Sahaba Assassination Reasons

Why Sahaba Faced Character Assassination: Reasons and Culprits

Question

Why were the Sahaba Karam (Noble Companions) subjected to character assassination? What were the reasons? And who were the people who did this character assassination?

Answer

Alhamdulillah!!

In this series of the preliminary information, we will try to find out:

• Why were the Sahaba Karam subjected to character assassination?
• What were the reasons for it?
• And who were the people who did this character assassination, and how were these narrations transmitted into the books of history?
• And how can we analyze these narrations?

Character Assassination of the Sahaba Karam

In this section, we will examine which of the Sahaba Karam (may Allah be pleased with them) were subjected to character assassination and what the reasons were. Along with this, we will see who these people were who did this character assassination and how these narrations were transmitted into the books of history.

The reasons for the character assassination campaign were primarily of three types: political, religious, and tribal. We will detail them:

Political Reasons

A study of history shows that in the first and second centuries Hijri, numerous rebellious movements rose up against the government of the time.¹ These movements needed to gain public support. Besides this, they needed to incite the emotions of their followers. The leaders of these rebellious movements found it easy to gain people’s support and incite their emotions by using the names of past personalities.

The personality whose name was used the most for this purpose was that of Sayyidna Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). One party showed extraordinary devotion to him and tried to give his personality the status of a deity. Some people declared him the most virtuous among the Sahaba, while others tried to elevate his rank to that of a prophet or even higher. Some individuals declared him an incarnation of God, and some said that God had dissolved into him. In contrast, opposing parties tried to assassinate his character, attempting to lower him from the status of a great Companion and, God forbid, issued fatwas of kufr (disbelief) against him or tried to portray him as the murderer of Uthman. Along with this, the Sahaba Karam who had a difference of opinion with Hazrat Ali were also made into heroes or villains by different parties according to their own needs. These especially included Hazrat Talha, Zubair, Aisha, Muawiyah, and Amr bin Aas (may Allah be pleased with them). Besides them, the three Caliphs, Hazrat Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman (may Allah be pleased with them), were also subjected to character assassination.

Exactly the same thing happened with the tragedy of Karbala. Since it was easy to incite people’s emotions and start a movement by narrating the events of Sayyidna Hussain’s (may Allah be pleased with him) martyrdom, this entire incident was given a romanticized color. In contrast, the unity that Hazrat Hasan (may Allah be pleased with him) brought about among the Muslims by sacrificing his government was completely ignored, because there was no example in it for rebellious movements with which they could stir people’s emotions. Those who held a grudge against Hazrat Hasan and Hussain (may Allah be pleased with them) for any reason also assassinated their characters.

We see that character assassination was especially done against those gentlemen who were involved in political affairs to some degree. We find very few narrations aimed at character assassination of such Companions who stayed away from politics. For example, critical narrations are found about Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), but no such narration is found about his son, Abdullah bin Umar (may Allah be pleased with them). Similarly, Hazrat Amr bin Aas (may Allah be pleased with him) was subjected to character assassination, but his devout and ascetic son, Abdullah bin Amr (may Allah be pleased with them), is respected by all.

It is human nature to see the world through the lens of one’s own interests and to resort to lying when needed. This happens in all worldly and religious matters. If we examine our own era, we see the same thing. Those who enter the field of politics are also subjected to character assassination by the newspapers, but this does not happen with those who are quietly engaged in scholarly pursuits or worship. We see that the imams of small mosques remain safe, while attempts are made to depose the imams of large mosques through conspiracies. No one raises a voice against low-level employees of the government and businesses, but those in high positions are specifically targeted.

Religious Reasons

The religious motives for the character assassination of the Sahaba Karam were also extremely important. Those who hated Islam and had adopted the guise of Islam out of compulsion found a way to defame Islam by assassinating the character of the esteemed Sahaba. Among them, Abdullah bin Saba and his party were prominent.

The famous 9th-century Muhaddith, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (773-852/1371-1448), quotes this saying of Abu Zur’a al-Razi:

“When you see a person disparaging any of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), know that he is a Zindiq (heretic). This is because the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) is true, the Quran is true, and whatever the Prophet brought is true. All of this reached us only through the Sahaba Karam. So, the purpose of objecting to these Sahaba can be nothing other than to discredit our witnesses, so that they can render the Quran and Hadith useless. It is far better to declare such people themselves as objectionable and discredited.”

(Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Al-Isaba fi Tamyiz al-Sahaba. Introduction. 1/24. Cairo: Markaz Hajar lil-Buhuth wa al-Dirasat al-Arabiya wa al-Islamiyya)

This religious motive for the character assassination of the Sahaba Karam (may Allah be pleased with them) was prominent in the early centuries. Islam had gained dominance over the Arabian Peninsula and its surrounding areas, which caused unease among the people of pre-existing religions, as they felt Islam was a threat to their religions. Among them, people from the ancient polytheistic religion of Arabia, Judaism, Zoroastrianism (Majusiyat), and Manichaeism were prominent. To deal with this threat, they made an effort to appear in the guise of Muslims and create doubts and suspicions about Islam. These were the same people among the Arabs who started the apostasy movement during the time of Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) and then initiated the rebellion against Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him). After that, these same people continued to spread chaos and corruption during the era of Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him).

In the first century Hijri, there is only one personality among them who is exceptionally prominent, and his name is Abdullah bin Saba. It is said about him that he belonged to a Jewish family and he accepted Islam during the time of Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) specifically for this purpose and tried to establish his influence over the Muslims through worship and asceticism. He stayed in different cities and tried to create a rebellious movement against the government of the time, and for this, he used the name of Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) extensively. Some people in the modern era believe that Ibn Saba was not a real, but merely a fictional character. We will discuss this topic in detail later.

In the second century Hijri, when the Abbasids came to power, the inhabitants of Iran and Khorasan received significant patronage. Among them were people from ancient Iranian religions. They established contact with the rebellious movement of the first century Hijri and, together with them, fabricated narrations whose sole purpose was to damage the character of the Sahaba Karam (may Allah be pleased with them) and destroy the Ummah’s trust in them. Since the Quran and Hadith reached the Ummah through the Sahaba Karam, the result of losing trust in them would be that people would lose trust in the Quran and Hadith itself. Consequently, a large number of narrations were fabricated and spread among the Muslims. We have mentioned above that the vast majority of historians of the second century were such that they accepted all sorts of “moist and dry” (i.e., good and bad) narrations. They readily accepted these narrations and made them part of their history books. From them, these narrations entered the history books of the third century Hijri and from there, became part of the history books of later centuries.

