Tag Archives: shia contradiction

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

Confusing History Of Shia Imamate And Mahdi


 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

So a shia said their belief has always been about 12 imam, but in reality, the idea of who would be the mahdi were not so clear by imam’s followers, let alone the no 12.

The confusion happened after every imam died. Fortunately all this was recorded by a 3rd century shia scholar al-Hasan bin Musa al-Nawbakhti in his book Firaq al-Shia. It all started after Ali’s death and it is repeated every time an imam passed away. When the 11th imam died, his followers were divided into 14 different groups, each one has their own unique opinions.

Luckily for shia, several centuries later under the iron fist of bloodthirsty Safavid dynasty, eventually the shia 12er belief reign supreme and became the most powerful of all shia sects.

Let’s see some of the examples of the different imam & mahdi that followers of imam believed from Ali RA until Hasan al-Askari

1. Ali is Mahdi

“….Ali was not killed and he did not die. They said that he would not die until he has driven the Arabs with his cane and filled the earth with justice and fairness after it has been filled with oppression and injustice. This was the first sect in Islam which believed in waqf (imamate ended with Ali as hidden imam) after Rasulullah. They are also the first extremists. They are called Saba’iyyah, the follower of Abdullah bin Saba’ who publicly criticised Abu Bakar, Umar…“

“…some scholars who were close to Ali (AS) said that Abdullah bin Saba’ was a Jew before he converted to Islam…”

“….he (Abdullah bin Saba’) was the first to declare that the imamate of Ali (AS) was mandatory…”

[The first people who hated Abu Bakar & Umar (ra) were the followers of Abdullah bin Saba the Jew, the same person whose existence many Shias of today try to deny]

2. Muhammad bin al Hanafiyya is Mahdi

“….they said al Hasan bin Ali went to war against Mu’awiyah with the permission of Muhammad and made treaty also with his permission. al Husein also, they said, fought Yazid with his permission, if not, both of them (al Hasan & al Husein) will be astray and ruined…”

[Hasan & Husein are followers of the true imam, Muhammad al-Hanafiyah]

3. Abdullah bin Muhammad bin al Hanafiyya (Abu Hashim) is Mahdi

“….he is called Abu Hashim and he is his father’s eldest son. His father appointed him as his successor….he is al Mahdi and he did not die….”

[Muhammad al-Hanafiyah’s son, not Hasan nor Husein as the next imam & Mahdi]

4. Abdullah bin Mu’awiyah bin Abdullah bin Ja’far bin Abi Talib (appointed by Abu Hashim) is Mahdi

“….Abdullah bin Mu’awiyah is al Mahdi, who was mentioned by Rasulullah and his Ahlulbait and he will lead the world, to fill it with goodness and justice after it was filled with injustice and oppression. Then, when he died, he will leave his position to someone from Bani Hashim – from the descendant of Ali bin Abi Talib….”

[Imamate would be in the hands of Bani Hashim from Ali bin Abi Talib, not just exclusively to Husein’s progeny]

5. Muhammad bin Abdullah bin al Hasan (al-Mutsanna) bin al Hasan bin Ali bin Abi Talib is Mahdi (known as an-Nafs az-Zakiya)

“When Abu Ja’far (AS) dies, his followers were divided into 2 groups. The first believed in the imamate of Muhammad bin Abdullah bin al Hasan bin al Hasan bin Ali bin Abi Talib who revolted in Madina and was killed there. He claimed that he was al Mahdi and he did not die….”

[Mahdi is Hasan’s progeny who was martyred in Madina]

6. Ja’far al-Sadiq is Mahdi

“His followers (Ja’far al Sadiq) were divided into 6 groups…..Ja’far bin Muhammad did not die and he will not die until he revolts and rule the people and he is al-Mahdi….”

[Ja’far al-Sadiq is Mahdi, however after his death the majority of Shia’s scholars & respected figures believed in Abdullah, not Musa al-Kadhim as the next imam. After Abdullah died, they then followed Musa al-Kazim. Whatever happened to the so called hadith which mentioned all the 12 imam by names, did those shia scholars could not tell the difference between the name Abdullah & Musa?]

7. Ismail bin Ja’far al-Sadiq is Mahdi

“….they denied the death of Ismail during his father’s life – saying it was a trick plotted by his father, who was afraid for him, so he hid him. They claimed Ismail would not die until he ruled the world and cared for the people and that he was al-Mahdi, because his father appointed him for the imamate after him….”

