Monthly Archives: July 2012

al-Imamah and the Waqifah Shia


Written by Hani (aka TripolySunni)
Posted by 13S2010

al-Salamu `Aleykum,

This will be a brief discussion or “rant” about the Shia Waqifiyyah sect, just like we previously discussed the Fatahiyyah sect and their problems with Musa bin Ja`far, so let’s see what happened to Musa bin Ja`far’s companions…

Firaq al-Shia by al-Nawbakhti, we read on page 86:

[Then a group of those who took Musa bin Ja`far as their Imam did not differ about him, so they held on to his Imamah until he went to jail for the second time, then they differed on him and doubted his Imamah when he went to jail the second time, until he died in the jail of al-Rasheed so they became five sects.]

This is too funny! What religion is this!?

Subhan-Allah! how they are deluded, at one point he’s their Imam, and they have no doubt about his Imamah, then he goes to jail and they all doubt his Imamah and leave him and form various sects… WHERE ARE THE DIVINE SHIA TEXTS AND HADITH!? What kind of religion is this!? Chaos! Confusion! During the time of the Imams they didn’t know who their Imams are! Can you Imagine!?

Let’s read a little about some of these Shia sects from the following sources: Firaq al Shia pages 79-85, al Fusoul al Mukhtarah page 254 and after it.:

[A group said that he passed away in the prison of al Sindhi bin Hashik, and that Yahya bin Khaled al-Barmaki has poisoned him with some dates and grapes he sent him and that the Imam after him is `Ali al Reda. This team is called al Qat`iyah because they passed his death to the Imamah of al Reda.

A group said that Musa al Kathim did not die and that he is alive and will never die until he rules the east of this earth and its west and fills it with justice like it was filled with oppression and that he is al Qa’em al Mahdi]

Where are the texts that state that the number of Imams is Twelve!? The companions of Musa bin Ja`far differ and form five different sects! Has the Imam not said anything? what is apparent from these narrations is that the companions of the Imams not only did they not know who the Imams were, but they never even knew their number, all this nonsense about “twelve infallibles” the Shia of those days didn’t even know these.

And why wouldn’t he die? is he some kind of Jinn? They made Takfeer on the nation because we do not believe in their Imams while they never knew their OWN Imams. They think Musa will come back and rule the east and the west and fill the earth with justice as it was filled with oppression ALL OF IT DREAMS! Illusions! their `Aqeedah is an Illusion!

Their seventh Imam never dies, and he is al-Qa’em al-Mahdi, WHAT A FAILURE THIS RELIGION IS.

Let’s continue reading:

[he is alive and will never die until he rules the east of this earth and its west and fills it with justice just as it was filled with oppression and that he is al Qa’em al Mahdi,
they claimed that he left the prison and no one saw him on that day neither did they know about him, they said that the Sultan and his comrades only claimed his
death as a diversion and they lied to the people]

Which reminds me of the story of the Twelver Shia in our days, because everyone knew that the 11th Imam never had a son, nor did anyone report that his wife was even pregnant, so what did the Twelver Shia do? they invented narrations saying that the Imams are not born like average humans, they are born from the thighs of their mothers since they are pure, and they are born in one day not in nine months like average children, and that when he was born he grew up in one day like an average human would grow up in one month, then he left his house and ran away and no one saw him and he is still alive until this day and he shall appear and fill the earth with justice as it was filled with oppression… the same scenario we see it here, by the same lying Shia.

But do you know something? I’d rather believe the story of these Shia who believed that Musa was the Mahdi rather than believe the story of the Twelver Shia of our days, at least those Shia can prove that Musa bin Ja`far exists, and their story is much less ridiculous try comparing the two and see for yourself.

we continue…

[they said he was occluded(Ghaybah) from the people and he disappeared AND THEY NARRATED NARRATIONS ABOUT THIS FROM HIS FATHER al-Sadiq, that he said: “He(Musa) is al Qa’em al Mahdi and if his head fell down from atop a mountain do not believe this as he is al Qa’em.]

Subhan-Allah! they claimed occultation or Ghaybah for their seventh Imam! now you know where the stupid idea of “Ghaybah” came from, these ridiculous beliefs have been around since the year 183 hijri, who knows maybe even before it because they claimed Mahdawiyyah for many people not just Musa bin Ja`far.

Not only that, these people were all living in Kufa and were all narrating narrations from the infallible Imams to support their beliefs, especially Ja`far al-Sadiq who lived in Madinah among Ahlul-Sunnah. Of course you won’t find many of these narrations today, only bits and scraps since certain other Shia sects never agreed with them.

we continue…

[Some of those said: He is al Qa’em and he died, The Imamah is for no one other than him until his return then they claimed that he returned after his death but he
has disappeared and is in occultation in some land and he is alive and that his companions(emissaries) meet up with him and see him, they used narrations from his father to prove this
such as: “Al Qa’em is called a Qa’em because he makes Qiyam after he dies” (Qiyam meaning he rises after his death).]

Forget about the names of the twelve Imams, where the heck are the narrations about the number of Imams!? it is extremely obvious that the Shia had no idea that the number was even supposed to be Twelve!
More importantly look at the silly Shia stories, the same thing over and over, they claimed that the man is alive, he is the Mahdi, he has disappeared in some location, and only his close companions and “emissaries” can meet up with him, WAKE UP YA SHIA!

more…

[Others amongst them said: he has died and he is al Qa’em and he is like the prophet of Allah `Isa bin Mariam (as), He will not return until his time when

he shall fill the earth with justice as it was filled with oppression, they claimed that Allah said: “He has a likeness to `Isa bin Mariam and he will die by the hands of the children
of bani al-Abbas” and he did die.]

Allahu Akbar! It’s as if you’re debating a Shia online, the same exact lame arguments and the same back-wards retarded logic as their ancestors, you ask them: “How is it that he is still alive for all this time?” they respond: “Isn’t prophet `Isa still alive.” May Allah destroy the deviants and wipe out the deviance!

more…

[Some of them denied his death saying: “He died and Allah raised him to himself and he shall return him in the time of his Qiyam”. All of these teams were called
al-Waqifah because they made Wuquf(meaning they stopped) at Musa bin Ja’afar and claimed that he was the Mahdi, they never took an Imam after him and never passed from his
Imamah to the others after him, some of those who had claimed that he was alive said: “al-Reda and those who raised after him are not Imams but they are Caliphs one after
the other until the time when He(Musa) shall rise again.”]

And these my friends are the Waqifi Shia, and these guys unlike their Fatahi Shia brothers did not add extra Imams, instead they subtracted Imams and denied the Imamah of almost half of the standard twelver Shia Imams.

more…

[And the Waqifah were given a name by some of their opponents who believed in the Imamah of `Ali bin Musa, they called them al-Mamtourah, and this name became famous and
they were known by it, this is because `Ali bin Isma`eel al-Maythami and Yunis bin `Abdul-Rahman debated each-other, and when the discussion became heated ibn Isma`eel said to Yunis:
“You are nothing more than Mamtourah(wet) dogs!” .. He meant that they were filthier than rotten corpses, because if the dogs were exposed to rain they become filthier than a rotten corpse
(….ect…) and this title was exclusive to the companions of Musa bin Ja`far.]

