Grand Ayatollah Kamal al-Haydari says the Shia of the first three centuries did NOT believe in the concept of INFALLIBILITY of the Imams. He provides evidence from Shia books.
Grand Ayatollah Kamal al-Haydari says the Shia of the first three centuries did NOT believe in the concept of INFALLIBILITY of the Imams. He provides evidence from Shia books.
You all know what the Imami Shia scholars agreed on, that the one who doesn’t believe in all twelve Imams is NOT a believer nor is the one who adds an additional Imam, and they keep talking about how the narrations are Mutawatir about the Imams and that we Muslims hid these narrations ect…
Well check out this additional nonsense from their leader and renowned scholar al-Imam alSayyid Muhsin al-Ameen, in his book “A`iyaan al-Shiah” 10/5:
السيد أبو جعفر محمد بن الإمام علي أبي الحسن الهادي . توفي في حدود سنة 252 .
جليل القدر عظيم الشأن كانت الشيعة تظن انه الامام بعد أبيه ع فلما توفي نص أبوه على أخيه أبي محمد الحسن الزكي ع وكان أبوه خلفه بالمدينة طفلا لما اتي به إلى العراق ثم قدم عليه في سامراء ثم أراد الرجوع إلى الحجاز فلما بلغ القرية التي يقال لها بلد على تسعة فراسخ من سامراء مرض وتوفي ودفن قريبا منها ومشهده هناك معروف مزور . ولما توفي شق اخوه أبو محمد ثوبه وقال في جواب من لامه على ذلك قد شق موسى على أخيه هارون . وسعى المحدث العلامة الشيخ ميرزا حسين النوري في تشييد مشهده وتعميره وكان له فيه اعتقاد عظيم .
[9920 – al-Sayyid abu Ja`far Muhammad son of Imam `Ali abi al-Hasan al-Hadi:
died around 252 AH.
Of great value, the Shia believed that he was the Imam after his father (as), so when he died, his father then pointed to his brother abu Muhammad al-Hasan al-Zakee (as) …]
Where are the Mutawatir texts!? how can the dummies believe that the Imam after `Ali al-Hadi was Muhammad, during the life of `Ali al-Hadi and that they only learn the truth AFTER his death!?
Classical Shia grand scholar Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin Ja`far al-Nu`mani (died 360 A.H) says in his book “al-Ghaybah” pages 27-28:
أما بعد : فإنا رأينا طوائف من العصابة المنسوبة إلى التشيع ، المنتمية إلى نبيها محمد وآله صلى الله عليهم – ممن يقول بالإمامة التي جعلها الله برحمته دين الحق ، ولسان الصدق ، وزينا لمن دخل فيها ، ونجاة وجمالا لمن كان من أهلها ، وفاز بذمتها ، وتمسك بعقدتها ، ووفى لها بشروطها ، من المواظبة على الصلوات ، وإيتاء الزكوات ، والمسابقة إلى الخيرات ، واجتناب الفواحش والمنكرات ، والتنزه عن سائر المحظورات ، ومراقبة الله تقدس ذكره في الملأ والخلوات ، وتشغل القلوب وإتعاب الأنفس والأبدان في حيازة القربات – ، قد تفرقت كلمها ، وتشعبت مذاهبها ، واستهانت بفرائض الله عز وجل ، وخفت إلى محارم الله تعالى ، فطال بعضها علوا ، وانخفض بعضها تقصيرا ، وشكوا جميعا إلا القليل في إمام زمانهم ، وولي أمرهم ، وحجة ربهم التي اختارها بعلمه
[We saw the groups that are attributed to Tashayyu` and the Prophet and his family upon them be peace, from those who believed in the Imamah that Allah with his mercy has made truthful, and has made it a merit for the one who embraces it, and salvation and beauty for those belonging to it […] They have divided in sayings and sects, and they begun to take the orders and prohibitions of Allah lightly, some have risen to extremes while others have dropped into lenience, and they ALL have doubted the Imam of their time and the one in authority of their affairs and the Hujjah of their Lord whom he picked with his wisdom except a small few]
So he’s confirming what we read in Firaq al-Shia by al-Nawbakhti and other books that the Shia were extremely divided and misguided and almost all of them never knew who their Imams were.
