Censorships of Ahmad b. Hanbal
- Anonymous
- May 10
- 17 min read
Updated: 5 days ago
Many times we find Sunnis criticising the Shi'a Hadith corpus by claiming the authors of the Hadith books such as Shaykh al-Kulayni (author of al-Kafi) and Shaykh al-Saduq (author of al-Faqih) would fabricate their chains and hadiths. When we investigate their evidences, we find arguments that revolve around a donkey speaking or miracles occurring with the Imams. The pathetic nature of these arguments strongly illustrate the weakness in our opponent's intellect of how to criticise a scholar's integrity and reliability. What do these 'proofs' have to do with the credibility of the author if these hadiths are neither logically implausible nor singly narrated by them (rather we find them in many books)! How does al-Kulayni narrating the Hadith of a donkey speaking demonstrate that he's a liar? Subhan'Allah.
Instead of responding to these meaningless arguments that do not have consistent premises, we will illustrate a true and objective way to question and challenge the credibility of a Hadith author.
Ahmad b. Hanbal is a major and prominent scholars from Ahlus Sunnah. He is arguably one of their most important narrators with a major contribution to the hadith corpus completed with his Musnad. He serves as a source of fiqh and theology for his followers as well. Al-Dhahabi describes him as:
الإِمَامُ حَقّاً وَشَيْخُ الإِسْلاَمِ صِدْقاً
Truly an Imam, and the genuine Shaykh of Islam.
He is also one of those scholars whose virtues are oft exaggerated (ghuluw), where we find people glorifying him beyond what is plausible. This is best saved for another time, for we would rather like to touch upon the credibility of Ahmad as a hadith narrator, because he transmits a wealth amount of the Sunni corpus with his Musnad work. But just how credible is Ahmad in narrating hadiths? Is he a credible author?
In this article, we will demonstrate clear censorship and tampering of Hadiths committed by Ahmad b. Hanbal because of his biased beliefs, placing a clear doubt on his credibility and reliability as a Hadith author. Below we have mentioned 8 cases of clear tampering by Ahmad:
Case 1: Muawiyah ordered the cursing of Ali
The wars and divisions amongst the companions of Rasulullah (SAW) is a very controversial topic for the Ahlus Sunnah, such that they do not want to discuss or disclose these historical facts because of their strong feelings for all the companions. However, should this feeling give reason to tamper and censor Hadiths as well as reliable reports? Clearly, if they're willing to tamper with their corpus because they dislike its content, then how shall we distinguish between the ones that they didn't like and ones they did? How do we know when they have tampered with a report and when they haven't. If there is no proven universal way, then that shows enough about their unreliability.
The case of Mu'awiyah ordering the cursing of Imam Ali (AS) is famous because of its presence in Sahih Muslim 2404d and Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3724:
حدثنا قتيبة بن سعيد، ومحمد بن عباد - وتقاربا في اللفظ - قالا: حدثنا حاتم وهو ابن إسماعيل، عن بكير بن مسمار، عن عامر بن سعد بن أبي وقاص، عن أبيه، قال: أمر معاوية بن أبي سفيان سعداً، فقال: ما منعك أن تسب أبا التراب؟ فقال: أما ما ذكرت ثلاثاً قالهن له رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فلن أسبه، لأن تكون لي واحدة منهن أحب إلي من حمر النعم. سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ لَهُ خَلَّفَهُ فِي بَعْضِ مَغَازِيهِ…
Qutaybah b. Saʿid from Muhammad b. ʿAbbad from Hatim b. Ismaʿil from Bukayr b. Mismar from Amir b. Saʿd b. Abi Waqqas from his father:
Muawiyah b. Abi Sufyan ordered Sa’ad and said: What prevents you from abusing Abu Turab (Hadrat 'Ali), whereupon be said: It is because of three things which I remember Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) having said about him that I would not abuse him and even if I find one of those three things for me, it would be more dear to me than the red camel. I heard Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) say about 'Ali as he left him behind in one of his campaigns (that was Tabuk)...