So the Shia were debating each-other, the companions of al-Reda VS the companions of al-Kazim, and it seems that the Waqifah had some really strong arguments and it angered the companions of al-Reda so they started to illustrate those “Akhlaq of Ahlul-Bayt” and he called him a wet dog. of course they had to debate, they couldn’t just all go to `Ali bin Musa and ask him “Are you the Imam?” and then he’d perform a miracle or answer 30,000 questions in one sitting in order to prove that he was an infallible divinely appointed Imam.

Now check out this group here because they’re amazing…

[A group said: We do not know whether he is alive or dead because we narrated a lot of narrations that state that he was al Qa’em al Mahdi and it is impermissible to say they were lies, we have also received the news of the death of his father and grandfathers before him and it is also impermissible to reject these famous clear narrations, death is truth and Allah does what he wills so we stopped from rejecting his death and confirming his life]

This is a Religion!? Seriously, is this a Religion!? What kind of belief is this!? Imagine if the Muslims went to the Kouffar of Quraysh and told them “We have received guidance ad revelation from the prophet of God.” and the Kouffar would say: “Where is your Prophet?” The Muslims will say: “Well… we don’t know, we’re not sure if he’s alive or dead.”

By Allah, is this a religion!? and notice what they said “We narrated a lot of narrations that state that he was al Qa’em al-Mahdi” so I want to address a question to al-Kulayni the author of al-Kafi, I ask: Where are those narrations you filthy pig!!? Where are the narrations you lying Zindeeq!!?

I want the Shia to read this and I want the Shia to know, that these people, these Shia sects, they ALL had plenty of narrations which they claimed that they received from the infallible Imams just like you do.

Let’s see what they decided to do…

[They said: we are still following his(Musa’s) Imamah and we will not accept another Imam until we verify the truthfulness of what he claims – they mean `Ali bin Musa al Reda – If we find truth in his Imamah like the Imamah of his father before him with the proofs and the signs of the Imam in which he confirms it for himself and confirms his father’s death and Not from news and narrations coming from those who claim to be his companions, then we will submit to him and believe him.]

Did you read? “And NOT from the news and narrations of those who claim to be his companions”, I SWEAR TO GOD That the Shia knew they were liars, they knew that all those claiming to be the “companions” of this Imam or that Imam are a bunch of un-trustworthy liars who would fabricate narrations to support their opinions and corrupt beliefs. This is why they would only accept if they heard it from the Imam’s mouth not from his companion’s “narrations”.

So we will stop here, and there are other groups that emerged but I don’t want to waste any more time, we will just stick to the Waqifiyyah and talk about them briefly after we learned about their origins and beliefs.

Ibrahim ibn `Abdul-Hameed, he is a Waqifi who believes in all the things we listed above, what did they say about him?

al-Tusi says in al-Fehrest pg.40:

إبراهيم بن عبدالحميد ثقة، له أصل أخبرنا به أبو عبداللّه محمد بن محمد بن النعمان المفيد

 [Ibrahim bin `Abdul-Hameed, Thiqah, he wrote an Asl, abu `Abdullah Muhammad bin Muhammad bin al-Nu`man al-Mufid told us about it.]

al-Tusi says in his Rijal pg.332:

إبراهيم بن عبد الحميد واقفى

[Ibrahim bin `Abdul-Hameed, Waqifi.]

So this man, is a Waqifi, and he wrote one of their Shia 400 Usool, meaning they are relying in their most fundamental beliefs on an Asl written by a Waqifi. It is as if the Muslims would rely on a book of Hadith written by a Twelver Shia, this is how ridiculous it is.

We explained what these Usool are in a previous thread and we repeat: The Shia Usool are basically 400 books of Hadiths written by the companions of al-Sadiq and al-Baqir.

on pg.351 he says:

إبراهيم بن عبدالحميد من أصحاب أبي عبد اللّه عليه السلام، أدرك الرضا عليه السلام، ولم يسمع منه على قول سعد بن عبداللّه: واقفى، له كتاب

[Ibrahim bin `Abdul-Hameed, from the companions of abu `Abdullah (as), also lived in the time of al-Reda (as) and did not hear from him, according to the saying of Sa`ad bin `Abdullah: Waqifi, he has a book.]

al-Najashi says:

إبراهيم بن عبدالحميد الاسدى، مولاهم، كوفي

[Ibrahim bin `Abdul-Hameed al-Asadi, Mawlahum, Kufi]

Means he is the Mawla and companion of al-Baqir and al-Sadiq, and he is from al-Kufa in `Iraq.

According to al-Tusi, he was from the trustworthy companions of al-Sadiq, he was such a big scholar that he wrote one of their main 400 fundamental Shia Usool, and he lived in the time of al-Reda but didn’t hear narrations from him… and he was a Waqifi!

So we ask, how is it that such a great and knowledgeable, trustworthy companion of the Imams, doesn’t know who the Imams are, or even their number? because the Waqifah obviously did not believe that the number of Imams was twelve. Was there no one in Kufa to tell this great figure that the infallible says that the number of Imams is twelve?

From the Waqifah is also Ishaq ibn Jarir, al-Najashi says:

إسحاق بن جرير بن يزيد بن جرير بن عبد الله البجلي، أبو يعقوب، ثقة، روى عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام، ذكر ذلك أبو العباس.

[Ishaq bin Jarir bin Yazid bin Jarir bin `Abdullah al-Bajali, Thiqah, narrated from abu `Abdillah (as), abu al-`Abbas mentioned it.]

Tusi in his Fehrest p.54-55:

إسحاق بن جرير.
له أصل، أخبرنا به ابن أبي جيد، عن ابن الوليد، عن الصفار، عن أحمد ابن محمد بن عيسى، عن الحسن بن محبوب، عن إسحاق بن جرير.

[Ishaq bin Jarir, wrote an Asl, we were told about it by ibn abi Jeed, from ibn al-Walid, from al-Saffar, from Ahmad bin Muhammad bin `Isa, from al-Hassan bin Mahboub from Ishaq bin Jarir]

Tusi in his Rijal, pg.332:

24 – إسحاق بن جرير، واقفي.

[Ishaq bin Jarir, Waqifi.]

al-Khoei said in his Mu`jam al-Rijal in his Tarjamah, vol3 pg.200:

عدّه المفيد في رسالته العددية من الفقهاء الاعلام، والرؤساء المأخوذ عنهمالحلال والحرام والفتيا والاحكام، الذين لا يطعن عليهم ولا طريق إلى ذمّ واحد منهم.

[al-Mufid in his “al-Resalah al-`Adadiyah” considered him from the scholars and jurists, and from the leaders that the matters of Halal and Haram should be taken from them, and the Fatwas(verdicts) and Ahkam(rulings) should be taken from them, and that his likes must not be attacked nor should anyone criticize them.]

