Ibn Tawoos al-Helli the theif
May 8, 2012 at 7:38 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts,
On books and authors | Leave a comment
i
Rate This
al-Salamu `Aleykum,
It appears that the Shia scholar ibn Tawoos al-Helli (died
664.AH) who was described by Sheikh al-Islam ibn Tayymiyah (rah)
as: “From the narrators of lies”, stole the book “I`lam al-Wara”
written by the Shia scholar al-Tabrasi (died 548.AH), then he
changed the title to “Rabi` al-Shia”.
This fact has shocked and confused many shia scholars, we list
the following:
1) al-Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar 1/31:
وتركنا منها ـ أي من كتب ابن طاووس ـ كتاب ربيع الشيعة لموافقته
لكتاب إعلام الورى في جميع الاَبواب والترتيب ، وهذا ممّا يقضي منه
العجب .بحار الاَنوار 1: 31
[And we left from them -meaning from the books of ibn Tawoos-
the book "Rabi` al-Shia" because it appears like the book "I`lam
al-Wara" in all of its chapters and in its order, this is a matter
that causes one to wonder.]
2) Abdul-Nabi al-Kazimi in Takmilat al-Rijal 1/11:
عبد النبي الكاظمي:وقد وقفت على إعلام الورى للطبرسي ، وربيع
الشيعة لابن طاووس ، وتتبعتهما من أولهما الى آخرهما ، فوجدتهما
واحداً من غير زيادة ونقصان ، ولا تقديم ولا تأخير أبداً ، إلاّ
الخطبة. تكملة الرجال 1:
[And I had come across "I`lam al-Wara" by Tabrasi, and "Rabi`
al-Shia" by ibn Tawoos, and I compared them from their beginning to
their end, and I found that they are one and the same without
additions or subtractions, except for the Sermon.]
3) Aqa Buzruq al-Tehrani in al-Tharee`ah 2/241 #957:
الممارس لبيانات السيد ابن طاووس لا يرتاب في أنّ «ربيع الشيعة»
ليس له والمراجع له لا يشكّ في اتّحاده مع «إعلام الورى»
للطبرسي.الذريعة:2/241 برقم 957.
[One who follows the writings of ibn Tawoos shall have no doubt
that "Rabi` al-Shia" is not his, and he who revises the book will
not doubt that it is one and the same with "I`lam al-Wara" by
al-Tabrasi.]
4) Ja`far al-Subhani in Tathkirat al-A`yan 2/95-96:
من غريب الأمر انّ كتاباً واحداً سُمّي باسمين ونسب إلى شخصين، وما
هذا إلاّ كتاب «إعلام الورى» الذي هو من مؤلفات الطبرسي، فقد نسب إلى
السيد ابن طاووس وسمّي باسم «ربيع الشيعة»، فالكتابان يختلفان اسماً
ويتحدان من البداية إلى النهاية.تذكرة الأعيان / ج 2 ص 95-96
[It is a strange matter that one book was given two names and
attributed to two persons, it is none other than "I`lam al-Wara"
which is from the works of al-Tabrasi, then it was attributed to
al-Sayyed ibn Tawoos and called "Rabi` al-Shia", because the two
books differ in their titles but agree in their content from
beginning to end.]
5) The Muhaqqiq (researcher) of the book “I`lam al-Wara” by
al-Tabrasi, in the intro page 26:
والخلاصة: ان ما يذكر من وجود كتاب للسيد علي بن طاووس يعرف بربيع
الشيعة محض وهم واشتباه لا يؤبه به ، وان الاصل في ذلك هو كتاب إعلام
الورى للشيخ أبي علي الفضل بن الحسن الطبرسي فحسب ، وعلى ذلك توافق
الدارسون والباحثون.مقدمة اعلام الورى للطبرسي ص 26
[In conclusion: what is mentioned about al-Sayyed `Ali ibn
Tawoos having a book called "Rabi` al-Shia" is nothing but an
illusion that must not be paid any attention, the origin of this is
only the book "I`lam al-Wara" by al-Sheikh abu `Ali al-Fadl bin
al-Hassan al-Tabrasi, this is what the researchers agreed on.]
What ibn Tawoos al-Helli did was simply change the title of the
book and the name of the author, and replaced them with another
title and his own name, but the Shia scholars don’t want to accuse
their Rabbi and Idol ibn Tawoos of being a thief so they made some
excuses:
1- Ibn Tawoos did not know who the author of the book was, so
after reading it this is why he described it as “Rabi` al-Shia”, so
the one who found his handwriting on it thought it was his book.
This excuse was transmitted by al-Noori al-Tabrasi the author of
“Fasl al-Khitab” from his scholars and it is found in “al-Tharee`ah
ila Tasanif al-Shia” 2/242.
2- Muhasin al-Ameen al-`Amili says in the intro of “Tafseer
Majma` al-Bayan” of Tabrasi 1/13:
ومن الغرائب ان السيد رضي الدين بن طاووس ألف كتاب (ربيع الشيعة)
على نهج أعلام الورى، وقد وافقه في جميع الأبواب والفصول والمطالب
وبالجملة لا تفاوت بينهما أصلا”. مقدمة تفسير مجمع البيان للطبرسي ج1
ص 13
[And from the strange matters is that al-Sayyed Radi al-Deen ibn
Tawoos authored a book using the same method as the book "I`lam
al-Wara", and it agreed with it in all of its chapters and sections
and issues, in general there is no difference between them.]
3- It was a copyist error.source: al-Tharee`ah 2/241.
- end -
Related:
Ibn Tawus al-Hilli and his alleged shaykh
Hashim Maroof Husayni about Kulayni
April 9, 2012 at 3:52 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia
texts, On books and authors | 1 Comment
i
2 Votes
Shia scholar Hashim Maroof Husayni in his book “Dirasatun fil
Hadith wal Muhadithin” (p 192) said:
( . . .ولكن الكليني مع أخطائه الكثيرة لم يشذ شذوذ
البخاري . . . )
Translation:
….but Kulayni along with his MANY MISTAKES, didn’t make odd
things like oddities of Bukhari…
Discussion:
Words of Rafidi against Bukhari doesn’t hold any weight in our
view, and for sure can’t harm reputation of Bukhari in any way.
But words of Rafidi about their own top hadith scholar means a
lot. Here we see clearly admission of rafidi that his major hadith
scholar did MANY MISTAKES.
Originally
posted: http://alsrdaab.com/vb/showthread.php?t=60685
Muhammad al-Qatifi on authenticy of “Uyun
al-Akbar ar-Rida”
December 21, 2011 at 2:19 am | Posted in On authenticy of shia
texts, On books and authors | Leave a comment
i
Rate This
This is another post from series of revealing the truth behind
shia slogan “we don’t have completely saheeh books”.
Shia shaykh Muhammad al-Ubaydan al-Qatifi said:
أقول:-قد رواها الصدوق في كتاب عيون أخبار الرضا (ع) ويـبدو أنه لم
يذكر في هذا الكتاب إلا خصوص ما يراه صحيحاً ويستفاد ذلك من خلال
التعبير بكلمة عيون.
http://www.alobaidan.org/index.php?act=artc&id=525
I say: Saduq narrated it in book “Uyun Akhbar ar-Rida” (a), it
seems he didn’t mentioned in this book nothing but especially
what he seen authentic, it could be understand from his using the
word (Uyun)
Ibn Qawlaveyh and authentication of his work
“Kamil az-ziyarat”
December 14, 2011 at 5:01 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia
texts, On books and authors | Leave a comment
i
Rate This
We have already cited some examples from this shia book
regarding visitation of shrines at our blog.
In the introduction to his book (p4), author ibn Qawlaveyh
al-Qummi said:
وقد علمنا أنّا لا نحيط بجميع ما روي عنهم في هذا المعنى ولا في
غيره ، لكن ما وقع لنا من جهة الثّقات من أصحابنا ـ رحمهم الله
[برحمته] ـ ولا أخرجت فيه حديثاً روي عن الشُّذاذ من الرِّجال
We realize we cannot cover all that which has been transmitted
from them (imams) on this subject [the salutations at the shrines],
nor on any other issue, except that which has been related to us by
reliable [transmitters] from our companions – may Allah forgive
them by His Rahmat. I have not cited a tradition in it [the book]
which has been transmitted by reporters who are rarely mentioned
(shudhdhadh).
Thus, all of the 388 transmitters who appear in Ibn Qawlawayh’s
work are authenticated by this inference.
Imams continue misguiding the nation
December 11, 2011 at 3:46 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia
texts, Something really ugly, Take a few minutes to think on this,
Taqiyyah | Leave a comment
i
1 Votes
The Imam according to the Shia intentionally misleads and
misguides his followers as well as the mainstream Muslims (sunnah),
in this topic we will quote the narrations quoted by the Shia
scholar Yusuf al-Bahrani in the introduction of his book “al-Hadaeq
al-Nadirah”, we read:
و الى ذلك يشير قوله عليه السلام(و لو اجتمعتم على أمر واحد لصدقكم
الناس علينا. إلخ).و من ذلك ايضا ما رواه الشيخ في التهذيب «1» في
الصحيح- على الظاهر- عن سالم أبي خديجة عن أبي عبد الله (ع) قال:
(سأله إنسان و أنا حاضر فقال: ربما دخلت المسجد و بعض أصحابنا يصلي
العصر، و بعضهم يصلي الظهر؟ فقال: أنا أمرتهم بهذا، لو صلوا على وقت
واحد لعرفوا فأخذ برقابهم) و هو أيضا صريح في المطلوب، إذ لا يخفى أنه
لا تطرق للحمل هنا على موافقة العامة، لاتفاقهم على التفريق بين وقتي
الظهر و العصر و مواظبتهم على ذلك.و ما رواه الشيخ في كتاب العدة «1»
مرسلا عن الصادق عليه السلام: انه (سئل عن اختلاف أصحابنا في
المواقيت؟ فقال: انا خالفت بينهم).و ما رواه في الاحتجاج «2» بسنده
فيه عن حريز عن ابي عبد الله (ع) قال:(قلت له: انه ليس شيء أشد علي من
اختلاف أصحابنا. قال ذلك من قبلي).و ما رواه في كتاب معاني الاخبار عن
الخزاز عمن حدثه عن ابي الحسن (ع) قال: (اختلاف أصحابي لكم رحمة و قال
(ع): إذا كان ذلك جمعتكم على أمر واحد). و سئل عن اختلاف أصحابنا فقال
عليه السلام: (انا فعلت ذلك بكم و لو اجتمعتم على أمر واحد لأخذ
برقابكم).و ما رواه في الكافي بسنده فيه عن موسى بن أشيم قال: (كنت
عند ابي عبد الله عليه السلام فسأله رجل عن آية من كتاب الله عز و جل
فأخبره بها ثم دخل عليه داخل فسأله عن تلك الآية فأخبره بخلاف ما أخبر
به الأول، فدخلني من ذلك ما شاء الله، الى أن قال: فبينما أنا كذلك إذ
دخل عليه آخر فسأله عن تلك الآية فأخبره بخلاف ما أخبرني و أخبر
صاحبي، فسكنت نفسي و علمت ان ذلك منه تقية.
