Monthly Archives: August 2012

Infallible Imam’s Taqqiya cost him his followers


by Hani (aka TripolySunni)
Posted by 13S2010

al-Salamu `Aleykum,

We continue exposing this horrible ritual the Shia call Taqiyyah and we show its stupidity and meaninglessness.

وأما الذين أثبتوا الإمامة لعلي بن أبي طالب ثم للحسن ثم للحسين ثم لعلي بن الحسين ثم نزلوا بعد وفاة علي بن الحسين إلى القول بإمامة ابنه أبي جعفر محمد بن علي بن الحسين باقر العلم وأقاموا على إمامته إلى أن توفي، غير نفر يسير منهم فإنهم سمعوا رجلا منهم يقال له عمر بن رياح زعم أنه سأل أبا جعفر عن مسألة فأجابه فيها بجواب ثم عاد إليه في عام آخر فسأله عن تلك المسألة بعينها فأجابه فيها بخلاف الجواب الأول، فقال لأبي جعفر: هذا خلاف ما أجبتني في هذه المسألة العام الماضي، فقال له: إن جوابنا ربما خرج على وجه التقية، فشك في أمره وإمامته، فلقي رجلا من أصحاب أبي جعفر يقال له محمد بن قيس فقال له: إني سألت أبا جعفر عن مسألة فأجابني فيها بجواب ثم سألته عنها في عام آخر فأجابني فيها بخلاف جوابه الأول فقلت له لم فعلت ذلك فقال فعلته للتقية وقد علم الله أني ما سألته عنها إلا وأنا صحيح العزم على التدين بما يفتيني به وقبوله والعمل به فلا وجه لاتقائه إياي وهذه حالي، فقال له محمد بن قيس: فلعله حضرك من اتقاه؟ فقال: ما حضر مجلسه في واحدة من المسألتين غيري، ولكن جوابيه جميعا خرجا على وجه التبخيت ولم يحفظ ما أجاب به في العام الماضي فيجيب بمثله. فرجع عن إمامته وقال: لا يكون إماما من يفتي بالباطل على شيء بوجه من الوجوه ولا في حال من الأحوال، ولا يكون إماما من يفتي تقية بغير ما يجب عند الله ولا من يرخي ستره ويغلق بابه، ولا يسع الإمام إلا الخروج والأمر بالمعروف والنهي عن المنكر، فمال بسببه إلى قول البترية ومال معه نفر يسير

al-Ash`ari al-Qummi says in Firaq al-Shia when discussing the followers of al-Baqir (rah):

[As for those who proved the Imamah for `Ali bin abi Talib, then Hassan, then Hussein, then `Ali bin al-Hussein, and afterwards they declared their belief in the Imamah of his son abu Ja`far Muhammad al-Baqir and remained on this state until his death, except a small group from them, because they heard a man called `Umar bin Rayah claim that he asked abu Ja`far about a matter and he gave him an answer, then he returned the next year and asked about the exact same matter but this time he received an answer that opposes the first answer he originally received. He told abu Ja`far: “This opposes the answer you gave me last year.” he replied: “Maybe our answer was out of Taqiyyah.” so he doubted his Imamah. He later met a man from the companions of abu Ja`far called Muhammad bin Qays, so he told him: “I had asked abu Ja`far about a matter so he answered me, then I asked him about it another year so he answered differently, I asked him why did he do this, he said he did it out of Taqiyyah, and Allah knows that I only asked when I was full of faith in him and sincerity and I wanted to practice upon his verdict, so he had no reason to do Taqiyyah with me.” ibn Qays said: “Maybe he did Taqiyyah because there was someone else in attendance?” He said: “Nobody attended our Majlis in both those times, but his answers were random and he didn’t memorize what he said the previous year so he can answer with it again.” So he disbelieved in his Imamah and said: “He who gives false verdicts cannot be an Imam in any way shape or form, and he who gives his verdicts as Taqiyyah in a way that does not please Allah cannot be an Imam, nor he who sits comfortably at home and keeps his door shut, the Imam must rise against oppression and order what is good and forbid what is evil.” This is why he leaned towards the opinion of the Batriyyah and a small group followed him on this.]

sources:
-Bihar al-Anwar by al-Majlisi (73/33) (69/178).
-Tahtheeb al-Maqal fi Tanqeeh Kitab Rijal al-Najashi by Muhammad `Ali Abtahi (3/464).

