Tag Archives: imamate

Manipulation of Pro Ismaili Shia Hadith by Twelver Shias


-=[Twelver Shia Manipulation of Ismaeli Hadith]

While reading Ali ibn Babawayh’s Al-Imamah wal Tabsira, and comparing its contents to other Shia works, I stumbled upon a fascinating narration that implicates Twelvers of manipulating Isma’eeli reports.

Ja’afar Al-Sadiq is rebuking his son Abdullah, saying to him: “Why can’t you be like your brother? By Allah, I see the light in his face!”

Abdullah responds: “Don’t we have the same father? Don’t we have the same mother?”

Ja’afar says: “Isma’eel is from me and you are my son.”

This report can be understood in two ways. It can be seen as a general praise for Ismaeel. It can also be seen as evidence that he’s the next Imam. This itself is clear from the praise given.

What leads to this conclusion is: – that he is “from his father” – the light in his face – that Al-Sadiq also doesn’t ask Abdullah to be like Musa instead

Al-Kulayni then narrates the exact same report, with the SAME chain of narrators, but removes Isma’eel’s name and substitutes it with “my son.” He includes this report in the section called Chapter of Evidence for Musa.

Why was the word left ambigious though? Why did it say: “My son” instead of an explicit “Musa”? My guess is that whoever tampered with the hadith (most likely Al-Kulayni) didn’t want to flat out lie about it.

Instead, he narrated the hadith as per its meaning, since Isma’eel and Musa are both sons of Ja’afar. Though, he had to keep it ambiguous so that this wouldn’t be used as evidence for Isma’eel. Of course, placing it in a chapter about evidence for Musa is clearly foul play.

It is a shame that we do not have access to many Isma’eeli texts that provide their evidence for the Imamah of Isma’eel. I’m sure we would find many more examples of these if they were available to us.

 

Pro_Ismaili_Ali_ibn_Babawayh_original

Original narration in Ali ibn Babawayh’s Al-Imamah wal Tabsira

Pro_Ismaili_Kulayni_Kafi_alteration

Tampered narration in Al-Kulayni’s al-Kafi

Originally posted on twitter by brother Farid : https://twitter.com/Farid_0v/status/1139920312894722049

Leave a comment

Filed under Articles

He rejected Shia sect and accepted Ahl-Sunnah due to this argument


Bismillah irrahman irrahim,

I was going through a shiite forum and i went through a thread about debate on imamah and till today i couldnt figure out what was the right way imamate or caliphate through shura. I was so confused about which faith to adopt sunni or shia? But Alhamdulillah i am now clear and it has driven all my confusion to the bin. This brother argued very cleverly and busted the opponent by these lines:

“Lets assume for the sake of arguments that imamat of the 12 was the chosen way. Ok Ali becomes the khalifa, than hassan, than hussain & till ur 12th imam mahdi. I am sure we all agree these imams were MORTAL human beings. Suppose each of these imams got khilafat without any resistance & there was no opposition by anyone & this is what u shias want isnt it? U criticize the sahaba for depriving the Ahly bayt from their right to rule the ummah? Fine… 20 years of khilafat by each of ur “divinely appointed” imam gives a total of 240 years. What after that? For the sake of argument we accept that all ur stories & tales of the tragedies & sad events surrounding the Ahly Bayt from the day they were entitled to rule till the day ur last imam left the ummah are true, but all these self made theories fail miserably on the other side when we apply them to reality. U guys have NO authentic narrations to clearly indicate what would been the scenario if things went in the favor of Ahly Bait & no one turned against Ali & his family”

He further continues:

“shia islam fails when it comes to the real application of its underlying principles. That proves it NOT the legitimate school of thought. This is why i dont accept it as a right path. It is full of flaws & miscalculations.

Compare this system with that of sunnis, a shura elects a caliph who is capable & worth of being one. He can be anyone, from any tribe, any race… thats more practical & applicable too. Its not limited to a number of people. It can be continued till qiyamah. So thats the right way.”

I am fully confident on my faith from now on. Shiism is false religion and doesnt make sense at all.

Original post link.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Debates: Ahle-sunnah VS shia, Guided Ones

Even Ali’s official letters reject the Shia Imamah


Salam,

Imami Shia claim `Ali had a distinct rank and position that no one else held, but did he clarify this in his official letters?

We find in Nahjul-Balagha, under the section on `Ali’s letters, on page 582 in a letter he sent to the Koufans as he left for Basarah:

مِنْ عَبْدِ اللهِ عَلِيّ أَمِيرِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ إلَى أَهْلِ الْكُوفَةِ، جَبْهَةِ الاَْنْصَارِ وَسَنَامِ الْعَرَبِ أَمَّا بَعْدُ

“From the slave of Allah `Ali, commander of the faithful, to the people of Kufah who are foremost among the supporters and chiefs of the Arabs.”