Translation:
And to this points his saying (as):“And if you(shia) all gather
upon one thing then the people will believe you concerning us
ect…”And the Sheikh has also narrated in al-Tahtheeb in the SAHIH
from Salim abu Khadeejah from abu ‘Abdullah (as): a man asked him
(as) while I was present: “sometimes I would enter the mosque and I
would see some of our companions(shia) praying ‘Asr while the
others pray Zuhr?” he (as) replied: “I ordered them to do this
because if they all prayed at the same time then our matter would
be known and they would be executed.”The Imam is very honest in his
saying and in this case he did not do what the mainstream Muslims
do as it is clear for them(sunnies) that the timing of both prayers
are separate.Also what is narrated by the sheikh in his book
al-’Iddah in the Mursal from al-Sadiq (as): “He was asked about the
difference among our companions in timings(of acts of worship)” he
(as) responded: “I am the one who made them differ among
themselves.”And what is narrated in al-Ihtijaj with its Sanad to
Huraiz from abu ‘Abdullah (as), he said to the Imam: “There is
nothing more saddening for me than the difference of our
companions(shia)” the Imam (as) replied: “I did this.”And what he
narrated in the book Ma’anee al-Akhbar from al-Khazzaz from he who
told him from abu al-Hasan(as) who said: “The difference among my
companions is a mercy.” and he (as) also said: “When that happens I
will unite you upon one thing.” and in another place he (as) was
asked about the difference among our companions(Shia) so he (as)
said: “I did this to you, and if you were to unite upon one matter
then your heads will be taken.”And what is narrated in al-Kafi with
its Isnad from Musa bin Ashyam, he said: I was with abu ‘Abdullah
(as) so a man asked him about a verse from the verses of the book
of Allah almighty, he answered him then another man came and
inquired about the same verse but he gave him a different answer
from the first man, I then doubted him greatly – until he said –
and while I was like this suddenly a man enters and asks about that
same verse so he gave him an answer different from mine and my
companion’s answers, so my doubts subsided and I realized this was
Taqqiyah.”
I ask the Shia who fear Allah, is this acceptable? The divine
Imams who are sent from God to guide men and rule the nation are
living by Taqqiyah misguiding and confusing everyone?
NOTE: According to Ahlul-Sunnah the Imams are trustworthy
scholars who never practice Taqqiyah, it is a shame such narrations
are being attributed to them.
Abu Jafar at-Toose and his Rijal
September 19, 2011 at 10:07 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia
texts, On books and authors | Leave a comment
i
Rate This
He mentioned Qutaiba ibn Muhammad between those who narrated
from as-Sadiq at page 272, and then he mentioned him at page 436
between those who didn’t narrate from aimma.
Fudala ibn Ayub al-Azdi was mentioned amongst people which
narrated from al-Kadhim at page 342, and amongst those who narrated
from ar-Rida at page 363, and finally at page 436 he was mentioned
as one who didn’t narrate from aimma.
Muawiyah ibn Hakim at page 378 was mentioned as the one who
narrated from Jawad, at 392 as one who narrated from al-Hadi, and
as one who didn’t narrate from aimma at page 449.
al-Qasim ibn Muhammad al-Jawhari as one who narrated from Sadiq
at page 273, from al-Kadhim at 342, and the one who didn’t narrate
from aimma at page 436.
al-Qasim ibn Urwa was mentioned as one who narrated from Jafar
as-Sadiq at page 273, and as one who didn’t narrate from aimma at
page 436.
Kulaib ibn Muawiyah was mentioned as ravi from al-Baqir at page
144, from Jafar at page 274, and as one who didn’t narrate from
aimma at 436.
Muhammad ibn Isa ibn Ubayd ibn Yaqtin was mentioned as one who
narrated from ar-Rida at page 376, narrated from al-Hadi at 391,
from al-Askari at 401 and finally as one who didn’t narrate from
aimma at 448.
Hafs ibn Ghiyas as one who narrated from al-Baqir at pae 133,
from Jafar at 188, from al-Kadhim at 335 and as one who didn’t
narrate from aimma at page 425.
Source of research.
How explain this?
al-Murtada: The Shia Fiqh is taken from weak and
untrustworthy sources
September 19, 2011 at 6:58 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia
texts, On books and authors | Leave a comment
i
Rate This
Al-Murtada says:
” والذي يختص هذا الموضع مما لم نبينه هناك: أنه لا خلاف بين كل من
ذهب إلى وجوب العمل بخبر الواحد في الشريعة، أنه لا بد من كون مخبره
عدلا، والعدالة عندنا يقتضي أن يكون معتقدا ” للحق في الأصول والفروع،
وغير ذاهب إلى مذهب قد دلت الأدلة على بطلانه، وأن يكون غير متظاهر
بشئ من المعاصي والقبائح. وهذه الجملة تقتضي تعذر العمل بشئ من
الأخبار التي رواها الواقفية على موسى بن جعفر عليهما السلام الذاهبة
إلى أنه المهدي عليه السلام، وتكذيب كل من بعده من الأئمة عليهم
السلام، وهذا كفر بغير شبهة ورده، كالطاطري وابن سماعة وفلان وفلان،
ومن لا يحصى كثرة. فإن معظم الفقه وجمهوره بل جميعه لا يخلو مستنده
ممن يذهب مذهب الواقفة، إما أن يكون أصلا في الخبر أو فرعا “، راويا ”
عن غيره ومرويا ” عنه. وإلى غلاة، وخطابية، ومخمسة، وأصحاب حلول،
كفلان وفلان ومن لا يحصى أيضا ” كثرة، وإلى قمي مشبه مجبر، وأن
القميين كلهم من غير استثناء لأحد منهم إلا أبا جعفر بن بابويه – رحمة
الله عليه- بالأمس كانوا مشبهة مجبرة، وكتبهم وتصانيفهم تشهد بذلك
وتنطق به. فليت شعري أي رواية تخلص وتسلم من أن يكون في أصلها وفرعها
واقف أو غال، أو قمي مشبه مجبر، والاختبار بيننا وبينهم التفتيش” .(
رسائل الشريف المرتضى 3/310 .
There is no difference amongst those who decided to accept and
work with the Khabar al-Wahid (1) in matters of Shari’ah that it
must come through a ‘Adl, in our madhab ‘Adl means that the
narrator must have a correct belief in Usool and Furu’u, that he
must not be from a corrupt madhab according to the proofs, that he
must not commit disobedience and evil deeds apparently. This means
that we must not work with any of the narrations by the Waqifah of
Musa bin Ja’afar (as) who believe that he was a Mahdi and all those
after him are liars, this is clear kufr, such as al TaTari and ibn
Sama’ah and such people which we cannot count as to their large
numbers. The majority of our Fiqh or all of it is related to
narrations from the Waqifah, whether they narrated the Hadith from
someone or someone narrated it from them. Also others such as the
Ghulat (2), the Mukhammisah (3), the people of Hulul (4) and they
are too many to count “Or from a Qummi who is a Mushabbih or a
Mujabbir (5), and all qummies with no exceptions except for Ibn
Babaweih are Moushabihah and Moujabirah, their books all bear
wtiness to this clearly. So what narration is safe from having in
its chain a Waqifi or a Ghali or a Qummi who is a Mushabbih and a
Mujabbir.”
Source: Rasael al-Shareef al-Murtada 3/310.
شيخ الطائفة :” إن كثيراً من مصنفي أصحابنا وأصحاب الاصول ينتحلون
المذاهب الفاسدة وان كانت كتبهم معتمدة ” الفهرست ص 2
While sheikh al-Taefa al-Tusi says: “Many of the authors from
our companions and those who wrote the Usool have adopted corrupt
Madhabs although their books are accepted.”
Source: al-Fihrist pg 2.
Basically if the Shia want to apply the proper science based on
the ‘Adalah, then a big part of their Madhab would collapse as they
rely on the narrations by people of corrupt madhabs whom they
themselves deem as Kouffar.
Footnotes
————————————————————-
1: What is narrated through one narrator.2: Extremist Shia who
commit Ghulu and the Shia definition of Ghulu changes with the
passing of time, this sect attributes divine features to ‘Ali,
although many Twelvers in our days do this so ponder.3: Shia sect
that believed that Allah came in the form of Muhammad, ‘Ali,
Fatima, Hassan, Hussein.4: Those who believe Allah can appear in a
specified physical form.5: Shia sects such as al-Bayaniyah and
al-Sabaiyyah and others, they liken the creator to the
creation.
Sayyed Abu al-Hassan curses al-Kulayni because most of al-Kafi
is weak
September 1, 2011 at 8:04 am | Posted in On authenticy of shia
texts, On books and authors, So called "shia unity". | Leave a
comment
i
1 Votes
al-Kafi by al-Kulayni is the biggest and most important Shia
book of Hadith, it is of the same importance of Sahih al-Bukhari
when it comes to the average Muslim. However, the difference
between the two books is that al-Bukhari collected the most
authentic reports while al-Kulayni filled his Kafi with the weakest
narrations making it really hard for the reader to come across any
Sahih Hadith in the book.
Of course we all remember what al-Kulayni wrote as the reason
for why he compiled his book:“Verily, you solemnly wished that you
possess a book which is sufficient, brings together the entire
Islamic sciences of the knowledge of religion within it, wholly
satisfies the needs of the student, acts as a reference for the
seekers of guidance, and would be used by those who want to attain
the knowledge of religion and practice upon it by deriving correct
[şaĥīĥ] narrations of the truthful ones (as) and the upright and
acted upon traditions from it—through which the compulsory duties
of Allāh, the Powerful and Exalted, and the tradition of His
Prophet (saws) can be fulfilled.And you said: ‘If that happens, I
can hope that (the book) would be a means through which Allāh will
rectify our brothers and people of our religious community through
his support and grace, and take them closer to their
salvation.’”==================================A famous Shia scholar
called al-Sayyed ‘Ali abu al-Hassan al-Musawi al-’Amili replies to
Ayatullah al-Khoei who claimed that al-Kulayni has not
authenticated his book and has placed in it weak narrations which
contradict the Quran:
وليته تأمل قليلاً قبل أن يتفوه بهذه الدعوى الباطلة , وهل يجوز
حفظ ما خالف الكتاب عن الضياع , أو ماكان فيه الريب و الموافق للعامة
العمياء مع إحراز كونه للتقية بعد الاشتغال عشرين سنة , و الفرض أن
مادعى ثقة الإسلام إلى تصنيف كتابه ما قد أشار إليه ؟!فتبا لأثبت
علماء الرجال الناقد الخبير , الشيخ النجاشي على افترائه في دعواه :
أن الكليني أوثق الناس في الحديث و أثبتهم .و ألف تب لأوثق الناس و
أثبتهم , حيث جمع في كتابه بعد أن ضيع عشرين سنة من عمره , جمع فيه
الشاذ المخالف للمجمع عليه , وحفظ فيه ما خالف الكتاب من زخرف و باطل
, و قد ترك لسائله المتحير و لإخوانه و لأهل ملته ممن لا يفقهون
التمييز بين الحديث , ولا يعرفون صحيحه من ضعيفه , وما يجوز أن يعمل
به و مالا يجوز أن يستند إليه .