Imagine, a trustworthy companion of al-Sadiq, who narrates his Ahadith, and wrote one of the Usool, is a Waqifi and does not believe in the Imamah of `Ali al-Reda or his children including the 12th Mahdi, instead he believes in the 7th Mahdi.

Another Waqifi is abu `Abdullah ibn Thabit, al-Khoei said in his Mu`jam vol.22 pg.240:

14501: أبو عبداللّه بن ثابت: تقدّم في ترجمة حميد بن زياد أنه ثقة، ومن رجال الواقفة.

[abu `Abdullah bin Thabit: As stated previously in the Tarjamah of Humayd bin Ziyad that he is a Thiqah, from the men of the Waqifah.]

So let us return to the Tarjamah of Humayd bin Ziyad in al-Khoei’s Mu`jam vol.7 pg.303:

قال أبو غالب الزرادي في رسالته إلى ولده ص 189: ” وسمعت من حميد ابن زياد وأبي عبد الله ابن ثابت، وأحمد بن رماح وهؤلاء من رجال الواقفة، إلا أنهم كانوا فقهاء ثقات في حديثهم كثيري الدراية

[abu Ghalib al-Zurari said in his Resalah to his son, pg.189: “I heard(narrations) from Humayd ibn Ziyad and abu `Abdullah ibn Thabit, and Ahmad bin Ramah and they are from the men of the Waqifah, although they were reliable jurists in their narrations with vast understanding.]

As you’ve just seen these men have gathered two important qualities, the trustworthiness of their narrations, the second quality is their Dirayah or in other words the accurate understanding of religious texts, so notice how these men are being described, and then think about the fact that they lived and died with the Imams, narrated from the Imams, and never knew the Imams.

Why do the Shia scholars say “There is no way to criticize them?” why don’t they quote their favorite narration about people going to hell if they never knew the Imam of their time?

Another one is Ahmad bin abi Bishr al-Sarraj, al-Najashi says in his Rijal:

أحمد بن أبي بشر السرّاج: كوفي، مولى، يكنّى أبا جعفر، ثقة في الحديث، واقف، روى عن موسى بن جعفر عليه السلام، وله كتاب نوادر

[Ahmad bin abi Bishr al-Sarraj: Kufi, Mawla, his Kuniyah is abu Ja`far, Thiqah in Hadith, Waqif, narrated from Musa bin Ja`far (as), and he has a book of Nawadir.]

Keep in mind we’re not talking about dumb ignorant laypeople, these are great scholars of Usool and they supposedly laid the foundations of the entire Shia Madhab, they have narrated directly from the Imams and had a very good understanding of what they were talking about.

Another guy, Ahmad bin al-Hassan bin Isma`eel, al-Najashi says:

أحمد بن الحسن بن إسماعيل بن شعيب بن ميثم التمّار، مولى بني أسد. قال أبو عمرو الكشّي: كان واقفاً، وذكر هذا عن حمدويه، عن الحسن بن موسى الخشّاب، قال: أحمد بن الحسن واقف، وقد روى عن الرضا عليه السلام، وهو على كلّ حال ثقة، صحيح الحديث، معتمد عليه، له كتاب النوادر.

[Ahmad bin al-Hassan bin Isma`eel bin Shu`ayb bin Maytham al-Tammar, Mawla bani Asad. abu `Amro al-Kishshi said: He was a Waqifi, and he mentioned it from Hamdaweih, from al-Hassan bin Musa al-Khashshab, he said: He narrated from al-Reda (as), and he is a Thiqah eitherway, his Hadith is Sahih and relied upon, he has a book of Nawadir.]

al-Khoei said in his Tarjamah #489:

عدّه الشيخ في رجاله من أصحاب الكاظم عليه السلام (30)، قائلاً: (أحمد ابن الحسن الميثمي، واقفى).

[al-Sheikh(Tusi) counted him among the companions of al-Kazim (as) he said: “Ahmad bin al-Hassan al-Maythami, Waqifi.”]

Notice dear reader that the man is a Waqifi, he does not believe in the Imamah of al-Reda, yet he narrates Ahadith from al-Reda!

Also we mention Humayd ibn Ziyad, al-Najashi said:

حميد بن زياد بن حماد بن حماد بن زياد، هوارا الدهقان أبو القاسم، كوفي سكن سورا وانتقل إلى نينوى – قرية على العلقمي إلى جنب الحائر على صاحبه السلام – كان ثقة واقفا وجها فيهم، سمع الكتب وصنف كتاب الجامع في أنواع الشرائع، كتاب الخمس، كتاب الدعاء، كتاب الرجال، كتاب من روى عن الصادق عليه السلام، وكتاب الفرائض، كتاب الدلائل، كتاب ذم من خالف الحق وأهله، كتاب فضل العلم والعلماء، كتاب الثلاث والاربع، كتاب النوادر وهو كتاب كبير. أخبرنا أحمد بن علي بن نوح، قال: حدثنا الحسين بن علي بن سفيان، قال: قرأت على حميد بن زياد كتابه كتاب الدعاء، وأخبرنا الحسين بن عبيد الله، قال: حدثنا أحمد بن جعفر بن سفيان، عن حميد بكتبه. قال: قال أبو المفضل الشيباني: أجازنا سنة عشرة وثلاثمائة، وقال أبو الحسن علي بن حاتم: لقيته سنة ست وثلاثمائة، وسمعت منه كتابه الرجال قراءة وأجاز لنا كتبه، ومات حميد سنة عشر وثلاثمائة

[Humayd bin Ziyad bin Hamad bin Hamad bin Ziyad, Hawara al-Dahqan abu al-Qassem, from Kufah, he moved to (the village) Ninawa, he was a Thiqah, a Waqifi, from the best. He heard the books and wrote Kitab al-Jami` fi Anwa` al-Shara’i` (…until he says…) abu al-Hassan `Ali bin Hatim said: I met him in the year 306 hijri, and heard from him his book of Rijal which he read to us and gave us Ijazah to his books, and he died in the year 310 hijri]

I want the Shia to notice before the Muslims, these Shia groups and religions we’re talking about, they aren’t just small groups that appeared for two or three years then disappeared, this man was one of the major scholars of the Shia in his time and one of their greatest of all times, and he died when? he died in 310 after Hijrah! Musa al-Kazim had died around 180 after Hijra, and when was the time of occultation or Ghaybah of your supposedly 12th Imam? it was around 260 after Hijrah, so this Shia Waqifi scholar died during the time of Ghaybah of your “Mahdi” and he never believed that he existed nor did he believe that there was a 12th Imam!

al-Tusi says in his Rijal:

عالم جليل، واسع العلم كثير التصانيف

[Dignified scholar, with vast knowledge and lots of books]

Will the Shia readers PLEASE concentrate and think about what is being said in their books? if you check a-Tusi’s Fehrest you will realize that this man narrated a lot of your Usool and books of Hadith, yet he still remains a Waqifi, WHY!? Did he not come across the narrations about the names of the Imams!? Did he not come across the narrations which mention the number of Imams!? surely if these narrations existed then they must have reached him.