And in another letter he wrote regarding his Will:

هذَا مَا أَمَرَ بِهِ عَبْدُ اللهِ عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَبِي طَالِب أمِيرُالْمُؤْمِنِينَ فِي مَالِهِ، ابْتِغَاءَ وَجْهِ اللهِ، لِيُولِجَني بِهِ الْجَنَّةَ، وَيُعْطِيَني الاَْمَنَةَ

“This is what was ordered by the slave of Allah `Ali ibn abi Talib, commander of the faithful, regarding his property, seeking Allah’s face.”

On the other hand we see the leaders before him, such as `Umar ibn al-Khattab write their letters identically, like in al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah, the first volume, on page 122:

من عبدالله عمر بن الخطاب أمير المؤمنين إلى عبد الله بن قيس، سلام عليك، أما بعد

“From the slave of Allah `Umar ibn al-Khattab, commander of the faithful, to `Abdullah ibn Qays, peace be upon you.”

And the leader after him, also all of them wrote the exact same words, such as abu Ja`far al-Mansour, in al-Kamil-fil-Lughah, third volume 1490-1491:

من عبد الله عبد الله أمير المؤمنين، إلى محمد بن عبد الله، أما بعد

“From the slave of Allah `Abdullah, commander of the faithful, to Muhammad bin `Abdullah.”

In other words all of them except Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq wrote the exact same expressions, this is because Abu Bakr had a distinct station of being the actual successor, so he would write “Khalifatu Rasul-Allah” and the title of “Commander of the faithful” was not used in his time.

If `Ali had a distinct position and elevated status, why didn’t he use it to identify himself? For instance Shia claim he’s “The infallible leader” or they say “Wasi Rasul-Allah”, why did he not use these titles to show his special position?

So ponder.

Original source link

7 Comments

Filed under Articles, History, Infallibility issues with shia imams, Question bank for shiite's

Shia scholar: Early Shias did not believe in Infallibility of Imams


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.

 

1 Comment

Filed under History, Infallibility issues with shia imams

Imami Shia say: Prophet Adam (as) did not testify to Wilayah of 12 Imams


Sura TaaHaa Ayah 115 “And certainly We took a covenant from Adam before, but he forgot; and We did not find in him any firm resolve.”

Imam Muhammad Baqir (asws) said, “And certainly We gave a covenant to Adam before, but he forgot” refers to the taking of an oath from Adam (as) regarding Muhammad (saw) and the Imams (asws) after Him but Adam (as) was negligent in His oath. Adam (as) did not have the “firm resolve” to recognize the true status of Muhammad (saw) and the Imams (asws). The reason behind giving the title of Olil Azm (owners of the “firm resolve”) to the five Olil Azm messengers is that Allah took an oath from Them regarding Muhammad (saw), His Successors and al Mahdi (atfs). They, the five Olil Azm, testified to this oath with “a firm resolve” they accepted the oath as the truth.”

(Al Kafi vol 1 pg 416, Tafseer Qummi Second Edition pg 65)

Abu Hamza narrates Imam Muhammad Baqir (asws) said, “Allah took a covenant from the prophets and said, “Am I not your Lord?”

The prophets replied, “Yes. You are”.

Allah asked, “Is Muhammad (saw) not My Messenger? Is Ali (asws) not Ameerul Momineen (asws)? Are His Successors not the authorities appointed by Me? Are They not the keepers of My knowledge? Is al Mahdi (atfs) not the one with whom I will support My religion? Is He not the one through whom I will spread My government? Is he not the one through whom I will avenge My enemies? Is he not the one through whom the people will worship Me, willingly or unwillingly?”

The prophets replied, “We believe in this covenant and we testify to this, O’our Lord”.

Imam Muhammad Baqir (asws) then said, “Adam (as) did not deny this covenant but He did not testify to it. Therefore the religion was announced through the five messengers who testified in al Mahdi (atfs). However Adam (as) did not have the “firm resolve” to testify. This is the meaning of this ayah.”

(Tafseer al Burhan vol 5 pg 191, Taweel al Ayat al Dhahira pg 313)

Sura Furqaan Ayah 26 “The kingdom on that day shall rightly belong to the Beneficent Allah, and a hard day shall it be for the unbelievers.”

Ali bin Asbaat narrates from some of Our companions, “The kingdom” belongs to Allah on “that day” and on every other day but the above ayah refers to the rising of al Mahdi (atfs) when everyone will worship Allah.”