“I wish he(al-Khoei) could have been a bit more patient and
observant before he uttered those false words! Is it permissible
for him(al-Kulayni) to preserve in it(al-Kafi) that which
contradicts the Holy Book? Is it permissible for him to preserve in
it that which casts doubts and agrees with the blind sunnies after
working on it(al-Kafi) for twenty years? and let us say that Thiqat
al-Islam(Kulayni) compiled his book for the reasons he stated.Then
Damn the knowledgeable and expert scholar of RIjal al-Sheikh
al-Najashi for saying that: al-Kulayni is the most trustworthy and
most knowledgeable of people in Ahadith.And a Thousand Curses be
upon the most trustworthy and most knowledgeable of people in
Ahadith(al-Kulayni) because he collected in his book(al-Kafi) after
wasting twenty years of his life that which is weak and that which
contradicts what is agreed upon and because he collected in it
nonsense and falsehood that contradicts the Holy Book. Then
he(al-Kulayni) left the confused person who was seeking his help
and he left his brothers and his sect who are unable to distinguish
between the Ahadith, he left them the Sahih and the Da’eef and that
which is permissible to act upon it and that which is not
permissible to act upon it.”
Then Abu al-Hassan suggests that al-Kulayni should have wrote in
his book:
ثم يقول : وقد يسر الله تأليف كتاب يأخذ منه من يريد علم الدين و
العمل به بالآثار الصحيحة و لكنني لم أميّز ذلكو أنا : العالم
بالأخبار و العارف بالرجال .و أنا : أوثق الناس في الحديث و أثبتهم .و
أنا شيخ أساطين المذهب و فقهائهم العالمين بالحديث .و أنا تلميذ من
اجتمعت الكلمة على غاية عملهم بالحديث ومعرفتهم بالرجال , وحفظهم
للأخبار , بل تركت مهمة التمييز لك أيها السائل المتحير , و لأخوانك و
أهل ملتك , إذ رأيت نفسي أني اعجز عن تهذيب ذلك بعد عشرين سنة , فتركت
الامر في ذلك لكم , فإني لا أعرف إلا أقل القليل . و إني اعتذر إليك ,
فإن مذهب أهل البيت , و الطائفة الحقة , لا يستطيع مثلي و انا من عرفت
تصنيف ما سألت عنه .إذ بغاية الأسف أقول : لا يوجد عندنا من الأحاديث
الصحيحة إلا النادر و الكتب و الأصول قد ضاعت وفقدت , و العلماءلم
ندركهم ولم نعاصرهم , و قد ماتوا و مات العلم معهم “
“Then he says: And Allah has made it possible for me to compile
a book which wholly satisfies the needs of the student and acts as
a reference for those who wish to act upon the correct narrations
but I can not tell the difference between them (Sahih and
Da’eef).And I am: The knowledgeable in the narrations and the
conditions of narrators.And I am: The most trustworthy and most
knowledgeable of people in Ahadith.And I am: The sheikh of the
biggest scholars of the Madhab and those who know the Ahadith.And I
am: The student of the ones that are the most knowledgeable in
Hadith and Rijal by consensus, but I have left it to you my
confused follower and to your brothers and nation to distinguish
between the narration (Whether Sahih or Da’eef) because I find my
self incapable of doing so after twenty years so I left it all to
you because my knowledge is small and limited. I apologise to you
because someone like me cannot fulfil your request.
I regrettably say: We do not posses any of the Sahih Ahadith
except rarely and the books of Usool have all been lost and we did
not meet the big scholars, they died and the knowledge died with
them.”
- end -
source: al-Fawaed al-Rijaliyah & Resalat al-Intisar li
Sihhat al-Kafi page 113-114.
Is tafsir al-Qummi authentic?
August 9, 2011 at 7:43 am | Posted in On authenticy of shia
texts | Leave a comment
i
1 Votes
We can see shias from the past till our
times relying on commentary of Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi.
Each book in Islamic nation has its own chain of transmitters.
Including this commentary of Ali ibn Ibrahim.
Let us check page 27 of on-line version of this tafsir, to see
who is the very first person who is in the chain of narration.
http://www.al-shia.org/html/ara/books/lib-quran/tafsir-qommi-j1/01.html
As you can see first person in the chain of transmitters is –
Abul Fadl al-Abbas ibn Muhammad ibn al-Qasim ibn Hamzah ibn Mosa
ibn Jafar.
This person wasn’t mention by shia scholars of rijal, as said
ash-Shahrudi in “Mustadrakat ilmul rijal al-hadith”
(4/357/#746)
“Jami al-ahadeth ash-Shia” – ALTERATION!
June 25, 2011 at 11:58 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia
texts, On books and authors | 2 Comments
i
1 Votes
“Jami al-ahadeth ash-shia” is a book by Sayeed al-Burjardi.
Here hadith from that book:
5113 – ( 15 ) الجعفريات 45 – بإسناده عن علي عليه السلام قال :
كان رسول -الله صلى الله عليه وآله يكبر في العيدين والاستسقاء في
الأولى سبعا وفى الثانية خمسا ، ويصلي قبلالخطبة ، ويجهر بالقراءة ،
قال جعفر بن محمد عليهما السلام : قال أبى فعل ذلك أبو بكرالصديق
بعده
5113 – (15) – (Book) Jafariyat 45 – with his chain from Ali
(alaihi salam) which said: “Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa alihi)
during the eid (prayers) made 7 takbirs with istiftah (takbir) in
the first, and 5 takbirs in second rakah, and he prayed before
hutbah, and read in a loud”. Jafar ibn Muhammad (alaihi salam)
said: “My father said that Abu Bakr as-Siddiq also did this after
him”.
See “Jami al-ahadeth ash-Shia” 6/203, and here screen shots from
ahlalbayt library which was based on version printed by Matbua
Ilmiyah in Qum.
So as we seen imam Jafar as-Sadiq narrated from his father that
Abu Bakr was SIDDIQ!
But let us see other edition of this book, where red marked part
disappeared from the text!
al-Khui on authenticy of al-Kafi
June 25, 2011 at 9:21 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia
texts, On books and authors | Leave a comment
i
1 Votes
Grand Āyat Allāh al-Sayyid Abū al-Qāsim al-Khū’ī (d.
1412) writes:
وقد ذكر غير واحد من الاعلام أن روايات الكافي كلها صحيحة ولا
مجال لرمي شئ منها بضعف سندها وسمعت شيخنا الأستاذ الشيخ محمد حسين
النائيني قدس سره في مجلس بحثه يقول إن المناقشة في إسناد روايات
الكافي حرفة العاجز
“More than one of the eminent scholars have mentioned that all
the narrations of al-Kāfī are şaĥīĥ, and there is no
room for putting away anything from it due to its weak chain of
transmission. I heard our master and
teacher Shaykh Muĥammad Ĥusayn al-Nā’īnī—may Allāh
sanctify his secret—say in one of his gatherings of discussion:
‘Verily, arguing about the chains of transmission of the narrations
in al-Kāfī is the vocation of an incompetent!’”
· Mu`jam Rijāl al-Ĥadīth wa Tafşīl Ţabaqāt al-Ruwāt, of Abū
al-Qāsim al-Khū’ī (d. 1412), volume 1, page 81 [Qum]
al-Kafi – which is enough for shias
June 22, 2011 at 11:27 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia
texts, On books and authors | Leave a comment
i
1 Votes
There is no doubt that al-Kafi is the most important hadith book
in shia world.
In the volume #1, at page 330, we can see such
sentence:
قال الكليني رحمه الله: وحدثني شيخ من أصحابنا – ذهب عني اسمه – أن
أبا عمرو سأل عن أحمد بن إسحاق عن مثل هذا فأجاب بمثل هذا.
“And al-Kulayni, may Allah forgive him, said: “And it was
narrated to me by shaykh from our companions – his name left me
(i.e I forgot it) – that Abu Amr asked Ahmad ibn Ishaq about
something like this and got similar answer”.
1) Who is person who narrated this from al-Kulayni himself?
2) Is it not great? That top muhadith forgot name of his shaykh.
May be he became confused (ihtilat)?Here we have explanation from
al-Kulayni himself, what does it mean term invented by him “shaykh
from our companions”. That mean that he simply forgot who was this
shaykh. In his al-Kafi you can see a lot of such terms, for
example عدة من اصحابنا - several of our companions.Now we
can say that if he forgot name of his shaykh he said “a shaykh from
our companions”, in the very same way his term “several of our
companions” most likely was used when he forgot the person who
narrated this to him.
Significance of Mashyakhat Al-Faqeeh
June 19, 2011 at 5:57 am | Posted in On authenticy of shia
texts, Take a few minutes to think on this | Leave a comment
i
Rate This
By brother Farid:
Bismillah alrahmah alraheem,
For those of you that don’t know how the book Man La
Yahdharhu Al-Faqeeh works, you’ll probably be surprised. I was
somewhat taken aback at first when I went through the book and
realized that there are no chains of narrators. Each hadith will
start off directly with the name of the Imam or with the name of
his student. Now, how the book works is really fascinating.
Al-Saduq says the following in the beginning of his book:
وصنفت له هذا الكتاب بحذف الاسانيد لئلا تكثر طرقه
Rough translation: “And I wrote this book and got rid of the
chains so that there wouldn’t be an excess of ways (to each
hadith)…”
Then, Al-Saduq collected the names of all the narrators that he
mentioned in the Man La Yahdharhu Al-Faqeeh and connected
them with chains up to them in his mashyakha. Later on, Shia
hadith scholars that dealt with hadith authentication went through
this mashyakha in order to strengthen or weaken specific
chains to the narrators.