This is from al-Fehrest:

حميد بن زياد، من أهل نينوى، قرية إلى جانب الحائر على ساكنه السلام، ثقة، كثير التصانيف، روى الأصول أكثرها، له كتب كثيرة على عدد كتب الأصول.
[Humayd ibn Ziyad, from the people of Ninawa, Thiqah, with lots of works, narrated most of the Usool, he has many books, as much as the number of Usool.]

Without a doubt the best Shia scholar of his time, he was aware of almost every single narration from the Imams as well as the men who narrated them since he had a book of Rijal, yet he never believed in the 12 Imams.

Another Waqifi, Idris ibn al-Fadl, al-Najashi says in his Rijal pg.103-104:

إدريس بن الفضل بن سليمان الخولاني أبو الفضل كوفي، واقف، ثقة، له كتاب الأدب،كتاب الطهارة، كتاب الصلاة.
[Idris bin al-Fadl bin Suleiman al-Khawalani abu al-Fadl al-Kufi, Waqif, Thiqah, he has a book of Adab, a book of Taharah, and a book of Salat.]

So this is another “wet dog” who is a Thiqah according to the Twelvers.

Now al-Hassan bin Muhammad bin Sama`ah, al-Tusi says in al-Fehrest:

33 – الحسن بن محمد بن سماعة الكوفي، واقفي المذهب، الا انه
جيد التصانيف، نقي الفقه، حسن الانتقاد. وله ثلاثون كتابا، منها: كتاب القبلة، كتاب الصلاة، كتاب الصيام، كتاب الشراء والبيع، كتاب الفرائض، كتاب النكاح، كتاب الطلاق، كتاب الحيض، كتاب وفاة أبي عبد الله عليه السلام، كتاب الطهور، كتاب السهو، كتاب المواقيت، كتاب الزهد، كتاب البشارات، كتاب الدلائل، كتاب العبادات، كتاب الغيبة.
ومات ابن سماعة سنة ثلاث وستين ومائتين في جمادي الأولى
[al-Hassan bin Muhammad bin Sama`ah al-Kufi, his Madhab is Waqifi, be he has good books, pure Fiqh, and good comments. he has thirty books, from them: Kitab al-Qiblah, Kitab al-Siyam, Kitab al-Salat, (…ect…) Book on the death of abi `Abdillah (as), book of Tuhour, book of Sahu, book of Mawaqit, book of Zuhd, book of Bisharat, book of Dala’el, book of `Ibadat, book of Ghaybah.
And ibn Sama`ah died in the year 263 after Hijrah, during the month of Jamadi al-Awwal.]

al-Najashi says in his Rijal pg.40-41:

الحسن بن محمد بن سماعة أبو محمد الكندي الصيرفي من شيوخ الواقفة كثير الحديث فقيه ثقة وكان يعاند في الوقف ويتعصب.
[al-Hassan bin Muhammad bin Sama`ah abu Muhammad al-Kindi al-Sayrafi, from the scholars of the Waqifah, narrates a lot of Hadith, a Faqih(jurtist), a Thiqah, and he used to be a stubborn extreme Waqifi.]

And you should read why they say that he was stubborn, it’s written in al-Najashi and al-Khoei’s Mu`jam, a very funny story about the 10th Shia Imam knowing the future and the time of death of some people, and then some guy informs ibn Sama`ah of this story so he denies that anyone could know such things thus they started saying he was a stubborn Waqifi… because he denied an un-Islamic story by some guy they branded him as an “extremist stubborn Waqifi.”

Same story again, another renowned trustworthy Shia scholar, dies in the time of the Ghaybah of the 12th Imam and doesn’t even believe in him, where are the narrations of the Imams? when the renowned jurists and Fuqaha’ and Muhaddiths of the Shia, who transmitted the narrations of Ahlul-Bayt to the likes of Kulayni and Saduq, and lived in the time of the Imams never knew who the Imams were or their number?

Now al-Hanan ibn Sadeer, al-Jawahiri said in al-Mufid min Mu`jam Rijal a-Hadith:

4102 – 4101 – 4110 – حنان بن سدير: بن حكيم بن صهيب، أبو الفضل الصيرفي، واقفي – ثقة – من أصحاب الصادق، والكاظم (ع) – روى في كامل الزيارات – روى في تفسير القمي
[Hanan bin Sadeer: bin Hakeem bin Suhayb, abu al-Fadl al-Sayrafi, Waqifi – Thiqah – from the companions of al-Sadiq and al-Kazim (as) – narrated in Kamil al-Ziyarat – narrated in Tafseer al-Qummi]

Trustworthy companion of two Imams, narrates their Ahadith, and doesn’t know the names or number of Imams.

Dawood ibn Hosayn, al-Khoei talks about him in his Mu`jam #4391:

قال النجاشي: داود بن حصين الاسدى: مولاهم، كوفى، ثقة، روى عن أبي عبد اللّه وأبي الحسن عليهما السلام
[al-Najashi said: Dawood ibn Hosayn al-Asadi: their Mawla, Kufi, Thiqah, narrated from abu `Abdillah (as) and abu al-Hassan (as)]

Then al-Khoei states what al-Tusi says in his regard:

وعدّه في رجاله مع توصيفه بالكوفي في أصحاب الصادق عليه السلام (14) وفي أصحاب الكاظم عليه السلام (5) قائلاً: واقفى.
[And he(Tusi) counted him in his Rijal as a Kufi from the companions of al-Sadiq (as) and al-Kazim (as), saying: Waqifi.]

Masha-Allah these companions of the Imams are receiving some major guidance it seems.

Zur`ah bin Muhammad, al-Khoei states the opinions of the scholars in his Tarjamah #4676:

قال النجاشي: زرعة بن محمد أبو محمد الحضرمى، ثقة، روى عن أبي عبد اللّه،وأبي الحسن عليهما السلام، وكان صحب سماعة، وأكثر عنه ووقف.
[al-Najashi said: Zur`ah bin Muhammad abu Muhammad al-Hadrami, Thiqah, narrated from abu `Abdillah (as) and abu al-Hassan (as), he accompanied Sama`ah and narrated a lot from him, and he made Wuquf]

Then al-Khoei reports the opinion of al-Tusi:

…وقال الشيخ (315): (زرعة بن محمد الحضرمى: واقفي المذهب، له أصل أخبرنا به عدّة من أصحابنا، عن محمد بن علي بن بابويه، عن أبيه
وكيف كان فقد عدّه الشيخ في رجاله من أصحاب الصادق عليه السلام (98) وفي أصحاب الكاظم عليه السلام (2) قائلاً: واقفى.
[al-Sheikh(Tusi) said: Zur`ah bin Muhammad al-Hadrami: His Madhab is Waqifi, he wrote an Asl, We were told about it by some of our companions, from Muhammad bin `Ali bin Babaweih, from his father (ect…)
And eitherway, the Sheikh(Tusi) has counted him in his Rijal among the companions of al-Sadiq (as) and the companions of al-Kazim (as), saying: Waqifi.]