Scan:Article by Hani Posted by 13S2010
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.
[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.
[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!
[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!
[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.
[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.]
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.
I give you more about this Madhab that is constantly and continuously changing with the passing of time, the Madhab of the Shia which has witnessed more changes and divisions than anything else I came across, and here I quote their renowned scholar Ja`far al-Shakhouri who says:
[And if we look at the Fatwas of our contemporary scholars we will find that they have all left the circle of the Shia Madhab, take this as an example, compare the book “a-Hidayah” of al-Saduq and “al-Muqni`ah” by al-Mufid with the book “Minhaj al-Saliheen” by al-Sayyed al-Kho’ei, you will realize that there are tens of matters in which al-Kho’ei opposed the Mashoor(popular opinion) of the early classical scholars, and if al-Saduq had the chance to read the book “al-Masa’el al-Muntakhabah” by al-Sayyed al-Kho’ei he would have been shocked …(until he says)… And if we wanted to gather the matters in which al-Kho’ei opposed the popular opinion or consensus (of early scholars) we would have reached a number of 200 or 300 Fatwas, and this is also the condition of Khomeini and al-Hakeem and other Maraji`.
And we will soon publish a book of ours in which we counted for the prominent Shia Maraji` starting with Saduq and Mufid, passing by al-`Allamah al-Helli, ending with Sayyed al-Kho’ei and Sayyed Sistani and others who have tens of Shaadh(i.e anomaly) Fatwas.]
And he said:
[Opposing the Mashoor has become very frequent especially after the spreading of the habit of wrapping the Fawtas up with “Obligatory precaution”]
Source: Marji`iyat al-Marhalah wa Ghubar al-Taghyeer, by Ja`far al-Shakhouri, pg.135.
The title is a bit vague as you can see, “al-Imamah and the Fatahiyyah Shia” so who are these Fatahiyyah and what is their purpose and position from the Imamah? to answer this let me copy a small part of “Firaq al-Shia” regarding the main Shia sects that popped up after al-Sadiq’s death.
[The Shia after the death of Imam Abu Abdullah Ja’afar al-Sadiq (died 148 hijri):
The Shia of Imam Ja`far bin Muhammad split to various groups:
A group said: Ja`far bin Muhammad is alive he does not die until the one responsible for the affairs of the people appears, they said that he was al Mahdi and they narrated from him that he said: “If you see my head roll from atop a mountain then do not believe this for I am the ONE” and that he said to them: “If one comes to you saying that he stood by me in my illness then washed me then put a shroud(Kafan) over my body then do not believe him For I am your companion(Mahdi) the possessor of the sword.” This team was called al-Nawoosiyah.
A group said that the Imam after Ja`far bin Muhammad is his son Ismael bin Ja`far, they denied the death of Isma`eel in the life of his father, they said: “His father did this just to confuse the enemies, he feared from them so he hid his son in occultation”. They said that Isma`eel will not die until he rules the earth and the affairs of the people and that he is al Qa’em; because his father has pointed to him as the succeeding Imam and told them that he was their companion and the Imam can only say the truth and when his death came we knew that he was truthful and that he was al Qa’em and that he never died. This team is called the pure al-Isma`iliyah.
A group said that the Imam after al Sadiq was Muhammad bin Ismael bin Ja`far, they said: The matter (Of Imamah) was given to Isma`eel in the life of his father but when he died before his father al Sadiq made this affair with his son Muhammad bin Isma`eel and the right was his and it is impremissible for anyone else to claim it; because the Imamah cannot be transferred from one brother to the other after al Hassan and al Hussein and it must be in the progeny. His two brothers `Abdullah and Musa have no right to it just like Muhammad Ibn al Hanafiyah had no right in the time of `Ali Zain al `Abideen bin al Hussein. This team was called al-Mubarakiyah.
A group said: “The Imam after al Sadiq is Muhammad bin Ja`far” and they were called al-Sumtiyyah.
