The following is a response to the article by RevisitingtheSalaf.org published on the 19th of March, 2012 , which can be viewed here.
RTS starts off in this article by making asserting the following:
The foundations of the Bakri sects is based on the principal that the companions are a source of Guidance and they are all ‘Just and Truthful’, how would one like to follow in the foot steps of this role model?
As RTS is aware though, that even though the Sunnis do hold the view that all the companions are just and truthful, it is not an obligation to follow them in all their actions. The companions are not infallible and are susceptible to sinning and disobeying Allah. So, arguing that one needs to follow the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) in ALL of their actions is equal to saying that one should attempt to sin; and since all actions of the companions is a form of guidance, then disobeying Allah is a praiseworthy action. Of course, there is no scholar that is from Ahl Al-Sunnah that believes in such, so attributing this view to Ahl Al-Sunnah is incorrect.
RTS quotes:
“…And I dissociate myself to you from what these people (meaning the Muslims) are doing. Then he fought by his sword until he was killed. And Zayd, the son of al-Khattab, saw the exposure of the Muslims from their traveling, so he came forward and fought until he was killed. And Baraa’, the son of Malik, the brother of Anas, the son of Malik, and he was Baraa’ – as what is said – stood, and when he attended the war, he began trembling until the men sat on him, and then he would urinate in his trousers. And when he would urinate, he would be like a lion. And when he saw what the Muslims did of the exposure, and what he saw from the people of Yamama, he would take what he took until the men sat on him. And when he urinated, he sprinted and said: ‘To where, O Muslims? I am Baraa’, the son of Malik! Come to me!’…”
Source: Kitab Al-Thuqat, Vo.l 2, Pg. # 174.
RTS quoting a narration that can be found in Kitab Al-Thiqaat by Ibn Hibban. Then, by quoting the narration from another source, Tareekh Al-Tabari, in which we find Al-Bara’a bin Malik urinating upon himself to psyche himself up for war.
Upon quick inspection, we find the narration to be weak, since it is a disconnected report from Mohammad bin Ishaq, the author of Al-Maghazi. (Tareekh Al-Tabari, 2/540, Maktabat Al-Hilal)
Ibn Hibban’s narration, that can be found in his Kitab Al-Thiqaat, does not include a chain, and is therefore weak. It is also known, that Ibn Hibban’s opening chapters (the history section) in his book, rarely includes any chains, since he mainly quoted from available earlier sources in his time.
Ironically, RTS says in his comments section when the question of authenticity is brought up that the narration is:
Good enough for Ibn Hibban one of your classical scholars of Rijal to mention in his book of ‘Authenticated Ones’
This is a fallacy, since there is no indication that the historical portion, or all the narrations within this book for that matter, are authentic according to Ibn Hibban.
Leave a Reply