One of the excuses the present day Nawasib have adopted, so to defend the sins and atrocities committed by their idols of Bani Ummayah is the mass criticism of narrators. They think that by doing so, they might be able to absolve their ancestrals idols from the obnoxious acts they committed. It is indeed unfortunate to see naive adherents of their school increasingly coming under the trap of such propaganda, but such propaganda will never affect those who conduct independent objective research, free from the shackles of fanaticism, prejudice and bigotry.

Abu Mukhnaf Lut bin Yahyah is one such ‘victim’, he widely narrated the incidents relating to the contentions and wars caused by the esteemed figures of Ahle Sunnah. Since such narrations damaged the boat of Sunnism, they resorted to casting doubts over his authenticity. The present day Nawasib likewise copy and paste the criticism put forward by their ancestors against Abu Mukhnaf but do so via dishonesty, since his criticisms related to the field of ‘hadith’ not his role in narrating “history”.

Our prudent readers, whether they are Sunni or Shia should understand the difference between various fields such as Hadith, Fiqh, Tafsir, Qirat, Lughat and History, and should not become trapped by the filthy propagandas of the present day Nawasib, since it is not necessary that a person who is deemed an authority in one of these fields shall be an authority in anothers also.

Verily, Abu Mukhnaf is deemed a master and Imam in the field of history. Let us present the words of the great Sunni scholars, who accepted the vital rank of Abu Mukhnaf in the field of narrating historical incidents. Ibn Katheer records:

ذكر ابن جرير عن ابي مخنف لوط بن يحيى وهو أحد أئمة هذا الشأن

“Ibn Jarir narrated from Abi Makhnaf Lut bin Yahya who is one of the Imams in that matter (history)”
Al-Bedaya wa al-Nehaya, Volume 7 page 343

At another place, the favorite Imam of Nawasib Ibn Katheer records:

وفي بعض ما اوردناه نظر، ولولا ان ابن جرير وغيره من الحفاظ والائمة ذكروه ما سقته، واكثره من رواية ابي مخنف لوط بن يحيى، وقد كان شيعياً، وهو ضعيف الحديث عند الائمة، ولكنه اخباري حافظ، عنده من هذه الاشياء ما ليس عند غيره، ولهذا يترامى عليه كثير من المصنفين في هذا الشان ممن بعده والله اعلم‏.‏

“And whatever we have narrated, some of those things are in front of our eyes and had Ibn Jareer and other Imams and Huffaz not narrated this, we would have also not narrated the same and the majority of those narrations are from Abu Mukhnaf Lut bin Yahyah and he was a Shia, according to the Imams he is weak in Hadith but he was a Hafiz in history, there are historical reports which no one possesses other than him and that is the reason that most writers have referred to him”
Al-Bedaya wa al-Nehaya, Volume 8 page 221

Dr. Abdulrahman al-Badawi said in the introduction of his famous book “Al-Shia wa al-Khawarij” page 9:

أبي مخنف أصدق رواة الطبري ووثق به ثقة واسعة

“Abi Makhnaf is the most truthful narrator according to al-Tabari and he highly trusted him.”

Let us now present the words of another favorite Imam of Nawasib namely Dhahabi:

أبومخنف وليس بثقة لكنه له اعتناء بالأخبار

“Abu Makhnaf is not thiqah, but he is a specialist in history”
Tarikh al-Islam, Volume 5 page 195

Allamah Salahuddin Khalil bin Aybak al-Safadi (d. 764 H) records in his lengthy work ‘Al-Wafi bel Wafyat’ Volume 24 page 305:

وقالوا أبومخنف بأمر العراق وفتوحها وأخبارها يزيد على غيره

“They said that Abu Makhnaf acquired more knowledge about Iraq’s battles and history than anyone else”

We shall also point out that great Sunni scholar of Pakistan (Late) Allamah Shafi Okarvi Qadri wrote a book “Imam Paak aur Yazeed Paleed” [The pure Imam and filthy Yazeed] wherein he refuted one of the lovers of Yazeed [la] Maulana Mahmood Abbasi, who in his book had adopted the very deceitful attitude of rejecting historical reports going against his spiritual father Yazeed [la], when they were reported by Abu Mukhnaf. On page 216 of his book, Allamah Shafi Okarvi used an excellent rationale for proving the authenticity of Abu Mukhnaf in the field of history through the comments of biased anti-Shia scholar Ibn Katheer. Before recording the incidents pertaining to the tragedy of Karbala, Ibn Katheer made a heading:

وهذه صفة مقتله مأخوذة من كلام أئمة هذا الشأن لا كما يزعمه أهل التشيع من الكذب‏

“And this account pertaining to (Hussain’s) murder has been derived from the concerned Imams, not the false view of Shias”

Allamah Muhammad Shafi Okarvi argued that after making it clear, Imam Ibn Katheer then easily quoted reports from Abu Mukhnaf pertaining to the incidents of Karbala that proves that his historical reports are deemed reliable.

Thus, we evidenced that Abu Mukhnaf might have been criticized for his work in the field of Hadith but on the contrary, he is deemed an authority in the field of history.

Another excuse that the present day adherents of Yazeed [la] might bring against Abu Makhnaf is the accusation of him being Shia. In this regard, we shall quote a Sunni scholar rather than offering our own views and arguments. Allamah Muhammad Shafi Okarvi while answering this objection presented a list of those narrators of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim who were deemed Shia, like Abu Mukhnaf. Allamah Okarvi cited 16 Shia and Rafidhi, 16 Qadariya and 6 Nasibi narrators from Sahih Bukhari (the book deemed most authentic after Quran among Ahle Sunnah), and then he also cited the names of 25 Shia or Rafidhi, 16 Qadariyah and 4 Nasibi narrators from Sahih Muslim.

Imam Paak aur Yazeed Paleed, pages 218-219 (Zia ul Quran publications, Lahore)
Imam Paak aur Yazeed Paleed, pages 220-221 (Zia ul Quran publications, Lahore)
Imam Paak aur Yazeed Paleed, pages 222-223 (Zia ul Quran publications, Lahore)

Then on page 223, Allamah Okarvi presented a question to Abbasi and all other Yazeedies, which we would also like to forward as our battle is with the Nawasib (Yazeedies):

“Now here is a question to Mr. Abbasi and his Yazeedi companions that there are so many Shia, Qadariyah and Nasibi among the narrators of Bukhari and Muslim that have been mentioned above, who according to Imam Ghazzali [rh] are worthy to be cursed, so do you deem them worthy to be cursed? And are the narrations from accursed ones acceptable? Moreover, if Abu Mukhnaf Lut bin Yahya was a Shia and hence his narrations are not acceptable, then what are your views regarding these Shia, Rafidhi, Qadariyah and Nasibi narrators of Bukhari and Muslim?”

Thus, we see that the Sunni Imams may have criticized Abu Makhnaf in the field of hadith, but they themselves relied on his reports in the field of general history, biographies and Maghazi [history of wars], for example at one place while discussing the date of birth of our Holy Prophet [s], Imam of Ahle Sunnah Ibn Hajar Asqalani gave preference above the Sunni scholars the report of Abu Mukhnaf whom the present day Nawasib are dying to prove a lair (that too in all fields). Asqalani stated:

فالمعتمد ما قال أبو مخنف وكأن سبب غلط غيره أنهم قالوا مات في ثاني شهر ربيع الأول فتغيرت فصارت ثاني عشر واستمر الوهم بذلك

“The reliable is what Abu Mukhnaf said, it seems that the mistake of the others is that they said that He [s] died on the 2nd of Rabee al-Awal (month), then it changed to the 12th and they continued on that mistake”
Fathul Bari Sharah Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8 page 130


Shia Pen Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter to receive regular updates on our new publications.
Shia Pen uses the "Google Groups" system for its newsletters. Subcribe Now →