A group said: The Imamah after Ja`far was in his son `Abdullah ibn Ja`far who was known as “al-Aftah”, this was because he was the eldest son after the death of al Sadiq and he used to always sit in the Majlis(Gatherings) of his father and because he claimed this matter as it was in the will of his father. This team was called al-Fatahiyyah.
The majority of the Sheikhs and scholars of jurisprudence of the Shia were of the opinion of this team and they never doubted that the Imamah was given to `Abdullah bin Ja`far until he died and never left a son to succeed him so the majority of the Fatahiyyah turned back from the belief that he was the Imam.
A group said that the Imamah belonged to Musa after his father and they denied the Imamah of `Abdullah and they found fault in him for sitting in the Majlis of his father and his claim of the Imamah…
As well as other teams and then these teams split into other teams as well.
Sources: look for details of each team in the book “Firaq al Shia” Pages 66-79 by Al Hassan bin Musa Abu Muhammad al Nawbakhti, also in the books al Fusoul al Mukhtarah Pages 247-253 by Muhammad bin Muhammad bin al Nu’uman known as al Mufid, Bihar al Anwar 47/258 by Muhammad Baqir al Majlisi.]
Now if I were to comment on the bold red part, that the MAJORITY of the Shia, and we’re not only talking about the laymen and the ignorant people, but we are talking about the MAJORITY of their scholars and Faqihs as well, and the majority of those who believed in the Imamah of his father Ja`far al-Sadiq, instead of believing in the Imamah of Musa al-Kazim they went and believed in the Imamah of another Imam and never realized that he was the wrong Imam UNTIL AFTER HE DIED!
I ask is this even possible? what were the infallible Imams doing? how could they let this happen and allow most of their followers to believe in a fake Imam? Ja`far al-Sadiq during his entire life never mentioned that the Imam after him was his son Musa? is this what the shia are trying to tell us?
There are several teams as you can see, but we’re going to talk about the Fatahiyyah in this topic…
Now some of these Shia kept on believing in the Imamah of `Abdullah even after he died, and when he died they chose Musa as their next Imam and they didn’t really believe in the Shia invented rule that says “No two brothers can be Imams after al-Hassan and al-Hussein.”
From the Shia narrators who belong to this “deviant” Shia Fatahi sect, `Ali bin al-Hassan bin `Ali bin Faddal, let’s see what the Shia scholars’s opinions regarding this man are.
قال النجاشي: (علي بن الحسن بن علي بن فضّال بن عمر بن أيمن مولى عكرمة بنربعي الفيّاض أبو الحسن، كان فقيه أصحابنا بالكوفة، ووجههم، وثقتهم، وعارفهمبالحديث، والمسموع قوله فيه. سمع منه شيئاً كثيراً، ولم يعثر له على زلّة فيهولا ما يشينه، وقلّ ما روى عن ضعيف، وكان فطحياً
[al-Najashi says: `Ali bin al-Hassan bin `Ali bin Faddal bin `Umar bin Ayman the Mawla of `Ikrimah bin Ruba`i al-Fayyad abu al-Hassan, He was the Faqih of our companions in al-Kufa, and the best of them, and the most reliable of them, the most knowledgeable among them in Hadith, and the one whose voice is heard when it comes to it(Hadith). He has heard a lot of it(Hadith). We found no shameful mistakes by him (in Hadith), and he rarely ever narrates from the weak, and he was a Fatahi.]
Have you noticed the great rank of this man and his respect and knowledge in the Ahadith of Ahlul-Bayt? according to al-Najashi this man was the best among the companions in Kufa… well guess what, he died as a Fatahi believing in the Imamah of `Abdullah bin Ja`far.
And when the Najashi says “our companions” he means the Shia scholars and companions of the Imams.
We ask where were these “Mutawatir” Shia narrations about the 12 Imams in the time of ibn Faddal? how can such a man believe that `Abdullah bin Ja`far is the divinely appointed Imam without doubt?