It is not that this trick of theirs was successful. Since Allah Ta’ala had to protect His religion, He thwarted this fitna (trial/affliction) in the form of the Muhadditheen (scholars of Hadith). Insha’Allah, in the context of the scholarly history of Muslims, we will detail how a strange movement emerged among the Muhadditheen at that time, which was to investigate the lives of the narrators of Hadith and to find out to what extent these people were reliable. The extraordinary effort that these Muhadditheen put in is the reason why we now know which are the reliable sources of information related to the era of the Prophet and the era of the Sahaba, and which are unreliable. Although the focus of the Muhadditheen was on the narrators of Hadith, they also provided us with important information about the narrators of historical narrations. This is the reason why, despite their fabricating narrations, the Ummah as a whole did not accept these narrations about the Sahaba Karam, and even today, the vast majority of the Ummah loves all the Sahaba with all their heart and soul.

Tribal Reasons

Besides this, there is one more factor that caused the character assassination of certain specific people, some of whom are Sahaba and some are Tabi’in. We know that rivalries existed between different Arab tribes. Among them, Banu Kalb, Banu Tayy, Banu Azd, Banu Nakha, Banu Kinda, etc., were tribes that had settled in Basra and Kufa after the conquest of Iraq. Their mutual conflicts continued even after Islam. When the narrators began to relate historical narrations, they mentioned the names of their rival individuals in various crimes due to tribal enmity. Whether it was the martyrdom of Hazrat Uthman or Hazrat Hussain (may Allah be pleased with them), the Battle of the Camel or the Battle of Siffin, the incident of Harrah or any other event… the narrators falsely attributed their names to defame their rival tribes and sub-tribes. For this reason, while examining historical narrations, it is also necessary to see if there was any enmity between the tribe of the person whose character is being assassinated and the tribe of the narrator. For this, the study of the inter-relations of Arab tribes and the genealogies of historical figures and narrators is very important, and books of Ansab (genealogy) can be very helpful for this.

Scrutiny of Historical Narrations and Their Narrators

We have detailed above how historical information is researched and analyzed. Especially for those historical narrations that give rise to a major political or religious difference, there is a need for detailed scrutiny, and it becomes necessary to adopt all methods of source criticism, internal criticism, external criticism, and analysis of historical causes. This difference is generally found in those narrations in which specific Sahaba Karam have been subjected to character assassination. In this section, we will see how to scrutinize these historical narrations.

Which narrators attributed lies to the Sahaba Karam?

If we examine the books of history, we find that 99% of the narrations based on the character assassination of the Sahaba Karam and other personalities are narrated from only a few individuals. These are all the famous “Akhbaris” (storytellers/historians) of the second or third century Hijri. Among them, Abu Mikhnaf Lut bin Yahya, Muhammad bin Sa’ib al-Kalbi, Hisham bin Muhammad al-Kalbi, Muhammad bin Umar al-Waqidi, and Sayf bin Umar al-Tamimi are prominent. Besides them, there are some other people, but the number of such narrations from them is very small.

From the details about these historians provided by the experts of Jarh wa Ta’dil (criticism and validation) in the previous series, it is known that all of these narrators were severely weak, biased, and unreliable. Most of them are accused of fabricating lies and attributing them to the Sahaba Karam. It is an established principle of the science of history that if a person is biased in a matter, his statement is not accepted. All these gentlemen were born sixty or seventy years after the era of the Sahaba. They were not eyewitnesses to these events; rather, they compiled their books by collecting narrations from here and there, which became part of later books. Then, the narrators on the basis of whom they narrate these events, the life details of most of them are unknown, and it cannot be determined whether those narrators were reliable or not. It is quite possible that these biased Akhbaris fabricated the chains of narration (sanads) just like the text of their narrations and attached them. Since they have quoted the names of unknown narrators, we do not know if those narrators were reliable or not, or if they even existed or not.

Does scrutinizing narrators not violate the Quranic command of “Husn-e-Zan” (thinking well of others)??

A question arises here that when the Quran Majeed has commanded us to have Husn-e-Zan, then why not have Husn-e-Zan about these narrators as well and why not accept their statements??

To answer this, consider an example. If we have to make a deal worth millions with someone or marry our daughter to him, and a reliable friend of ours comes and tells us that this person is actually a big-time fraudster and deceiver, should we, acting on Husn-e-Zan, make the deal with that person?

Certainly, we should have Husn-e-Zan towards that person, but we must exercise caution in dealing with him. We will either investigate that person, and if investigation is not possible, we will refrain from making the deal. Exactly the same approach should be taken with these narrators; while having Husn-e-Zan towards them, we should be cautious in accepting their narrations. This caution is not against Husn-e-Zan.

In Surah Al-Hujurat, where we are commanded to have Husn-e-Zan, we are also commanded to investigate the matter before taking any step on the word of someone with a bad reputation.

Allah Almighty says:

﴿يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِن جَاءَكُمْ فَاسِقٌ بِنَبَإٍ فَتَبَيَّنُوا أَن تُصِيبُوا قَوْمًا بِجَهَالَةٍ فَتُصْبِحُوا عَلَىٰ مَا فَعَلْتُمْ نَادِمِينَ﴾

O believers! If a disobedient person brings you any news, investigate it thoroughly, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and then regret what you have done. (Al-Hujurat 49:6)

Now, since not just one or two, but dozens of highly reliable scholars have told us about these narrators that they are biased and fabricate lies, we must, therefore, scrutinize the narrations they report. We should not harbor enmity towards the persons of these narrators, but we must be cautious in accepting the narrations they report.

What is the source of information about these narrators?

Now the question arises, what is the source of information for the experts who declared these historians unreliable? On what basis did they declare them unreliable. For this, we need to look at the development of the “Fan-e-Rijal” (science of ‘men’, i.e., narrator biography).

As we have stated, from the pre-Islamic era (Jahiliyyah), the Arabs held the “Fan-e-Ansab” (science of genealogy) in unusually high regard, and its experts used to record the conditions of various tribes, their families, and prominent individuals. In the Jahiliyyah period, there was no trend of writing books; rather, this information was preserved in memory. The person who was a great memorizer of this information was looked upon with great respect in society because this was the tribal history based on which the Arabs took pride in their respective tribes. After Islam, the trend of writing books emerged, which became very prominent in the second century Hijri. In this, like other sciences, books of Ansab and Tabaqat (biographies) began to be written, in which the life details of various individuals were collected. The people who did this work did not have any personal connection with the individuals or tribes; rather, they compiled the biographies of these individuals very impartially. It is possible that one expert might be biased about one person and write something about him, but not all experts could be biased against that person.