Another of the trustworthy companions of the Imams and a knowledgeable scholar of Shia Hadith who wrote one of their Usool is a Waqifi who doesn’t know the names or numbers of Imams.

Ziyad bin Marwan al-Qandi, al-Jawahiri summarizes the opinion of al-Khoei in al-Mufid min al-Mu`jam:

4802 – 4801 – 4811 – زياد بن مروان: أبو الفضل – من أصحاب الصادق، والكاظم (ع) – روى عن أبي عبد الله وأبي الحسن (ع) وقف على
الرضا (ع) قاله النجاشي – من أركان الواقفة – له كتاب – خبيث جحد حق الرضا (ع) لكن مع ذلك هو ثقة – روى في كامل الزيارات – روى 13 رواية، منها عن أبي الحسن، وأبي إبراهيم (ع)
[Ziyad bin Marwan: abu al-Fadl – from the companions of al-Sadiq and al-Kazim (as) – narrated from abu `Abdillah and abu al-Hassan (as), made Wuquf on al-Reda (as) as stated by al-Najashi. He is from the pillars of the Waqifah – has a book – He is evil, he rejected the right of al-Reda (as) but nonetheless he remains a Thiqah – narrated in Kamil al-Ziyarat – 13 narrations from abu al-Hassan and abu Ibrahim (as)]

They say the man is EVIL and he outright rejected the divine right of al-Reda (as) but for some reason he is a Thiqah, WHY? go to his Tarjamah in Mu`jam Rijal al-Hadith of al-Khoei #4811 and you’ll read:

وقول الحسن بن محبوب: أنه مات زنديقاً ولكنه مع ذلك ثقة لاجل أنّ كتابه من الاصول
[And the saying of al-Hassan bin Mahboub: He died as a Zindeeq but he remains a Thiqah because the book he wrote is from the Usool.]

Allahu Akbar! The Twelver Shia are taking the fundamentals of their religion and Hadith from an EVIL ZINDEEQ!!!

Now this next guy has the exact same beliefs, but for some reason he is not an Evil Zindeeq, `Abdul-Kareem bin `Amro al-Khath`ami, we read in his Tarjamah by al-Khoei #6629:

قال النجاشي: عبدالكريم بن عمرو بن صالح الخثعمى، مولاهم، كوفى، روى عن أبي عبداللّه وأبي الحسن عليهما السلام، ثم وقف على أبي الحسن عليه السلام! كان ثقة ثقة عيناً، يلقّب كرام.
[al-Najashi said: `Abdul-Kareem bin `Amro bin Saleh al-Khath`ami, their Mawla, Kufi, narrated from abu `Abdullah (as) and abu al-Hassan (as), then made Wuquf on abu al-Hassan (as)! He was a Thiqah Thiqah `Ayn, had the title of Karram.]

This guy is not an evil Zindeeq, instead he is extremely trustworthy and reliable described by Najashi as “Thiqah Thiqah `Ayn”! from the companions of al-Sadiq and al-Kazim yet he believes Musa al-Kazim was the Mahdi and rejects the Imamah of `Ali al-Reda.

What a “clear” religion, the least we can say is that if AT LEAST these Shia knew that the number of Imams was twelve they wouldn’t believe in what they believe.

al-Hassan bin `Ali al-Ta’ee known as al-Tatiri, al-Tusi says about him in his Fehrest:

17 – علي بن الحسن الطاطري الكوفي 1، كان واقفيا شديد العناد في مذهبه، صعب العصبية على من خالفه من الامامية. وله كتب كثيرة في نصرة مذهبه، وله كتب في الفقه، رواها عن الرجال الموثوق بهم وبرواياتهم، فلأجل ذلك ذكرناها، منها: كتاب الحيض، وكتاب المواقيت، وكتاب القبلة، وكتاب فضائل أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام، وكتاب الصداق، وكتاب النكاح، وكتاب الولاية، وكتاب المعرفة، وكتاب الفطرة، وكتاب حجج الطلاق، وقيل: إنها أكثر من ثلاثين كتابا.
[`Ali bin al-Hassan al-Tatiri al-Kufi, he was a Waqifi very stubborn in his Madhab, very extreme against those who oppose him from the Imamiyyah. Has many books to support his Madhab, and books in Fiqh, which he narrated from the trustworthy narrators, which is why we mentioned from them: Book of Hayd, book of Mawaqeet, book of Qiblah, book of virtues of Ameer al-Mumineen (as), book of Sadaq, book of Nikah, book of Wilayah, (ect…) And it is said: they are more than thirty books.]

al-Jawahiri said in al-Mufeed:

8016 – 8014 – 8028 – علي بن الحسن بن محمد الطائي: الجرمي المعروف بالطاطري من أصحاب الكاظم (ع) – ثقة – من وجوه الواقفة وشيوخهم قاله النجاشي
[`Ali bin al-Hassan bin Muhammad al-Ta’ee: al-Jurami, known as al-Tatiri from the companions of al-Kazim (as) -Thiqah – from the best of the Waqifah and their scholars as stated by Najashi.]

This shia Faqih is so trustworthy that he doesn’t believe in the last five Imams including the Mahdi and wrote books to prove that al-Kazim was the last Imam and the Mahdi.

Ghalib bin `Uthman al-Munqari, al-Jawahiri placed him in his Mufeed:

9259 – 9258 – 9277 – غالب بن عثمان: واقفي من أصحاب الكاظم (ع) له كتاب، قاله الشيخ وطريقه اليه صحيح – روى 21 رواية، منها عن
أبي عبد الله (ع) – روى في كامل الزيارات – متحد مع لاحقه الثقة -.
9260 – 9259 – 9278 – غالب بن عثمان المنقري: مولى كوفي سمال بمعنى كحال – ثقة – من أصحاب الصادق (ع) – روى عن أبي عبد الله (ع) قاله
النجاشي – له كتاب – وذكره الشيخ قائلا ” غالب بن عثمان المنقري مولاهم السمال الكوفي ” – متحد مع سابقه.
[Ghalib bin `Uthman: Waqifi from the companions of al-Kazim (as), he has a book (ect…)
Ghalib bin `Uthman al-Munqari: Mawla Kufi, Samal meaning Kahhal, – Thiqah – from the companions of al-Sadiq (as), narrated from abu `Abdillah (as) as stated by Najashi…]

Another trustworthy Shia who narrates from two Imams and accompanies them and writes their Hadith, yet knows nothing about the Imams.