Even though this does seem like a smart idea, this methodology
contradicts with the reality of the transmission of hadiths.
For example:
وروي عن علي بن مهزيار قال: كتبت إليه عليه السلام ” امرأة طهرت من
حيضها أو دم نفاسها في أول يوم من شهر رمضان ثم استحاضت فصلت وصامت
شهر رمضان كله من غير أن تعمل ما تعمله المستحاضة من الغسل لكل صلاتين
هل يجوز صومها وصلاتها أم لا؟ فكتب عليه السلام: تقضي صومها ولا تقضي
صلاتها لان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله كان يأمر المؤمنات من نسائه
بذلك “).Al-Faqeeh (3/222)
This hadith includes nothing more than Ali bin Mihzayar. In
order to check the reliability of the hadith though, we need to
examine themashyakha.Al-Saduq says:
وما كان فيه عن علي بن مهزيار فقد رويته عن أبي رضي الله عنه، عن
محمد بن يحيى العطار، عن الحسين بن إسحاق التاجر، عن علي بن مهزيار،
ورويته عن أبي، عن سعد بن عبد الله، والحميري جميعًا، عن إبراهيم بن
مهزيار، عن أخيه علي بن مهزيار، ورويته أيضًا عن محمد بن الحسين رضي
الله عنه، عن محمد بن الحسن الصفار، عن العباس بن معروف، عن علي بن
مهزيار.Rough translation: “And whatever I have narrated from Ali
bin Mihzayar is what I have narrated from my father, though
Mohammed bin Yahya Al-Attar, through Al-Hussain bin Ishaaq
Al-Tajir, through Ali bin Mihzayar. And from my father,
through Sa’ad bin Abdullah and Al-Humairi, both
through Ibrahim bin Mihzayar, through his brother Ali bin
Mihzayar. And I narrated from Mohammed bin Al-Hussain, through
Mohammed bin Hasan Al-Saffar, through Al-Abbas bin Ma’roof,
through Ali bin Mihzayar.ِMashayakhat Al-Faqeeh (p. 72)
So, as we can see here, by examining the above, we have three
chains for this specific narrator, which means that this specific
hadith was narrated through all of these three chains.
However, this goes against reality, for it is not possible for
two narrators to have both heard the exact same hadiths from a
single scholar, let alone three. There will always be many hadiths
that one has heard that another didn’t. Even if we were to assume
that these three students, Ibrahim bin Mihzayar, Al-Abbas bin
Ma’rouf, and Al-Hussain bin Ishaaq, were the best three students
a sheikh could have. There still is a very large chance
that Ibrahim bin Mihzayar, the brother of Ali, heard things that
the two others didn’t.
Even if we were to assume that Ali bin Mihzayar was narrating
from his own books, there is a more than likely chance that some of
them didn’t hear specific books, which is why a better choice of
words by Al-Saduq would’ve been: “Whatever I have narrated from Ali
bin Mihzayar is what I have narrated from… Al-Hussin bin Ishaaq
Al-Tajir OR… Ibrahim bin Mihzayar OR… Al-Abbas bin
Ma’aroof most of the time… I guess…”
Of course, this goes without saying that there is a very large
possibility that many of these hadiths were narrated outside of Ali
bin Mihzayar’s books.
The hadith above is a great example of this as well. Due to
Al-Saduq refering to the hadith above without the usage of a
complete chain, we are led to believe that the hadith is strong due
to the chains that he includes in his mashyakha.
However, we find him giving this hadith a completely other chain
in Ilal Al-Sharai’i:أبى رحمه الله قال حدثنا سعدبن عبدالله قال حدثنا
احمدبن ادريس عن محمدبن احمد عن محمدبن عبدالجبار عن علي بن مهزيار
قال: كنت اليه امرأة طهرت من حيضها او من دم نفاسها في اول يوم من شهر
رمضان ثم استحاضت فصلت وصامت شهررمضان كله من غيرأن تعمل كما تعمله
المستحاضة من الغسل لكل صلاتين هل يجوز صومها وصلاتها ام لا؟ فكتب
تقضي صومهاولا تقضى صلاتهالان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله كان يأمر
المؤمنات من نسائه بذلك.
Here, we find the exact same hadith, but with Al-Saduq narrating
from his father, through Sa’ad bin Abdullah, through Ahmad bin
Idrees, through Mohammed bin Ahmad, through Mohammed bin
Abduljabbar, through Ali bin Mihzayar.Ilal Al-Shara’ii (p. 229)
Notice, the chain above is very different from the chains
included in the mashyakha. The direct narrator is not any of
the people mentioned above. It is someone completely new.So, now,
we must ask ourselves, why does Al-Saduq do this? Why would he use
a completely new chain when he already has three chains that have
narrated everything from Ali bin Mihzayar?
There are a few possibilities for this:1- Mohammed bin
Abduljabbar, the narrator of the fourth chain, has also narrated
everything the others have.2- This chain is an extra addition to
support the previous chains.3- This is the only correct chain for
the hadith.
The first possibility is a stretch, since Al-Saduq would have
more than likely included it in his mashyakha. As for the
second, well, even though it is possible, it is highly unlikely,
since there is no real reason for Al-Saduq to choose an odd chain
to support what he already has, and as stated previously, in
reality, it is extremely unlikely for three narrators to have heard
every single narration from their shaikh.There also is another
solid reason for accepting the third possibility, which is that
this is the only chain, which is that Al-Kulayni and Al-Tusi used a
very similar chain and Mohammed bin Abduljabbar in their own works,
and they did not use any of Al-Saduq’s three chains from
his mashyakha.See Al-Kafi 4/471 and Tatheebul Ahkaam
4/966.
There is no room for such a coincidence.
In conclusion: Even though it is a little too early to say. It
seems as though the mashyakha of Al-Saduq isn’t as
reliable as one would think. It seems as though that Al-Saduq is
referring to books rather than individual narrations, and that not
all his chains go directly up to all the books of the specific
narrator.
Inshallah I will dedicate more time for this in the future and
dig deeper into the mashyakha, it’s purpose, and
reliability.
Impossible but true
April 5, 2011 at 1:30 am | Posted in On authenticy of shia
texts, Take a few minutes to think on this | Leave a comment
i
1 Votes
By brother TripolySunni:
al-Salamu Aleykum,
A narration from the Shia book “Wasael al Shia” volume 28, page
280 #34759:
[ 34759 ] 6 ـ محمد بن محمد بن النعمان المفيد في كتاب ( الاختصاص
) عن علي بن إبراهيم بن هاشم ، عن أبيه ، قال : لمّا مات الرضا ( عليه
السلام ) حججنا فدخلنا على أبي جعفر ( عليه السلام ) وقد حضر خلق من
الشيعة ـ إلى أن قال : ـ فقال أبو جعفر ( عليه السلام ) : سئل أبي عن
رجل نبش قبر امرأة فنكحها ؟ فقال أبي : يقطع يمينه للنبش ، ويضرب حد
الزنا فان حرمة الميتة كحرمة الحية ، فقالوا : يا سيدنا تأذن لنا أن
نسألك ؟ قال : نعم ، فسألوه في مجلس عن ثلاثين ألف مسألة ، فأجابهم
فيها وله تسع سنين .
This Shia Hadith is narrated through ONLY trustworthy Shia
narrators: Muhammad bin Muhammad bin al-Nu’uman al-Mufid in his
book “al-Ikhtisas page 102″ from ‘Ali bin Ibrahim bin Hashim from
his father Ibrahim that: (…)
Ibrahim al-Qummi said that he entered on Abu Ja’afar the Imam
then a group of people came to the Imam and he was only 9 years old
at the time, they sat with him and asked him 30,000 questions and
he answered them all in one Majlis(one sitting).
Now I do not care about his age or anything else, what I care
about is the number of Questions they asked and the number of
answers he gave and all of this happened in one Majlis. Let’s say
for example that each question and its answer took only 1 minute,
this makes 30,000 minutes and if you divide that by 60 you get 500
hours, it is humanly impossible for them to sit for 500 consecutive
hours and ask him all of these 30,000 questions.
This narration is a CLEAR LIE according to Human logic, no one
in his right mind would accept it, which brings me to my next
point…
HOW CAN THE SHIA TRUST THEIR NARRATORS AFTER THIS!? all three of
them are VERY trustworthy according to Shia yet we see them narrate
an IMPOSSIBLE LIE, so at least one of these three people is a LIAR
and FORGER OF HADITH, Either it’s their top scholar al-Mufid, or
their most famous narrator ‘Ali bin Ibrahim, or another one of
their biggest scholars Ibrahim al-Qummi.
You Shia decide, either way this is a fatal blow to your entire
Shia religion.
Drunkard narrator
March 30, 2011 at 4:22 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia
texts | Leave a comment
i
Rate This
Book: Ihtiyar Marifatul Rijal.
Author: at-Toose.
“From Furat ibn Ahnaf: “(Auf) al-Uqayli from companions of Ali
(alaihi salam), drunkard but he transmitted narrations how he heard
them”.
Religion of unknown people
March 29, 2011 at 11:12 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia
texts | Leave a comment
i
1 Votes
There is a great rule for all Islamic knowledge! This religion
is an knowledge, so look from whom you are taking your religion. We
have already posted an evidence from sheikh Toose, that majority of
shia authors of main books were on the corrupt mazhab. And now
another testimony, that owners of their bases are mainly
unknown.
Book: Rawdatul Muttaqin fi sharhul Man la Yahduruhul Faqih
Author: Muhammad al-Majlisi.
He said:
فإنك إذا تتبعت كتب الرجال وجدت أكثر أصحاب الأصول الأربعمائة غير
مذكور في شأنهم تعديل و لا جرح
“And if you would check books on rijal, you would find that
majority of companions (authors) of 400 bases DIDN’T MENTIONED BY
PRAISE OR CRITIC” (either it’s because) enough for them as a praise
that they authors of bases.
SCAN:
Discussion: So what does it mean?
1) Authors of shia bases are either corrupted in their mazhab,
as said Toose, or they are unknown.
2) Shias don’t care if their unknown, because it’s enough for
them that they basing their religion upon their books.
Did Abu Basir knew the unseen?
March 29, 2011 at 10:38 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia
texts | Leave a comment
i
Rate This
Sheikh of shias ash-Shahrodi in his book “Mustadrakat Ilmul
Rijal al-Hadith” p 109, wrote:
And Kulayni narrated in his “al-Kafi”, first volume, chapter
birth of al-Kadhim (alaihi salam), p486 IN AUTHENTIC (FORM) from
ibn Masakeen, from Abu Basir who has said the following. “Musa
ibn Ja‘far (alaihi salam) died at the age of fifty five in the year
one hundred eighty three. He lived for thirty five years after
Ja‘far ibn Muhammad (alaihuma salam).”