Along with the compilers of biographies, there was another class of experts called “Experts of Jarh wa Ta’dil” (Criticism and Validation). Among them, these people are prominent:

• Yahya bin Ma’in (158-233/775-848)
• Ibn al-Madini (161-234/777-848)
• Ahmad bin Hanbal (164-241/780-855)
• Bukhari (194-256/810-870)
• Abu Hatim al-Razi (195-277/811-890)
• Nasa’i (214-303/829-915)
• Ibn Hibban (270-354/883-965)
• Ibn Addi (277-365/890-976)
• Daraqutni (306-385/918-995)

The need for this science was felt in order to scrutinize the narrations related to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and his Companions and to decide which narration is authentic and which is not. These gentlemen specialized in this science, examining the lives of these people to decide which person is trustworthy and to what degree, and which person is unreliable and what his status is. These gentlemen established a scale of twelve grades, in which six grades were for “Jarh” (discreditation) and six grades for “Ta’dil” (validation). The lowest grade among them was “Kazzab” (liar), in which a person who was an extreme liar was counted. Abu Mikhnaf, Waqidi, Sayf bin Umar, and Hisham al-Kalbi are counted in this last category.

The experts of Jarh wa Ta’dil traveled to different cities of the Islamic world and collected information about these narrators. These gentlemen would declare a narrator “thiqah” (trustworthy) or “da’if” (weak) or “kazzab” (liar) on multiple grounds:

1. One, information about the narrator was obtained from those who met and interacted with him. If the narrator was alive in their time, they would meet him and examine his life, otherwise, they would take the opinion of those who knew that person.
2. They would compare the narrations reported by that narrator with the narrations reported by his fellow students. If they saw that there was a difference in the narrations of this narrator, they would investigate further and then decide about him. For example, a teacher has ten students. Nine of them narrate their teacher’s narration in one way, while the tenth says something different. This difference would be investigated, and it would be seen whether the difference is of a serious nature or minor, and whether this person does this in every narration or if it happened in just one or two places. The person whose narrations they found a lot of difference in, his grade would be determined according to the proportion of the difference.

These gentlemen wrote books on this science, and this science continued to be compiled. In the eighth century Hijri, a very great expert of this science passed away, whose name was Abu al-Hajjaj Yusuf al-Mizzi (654-742/1256-1341). He collected the books of previous experts into the form of an encyclopedia, which is named “Tahdhib al-Kamal.” The greatness of this encyclopedia can be gauged from the fact that its Beirut published edition has 35 volumes, each of which consists of 500 pages. A student of al-Mizzi, Shamsuddin al-Dhahabi (673-748/1275-1347), prepared a summary of it under the name “Mizan al-I’tidal,” which is now published in eight volumes of five hundred pages each.

We have based this series on it because it contains the summary of the previous books of ‘Ilm al-Jarh wa Ta’dil. Al-Dhahabi also wrote another book, which is famous as “Siyar A’lam al-Nubala.”² In it, he has mentioned 6895 famous people in 4300 pages. This book has also been our source.

How authentic is the information about the narrators?

Now the question arises, to what extent is the information compiled by these experts itself authentic? Is it not possible that these experts declared a narrator a “Kazzab” due to their own bias?

Logically, it is possible that one expert might call a person a “Kazzab” based on bias, but it is not possible that every expert would call him a “Kazzab” based on bias. Now, it is not possible that these experts, belonging to different cities and different times, conspired together to declare so-and-so a “Kazzab.” There are differences of opinion among the experts of Jarh wa Ta’dil, but regarding the historian-narrators we are discussing, all of them are unanimous that these gentlemen are not reliable.

In any case, if we have to arrange a marriage with someone or make a business deal with him, and we get even a flying rumor that he is not reliable, we either exercise caution in dealing with him. In exactly the same way, when many experts have told us about these historians that they are unreliable, then the demand of reason is that we should be cautious in accepting their narrations.

Is it correct to take help from the science of Jarh wa Ta’dil for historical research?

The answer to this question is yes, because it is from the science of Rijal that we come to know to what extent the people narrating the reports are reliable. In the science of history, Source Criticism is an established principle.

This is the position of the majority of the Ummah; however, some people are of the opinion that the science of Jarh wa Ta’dil should not be used in historical research. Here, we are presenting the arguments of both sides. Readers can judge for themselves which position is correct.

Arguments of those who do not take help from the science of Jarh wa Ta’dil

The arguments of those who do not take help from the science of Jarh wa Ta’dil are:

Some gentlemen open the books of Asma al-Rijal to check historical narrations and say that such-and-such narrators have been declared “majruh” (discredited) by the Imams of Rijal, and such-and-such narrator was a child or not even born at the time of the event he is narrating, and such-and-such person never met the one he is narrating from. Similarly, they use the principles of Hadith criticism on historical narrations and reject them on the basis that such-and-such event is narrated without a “sanad” (chain of transmission), and there is an “inqita'” (break) in the sanad of such-and-such narration.

While saying these things, these people forget that the Muhadditheen adopted these methods of scrutinizing narrations primarily for “Ahkami” Hadiths (narrations related to legal rulings), because important Shari’i matters like haram and halal, fard and wajib, makruh and mustahabb are decided upon them, and it is determined what is Sunnah in the religion and what is not. If these conditions are applied to historical events, then let alone the later periods of Islamic history, at least 9/10ths of the history of the first century (Qarn-e-Awwal) will be declared unreliable, and our opponents, keeping these very conditions in front, will declare all those achievements we are proud of as invalid, because most of it does not meet the standards of Hadith principles and Asma al-Rijal criticism. The limit is that even the blessed Seerah (Prophet’s biography) cannot be compiled completely with this condition that every narration is transmitted by “thiqat” (trustworthy narrators) from “thiqat” with a “muttasil” (connected) sanad.

Especially regarding Waqidi and Sayf bin Umar and other narrators like them, the sayings of the Imams of Jarh wa Ta’dil are quoted, and it is claimed with great force that not only in Hadith, but also in history, no statement of these people is acceptable. But the very scholars from whose books these “Jarh” (criticisms) of the Imams of Rijal are quoted, they have rejected the narrations of these people only in the matter of Hadith. As for history, Maghazi (battles), and Seerah, when these same scholars have written anything on these topics in their books, they frequently narrate events from these very people. For example, look at Hafiz Ibn Hajar, from whose “Tahdhib al-Tahdhib” these criticisms of the Imams of Rijal are quoted. Not only in his historical works but even in his commentary on Bukhari (Fath al-Bari), when he explains battles and historical events, he quotes the statements of Waqidi and Sayf bin Umar and other such “majruh” narrators without hesitation.

Similarly, Hafiz Ibn Kathir in his book “Al-Bidaya wa Al-Nihaya” himself strongly condemns Abu Mikhnaf, and then he himself frequently narrates those events from the history of Ibn Jarir al-Tabari which he (Tabari) narrated from him (Abu Mikhnaf). This clearly shows that the senior scholars of the science of Hadith have always maintained a clear distinction between history and Hadith, and they do not mix them up and use the principles of criticism on one thing that were actually formulated for the other. This approach is not only that of the Muhadditheen, but even of the senior Fuqaha (jurists) who are even stricter in accepting narrations. For example, Imam Shafi’i on the one hand calls Waqidi a “kazzab” (liar) and on the other hand, he also uses his narrations regarding Ghazwat (battles) for reasoning in “Kitab al-Umm.”