One last small example, Muhammad bin Bakr bin Janah, al-Jawahiri said:

10321 – 10316 – 10343 – محمد بن بكر بن جناح: أبو عبد الله كوفي مولى – ثقة – من أصحاب الكاظم (ع) – له كتاب – واقفي – روى عدة روايات – و هو غير بكر بن محمد بن جناح
[Muhammad bin Bakr bin Janah: abu `Abdullah, Kufi, Mawla -Thiqah – from the companions of al-Kazim (as) – He has a book – Waqifi – narrated several narrations – and he is not Bakr bin Muhammad bin Janah]

Enough examples from the Waqifi Shia, now to conclude…

Whether we are talking about the Fatahiyyah which we previously discussed or the Waqifiyyah which we just discussed above, we can’t help but notice that these men are all together in Kufa, all living at the same time, all hearing the exact same stories or narrations which circulated in Kufa, yet we see this major difference, and they have accompanied al-Sadiq and his father or his son and we all know that al-Sadiq narrated almost all the narrations of the twelver Shia, maybe around 23,000 narrations in their books, so all of these narrations were available at the time, even though the Shia were in Kufa and the Imams were in Madinah and even though the Shia scholars keep claiming that they were times of Taqqiyah, yet this huge load of narrations traveled from Madinah to Kufa in some way as they claim, and these Shia had access to these same narrations, especially the renowned scholars among them and the companions of the Imams… So how come it appears to me that the Shia of those days had absolutely no idea about who the Imams are, and what was their number!?

May Allah save us from following our desires and our own hand-made religions.

4 Comments

Filed under Articles, History, Revealing Shia sect

Inheritance in the Qur’an (Fadak related)


Written by Farid
Posted by 13S2010

بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

Bismillah alrahman alraheem,

The follow is some material from a very useful book called Difa’an ‘an Al-Aal wal As’haab (p. 260). It goes without saying that this was originally in Arabic, but it was so useful to me, that I could not help but translate some of the content. I will be skipping some parts due to the length, so those that know Arabic should return to the original.

Rough translation:

Even though the differences between Abu Bakr and Fatima (raa) was one in which both parties saw themselves as correct, it was the sensitivity of some in regards to Abu Bakr causes them to look at things differently, which is the problem for it will be used for the sake of the condemnation of Al-Siddique.

If we were to switch the characters in the story (Abu Bakr and Fatima) to two fuqaha or two marji’s then both would have their status without any such condemnation or accusation due to intentions, and we’d look at both with respect and appreciation since both have evidences for their arguments, even though one has the stronger evidence. However, the case here is different. Abu Bakr is an enemy to some, and since that is the case, then all evil is from him, and all his opinions are mistakes, and that is how (they) measure these issues. (They) measure with emotions that cannot be used to settle between any two people, so how can that be used when studying Islamic history and shari’ah?!

The objective person will not be led by emotions, but to truth wherever it may be. He will stand, and reflect, to put the dots on the letters, for Fadak is one of two things: It is either the inheritance of the Prophet (pbuh) to Fatima, or a gift that he gave her on Khaibar…

[Author goes on to quote narration.]

As for the authenticity (of the narration of “the prophets do not leave an inheritance”) among Ahlul Sunnah is known and doesn’t need clarification, and as for the Shias, then here it is:

Al-Kulayni narrated in Al-Kafi from Abi Abdullah, he said: The Prophet (pbuh) said, “The scholars are the inheritors of the prophets, and the prophets did not leave a dinar or a dirham, but they left knowledge…

[Author quotes Al-Majlisi’s authentication from Mira’at Al-Uqool (1/111) and Khomaini’s reliance on the hadith in Al-Hukooma Al-Islamiya (93).]

The usage of the evidence that Allah said about Zakariya, “Oh, give me from Thy presence a successor, Who shall inherit of me and inherit (also) of the house of Jacob.” (Maryam 5-6) is a strange one that lacks the logic from all the necessary aspects for the following reasons.

Firstly: It does not fit a pious man to ask Allah for a son to inherit his money, so how can we expect this meaning to be attributed to the Prophet Zakariya (as) in that he would ask Allah for a son to inherit his money?! Rather, the pious ask for offspring that will benefit them on the day of judgement, so Zakariya wanted Allah to give him a son that would carry on the prophethood after him, and inherit the old glory of the Aal of Yaqoub in prophethood.

Secondly: It is known that Zakariya was a poor carpenter, so what kind of money did he have that made him ask Allah to grant him a son for the sake of monetary inheritance?! Rather, prophets, by default, don’t save up, but spend their money for the sake of good.

Thirdly: The word al-irth, isn’t specific to money, but it is used for knowledge, prophethood, kingship, and others, like when Allah says, “Then We gave the Scripture as inheritance unto those whom We elected of Our bondmen.” (Fatir 32) And when Allah says, “These are the heirs, who will inherit paradise. There they will abide.” (Al-Mu’minoon 10-11)

Fourthly: The narration “The scholars are the inheritors of the prophets, and the prophets did not leave a dinar or a dirham, but they left knowledge,” is clear that denying that they left money as an inheritance, and this (argument) alone is sufficient.

Similarly, this is the case when Allah says, “And Solomon was David’s heir,” (Al-Naml 16) for Sulaiman (as) didn’t inherit the money of Dawud (as), but rather, his prophethood, his wisdom, and his knowledge, which is derived from these two reasons:

Firstly: Dawud (as) is famous for have a hundred wives and three hundred concubines, and he had many children. So, how is it possible that only Sulaiman inherited from him?! So, specifically mentioning Sulaiman (as) alone is not correct. (I, Farid, say: The opinion that Dawud had other children is agreed upon by both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars. Refer to Al-Bidaya wal Nihaya by Ibn Katheer and 1 Chronicles – chapter 3.)

Secondly: If it was matter of inheriting money, then it wouldn’t be useful for it to be mentioned in the book of Allah. For it is natural for a son to receive the inheritance of his father, and receiving it isn’t a form of praise, nor to Dawud or Sulaiman (as), for even Jews and Christians leave inheritances, so what does Sulaiman gain by being singled out in this verse?! Furthermore, the verse is in context of praise for Sulaiman (as) and what Allah has specified for him in merit, and the inheritance of money is something normal that all people share like eating, drinking, the burying of the dead, and that which is like that isn’t narrated about the prophets, for it is useless, but that which is narrated is that what includes a moral and a benefit. The words of one who says, “He died and his son received his inheritance,” is like saying, “and they buried him,” or “they ate, drank, and slept,” and other things that shouldn’t be including among the stories of the Qur’an.

Leave a comment

Filed under Articles, Rebuttals, Shiite's sahih hadith

Questions on Imamah and 12 Imams by a former Shia – part 2


Posted by 13S2010

بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

This is part 2.

[Start of Quote]

1) What is the rational justification of the imams practicing taqiyyah? 

The rational argumentation presented by the imamiyyah FOR imamate is that they are guides for the ummah, and Allah out of his eternal justice HAS to appoint imams for the ummah, or the ummah cannot be held responsible for being misguided (Al-Kafi). But if the guides practised taqiyyah in their teachings, then can the deceived sunni masses really be called ‘misguided’? We have many short-chained narrations in sunni books in which the imams deny being divinely-appointed imams, denying al-raj’a, and professing love for the first 3 caliphs. So can we really blame the innocent sunnis who sincerely thought that the imams were being serious when they said that?