Leave a comment

Filed under Revealing Shia sect

The Ultimate Taqqiyah of infallible Imam


By Farid 
Posted by 13S2010

Alsalam alaykum,

In Al-Kafi:

أحمد بن إدريس، عن محمد بن عبدالجبار، عن الحسن بن علي، عن ثعلبة بن ميمون، عن زرارة بن أعين، عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: سألته عن مسألة فأجابني ثم جاء ه رجل فسأله عنها فأجابه بخلاف ما أجابني، ثم جاء رجل آخر فأجابه بخلاف ما أجابني وأجاب صاحبي، فلما خرج الرجلان قلت: يا ابن رسول الله رجلان من اهل العراق من شيعتكم قدما يسألان فأجبت كل واحد منهما بغير ما أجبت به صاحبه؟ فقال: يا زرارة ! إن هذا خير لنا وأبقى لنا ولكن ولو اجتمعتم على أمر واحد لصدقكم الناس علينا ولكان أقل لبقائنا وبقائكم.
قال: ثم قلت لابي عبدالله عليه السلام: شيعتكم لو حملتموهم على الاسنة أو على النار لمضوا وهم يخرجون من عندكم مختلفين، قال: فأجابني بمثل جواب أبيه.

It is also narrated in Ilal Al-Sharai’i with Sa’ad bin Abdullah narrating from Mohammed bin Abdul Jabbar.

The narration basically says that Zurarah asked Abu Ja’afar Al-Baqir a question. Al-Baqir responded with an answer. Then, a man came and asked the same question. He gave a different answer. When he left, another came, asked the same question, and was given a third answer. Zurarah asked, “Oh son of Rasool Allah, two men from the people of Iraq from your Shia come to you, asking, and you give each a different answer?!” He answered that this is better for the Imams and the Shias, because if the “people” had one answer, then they will be believed instead of the Imams, and they would be relied upon instead of the Imams.

One brother, passed on this translation to me:

“O Zurarah, it is better for us and it gives all of us more time. If you all would say the same thing, people will know that you speak the truth from us and this will leave all of us with less time.”

Let me line out what I understood from this narration:

Al-Baqir is asked (insert random question here, i.e. permissibility of drinking juice).
Al-Baqir provides three answers.
Zurarah receives the answer: Makrooh (disliked).
Abu Al-Baseer receives the answer: Halal (permissible).
Mohammed bin Muslim receives the answer: Haram (prohibited).
One day, Jabir Al-Ju’fi wants to ask about this issue. He realizes that there is ikhtilaaf among the Shias. So, he, due to the (falsely attributed) master plan of the Al-Baqir, chooses to return to the Imam instead of relying on his Shia.
Jabir, then goes to the Imam, and receives an answer. The answer is either: 1) Disliked, 2) Permissible, or 3) Prohibited. Whichever one the Imam gives him, the chances of it being the correct fatwa is 33%.
The question is: What is the point of providing so much confusion among the Shia followers, when doing so will cause the individual to have no access to the truth?

Is this the correct understanding of the hadith? Please enlighten me my Shia friends.
The hadith is authentic according to Al-Majlisi by the way.