(Taweel al Ayat al Dhahira pg 369)

Original Posted link

Posted here by 13S2010

2 Comments

Filed under Revealing Shia sect, Shia Ghulu (Exaggeration)

Saqīfah incident actually disproves Shia concept of Imamate


بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

Saqīfa incident actually disproves Shia concept of Imamate/Wilayah of Ali

Shias believe the Prophet (S) declared Caliph Ali as the first Imam in Ghadeer. Shias say Abu Bakr and Umar plotted in Saqifa against Ali, and hence snatched the Caliphate from him. This is how they think about this incident, but an unbiased look at this incident shows that it was impossible. First of all, the people of Madinah, whom Allah called ‘Ansar’ which means ‘the Helpers’ had gathered at Saqifah. Their gathering in Saqifah was for the purpose of selecting a Caliph from amongst themselves. Hence, if anyone plotted against Ali, it was actually by these people whom Allah declared ‘Ansar’. Abu Bakr and Umar only came to Saqifah to stop them. If they had any intention to select a Caliph at Saqifah, which would have been the last thing in their mind when they heard the gathering of Ansar at Saqifah, they would have gone to Saqifah with a large number of Muhajireen i.e ‘The Immigrants’. They only intended to stop the Ansar from selecting a Caliph, because they didn’t have the right since the Prophet (S) had clearly declared that the Caliph would be from the ‘Quraish’. But aside from that, the gathering of Ansar at Saqifah shows that those people didn’t consider the event of Ghadeer to be the appointment of Ali as the first Caliph. And if Ghadeer event was the evidence of the appointment of Ali as the first Caliph, than the Ansar were the first people to go against Ali. 

When Abu Bakr and Umar reached Saqifah with Abu Ubaidah, and when they looked at the situation, they tried to stop Ansar from selecting a Caliph from amongst them. They talked to them, and persuaded many people from Ansar. How would anyone from Ansar agree with them, if they didn’t think Abu Bakr and Umar were telling the truth? How can Abu Bakr, Umar and Abu Ubaidah force anyone from Ansar to accept their stance when they were only three people in a large gathering of Ansar? And as the Shias preach day and night, Abu Bakr and Umar didn’t even have the superficial powers which would have forced the Ansar to agree with them! The only thing with which they convinced the Ansar was Quran and Sunnah. But still, there were few Ansari who wanted to choose a Caliph from amongst them. If they had succeeded, and if Abu Bakr and Umar hadn’t stopped them, it would have been Ansar who would have made the first error of choosing a wrong person as Caliph as both Sunnis and Shias agree that the Caliph is from the Quraish. But Abu Bakr and Umar stopped them from committing this error, and not by force, but with discussion and wisdom.

When some of the Ansari still wanted to choose a person from amongst them as Caliph, Umar knew that they can only be stopped from selecting a man from their own as Caliph, by selecting an eligible person from Quraish as the Caliph. And he was Abu Bakr, so Umar told him to move his hand forth, and he rendered allegiance to Abu Bakr. The Ansar who were convinced as a result of the discussion that the Caliph has to be from the Quraish started rendering allegiance to him, so much so that all of them rendered allegiance to him. And Umar saved the Muslims from the division on that day with his wisdom.

Hence this event is not actually a crime of Abu Bakr and Umar, but it is the event which shows how they protected the Muslims from division on the very first day after the death of the Prophet (S). If Ansar had succeeded in choosing a caliph from amongst them, the unity of Muslims would have been at stake. Because the Muhajireen wouldn’t render allegiance to an Ansari Caliph, since neither the Ansar could force the Muhajireen nor they could convince the Muhajireen to accept an Ansari as a Caliph in the light of Quran and Sunnah. The Muslims would have been fighting with one another, rather than against the rebels and the kuffar. And Ali would still not have got the position of the Caliph, because just like Ansar didn’t think the event of Ghadeer as the appointment of Ali as Caliph, so was the case with the Muhajireen, because the Muhajireen considered Abu Bakr to be the eligible person for Caliphate.

Conclusion:
Ali wasn’t considered as ‘the divinely appointed first Caliph’ by Ansar as well as Muhajireen. And he wouldn’t have become even the fourth caliph of the Muslims if Abu Bakr and Umar hadn’t intervened at Saqifah, because that would have lead to the division of Muslims and it would have been the biggest catastrophe, since the centre of Islam would have become the battleground between the two factions of Muslims, and before they could have settled their dispute, the rebels and the Kuffar would have overpowered them. We need to be thankful for the role of Abu Bakr and Umar in Saqifah, rather than condemning them.

Wa lillahil hamd ! 