However, in the version recorded in Musnad Ahmad b. Hanbal, vol. 3, pg. 160 with the same exact chain:
حدثنا قتيبة بن سعيد، حدثنا حاتم بن إسماعيل، عن بكير بن مسمار عن عامر بن سعد، عن أبيه قال: (...) سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول له وخلفه في بعض مغازيه…
Qutaybah b. Saʿid from Muhammad b. ʿAbbad from Hatim b. Ismaʿil from Bukayr b. Mismar from Amir b. Saʿd b. Abi Waqqas from his father
(...) I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say to him when he left him behind on one of his campaigns…
As we can clearly observe, in the Musnad of Ahmad b. Hanbal, the portion of the narration in which Mu'awiyah cursed Imam Ali (as) has been entirely omitted. It is important to note that the chain of narration is identical in Sahih Muslim, Jami al-Tirmidhi, and Musnad Ahmad. Therefore, the possibility of variation in the narration due to differences in the chain of transmission is eliminated.
It leaves us with no doubt that Ahmad was the one who removed that part of the report because of his dislike of its content, showing that Mu'awiyah was ordering Sa'ad to curse Imam Ali (AS). If, as we commonly find, sunnis want to argue that he was not ordering him, then why did Ahmad censor the report? If there is nothing wrong with the content, why censor that part?
Case 2: Al-Mughira cursed Imam Ali
Al-Mughira b. Shu'ba is one of the companions of the Prophet (SAW) and the governors appointed by Mu'awiyah. Just like him, Mughira would also often curse and revile Imam Ali (AS) as we often find. This is authentically transmitted in Fada'il al-Sahaba, vol. 1, pg. 221:
حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ، حَدَّثَنِي أَبِي، نا وَكِيعٌ، نا شُعْبَةُ، عَنِ الْحُرِّ بْنِ الصَّيَّاحِ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ الْأَخْنَسِ قَالَ: خَطَبَنَا الْمُغِيرَةُ بْنُ شُعْبَةَ فَنَالَ مِنْ فُلَانٍ،/ فَقَامَ سَعِيدُ بْنُ زَيْدٍ فَقَالَ: سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ: «النَّبِيُّ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَأَبُو بَكْرٍ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَعُمَرُ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَعُثْمَانُ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَعَلِيٌّ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَطَلْحَةُ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَالزُّبَيْرُ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَعَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ عَوْفٍ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَسَعْدٌ فِي الْجَنَّةِ» ، وَلَوْ شِئْتُ أَنْ أُسَمِّيَ الْعَاشِرَ
ʿAbd Allah from his father from Wakiʿ from Shuʿbah from al-Hurr b. al-Sayyaḥ from ʿAbd al-Rahman b. al-Akhnas who said:
Al-Mughirah b. Shuʿbah gave a sermon and abused so-and-so. Then Saʿid b. Zayd stood up and said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: "The Prophet is in Paradise, Abu Bakr is in Paradise, ʿUmar is in Paradise, ʿUthman is in Paradise, Ali is in Paradise, Talhah is in Paradise, al-Zubayr is in Paradise, ʿAbd al-Rahman b. ʿAwf is in Paradise, and Saʿd is in Paradise." And if I wished, I could name the tenth.