2) Did the imams openly declare themselves to be the 12 khalifas of the Prophet? 

If not, can we really blame the sunnis, zaydis and other muslims for going astray? Surely, it would be the duty of an imam to declare his imamate to the ummah, and not a small circle of followers. They were, after all, imams for the entire ummah right? We see that many shias went ‘astray’ because of the quiescent attitude of imams Sajjad and Ridha. How, then, can we blame those who did not follow those imams?

3) The list of the members of Ahlul-Bayt naturally differs for the different shia sects. Each believes they are right. Some had the following of some prominent shia scholars of the time. Which one is right?

Abil-Jarud (Ziyad bin Mundhir) was a companion of Imam Sajjad, but he became a Zaydi. Ibrahim Bin Salih Al-Kufi was a companion of Imam Baqir, and stopped at him. Also, Ali bin Al-Hasan and Muhammad bin Suma’a are other examples that come to mind. My point: different scholars/companions of the imams differed after the death of an imam. Who should the laity follow? The fomation of the kaysaniyyah and the numerous other shia sects was the direct result of this confusion. Each sect had the backing of scholars and companions of the imams, and they all thought they were right. Who, then, is right?

4) Did the imams and very very close companions only know who the 12 imams would be? 

This seems to be the argument of some 12ers. But this seems to go against many ahadith in which insignificant lay-people narrate ahadith about the Prophet naming the 12 explicitly. How then, did the laity know about them, and the close companions of the imams didn’t? We see them in many narrations coming to the imams and begging them to tell them who the next imam would be (which the imam would and the companion would ecstatically kiss the head, hands and feet of the imam). What was the need for this, if the Prophet had indeed named all twelve?

[End of QUOTE]

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Articles, Question bank for shiite's, Revealing Shia sect

Questions on Imamah and 12 Imams by a former Shia – part 1


Posted by 13S2010

بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

We have already published an article of this brother here where he mentions the reason he embraced correct Islam and rejected the sect of Shiism. In this article we will post some of the Questions that he asked the Shia. These eye-opening questions are for the open minded Shias.

[Start of QUOTE]

سم الله الرحمن الرحیم

اسلام علیکم

I will start off by stating that I am not starting this topic with the intent to get the shias here angry, rather I want to hear their honest opinion and would like to see it backed with proof. And of course, I hope to gain more knowledge in the process.

In case you didn’t quite understand what’s up with the name of this thread, I named three (amongst numerous others) of the descendants of Ali who claimed to be imams other than the ones accepted by the ithna asharis. The reason for this thread is to discuss the manner in which the imamat was passed down from imam to imam, and the proofs of this inheritance, as per the testimony of authentic historical documentation.

I shall make this post comprise mostly of questions, and hope that most (if not all) will get answered with satisfactory replies. So here goes:

1) What do ithna asharis have to say about Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah (the step-brother of Hassan/Hussein)?

Is he regarded as a pious person? Why is it that the majority of shias, after the death of Imam Hussein, regarded Ibn Hanafiyyah as the next imam? Didn’t Hussein tell the shias explicitly who the next imam will be? If so, then why were the shias so confused for the longest time about who to follow, and started following different people from the descendants of Ali(علیهم السلام), until (after quite a long time) it was decided that Ali bin Hussein was the imam?

2) What do ithna asharis say about Zaid bin Ali bin Hussein, Imam Baqir’s uncle?

What do they say about his claims to imamat? Did Ali bin Hussein not tell his *own* children who the next imam was, leaving it up to the shia community to decide? Why is it that Zayd did not have anything against Abu Bakr, Umer and Uthman? Is it possible that Ali, Hassan, Hussein and Ali bin Hussein DIDN’T actually have any feelings of animosity towards the aforementioned people? Could it be that this animosity was created later on and attributed to the ithna ashri imams?

3) What do ithna asharis think of Muhammad (an-Nafs az-Zakiya) b. Abd Allah b. al-Hasan al-Muthanna b. al-Hasan b. Ali b. Abi Talib?

History shows that he was the biggest rival of Jafar as-Sadiq (just like Ibn Hanafiyyah was Imam Ali Sajjad’s, and Zayd was Baqir’s). Again, I raise the question: how could this man claim to be the imam, and a large portion of the shias were adherants of this man? Didn’t al-Hassan bin Ali (علیهم السلام) tell his *own* children who the imams after him would be? Why the mass confusion amongst the shi’i masses? He was known to be quite convinced of his role as the imam of the Muslim ummah, and had debates with the caliph al-Mansur as well. Is it possible that the shias of that time believed that any pious person from the Progeny of Ali was a likely ‘candidate’ for an imam? By seeing the numerous cases of Aliids rising up, claiming to be imams, it seems like that is the case.

What I understand from all this is that shiism was in a very turbulent situation, and the majority of the shia masses did not know who the imam of the time was. There were numerous ‘fake’ imams and they were contemporaries of the ithna ashari imams, and some times their followers exceeded the followers of the ithna ashari imams. So if a Muslim (who believed in the wilayah of the “Ahlul-Bayt”) was present there, WHO would he follow?

I can only conclude from all the historical documentation that the Prophet did *NOT* explicitly name the 12 imams, because if He (صلی الله علیه و اله) HAD done so, there wouldn’t be SO much confusion.

I am willing to hear the replies of shias here, and although I don’t intend for sunnis to post here, it IS (sadly ) an open forum.
It is my request to sunnis to please keep their posts relevant and to the point. That is my plea to shias as well. I would also like to request the shias to be open-minded, honest, and to back their claims with proof.

Wassalam.

(PS: These historical facts can be found in many history books, and are aknowledged by shia scholars like Tabatabai and Syed Hussein Jafri. Please refer to “Shi’a” by Tabatabai, and The Origins and Early Developments of Shia Islam)
(PPS: Its interesting to note that the followers of some other ‘fake’ imams also held those imams to be infallible. hmmm….. I find that very interesting)

[END of QUOTE]

1 Comment

Filed under Articles, Question bank for shiite's, Revealing Shia sect

Ayatollah al-Khoei making Takfir on Sunni Muslims


by Hani (aka TripolySunni)
Posted by 13S2010

حرمة الغيبة مشروطة بالايمان: قوله: ثم ان ظاهر الاخبار اختصاص حرمة الغيبة بالمؤمن. أقول: المراد من المؤمن هنا من آمن بالله وبرسوله وبالمعاد وبالائمة الاثنى عشر (عليهم السلام)، اولهم علي بن أبي طالب (عليه السلام) وآخرهم القائم الحجة المنتظر عجل الله فرجه وجعلنا من أعوانه وأنصاره، ومن أنكر واحدا منهم جازت غيبته لوجوه: 1 – انه ثبت في الروايات (1) والادعية والزيارات جواز لعن المخالفين، ووجوب البراءة منهم، واكثار السب عليهم واتهامهم، والوقيعة فيهم اي غيبتهم، لانهم من اهل البدع والريب (2). بل لا شبهة في كفرهم، لان انكار الولاية والائمة (عليهم السلام) حتى الواحد منهم والاعتقاد بخلافة غيرهم، وبالعقائد الخرافية كالجبر ونحوه يوجب الكفر والزندقة، وتدل عليه الاخبار المتواترة (3) الظاهرة في كفر منكر الولاية وكفر المعتقد بالعقائد المذكورة وما يشبهها من الضلالات