1 Comment

Filed under Articles, Infallibility issues with shia imams, Revealing Shia sect, Shiite's sahih hadith

Shia Scholar Defends mother of believers Aisha Siddiqa from Shia Slander


By Hani (aka TripolySunni)
Posted by 13S2010

al-Salamu `Aleykum,

Often the Shia slander `Aisha (ra) by attributing bad acts to her, their big scholar ibn al-Mutahhar al-Helli responds to some questions in his book “Ajwibat al-Masa’el al-Muhana’iyyah” ” أجوبة المسائل المهنائية” pg121-122, issue #14:

He was asked:
“ما يقول سيدنا في قصة الإفك والآيات التي نزلت ببراءة المقذوفة ، هل ذلك عند أصحابنا كان في عائشة أم نقلوا أن ذلك كان في غيرها من زوجات النبي صلى اللَّه عليه وآله”

“What does our Master(Sayyid) say about the story of Ifk and the verses that were revealed to prove the innocence of the woman? do our companions(Shia) consider them to be revealed regarding `Aisha, or did they report that it was aimed at another wife of the Prophet (SAWS)?”

He answered:
“ما عرفت لأحد من العلماء خلافا في أن المراد بها عائشة”

“I do not know of any scholar who disagrees about them being revealed regarding `Aisha.”

Then he was asked:
“ما يقول سيدنا في عصمة نساء الأنبياء عليهم السلام ، هل هي واجبة في حقهن فلا يجوز ذلك عليهن أم يجوز ذلك ولم يقع منهن ، إذ لو كان لا يجوز عليهن لكان رسول اللَّه صلى اللَّه عليه وآله لما قذفت زوجته أخبر بأن ذلك لا يجوز عليها ، ولكنه عليه السلام بقي أياما والناس يخوضون في ذلك حتى نزل الوحي ببراءتها”

“What does our Master(Sayyid) say about the infallibility of the wives of the Prophets (SAWS)? is it necessary for them so it’s not possible for them to do it (Zinah)? or is it that they aren’t infallible but they never did it (Zinah)? because if it wasn’t possible then the prophet (SAWS) would have told the ones who accused her of it that it wasn’t possible, instead he (SAWS) waited for days while people talked about it until Allah revealed the verses to prove her innocence.”

He answered:
” لم يشترط أحد من العلماء عصمة النساء اللواتي للأنبياء عليهم السلام عن الزنا ، لكن اللائق بعصمة النبوة نزاهتهن عن ذلك وسلامتهن منه ، ولم يقع من واحدة منهن ذلك “

“None of the scholars placed the infallibility of the wives of the Prophets from Zinah as a condition, but what is fitting for the infallibility of Prophethood is that their wives are elevated above such matters and none of them committed such acts.”

Salam Aleykum,

Leave a comment

Filed under Articles, Rebuttals

Infallible Imams disagree on the verse of Quran


By Hani (aka TripolySunni)
Posted and Edited by 13S2010. 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

Salam ‘Aleykum,

a. One infallible Imam says:

al-Kafi: vol.5 pg.448

عِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا عَنْ سَهْلِ بْنِ زِيَادٍ وَ عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ جَمِيعاً عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي نَجْرَانَ عَنْ عَاصِمِ بْنِ حُمَيْدٍ عَنْ أَبِي بَصِيرٍ قَالَ سَأَلْتُ أَبَا جَعْفَرٍ ( عليه السلام ) عَنِ الْمُتْعَةِ فَقَالَ نَزَلَتْ فِي الْقُرْآنِ فَمَا اسْتَمْتَعْتُمْ بِهِ مِنْهُنَّ فَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ فَرِيضَةً وَ لا جُناحَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِيما تَراضَيْتُمْ بِهِ مِنْ بَعْدِ الْفَرِيضَةِ .

Some of our companions, from Sahl bin Ziyad and ‘Ali bin Ibrahim from his father, all of them from ibn abi Najran from ‘Assim bin Humayd, from abu Baseer: I asked abu Ja’far (as) about the Mut’ah, he (as) said: it was revealed in the Quran: “So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation.”

Majlisi 20/225: “Hasan like Sahih.”

b. The other infallible Imam says:

al-Kafi: vol.5 pg.449

عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَمَّنْ ذَكَرَهُ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ( عليه السلام ) قَالَ إِنَّمَا نَزَلَتْ فَمَا اسْتَمْتَعْتُمْ بِهِ مِنْهُنَّ إِلَى أَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى فَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ فَرِيضَةً .
‘Ali bin Ibrahim from his father from ibn abi ‘Umayr from abu ‘Abdullah (as) that he said: It has been revealed: “So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, to an appointed time, give them their due compensation as an obligation.”

Majlisi 20/227: “Hasan.”

Should we go with Abū ‘Abdillāh or with Abū Jafar here? is there “to an appointed time” or isn’t there? Check Suran Nisa Verse 24. 

(Both are narrated from Ibrahim bin Hashim)

3 Comments

Filed under Infallibility issues with shia imams, Revealing Shia sect, Shiite's sahih hadith

Umar [ra] gave a vast land to Ali [ra]


By Hani (aka TripolySunni)
Posted by 13S2010

Salam Aleykum,

I posted it on another forum now I’ll post it here (thx to bro kalaam who brought it to our attention), but just to remind you brothers that the more you dig into books of Hadith the more priceless GEMS you find!

This my friends is a picture of the city of Yanbu` in Saudi Arabia: (Click to enlarge)

Now we read in Musannaf ibn abi Shaybah a narration with an authentic chain to Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (rah):

حدثنا حفص بن غياث عن جعفر عن أبيه أن عمر أقطع عليا ينبع وأضاف إليها غيرها.
[Hafs bin Ghiyah told us, from Ja`far bin Muhammad al-Sadiq, from his father that `Umar gave away (the land of) Yanbu` to `Ali and then added others(lands) to it.]

In other words he gave him a vast and priceless piece of land as prize!

wal-Salamu `Aleykum,

Update:

Check this link for more detailed information. 

1 Comment

Filed under Ahlulbait-Sahaba relations, Articles, History

How did `Umar ibn Al-Khattāb رضی الله عنه become Caliph?


Ahlelbayt.com
Original article link here
Posted by 13S2010

بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

It is incorrect to state that Shura (mutual consultation) was not done in the nomination of Umar (رضّى الله عنه) . Before Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) finalized his decision to appoint Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , he in fact mutually consulted the prominent Muslims, including Abdur Rahman ibn Awf (رضّى الله عنه) , Uthman bin Affan (رضّى الله عنه) , Ali ibn Abi Talib (رضّى الله عنه) , and Talhah ibn Ubayd-Allah (رضّى الله عنه) . During the nomination of Uthman bin Affan (رضّى الله عنه) , the Shura council consisted of six representatives; the same is the case with the nomination of Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , in which at least this many prominent figures mutually consulted each other. The only difference here was that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) met the prominent figures seperately, as opposed to conjoining them in one room at the same time, as Umar (رضّى الله عنه) would do in the nomination of Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) . Based on this fact, it would be a lie to say that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) did not use Shura. We read:

At the beginning of Jumada al-Ukhra (13 AH), Abu Bakr caught a fever and its intensity continued unabated for a fortnight. When he grew sure of his last hours drawing near, he sent for Abdur Rahman bin Awf and held consultation (Shura) with him regarding the Caliphate…following this, he called Uthman bin Affan and put the same question to him. He (Uthman) said in reply: “Umar’s internal self is better than his external one; he is superior to us all.” When Ali was consulted, he made almost the same answer. Then came Talhah…

(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, pp.312-313)

In another narration, we read:

When ill-health overtook Abu Bakr and the time of his death approached, he summoned Abdur Rahman bin Awf and said: “Tell me about Umar ibn Khattab.” Abdur Rahman replied: “You are asking me about something of which you know better…By Allah, he is even better than the opinion you hold about him.” Then he (Abu Bakr) called Uthman bin Affan and asked him: “Tell me about Umar ibn Khattab.” Uthman replied: “You know him better than us.” Abu Bakr said: “Still, O Abu Abdullah!” Uthman answered: “Indeed, in my opinion, his inner self is better than his outer self and no one among us can parallel him.”

(Ibn Saad; Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Vol.3, p.199)

Ibn Saad mentions that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) then consulted all the prominent leaders of the Ansars and Muhajirs. We read:

And he (Abu Bakr), besides these two, consulted Abu al-Awar (Saeed ibn Zayd) and Usayd ibn Al-Hudayr–as well as other big leaders of the Ansars and the Muhajirs–so Usayd said: “Indeed, after you O Abu Bakr, I consider him (Umar) the best. He is happy on happy occasions and sad on sad occasions. His inside is better than his outside. No one is more suited to bear the burden of this Caliphate.”

(Ibn Saad; Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Vol.3, p.199)

During the process of Shura, it was only Abdur Rahman bin Awf (رضّى الله عنه) and Talhah (رضّى الله عنه) who raised any objections to Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , but then Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) countered these points of contention, and then Abdur Rahman (رضّى الله عنه) and Talhah (رضّى الله عنه) both agreed with Abu Bakr’s rebuttal, so the matter was settled. As for Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) and Ali (رضّى الله عنه) , they both favored Umar (رضّى الله عنه) .

Therefore, we have established that the principle of Shura was very much involved in the nomination of Umar (رضّى الله عنه) ; the prominent representatives–including all the major figures of the Ansars and Muhajirs–selected Umar (رضّى الله عنه) after mutual consultation. Furthermore, Umar (رضّى الله عنه) secured the “consent of the governed”. We read:

…[Abu Bakr] said addressing this audience:

“I have not appointed any relative of mine as Caliph, and I have not installed Umar as Caliph on my own. I have rather done it only after holding consultations with men of sound judgment. Are you then agreed to his being your Caliph?”

Hearing this, they (the masses) said: “We all agree with your choice and opinion.”

Following this, he (Abu Bakr) said: “You should then carry out Umar’s orders and obey him.”

(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, pp.313-314)

We read:

Abu Bakr looked out over the people from his enclosure…He said (to the people): “Will you be satisfied with him whom I have left as (my) successor over you…?” They responded: “We hear and obey.”

(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.11, pp.146-147)

Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) would even ask the people’s permission before finalizing his will. After writing in his will that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was to be the Caliph, he asked Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) to read the will outloud to the people (i.e. the masses) and ask if they approved of it. We read:

(Uthman said): “Will you (all) pledge allegiance to the person in whose favor a will has been made in this letter?

The people said: “Yes.” …All accepted and agreed to pledge allegiance to Umar. Then Abu Bakr called Umar in solitude and gave him whatever advice he wanted to.

(Ibn Saad; Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Vol.3, p.200)

Similarly, we read:

Then the Caliph (Abu Bakr) summoned all the people of Medinah to assemble in the court of the Mosque. He addressed them from the window of his house which opened into the court. (Abu Bakr said): “O people! I have appointed Umar ibn al-Khattab as my successor. He is not my relative, but he is the best among you. Are you satisfied with him? Will you obey him?” The people answered with one accord, “yes, we will obey him.” The Caliph was pleased and prayed for God’s favour on Umar and the Muslims.

(A Short History of Islam, by Mazhar ul-Haq, p.223)

So we can see that the matter is not at all as our Shia brothers portray. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) did not at all install Umar (رضّى الله عنه) as a tyrant over the people. Rather, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) gave his suggestion as Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , and he first passed it through the people, asking them if they accepted him as their Caliph. From this behavior, we can clearly see how truly important it is for the Ahlus Sunnah that the “consent of the governed” is attained; even the most powerful man from amongst the Muslims had to obtain the permission of the masses in order to appoint his successor. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) –the Caliph of an emerging super-power–had the modesty and decency to have his own will “proof-read” by the people. The principles of popular sovereignity and self-determination were therefore upheld.

Furthermore, Shaikh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari states:

According to the majority of scholars, the status of a heir to the throne (wali al-ahd) is only one of recommendation that requires approval from the nations prominent and influential figures after the demise of the Khalifa [i.e. consent of the governed]…the majority of the Umma’s scholars are of the view that if a Khalifah or ruler appoints his successor without the approval of those in power, then this is permissible, but it will only serve as an suggestion. After his demise, the nation’s influential and powerful people have a right to accept his leadership or reject it.

(Shaikh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari, http://www.sunnipath.com)

Qadhi Abu Ya’la al-Farra al-Hanbali states in his Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah (The Rules of Governance):

“It is permissible for a Caliph to appoint a successor without the approval of those in power…without the backing and presence of the prominent figures of the community. The logical reason behind this is that appointing someone a successor to the throne is not appointing his Caliph, or else, there will be two Caliphs; thus there is no need for the influential people to be present. Yes, after the demise of the Caliph, their presence and approval is necessary…Caliphate is not established merely with the appointment of the (previous) Caliph, rather (after his demise) it requires the approval of the Muslim Ummah.”

(al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah, p.9)

One other point worth mentioning here is the fact that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) made it a point not to elect his own relative or son to the Caliphate. The Four Rightly Guided Caliphs disliked hereditary rule, as this is not the way of the Ahlus Sunnah; to create such a dynastic rule based on bloodline (on the Shia model) would be unjust and unethical. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) said to the people:

“Nor have I appointed (as Caliph) a relative.”

(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.11, p.147)

In another account, he said:

“I have not appointed any relative of mine as Caliph.”

(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.314)

Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) said on his deathbed:

“After holding consultations with the Muslims, I have selected the best among the Muslims to take care of them and look after their peace and welfare…(O Allah) make Umar a good Caliph…”

(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.315)

Leave a comment

Filed under Articles, History, Rebuttals

Imam of Ahlul Bayt in the Fourth Century


Alsalam alaykum,

I just thought that it would be beneficial to share this information from Tareekh Nisapur by Al-Hakim (p. 232):

Al-Hussain bin Dawud bin Ali bin Eisa bin Mohammed bin Al-Qassim bin Al-Hasan bin Zaid bin Al-Hasan bin Ali bin Abi Talib, according to Ibn Khuzaimah was the Imam of the Muslims in his time. He died in 355 AH.

Al-Hakim Al-Nisapuri, often seen as one of the more objective Sunnis (by Shias) due to his tashayyu states:

He was the shaikh of the aal of the Prophet (pbuh) in his times in Khurasan, and he was one of the closest people emotionally to the companions of the Prophet (pbuh). I accompanied him for a period of time, and I prayed with him the Friday prayers for ten something years, and I never heard him say the name of Uthman without him saying, “Ameer Al-Mu’mineen,” and he would cry. Nor would he mention A’isha without saying, “The sideeqa the daughter of al-sideeq the habeeba of the habeeb of the Prophet (pbuh),” and he would cry.

This was a scholar of ahlul-bayt, since ahlulbayt include the children of Al-Hasan, and isn’t restricted to fourteen individuals.

Written by Farid
Posted by 13S2010

Leave a comment

Filed under Articles, History

Shia scholars describe al-Saduq as a LIAR


Written by Hani (aka TripolySunni)
Postedby13S2010

بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

al-Salamu Aleykum,

The Shia say they believe that the Prophet SAWS does not forget, they attack the rest of the Muslims who do not believe this and claim that we are insulting the Prophet SAWS if we say he makes “Sahu”, little do the Shia know that their scholars hide many things from them and here in the introduction to “Man la Yahduruhu al-Faqih” the Shia scholar al-‘Allamah al-Sheikh Muhammad Jawad al-Faqih writes:

مقدمة كتاب من لايحضره الفقيه – ج 1 – ص 70

9/ جواز السهو على النبي (ص) وسماه اسهاء من الله تعالى تبع في رايه ذلك شيخه محمد بن الحسن بن الوليد وتبعه على رأيه ذلك الشيخ الطبرسي في مجمع البيان كما نقل عنه التنكانبي في قصص العلماء والسيد الجزائري في الانوار النعمانية وفخر الدين الطريحي في مجمع البيان مادة (بدا) والمحقق الفيض الكاشاني في الوافي على مايظهر من كلامه ونقل عن الشيخ البهائي رحمه الله انه قال : ( الحمد لله الذي قطع عمره ولم يوفقه لكتابة مثل ذلك ) ونقل عن الشيخ أحمد الاحسائي انه قال : ( الصدوق في هذه المسألة كذوب ) ولايخلو قولهما من سوء ادب نربأ بامثالهما عن ذلك ونسأل الله العصمة والتوفيق . . . أ.هـ

(9) The permissibility of Sahu (forgetfulness) for the Prophet SAWS: From those who saw this are Muhammad bin al-Hassan bin al-Walid and from those who followed him in his opinion are Sheikh al-Tabrasi in Majma’a al-Bayan as reported from him by Sheikh al-Tinkanbi in Qasas al-‘Ulemaa, also al-Sayyed al-Jazaeri in al-Anwar al-Nu’umaniyyah, also Fakhr al-Deen al-Tarihi in Majma’a al-Bayan and al-Muhaqqiq al-Faydh al-Kashani in al-Wafi from what is apparent.

It is reported by al-Sheikh al-Bahaee (rah) that he said (About al-Saduq): “Praise be to Allah who cut his life and did not allow him to write what he intended.” and Sheikh Ahmad al-Ahissaee said (About al-Saduq): “In this matter al-Saduq is a liar.” both of them have displayed poor Adab by saying this and we did not expect this from people such as them…

source: introduction of Man la Yahduruhu al-Faqih vol.1 pg.70

So based on this, some of the biggest classical Shia scholars on the face of the planet used to believe that the infallible prophet SAWS does forget, from those they named:

1- Ibn Babawei al-Qummi al-Saduq.
2- Muhammad ibn al-Hassan ibn al-Walid.
3- Ameen al-Deen abu ‘Ali al-Fadl bin al-Hussein bin al-Fadl al-Tabrasi.
4- Ni’imatullah al-Jazaeree.
5- Fakhr al-Deen al-Tarihi.
6- al-Faydh al-Kashani.

We also see how some of the shia scholars made Du’ah and thanked Allah for ending the life of al-Saduq as they never agreed with him in matters of ‘Aqeedah.

4 Comments

Filed under Articles, Revealing Shia sect

Analysis of Wilferd Madelung’s book “The Succession to Muhammad”


Written by Farid 
Posted by 13S2010

بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

As promised, here are some thoughts on the book “The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate” by Wilferd Madelung. Refer to the wikipedia article for a brief bio about the man:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilferd_Madelung

To start off, Madelung relied on Abu Mikhnaf, Al-Mufeed, and Nasr bin Muzahim extensively. He also said that Al-Waqidi is the more reliable source when it came to the crisis in the caliphate of Uthman (p. 373). Ironically, Madelung, often mentions that the witness of certain reports were pro-Ali or pro-Uthman, and thus, their narration supports their view, so it should be considered unreliable. This is a positive step forward. However, Madelung rarely applies this to the base sources. He will never reject a narration from Nasr bin Muzahim’s Waq’at Siffeen that depicts Mu’awiyah as a bloodthirsty war monger even though Nasr was a rafidhi. Instead, he will rely on these sources blindly. Due to this, Madelung relied on Nasr bin Muzahim continuously for tens of pages without casting any doubt on the contents of the narrations. This is extremely problematic especially since Madelung, in most cases, assumes that narrations attributed to witnesses should be accepted as authentic unless there is something seriously wrong with the matn. Due to this, he rarely ever accuses someone in the chain of attributing a false view to a narrator.

On pages 18-27, Madelung quotes several contradictory narrations attributed to A’isha and Ibn Abbas. Instead of attempting to either weaken the ones with weak chains, he chooses to assert that both are liars that fabricated narrations that supported their own views. He also drew a picture that they both hated each other. He says (p.22): “It will be seen that both of them were prepared to invent stories to bolster their claims and to discredit their opponents.” However, we only have to go as far as Fadha’il Al-Sahaba by Al-Imam Ahmad to see that they both praised each other and saw each other in a great light.

I also found another thing ironic about his approach. He was hell-bent on proving that the shaikhain were two faced. Take for example the bay’ah of Abu Bakr (p. 39-40). Every knows that Abu Bakr didn’t want the khilafa for himself and he would rather be a follower and follow Omar or Abu Obaida. I’m not aware of a difference of opinion from the sources that suggest this. Madelung, instead, argues that Abu Bakr knew that nobody would accept Omar or Abu Obaida as khalifa, and he was hinting for them to give bay’ah to him. In other words, Madelung twisted the obvious and clear meaning of the narration to one that suited a hypocritical Abu Bakr. Was this because Madelung has approached this issue with preconceptions in mind? Was it because he had his mind filled with non-sense from all the Shia historical writings that he’s been eating up? Wallahu a’alam.

Similarly, Madelung implies that Omar did not want Ali to become the khalifa (refer to the section titled “Umar: Commander of the Faithful). How is this accurate when Omar himself appointed six people up for shura and included Ali as one of them? According to the narration in the Saheehain, Omar was asked by the Muslimeen to appoint a leader. He said to them that istikhlaaf was practiced by Abu Bakr, and that Abu Bakr is greater than him, but that leaving the matter without specifying a single person was the way of the Prophet (pbuh), and thus, he chose that option. So, once again, Madelung against the clear and obvious narration and uses his baseless interpretation to change the outlook of the reader regarding this historical event.

Rarely, we will see Madelung attempt to take a page out of the book of the Muslims by using their terms and supposedly attempting their version of historical criticism. One time (p. 127), he argues that an isnad is excellent. However, when we take a closer look, we realize that Al-Waqidi is the main narrator of the chain.

He also seems to be ignorant when it comes to marifat al-ruwaat (knowing who the narrators are). For example, he states that Al-Hussain bin Isa, the shaikh of Amr bin Hammad, is Al-Hussain bin Isa bin Muslim Al-Kufi, when in reality, he is Al-Hussain bin Isa bin Zaid bin Zain Al-Abideen. This is clear when one examines the qara’in that surround who he narrated from and who narrated from him.

Furthermore, my biggest issue in the book is that the author rarely gives any weight to the Sunni version of history, and more importantly, he attempts to re-invent the wheel by introducing this new methodology of historical criticism. Moreover, he completely disregards accusations of forgery against the Shia historians. Mind you, these accusations have nothing to do with rejecting the innovator for the sake of his innovation, but rather, due to clear evidences that so-and-so is in fact a liar. As we are all aware, there are thiqaat from the Shia, and yet, we rarely find quotes from them in this book.

His tone and word choice, at times, seem childish, especially when describing Mu’awiyah. He mentions things that have nothing to do with the text, for example, referring to him as a taleeq, or a coward with no battle experience. He also goes on to examine the psyche of Mua’wiyah when he makes his decisions regarding war preparation and politics instead of simply doing the job of the historian, which is to state the facts in an orderly fashion. At times, I feel like I am reading a novel instead of an academic historical work.

Most importantly, I did learn from this that Sunnis are light years ahead of Orientalists when it comes to judging the basis of historical material. See the works of Sulaiman Al-Oda and Yahya Al-Yahya for example, wa lillahi al-hamd.

22 Comments

Filed under Articles, History, Rebuttals