This also does not mean that these people accepted all the statements of these “majruh” narrators with their eyes closed. In fact, they neither rejected all the statements of these people nor accepted all of them. They would sift through them and take only those things that they considered worth narrating, for which they had a lot of other historical material in support, and which were found to be consistent with the sequence of events. Therefore, there is no rational reason to reject the accounts that Ibn Sa’d, Ibn Abd al-Barr, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Athir, Ibn Hajar, and other such “thiqah” scholars have narrated in their books from “majruh” narrators. Or to form the opinion about the things taken from weak or broken (munqati’) sanads, or narrated without a sanad, that they are completely baseless, mere gossip, and should just be thrown away.

(Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi. Khilafat o Malukiyat. The Difference Between Hadith and History. pp. 302-304)

Arguments of those who support taking help from the science of Jarh wa Ta’dil

The position of the general scholars is that the science of Jarh wa Ta’dil should be used for the scrutiny of history just as it is used for the scrutiny of Hadith. In the science of history, Source Criticism is an established principle, and historians in all countries follow it. It can be accepted that source criticism is not needed for mundane matters, but for those narrations on the basis of which sects have been formed in the Ummah, differences have arisen not only in history but also in ‘Aqa’id (beliefs), and on the basis of which the character of a person from the past has been pointed at, it is necessary to accept or reject something only after full scrutiny based on the science of Rijal. We will explain this with an example.

Suppose there is a great religious scholar about whom it is well-known that he was an honest person in financial matters. The incidents of his honesty are famous, and even his enemies have never raised an objection to his character in this matter. This scholar passes away in 1950. A person who, for instance, is born in 1965 and about whom it is well-known that he belongs to some anti-religious political party, is biased against religious personalities, and spreads false propaganda about them. Now, if this person narrates an incident according to which that scholar used to do corruption in his madrasa’s funds, should we accept the narration reported by this person with our eyes closed?

Certainly, our answer will be in the negative. First of all, we will reject this narration on the basis that the one narrating it is not reliable himself, and he spreads false propaganda about religious personalities. Then, he will be asked that he was born 15 years after the death of that scholar, so he cannot be an eyewitness to that event. From whom did he hear this? If that person cannot name anyone, it will be said that the narration he has reported has no status. If he names another person, then that person will also be analyzed: who is that person? What were his circumstances? Was he biased against anyone or not? Was he involved in the propaganda wing of any political party? All these things will be looked at, and only then will it be decided whether this event could be correct or not. We think that if someone were to level an accusation of corruption or immorality or any heinous crime of this nature against the teacher or parents of one of those who advocate not using Jarh wa Ta’dil in history, these gentlemen would certainly advise following these very principles. If this is the case for a personality of the modern era, then even more caution should be exercised regarding biased people and the propaganda wings of their opposing parties concerning the Sahaba Karam (may Allah be pleased with them).

This statement that “at least 9/10ths of the history of the first century will be declared unreliable, and our opponents, keeping these very conditions in front, will declare all those achievements we are proud of as invalid, because most of it does not meet the standards of Hadith principles and Asma al-Rijal criticism,” is also not correct. A large part of the history of the Prophet’s era in the first century is stated in the Quran Majeed and Sahih Hadiths. The major events of the Sahaba’s era, including all their positive achievements, have been transmitted to us through complete “tawatur” (mass transmission), and even a non-Muslim historian cannot deny them. These are not just one or two narrations, but thousands of narrations that, when combined, reach the level of “tawatur” at least in meaning. If someone wants to deny them, they can also deny the presence of the sun during the day and can also say that air and water do not exist on Earth.

This statement is also not correct that investigative scholars like Tabari, Ibn Athir, Ibn Hajar, and Ibn Kathir accepted all the narrations of Waqidi and Abu Mikhnaf, etc. These gentlemen accepted the narrations of these people in general matters, but where it was a sensitive matter like the character assassination of the Sahaba Karam, they criticized them. You have already read the quotes from Tabari, Ibn Athir, and Ibn Kathir above, where they themselves have said about their books that we have merely transmitted the matter; the responsibility for it being correct or incorrect lies with the person we have cited.

Should all the narrations of these unreliable narrators be rejected?

Now the question arises, should we reject all the narrations of these unreliable narrators, because if we do so, then 90% of the history of the Sahaba’s era will be lost, and we will not be able to know anything in this regard. First of all, this claim itself is not correct. It is not that our history is indebted to only these few narrators. If the narrations of these four or five individuals, i.e., Waqidi, Sayf bin Umar, Abu Mikhnaf, and Hisham al-Kalbi, are collected in Tabari, they do not make up 90%, but rather considerably less. Dr. Khalid Kabir Alal has counted the total number of narrations from these narrators as 1819,

(Khalid Kabir Alal. Madrasat al-Kadhdhabin fi Riwayat al-Tarikh al-Islami wa Tadwinih. 115. Algeria: Dar al-Balagh)

which is by no means 90% of Tabari’s narrations. Furthermore, there is no need to throw all the narrations of all four of these narrators into the river; rather, only those narrations will be criticized in which they have specifically tried to assassinate the character of the Sahaba Karam by distorting the facts.

The reason for this is that they had no need to tamper with general historical events, but in matters where they were biased, they tried to distort the facts. We see in our lives that people generally do not lie, but when the matter concerns their interests or biases, they resort to lying. The same is the case with these biased narrators; where they were afflicted with the disease of bias, they fabricated a false narration or inserted fake sentences into a true narration, but where the matter of bias was not present, they too did not feel the need to lie.

In historical narrations, we see that they fabricated some events entirely themselves, but in the context of most famous historical narrations, they added a sentence or a paragraph in such a way that they could achieve their objective. For example, the event of the election of Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) is famous. They generally narrate it correctly, but in between, they insert a word or a sentence in such a way that their purpose is served. In contrast, for example, in the events of the Battle of Siffin and the tragedy of Karbala, entire fake narrations exist. For this reason, it is necessary that we do not accept those narrations from these four narrators and their other companions in which the character of the Sahaba has been assassinated. Yes, there is no harm in accepting general events in which this is not the case. However, if someone is very cautious and does not accept any narration from these narrators, his approach is also correct, and no objection can be raised against his methodology, but then he will not be able to compile a detailed history.

We see in our own time that the same thing happens. Every day, countless events are mentioned in the newspaper that are of a general nature, such as an accident happening somewhere, or someone helping the poor, or a war breaking out in a country, or a flood somewhere. In this matter, a narrator feels no need to lie, so no one hesitates to check the news. They are generally accepted as correct, and if a retraction is not published in the next few days, they gain established status. In contrast, if the newspaper publishes news about a person whose high character is well-known, for example, if someone levels absurd accusations against Abdul Sattar Edhi or Mother Teresa, everyone will be startled and will try to find out where the newspaper got this news. Then, if the investigation reveals that this news was planted by a reporter who is biased against these personalities for some reason, then the decision of every reasonable person will be that this news is a lie. Yes, a person who is biased against these personalities for some reason will take the path of stubbornness and insist that the news is correct.