In this report, al-Mughira came and cursed Imam Ali (AS) as clearly indicated by Sa'id b. Zayd's response. He quoted the 10 promised paradise hadith as a response to Mughira, and Mughira did not have a problem or tension between any of these 10 except for Ali. It illustrates also as to why Ahmad censored the name of Ali in this report, seeing the problem it entails. However, he must have forgotten that in his earlier work of Musnad Ahmad b. Hanbal, vol. 3, pg. 177, he forgot he transmitted it without the censorship:
حَدَّثَنَا وَكِيعٌ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنِ الْحُرِّ بْنِ الصَّيَّاحِ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ الْأَخْنَسِ، قَالَ: خَطَبَنَا الْمُغِيرَةُ بْنُ شُعْبَةَ فَنَالَ مِنْ عَلِيٍّ، رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ، فَقَامَ سَعِيدُ بْنُ زَيْدٍ فَقَالَ: سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، يَقُولُ: " النَّبِيُّ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَأَبُو بَكْرٍ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَعُمَرُ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَعُثْمَانُ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَعَلِيٌّ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَطَلْحَةُ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَالزُّبَيْرُ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَعَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ عَوْفٍ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَسَعْدٌ فِي الْجَنَّةِ " وَلَوْ شِئْتُ أَنْ أُسَمِّيَ الْعَاشِرَ
Abdullah narrated from Ahmad b. Muhammad from Waqi’i from Shu’ba from Al-Hurr b. Al-Sayah from Abdul-Rahman b. Al-Akhnas:
Mughîra b. Shu'ba started to give a speech, then he abused Ali. Sae’ed b. Zayd when up to him and said I heard the Prophet (saws) say: the Prophet (saws) is in paradise, Abu Bakr is in paradise, Umar is in paradise, Uthman is in paradise, Ali is in paradise, Talha is in paradise, Zubair is in paradise, Abdel-Rahman b. Awf is in paradise and Sae’ed b. Zayd is in paradise if I willed to name the tenth.
If a Sunni tries to argue 'fanala minhu' does not mean abuse/curse, then why did Ahmad censor the report if it doesn't mean anything problematic? Moreover, why is it that in this hadith Sa'id b. Abi Waqqas becomes angry at the fact that Mu'awiyah did the same for Ali, recorded in Sunan Ibn Majah 121:
قَالَ قَدِمَ مُعَاوِيَةُ فِي بَعْضِ حَجَّاتِهِ فَدَخَلَ عَلَيْهِ سَعْدٌ فَذَكَرُوا عَلِيًّا فَنَالَ مِنْهُ فَغَضِبَ سَعْدٌ
He said: Muʿawiyah came during one of his pilgrimages, and Saʿd entered upon him. They mentioned ʿAli, and he abused him (fanal minhu), so Saʿd became angry.
In another report of Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3888, we read:
أَنَّ رَجُلاً، نَالَ مِنْ عَائِشَةَ عِنْدَ عَمَّارِ بْنِ يَاسِرٍ فَقَالَ اغْرُبْ مَقْبُوحًا مَنْبُوحًا أَتُؤْذِي حَبِيبَةَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم
A man spoke negatively (nala min) of 'Aisha before 'Ammar b. Yasir so he said: "Be gone as one despicable and rejected! Do you insult the beloved of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)?"
This report states that a man abused Aisha and [supposedly] Ammar became angry and equated this is 'adha' which means abusing/reviling.
Case 3: The Prophets (saws) hate for Bani Umayyah
The Prophet (SAW) was well-aware of the Umayyads ruling the Muslim Ummah after him, and it disturbed and grieved him that such would happen. This is well attested in both Shi'i and Sunni authentic hadiths, and their actions as well character was one that the Propeht (SAW) despised. This is such the case that we read in Musnad Abi Ya’la, vol. 13, pg. 417 and Mustadrak 'ala al-Sahihain, vol. 4, pg. 528, Hadith 8482:
حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ الدَّوْرَقِيُّ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنِي حَجَّاجُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ أَبِي حَمْزَةَ، جَارِهِمْ، عَنْ حُمَيْدِ بْنِ هِلَالٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مُطَرِّفٍ، عَنْ أَبِي بَرْزَةَ، قَالَ: «كَانَ أَبْغَضَ الْأَحْيَاءِ إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بَنُو أُمَيَّةَ وَثَقِيفٌ وَبَنُو حَنِيفَةَ»
Ahmad b. Ibrahim al-Dawraqi from Hajjaj b. Muhammad from Shuʿbah from Abu Hamzah, their neighbor, from Humayd b. Hilal from Abd Allah b. Mutarrif from Abu Barzah who said:
"The most hated people to the Messenger of Allah (saw) were Banu Umayyah, Thaqif, and Banu Hanifah."
