Another person appears and says:1
The tradition of Ghadeer is not mentioned in Sihah books. Unaware of the
fact that it is mentioned by Tirmizi in his Saheeh; Ibne Majah in his Sunan;
Darqutni has narrated it through a number of channels and Ziyauddin Maqdisi
has quoted it in Al-Mukhtara and…have quoted it.
This shows the value of statement of a person, who tries to prove something
as doubtful only because it is not mentioned in Saheeh Bukhari and Saheeh
Muslim.2
Another person3 has also mentioned it and supported its authenticity and proved its correctness and consensus of Ahle Sunnat majority has narrated it and said:
“There are many authentic traditions, which the two Shaykhs (Bukhari and Muslim) have not narrated.”
We add that Hakeem Nishapuri has written a complete book, which is not
less voluminous than Saheeh Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim, and entitled it
Mustadrak Saheehain; and in many instances they are in agreement with
traditional reports, which Dhahabi has mentioned in Mulakhkhas. And you will
read in biographies of scholars of other ‘addenda’ (Mustadrak) regarding Saheeh
Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim.
Hakeem Nishapuri also says in Mustadrak4:
“Bukhari and Muslim or one of them has not said that every tradition not
narrated by one of them is not authentic. And I would, with the help of God,
narrate traditions, whose narrators are trustworthy and through the like of which,
the Shaykhs [Bukhari and Muslim, may God be pleased with them] or one of them, have reasoned.”
Bukhari says:
“Every traditional report, which I have included in my collection, is
authentic and there are other authentic traditions as well, which I have not
included in order that it may not be prolonged.”
Muslim says:
“I have not mentioned all authentic traditions in this book; I have mentioned
only some of them on which there was consensus.”
Therefore, non-mention of Bukhari and Muslim of a tradition, on whose
authenticity and wide narration, there is consensus, if we don’t say that it a defect
of those two books of their authors, it does not become a cause of making that
tradition doubtful.
It is not concealed from well-informed person: The first to reject this consensus was Ibne Hazm Andulusi,5 while he himself says:
“The Islamic Ummah does not have consensus on a mistake or misunderstanding.”
Later on Ibne Taymiyyah followed him and deemed his statement as source
for deeming the tradition as doubtful and other than his statement, he has not
found in it an iota of doubt, except his statement that he has added to it and said:
“It is narrated that Bukhari, Ibrahim Harrani and some scholars criticized
this tradition and regarded it weak.”
Unaware of his own statement in Minhajus Sunnah6 that:
“The anecdote of Ghadeer took place on the return journey of the Messenger
of Allah (s.a.w.a.) from the Farewell Hajj and people have consensus on it.”
After him, some people like Taftazani, Qaazi Eiji, Qushji and Sayyid
Jurjani, who thought that remoteness from truth was a nice thing, have emulated
him and have added to falsehood and lies and in refutation of the tradition they
did not remain content by just saying that its absence in Saheeh Bukhari and
Saheeh Muslim shows that it is inauthentic. And did not remain content by
quoting the lie of Ibne Taymiyyah that Bukhari and Harrani criticized it – or
since Ibne Taymiyyah was not reliable according to them, yet they did not
directly attribute this to Bukhari and Harrani – they just said unequivocally that:
“Ibne Dawood and Abu Hatim Sajistani have expressed doubt on this traditional
report.”
Following them, Ibne Hajar took a long step and in addition to Abu Dawood
and Sajistani, added the term of ‘and others’. When Harwi came on the scene, he
omitted the name of Sajistani, and in its place, mentioned Waqidi and Ibne
Khuzaimah.
He says in As-Sahamus Thaqiba:
“Many scholars of traditions have expressed doubt in the authenticity of this
tradition, like Abu Dawood, Waqidi, Ibne Khuzaimah and other trusted scholars.”
I don’t know what caused them to commit such audacity to the Almighty Allah:
وَقَدْ خَابَ مَنِ افْتَرَى
“And he who forges (a lie) indeed fails to attain (his desire).”7
What should I say regarding one, who utters such nonsense and fabricate
attributions to imams of traditions and Hafiz scholar of the Sunnah!
Was not a single person born, who can ask them what is your source in these
quotations and attributions. Have they seen it in some book? What book is that
and where is that book? Why don’t you mention the title of the book? Or if the
elders and well known personalities narrate the tradition, why have they not
mentioned its chains of narrators and its reporters?
Should they not be asked that how condemnation of Bukhari and his
associate remain unknown to the multitude of Hafiz scholars, senior traditionists
and teachers of this science from the first to the seventh and eighth century till the
period of Ibne Taymiyyah and his followers?
And why not even one of them spoke up against it? And this statement is not
found in any book or source? Or they were aware of it, but did not see any value
for it in the market of truth and that is why did not pay attention to it?
In addition to them, is the denial of its wide narration (Tawatur) within the
arena of truth? And whether the statement that: “From one side the Shia have
consensus on the reliability of wide narration (Tawatur) in the reasoning of
Imamate and on the other side he reasons through the tradition of Ghadeer even
though it is a solitary reported tradition,”8 is correct?
While the fact is that he himself regards a tradition narrated by eight
companions to be widely narrated (Mutawatir)9 and some Ahle Sunnat regard a
tradition narrated by only four companions to be sufficient for wide narration
(Tawatur) and say that it is not allowed to oppose it.10
And he is certain of the wide narration (Tawatur) of the tradition: “Imams
are from Quraish,” and says: “This traditional report is narrated by Anas bin
Malik, Abdullah bin Umar and Muawiyah. And Jabir bin Abdullah, Jabir bin
Samra and Ubadah Ibne Samit have narrated in the same meaning.”
This is their well known viewpoint regarding the definition of wide narration
(Tawatur), but when they come to the tradition of Ghadeer, they make a ceiling
for wide narration (Tawatur), which even a tradition narrated by 110 persons
cannot reach!
Amazing is the initiative of Ahmad Amin, who in his book of Zuhrul Islam,11 says:
“Shia have narrated the tradition of Ghadeer from Baraa bin Azib.”
You yourself know that Ahle Sunnat narrations from Baraa bin Azib exceed
the reports of all other companions, because almost forty persons from Ahle
Sunnat scholars have narrated it, among them being Ahmad, Ibne Majah, Tirmizi,
Nasai, Ibne Abi Shaibah and their like, a large part of whose chains of narrators
are authentic and all their reporters trustworthy.12
But Ahmad Amin, in order to refute its veracity, wanted to attribute it only
to Shia and this is a not his new antic, because he has, in his books of Fajrul
Islam, Dhuhaul Islam and Zuhrul Islam mentioned a large number of falsehoods.
كَبُرَتْ كَلِمَةً تَخْرُجُ مِنْ أَفْوَاهِهِمْ إِنْ يَقُولُونَ إِلَّا كَذِبًا فَلَعَلَّكَ بَاخِعٌ نَّفْسَكَ عَلَى آثَارِهِمْ إِن لَّمْ يُؤْمِنُوا بِهَذَا الْحَدِيْثِ أَسَفًان
“A grievous word it is that comes out of their mouths; they speak nothing but a lie. Then maybe you will kill yourself with grief, sorrowing after them, if they do not believe in this announcement.”13