A further question arises on this method: is this approach not tantamount to “meetha meetha hap hap, karwa karwa thu thu” (swallowing the sweet, spitting out the bitter, i.e., cherry-picking) and should it not be called a duplicitous policy?

To answer this, we will clarify with another example. Suppose a person whose own character is suspicious comes and tells us that our grandfather traveled to such-and-such city at such-and-such time and at that time, he helped that person by giving him one hundred rupees. We know that our grandfather was a pious man, helped every needy person, and used to travel. Will we have any hesitation in believing this? In contrast, if he comes and says, “Sir, your grandfather used to take bribes,” or “He had illicit relations with a prostitute,” or “He himself was the son of a prostitute.” Will we immediately believe his word? First, we will immediately refute his statement. If he presents any evidence in support of his claim, we will try to investigate it in every possible way, and until solid proof is found to the last degree, we will not trust his word.

In exactly the same way, general historical narrations which contain general events and nothing controversial can be accepted even from an unreliable narrator, but in controversial matters, especially when his narration goes against other authentic narrations, it is necessary to reject it. Understand this with another example. In our time, most journalists are associated with some political party. When they write something, they support their parties and assassinate the character of opposing parties. Some journalists do this openly, and some write in a slightly more artistic, veiled manner. For doing this, they get money from their respective parties. Obviously, no credibility will be given to such writings of theirs, but if these same journalists state something about a matter that has no connection with this partisanship, for example, they write a social article, or write something about another country in the world, it is trusted.

Here, the question arises, why should even the general statements of these biased narrators be taken? Since it is known that they fabricate lies, then why not throw all of their narrations into the river?

The ideal is that this should happen, but there is a practical problem with this, which is that if all the narrations of these narrators are thrown away, then partial details will not be available in historical books. The reason for this is that these were the very people who were interested in history, and they collected all sorts of “ratb wa yabis” (moist and dry, i.g., good and bad) narrations related to it. This is the case not only for that era, but even for our own. If someone sits down to write the history of our time and sets the principle that no report narrated by any journalist belonging to any political party will be accepted, then he will not be able to write history at all, because there will hardly be any journalist who does not have a connection with some party. For this reason, the correct principle is that the general narrations of these narrators should be accepted, but in the matter in which they are biased, their narrations should not be accepted. If such a person is found who is completely impartial, then his word will certainly be preferred over all others. However, it is also a fact that the narrations of the aforementioned four lying narrators are not that many and their narrations are mostly found in specific events.

Here, a question also arises that if a narrator is biased against a person but he presents a narration that is against his own biases, should that narration be accepted? The answer to this question is yes. In our time, if a person, for example, belongs to the Peoples Party and says something that is in favor of the Muslim League, or against the Peoples Party, it is accepted as a “testimony from within.” Similarly, no one has a problem accepting a statement from people of the Muslim League that is against them and in favor of the Peoples Party. In exactly the same way, there is no barrier to accepting those narrations of Abu Mikhnaf, Sayf bin Umar, Hisham al-Kalbi, and other narrators of this nature that are in favor of the Sahaba Karam.

Why did historians include unreliable narrations in their books?

This question arises in the mind of a common student: why did historians include these narrations of biased narrators in their books at all, and why did they not throw them out? Does this not mean that these historians trusted these biased narrators? We have answered this question above, however, we are repeating its important aspects here.

This question actually arises from a lack of knowledge of the scholarly temperament and environment of that era. We have detailed this environment before. The earliest available sources of history were generally written in the third century Hijri, when more than two hundred years had passed since the era of the Sahaba. As we have stated above, paper was scarce in the Muslim world until the middle of the second century, so the practice of writing and disseminating books was not common; rather, what people wrote had the status of their personal diaries. When the Muslims learned the art of making paper from the Chinese around 140/757, the process of writing books began among them, and in the early and middle third century Hijri, when books began to be written on a large scale, their style was the same as that of the oral narration that had been prevalent before. First of all, the need was felt to compile whatever knowledge had been transmitted orally or in the form of personal diaries. Thus, whatever was available in Tafsir, Hadith, Fiqh, History, Literature, Poetry, Philosophy—in short, every science—began to be written. In the fields of Hadith and History, the first stage was to collect these narrations. The focus of the scholars was to compile the knowledge; the correct and incorrect would be looked at later in the next stage. This stage began from the end of the second century and continued until the end of the fifth century, and this process took three hundred years. The process of criticism and scrutiny of narrations began from the middle of the third century Hijri and continues to this day. The critics of that era set their priorities to first scrutinize those narrations that contained a religious issue. The matter of scrutinizing historical narrations began somewhat later.

We know this, that when an author writes a book, he writes it keeping in mind the scholarly and mental level of the people of his own time. Even the books that are written today can, at most, keep in mind the scholarly and mental level of the readers of the next fifty or hundred years. When Ibn Sa’d, Tabari, and Baladhuri, etc., wrote books, we were not in their minds, but rather the readers of their own era. These people were well-acquainted with at least the famous narrators of the first two centuries. If, for example, a narration from Waqidi or Abu Mikhnaf was presented to them, they knew what the scholarly status of Waqidi and Abu Mikhnaf was and to what extent their narrations could be trusted. In this way, they could easily find out which narration was reliable and which was unreliable. This is why the historians included their narrations, because they had their contemporary people in front of them, who could differentiate between authentic and weak narrations.

Actually, it is the mistake of the historians of later periods that they “copied blindly” (lit. “fly on a fly”), accepting the narrations reported by previous historians with their eyes closed, and then included them in their books without the “sanad” (chain of transmission). Their job was to scrutinize the narrations reported by ancient historians and then write their books, but due to “riwayat-parasti” (narration-worship/uncritical adherence to narrations), they did not do so.

However, investigative historians like Ibn Kathir (701-774/1301-1372) and Ibn Khaldun (732-808/1332-1405) did criticize narrations, but these gentlemen also did not do so at every important juncture, but only on certain specific occasions. The reason for this may also have been that they used the principles of historical criticism on those historical matters that had become important in their time, but they did not feel the need for investigation in matters that were not considered very important in their time. Our situation is also the same; we research in more depth those issues that become “hot issues” in our time, and other matters are ignored.

Is the presence of a narration in multiple books proof of its authenticity?

The answer to this question is in the negative.

