Abu Basir’s testimony against himself and his fellows

ARTICLE:

al-Salamu `Aleykum,

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 anyone 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 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 but 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 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 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!?

wal-Salamu `Aleykum,

Nasibi shaykh of Saduq

April 29, 2012 at 11:41 pm | Posted in Ilmul Hadith and Rijal of Shias | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

1 Votes

We have already posted testimony of al-Khui, that amongst of teachers of as-Saduq were nawaseeb.

Here I am going to one example from such shuyukh of as-Saduq.

Ibn Babaweyh, as-Saduq in his “Uyun akhbarul Rida” (1/312) said:

حدثنا أبو نصر أحمد بن الحسين الضبي وما لقيت انصب منه وبلغ من منصبه أنه كان يقول: اللهم صل على محمد فردا ويمتنع من الصلاة على آله

Translation:

Narrated to us Abu Nasr Ahmad ibn Al-Hussein al-Dhabbi, and I didn’t meet more nasibi than him, and from his nasibizm was narrated that he use to say: “O God! Blessings be upon Muhammad (s) alone.” He refused to send blessings upon the Members of the Prophet’s Holy Household.

Ibn Babaweyh narrated from this nawasib in this book, and also in Ilal ash-Sharae, and Maanil Akbar.

Now, we would leave stupid shias with their favourite question: HOW DARE YOU NARRATE FROM NAWASEEB?!!

al-Khui and his tawsiq upon Nawasib

April 29, 2012 at 11:14 pm | Posted in Ilmul Hadith and Rijal of Shias, Refuting shia doubts | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

1 Votes

We have already gave good examples of shia scholars narrating from nawasib, and here another one.

Talk is about Uthman ibn Eesa.

Al-Khui in “Mojam ar-Rijal” (12/132) said:

أقول: لا ينبغي الشك في أن عثمان بن عيسى كان منحرفا عن الحق ومعارضا للرضا عليه السلام، وغير معترف بامامته، وقد استحل أموال الامام عليه السلام، ولم يدفعها إليه ! وأما توبته ورده الاموال بعد ذلك فلم تثبت فإنها رواية نصر بن الصباح، وهو ليس بشئ، ولكنه مع ذلك كان ثقة بشهادة الشيخ وعلي بن إبراهيم وابن شهر آشوب

I (al-Khui) say: There shouldn’t be any doubt  that Uthman ibn Eesa slipped away from truth, and opposed to ar-Rida (alaihi salam), and didn’t recognize his Imamah, and made lawful property of Imam (alaihi salam), and didn’t send it to him. And his repentance and return of property after that isn’t established, it was narrated from Nasr ibn as-Sabah, and he was nothing. AND ALONG WITH THAT HE WAS THIQAH by testimony from ash-Shaykh, Ali ibn Ibrahim, ibn Shahrashub…

So person:

a) Didn’t believe in Imamah of ar-Rida.

b) Opposed to ar-Rida.

c) Took property of ar-Rida.

d) He was waqifi, as said Najashi in Rijal  (p 300) See - Waqifiya, Zaydiya in the light of shia narrations

And along with all these he was thiqah in shia view!

How to make from unknown narrator a sound one? Shia way.

March 20, 2012 at 5:49 pm | Posted in Ilmul Hadith and Rijal of Shias | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

Rate This


Shaykh of shias Ali Namazi ash-Shahrudi in his book “Mustadrakat ilmu Rijalu Hadith” (2/421) said:

٣٦٣٥ – الحسن بن عبد الله الارجاني:

لم يذكروه. روى عن مولانا الصادق صلوات الله عليه، وروى عنه الهيثم ابن واقد قال: من صلى في منزله ثم أتى مسجدا من مساجدهم فصلى فيه خرج بحسناتهم، كما في يب ج ٣ باب فضل المساجد ح ٧٧٨ ص ٢٧٠، ومن هذا الحديث يظهر حسن عقيدته وأنه شيعي امامي.

al-Hasan ibn Abdullah al-Irjani. WASN’T MENTIONED. Narrated from Mawlana as-Sadiq salawatullah alaihi. And narrated from him al-Haytham ibn Waqad said: Who prayed in his house then went to their (sunnis) mosque and prayed there with them, he would leave it with their good deeds…(he gives source of hadith and then Shahrudi says)……AND FROM THIS HADITH APPARENT HIS GOOD BELIEF AND THAT HE WAS SHII IMAMI.

First he said that narrator wasn’t mentioned. And that mean no one from scholar mentioned him with praise or critic.

And then he managed to make from this unknown narrator good shii fellow.

So for them it is enough to narrate something what is contradicting to unity with sunnah to become shia with correct belief!!

Could shia hadith be rejected because it is weird?

February 5, 2012 at 10:28 am | Posted in Ilmul Hadith and Rijal of Shias, Refuting shia doubts | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

1 Votes


When we say weird report it is mean such kind of report which contradicts to known and well accepted reality. For example if any report says that prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) said that doomsday would happen 100 years after his demise, we would reject it. Because it is established that this didn’t happen, and we do believe that this was wrongly attributed to prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam). But shias? Could they do this?

Shaykh of shias Hashim al-Bahrani in his book “Al-Lawami an-Noraniyah” (p 549) narrated:

COVER PAGE