prescriptions written for the cure of illnesses and
acquiring benefit. Now, if someone wants to prove these things permissible,
using this book as a reference, and he attributes it to Suyūṭī r, then will any person in his sound
senses say that this is correct?
Similarly,
there are many authored works of scholars and jurists on the subject of
medicine. In all of them, the specifics, effects, and method of usage of ḥarām items
are mentioned. Blood, urine and excreta…liquor and swine, the specifics of all
these are mentioned. In the very same book, they do not see the need to state
their ḥarām and
impure status. This is because the demand of this science and the subject
matter is that the specialities and effects of all things are written. It is not
the place to discuss ḥalāl and ḥarām. They
are written as ḥalāl and ḥarām in the
appropriate place. The fault is that of the ‘intelligent’ person who overlooked
this reality and began to draw the laws of ḥalāl and ḥarām from
books of medicine. After this lengthy introduction, I come to the basic subject
matter that the error of the scholars who took responsibility of deciding the matter of the differences among the Ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu
‘anhum
based on historical narrations comes from here. The authors of those books from
which they took these historical narrations were great and reliable, and were
accepted as imāms in the field of ḥadīth and tafsīr. They (the scholars who erred) did not think
that in their (the historians') books, they did not discuss beliefs and actions
of the sharī’ah, but they were writing a historical work. In a history work, the
practice of gathering authentic, unauthentic and all types of narrations
without scrutiny is known and famous. Yes, if a person wants to prove belief
or a ruling pertaining to deeds, then it will be his responsibility to study
and research the narration and the narrator in the light of ḥadīth. The
research scholars have clarified that in beliefs and the actions of the sharī’ah,
historical narrations – which are generally a collection of authentic,
unauthentic, reliable and unreliable narrations – cannot be presented for a
ruling, nor can a ruling be drawn from them without the ḥadīth-type
research and be presented as proof. Now, it has to be seen whether the
matter of the differences of the Ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu
‘anhum
is a general historical matter or is it an important chapter of shar’ī laws.’
‘Allāmah Ẓafar Aḥmad ‘Uthmānī raḥimahullāh
writes in Aḥkām-ul-Qur’ān, ‘'When you have seen in the āyāt of the Noble Qur'an
and the authentic
blessed Aḥādīth of Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi
wa sallam that all the Ṣaḥābah
raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum are
just and their sins have been forgiven - even though some slip might have
occurred from them - and the consensus, i.e., ijma', of the Ummah to speak
only good about them - then do not be deceived by the reports in the history
books, like those from Ṭabari, Ibn
Athir, and the like. This is because these reports are not free from
the distortions and fabrications that have been inserted by the Rawāfiḍ and
the Khawarij.
Whoever
has insight into the field of narrations will certainly know that the Islamic
history books, although they can be relied upon in general incidents,
they are not merited to base any article
of faith or any action worthy of practice upon it. It is
necessary to have a chain of narration for this, from the Noble Qur'an or Sunnah for
this, i.e., an article of faith or action worthy of practice.
For
this purpose, the books
of Ḥadīth and Sunnah have been compiled and codified completely
separate from the books of history. The scholars of Ḥadīth, most of them, just
as they penned works in Ḥadīth, also wrote on history. For example, Imām
Bukhārī raḥimahullāh has a work in Ḥadīth known as the most
authentic work after the Book
of Allāh, also has narrations in history upon which 'Aqīdah and
practices cannot be based, even though these narrations can be relied upon in
general incidents or occurrences.
This
is especially important regarding the incidents that occurred during the battles
and differences between the Ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum. Amongst the
collections of reports and narrations, there are distortions and fabrications
from the Rawāfiḍ, the Khawārij, and the Munāfiqīn.
They inserted whatever they wanted to into the narrations. Therefore, in
these matters, nothing of it can be used to establish a belief or practice
because of the doubts and dubiousness in these narrations.'
7.
Summary:
1. Abū Mikhnaf Lūṭ bin Yaḥyā is a Shia, Rāfiḍī, Imāmī, and
one who would swear the Ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum.
2. His beliefs were those of a Shia.
3. His reports cannot be accepted in Ḥadīth.
4. His reports cannot be accepted in history, even if they
are scattered in the books of history.
5. If a report is found in a book of history, that does not
automatically authenticate it.
6. The fabrications of Abū Mikhnaf must not be spoken about
or written about, especially in the current climate wherein the Shia and Rawāfiḍ
spread their false beliefs and corrupt ideas, using the reports like those of
Abū Mikhnaf Lūṭ bin Yaḥyā to target the blessed Ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu
‘anhum.
7. If we find any report or narration that targets and
criticises the Ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum,
then the chain of narration must be studied. If from Abū Mikhnaf or other Shia
liars and fabricators, they must be dismissed for what they are.
8. Part of the duty of the Ahl-us-Sunnah wal Jamā’ah ‘Ulamā’
is to guard the great and illustrious Ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum from the attacks
of the Shia and Rawāfiḍ. The most important step in this regard is to denounce and
refute all the falsehood that has been attributed to the Ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum.
The ‘ālim will be failing miserably in his duty if he accepts, promotes, and popularises
the fabricated and false reports of Abū Mikhnaf and other Shia liars and fabricators, especially when it involves the
Ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum.
9. May Allāh Ta’ālā save us from aiding the cause of the enemies
of Islām; the Shia and the Rawāfiḍ, by not speaking and publishing the lies
spread by the Shia fabricators. Āmīn
‘Ulūm ul Ḥadīth p.263
Comments