We know that historians copied narrations from one another. If one historian quotes a narration from another historian, it does not mean that any additional strength is created in the narration. It doesn’t matter how many people narrate it in the later links of the chain. The real point is: what is the number of eyewitnesses to the event? We will explain this with an example. We see in our time that a famous person is murdered. Someone states that he was killed by so-and-so. Hearing from him, ten people state that so-and-so killed so-and-so. Then, hearing from these ten, a hundred, and from the hundred, a thousand people state the same thing. In court, the testimony of all these people will be considered the testimony of only one person because the original eyewitness is one. If that eyewitness is not reliable, the court cannot pass judgment based on his testimony.

For example, if narrator A said something to two individuals, A1 and A2. A1 passed that statement on to two more individuals, A1.1 and A1.2, and then A1.2 passed it on to two more individuals, A1.2.1 and A1.2.2.

Similarly, the second person, A2, spread this statement more widely, communicating it to four individuals, who then passed it on.

Although thirteen individuals are saying this, in reality, it is the statement of only one person, A.

If this very person A is not reliable, the statement will not be accepted. This is common in forged historical narrations, where the person narrating an event is a single individual whose own character is dubious.

There can be another form of these testimonies related to the event, such as when apparently four individuals W, X, Y, and Z are narrating an event and claiming to be eyewitnesses. But the statements of all four are being narrated and spread further by only one person, A. For this reason, the authenticity of the entire statement depends on this one person. If this person tells lies, it is possible for him to invent ten, twenty, or fifty eyewitnesses before him. This is generally the case in forged historical narrations. Usually, a narration is reported by several historians, but its chain (sanad) reaches a single person, like Abu Mikhnaf or Waqidi, and takes the same form that we have described above. After that, this very person invents many narrators above himself.

Why is our series biased?

This objection can be raised against this series: that you have condemned bias everywhere in it and urged readers to adopt an unbiased attitude. On the other hand, you have shown bias in favor of the Sahaba Karam and have rejected all those narrations that go against them, and accepted those narrations that go in their favor. Is this not a duplicitous policy and bias?

In response to this, we can only say that we are by no means biased, even in favor of the Sahaba Karam (may Allah be pleased with them). The information we receive about them in the form of the Quran, Hadith, and historical narrations has two parts:

The image of them that emerges from the Quran Majeed and Sahih Hadiths is that these gentlemen were established at the highest rank of human morals.³ They were firm against the disbelievers who were enemies of Islam and were embodiments of mercy for each other. A large part of historical narrations also presents this same image of them, and we have presented examples of this at the beginning of this series, and more examples are forthcoming. In contrast, a small portion of historical narrations, whose narrators are Hisham al-Kalbi, Abu Mikhnaf, Waqidi, and Sayf bin Umar, presents a contrary picture that some Sahaba bore malice towards one another and were at the lowest rank of human morals. The Imams of the science (of Rijal) have stated about these four historians that these historians used to fabricate and spread lies.

The established principles of historical research, upon which all Western and Eastern scholars agree, are:

• A negative statement about a person or group, which is narrated by those who are biased against them, will not be acceptable.
• A statement about a person or group, which is not consistent with their overall character, will not be acceptable.

We have done nothing other than apply these principles impartially and reject those narrations of the aforementioned historians that do not conform to these principles. Can this attitude be called partiality and bias? Now, if anyone calls this bias in favor of the Sahaba Karam, they are free to say so, but impartial experts of history will never say such a thing. An opinion can be sought from non-Muslim research experts in this regard, as they have no concern with the internal disputes of Muslims.

Some people adopt such an attitude regarding the Sahaba Karam (may Allah be pleased with them) that they go to such an extent in favor of one that it results in the disparagement of other Sahaba. We have tried to avoid this attitude and respect all Sahaba equally. If there is a difference in their ranks, that will be with Allah Ta’ala. For us, they are all the crowns of our heads.

Why were the positive narrations not investigated?

This objection can be raised: why has the research not been done on the positive narrations given in this series accordingto the science of Rijal and Jarh wa Ta’dil? Many of these narrations will be weak (da’if).

We admit that if the positive narrations we have stated in this series are investigated under the science of Rijal, many of them will be proven weak (da’if) and many will be proven authentic (sahih). In contrast, if the negative narrations are looked at, all of them are weak (da’if), rather, they are of the level of “mawdu'” (Fabricated/Fake). Thus, there are positive weak narrations to counter the negative weak narrations. We have not accepted the positive narrations merely because they meet the standard of authenticity under the science of Jarh wa Ta’dil, but rather because they are consistent with the Quran Majeed and Sahih Hadiths.

Now, if someone says that any narration that does not meet the standard of the science of Jarh wa Ta’dil, whether negative or positive, should be rejected, we will respect this opinion and say that they can do so. However, in that case, they should rely only and only on the Quran Majeed and Sahih Hadiths, and regarding the Sahaba Karam as a whole, they should hold the view that they were “rahma’u baynahum” (merciful among themselves). Then they should not trust any negative narration.

In the current era, Masud Ahmad Sahib has adopted this very style in his book “Tarikh al-Islam wa al-Muslimeen” and has compiled this history only from the Quran Majeed, Sahih Bukhari, and Sahih Muslim.

When both positive and negative narrations exist, and both are at the level of weak, then logically these scenarios are possible:

1. Both positive and negative types of narrations are accepted. This is logically impossible.
2. Negative narrations are accepted and positive ones are rejected. Many people have done this. Those who are biased against Hazrat Uthman and Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with them) have done this regarding them, while those who are biased against Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) have done this regarding him. This attitude is certainly biased.
3. Positive narrations about all Sahaba are accepted and negative ones are rejected. In our opinion, this is what should be done because the Quran Majeed and Sahih Hadiths support it. If anyone calls this attitude biased and partial, it is not correct.
4. Both types of narrations are rejected. This could be impartiality, but in this case, it is not possible to have any kind of historical discussion.

For this reason, we have adopted the third scenario, but let it be clear that we have maintained this positive attitude towards all historical figures.

Why have you adopted a positive attitude towards all historical figures?

This objection can also be raised against this series: why have you adopted a positive attitude not only towards the Sahaba Karam but towards all historical figures? Even for those figures about whom extremely negative things are found in history books, why do you advocate for “Husn-e-Zan” (thinking well) of them? In answer to this question, we can present this verse of the Quran Majeed:

﴿يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اجْتَنِبُوا كَثِيرًا مِّنَ الظَّنِّ إِنَّ بَعْضَ الظَّنِّ إِثْمٌ ۖ وَلَا تَجَسَّسُوا وَلَا يَغْتَب بَّعْضُكُم بَعْضًا ۚ أَيُحِبُّ أَحَدُكُمْ أَن يَأْكُلَ لَحْمَ أَخِيهِ مَيْتًا فَكَرِهْتُمُوهُ ۚ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ تَوَّابٌ رَّحِيمٌ﴾

O believers! Avoid excessive suspicion. Indeed, some suspicion is a sin. And do not spy, nor backbite one another. Would any of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? You would surely detest it. And fear Allah. Indeed, Allah is Accepting of repentance, Most Merciful. (Al-Hujurat 49:12)

Those who passed away before our time, we have no way to examine their deeds and pass judgment on them. If we do so, we will be transgressing our limits. It is well-known about historical narrations that many lies have been inserted into them. People have made accusations against each other based on their tribal, group, and sectarian biases, which have become part of historical narrations. We do not know who inserted what lie into these narrations. For this reason, we should not hold a negative opinion about any particular personality; rather, we should entrust their matter to Allah Ta’ala. Two wrong scenarios are possible regarding these personalities:

1. They were actually bad, and we formed a good opinion about them.
2. They were in reality good, and we adopted a bad opinion about them.