As expected however, the same report becomes censored with the same chain in Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, vol. 33, pg. 19:
حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ الدَّوْرَقِيُّ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنِي حَجَّاجُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ أَبِي حَمْزَةَ، جَارِهِمْ، عَنْ حُمَيْدِ بْنِ هِلَالٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مُطَرِّفٍ، عَنْ أَبِي بَرْزَةَ، قَالَ: «كَانَ أَبْغَضَ الْأَحْيَاءِ إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ثَقِيفٌ وَبَنُو حَنِيفَةَ»
Ahmad b. Ibrahim al-Dawraqi from Hajjaj b. Muhammad from Shuʿbah from Abu Hamzah, their neighbor, from Humayd b. Hilal from Abd Allah b. Mutarrif from Abu Barzah who said:
"The most hated living people to the Messenger of Allah (saw) were (...) Thaqif and Banu Hanifah."
We find the pro-Umayyad scholar removing anti-Umayyad statements uttered by the Prophet (SAW). What will this man say to the Prophet on the Day of Judgement when he tells him that he intentionally tampered and changed the words just because his feelings did not correspond to its content?
Although the editor of this print, Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut, weakens the report, it does not change the fact that Ahmad literally censored the report. Moreover, he, being a pro-Umayyad scholar himself, also lied because he claimed that Abi Hamza is maj'hool (unknown). However, Abi Hamza is a narrator of Sahih Muslim in Hadith 2640b and 1427f. Moreover, Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani says he's accepted (maqbul) Taqrib Al-Tahdib, pg. 587.
Case 4: Prophet (saws) cursing Bani Hakam
Al-Hakam b. al-'Aas was one of the enemies of the Prophet (SAW) that was exiled for his behaviour towards the Prophet. His son, Marwan, is a very important Hadith narrator and a later caliph for the Sunnis. The fact is that Bani Marwan are all cursed, yet their rulers are praised by pro-Umayyad scholars. Ahmad, being one of them, records in his Musnad Ahmad b. Hanbal, vol. 26, pg. 51:
حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ، عَنْ إِسْمَاعِيلَ بْنِ أَبِي خَالِدٍ، عَنِ الشَّعْبِيِّ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ عَبْدَ اللهِ بْنَ الزُّبَيْرِ، وَهُوَ مُسْتَنِدٌ إِلَى الْكَعْبَةِ، وَهُوَ يَقُولُ: وَرَبِّ هَذِهِ الْكَعْبَةِ، لَقَدْ " لَعَنَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فُلَانًا، وَمَا وُلِدَ مِنْ صُلْبِهِ "
ʿAbd al-Razzaq from Ibn ʿUyaynah from Ismaʿil b. Abi Khalid from al-Shaʿbi who said:
I heard ʿAbd Allah b. al-Zubayr while he was leaning against the Kaʿbah saying: By the Lord of this Kaʿbah, the Messenger of Allah (saw) surely cursed so-and-so and whoever was born from his loins.
Who is this 'so-and-so' that Ahmad censored his name from? This is shown in Musnad Al-Bazzar, vol. 6, pg. 159:
حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ مَنْصُورِ بْنِ سَيَّارٍ، قَالَ: نا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، قَالَ: أنا سُفْيَانُ بْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ، عَنْ إِسْمَاعِيلَ بْنِ أَبِي خَالِدٍ، عَنِ الشَّعْبِيِّ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ الزُّبَيْرِ، يَقُولُ وَهُوَ مُسْتَنِدٌ إِلَى الْكَعْبَةِ: «وَرَبِّ هَذَا الْبَيْتِ لَقَدْ لَعَنَ اللَّهُ الْحَكَمَ وَمَا وَلَدَ عَلَى لِسَانِ نَبِيِّهِ»
Ahmad b. Mansur b. Sayyar said: ʿAbd al-Razzaq from Sufyan b. ʿUyaynah from Ismaʿil b. Abi Khalid from al-Shaʿbi who said:
I heard ʿAbd Allah b. al-Zubayr while he was leaning against the Kaʿbah say: "By the Lord of this House, Allah has cursed al-Hakam and what he begot through the tongue of His Prophet."
Case 5: Aisha’s hate for Imam Ali (as)
Whenever we, the Shi'a, are asked for our criticism and disassociation from the wives of the Prophet (SAW), specifically Aisha, we are confronted with confusion and shock. This arises from ignorance on how Aisha treated and viewed the Ahl al-Bayt (AS), specifically Imam Ali.