[The true imam was Ismail not Musa al-Kadhim]

8. Muhammad bin Ismail bin Ja’far al Sadiq is Mahdi

“….There were only 7 imam after Rasulullah and his Ahlulbait. They were Ali bin Abi Talib, al-Hasan, al-Husein, Ali bin al-Husein, Muhammad bin Ali, Ja’far bin Muhammad, Muhammad bin Ismail bin Ja’far, who was al-Qaim al-Mahdi….”

[True imam were only 7 not 12]

9. Musa al Kadhim is Mahdi

“….Musa bin Ja’far did not die, nor will he die until he rules the world from east to west. He would fill it with justice after it had been filled with oppression. They claimed that he was al-Qaim al-Mahdi….”

[Imamate ended with al-Kadhim, did not continue after him. Ali al-Ridha and others after him were only al-Kadhim’s deputies, not true imam]

10. Muhammad bin Ali bin Muhammad bin Ali bin Musa is Mahdi

“….when Ali bin Muhammad bin Ali bin Musa al-Ridha (AS) died, a group from his followers believed in the imamate of his son, Muhammad, who died in Samarra during his father’s life…They claimed that he was al-Mahdi….”

[Ali al-Ridha did not appointed Muhammad al-Jawad/al-Taqi as the next imam as he was not a mature adult]

11. Hasan bin Ali al-Askari is Mahdi

“….his followers became fourteen 14 groups after his death. One group said that al-Hasan bin Ali is alive, but he disappeared and he is al-Mahdi, for it is impossible for him to die not leaving an acknowledged son….”

[This is one of the most confusing death as his followers were divided into this many groups]

And we still hear shia said that their imamate belief is as clear as the sun. The belief which suppose to prevent the them from misguidance became the doctrine which misguide and confused shia, even their scholars during their imam’s life.

———————————

By Hadrami

Original article link

Posted here by 13s2010

7 Comments

Filed under Articles, History, Revealing Shia sect

Ammar Nakhshawani: Ali hid the real Quran, only 12th Imam will reveal it


بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

Sayed Ammar Nakshwani claims Ali bin abi Talib compiled and then hid the real Quran, only the 12th Imam, the Mahdi of the Shia, will reveal it when he appears.

Other links:

link 1

link 2

Posted here by 13S2010

1 Comment

Filed under Revealing Shia sect, Tahreef in Quran

The oppression of Ali bin abi Talib


Assalamu Alaikum,

One of the main themes of Rafidism is the “oppression of Ahlul Bayt”. Ali (RA), according to the Rafida, was oppressed after the Prophet (SAWS) died. He was denied his rightful Khilafa, his wife was beaten up, his wife’s inheritance was stolen (Fadak) – amongst other things.

The Rafida go to great lengths to bewail, mourn and eulogise this severe oppression.

The Rafida also pride themselves on being a people of “logic”. They berate the Ash’aris and their literalism, their backwardness, and take pride in their use of ‘Aql and Ijtihad in interpreting the Qur’an and Ahadith.

So, I ask the Rafida to “logically” interpret the following facts about ‘Ali (RA), and to reconcile them with their belief in his oppression:

– Ali (RA) married 8 women.

http://mezan.net/mawsouat/ali/zawjateh.html

– Ali (RA) had 28 children.

http://mezan.net/mawsouat/ali/zawjateh.html

Taking the above facts into account:

– Logically – does a man who marries 8 times and has 28 children sound like he lived in oppression?

– Can a poor and oppressed man marry and maintain 8 women? – even if you don’t marry them at the same time

– Can a poor and oppressed man maintain and support 28 children? – let’s assume most of them make it to adulthood

– Where did ‘Ali get the money for this? Was he a known as a rich man?

– So where did he get this money?

——————————————————————

Written by a former Shia brother

Original article link

2 Comments

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

Three Shia infallible Imams, Three conflicting answers


al-Salamu `Aleykum,

We often come across this but this time I feel posting it…

محمد بن يعقوب، عن علي بن إبراهيم، عن محمد بن عيسى، عن يونس عن معاوية بن وهب قال: سألت أبا عبدالله (عليه السلام) عن النوم في المسجد الحرام ومسجد الرسول (صلى الله عليه وآله)؟ قال: نعم

[`Ali bin Ibrahim, from Muhammad bin `Isa, from Yunus, from Mu`awiyah bin Wahb that he said: I asked abu `Abdillah (as) about sleeping in the Masjid al-Haram and the Masjid al-Nabawi, he said: It’s allowed.]

source: al-Kafi 3/369 #10.