In the first case, there is no danger for us. In the Hereafter, Allah Ta’ala will never punish us for why we adopted a good opinion about a bad person.

But the second case is extremely dangerous. A person was in reality good, but we adopted a bad opinion about him merely because of historical narrations. Then, at the least, we should be prepared that on the Day of Judgment, if Allah Ta’ala asks why we committed the act of “bad-gumani” (thinking ill) and “gheebat” (backbiting) based on dubious information, what answer will we give?

Why not have “Husn-e-Zan” (thinking well) about these specific historians?

Here, this question can also be asked: then one should also have Husn-e-Zan about Abu Mikhnaf, Hisham al-Kalbi, Waqidi, and Sayf bin Umar, that they must have written the truth. Is accusing them of lying not “bad-gumani” and “gheebat”? The answer to this is that Husn-e-Zan is one thing, and caution in a matter is another. Suppose if we have to make a deal worth millions with someone or marry our daughter to him, and a reliable friend of ours comes and tells us that this person is actually a big-time fraudster and deceiver, should we, acting on Husn-e-Zan, make the deal with that person? Certainly, we should have Husn-e-Zan towards that person, but we must exercise caution in dealing with him. We will either investigate that person, and if investigation is not possible, we will refrain from making the deal.

Exactly the same approach should be taken with these narrators; while having Husn-e-Zan towards them, we should be cautious in accepting their narrations. This caution is not against Husn-e-Zan. In Surah Al-Hujurat, where we are commanded to have Husn-e-Zan, we are also commanded to investigate the matter before taking any step on the word of someone with a bad reputation. Allah Almighty says:

﴿يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِن جَاءَكُمْ فَاسِقٌ بِنَبَإٍ فَتَبَيَّنُوا أَن تُصِيبُوا قَوْمًا بِجَهَالَةٍ فَتُصْبِحُوا عَلَىٰ مَا فَعَلْتُمْ نَادِمِينَ﴾

O believers! If a disobedient person brings you any news, investigate it thoroughly, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and then regret what you have done. (Al-Hujurat 49:6)

Now, since highly reliable scholars have told us about these narrators that they are biased and fabricate lies, we must, therefore, scrutinize the narrations they report. We should not harbor enmity towards the persons of these narrators, but we must be cautious in accepting the narrations they report. Furthermore, there is contradiction within the narrations of these narrators themselves. Some of their narrations present a very positive image of the Sahaba Karam, and some present a negative one. Only one type of narration from both types can be correct. It is logically impossible to accept both types of narrations simultaneously. Now, it is every person’s own choice whether he accepts the narrations with the positive image, which are in accordance with the Quran Majeed and Sahih Hadiths, or he fancies the narrations with the negative image. Just keep in mind, what could be the outcome of both scenarios in the Hereafter?

What is the purpose of this series?

The purpose of writing this series was nothing other than to analyze the narrations found among us regarding the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), rising above sectarian biases, and to examine them in the light of the science of history. For the effort that has been spent in writing this series,

I do not seek reward from anyone except Allah Ta’ala. I pray to Allah Ta’ala that in Paradise, when Hazrat Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Talha, Zubair, Muawiyah, Hasan, and Hussain (may Allah be pleased with them) are sitting together and meeting their lovers who supported them and served them in some way, may Allah Ta’ala also write the name of this humble servant in the list of those lovers and servants, and grant a place, even in the last corner, in the gathering of these esteemed Sahaba.

How can a common person scrutinize historical narrations?

It can be said that, sir, only someone who has expertise in the Arabic language and the science of history can scrutinize these historical narrations. How can a common person judge whose word is correct and whose is wrong? In response, we will submit that even a common person, if he uses his intellect, can easily scrutinize what is correct. In this series, we have tried to do this from the perspective of a common person. If you follow these points, you can verify what we have presented in this series yourself:

1. First of all, understand that the material found in Urdu history books is generally not written after full research and scrutiny. When reading any Urdu book, if a question arises in your mind about an event, see which book from the past the author has referenced. If they have given a reference to a book from the medieval period (like Ibn Athir, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Khaldun, etc.), then go to those books and see which 3rd-century Hijri book those medieval authors quoted the matter from. As we have stated, the oldest available sources for the history of the Sahaba era were written in the 3rd century, and 95% of general historical narrations are found in three books written by Ibn Sa’d, Baladhuri, and Tabari. If a medieval historian has not given any reference, then that statement is not reliable. If a reference is given, then look in the relevant 3rd-century Hijri books to see what the sanad (chain) of that event is.
2. A few narrators’ names are mentioned in the sanad; focus on them. If it is Abu Mikhnaf Lut bin Yahya, Hisham bin Muhammad al-Kalbi, Waqidi, or Sayf bin Umar al-Tamimi, reject the narration without hesitation.
3. Usually, the narrations that cause problems are narrated by one of these four. If it is someone other than these four, you can study the biography of that narrator in any encyclopedia of ‘Ilm al-Jarh wa Ta’dil. The names of the narrators are in alphabetical order, and finding them is very easy.
4. Since these books are in Arabic, it can be difficult if you do not know Arabic. But the solution to this problem is that you can have anyone who knows Arabic read it for you. Besides, the language of the books of ‘Ilm al-Jarh wa Ta’dil is very simple, and if you learn the meanings of a few words, you can know what the status of that narrator is.

The words are:

• Thiqah (ثقہ): Reliable
• Hujjah (حجۃ): Very, very reliable
• Majruh (مجروح): One who has been criticized (jarh), i.e., unreliable to an extent
• Saduq (صدوق): A truthful person. This word is said about a narrator who does not lie but is weak in preserving and transmitting the narration.
• La ba’s bihi (لا باس بہ): There is no harm in him. This sentence is said about a narrator who is not unreliable but also not very highly reliable.
• Ghair Thiqah / Da’if (غیر ثقہ / ضعیف): Unreliable
• Matruk (متروک): Very unreliable
• Kazzab (کذاب): A liar who fabricates narrations. Extremely unreliable.
• Dajjal (دجال): An extreme liar who, besides lying, also uses deceit and deception.
• Mudallis (مدلس): A person who practices a specific kind of tampering in the sanad of narrations, i.e., he conceals weak narrators.