Consider this report in Musnad Ahmad b. Hanbal, vol. 43, pg. 86-87:
حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، أَخْبَرَنَا مَعْمَرٌ، قَالَ قَالَ الزُّهْرِيُّ وَأَخْبَرَنِي عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُتْبَةَ، أَنَّ عَائِشَةَ، أَخْبَرَتْهُ قَالَتْ، أَوَّلُ مَا اشْتَكَى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فِي بَيْتِ مَيْمُونَةَ فَاسْـتَأْذَنَ أَزْوَاجَهُ أَنْ يُمَرَّضَ فِي بَيْتِهَا وَأَذِنَّ لَهُ - قَالَتْ - فَخَرَجَ وَيَدٌ لَهُ عَلَى الْفَضْلِ بْنِ عَبَّاسٍ وَيَدٌ لَهُ عَلَى رَجُلٍ آخَرَ وَهُوَ يَخُطُّ بِرِجْلَيْهِ فِي الأَرْضِ . فَقَالَ عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ فَحَدَّثْتُ بِهِ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ فَقَالَ أَتَدْرِي مَنِ الرَّجُلُ الَّذِي لَمْ تُسَمِّ عَائِشَةُ هُوَ عَلِيٌّ ولكن عائشة لا تطيب له نفساً (...).
ʿAbd al-Razzaq from Maʿmar who said: al-Zuhri said, and ʿUbayd Allah b. ʿAbd Allah b. ʿUtbah informed me that ʿAʾishah informed him, saying:
The first place where the Messenger of Allah (saw) fell ill was in the house of Maymunah. He sought permission from his wives to be treated in her house, and they permitted him.
She said: He (Ali) came out leaning on the arm of al-Fadl b. al-ʿAbbas and another man, dragging his feet along the ground. ʿUbayd Allah said: I mentioned this to Ibn ʿAbbas, and he said: Do you know who the man was whom ʿAʾishah did not name? It was ʿAli. But ʿAʾishah does not feel easy mentioning him (...).
This account of Ahmad is problematic enough despite the censorship put on it, when we go to the original source we find it even worse; Musanaf Abd al-Razak, vol. 5, pg. 428 - 430:
حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، أَخْبَرَنَا مَعْمَرٌ، قَالَ قَالَ الزُّهْرِيُّ وَأَخْبَرَنِي عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُتْبَةَ، أَنَّ عَائِشَةَ، أَخْبَرَتْهُ قَالَتْ، أَوَّلُ مَا اشْتَكَى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فِي بَيْتِ مَيْمُونَةَ فَاسْـتَأْذَنَ أَزْوَاجَهُ أَنْ يُمَرَّضَ فِي بَيْتِهَا وَأَذِنَّ لَهُ - قَالَتْ - فَخَرَجَ وَيَدٌ لَهُ عَلَى الْفَضْلِ بْنِ عَبَّاسٍ وَيَدٌ لَهُ عَلَى رَجُلٍ آخَرَ وَهُوَ يَخُطُّ بِرِجْلَيْهِ فِي الأَرْضِ . فَقَالَ عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ فَحَدَّثْتُ بِهِ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ فَقَالَ أَتَدْرِي مَنِ الرَّجُلُ الَّذِي لَمْ تُسَمِّ عَائِشَةُ هُوَ عَلِيٌّ ولكن عائشة لا تطيب له نفساً بخير.
ʿAbd al-Razzaq from Maʿmar who said: al-Zuhri said, and ʿUbayd Allah b. ʿAbd Allah b. ʿUtbah informed me that ʿAʾishah informed him, saying:
The first place where the Messenger of Allah (saw) fell ill was in the house of Maymunah. He sought permission from his wives to be treated in her house, and they permitted him.
She said: He (Ali) came out leaning on the arm of al-Fadl b. al-ʿAbbas and another man, dragging his feet along the ground. ʿUbayd Allah said: I related this to Ibn ʿAbbas, and he said: Do you know who the man was whom ʿAʾishah did not name? It was ʿAli. But ʿAʾishah does not feel ease in mentioning him with goodness (bi-khayr).