Discussion:
1) Imam Musa ibn Jafar died in 183 year H.
2) Abu Basir in accordance to majority shia sources, if not to
all of them, died in 150 h.
Al-Khui in “Mojam rijal al-Hadith” said:
فإن أبا بصير مات في سنة ( 150 ) على ما يأتي في ترجمة يحيى بن أبي
القاسم من النجاشي والشيخ ، فلا يمكن أن يروي زمان وفاة الكاظم ( عليه
السلام )
Abu Basir died in 150, as it came in bio of Yahya ibn Abil Qasim
from Najashi and Sheikh. And it’s not possible that he narrated
time of death al-Kadhim (alaihi salam).
See scan of this book:
On Salim ibn Qays al-Hilali
February 16, 2011 at 9:37 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia
texts, On books and authors | Leave a comment
i
2 Votes
Book: al-Mawduat fil athar wal akhbar.
Author: Hashim Maroof al-Hasani.
At the page 184 during discussion of authenticy of one story,
this shia author said:
“And it’s sufficient for defect to this story, fact that it was
narrated by Sulaim ibn Qays and he from suspected and accused in
lie, and in the book which is ascribed to him narrated that
Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr adressed to his father while he was on the
deathbed, but he (Muhammad) was only 2 years old (when his father
died). And it was narrated there that imams would be 13″.
Toose on shia authors
February 15, 2011 at 5:41 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia
texts | Leave a comment
i
1 Votes
Book: Fihrist. p.32 publisher Muassasat Dar al-Faqahah
Author: Sheikh Abu Jafar at-Tose.
إن كثيراً من مصنفي أصحابنا وأصحاب الأصولين تحلون المذاهب الفاسدة
وإن كانت كتبهم معتمدة
“Many of the authors of our books, as well as the authors
of [our] Usul (i.e. the fundamentals and principles of faith) hold
corrupt Madh-habs (schools of thought), even though their books are
acceptable”.
30000 narrations of Abban
January 15, 2011 at 11:21 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia
texts, On books and authors, Refuting shia doubts | Leave a
comment
i
Rate This
Ayatolla Abdullah Shubbar said:
قد جمع علماء محدثينا المتقدمين ما وصل إليهم من الائمة عليهم
السلام في أربعمائة كتاب
تسمى الاصول وروى راو واحد من رواتهم عليهم السلام وهو أبان بن
تغلب عن الصادق عليه السلام ثلاثين الف حديث.
And old scholars muhadithin gathered what reached them from
imams (alaihuma salam) in 400 books, and named them 400 bases
(usuls), and one narrator from their (alaihuma salam) narrators,
and he is Abban ibn Taglib narrated from as-Sadiq (alaihi salam) 30
000 narrations.
Source: Aytollat Shubbar, “Sharhul ziyaratul jamiatul
kabira” p 95-95.
Place of Nahjul-balagha
January 10, 2011 at 2:12 am | Posted in On authenticy of shia
texts, On books and authors | Leave a comment
i
Rate This
Book: al-Nida al-Ahyar.
Author: Ayatolla al-Khomayni.
He said:
Ibn Ghadairi is higher in reliability than Najashi
and Shaikh
December 13, 2010 at 7:49 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia
texts, On books and authors | 1 Comment
i
Rate This
Salam alaikum.
Just quote for future, which could be used. It’s from official
site of Sistani, it says:
وإن ابن الغضائري هو المعتمد في مقام الجرح والتعديل أكثر من
النجاشي والشيخ وأمثالهما
Although ibn al-Ghadairi, he’s MORE al-motamad (approved,
reliable, should be relied upon) in the place of al-Jarh and
at-Tadil than an-Najashi and Sheikh and (others) like them.
Sheikh - that should be at-Toose.
Hurr al-Amili upon authenticy of shia ahadeth
December 13, 2010 at 1:57 am | Posted in On authenticy of shia
texts | Leave a comment
i
Rate This
In his book “Wasailu shia” this shia scholar said:
ومثله يأتي في رواية الثقات ؛ الأجلاء ـ كأصحاب الإجماع ، ونحوهم ـ
عن الضعفاء ، والكذابين ، والمجاهيل ، حيث يعلمون حالهم ، ويروون عنهم
، ويعملون بحديثهم ، ويشهدون بصحته .
“And example of this coming in the narrations of trustworthy and
esteemed – like companions of ijma and (others) like them – from
weak, liars, and unknown (narrators), when their knew their
conditions, and narrated from them, and they knew their narrations,
and testified their authenticy”.
Source: “Wasailu shia” 30/206.
How shias narrated their ahadeth?
November 11, 2010 at 3:09 am | Posted in On authenticy of shia
texts | 1 Comment
i
1 Votes
As it seems mainly from books, and not by hearing.
Kulayni narrated in his “al-Kafi” (1/53), Hurr al-Amili in
“Wasail ush shia” (27/84):
عدة من أصحابنا، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن محمد بن الحسن بن أبي خالد
شينولة قال: قلت لابي جعفر الثاني (عليه السلام): جعلت فداك إن
مشايخنا رووا عن أبي جعفر وأبي عبدالله (عليهما السلام) وكانت
التقية شديدة فكتموا كتبهم ولم تروعنهم فلما ماتوا صارت الكتب إلينا
فقال: حدثوا بها فإنها حق.
A number of our people have narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad
from Muhammad ibn al-Hassan ibn abu Khalid Shaynula who has said
the following. ”I said to Abu Ja‘far (alaihi salam) second,
‘May Allah take my soul in your service, our shaikhs have
narrated Hadith from Imam abu Ja‘far and from Imam abu
‘Abdallah (alaihuma salam) and at that time taqiya was severe, so
they concealed their books and did not narrate from
them. When they died their books came to us.’” The Imam said, “You
may narrate from them because they contain the truth”.
So obviously shias didn’t hear ahadeth from their shuyukh, but
they found books, which (as they thought) belong to their scholars,
and narrated from them. And imam even without checking authenticy
of such books, said that they contain truth.
There is no book which is correctly attributed
to authors…
July 21, 2010 at 6:55 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia
texts, On books and authors | Leave a comment
i
Rate This
Salam alaikum.
Ahmad al-Katib. Shia thinker, person who questioned
existence of shia Mahdi.
In his book “Imam al-Mahdi. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Askari” at
page 147, said:
I generally believe that: It is necessary to confirm the
following in any academic research: Firstly-The authenticity
of the attribution of the famous historical books like
‘Al-Ghaybah’, ‘Ikmal al-Din’, ‘Al-Irshad’,’and ‘Al-Fusul’ to their
real authors, and also that no addition, deletion or interpolation
has happened to the books. This is really very difficult and
impossible as there are no authentic books, in Shiite
heritage, it’s mean authentically attributed to their authors,
except four books of Hadith-‘Al-Kafi’, ‘Manla Yahduruhu al-Faqih’,
‘Al-Tahdhib’ and ‘Al-Istibsar’, which were narrated by scholars one
from the other.
Tafseer Al-’Askaree (AS) is mawDoo’ (fabricated)
June 28, 2010 at 1:49 am | Posted in On authenticy of shia
texts, On books and authors | Leave a comment
i
2 Votes
Salam alaikum. Below you would see research done by shia Nader
Zaveri. We are quoting it from his blog without any edition. It’s
extremely important that many shias today aren’t satisfied by
fairy-tales which they can hear on their gathering during the
years, and instead of it, they are trying to research.
Salaamun ‘Alaykum,
Unfortunately, I have noticed that a lot of people on here and
various places seem to take out the Tafseer that has been
attributed to Imaam Hasan Al-’Askaree. Even so much that Al-Khoei
Bookstore is selling the tafseer on their website, here.What we
must know and remember is that this Tafseer is mawDoo’ (fabricated)
and da’eef (weak) under the name of Imaam Hasan Al-’Askaree
(AS)!
Let me mention to you the chain of narrators from whom we’ve
received this Tafseer. This is mentioned in the beginning of the
book, Tafseer Al-Imaam Al-’Askaree.قال محمد بن علي بن محمد بن جعفر
بن دقاقحدثني الشيخان الفقيهان أبو الحسن محمد بن أحمد بن علي بن
الحسن بن شاذان و أبو محمد جعفر بن أحمد بن علي القمي (ره) قالا حدثنا
الشيخ الفقيه أبو جعفر محمد بن علي بن الحسين بن موسى بن بابويه القمي
(ره) قال أخبرنا أبو الحسن محمد بن القاسم المفسر الأسترآباذي الخطيب
(ره) قال حدثني أبو يعقوب يوسف بن محمد بن زياد و أبو الحسن علي بن
محمد بن سيارMuhammad bin ‘Alee bin Muhammad bin Ja’far bin Daqaaq
said: “The two jurisprudent sheikhs Aboo Al-Hasan Muhammad bin
Ahmad bin ‘Alee bin al-Hasan bin Shaadhaan and Aboo Muhammad Ja’far
bin Ahmad bin ‘Alee Al-Qummee told me from Aboo Ja’far Muhammad bin
‘Alee bin Al-Husayn bin Moosa bin Baabuwayh Al-Qummee told me from
Aboo Al-Hasan Muhammad bin Al-Qaassim Al-Mufassir Al-Astr’aabaadhee
Al-KhaTeeb (preacher) that Aboo Ya’qoob Yoosuf bin Muhammad bin
Ziyaad and Abo Al-Hasan Ali bin Muhammad bin Sayyaar”Source:1.
Tafseer Al-Imaam Al-’Askaree, pg. 9 (published by Imaam Mahdi
Seminary School, Qum, Iran, first edition, published in 1409
AH)Then a story is narrated how they were in the company of Imaam
Hasan Al-’Askaree.و كانا من الشيعة الإمامية قالا كان أبوانا
إماميين، و كانت الزيدية هم الغالبون بأسترآباذ، و كنا في إمارة الحسن
بن زيد العلوي الملقب بالداعي إلى الحق إمام الزيدية، و كان كثير
الإصغاء إليهم، يقتل الناس بسعاياتهم، فخشينا على أنفسنا، فخرجنا
بأهلينا إلى حضرة الإمام أبي محمد الحسن بن علي بن محمد أبي القائم
عTranslation: “Who were from the Shee’ah Imaami, said, ‘Our parents
were Twelver Shia. The Zaydees were prevailing in Astr’aabaad. We
were under the rule of Al-Hasan bin Zayd Al-’Alawi called as
Al-Daa’ee ilal-Haqq. He was the Imam of the Zaydees. He often
listened to them (the Zaydees) and killed people according to their
slanders. We feared for ourselves , and so we resorted with our
families to HaDrah Al-Imam Aboo Muhammad Al-Hasan bin ‘Alee bin
Muhammad the father of al-Qa’im (Imam al-Mahdi).”فأنزلنا عيالاتنا
في بعض الخانات، ثم استأذنا على الإمام الحسن بن علي ع فلما رآنا قال
مرحبا بالآوينTranslation: We asked permission to visit the imam.