Download Tarikh al-Tabari, Ansab al-Ashraf, Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, etc., from the Internet. Download the original Arabic versions of these books and their Urdu translations. Their links are being given here.

If these links do not work, you can search for these books on any search engine. On Maktaba Waqfeya, you can find the relevant section from the menu and flip through the different web pages of that section. You will find these books. Similarly, on Maktaba Mishkat al-Islamiyya, you can also find these books through the section. On Kitab o Sunnat dot com,

To download the books, go to these links; the book’s name is above, the book’s link is below:

Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk by Tabari … Arabic PDF Version: (Maktaba Waqfeya, Section: Al-Tarikh)
http://waqfeya.net/book.php?bid=1306
Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk by Tabari … Arabic Word Version: (Maktaba Mishkat al-Islamiyya, Section: “Al-Tarikh al-Islami”)
http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=13&book=620
(Note: This link may be periodically unavailable as the almeshkat.net site is often offline.)
Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk by Tabari … Urdu Translation PDF Version: (Kitab o Sunnat dot com, Author: Muhammad bin Jarir Al-Tabari)
https://kitabosunnat.com/kutub-library/tareekh-tabri-1
(This link is for Volume 1; other volumes are available on the same site.)
Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d… Arabic PDF Version: (Maktaba Waqfeya, Section: Al-Tarajim wa al-A’lam)
http://waqfeya.net/book.php?bid=696
Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d …. Urdu PDF Version: (Kitab o Sunnat dot com, Author: Muhammad bin Sa’d Katib Al-Waqidi)
https://kitabosunnat.com/kutub-library/tabqat-ibne-saad-1
(This link is for Volume 1; other volumes are available on the same site.)
Ansab al-Ashraf …. Arabic PDF Version:
http://waqfeya.net/book.php?bid=1092
(This is a direct link from Maktaba Waqfeya, which is more stable than the forum link.)
Mizan al-I’tidal …. Arabic PDF Version: (Maktaba Waqfeya, Section: Al-Jarh wa Al-Ta’dil)
http://waqfeya.net/book.php?bid=683
Mizan al-I’tidal …. Arabic Word Version: (Maktaba Mishkat al-Islamiyya, Section: ‘Ilm Rijal al-Hadith)
http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=23&book=651
(Note: This link may also be unavailable as the almeshkat.net site is often offline.)
Siyar A’lam al-Nubala … Arabic Online Encyclopedia:
This resource on IslamWeb has two useful links:
For Browsing the Book: This link takes you to the main library to browse the book by volume and topic:
https://www.islamweb.net/ar/library/index.php?page=bookcontents&bk_no=60
For Searching Narrators: This is the link you provided, which is the correct search page for narrators (Rawy):
http://www.islamweb.net/hadith/RawyList.php
You just need to know how to type in Arabic. The Arabic keyboard is slightly different from Urdu, and some letters like أ، ئ، ؤ، ي، ی have some difference. If you cannot type, you can also manage by copying and pasting these names.

The complete reference for any citation you read in this series is given in the footnotes. Usually, 4/200 means volume number 4, page number 200 of the relevant book. Tarikh al-Tabari is arranged chronologically, and in the way its volumes are published, each volume has been divided into two parts.⁴

For this reason, we have given its reference as 25H/4/2-200. This means in the chapter of 25 Hijri, volume 4, part 2, page 200.

The benefit of giving the year’s reference is that if you have another version of Tabari, you can find the relevant passage by going to the chapter for that year. In this way, go to the relevant book according to the reference and verify it. You can use the Word version for searching, while you can use the PDF version for reading. We have tried to give references in other books in such a way that if you have another version of the book, you can still extract that reference from the relevant book and verify it.

We have given the references for Tabari from the Urdu version so that common readers can benefit from it, but the problem with the Urdu version is that the sanad of the narrations is often omitted. We have tried to state the sanad of the narration from the original Arabic version along with narrating the report. If you want to verify the sanad, you can look in the chapter for the relevant year in the Arabic version.

We have provided the complete sanads within this series for the narrations we have criticized. Check these sanads, and you can read the biographies of the narrators, on the basis of whom we have declared the narrations unauthentic, in the books Mizan al-I’tidal and Siyar A’lam al-Nubala by Shamsuddin al-Dhahabi (673-748/1275-1347), which are comprehensive encyclopedias of the science of Rijal.⁵

Only the original Arabic version of these books is available; an Urdu translation has not been done. But its language is very easy and simple, and you can find the relevant narrator and read the opinions of the Muhadditheen about him. For example, you can understand words like Kazzab, or Thiqah, or Saduq, etc. Wherever we have quoted Jarh wa Ta’dil on narrators, we have given the number of the relevant narrator from these books. If this number is slightly off, their names are in alphabetical order in these books.

In this way, you can verify what we have written yourself. Where we have analyzed the narrations and presented our arguments, you can test that analysis with your own intellect. If it seems correct, accept it; otherwise, you can do your own analysis of these narrations. Allah Ta’ala has given us intellect for this very reason, that we should use it for analysis. Do not accept anything just because some great personality of the past has written it; rather, use your own mind. Keep the established historical principles in mind and do not violate them. Do not accept the things we have stated in this book at all until you have verified them yourself.

Summary of the Series

Here we are summarizing the above discussion in the form of a few principles:

• Principle Number 1: A narration, in which a specific personality is subjected to character assassination and the narrator reporting it is biased against that personality, is by no means acceptable. Yes, other general statements of that narrator can be accepted.
• Principle Number 2: The matter stated in the narration must be consistent with the overall temperament and condition of that era. We know from the Quran Majeed about the Sahaba Karam (may Allah be pleased with them) that they loved each other. Thousands of narrations also support this, and this fact is established by “tawatur” (mass transmission). For this reason, any narration that shows mutual malice and hatred among the Sahaba Karam is a false and fabricated narration. This fact can be further confirmed by Principle Number 1.
• Principle Number 3: Work with “Husn-e-Zan” (thinking well), as Allah Ta’ala has commanded us to have Husn-e-Zan. If historical narrations do not reach the level of “tawatur,” only “zann” and “gumaan” (conjecture and assumption) can be established from them. Do not form a negative opinion about any action of any historical figure until a negative thing is known about him through “tawatur.” Even after that, limit your opinion to his action. Do not pass a judgment of “kufr” (disbelief), “fisq” (immorality), etc., on his personality, as this is only the work of Allah Ta’ala. He alone will decide who is a disbeliever and who is a sinner. Our opinion, at most, should be about whether the action was correct or incorrect.

(And Allah Ta’ala knows best what is correct)

Reference: https://alfurqan.info/problems/372

Author: IslamicHelper