Let’s keep reading about this renowned scholar:
وقد صنّف كتباً كثيرة، منها: ما وقع إلينا: كتابالوضوء، كتاب الحيض والنفاس، كتاب الصلاة، كتاب الزكاة والخمس، كتاب الصيام،كتاب مناسك الحجّ، كتاب الطلاق، كتاب النكاح، كتاب المعرفة، كتاب التنزيل منالقرآن والتحريف، كتاب الزهد، كتاب الانبياء، كتاب الدلائل، كتاب الجنائز، كتابالوصايا، كتاب الفرائض، كتاب المتعة، كتاب الغيبة، كتاب الكوفة، كتاب الملاحم،كتاب المواعظ، كتاب البشارات، كتاب الطبّ، كتاب إثبات إمامة عبداللّه
[And he has authored many books: from those that have reached us: Kitab al-Wudhu, Kitab al-Haydh wal-Nifas, Kitab al-Salat, Kitab al-Zakat ….(until he reaches)… Kitab Ithbat Imamat `Abdullah…]
So the man had many books and some of them have even reached al-Najashi as you can see and what is interesting the last book in the quote and it is called “Ithbat Imamat `Abdullah” which means “The book of proving the Imamah of `Abdullah”! Yes, their renowned “trustworthy” scholar who is “The most knowledgeable in Ahadith” wrote an entire book which according to him proves that `Abdullah al-Aftah bin Ja`far was without a doubt an Imam appointed by Allah (swt)!
That was in Rijal al-Najashi pg.257-258.
al-Khoei reported in his Tarjamah #8019 that al-Kishshi said regarding this ibn Faddal that:
وقال الكشّي (397): (قال أبو عمرو: سألت أبا النضر محمد بن مسعود عن جميعهؤلاء، قال: أمّا علي بن الحسن بن علي بن فضّال، فما رأيت في من لقيت بالعراقوناحية خراسان أفقه ولا أفضل من علي بن الحسن بالكوفة، ولم يكن كتاب عن الائمةعليهم السلام من كلّ صنف إلاّ وقد كان عنده، وقد كان أحفظ الناس، غير أنه كانفطحياً، يقول: بعبداللّه بن جعفر! ثم بأبي الحسن موسى عليه السلام، وكان منالثقات).
[al-Kishshi said (397) : abu `Amro said: I asked abu al-Nadr Muhammad bin Mas`oud about all of them so he said: As or `Ali bin al-Hassan bin `Ali bin Faddal, I have not seen in al-`Iraq and Khurasan anyone who is more of a Fiqh than he is or anyone who was better than him. There was no book of any kind about the Imams (as) that he did not own, and he was the best Hafiz(of Hadiths) among the people, but he was a Fatahi …. And he was a Thiqah(Trustworthy).]
This man who believes in 13 Imams is described as the greatest of the Fuqaha(Jurists) of his time! He believed that `Abdullah was superior and more worthy than Musa al-Kazim yet he is a trustworthy and reliable man but when Ahlul-Sunnah say that Abu Bakr (ra) is superior and more worthy than `Ali (ra) suddenly we become Murtadds and Kouffar deserving to abide in hell-fire forever!
This is because Shiism is nothing more than a tool to destroy Islam, and corrupt the Truth, not only is this man of such great rank but also al-Khoei relies on on the Tawtheeqat of ibn Faddal, meaning if ibn Faddal considers a man reliable then al-Khoei will also consider him reliable.
ولهذا نعتمد على توثيقات أمثال ابن عقدة وابن فضال وأمثالهما.
[And for this, we rely upon the Tawtheeqat of ibn `Uqdah and ibn Faddal and their likes.]
I want to say that ibn `Uqdah is a Zaidi who only believes in the first five Imams until Zaid bin `Ali bin al-Hussein.
So his Tawtheeqat are relied upon although he believed in 13 Imams, and according to the Shia the one who adds an Imam is the same as the one who subtracts an Imam so keep this in mind.
Imagine if Bukhari believed in a divinely appointed Prophet after Muhammad (SAWS), would he be a “reliable great trustworthy scholar” in the eyes of the Muslims? I don’t think so. This is just the failed religion of the Shia.