We ask: Why does she not feel easy or content with mentioning Imam Ali (AS) with goodness? Does he lack virtues or did he oppress her such that she could feel that way? No, rather she rather bore enmity towards him otherwise she would not feel this way. We further ask: How can we trust Ahmad when he censors reports as such?
Case 6: Delivering Surat at-Tawbah
One of the famous virtues of Imam Ali (AS) is his successful deliverance of Surat at-Tawbah to the people. The virtue also shows the failed task made by other companions, such as Abu Bakr, who could not fulfill that task. For example, we read in Ahmad's Fadha’il al-Sahaba, vol. 2, pg. 682 - 685:
حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ حَمَّادٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو عَوَانَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَلْجٍ، حَدَّثَنَا عَمْرُو بْنُ مَيْمُونٍ، قَالَ: إِنِّي لَجَالِسٌ إِلَى ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، إِذْ أتَاهُ تِسْعَةُ رَهْطٍ، فَقَالُوا: يَا أَبَا عَبَّاسٍ قَالَ: ثُمَّ بَعَثَ فُلَانًا بِسُورَةِ التَّوْبَةِ، فَبَعَثَ عَلِيًّا خَلْفَهُ، فَأَخَذَهَا مِنْهُ، قَالَ: " لَا يَذْهَبُ بِهَا إِلَّا رَجُلٌ مِنِّي، وَأَنَا مِنْهُ "
Yahya b. Hammad from Abu ʿAwanah from Abu Balj from ʿAmr b. Maymun who said:
I was sitting with Ibn ʿAbbas when nine men came to him and said: O Abu ʿAbbas. Then he said: Then he (the Prophet) sent so-and-so with Surah al-Tawbah, but he sent ʿAli after him and took it from him. He said: "None shall carry it except a man from me, and I am from him."
The report is censored, and the unnamed man here is none but Abu Bakr as shown in al-Nasa'is Sunan al-Kubra, vol. 9, pg. 416 - 417:
حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ حَمَّادٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو عَوَانَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَلْجٍ، حَدَّثَنَا عَمْرُو بْنُ مَيْمُونٍ، قَالَ: إِنِّي لَجَالِسٌ إِلَى ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، إِذْ أتَاهُ تِسْعَةُ رَهْطٍ، فَقَالُوا: يَا أَبَا عَبَّاسٍ قَالَ: ثُمَّ بَعَثَ أبا بكر بِسُورَةِ التَّوْبَةِ، فَبَعَثَ عَلِيًّا خَلْفَهُ، فَأَخَذَهَا مِنْهُ، قَالَ: " لَا يَذْهَبُ بِهَا إِلَّا رَجُلٌ مِنِّي، وَأَنَا مِنْهُ "
Yahya b. Hammad from Abu ʿAwanah from Abu Balj from ʿAmr b. Maymun who said:
I was sitting with Ibn ʿAbbas when nine men came to him and said: O Abu ʿAbbas. He said: Then (the Prophet) sent Abu Bakr with Surah al-Tawbah, but he sent ʿAli after him and took it from him, and said: "None shall deliver it except a man from me, and I am from him."
The report also shows the superiority of Ali over Abu Bakr.
Case 7: Imam Ali (as) insults Abu Bakr & Umar
The famous report in Sahih Muslim that was censored by many scholars including Bukhari, has Umar speaking of Ali (AS)'s position towards Abu Bakr and himself as an oppressor, liar and treacherous man. It has caused a lot of problems for Sunnis, and Ahmad was amongst those who could not accept this report as he censors it in his Musnad Ahmad b. Hanbal, vol. 1, pg. 482 - 483:
عَنْ مَعْمَرٍ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنْ مَالِكِ بْنِ أَوْسِ بْنِ الْحَدَثَانِ النَّصْرِيِّ قَالَ: فَلَمَّا قُبِضَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ: أَنَا وَلِيُّ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بَعْدَهُ، أَعْمَلُ فِيهِ بِمَا كَانَ يَعْمَلُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِيهَا.