Reference: Mishbahul Fuqahah 2/11, Dar Al-Huda, Beirut Libanon

Online Reference From Shia website:

http://www.yasoob.com/books/htm1/m001/05/no0507.html

Translation:

[I say: What is meant by “believer” here is the one who believes in Allah and his messenger and the last day and the twelve Imams (as), starting with `Ali bin abi Talib (as) and ending with al-Qa’em al-Hujjah, the awaited one may Allah hasten his appearance and make us among his supporters, and he who denies one of them then it is allowed to backbite him for several reasons:

1- It has been proven in the narrations and Ziyarat and supplications that it is permissible to curse the ones who oppose us, and that it is obligatory to disown them, and increase their insults, and accuse them, and slander them, meaning to backbite them because they are from the people of innovation and doubt. There is no doubt about their Kufr, because denying al-Wilayah and the Imams (as) even if just one, and to believe in the Khilafah of others, and to believe in myths such as al-Jabr and other beliefs necessities Kufr and Zandaqah, as mentioned in the Mutawatir narrations that clearly demonstrate the Kufr of the rejector of al-Wilayah, and the Kufr of the one who believes in the mentioned beliefs and similar other misguided beliefs.

2- Those who oppose us commit Fisq publicly, because their deeds are annulled by default as stated by the countless narrations. They even adopted what is greater than Fisq as you now know, and we will mention later that it is permissible to backbite the one who commits Fisq publicly.

3- What we benefit from the verse and the narrations is that it is forbidden to backbite against the believing brother, and it is obvious that there is no brotherhood or sanctity between us and those who oppose us.

4- It is famous and spread since the past among the laypeople of the Shia and their scholars that they used to backbite against the ones who oppose us, rather they used to insult them and curse them at all times and in all lands, in fact it is mentioned in “al-Jawahir” that this is from the necessities.]

After we’re done, now let me show you Taqqiyah:

Imam al-Khu’i’s charity foundation called for a conference entitled “الوحدة الإسلامية والمذاهب الفقهية” “Islamic unity and schools of jurisprudence”:

كلمة سماحته في ندوة الاجتماع الدولي لوضع استراتيجية مشتركة للتقريب بين المذاهب الإسلامية المنعقد في فندق إيبلا الشام بدعوة من مؤسسة الإمام الخوئي الخيرية خلال الفترة 10 – 12 /4/1999م

This was held in Damascus 10/12/1999.

Talking about unity and love and respect and tolerance and brotherhood between all religions ect… is no more than Shia Bullsh*t and Taqqiyah.

—End of Article—

وَإِذَا لَقُوا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا قَالُوا آمَنَّا وَإِذَا خَلَوْا إِلَىٰ شَيَاطِينِهِمْ قَالُوا إِنَّا مَعَكُمْ إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ مُسْتَهْزِئُونَ

And when they meet those who believe, they say, “We believe”; but when they are alone with their evil ones, they say, “Indeed, we are with you; we were only mockers.” [2:14]

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Articles, Revealing Shia sect, Twelver Shia Hatred

Amount of Mutawatir Hadiths in Shiasm


Written by Farid
Posted by 13S2010

بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

Alsalam alaykum,

This is a quote from Hashim Ma’arouf Al-Hasani, the Shi’ee hadith specialist, from his book Dirasaat fil Hadith wal Muhaditheen, p. 36, Dar Al-Ta’aruf (1426 AH):

Rough translation: 

Al-Shaikh Abdulsamad (the father of Al-Baha’ee) in his risala about ilm al-diraya said: The mutawatir is what a group of people have narrated in which ilm (sure knowledge) is achieved, due to the impossibility of them conspiring to lie together usually, and this could be authentic on all levels or not, and he said: And the hadithists are almost unaware of this due to the lack of them (such hadiths), and like it is the Qur’an, the appearance of the Prophet (pbuh), the qibla, prayers and the number of raka’aat, the hajj, the amount of zakat, and things like these. Liking these to mutawtatir is a necessity of Islam. This liking makes one feel that the mutawatir in hadith is almost non-existent, due to the rarity of such in the narrations of the Prophet (pbuh) and the Imams. 

4 Comments

Filed under Articles, Hadith science, Revealing Shia sect

Former Shia about the doctrine of Imāmah


بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

This article is written by our brother, SalehNeji/Wasil, a former Shia, may Allah (swt) keep him healthy and grant him long life and success in both worlds. Mashallah, the brother has made strong points and asked serious questions and I ask the open minded Shia to ponder over what he has written.

The Ahlulbayt (ra) never believed in the so called divine Imamate. These beliefs were attributed to them and they themselves weren’t even aware of it just like the Christians attribute divinity to Isa ibn Maryam (as).

Note: The article maybe updated.

[ARTICLE STARTS HERE]

salam alaykom

Brothers and sisters i was thinking and i was wondering: if belief in imamate of the twelve was compulsory then why wasen’t it narrated in mutawatir hadith . even in shia books the wasyyah seems only for few people . rasool allah(saww) was sent to all human kind and he used to tell all sahabah that are present to inform those who were not. the hadith of twelve imams was only said to handful of people in shia books and this is against the spirit of the message. rasool allah was not scared to convey what allah orders him , he didn’t fear the kuffar of mecca when he was alone so how could he fear muslims upon his deen and not tell them about the imamate of the twelve. yes he said there will be twelve khalifah but he didn’t say follow them or who they are . it’s a strange to me.

if the wasyyah when he(saww) was dying was about this then why didn’t he tell the muslims before his death and illness??

why wait until he was so frail and weak ?? 

if wasyyah was about imamate ali (as)(when the prophet saww was ill) then this means that hadith al-ghadeer was not clear enough otherwise why did rasool allah(saww) needed to explain it on his deathbed? 

It seems to me that hadith al-ghadeer about wilayat was understood in so many ways and that sahabah didn’t deliberately push ali(as) away from khilafat , they simply understood that wilayat meant alliance not rule and the context in which the hadith was said strengthens this. 

just few thoughts and i hope the discussion stays civil and calm

ps: i believe in imamate of the twelve but i don’t believe it’s fardh or that it’s from usool al-deen. i don’t believe the imams (as) were masoom but they were from awlia allah and their purpose was not to rule but to educate the ummah about their deen 

[ARTICLE ENDS HERE]

Written by the ex-Shia  SalehNeji/Wasil. 
Posted and Introduction by 13S2010
Original Article here

1 Comment

Filed under Articles, Question bank for shiite's, Revealing Shia sect