When he saw us, he said, “Welcome to the two comers…Source:1.
Tafseer Al-Imaam Al-’Askaree, pg. 9 – 10 (published by Imaam Mahdi
Seminary School, Qum, Iran, first edition, published in 1409
AH)Yes, it is true that Al-Majlisi quotes from this Tafseer all
over Bihaar Al-Anwaar, that doesn’t mean that he “accepts” it as
the Tafseer Attributed to our 11th Imaam.
I respect all of our great scholars, but what we must know about
hadeeth is that it is called ‘Ilm Al-Hadeeth. Some people have
translated it to “Science of Al-Hadeeth”. The reason why it is
called “Science” is because it is supposed to be unbiased and
objective. What this means is, whichever scholars has said
something good about this tafseer and whichever scholar has said
this is our 11th Imaam tafseer, we must find out for ourselves
about this hadeeth.
Let’s find out for ourselves about this tafseer.
We must first examine the 2 people who “claim” that they’ve
heard this tafseer directly from our 11th Imaam. Those 2 people
are:قال حدثني أبو يعقوب يوسف بن محمد بن زياد و أبو الحسن علي بن
محمد بن سيارFirst Person: Yoosuf bin Muhammad bin ZiyaadSecond
Person: ‘Alee bin Muhammad bin Sayyaar
The first book I looked at was Rijaal Al-Toosi. The reason is, I
wanted to see if these 2 men have even been mentioned as one of the
companions of our 11th Imaam. Let alone if they are Thiqah
(trustworthy) or Da’eef (weak).
Yoosuf ibn Muhammad ibn Ziyaad is nowhere to be found.
Source:Al-Toosi, Rijaal, pg. 403, under the Chapter of “Imaam
Abee Muhammad Hasan ibn ‘Alee bin Muhammad bin ‘Alee Al-RiDaa”,
under section of “Ya”‘Alee bin Muhammad bin Sayyaar is also no
where to be found.
Source:Al-Toosi, Rijaal, pg. 429 – 435, under the Chapter of
“Imaam Abee Muhammad Hasan ibn ‘Alee bin Muhammad bin ‘Alee
Al-RiDaa”, under section of ‘Ayn
There is mention of these two people in the Rijaal book, but not
in a good light.روى عنه أبو جعفر ابن بابويه ضعيف كذاب روى عنه
تفسيرا يرويه عن رجلين مجهولين أحدهما يعرف بيوسف بن محمد بن زياد و
الآخر علي بن محمد بن يسار [سيار] عن أبيهما عن أبي الحسن الثالث عليه
السلام و التفسير موضوع عن سهل الديباجي عن أبيه بأحاديث من هذه
المناكيرTranslation: Muhammad bin Al-Qaasim, Al-Mufassir,
al-Astarabadi. Aboo Ja`far b. Baabuwayh narrated from him. Weak,
and a liar. He narrated a tafseer from him that he narrated from
two unknown men: one of them known as Yoosuf bin Muhammad bin
Ziyaad, and `Alee bin Muhammad bin Yaasar (mispell: it should be
Sayyaar), from their father from Aboo Al-Hasan the Third. The
tafseer is fabricated (mawDoo’) from Sahl Al-Dibaajee from his
father with aHaadeeth from these disgraceful people.Source:1. Ibn
Al-GhaDaa’iri, Kitaab Al-Du’afa, pg. 982. Al-Hilli, Al-KhulaaSah,
pg. 287
There are some things wrong with what is said by Ibn
Al-GhaDaa’iri and ‘Allaamah Hilli who quotes from Ibn
Al-GhaDaa’iri.1. He says that Yoosuf ibn Muhammad ibn Ziyaad and
‘Alee ibn Muhammad ibn Sayyaar narrate from their fathers–> this
is wrong because as you see from the chain of narrators, they do
not narrate from their fathers, they have no “middle man” to get to
the Imaam.2. Also he says the tafseer is attributed to Aboo
Al-Hasan the third which is our 10th Imaam.–> this is wrong
because the tafseer is attributed to our 11th Imaam and not our
10th Imaam.3. He also says he got from Sahl Al-Dibaajee–> As you
can see in the chain of narrators Sahl Al-Dibaajee is not even
mentioned.
According to Al-Khoei, he says this about these 2 narrators
(Yoosuf ibn Muhammad ibn Ziyaad & ‘Alee ibn Muhammad ibn
Sayyaar)Yoosuf ibn Muhammad ibn Ziyaadأقول: إنه رجل مجهول
الحالTranslation: I (Al-Khoei) say: This man’s condition is majhool
(unknown).Source:1. Al-Khoei, Mu’jam Rijaal Al-Hadeeth, vol. 20,
pg. 175, under person # 13809
‘Alee ibn Muhammad ibn Sayyaarأو كلاهما مجهول الحال و لا يعتد
برواية أنفسهما عن الإمام عTranslation: The conditions of both
(Yoosuf ibn Muhammad bin Ziyaad & ‘Alee ibn Muhammad ibn
Sayyaar) these men are unknown and these narrations false
attributed to the Imaam (AS)Source:1. Al-Khoei, Mu’jam Rijaal
Al-Hadeeth, vol. 12, pg. 147, under person # 8428Al-Khoei also
says:هذا التفسير لا يشك في أنه موضوعTranslation: There is no doubt
that this Tafseer is mawDoo’ (fabricated).Source:Al-Khoei, Mu’jam
Rijaal Al-Hadeeth, vol. 12, pg. 147, under person # 8428As you can
see since the main two people who “claim” that they narrate this
tafseer directly from our 11th Imaam is “unknown” we cannot take
anything from this tafseer. In the science of Hadeeth, when you
have just ONE majhool (unknown) narrator whether he be the narrator
or the sub-narrator. The hadeeth is automatically deemed as Da’eef
(weak).
Now, in this tafseer, the main narrators who directly here it
from the 11th Imaam (AS) are majhool (weak). These people are
equivalent to Aboo BaSeer & Zurarah to our 5th and 6th Imaam
(AS). So for them to be unknown puts the WHOLE tafseer as weak.
Another way you can tell that this Tafseer is fabricated is, our
11th Imaam was surrounded by policemen and under cover agents of
the Abbasid government. Also during the reign of Al-Musta’een our
11th Imaam (AS) was put in prison of ‘Alee ibn Awtamish. It is
almost impossible for someone to be with our 11th Imaam (AS) for so
long to the point that this Tafseer is about 700 pages long! And
for these two people to be considered majhool (unknown) to the
Rijaal authors is really weird!Here are the Caliphs that our 11th
Imaam went through1. Al-Mutawakkil: He hated shee’ahs extremely, he
assumed the role of caliph the same year our 11th Imaam was born
(see: Tareekh Al-Khulafaa by Al-Suyootee). He didn’t live too long.
No praise or kunya coming from him.2. Al-Muntasir: This was the
ONLY caliph who was good to the Shee’ahs, and he didn’t live very
long because the Turks killed him. (See: Tareekh Al-Khulafaa, pg.
357 by Al-Suyootee). Also, in the books of history, there is NO
mention of our 11th Imaam and Al-Muntasir meeting face-to-face, so
that’ll put big doubts into this tradition.3. Al-Musta’een: He
hated our Imaam bitterly, to the point he put our Imaam in prison.
No praise or kunya coming from him.4. Al-Mu’tazz: He hated the our
Imaam (AS) as well. He once tried to assassinate him, but failed.
(See: Dalaa-il Imaamah). He was killed by the Turks over money.5.
Al-Muhtadi: He hated our Imaam (AS) also, he put our 11th Imaam
(AS) in prison. (See: Muhaj Al-Da’waat). He was killed by the turks
also.6. Al-Mu’tamid: Our Imaam (AS) was put into prison ONCE again,
but this time at the hands of Al-Mu’tamid. He hated our Imaam (AS).
He put undercover agents with the Imaam, and remained under heavy
watch. And then he was assassinated by POISON by this caliph.
One of the reasons why he was surrounded by policemen and
undercover agents was because they knew that his (AS) son would be
the awaiting Al-Mahdee (AS) that has been foretold by the Prophet
(SAWAS). Even logically, this tafseer couldn’t be true.
Another way you can tell that this Tafseer is not from our 11th
Imaam (AS) is because the language and manner that this tafseer is
mentioned is not eloquent. If you delve deep into its arabic, you
will see it is not as eloquent as it is suppose to be since it is
coming from one of our Imaams. There is this famous hadeeth in
Al-Kaafi, that I would like to narrate.مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ
أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ
بْنِ أَبِي نَصْرٍ عَنْ جَمِيلِ بْنِ دَرَّاجٍ قَالَ قَالَ أَبُو
عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع أَعْرِبُوا حَدِيثَنَا فَإِنَّا قَوْمٌ
فُصَحَاءTranslation: Once, Abu ‘Abdullah (Ja’far as-Saadiq) said:
“Express our hadeeth (sayings) in a clear manner; (for) we are of
the people of eloquence”Source:1. Al-Kaafi, vol. 1, ch. 17, pg. 52,
hadeeth # 13Grading:1. Al-Majlisi says “SaHeeH”–> Mir’aat
Al-’Uqool, vol. 1, pg. 1822. Bahboodee says “SaHeeH”–> SaHeeH
Al-Kaafi, vol. 1, pg. 7
So it is impossible for this to be attributed to one of our
Imaams, because the language in which it is written is not eloquent
at all.
Scholarly opinion regarding the tafseer:أن الرواية ضعيفة السند
لان التفسير المنسوب إلى العسكري- عليه السلام- لم يثبت بطريق قابل
للاعتماد عليه فان في طريقه جملة من المجاهيل كمحمد بن القاسم
الأسترآبادي، و يوسف بن محمد بن زياد، و علي بن محمد بن سيار فليلاحظ.