From Maʿmar from al-Zuhri from Malik b. Aws b. al-Hadathan al-Nasri who said:
When the Messenger of Allah (saw) passed away, Abu Bakr said: I am the successor (waliyy) of the Messenger of Allah (saw) after him, and I will act in it as the Messenger of Allah (saw) used to act. (...)
For Ahmad, the report ends here, but in the original version of Musannaf Abd al-Razzak, vol. 5, pg. 104 - 105:
عَنْ مَعْمَرٍ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنْ مَالِكِ بْنِ أَوْسِ بْنِ الْحَدَثَانِ النَّصْرِيِّ قَالَ: فَلَمَّا قُبِضَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ: أَنَا وَلِيُّ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بَعْدَهُ، أَعْمَلُ فِيهِ بِمَا كَانَ يَعْمَلُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِيهَا. ثُمَّ أَقْبَلَ عَلَى عَلِيٍّ وَالْعَبَّاسِ فَقَالَ: وَأَنْتُمَا تَزْعُمَانِ أَنَّهُ فِيهَا ظَالِمٌ فَاجِرٌ، وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ أَنَّهُ فِيهَا صَادِقٌ بَارٌّ تَابِعٌ لِلْحَقِّ، ثُمَّ وُلِّيتُهَا بَعْدَ أَبِي بَكْرٍ سَنَتَيْنِ مِنْ إِمَارَتِي، فَعَمِلَتُ فِيهَا بِمَا عَمِلَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَأَبُو بَكْرٍ، وَأَنْتُمَا تَزْعُمَانِ أَنِّي فِيهَا ظَالِمٌ فَاجِرٌ، وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ أَنِّي فِيهَا صَادِقٌ بَارٌّ تَابَعٌ لِلْحَقِّ
From Maʿmar from al-Zuhri from Malik b. Aws b. al-Hadathan al-Nasri who said:
When the Messenger of Allah (saw) passed away, Abu Bakr said: I am the successor (waliyy) of the Messenger of Allah (saw) after him, and I will act in it as the Messenger of Allah (saw) used to act. Then he turned to ʿAli and al-ʿAbbas and said: And you both claim that he was unjust and sinful in it, but Allah knows that he was truthful, righteous, and a follower of the truth.
Then I took charge of it after Abu Bakr for two years during my leadership, and I acted in it as the Messenger of Allah (saw) and Abu Bakr acted. And you both claim that I am unjust and sinful in it, but Allah knows that I am truthful, righteous, and a follower of the truth.
No wonder Ahmad wanted to censor this report, as it showed the Shi'i position of Ali towards Abu Bakr and Umar.
Case 8: Attack on the House of Fatima (as)
The attack on Fatima's house is a long disputed matter which deserves its own article series to cover, a future initative- insha'Allah. However, when we read Ahmad's Fadha’il al-Sahaba, vol. 1, pg. 364:
حدثنا محمد بن إبراهيم، قثنا أبو مسعود، قال: نا معاوية بن عمرو، قثنا محمد بن بشر، عن عبيد الله بن عمر، عن زيد بن أسلم، عن أبيه قال: لما بويع لأبي بكر بعد النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، كان علي والزبير بن العوام يدخلان على فاطمة فيشاورانها، فبلغ عمر فدخل على فاطمة، فقال: يا بنت رسول الله، ما أحد من الخلق أحب إلينا من أبيك، وما أحد من الخلق بعد أبيك أحب إلينا منك، وكلّمها، فدخل علي والزبير على فاطمة فقالت: انصرفا راشدين، فما رجعا إليها حتى بايعا
Muhammad b. Ibrahim from Abu Masʿud from Muʿawiyah b. ʿAmr from Muhammad b. Bishr from ʿUbayd Allah b. ʿUmar from Zayd b. Aslam from his father who said:
When allegiance was given to Abu Bakr after the Prophet (saw), ʿAli and al-Zubayr b. al-ʿAwwam used to enter upon Fatimah and consult her. This reached ʿUmar, so he entered upon Fatimah and said: O daughter of the Messenger of Allah, there is no one among creation more beloved to us than your father, and no one among creation after your father more beloved to us than you. Then he spoke to her. So ʿAli and al-Zubayr entered upon Fatimah, and she said: Go forth with guidance. They did not return to her until they had pledged allegiance.
In this censored report, Ahmad removed all the details concerning how Umar was threatening the life of al-Zahraa (AS) to make it seem like nothing but goodness was exchanged between them. The full report is found in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shayba, vol. 21, pg. 143-144
حدثنا محمد بن بِشْر، قال: حدثنا عُبَيْدُاللهِ بن عمر ، قال: حدثنا زيد بن أسلم ، عن أبيه أسلم: أنه حين بُويع لأبي بكر بعدَ رسُولِ اللهِ - صلى الله عليه وسلم - كان عليٌّ والزبيرُ يدخُلان على فاطمة بنتِ رسُولِ اللهِ - صلى الله عليه وسلم - فيُشَاوِرُونَها، ويَرتَجِعُون في أمْرِهم ، فلمَّا بلَغَ ذلك عمر بنُ الخطاب خرَجَ حتَّى دخَلَ على فاطمة، فقال: «يا بنتَ رسولِ اللهِ - صلى الله عليه وسلم - ، واللهِ مَا مِن الخلقِ أحَدٌ أحبُّ إلينا مِن أبيكِ ، ومَا مِنْ أحَدٍ أحبُّ إلينا بعدَ أبيكِ مِنكِ ، وأيْمُ اللَّه ما ذاكَ بمانِعِيَّ إنِ اجتمعَ هؤلاءِ النَّفَرُ عندَكِ؛ أنْ آمُرَ بهم أنْ يُحرَّقَ عليهم البيت». قال: فلمَّا خرجَ عُمَرُ، جاؤوها، فقالَتْ: «تعلمونَ أنَّ عمرَ قدْ جاءَني، وقَدْ حلَفَ باللهِ لَئن عُدْتُمْ لَيُحَرِّقَنَّ عليكُم البَيتَ، وأيمُ اللهِ لَيَمْضِيَنَّ لِمَا حَلَفَ عليه ، فانصَرِفُوا راشِدِيْنَ ، فَرُوْا رأيَكُمْ، ولا تَرجِعُوا إليَّ» ، فانصَرَفُوْا عنهَا، فلَمْ يَرجِعُوا إليهَا حتَّى بَايَعُوا لأبي بكر
Abu Bakr b. Abi Shaybah said: Muhammad b. Bishr from ʿUbayd Allah b. ʿUmar from Zayd b. Aslam from his father Aslam:
When allegiance was given to Abu Bakr after the Messenger of Allah (saw), ʿAli and al-Zubayr used to enter upon Fatimah, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah (saw), consulting her and reconsidering their matter. When this reached ʿUmar b. al-Khattab, he came out and entered upon Fatimah and said:
"O daughter of the Messenger of Allah (saw), by Allah, there is no one among creation more beloved to us than your father, and none more beloved to us after your father than you. But by Allah, that will not prevent me, if these people gather with you, from ordering that the house be set on fire upon them."
When ʿUmar left, they came to her, and she said: "You know that ʿUmar came to me and swore by Allah that if you return, he will surely burn the house upon you. By Allah, he will carry out what he swore. So go forth rightly, see to your matter, and do not return to me." So they left her and did not return until they pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr.
In this shocking report, the words that Ahmad censored were the ones in which he threatened the life of the daughter of the Messenger of Allah (SAW) by burning down her house just so that he can maintain his authority in power. Sunnis will see this report in two ways: One will applaud Ahmad for censoring it by denying its reliability, which we have refuted in our other article Aslam's report. Another will say that there is nothing wrong with Umar's actions! We allow our readers decide what to make of that.
We conclude with what we aimed to illustrate in the beginning, that Ahmad is most certainly of unreliable status and lacks credibility to be trusted with Hadith narrating. He censors reports according to his feelings and views, and such that we cannot see when he does this and when he doesn't.
Comentários