Another example of these Fatahiyyah Shia is the Fatahi `Abdullah bin Bukayr bin A`yun, let’s see what al-Tusi says about this man in al-Fehrest 173-174:
عبداللّه بن بكير: فطحي المذهب، إلاّ أنه ثقة
[`Abdullah bin Bukayr: His Madhab is Fatahi but he is Thiqah…]
al-Khoei in his Mu`jam al-Rijal #6745 reports what al-Mufid said about this man:
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 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.]
This is the great scholar who believes in what? he believes in 13 Imams, he has added an Imam from his own pocket and then he is considered from the LEADERS and matters of Halal and Haram should be taken from him and the religious rulings and verdicts should be taken from them… whereas the Companions of Rassul-Allah (SAWS) who have been praised directly by Allah and his prophet are Murtadds and hypocrites and un-reliable… simply because they placed Abu Bakr (ra) before `Ali (ra), but as for ibn Bukayr if he placed `Abdullah before Musa then he is a LEADER and there NO WAY to criticize him or find faults in him.
Then he reports from al-Kashshi:
قال محمد بن مسعود: عبداللّه بن بكير وجماعة من الفطحية هم فقهاء أصحابنا،منهم: ابن فضّال : يعني الحسن بن على : وعؤمّار الساباطى، وعلي بن أسباط، وبنوالحسن بن علي بن فضّال علي وأخواه، ويونس بن يعقوب، ومعاوية ابن حكيم، وعدّعدّة من أجلّه الفقهاء العلماء
[Muhammad bin Mas`oud said: `Abdullah bin Bukayr and a group from the Fatahiyyah are the Jurists of our companions, from them: Ibn Faddal: meaning al-Hassan in `Ali, and `Ammar al-Sabati, and `Ali bin Asbat, and the children of al-Hassan bin `Ali bin Faddal `Ali and his two brothers, and Yunis bin Ya`qoub, and Mu`awiyah bin Hakeem. and he counted a couple of the most dignified Scholars and Jurists]
See that? they are the Jurists of their companions, yet they don’t even know who the Imams are!? They don’t know who their Imam is so they go to a random person and appoint him as an Imam.
Listen now to what this great “leader” did according to al-Khoei:
وأمّا ماذكره الشيخ في الاستبصار فلا ينافي الحكم بوثاقته، غايته أنّ الشيخ احتمل كذب عبداللّه بن بكير في هذه الرواية بخصوصها نصرة لرأيه، ومن المعلومأنّ احتمال الكذب لخصوصية في مورد خاص لا ينافي وثاقة الراوي في نفسه.
[As for what was mentioned by al-Sheikh(Tusi) in al-Istibsar, it does not deny his reliability, the entire matter is that the Sheikh placed the possibility that `Abdullah bin Bukayr lied in that narration in order to support his belief, and it is known that the possibility of lying in a specific location does not conflict with the trustworthiness of the narrator.]
Is this man serious!!? lying to support his beliefs does not harm his reliability!!?
And in al-Istibsar vol.3 pg.276 al-Tusi says:
يجوز أن يكون أسند ذلك إلى زرارة نصرة لمذهبه الذي أفتى به وأنه لما رأى أن أصحابه لا يقبلون ما يقوله برأيه أسنده إلى من رواه عن أبي جعفر ع وليس عبد الله بن بكير معصوما لا يجوز هذا عليه بل وقع منه من العدول عن اعتقاد مذهب الحق إلى اعتقاد مذهب الفطحية
[It is possible that he(ibn Bukayr) attributed the narration with its Isnad to Zurarah in order to support his Madhab and Fatwa, so when he saw that his companions did not accept his opinion then he attributed it to someone who narrated it from abu Ja`far (as), and `Abdullah bin Bukayr is not infallible, we have seen him clearly rejecting he truthful Madhab and becoming from the Madhab of the Fatahiyyah]
So he’s not infallible but IS HE TRUSTWORTHY!? When he is clearly caught lying!?
Not only this, but the Shia consider ibn Bukayr from “Ashab al-Ijma`” or “The people of the consensus” because there is consensus among the Shia regrading their great rank and they are eighteen Muhaddith(Scholars of Hadith) and Shia scholars who had direct contacts with Shia Imams and great knowledge in religion.
