By Hani (Islamic-Forum.net) Original Link Posted here by 13S2010
I’m sure you all heard of Ja`far Murtada al-`Amili who wrote the funny book “al-Saheeh min Seerat al-Nabi al-A`zam”, he is a Rafidhi from the mountain of Rafidhah in Lebanon but it appears he has some sense of humor so he wrote a book called “What is Sahih from the life of the Prophet (saw).”
In the entire book al-Kafi you’ll find barely 15% (with its repetitions) are narrations from the Prophet (saw) and most of these if not the vast majority are on Fiqh, yet this guy apparently wants to make a book out of whatever little information they have on the Prophet (saw), not only that, he wishes to pick what is “Sahih”.
Guess what he did?
If you should open his failure of a book, you will straight away look at the footnotes and then read the sources of his narrations, you’ll see the vast majority being Sunni sources or Non-Twelver Shia sources at least, you will read Tabaqat ibn Sa`d, Sahih al-Bukhari, Nayl al-Awtar, Musnad Ahmad, Dala’il al-Nubuwwah li-Abi Na`eem, Tareekh al-Khamees lil-Bakri who died in the tenth century and is an almost unknown author, Seerat ibn Hisham, Tareekh al-Madinah li-ibn Shubah, al-Seerah al-Halabiyyah, Kanz al-`Ummal (chainless book) and Maghazee al-Waqidi (Allahu Akbar). He quoted loads more of Sunni books and you can refer and see for yourself as his book is online.
In order to show us though that he is adding information from Shi`ee sources, he will throw in Bihar al-Anwar (which is all weak according to Mashra`at M.Asif al-Muhsini), Tafseer al-Qummi (Which is a rejected book), Manaqib Aal-Abi Talib by Mazindarani (Which is a summary as the real book is non existent, not only that but its author take loads of his content from Sunni books which he lists his chains to at the beginning, he lists like 60 Sunni books, then he says “As for our books” he only lists Tusi, Murtada, Mufid and Saduq’s books, plus a couple of others then he says “I crossed their chains to keep the book small” LOL.)
What the lunatic is trying to do, isn’t that he’s trying to gather the authentic narrations from sources he deems reliable and compile a Shia book of Seerah, since the Twelver Shia books barely contain any Seerah and his own book is living testimony. What he’s doing is collecting mainly from Sunni sources narrations and rejecting whatever he wishes if it doesn’t suite his Madhab and throwing away any Hadith which contradicts Tashayyu` claiming that it is a fabrication for no reason, obviously the first thing he did was try to weaken the virtues of the companions (at least the ones he mentioned).
This link is that of a Fatwa by him in his own official website:
The questioner says he read the book and wants to ask al-Murtada as to how he would explain the fact that Abu Bakr embraced Islam in the early days? How is this possible if he’s a hypocrite? He says:
حسب تحقيقكم في كتاب الصحيح قلتم بأن إسلامه كان بعد الإسراء والمعراج، ولكن ذلك لا يدفع الإشكال حيث إن تلك الفترة أيضا مبكرة بالنسبة لشخص لم يستقر الإسلام في قلبه
[According to your research (meaning al-`Amili’s) in the book al-Sahih (meaning this shi**y book), you stated that he embraced Islam AFTER ISRA’ WAL-MI`RAJ, but this doesn’t solve the issue as it is still way too early for a man in whose heart Islam never settled.]
According to the enemy of objectivity and honesty al-`Amili, Abu Bakr embraced Islam after Isra’ wal-Mi`raj, SubhanAllah!
The animal replies in short:
إن دخول الإسلام في وقت مبكر لا يعني الخلوص والإخلاص التام، والإنصهار فيه وفي مبادئه، والتزام تشريعاته.. إذ قد ذكرنا في كتابنا الصحيح من سيرة النبي صلى الله عليه وآله: أن دعوة النبي صلى الله عليه وآله قد اقترنت من أول يوم بالوعد الكبير بأن الله سيفتح على يديه البلاد، إلى حد أنهم سيحصلون حتى على كنوز كسرى وقيصر.
والكثيرون من الذين أسلموا كانوا معدمين في الجاهلية، وليس لديهم مال ولا مقام، بل كانوا يشتغلون بحرف يتصدى لها الفقراء، كالخياطة، والصيد، ونش الذباب على مائدة ابن جدعان بشبع البطن وستر العورة.
فدخلوا في هذا الدين، وفيهم الصادق الإيمان، والطامع في الحصول على الجاه والمال..
وفي الغالب كانت كيفية تعاطيه مع الأمور هي التي تكشف حقيقته، وتفصح عن دخيلته، فإذا كان ذلك الإنسان متفانياً في سبيل الدين، ويقذف نفسه في لهوات المهالك دفاعاً عنه وعن نبيه الكريم، فذلك هو المؤمن الصادق الإيمان..
وإذا كان ذلك الرجل الذي يرصد الفرص، ليظهر نفسه في موقع الرخاء على أنه هو المدبر، والمبادر، والمتصدر. ثم يتحاشى الأخطار في مواقع البلاء، ويعمل على الفرار منها.. فذلك هو الذي تكون نفسه أحب إليه من الله ورسوله، ومن دينه، ومن كل شيء..
وتفصيل هذه الأمور موجود في كتاب الصحيح من سيرة النبي الأعظم صلى الله عليه وآله فراجع.
al-`Amili says: That since the Prophet (saw) promised the believers in the earliest of days that they will obtain the wealth of Kisra and Caesar and have great conquests, so Abu Bakr wanted this money, as most people were poor back then and had no status, so he entered Islam seeking money and wealth.
Get a load of this BS, seriously a blogger in our days is able to make a descent academic beneficial research and come up with convincing results, this wild animal on the other hand has accomplished one of the usual biased Imami writings that adds nothing to the scientific equation other than the fact that they have no sources, no Seerah, and no objectivity. Abu Bakr was rich and had a high status, he was the first free man to accept Islam according to authentic reports this loser probably rejected for no reason, and on top of it it is authentically reported in many places that HE SPENT ALL HIS WEALTH FOR ALLAH and freed countless slaves and fed the Muslims etc…
P.S. He never answered the question, for why would Abu Bakr BELIEVE the Prophet (saw) if he said something so ridiculous? Maybe cause he’s a TRUE BELIEVER which is opposite of hypocrite!?
Your comments on this hideous beast of a man.
Comment: If the Shia claim Abubakr embraced Islam because Prophet (saw) promised them Kingdoms of Caesar and Kisra then it shows the strong faith of Abubakr in the Prophet (saw) since most of the people of Makkah rejected the promises as false but Abubakr believed in them.