 

By Kalaam (Islamic-Forum.net)
Posted by 13S2010

Leave a comment

Filed under Articles, History

Does the belief in Imamah permit the so called “Ghaybah”?


al-Salamu `Aleykum,

Everyone knows the original argument of the early Imami Shia, that the Imam must be available at all times and if there is no Imam the world would crumble and the earth would shake and all that other baseless nonsense.

Now the famous Shia scholar al-Murtada who came after the Ghaybah like all his other companions had to defend the concept stated above, his biggest problem at that point was that THERE WAS NO IMAM, their man was hidden in occultation.

al-Murtada wrote a book on Ghaybah just like his other companions, each of them trying to explain it, each making excuses for it. What caught my eye was one sentence he wrote in his book. He wrote: “Would you accept that the disappearance (Of the Imam) is permitted (In Islam and intellect) ?”

Since he wrote his book to defend their theory of 12 Imams I knew he would say “YES I DO”. In fact that’s what he said right after it:

أنا لذلك مجوز

“I permit it.”

After this he tries to give some excuses as to why he permits it, although in the previous paragraph he himself was saying “We don’t know the true wisdom behind it.”

ANYWAYS

I remembered at that point, the argument of the first early Imami Shia who were so stuck up on having an infallible Imam 24/7. Those early Shia who if they were asked: “Okay you guys claim that the earth needs an infallible Imam the whole time, would it be acceptable if this Imam let’s say was handicapped and couldn’t do his job? or he took a vacation without telling anyone and disappeared for a couple of months?”

These early Imami scholars who were the heavyweights of the Mahdab during their time would have surely said:

“NO WAY! The Imam needs to be always present! Who then will guide the people and correct the innovations and explain the Qur’an!? The intellect does not allow this!!! If the Imam is gone then Allah would not be a just God! The presence of the Imam is out of grace and Lutf so how can he disappear!? The earth will tremble and mountains will fall bla bla…”

Then I remembered, it was these same early scholars who invented the Madhab in the first place, they fabricated these narrations and made up the entire story to begin with!!! So maybe they declared in their narrations that the Imam must NEVER be allowed to disappear, which in turn destroys the dumber theory of Ghaybah?

I opened my Kafi and I knew that my best bet would be those comical chapters about the earth shattering without the presence of an Imam.

I found two chapters related to this each having 7 to 10 narrations, but unfortunately all of them were weak except 2 or 3, even these are mainly Hasan and Hasan Muwathaq and one is Sahih… anyway, here you go, these are authentic narrations from al-Kafi:

عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ مَنْصُورِ بْنِ يُونُسَ وَ سَعْدَانَ بْنِ مُسْلِمٍ عَنْ إِسْحَاقَ بْنِ عَمَّارٍ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ( عليه السلام ) قَالَ سَمِعْتُهُ يَقُولُ إِنَّ الْأَرْضَ لَا تَخْلُو إِلَّا وَ فِيهَا إِمَامٌ كَيْمَا إِنْ زَادَ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ شَيْئاً رَدَّهُمْ وَ إِنْ نَقَصُوا شَيْئاً أَتَمَّهُ لَهُمْ

[…from Ishaq bin `Ammar from abi `Abdillah (as): I heard him say: “The earth will not be without an Imam, so that he may correct the believers if they add (to the religion) and if they miss something he would complete it for them.]

مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى الْعَطَّارُ عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنِ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ مَحْبُوبٍ عَنْ دَاوُدَ الرَّقِّيِّ عَنِ الْعَبْدِ الصَّالِحِ ( عليه السلام ) قَالَ إِنَّ الْحُجَّةَ لَا تَقُومُ لِلَّهِ عَلَى خَلْقِهِ إِلَّا بِإِمَامٍ حَتَّى يُعْرَفَ

[… from Dawud al-Raqqi from al-`Abd al-Salih (as): He said: “The Hujjah of Allah on his creation shall not be established except with an Imam so that he may be known.]

As the reader can see from their older inventions, before the Ghaybah issue messed up their plans, their authentic narrations were stating that THERE MUST BE AN IMAM WHO IS PRESENT AT ALL TIMES, not one who is hidden! Because the hidden one cannot explain the divine arguments of God so that his Hujjah be known nor can he correct the mistakes of the believers, as you can see the reason for the need of an Imam at ALL TIMES is to fulfill these purposes. However, the concept of having a hidden one contradicts this, so the intellect rejects the occultation as well as the texts, and since their entire charade is built on their weak “intellect” then it all falls apart once more.

By Hani
Posted by 13S2010

14 Comments

Filed under Articles, Revealing Shia sect, Shiite's sahih hadith