وعنه، عن أبيه، عن حماد، عن حريز، عن زرارة بن أعين قال: قلت لأبي جعفر (عليه السلام): ما تقول في النوم في المساجد؟ فقال: لا بأس به، إلا في المسجدين: مسجد النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله) والمسجد الحرام

[`Ali bin Ibrahim, from his father, from Hammad, from Hurayz, from Zurarah bin A`yyan that he said: I told abu Ja`far (as): What is your verdict on sleeping in the Masaajid? He said: No harm in this, except for two: Masjid al-Nabi and Masjid al-Haram.]

source: al-Kafi 3/370 #11.

عن عبدالله بن الحسن، عن جده علي بن جعفر، عن أخيه، قال: سألته عن النوم في المسجد الحرام؟ قال: لابأس، وسألته عن النوم في مسجد الرسول؟ قال: لا يصلح

[From `Abdullah bin al-Hasan, from his grandfather `Ali bin Ja`far, from his brother, He said: I asked him about sleeping in the Masjid al-Haram? He repied: No harm in this. Then I asked him about sleeping in Masjid al-Rasul? He said: Not allowed.]

source: Qurb al-Isnad pg.69 #6382.

al-Baqir says: You cannot sleep in al-Masjid al-Nabawi nor al-Masjid al-Haram but the rest are ok.

al-Sadiq his son contradicts him and says: There is no issue in sleeping in any Masjid.

al-Kadhim his grandson contradicts both and says: No issue in sleeping in Masjid al-Haram but not in al-Nabawi.

The joys of infallibility. This is what I call “Lutf”, Allah left us without an infallible and we only have conflicting Hadith.

By Hani
Original article link
Posted by 13S2010

Leave a comment

Filed under Infallibility issues with shia imams, Revealing Shia sect

al-Kulayni’s best joke and contradiction in al-Kafi


al-Salamu `Aleykum,

Check out this funny man’s contradiction.

Muhammad ibn Ya’qub al-Kulayni narrated in al-Kafi vol.1 pg.261:

أن الأئمة عليهم السلام يعلمون علم ما كان وما يكون وانه لا يخفى عليهم الشئ صلوات الله عليهم

-1-

أحمد بن محمد ومحمد بن يحيى، عن محمد بن الحسين، عن إبراهيم بن إسحاق الأحمر، عن عبد الله بن حماد، عن سيف التمار قال كنا مع أبي عبد الله عليه السلام جماعة من الشيعة في الحجر فقال: علينا عين؟ فالتفتنا يمنة ويسرة فلم نر أحدا فقلنا: ليس علينا عين فقال: ورب الكعبة ورب البنية – ثلاث مرات – لو كنت بين موسى والخضر لأخبرتهما أني أعلم منهما ولأنبئتهما بما ليس في أيديهما، لان موسى والخضر عليهما السلام أعطيا علم ما كان ولم يعطيا علم ما يكون وما هو كائن حتى تقوم الساعة وقد ورثناه من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وراثة

Chapter: That the Imams have the Knowledge of What Was and  What Will Be, and That Nothing Is Unknown to Them, may the blessings of Allah be upon them.

-1-

Ahmad ibn Muhammad and Muhammad ibn Yahya have narrated from Muhammad ibn al-Husayn from Ibrahim ibn Ishaq al-Ahmar from ‘Abd Allah ibn Hammad from Sayf al-Tammar who has said that he with a group of Shi‘a were in the presence of abu ‘Abd Allah (as), in a room so the Imam (as) said: “Are there eyes watching us?” We then looked right and left and did not see anyone. We said, “No eye is watching over us.” The Imam (as), said, “I swear by the Lord of the Ka‘ba. I swear by the Lord of the House.” He said so three times. “Had I been with Moses and al-Khidr I would have told them that I had more knowledge than they did and would have informed them of that of which they had no knowledge. This is because Moses and al-Khidr were given the knowledge of what was in the past and they were not given the knowledge of what will be in future or what will exist up to the Day of Judgment, while we have inherited all of it (knowledge) from the Messenger of Allah as heirs.”

LINK: http://shiaonlinelib…/الصفحة_309#top

 By Hani 
Posted by 13S2010

6 Comments

Filed under Revealing Shia sect, Shia Ghulu (Exaggeration)

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