أنك قد عرفت توثيق عبداللّه بن بكير من الشيخ، والمفيد، وعلي ابن إبراهيم، وعدّ الكشّي إيّاه من أصحاب الاجماع، فلا ينبغي الاشكال في وثاقته وإنكان فطحياً.
[You now know the authentication of `Abdullah ibn Bukayr by al-Sheikh and al-Mufid and `Ali bin Ibrahim and al-Kashshi counted him among Ashab al-Ijma`, so there should be no problems with regard to his reliability even if he was a Fatahi.]
This is the failed religion of the Shia, these are one-eyed hypocrites, who have nothing better to do than attack Islam, they see things with one eye only, they take what they like and adopt it as their religion and reject what they detest even if it is as clear as day-light. If they don’t like a person, even if this person is praised in the Quran by Allah the almighty and praised on numerous occasions by the Prophet (SAWS) and he has gathered all the virtues and done many great deeds that served Islam, if they don’t like him he automatically becomes a Kafir and a Murtadd, Whereas if they like a man and he has corrupt and deviant beliefs and he is a filthy liar, then he is considered from the dignified jurists and remarkable scholars.
The man from the people of consensus doesn’t know who the Imam is, great.
Let’s take another example of a Fatahi Shia, Mu`awiyah bin Hakeem, al-Najashi says about him:
معاوية بن حكيم بن معاوية بن عؤمّار الدهنى: ثقة، جليل، في أصحاب الرضا عليه السلام. قال أبو عبداللّه الحسين بن عبيداللّه: سمعت شيوخنا يقولون: روى معاوية بن حكيم أربعة وعشرين أصلاً لم يرو غيرها.
[Mu`awiyah bin Hakeem bin Mu`awiyah bin `Ammar al-Duhani: Thiqah, venerable, from the companions of al-Reda (as), abu `Abdullah al-Hussein bin `Ubeidullah: I heard our scholars saying: Mu`awiyah bin Hakeem narrated twenty four from Usool only.]
Notice that this Fatahi has narrated 24 Usool from the main Shia 400 Usool!!! and these Usool are basically 400 books of Hadiths written by the companions of al-Sadiq and al-Baqir, and this deviant Fatahi has narrated 24 from them so be aware of his great rank in their eyes.
al-Kishshi says about him in volume two of his book:
1061 – كان علي بن أسباط فطحيا، ولعلي بن مهزيار إليه رسالة في النقض
عليه مقدار جزء صغير، قالوا: فلم ينجع ذلك فيه ومات على مذهبه،
في محمد بن الوليد الخزاز ومعاوية بن حكيم
ومصدق بن صدقة ومحمد بن سالم بن عبد الحميد
1062 – قال أبو عمرو: هؤلاء كلهم فطحية، وهم من أجلة العلماء والفقهاء
والعدول، وبعضهم أدرك الرضا عليه السلام، وكلهم كوفيون.
[‘Ali bin Asbat was a Fatahi, and ‘Ali bin Mehzayar sent him a short letter to refute him, they said: But it did not work and he died on his Madhab.
Regarding Muhammad bin al-Walid al-Khazzaz and Mu`awiyah bin Hakeem and Masdaq bin Sadaqah and Muhammad bin Salim `Abdul-Hameed,
abu `Amro said: All of them are Fatahiyyah, and they are the most dignified of jurists and scholars and reliable men, some of them were with al-Reda (as) and all of them were kufans.]
What a tragedy that their greatest and most dignified reliable knowledgeable scholars didn’t believe in the 12 Imams! Now one might say that they met `Abdullah al-Aftah and they were impressed with his knowledge so they were tricked into becoming Fatahi, but this is the true tragedy now, read the following from Mu`jam Rijal al-Hadith #12471:
وأمّا مااحتمله بعضهم من حمل كلام الكشّي على أنه كان فطحياً أوّلاً، ثمّ رجع عن ذلك بعد موت عبداللّه بن أفطح، فهو عجيب،ن فإنّ معاوية بن حكيم لم يدرك زمان عبداللّه الافطح جزماًعلى أنه خلاف ظاهر عبارة الكشّي من أنّ معاوية بن حكيم فطحي على الاطلاق.