هذا إذا أريد بالتفسير المنسوب إلى العسكري- ع- هو الذي ذكره الصدوق
«قده» بإسناده عن محمد بن القاسم الأسترآبادي، و الظاهر أنه مجلد واحد
كما لا يخفى على من لاحظ التفسير الموجود بأيدينا اليومThe narrated
is weak in the sanad because the Tafseer that has been attributed
to Al-Askari wasn’t proven to be as such through a correct way, for
there are several anonymous narrators like Muhammad bin Al-Qaasim
Al-Astraabaadee, Yoosuf bin Muhammad bin Ziyaad, and ‘Alee bin
Muhammad Sayyaar, so one would notice that when Al-Saduq mentions
the tafseer through Mohammed bin Al-Qasim Al-Asterabadi, and it
appears to be a volume long which is what one would observe from
the copy that has reached us todaySource:1. Al-Khoei, TanqeeH fee
SharH Al’Urwah Al-Wuthqaa, vol. 1, pg. 221
أقول: لا بأس بهذا الدليل من حيث الدلالة، و الشواهد الحاليّة تشهد
بصحّة هذا الخبر، فلا وقع للإشكال عليه بأنّ سند هذا الخبر غير خال عن
الضعف؛ لكونه منقولًا عن التفسير المنسوب إلى العسكري عليه السلام، و
لم تثبت النسبةI say: This evidence isn’t all that bad, and there
are other elements that point to the authenticity of this report,
so, it isn’t a problem that this chain is weak because it is
attributed to the Tafseer of Al Askari, and that it shouldn’t
be.Source:1. RiDaa Al-Sadr, Al-Ijtihaad wa Al-Taqleed, pg. 329^^ In
essence he rejects the tafseer, but the hadeeth in discussion is
ONLY authentic because of it being in other places ^^
أنّ التفسير المنسوب إلى العسكري (ع) لم يثبت كونه صادرا من
حضرتهThe Tafseer that is attributed to Al-’Askaree (AS) has not
been proved to be issued by the Imaam (AS).Source:1. Al-Sayfee
Al-Maazandaraanee, Daleel TaHreer Al-Waseelah, pg. vol. 5, pg.
249
Al-Hoor Al-‘Aamilee (compiler of Wasaa-il Al-Shee’ah) has
discussed this tafseer in depth in his book Al-Fuwaa-id
Al-Toosiyyah, in it he shows that this book is mawDoo’ (fabricated)
and da’eef (weak). This is the reason why he has not quotes this
book in his compilation of Wasaa-il.Source:1. Al-Hoor Al-‘Aamilee,
Al-Fuwaa-id Al-Toosiyyah, Ch. 42 – Condition of Tafseer
Al-‘Askaree, pg. 128 – 130
Agha Mahdee Pooya:“This tafseer as it is in our hands now
contains statements like Sayyari’s book should be discredited.
There is no doubt that the eleventh Imaam dictated a brief
commentary of the Qur’an to some of his disciples who had
approached him when he was in Samarrah under house arrest. The
dictation undoubtedly was of great value but it was tampered with
before its publication. The person accused of this profane act is
Ahmad bin Sahl Deebaji.”Source:Agha Pooya, Essence of the Holy
Qur’an, pg. 112
Baaqir Shareef Al-Qarashi:“Anyhow, it is certain that this
tafseer was not Imam Abu Muhammad’s but it was fabricated and
ascribed to him.”Source:Baqir Qarashi, Hayaah Al-‘Askaree, pg.
86
I hope this clarifies for people about this Tafseer that has
been attributed to our 11th Imaam (AS). Thank you.Wa ‘Alaykum
Assalaam
Tafsir al-Qummi was authentic per it’s author
June 7, 2010 at 7:10 am | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts
| Leave a comment
i
1 Votes
Sayyid Ali al-Shahristaniy in his book “The Prohibition of
Recording the Hadith: Causes and Effects ” at page 510 wrote:
`Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummiy, the compiler of the famous book of
Tafsir that carries his name, has confirmed the authenticity of the
Hadiths that he recorded in his book by bearing out that these
Hadiths have been reported by trustworthy narrators from the Holy
Imams.
Waqifiya, Zaydiya in the light of shia narrations
June 5, 2010 at 4:04 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts,
Other people in the light of shia books and scholars | 1
Comment
i
Rate This
Hurr al-Amili in “Wasailu shia” 28/351-352, Majlisi in
“Biharul anwar” 50/274-275,
[ 34943 ] 40 ـ سعيد بن هبة الله الراوندي في ( الخرائج والجرائح )
عن أحمد بن محمد بن مطهر ، قال : كتب بعض أصحابنا إلى أبي محمد ( عليه
السلام ) يسأله عمن وقف على أبي الحسن موسى ( عليه السلام ) ، فكتب :
لا تترحم على عمك وتبرأ منه أنا إلى الله منه بريء ، فلا تتولهم ، ولا
تعد مرضاهم ، ولا تشهد جنائزهم ، ولا تصل على أحد منهم مات أبدا ، من
جحد إماما من الله أو زاد إماما ليست إمامته من الله كان كمن قال : (
إن الله ثالث ثلثة ) إن الجاحد أمر آخرنا جاحد أمر أولنا . . . الحديث
.
40 – Sa`id b. Hibatullah ar-Rawandi in al-Khara’ij wa ‘l-Jara’ih
from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Mutahhar. He said: One of our companions
wrote to Abu Muhammad عليه السلام asking him about waqf upon Abu
‘l-Hasan Musa عليه السلام (waqf: stopping. i.e. one who believed
that Imam Musa al-Kadhim عليه السلام was the Qa’im and denied the
Imamate of his son عليه السلام). So he wrote: Do not ask for mercy
upon your uncle and be quit of him (i.e. renounce him). To Allah I
am quit of him. So do not befriend them, and do not visit
their sick, and do not witness their funerals, and do no pray upon
one who dies from them ever. Whoever denies an Imam from Allah or
adds an Imam whose Imamate is not from Allah is as one who said
“Verily Allah is a third of three” (5:73). Verily a denier of the
affair (or, command) of the last of us is a denier of the affair of
the first of us.
Their other sheikh Muhammad Hassan Jawahiri in his book “Jawahir
al-kalam” 6/67 quoted hadith:
ان الزيدية والواقفة والنصاب بمنزلة واحدة
“Zaydiya, Waqifiyah and Nawaseeb are at the same level”.
Toose in “Ikhiyar marifatol rijal” (2/756), Hurr al-Amili in
“Wasael ush shia” (9/229):
862 – وجدت بخط جبريل بن أحمد في كتابه حدثني سهل بن زياد الادمي
قال : حدثني محمد بن أحمد بن الربيع الأقرع قال : حدثني جعفر بن بكير
قال : حدثني يونس بن يعقوب قال قلت لأبي الحسن الرضا ع : أعطى هؤلاء
الذين يزعمون أن أباك حي من الزكاة شيئا؟ قال : لا تعطهم فإنهم كفار
مشركون زنادقة(chain) from Yunus ibn Yaqub: I said to Abul Hasan
al-Ridha (a): “Shoul I give from zakat something top those who
claim that your father is alive?” He answered: “Don’t give them
indeed they are disbelievers, polytheists and zanadiqah”.
Abu Amr al-Kashi in his rijal quoted imam saying:
409- حمدويه، قال حدثنا يعقوب بن يزيد، قال حدثنا محمد بن عمر، عن
محمد بن عذافر، عن عمر بن يزيد، قال : سألت أبا عبد الله (عليه
السلام) عن الصدقة على الناصب و على الزيدية فقال لا تصدق عليهم بشيء
و لا تسقهم من الماء إن استطعت، و قال لي الزيدية هم النصاب.
409 – Hamdawayh said: Ya`qub b. Yazid narrated to us. He
said: Muhammad b. `Umar b. `Udhafir narrated to us from `Umar b.
Yazid. He said: I asked Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام about
(giving) sadaqa upon the Nasib and the Zaydiyya. So he said:
Do not give sadaqa (of) anything upon them and do not give them to
drink of water if you are able to. And he said to me: The
Zaydiyya, they are the Nassab.
410- محمد بن الحسن، قال حدثني أبو علي الفارسي، قال حكى منصور، عن
الصادق علي بن محمد بن الرضا (عليهم السلام) : أن الزيدية و الواقفة و
النصاب بمنزلة عنده سواء.
410 – Muhammad b. al-Hasan said: Abu `Ali al-Farsi narrated to
me. He said: Mansur related from as-Sadiq `Ali b. Muhammad b.
ar-Ridaعليهم السلام that the Zaydiyya, the Waqifa, and the Nassab
are according to him of an equal status.
411- محمد بن الحسن، قال حدثني أبو علي، عن يعقوب بن يزيد، عن ابن
أبي عمير، عمن حدثه، قال سألت محمد بن علي الرضا (عليه السلام) عن هذه
الآية وُجُوهٌ يَوْمَئِذٍ خاشِعَةٌ عامِلَةٌ ناصِبَةٌ قال :نزلت في
النصاب و الزيدية و الواقفة من النصاب.
411 – Muhammad b. al-Hasan said: Abu `Ali narrated to me from
Ya`qub b. Yazid from Ibn Abi `Umayr from the one who narrated to
him. He said: I asked Muhammad b. `Ali ar-Rida عليه السلام
about this verse “Faces on that day humbled, labouring, toilworn”
(88:2-3). He said: It was revealed about the Nassab and the
Zaydiyya and the Waqifa from the Nassab.
412- حمدويه، قال حدثنا أيوب بن نوح، قال حدثنا صفوان، عن داود بن
فرقد، عن أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) قال : ما أحد أجهل منهم يعني
العجلية، إن في المرجئة فتيا و علما و في الخوارج فتيا و علما، و ما
أحد أجهل منهم.
412 – Hamdawayh said: Ayyub b. Nuh narrated to us. He
said: Safwan narrated to us from Dawud b. Farqad from Abu `Abdillah
عليه السلام. He said: There is no one more ignorant than
them, meaning the `Ijliyya (followers of the Zaydi Harun b. Sa`d
al-`Ijli, close in doctrine to the Batriyya). Verily in the
Murji’a there is youth (or generosity, honorableness) and knowledge
and in the Khawarij there is youth and knowledge. And there
is no one more ignorant than them.
And here compete chapter on zaydiya from book “Rijal
al-Kashi”:
Amazing fact is in shia books of ahadeth are many narrators from
waqafiyah.
Waqafiyah were sect that believed in the immorality of Musa
Kazim, claiming that he would return as a Mahdi before dooms-day.
They also rejected the claim of his son, Ali ar-Rida.
As we can see from above mentioned narrations imams compared
waqifiya to nawaseeb, ugliest sect from the shia point of view. And
nawaseeb were kuffar and najas in accordance to agreed opinion
between imami scholars. Very logical question arise from all of
this, why does shias use to narrate from people who were nawaseeb
in the view of shia aimma? Why does modern rafidah accuse our
scholars for narrating from khawarij, if they very own books of
ahadeth are full with nawaseeb narrators?
Just think about this, obviously it’s another proof that all
shia usool, and in this particular case, usool of hadeth is
nothing but a great joke.
Wa Allahu Alam.
—————————-
1) Surah al-Ghaashiya 2-3.
Insincerity of the Shiites to Ali
May 3, 2010 at 3:15 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts,
Take a few minutes to think on this | 2 Comments
i
1 Votes
Shiites themselves are unaware of the fact that their own Imams
were always condemning and criticising the Shiites for their
constant evil.
Narrated Muhammad, Narrated al-Mughira al-Dhabbi: The nobels of
the Kufans were insincere to Ali. Their hearts were with Muawiyah
because Ali used to give no one more than his due of 2000 Dirham
from the booty, while Muawiyah used to give any nobleman an
additional 2000 Dirham.? (Al-Gharaat: Ibn Hilall al-Thaqafi p.
29)
Narrated Abdul-Malik bin Maysara, from Umara bin Umair saying:
Ali used to have a friend nicked Abu Maryam from al-Madeenah, when
he heard that the people have dispersed away from Ali, came to meet
with him. When Ali [as] saw him, he said: Abu Maryam? He said: yes.
(Ali) said: What came you here to do? He said: I did not come here
for any (material) need, but I was thinking all along, that if you
were installed in charge of this Ummah, you are over qualified. Ali
replied: O Abu Maryam, I am still the same person you have known,
but I am tried with the most wicked people on the face of earth. I
call them, and they don’t follow me, and if I budge to what they
want they disperse away from me? (Ibid, p.44)
Imâm Ja’far is reported as having said:No verse did Allâh reveal
in connection with the Munâfiqîn, except that it is to be found in
those who profess Shî’ism[Abdullâh al-Mâmaqânî, Miqbâs al-Hidâyah
vol. 2p. 407]
It is about them that Imâm Ja’far is reported to have said:No
one bears us greater hatred than those who claim to love us.
(Abdullâh al-Mâmaqânî, Miqbâs al-Hidâyah vol. 2 p. 414 (Mu’assasat?
al-Bayt li-Ihyâ’ at-Turâth, Beirut 1991) quoting from Rijâl
al-Kashshî )
Imam Jaffar also does not rely on his Shiites:Narrated Ali bin
Ibrahim? from Ibn Riab: I heard Abu Abdullah (al-Baqir) saying to
Abu Basir: By Allah, If I can only find three of you to be truly
believers who would conceal my hadith I wont hide any hadith from
them? (al-Kafi: al-Kulayni, vol.2, p.242, Chapter: The Few Number
of Believers.)
Before Husayn, his elder brother Hasan was the victim of the
treacherousness of the Kûfans. In his book al-Ihtijâj the prominent
Shî’î author Abû Mansûr at-Tabarsî has preserved the following
remark of Hasan:By Allâh, I think Mu’âwiyah would be better for me
than these people who claim that they are my Shî’ah.Abû Mansûr
at-Tabarsî, al-Ihtijâj vol. 2 p. 290-291 (Mu’assasat al-A’lamî,
Beirut 1989)
When Hasan eventually became exasperated at the fickleness of
his so-called Shî’ah, he decided to make peace with Mu’âwiyah. When
someone protested to him that he was bringing humiliation upon the
Shî’ah by concluding peace with Mu’âwiyah, he responded by
saying:By Allâh, I handed over power to him for no reason other
than the fact that I could not find any supporters. Had I found
supporters I would have fought him day and night until Allâh
decides between us. But I know the people of Kûfah. I have
experience of them. The bad ones of them are no good to me. They
have no loyalty, nor any integrity in word or deed. They are in
disagreement. They claim that their hearts are with us, but their
swords are drawn against us.
Abû Mansûr at-Tabarsî, al-Ihtijâj vol. 2 p. 290-291 (Mu’assasat
al-A’lamî, Beirut 1989
Before the incident of karbala 18,000 Shiis of kufa pledged
alleigence to Imam hussain,when imam hussain was on his way to Kufa
he recieved the news that his cousin was abandoned by the shiis and
was killed by the yezidi ruffian ubaidullah.ubaidullah at that time
had only 4000 troops,the shiis had greatly outnumbered them,inspite
of that the kufians rejected to join imam hussain and left him all
alone with his family to be maytred in karbala.Karbalâ was not to
be the last act of treason by the Shî’ah against the Family of
Rasûlullâh sallallâhu ‘alayhi wa-âlihî wasallam. Sixty years later
the grandson of Sayyidunâ Husayn, namely Zayd ibn ‘ Alî ibn Husayn,
led an uprising against the Umayyad ruler Hishâm ibn ‘Abd al-Malik.
He received the oaths of allegiance of over 40 000 men, 15 000 of
whom were from the very same Kûfah that deserted his grandfather.
Just before the battle could start they decided upon a whim to ask
his opinion about Abû Bakr and ‘Umar. Zayd answered: “I have never
heard any of my family dissociate himself from them, and I have
nothing but good to say about them.” Upset with this answer, they
deserted him en masse, deciding that the true imâm could only be
his nephew Ja’far as-Sâdiq. Out of 40 000, Zayd was left with only
a few hundred men. On the departure of the defectors he remarked:
“I am afraid they have done unto me as they did to Husayn.” Zayd
and his little army fought bravely and attained martyrdom. Thus, on
Wednesday the 1st of Safar 122 AH another member of the Ahl al-Bayt
fell victim to the treachery of the Shî’ah of Kûfah.6 This time
there could be no question as to whether those who deserted him
were of the Shî’ah or not. The fact that the thousands of Shî’ah
who deserted Zayd ibn ‘Alî looked upon Ja’far as-Sâdiq as their
true Imâm shows that by and large they were the same as the Ithnâ
‘Asharî, or alternatively Imâmî or Ja’farî Shî’ah of today. Why
then, if he had so many devoted followers, did Imâm Ja’far not rise
up in revolt against the Umayyads or the ‘Abbâsids? The answer to
this question is provided in a narration documented by Abû Ja’far
al-Kulaynî in his monumental work al-Kâfî, which enjoys
unparallelled status amongst the hadîth collections of the
Shî’ah:Sudayr as-Sayrafî says: I entered the presence of Abû
‘Abdillâh ‘alayhis salâm and said to him: “By Allâh, you may not
refrain from taking up arms.” He asked: “Why not?” I answered:
“Because you have so many partisans, supporters (Shî’ah) and
helpers. By Allâh, if Amîr al-Mu’minîn (Sayyidunâ ‘Alî) had as many
Shî’ah, helpers, and partisans as you have, Taym (the tribe of Abû
Bakr) and ‘Adî (the tribe of ‘Umar) would never have had designs
upon him.” He asked: “And how many would they be, Sudayr?” I said:
“A hundred thousand.” He asked: “A hundred thousand?” I replied:
“Yes, and two hundred thousand.” He asked again: “Two hundred
thousand?” I replied: “Yes, and half the world.” He remained
silent.
Then he said: “Would you accompany us to Yanbu’?” I replied in
the affirmative. He ordered a mule and a donkey to be saddled. I
quickly mounted the donkey, but he said: “Sudayr, will you rather
let me ride the donkey?” I said: “The mule is more decorous and
more noble as well.” But he said: “The donkey is more comfortable
for me.” I dismounted. He mounted the donkey, I got on the mule,
and we started riding. The time of salâh arrived and he said:
“Dismount, Sudayr. Let us perform salâh.” Then he remarked: “The
ground here is overgrown with moss. It is not permissible to make
salâh here.” So we carried on riding until we came to a place where
the earth was red. He looked at a young boy herding sheep, and
remarked: “Sudayr, by Allâh, if I had as many Shî’ah as there are
sheep here, it would not have been acceptable for me to refrain
from taking up arms.” We then dismounted and performed salâh. When
we were finished I turned back to count the sheep. There were
seventeen of themal-Kulaynî, al-Kâfî (Usûl) vol. 2 p. 250-251 (Dâr
al-Adwâ, Beiru1992)Imâm Mûsâ al-Kâzim, the son of Imâm Ja’far, and
the seventh of the supposed Imâms of the Shî’ah, describes them in
the following words:
If I had to truly distinguish my Shî’ah I would find them
nothing other than pretenders. If I had to put them to the test I
would only find them to be apostates. If I were to scrutinise them
I would be left with only one in a thousand. Were I to sift them
thoroughly I would be left with only the handful that is truly
mine. They have been sitting on cushions all along, saying: ” We
are the Shî’ah of ‘Alî.”al-Kulaynî, Rawdat al-Kâfî vol. 8 p.
288
Bearing of all that in mind it is evident that the worst type of
people surrounded the imams.isnt it possible that these pretenders
could have fabricated out of their own selves concepts like
“imamah”,”high status of ali”,”calling unto the members of the
ahlul bayt”,”infallibality of the ahlul bayt”,”hypocrisy of the
prophet’s companions”,”unfaithfulness of the prophet’s wives”
etc…………and then narrated to others ascribing them as sayings of the
prophet and the ahlul bayt, the next passage sheds more light on
this:Some of the most prolific narrators of the Shi’ah are
Zurarah ibn A`yanMuhammad ibn Muslim at-Ta’ifiAbu Basir Layth
ibn al-Bakhtari al-Muradial-Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar al-Ju’fi
Zurarah ibn A’yan
Sayyid Bahr al-’Ulum states that the family of A’yan, of which
Zurarah was a scion, was the largest Shi’i family of Kufa. (Rijal
as-Sayyid Bahr al-’Ulum, a.k.a al-Fawa’id ar-Rijaliyyah, vol. 1 p.
222)
Zurarah has always posed a problem in Shi’ism, because while is
on the one hand regarded as the most prolific narrator from the
Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq, the Imams are also recorded as having
cursed and excommunicated him. The Shi’ah attempt to reconcile
these two contradictory attitudes through the dubious and
completely unconvincing explanation of taqiyyah by the Imams.
Regarding the wealth of narrations which Zurarah reports, we are
informed by al-Kashshi that had it not been for Zurarah, the
ahadith of al-Baqir would have been lost. (Ikhtiyar Ma’rifat
ar-Rijal vol. 1 p. 345) Sayyid Abul Qasim al-Khu’i has counted 2094
of his narrations in the four books, all of them from the Imams
al-Baqir and as-Sadiq, (al-Khu’i, Mu’jam Rijal al-Hadith vol. 7 p.
249)
On the other hand, al-Kashshi records that Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq
cursed Zurarah. The following quotation is but one of several
places where his cursing of Zurarah is on record:
By Allah, he has ascribed lies to me! By Allah, he has ascribed
lies to me! By Allah, he has ascribed lie