[As for what some had placed as a possibility after they interpreted the words of al-Kishshi that he was a Fatahi at first and then abandoned it after the death of `Abdullah bin Ja`far, this is a very strange interpretation, because Mu`awiyah bin Hakeem for sure did not live in the time of `Abdullah al-Aftah, and it opposes the apparent wording of al-Kishshi that describes him as a Fatahi in the absolute sense.]
Which shows that these beliefs were so wide-spread among even their biggest scholars after the death of al-Aftah and they had proofs and arguments to prove his divine Imamah, and the tragedy is that many of these men were companions of al-Reda, al-Jawad and al-Hadi and the Imams never spoke a word to them concerning this matter nor did they clarify to them that they believed in a fake Imam!!!
So these disbelievers in Imamah had such a great rank, that Muhammad bin Ya`qoub al-Kulayni would even take the opinion of Mu`awiyah bin Hakeem in his book al-Kafi, in volume 6 of al-Kafi, The book of Divorce, under the chapter of “The divorce of the one who has has not reached puberty yet and the one who no longer has a menstrual period.” at the tail of the fifth Hadith, al-Kulayni mentions:
وكان معاوية بن حكيم يقول: ليس عليهن عدّة.
[And Mu`awiyah bin Hakeem used to say: `Iddah is not required of them.]
Another example of a Fatahi Shia, `Ammar al-Sabati, al-Tusi says about this man in his Fehrest pg.189:
عمّار بن موسى الساباطى: وكان فطحياً، له كتاب كبير، جيّد، معتمد
[`Ammar bin Musa al-Sabati: And he was a Fatahi, he has a big, good, relied upon Book.]
May Allah destroy you! This is a deviant Fatahi and you’re saying that he has a big, good, relied upon Book! and `Uthman ibn `Affan (ra) the collector of the Book of Allah (swt) one of the narrators in the chain of the Quran, is criticized and attacked!? and doubts had been cast by the Shia on his collection of the Quran!?
His great rank in their eyes was clarified in the previous Tarajim of the other Fatahi narrators above, and that he was considered a leader and matters of Halal and Haram are to be taken from him and so on…
In Mu`jam al-Rijal #8660, we read that he was from the companions of al-Sadiq.
Then you have Ishaq bin `Ammar al-Sabati, al-Jawahiri says about him:
1160 – 1159 – 1165 – إسحاق بن عمار الساباطي: فطحي – ثقة – له أصل معتمد – طريق الشيخ والصدوق اليه صحيح
[Ishaq bin `Ammar al-Sabati: Fatahi – Thiqah – Author of a relied upon Asl – Tariq of the sheikh(Tusi) and al-Saduq to him is Sahih]
al-Tusi says in al-Fehrest pg.54:
1 – إسحاق بن عمار الساباطي، له أصل، وكان فطحيا الا انه ثقة، واصله معتمد عليه
[Ishaq bin `Ammar al-Sabati, he has an Asl, and he was a Fatahi but he is Thiqah, and his Asl is relied upon.]
There you go, this guy not just narrated Usool but he himself is the author of an Asl from these Usool, a Fatahi is writing their Usool now.
There is also Ahmad bin al-Hassan bin `Ali bin Faddal, al-Jawahiri said:
494 – 494 – 497 – أحمد بن الحسن بن علي بن محمد بن فضال: من أصحاب الهادي والعسكري (ع) فطحي – ثقة – روى في كامل الزيارات – له كتب
[Ahmad bin al-Hassan bin `Ali bin Muhammad bin Faddal: from the companions of al-Hadi and al-`Askari (as), Fatahi – Thiqah – narrated in Kamil al-Ziyarat – he has a book]
These are some examples and there are many others, so in conclusion we ask the Shia, were did your “Mutawatir” narrations go? where are the narrations that declare who the Imams are? forget about the narrations, WHERE ARE YOUR IMAMS??? why didn’t they clarify the texts and guide their close companions!? did they tell them that the Imamah of al-Aftah was incorrect? and if they did tell them then why did those “great scholars and jurists” not accept this and remain on the Madhab of the Fatahiyyah? are they stubborn!? And if these Imams did not clarify to their companions that the Imamah of al-Aftah was incorrect as is apparent, then of what use are these Taqqiyah practicing Imams!? what use are they if they did not clarify this great matter!?
السلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته
الحمد لله حمدا طيبا كثيرا
The Shia did not believe in the infallibility of their Imams.
حقائق الإيمان – الشهيد الثاني – ص 150 – 151
فهل يعتبر في تحقق الإيمان أم يكفي اعتقاد إمامتهم ووجوب طاعتهم في الجملة ؟ فيه الوجهان السابقان في النبوة . ويمكن ترجيح الأول ، بأن الذي دل على ثبوت إمامتهم دل على جميع ما ذكرناه خصوصا العصمة ، لثبوتها بالعقل والنقل . وليس بعيدا الاكتفاء بالأخير ، علي ما يظهر من حال رواتهم ومعاصريهم من شيعتهم في أحاديثهم عليهم السلام ، فإن كثيرا منهم ما كانوا يعتقدون عصمتهم لخفائها عليهم ، بل كانوا يعتقدون أنهم علماء أبرار ، يعرف ذلك من تتبع سيرهم وأحاديثهم وفي كتاب أبي عمرو الكشي ( 1 ) رحمه الله جملة مطلعة على ذلك ، مع أن المعلوم من سيرتهم عليهم السلام مع هؤلاء أنهم كانوا حاكمين بإيمانهم بل عدالتهم . وهل يكفي في كل شخص اعتقاد إمامة من مضى منهم عليهم السلام إلى إمام زمانه وإن لم يعتقد إمامة الأئمة الباقين الذين وجدوا وانتهت الإمامة إليهم بعد انقراضه الظاهر ذلك ، وفي كثير من كتب الأحاديث والرجال ما يشعر بذلك ، فليطلب منهما . والدليل إنما يدل على وجوب اعتقاد إمامة ( 2 ) الاثنا عشر بالنظر إلى من تأخر زمانه عن تمام عددهم عليهم السلام ، فليتأمل ، كيف ؟ ! وقد كانوا في كل زمان مخفيين مشردين منزوين ملتزمين للتقية في أكثر أو قاتهم ، لا يستطيعون إخبار خواصهم بإمامتهم فضلا عن غيرهم ، يشهد بذلك كتب الرجال والأحاديث أيضا ، وحينئذ فلا بد من الاكتفاء بما ذكرناه ،والالزام خروج أكثر شيعتهم عن الإيمان ، وهو باطل . أ.هـ
The renowned Shia scholar of Hadith al-Shaheed al-Thani says in his book “Haqaeq al-Iman” pages 150-152:
“What is apparent from the condition of their Shia who lived in their time and narrated from them the Ahadeeth may peace be upon them, that MANY OF THEM did not believe in their infallibility because it was hidden from them but they used to believe that the Imams were pious obedient scholars, anyone who follows their stories and narrations knows this”
after a few lines he says:
“How!? they were hidden and isolated at all times and they practised taqiyyah most of the time, so they couldn’t tell even their closest followers about their Imamah let alone the others, the books of Rijal and the Ahadeeth are proof of this”
قال المامقاني في كتابه ( تنقيح المقال ) 6 / 340 :
لكن قول ابن الغضائري يوهم قبول روايته تارة ، ولا يبعد أنّهم كانوا يقبلون رواياته الخالية من الغلوّ ويتركون ما كان فيه غلوّ. وحيث إنّ الغلوّ عند القدماء ينسب إلى الرجل بأدنى شيء ، بل أكثر ما نعتقده الآن في أهل البيت عليهم السلام كانوا يومئذ يسمّونه غلوّاً . أ.هــ
Shia scholar al-Mamaqani says in his book “Tanqeeh al-Maqal” volume 6 page 340:
“Our predecessors used to ascribe Ghulu to the smallest things, in fact the majority of the things we believe in today regarding Ahlul-Bayt peace be upon them used to be called Ghulu by our predecessors.”
اللهم صل على محمد و آله و صحبه و إلعن أعدائهم
Scan of “Haqaeq al-Iman” pages 150-152: