Fatwa of al-Azhar regarding following Ithna `Ashari Shi`a madhhab
rj...@mailandnews.com
BENEFICENT, THE MERCIFUL Text of the Verdict (Fatwa) Issued by His
Excellency Shaikh al-Akbar Mahmood Shaltoot, Head of the al-Azhar
University, on Permissibility of Following "al-Shia al-Imamiyyah" School
of Thought
His Excellency was asked:
Some believe that, for a Muslim to have religiously correct worship and
dealing, it is necessary to follow one of the four known schools of
thought, whereas, "al-Shia al-Imamiyyah" school of thought is not one of
them nor "al-Shia al-Zaidiyyah." Do your Excellency agree with this
opinion, and prohibit following "al-Shia al-Imamiyyah al-Ithna
Ashariyyah" school of thought, for example?
His Excellency replied:
1) Islam does not require a Muslim to follow a particular Madh'hab
(school of thought). Rather, we say: every Muslim has the right to
follow one of the schools of thought which has been correctly narrated
and its verdicts have been compiled in its books. And, everyone who is
following such Madhahib [schools of thought] can transfer to another
school, and there shall be no crime on him for doing so.
2) The Ja'fari school of thought, which is also known as "al-Shia al-
Imamiyyah al-Ithna Ashariyyah" (i.e., The Twelver Imami Shi'ites) is a
school of thought that is religiously correct to follow in worship as
are other Sunni schools of thought.
Muslims must know this, and ought to refrain from unjust prejudice to
any particular school of thought, since the religion of Allah and His
Divine Law (Shari'ah) was never restricted to a particular school of
thought. Their jurists (Mujtahidoon) are accepted by Almighty Allah, and
it is permissible to the "non-Mujtahid" to follow them and to accord
with their teaching whether in worship (Ibadaat) or transactions
(Mu'amilaat).
Signed,
Mahmood Shaltoot.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above Fatwa was announced on July 6, 1959 from the Head of al-Azhar
University, and was subsequently published in many publications in the
middle east which include, but are not limited to:
al-Sha'ab newspaper (Egypt), issue of July 7, 1959.
al-Kifah newspaper (Lebanon), issue of July 8, 1959.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
View the original Arabic text of this fatwa
http://www.sunnah.org/history/fatwa_ashar_shia.htm
saifu
Bismillah, Alhamdulillah, Wasselaatu wasselam 'alaa resulillah,
> Head Office of al-Azhar University: IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE
> BENEFICENT, THE MERCIFUL Text of the Verdict (Fatwa) Issued by His
> Excellency Shaikh al-Akbar Mahmood Shaltoot, Head of the al-Azhar
> University, on Permissibility of Following "al-Shia al-Imamiyyah"
> School of Thought
>
>
Shaikh Mahmood Shaltoot or you seem to confuse the fact that "al-Shia
al-Imamiyyah" is a sect and not a school of thought equivalent to the
four madhabs of Ahlusunnah. All the four madhabs are in agreement on
Aqidah and differ with the Imammiyyah. The four Imam of the four
madhabs of Ahlusunnah consider the beliefs of "al-Shia al-Imamiyyah"
to be misguided and in some points clear Kufr.
rj110 does not intend to follow the fatwa of Shaikh Mahmood Shaltoot.
He uses it as one of his tools of Shia (Rafida) taqiyyah
(dissimulation).
What happened to the Imami Shia doctrine that the doctrine of
Taqiyyah, or dissimulation, (i.e. calculated deception). In support of
this doctrine of taqiyyah (dissimulation), the shia attribute the
following to Abu Abdullah (Ja'far as-Sadiq):
"Nine tenths of religion is taqiyyah (dissimulation), hence one who
does not dissimulate has no religion." (Al-Kafi vol.9 p.110)
"He who conceals his religion has saved it, and he who makes it public
has destroyed it."
"A believer who does not dissimulate is like a body without a head."
(Tafseer al-Askari)
"Mix with them (i.e. non-shia) externally but oppose them internally."
(Al-Kafi vol.9 p.116)
Here is what the Imams of the four Madhabs of Ahlusunnah says about
the Shia (Rafidha):
Imaam ash-Shaaf'i said,
"I have not seen among the heretics a people more famous
for falsehood than the Raafidite Shi`ites."
He also said, "Narrate knowledge from everyone you meet
except the Raafidite Shi`ites, because they invent Hadeeths
and adopt them as part of their religion." [Ibn Taymeeyah,
Minhaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah, vol 1 38-39]
Imaam Maalik said,
"Do not speak to them nor narrate from them, for surely
they are liars."
During a class of Imaam Maalik, it was mentioned that the
Raafidite Shi`ites curse the Sahaabah. In reply, Imaam
MAlik quoted the Quranic verse,
"Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and those with him are
harsh with the disbelievers and gentle among themselves. So
that the disbelievers may become enraged with them." He
then said, "Whoever becomes enraged when the Sahaabah are
mentioned is one about whom the verse speaks." - Soorah al-
Fath 29.
Concerning the Shia belief - rj110 would not admit it in public
adhering to taqiyyah (dissimulation) - is that the Qur'an is distorted
as in the following story:
During the period of Muslim rule in Spain, Imaam ibn Hazm
was debating with some Spanish Catholic priests . He
brought before them evidence of textual distortions in the
Bible and the loss of original manuscripts. When they
replied by pointing out to him Shi`ite claim that the
Qur'an is also being distorted, Ibn Hazm informed them that the Rafida
Shi`ite could not be used as evidence against the Qur'an or
against Muslims because they are not themselves Muslims." -
al-Fisaal fee al-Milal wa an-Nihal, Ibn Hazm.
Saifu,
rj...@mailandnews.com
saifu wrote:
>
> Shaikh Mahmood Shaltoot or you seem to confuse the fact that "al-Shia
> al-Imamiyyah" is a sect and not a school of thought equivalent to the
> four madhabs of Ahlusunnah. All the four madhabs are in agreement on
> Aqidah and differ with the Imammiyyah.
Sheikh Farid Wasel Nasr, the current Mufti of Egypt has also made a similar
ruling about the 12er Shi'ah school and there are many others, not just Shaikh
Mahmood Shaltoot.
It seems to me that you are the one that is confused on the issue.
As far as the the 3 main principles of Islamic Belief namely, Oneness of God,
Prophethood and the Day of Judgment, all muslims regardless of school, whether
Shi'i or Sunni, they are all in agreement about them.
On secondary issues such as Imamat or Adl (Justice of God) even the sunnis
among themselves have their differences.
Sunnis have several schools of Aqidah, not just one. You have the 'Ashariyyah,
Mu'taziliyyah, Tahawiyyah, the Maturidiyyah, Zahiriyyah and Salafiyyah.
If you can tolorate and accept your differences among your sunni schools on
secondary issues then to tolorate your difference with us on the secondary issue
of Imamat should not be difficult at all.
As far as the rest of your post it is so distorted and full of inaccuracies. It
is obviously just a cut and paste from some extremist Wahabi booklet about the
Shi'ah.
The Shi'ah have literally thousands of books on their beliefs published several
hundred of them easily available online which you can read. There is absolutely
no need for us to hide our beliefs from anyone. We are very clear about what we
believe.
You don't know what Taqiyyah is. Taqiyyah is to hide your beliefs in case of
danger on a Personal Level, not on an Collective Level. You apparently are
ignorant that even the Sunnis believe in the permissability of such. For example
many sunni scholars hid their beliefs on the uncreatedness of the Qur'an during
the early 'Abbasid rule to escape persecution. There were a few, such as Ahmad
bin Hanbal. So was this not Taqiyyah?
There are several books online that discuss Taqiyyah in detail. Please see Dr.
Tijani's book "With The Truthful" at:
http://rafed.net/books/other-lang/truthful/index.html namely
http://rafed.net/books/other-lang/truthful/17.html#28
The book covers a lot of misconceptions that many Sunnis have about the Shi'ah.
I highly recommend that you read it. You will see that we have a lot more in
common than you think.
there are more books about it at
http://al-islam.org/organizations/dilp/ and
http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/lib/index.php
salaam,
Ridwaan
And hold fast, all together, by the rope which God (stretches out for you), and
be not divided among yourselves 3:103
Surely this Islam is your religion, one religion (only), and I am your Lord,
therefore serve Me. 21:92
Omar
Assalamu alaikum,
Saifu wrote,
> Shaikh Mahmood Shaltoot or you seem to confuse the fact that "al-Shia
> al-Imamiyyah" is a sect and not a school of thought equivalent to the
> four madhabs of Ahlusunnah.
Mahmoud Shaltout clearly stated that the Imami Shia are a madhdhab.
Your view that they are rather a "sect" is at variance with that.
Unfortunately, the Shaykh al-Azhar speaks with considerably more
authority than you.
> rj110 does not intend to follow the fatwa of Shaikh Mahmood Shaltoot.
This is beside the point.
> He uses it as one of his tools of Shia (Rafida) taqiyyah
> (dissimulation).
This is merely an excuse to reject rational discussion and argument.
You mean to say that we should not discuss anything at all with them
because they are liars and sophists and will say anything at all in
order to gain an advantage.
> "Nine tenths of religion is taqiyyah (dissimulation), hence one who
> does not dissimulate has no religion." (Al-Kafi vol.9 p.110)
Context would be nice but since such citations circulate like
disembodied souls among anti-Shia polemecists, no context can ever be
provided. These gems are like the little snippets of the Quran used by
Christian Zionists and others to prove the hatred and eternal rancor
of Muslims toward all humanity. "But it is from the Quran!" they
scream.
> Here is what the Imams of the four Madhabs of Ahlusunnah says about
> the Shia (Rafidha):
>
> Imaam ash-Shaaf'i said,
>
> "I have not seen among the heretics a people more famous
> for falsehood than the Raafidite Shi`ites."
I wonder why he says "Raafidite Shi'ites". Who, Saifu, does he mean?
What are their beliefs?
> Imaam Maalik said,
>
> "Do not speak to them nor narrate from them, for surely
> they are liars."
No source? Nevermind. Imam Malik lived before the crystalization of
Shia Fiqh in the times of Imam Jaafar al-Sadiq (for whom the Jaafari
madhdhab is named), so he must have been speaking about someone or
something else. Perhaps they were "Raafidite Shi'ites"?
As I understand it, these people were at the time a political movement
and not a religious movement. Perhaps then, "raafidite shi'ites" means
"sectarian rejectionists" and what they rejected was the Caliphate of
someone or other.
> During a class of Imaam Maalik, it was mentioned that the
> Raafidite Shi`ites curse the Sahaabah. In reply, Imaam
> MAlik quoted the Quranic verse,
So, did he simply accept the charge against them with no evidence? Was
his response directed against those who curse the Sahaaba - the
complaint - or against the "Raafidite Shi'ites", whoever they are?
> Concerning the Shia belief - rj110 would not admit it in public
> adhering to taqiyyah (dissimulation) - is that the Qur'an is distorted
> as in the following story:
Yes. Because they practice "taqiyyah" they will not admit to anything
but will defend themselves against any fantastic charge with a barrage
of lies and deceit. Whatever their defense, it is immediately rejected
as "taqiyyah". Thus, all fantastic accusations are automatically
proven.
It seems to me that taqiyyah is a more powerful weapon in the arsenal
of the anti-Shias than in that of the Shias. Perhaps this is why it is
today an artifact of the distant past.
> During the period of Muslim rule in Spain, Imaam ibn Hazm
> was debating with some Spanish Catholic priests .
And his madhdhab, al-Zhaairiyyah, has vanished. They were literalists
that make the Hanbalis look like liberals. The Shia had banded
together with the Bani Abbas to overthrow the Ummayads and then set
about exterminating the entire family, a few of whom escaped to Spain
to revive the Ummayad dynasty. To find anti-Shias in Spain, where
there were no actual Shias, should spark our interest at least to ask
why?
> Saifu
Assalamu alaikum,
Omar
surayya
>Mahmoud Shaltout clearly stated that the Imami Shia are a madhdhab.
>Your view that they are rather a "sect" is at variance with that.
>Unfortunately, the Shaykh al-Azhar speaks with considerably more
>authority than you.
If they are considered a madhab, then how come the fiqh resources NEVER
mention them?
They mention the four schools, even the Al-Azhar scholars mention four,
but not this fifth one?
How can that be?
Your claims don't make sense, which isn't unusual. Why would the Al-
Azhar scholars omit a fifth school if they think it is a madhab?
saifu
> saifu...@yahoo.com (saifu) wrote in message news:<apm56t$r5k$1...@blue.rahul.net>...
> > rj...@mailandnews.com wrote in message news:<apcce3$6r1$1...@blue.rahul.net>...
>
Bismillah, Walhamdulillah, Wasselaatu wasselaam 'alaa resulillah,
> Assalamu alaikum,
>
Wa Alaikum Asselaam Wa Ruhmetullah,
> Saifu wrote,
>
> > Shaikh Mahmood Shaltoot or you seem to confuse the fact that "al-Shia
> > al-Imamiyyah" is a sect and not a school of thought equivalent to the
> > four madhabs of Ahlusunnah.
>
> Mahmoud Shaltout clearly stated that the Imami Shia are a madhdhab.
> Your view that they are rather a "sect" is at variance with that.
> Unfortunately, the Shaykh al-Azhar speaks with considerably more
> authority than you.
>
Authority from the Egyptian Government, Yes. In any case you can't
identfy truth by the position of the Individual; you would know the
position of the individual by the Truth. The Shaikh's Fatwa is
misguided from the point of view of Ahlussunah. You may want to
research the position of Ahlussunah concerning the Issue. From a
practical point of view I have to draw a line.
You may have an independent, non-sectarian, view of Issues concerning
sects and groups in Islam - you are entitled to those views.
> > rj110 does not intend to follow the fatwa of Shaikh Mahmood Shaltoot.
>
> This is beside the point.
>
He is asking for legitimacy by using the Fatwa of a "Sunni" Mufti -
did you ask why he needed the Fatwa - is there something realy wrong
with the Shi'a belief or is it just a misunderstanding that needs a
simple fatwa to clarify as Ridwan wont to tell us. Eventually, he will
tell you - told us many times on SRI - that we are lost and must
accept the infalible 12 Imams in order to be saved. He will also claim
that our ansestors (The Sahaba (Ridwanullahi 'alaihi wasallam) were
misguided rebels (being mild here as the Shia consider them and most
non-Shi'i as Unbelivers).
> > He uses it as one of his tools of Shia (Rafida) taqiyyah
> > (dissimulation).
>
> This is merely an excuse to reject rational discussion and argument.
You are quick to judge. Please, search the archived threads involving
Ridwan and find out that "rational discussion" was attempted. Look for
the ones that Involved Shibli Zamaan in particular.
> You mean to say that we should not discuss anything at all with them
> because they are liars and sophists and will say anything at all in
> order to gain an advantage.
>
We should discuss religious matters but according to a principle -
both sides are supposed to discuss the Truth! My judgement was made on
past experience. You may wish to make a research on the archived
threads as suggested and make your Judgement. We are all entitled to
our judgements.
> > "Nine tenths of religion is taqiyyah (dissimulation), hence one who
> > does not dissimulate has no religion." (Al-Kafi vol.9 p.110)
>
> Context would be nice but since such citations circulate like
> disembodied souls among anti-Shia polemecists, no context can ever be
> provided. These gems are like the little snippets of the Quran used by
> Christian Zionists and others to prove the hatred and eternal rancor
> of Muslims toward all humanity. "But it is from the Quran!" they
> scream.
>
The context was given in the other statements that was in my post.
"Mix with them (i.e. non-shia) externally but oppose them internally."
- (Al-Kafi vol.9 p.116). You may try to find the origionals based on
the citation. Do the "anti-Shia polemecists" have a valid reason for
their polemics? Your parallel examples of the "Christian Zionists " is
a true statement applied in the wrong context. "snippets of the Quran"
can be used as solid evidence. How do the Qur'an only followers know
the context of a Qur'anic revelation? Would they ever consider a
Hadith narration that would provide a context.
> > Here is what the Imams of the four Madhabs of Ahlusunnah says about
> > the Shia (Rafidha):
> >
> > Imaam ash-Shaaf'i said,
> >
> > "I have not seen among the heretics a people more famous
> > for falsehood than the Raafidite Shi`ites."
>
> I wonder why he says "Raafidite Shi'ites". Who, Saifu, does he mean?
> What are their beliefs?
>
Those who mention the Sahaba with disrespect - a mild description of
them. For example, the Zaidi Shia would not be considered "Raafidite".
You may find some context in what Immam Maalik and Abu Zur'aa said,
below.
Abu Zur'ah ar-Raazi said:
"If you see someone degrade any of the companions of the
Prophet, sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, know that he is a
disbeliever. Because the Prophet, sallallaahu `alayhi wa
sallam, was real, what he brought was the truth and all of
it was conveyed to us by the way of the Sahaabah. What
those disbelievers wish to do is to cast doubt on the
reliability of our narrators in order to invalidate the
Quraan and the Sunnah. Thus the disbelievers are the ones
most deserving defamation."
> > Imaam Maalik said,
> >
> > "Do not speak to them nor narrate from them, for surely
> > they are liars."
>
> No source? Nevermind.
Please, read Minhaj as-Sunnah of Shaikh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah for
more.
> Imam Malik lived before the crystalization of
> Shia Fiqh in the times of Imam Jaafar al-Sadiq (for whom the Jaafari
> madhdhab is named), so he must have been speaking about someone or
> something else. Perhaps they were "Raafidite Shi'ites"?
>
Please, verify your claim: "Imam Malik lived before the crystalization
of
Shia Fiqh in the times of Imam Jaafar al-Sadiq ". As you will
discover, your conclusion is invalid. Hint: Among the students of Imam
Jaafar al-Sadiq were two of the four Imaams of the Ahl as-Sunnah,
Imaam Maalik and Abu Haneefa.
> As I understand it, these people were at the time a political movement
> and not a religious movement. Perhaps then, "raafidite shi'ites" means
> "sectarian rejectionists" and what they rejected was the Caliphate of
> someone or other.
>
It is an unconfirmed theory. The term "Rafidite" may be attributed to
the "rejectionists" who rebeled against Imam Zaid - the Zaidi Shia who
refused to curse Abubakar and Umar (radiallahu 'anhum) following their
Imam (Zaid) begin their existance since this time.
> > During a class of Imaam Maalik, it was mentioned that the
> > Raafidite Shi`ites curse the Sahaabah. In reply, Imaam
> > MAlik quoted the Quranic verse,
>
> So, did he simply accept the charge against them with no evidence? Was
> his response directed against those who curse the Sahaaba - the
> complaint - or against the "Raafidite Shi'ites", whoever they are?
>
Raafidite Shi'ites among other things, "curse the Sahaaba ". The
origional Shia of Ali were not the target of Imam Malik's statement or
the complaint.
> > Concerning the Shia belief - rj110 would not admit it in public
> > adhering to taqiyyah (dissimulation) - is that the Qur'an is distorted
> > as in the following story:
>
> Yes. Because they practice "taqiyyah" they will not admit to anything
> but will defend themselves against any fantastic charge with a barrage
> of lies and deceit. Whatever their defense, it is immediately rejected
> as "taqiyyah". Thus, all fantastic accusations are automatically
> proven.
>
It simply means that Ridwan would not compromise his goal of
attracting others to his way by cursing the Sahaba or admitting that
the Qur'an is distorted.
> It seems to me that taqiyyah is a more powerful weapon in the arsenal
> of the anti-Shias than in that of the Shias. Perhaps this is why it is
> today an artifact of the distant past.
>
You must have lived as a Shia and a non-shia to understand the issue
to such a degree of certainty.
> > During the period of Muslim rule in Spain, Imaam ibn Hazm
> > was debating with some Spanish Catholic priests .
>
> And his madhdhab, al-Zhaairiyyah, has vanished. They were literalists
> that make the Hanbalis look like liberals. The Shia had banded
> together with the Bani Abbas to overthrow the Ummayads and then set
> about exterminating the entire family, a few of whom escaped to Spain
> to revive the Ummayad dynasty. To find anti-Shias in Spain, where
> there were no actual Shias, should spark our interest at least to ask
> why?
>
Pure conjecture! I will use your words above, "Unfortunately, (Ibn
Hazm) speaks with considerably more authority than you.".
> > Saifu
>
> Assalamu alaikum,
>
>
> Omar
Wa Alaikum asselaam wa Ruhemetullah,
Saifu,
saifu
...
Bismillah, Alhamdulillah, Wasselaatu wasselaam 'alaa resulillah,
> salaam 'alaykum,
>=20
> saifu wrote:
>=20
> >
> > Shaikh Mahmood Shaltoot or you seem to confuse the fact that=20
"al-Shia
> > al-Imamiyyah" is a sect and not a school of thought equivalent to=20
the
> > four madhabs of Ahlusunnah. All the four madhabs are in agreement=20
on
> > Aqidah and differ with the Imammiyyah.
>=20
> Sheikh Farid Wasel Nasr, the current Mufti of Egypt has also made a=20
similar
> ruling about the 12er Shi'ah school and there are many others, not=20
just Shaikh
> Mahmood Shaltoot.
>=20
> It seems to me that you are the one that is confused on the issue.
>=20
Alhamdulillah, I am not confused. The Fatwa is useless. Unlike the
Shia we do not accept the words of Scholars blindly. The simple fact
is that Shaikh
Mahmood Shaltoot, Sheikh Farid Wasel Nasr or others can not make the
12er Shi'ah school an acceptable Sect. How is it possible that one who
considers himself from Ahlusunnah can approve a sect (The 12er Shia)
that makes it obligatory to curse and abuse the majority of the aShab
of the Messenger of Allah (sallalahu 'alaihi wasallam)- The Shia
accept about 10 of the aShab of the Messenger of Allah (sallalahu
'alaihi wasallam.
Is the Mufti of al Azhar contradicting the acknowleged Imams of the
four Madhabs? Did the Shia abandon the beliefs that made them outside
Ahlussunnah.? In contrast to your claim concerning the Fatwa of the
Mufti, here is what the Imams of the four Madhabs of Ahlusunnah says
about the Rafidha Shia"
Imaam ash-Shaaf'i said,
"I have not seen among the heretics a people more famous
for falsehood than the Raafidite Shi'ites."
He also said, "Narrate knowledge from everyone you meet
except the Raafidite Shi'ites, because they invent Hadeeths
and adopt them as part of their religion." - Ibn Taymiyyah,
Minhaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah, vol 1 page 38.
Imaam Maalik said,
"Do not speak to them nor narrate from them, for surely
they are liars."
During a class of Imaam Maalik, it was mentioned that the
Raafidite Shi'ites curse the Sahaabah. In reply, Imaam
Malik quoted the Quranic verse,
"Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and those with him are
harsh with the disbelievers and gentle among themselves. So
that the disbelievers may become enraged with them." He
then said, "Whoever becomes enraged when the Sahaabah are
mentioned is one about whom the verse speaks." - Surah al-
Fath 29.
> As far as the the 3 main principles of Islamic Belief namely, Oneness=20
of God,
> Prophethood and the Day of Judgment, all muslims regardless of=20
school, whether
> Shi'i or Sunni, they are all in agreement about them.
>=20
> On secondary issues such as Imamat or Adl (Justice of God) even the=20
sunnis
> among themselves have their differences.
>=20
> Sunnis have several schools of Aqidah, not just one. You have the=20
'Ashariyyah,
> Mu'taziliyyah, Tahawiyyah, the Maturidiyyah, Zahiriyyah and=20
Salafiyyah.
>=20
You are confusing groups (Firqa) such as 'Ashariyyah, Mu'taziliyyah
with Madhabs (Shafi'i, Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi). Note that Aqidatul
Tahawiyyah is accepted by all "of the four known schools of thought".
Aqidatul Tahawiyyah contains a section where it states, "We love the
aShab of the Messenger of Allah (sallalahu 'alaihi wasallam), and also
confirms the Khilafa of Abubaker, Umar, Uthmaan, and Ali (radiallahu
'anhum) - both statements are rejected by the 12er Shi'ah. The
'Ashariyyah and Maturidiyyah have very similar Aqidah concerning the
selective confirmation of Allah's (subhanehu wata'alaa) attributes
(Sifat) and resort to Ta'aweel in some. The salafiyyah confirm All of
Allah's (subhanehu wata'alaa) attributes (Sifat) without Ta'aweel.
> If you can tolorate and accept your differences among your sunni=20
schools on
> secondary issues then to tolorate your difference with us on the=20
secondary issue
> of Imamat should not be difficult at all.
>=20
Ahlussunnah accept you as Muslims as long as we do not see clear Kufr
>from you.
We find your belief to be very abhorent and to be very similar, in
Ghluw, to the Christians and Jews. How can we tolerate a sect like the
12er Shia who believe that all the Sahaba (except less 10) - who
Transmitted all the teachings of Muhammed (sallahu 'alaihi wasallam) -
as misguided. In this context Abu Zur'ah ar-Raazi said:
"If you see someone degrade any of the companions of the
Prophet, (sallallahu `alaihi wasallam) know that he is a
disbeliever. Because the Prophet, sallallaahu `alayhi wa
sallam, was real, what he brought was the truth and all of
it was conveyed to us by the way of the Sahaabah. What
those disbelievers wish to do is to cast doubt on the
reliability of our narrators in order to invalidate the
Quraan and the Sunnah. Thus the disbelievers are the ones
most deserving defamation."
As you can see from Imam Abu Zur'ah ar-Raazi's statement, tolerating
you would amount to accepting your evil treatment of the Sahaba
(radiallahu 'anhum a'jmaeen). You wish that your goal: "to cast doubt
on the reliability of our narrators in order to invalidate the Quraan
and the Sunnah" to be successful.
> As far as the rest of your post it is so distorted and full of=20
inaccuracies. It
> is obviously just a cut and paste from some extremist Wahabi booklet=20
about the
> Shi'ah.
>=20
I am not surprised that you resort to using a group as a scapegoat. Be
assured that I do not use a sourse concerning a Muslim sect without
confirming it in its source document or the sect's official sites (the
later being unreliable). Your posts here on SRI are enough to convict
you of of being a Rafidite Shia (an extreemist Shia). Here is an
example of what you write:
"'Aishah's war against 'Ali was no less grevious than war against
Allah and His Messenger and the same goes for Mu'awiyah wagging war
against 'Ali, let alone him instituting the cursing of 'Ali and
Mu'awiyah's murder of 'Ammar." - Ridwan's statement in a one of his
replies in a Thread: "Who did the Prophet love the most" here on SRI.
> The Shi'ah have literally thousands of books on their beliefs=20
published several
> hundred of them easily available online which you can read. There is=20
absolutely
> no need for us to hide our beliefs from anyone. We are very clear=20
about what we
> believe.
>=20
The fact that you mention that you have books online shows
how naive you think all the readers would be. Certainly, Taqiyyah
would allow
you to present (online) only what does't prove my citations. Just
reading the Archived posts that you were involved with shows that you
have always come back with the same old tired argument although they
were successfuly refuted. You lay low and come back when the likes of
Shibli Zamaan who expose and refute your weak arguments are away from
SRI.
> You don't know what Taqiyyah is. Taqiyyah is to hide your beliefs in=20
case of
> danger on a Personal Level, not on an Collective Level. You=20
apparently are
> ignorant that even the Sunnis believe in the permissability of such.=20
For example
> many sunni scholars hid their beliefs on the uncreatedness of the=20
Qur'an during
> the early 'Abbasid rule to escape persecution. There were a few,=20
such as Ahmad
> bin Hanbal. So was this not Taqiyyah?
Ahlusunnah, do not have an objectionto the type of Taqiyyah that you
just described. The objection concern the type that is implied in the
quotaions below:
In support of this doctrine of taqiyyah (dissimulation), the shia
attribute the following to Abu Abdullah (Ja'far as-Sadiq):
"Nine tenths of religion is taqiyyah (dissimulation), hence one who
does not dissimulate has no religion." - Al-Kafi vol.9 p.110.
"He who conceals his religion has saved it, and he who makes it public
has destroyed it."
"A believer who does not dissimulate is like a body without a head."
- Tafseer al-Askari.
"Mix with them (i.e. non-shia) externally but oppose them internally."
- Al-Kafi vol.9 p.116.
I do not expect you to acknowledge the above citation as it would make
your call to the Shia way compromised by the concern of Taqiyyah
(deception) that it may project.
<snip)
> The book covers a lot of misconceptions that many Sunnis have about=20
the Shi'ah.
There are no misconceptions but facts that the Shia (Rafida) want to
hide using what they claim to dissociate themselves from - Taqiyya,
dissimulation, (calculated deception).
> I highly recommend that you read it. You will see that we have a lot=20
more in
> common than you think.
>=20
We have very little in common, Ridwan. Would you "have a lot more in
common" with a person who disrespects your Fathers, Brothers, and
Mothers - that is the Sahaba (ridwanullahi 'alaihim a'jmaeen)?
> there are more books about it at
> http://al-islam.org/organizations/dilp/ and
> http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/lib/index.php
>=20
> salaam,
> Ridwaan
>=20
>=20
> And hold fast, all together, by the rope which God (stretches out for=20
you), and
> be not divided among yourselves 3:103
> Surely this Islam is your religion, one religion (only), and I am=20
your Lord,
> therefore serve Me. 21:92
Why do you claim what you do not practice.
Salaam,
Saifu,
Omar
blue.rahul.net>...
> Omar <om...@email.is> writes
> >Mahmoud Shaltout clearly stated that the Imami Shia are a madhdhab.
> >Your view that they are rather a "sect" is at variance with that.
> >Unfortunately, the Shaykh al-Azhar speaks with considerably more
> >authority than you.
> If they are considered a madhab, then how come the fiqh resources NEVER
> mention them?
A madhdhab is something that is mentioned in fiqh sources? Zaidi
sources are not mentioned either, although Zaidi books are used by
Sunnis.
> They mention the four schools, even the Al-Azhar scholars mention four,
> but not this fifth one?
That is four surviving schools. Of actual madhdhabs, there are more
than a dozen. Most of them have gone quietly.
=20
> How can that be?
Dead men tell no tales?
=20
> Your claims don't make sense, which isn't unusual. Why would the Al-
> Azhar scholars omit a fifth school if they think it is a madhab?
You'd best go back and find out what a madhdhab is. It seems that you
haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about, but then, that
isn't that unusual.
Assalamu alaikum,
Omar
rj...@mailandnews.com
some sunni website links that make reference to this:
http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2001/517/fr2.htm
http://www.oneummah.net/unity/oneummah.html
http://www.islamfortoday.com/shia.htm
http://islam-usa.com/r35.html
http://www.muslimedia.com
http://www.sunnah.org/history/fatwa_ashar_shia.htm
Encyclopedia of Islamic Law: A Compendium of the Major Schools published by
Kazi Publications includes all five schools
namely Jafari , Shafii, Hanbali, Maliki and Hanafi.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1567444989/
as far as I know Kazi http://kazi.org/ is an organization run by sunnis
muslims.
if you are still in doubt you may contact Azhar directly via
http://www.alazhar.org
Ridwaan
surayya wrote:
>
>
> If they are considered a madhab, then how come the fiqh resources NEVER
> mention them?
>
> They mention the four schools, even the Al-Azhar scholars mention four,
> but not this fifth one?
>
> How can that be?
Omar
ul.net>...
Assalamu alaikum Saifu,
> > Unfortunately, the Shaykh al-Azhar speaks with considerably more
> > authority than you.
> Authority from the Egyptian Government, Yes.=20
It's interesting to consider the extent to which al-Azhar, or the
Mufti of any country, is indeed a creature of the ruling clique. This
is something that people should be aware of, but it should not impinge
the honor of scholars.
> The Shaikh's Fatwa is
> misguided from the point of view of Ahlussunah.=20
Well, alright then. That's fine. The "point of view of Ahlussanah"
seems rather an amorphous thing to me. People have views. Those whose
views are most weighty are those who are demonstrably the most
knowledgeable and most wise. These Muslims may coincide with a
category called Ahlussannah or they may not. I am not fond of parties,
shia or otherwise. No sooner does one form than it begins to regard
others as outsiders, and among Muslims there are no outsiders.
> You may want to
> research the position of Ahlussunah concerning the Issue. From a
> practical point of view I have to draw a line.
Yes, I am not very prctical and absolutely useless in dealing with
Ridwan.
> [Ridwan] is asking for legitimacy by using the Fatwa of a "Sunni" Mufti=
-
Yes, and he has picked this up in the road somewhere. I doubt whether
Ridwan reads Mahmoud Shaltout or the Fatawa of Al-Azhar on a regular
basis.
> Eventually, he will
> tell you - told us many times on SRI - that we are lost and must
> accept the infalible 12 Imams in order to be saved.=20
Of course he will. Once he has you convinced about the Madhdhab lark,
then he will band together with the "No Muslim without a Madhdhab"
crowd who are forever harping on about Wahhabi and Salafi miscreants
who reject Madhdhab. So, if you are shopping for a Madhdhab, why not
acquire a spanking new and improved Imami Shiism, recently purified?
> > > He uses it as one of his tools of Shia (Rafida) taqiyyah
> > > (dissimulation).
> >=20
> > This is merely an excuse to reject rational discussion and argument.
>=20
> You are quick to judge. Please, search the archived threads involving
> Ridwan and find out that "rational discussion" was attempted. Look for
> the ones that Involved Shibli Zamaan in particular.
I know him well enough and have engaged him here. I did not learn much
>from him other than that insluting the Sahaba is an article of faith.
I don't think you and I will disagree over Ridwan or others like him.
=20
> > > "Nine tenths of religion is taqiyyah (dissimulation), hence one who
> > > does not dissimulate has no religion." (Al-Kafi vol.9 p.110)
Several years ago I translated an anti-Shia polemic written by a local
scholar that was entirely composed of Shia sources. I thought that it
was a very powerful argument, coming from the horses mouth so to speak
- more powerful than all that anti-Shia stuff that came out on the
heels of the "Islamic Revolution", often merely a litany of ancient
prejudice, bigotry, and myth.
There were some discrepancies in the footnotes and in the bibliography
and when I asked the author for the original sources it quickly became
apparent that he had not actually used many Shia books but rather had
culled much of his evidence from other anti-Shia polemics. This was
disappointing.
> The context was given in the other statements that was in my post.
> "Mix with them (i.e. non-shia) externally but oppose them internally."
> - (Al-Kafi vol.9 p.116).=20
I once had a Zaidi friend who was always dragging me around to
Ithna'ashrai functions. We'd gone to an Ashura gathering in West
London, in a former church that they'd draped entirely in black. The
imam, an Iraqi as I recall, was sitting on a large chair and above him
white Arabic words on a black banner read, "Hold fast to the rope of
Allah and be not divided". I read it to my friend and he snapped back
at me "the rope of Allah is Ahl al-Bayt"!
=20
> > > Here is what the Imams of the four Madhabs of Ahlusunnah says about
> > > the Shia (Rafidha):
> > >=20
> > > Imaam ash-Shaaf'i said,
This, brother, is what attracted me to your post. Such use of
historical sources seems, to me at least, unsafe.
This is a moving target and I think that, for simplicty's sake, we
ought to confine ourselves to own times. An act, say, cursing the
wives of the Prophet or cursing his companions, is condemned by Imam
al-Shafi'i or Imam Malik. We do not need to know who has done this or
why but we may easily understand that this is an act of gross
indecency that has been denounced by our greatest scholars, having
witnessed it themselves.
So, when we hear people doing this we can refer to those scholars who
condemned the act. We do not need to say that this man is the man Imam
Malik denounced or engangle ourselves in recreational speculation such
as "who were those Raafidi Shiities", "what did they say", "what were
their beliefs"? All this is beside the point when we have a living
breathing person in front of us doing precisely what they are said to
have done.
> Those who mention the Sahaba with disrespect - a mild description of
> them. For example, the Zaidi Shia would not be considered "Raafidite".
> You may find some context in what Immam Maalik and Abu Zur'aa said,
> below.
Where I live all Shia are called Rawaafid. I am in routine contact
with them and they rarely speak of religion. They distinguish
themselves by their appearance and sometimes by their names; for them
to do more than this is to invite .... inconvenience.
=20
> Please, read Minhaj as-Sunnah of Shaikh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah for
> more.
Ibn Taymiyyah lived at a time when ideas could be freely discussed and
debated. I think that our own age may pale in comparison. It is
fascinating to read these books, and also to consider what it might
have been like to live in those times.
=20
> Please, verify your claim: "Imam Malik lived before the crystalization
> of
> Shia Fiqh in the times of Imam Jaafar al-Sadiq ". As you will
> discover, your conclusion is invalid. Hint: Among the students of Imam
> Jaafar al-Sadiq were two of the four Imaams of the Ahl as-Sunnah,
> Imaam Maalik and Abu Haneefa.
You're right. I've heard this about Abu Hanifa but not about Imam
Malik. In any event, Imami Shiisim was indeed beginning to emerge as
an independent body of law in the time of Imams Abu Hanifa and Malik.
> It is an unconfirmed theory. The term "Rafidite" may be attributed to
> the "rejectionists" who rebeled against Imam Zaid - the Zaidi Shia who
> refused to curse Abubakar and Umar (radiallahu 'anhum) following their
> Imam (Zaid) begin their existance since this time.
There are conflicting accounts of its origin, and the history of the
Shiites is complex. Mahmoud Shaltout seems to have approached this
problem from the point of view of law, maintianing his focus upon the
fundamental question: are these people Muslims or are they not.
=20
> Raafidite Shi'ites among other things, "curse the Sahaaba ". The
> origional Shia of Ali were not the target of Imam Malik's statement or
> the complaint.
And they also say things like "Yaa Hussain, Yaa Hassan", not too far
>from Sufi calling on the dead. An act of kufr if ever there was one
and a direct challenge to the clear instructions of the Quran. This
does not mean that they are kufar as they call out to the dead, bind
their hearts to dry bones and tombs, and impose upon themselves a cult
of shrines.
Eventually, we have to draw a line and that line is between Kufr and
what is not. While the Shia do openly accuse Sunnis of kufr, I have
rarely come across Sunni Muslims who reply in kind. Indeed, takfir was
the first bid'a to enter into Islam.
=20
> [Taqiyyah] simply means that Ridwan would not compromise his goal of
> attracting others to his way by cursing the Sahaba or admitting that
> the Qur'an is distorted.
And isn't it odd that Shia dawa is almost never directed at non
Muslims. Perhaps they realize that non-Muslims would immediately
reject it as absurd, so they go straight for Sunni Muslims before whom
they posture as true representatives of the holy family. Former
Christians may be attracted by stories of tragedy, martyrdom, and
humiliation, most, however, recognize the stench of falshood - a thing
that is impossible to forget.
=20
> > It seems to me that taqiyyah is a more powerful weapon in the arsenal
> > of the anti-Shias than in that of the Shias. Perhaps this is why it i=
s
> > today an artifact of the distant past.
> You must have lived as a Shia and a non-shia to understand the issue
> to such a degree of certainty.
Some of us, Saifu, do live many lives.
=20
> Pure conjecture! I will use your words above, "Unfortunately, (Ibn
> Hazm) speaks with considerably more authority than you.".
Yes it is conjecture. I think it is important to ask questions. Why
were Spanish Muslims talking about "Shias"? In any event, Ibn Hazm
will confuse the "only four Madhdhab" dogmatics of those who imagine
that their birth village experience encompasses Islam in every age and
in every land.
> Wa Alaikum asselaam wa Ruhemetullah,
>=20
> Saifu,
Wa alakikum as-salaam,
Omar
surayya
>A madhdhab is something that is mentioned in fiqh sources?
O' people, please try to understand what he is doing, notice his phrase
'fiqh sources', now read my sentence:
'If they are considered a madhab, then how come the fiqh resources NEVER
mention them?'
Do you all see, what they do?
>That is four surviving schools. Of actual madhdhabs, there are more
>than a dozen. Most of them have gone quietly.
Why isn't this so-called fifth mentioned?
According to your theory, the 'fifth' hasn't gone quietly.
>You'd best go back and find out what a madhdhab is. It seems that you
>haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about, but then, that
>isn't that unusual.
Like brassily swapping 'resources' for 'sources'?
Nice avoidance of the question. I know what a madhab is, I've studied
fiqh.
Now, I'll repeat the question, why is this fifth school never mentioned
if it IS a fifth school?
Answer the question.
surayya
>Encyclopedia of Islamic Law: A Compendium of the Major Schools published by
>Kazi Publications includes all five schools
>namely Jafari , Shafii, Hanbali, Maliki and Hanafi.
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1567444989/
I wouldn't touch Kazi publications with a barge pole.
We don't learn FIQH from an encyclopaedia!!!! or even a website!!
SOMEBODY ANSWER THE QUESTION!!
Why is this fifth school never mentioned if it IS a fifth school?
rj...@mailandnews.com
you may read a thorough explanation of the Shi'ah beliefs about the companions
of the Prophet (ra) at:
http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/ chapter 4
likewise you may read what exactly we believe concerning Taqiyyah in chapter
6b.
You keep insisting that the Shi'ah curse the companions. The Shi'ah don't
curse any of the companions.
Even if they did that would not make them non-muslims.
You know very well that the Prophet (sawa) said he is leaving two weighty
things that if the muslims follow they will not go astray: the Qur'an and the
Ahlul-bayt (as). He did not say Qur'an and Companions did he?
Please see http://al-islam.org/thaqalayn/nontl/
Our understanding of Islam does not depend on the Qur'an and Companions but
rather the Qur'an and the Ahlul-bayt (as). This is what the Prophet
instructed us to follow and that is what we follow.
Those companions of the Prophet who remained loyal to 'Ali (as) after the
Prophet's demise (sawa) we love them and have the utmost respect for them.
Those companions who fought against 'Ali (as) or caused him and the Ahlul-bayt
(as) harm after the Prophets demise (sawa), we leave their case to Allah.
Even the Prophet said that a lot of his companions will go astray.
Volume 8, Book 76, Number 584:
Narrated Anas:
The Prophet said, "Some of my companions will come to me at my Lake Fount, and
after
I recognize them, they will then be taken away from me, whereupon I will say,
'My
companions!' Then it will be said, 'You do not know what they innovated (new
things)
in the religion after you."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/076.sbt.html#008.076.584
Volume 9, Book 88, Number 174:
Narrated Sahl bin Sa'd:
I heard the Prophet saying, "I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount
(Kauthar),
and whoever will come to it, will drink from it, and whoever will drink from
it,
will never become thirsty after that. There will come to me some people whom I
know and they know me, and then a barrier will be set up between me and them."
Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri added that the Prophet further said: "I will say those
people are from me. It will be said, 'You do not know what changes and new
things they did after you.' Then I will say, 'Far removed (from mercy), far
removed (from mercy), those who changed (the religion) after me! "
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/088.sbt.html#009.088.174
Volume 4, Book 53, Number 375:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Then the Prophet said to them." You will find after me, others being preferred
to
you. Then be patient till you meet Allah and meet His Apostle at Al-Kauthar
(i.e. a
fount in Paradise)." (Anas added:) But we did not remain patient.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/053.sbt.html#004.053.375
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 488:
Narrated Al-Musaiyab:
I met Al-Bara bin 'Azib and said (to him). "May you live prosperously! You
enjoyed
the company of the Prophet and gave him the Pledge of allegiance (of
Al-Hudaibiya)
under the Tree." On that, Al-Bara' said, "O my nephew! You do not know what we
have
done after him (i.e. his death)."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.488
Book 21, Number 21.14.32:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu'n-Nadr, the mawla of Umar ibn
Ubaydullah
that he had heard that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant
him
peace, said over the martyrs of Uhud, "I testify for them." Abu Bakr as-Siddiq
said, "Messenger of Allah! Are we not their brothers? We entered Islam as they
entered Islam and we did jihad as they did jihad." The Messenger of Allah, may
Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Yes, but I do not know what you
will
do after me." Abu Bakr wept profusely and said, "Are we really going to
out-live
you!"
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muwatta/021.mmt.html#021.21.14.32
salaam,
Ridwaan
Omar
blue.rahul.net>...
> Now, I'll repeat the question, why is this fifth school never mentioned
> if it IS a fifth school?
People who talk about "the four schools" invariably mean the four
surviving Sunni madhdhabs.
Reason should dissuade us from saying that Sunni sources never draw
upon the fiqh of Imam Jaafar al-Sadiq. Saifu has already pointed out
that Imam's Malik and Abu Hanifa both studied with Imam Jaafar. This
means, of course, that neither regarded the proto-Shias or their
heridetary leaders as the source of all evil in the world. It also
suggests that Imam Jaafar and his "school" did make some contribution
to early Sunni fiqh and law, whether or not this is explicitly
acknowledged by any of their students.
Your contention that the Imami Shias are not a "fifth madhdhab"
because there simply is no fifth madhdhab is absurd and really
requires no response at all.
Nayl al-Awtar is common book that you may have come across in your own
extensive studies of fiqh. This is widely known to be the work of a
Zaidi Shia scholar who fits rather like a square peg into the round
holes of the "Four Sunni School" hammer and peg board that you are so
fond of pounding on.
Ibn Hazm, the author of al-Muhallah and other big books that you might
also have stumbled over once or twice is another of those annoying
square pegs.
A madhdhab is simply a contrivance of parties, an aberration and a
source of contention. Thus they proliferate among people of
contention, Hanafi, Awzaa'i, Maaliki, Zaydi, Laythi, Thawri,
Shaafi'i, Hambali, Dhaahiri, Jariri; among the corrupt and the
ignorant who wear these names like football jerseys as they invite the
innocent into the fray. It is not difficult to see the Jaafaris
spoiling at the skrimmage.
But perhaps this is not what you meant. Perhaps you mean to say that
the Twelver Shias are not a fifth madhdhab because they are not
Sunnis. This is the argument of an ignoramus and so it may have eluded
those of us who ordinarily give you the benefit of the doubt.
> Answer the question.
I hope this answers your question.
Assalamu alaikum,
Omar
saifu
..
> saifu...@yahoo.com (saifu) wrote in message news:<aqf08s$1v4$1@blue.r=
ah=3D
> ul.net>...
>=20
Bismillah, Alhamdulillah, Wasselaatu wasselamu 'alaa resulillah,
> Assalamu alaikum Saifu,
>=20
Wa Alaikum asselaam wa Ruhemetullah,
<snip>=20
> Well, alright then. That's fine. The "point of view of Ahlussanah"
> seems rather an amorphous thing to me. People have views. Those whose
> views are most weighty are those who are demonstrably the most
> knowledgeable and most wise. These Muslims may coincide with a
> category called Ahlussannah or they may not. I am not fond of parties,
> shia or otherwise. No sooner does one form than it begins to regard
> others as outsiders, and among Muslims there are no outsiders.
>=20
Neither am I fond "of parties". I am not associating the title that
was given by the Messenger of Allah (sallaahu 'alaihi wasallam), to
any group that we know today. Based on the dgree of adherence the
criterion of the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah
(sallalahu 'alaihi wasallam), some groups of our time may be close to
it (Ahlussanah) while others are far from it. The words of Imam Malik
describes the term better:
"Imam Malik was asked, "Who are the Ahlusunnah?" he said, "Ahlusunnah
are those
who do not have a title that they are identified with"."
> > > > "Nine tenths of religion is taqiyyah (dissimulation), hence one w=
ho
> > > > does not dissimulate has no religion." (Al-Kafi vol.9 p.110)
>=20
> Several years ago I translated an anti-Shia polemic written by a local
> scholar that was entirely composed of Shia sources. I thought that it
> was a very powerful argument, coming from the horses mouth so to speak
> - more powerful than all that anti-Shia stuff that came out on the
> heels of the "Islamic Revolution", often merely a litany of ancient
> prejudice, bigotry, and myth.
>=20
There was "anti-Shia polemic" following the "Islamic Revolution" in
Iran. The Iran Iraq war was another manifestation of this "anti-Shia
polemic". I do not trust those works sanctioned by the rulers of the
Arab world which their Muftis mass produced the "anti-Shia polemic". I
rely on the Imams of the past whom I trust to be free from the undue
disregard for Justice. I have already suggested that you read, "Minhaj
as-Sunnah of Shaikh al Islam"; I would add Al-Milal WaAnnihal of
AsShahristany and for cross cheking the History books such as Al
Bidaya, Siyar A'alaam An-Nubala' and many other books that were
written by the trustworthy.
I would qualify your statement, "often merely a litany of ancient
prejudice, bigotry, and myth". I would say attributing all the
objectionable beliefs and actions of the Shia to the wrong subsect
(the 12er Shia). In this respect, Shaikh al Islam in Minhaj as-Sunnah,
writes that not all of what is mentioned in his book apply to all the
Shia sects. For example, a sect that believes in fighting with wooden
weapons only apply to the Khashabiyya Shia sect.
> There were some discrepancies in the footnotes and in the bibliography
> and when I asked the author for the original sources it quickly became
> apparent that he had not actually used many Shia books but rather had
> culled much of his evidence from other anti-Shia polemics. This was
> disappointing.
>=20
It is disappointing! One must be reminded of the commands of Allah
(subhanehu wata'alaa):
"O ye who believe! Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in equity, and let
not hatred of any people seduce you that ye deal not justly. Deal
justly, that is nearer to your duty. Observe your duty to Allah. Lo!
Allah is Informed of what ye do." - Surah Al Ma'idah 8.
"O ye who believe ! Be ye staunch in justice, witnesses for Allah,
even though it be against yourselves or (your) parents or (your)
kindred, whether (the case be of) a rich man or a poor man, for Allah
is nearer unto both (than ye are) . So follow not passion lest ye
lapse ( from truth ) and if ye lapse or fall away, then lo! Allah is
ever Informed of what ye do." - Surah An-Nisa' 135.
Indeed, "Allah is ever Informed of what ye do"
> > The context was given in the other statements that was in my post.
> > "Mix with them (i.e. non-shia) externally but oppose them internally.=
"
> > - (Al-Kafi vol.9 p.116).=3D20
>=20
> I once had a Zaidi friend who was always dragging me around to
> Ithna'ashrai functions. We'd gone to an Ashura gathering in West
> London, in a former church that they'd draped entirely in black. The
> imam, an Iraqi as I recall, was sitting on a large chair and above him
> white Arabic words on a black banner read, "Hold fast to the rope of
> Allah and be not divided". I read it to my friend and he snapped back
> at me "the rope of Allah is Ahl al-Bayt"!
>=20
Ridwan has no need for Taqiyya to tell you that the "the rope of Allah
is Ahl al-Bayt".
There is a lapse here. Note, I mentioned that he would eventually call
to it. And that he would not mention the things which he believes
would make a non-Shi'i alarmed - such as the cursing the sahaba and
other strange beliefs.
> > > > Here is what the Imams of the four Madhabs of Ahlusunnah says abo=
ut
> > > > the Shia (Rafidha):
> > > >=3D20
> > > > Imaam ash-Shaaf'i said,
>=20
> This, brother, is what attracted me to your post. Such use of
> historical sources seems, to me at least, unsafe.
>=20
> This is a moving target and I think that, for simplicty's sake, we
> ought to confine ourselves to own times. An act, say, cursing the
> wives of the Prophet or cursing his companions, is condemned by Imam
> al-Shafi'i or Imam Malik. We do not need to know who has done this or
> why but we may easily understand that this is an act of gross
> indecency that has been denounced by our greatest scholars, having
> witnessed it themselves.
>=20
If you have carefully considered my post, you would have noticed that
I have given the context - similar to your condition: "cursing the=20
wives of the Prophet or cursing his companions, is condemned by Imam
al-Shafi'i or Imam Malik". You also missed the link that I was trying
to make. The past is linked to our time by the fact that the Mufti of
our time contradicted the Scholars of Islam of the past on an Issue
which is Identical. That was the reason for my choice to quote the
Scholars of the past. The ruling should be the same as long as the
offence is identical.
> So, when we hear people doing this we can refer to those scholars who
> condemned the act. We do not need to say that this man is the man Imam
> Malik denounced or engangle ourselves in recreational speculation such
> as "who were those Raafidi Shiities", "what did they say", "what were
> their beliefs"? All this is beside the point when we have a living
> breathing person in front of us doing precisely what they are said to
> have done.
>=20
There is a lapse in your reading. All statements except that of Imam
As-Shafi'i contained a relevant context - refer to them. What Imam
As-Shafi' said (lack of trustworthiness) can apply to anyone other
than the Rafidha Shia.
> > Those who mention the Sahaba with disrespect - a mild description of
> > them. For example, the Zaidi Shia would not be considered "Raafidite"=
.
> > You may find some context in what Immam Maalik and Abu Zur'aa said,
> > below.
>=20
> Where I live all Shia are called Rawaafid. I am in routine contact
> with them and they rarely speak of religion. They distinguish
> themselves by their appearance and sometimes by their names; for them
> to do more than this is to invite .... inconvenience.
>=20
I am in contact with Shias where I live. They appear to be the most
friendly people I have ever known. Most of them lack the basic
understanding of Islam relative to the Sunni Muslims that I know. I am
aware that they practice blameworthy practices similar to the average
Sunni follower - as you noted, " "Yaa Hussain, Yaa Hassan", not too
far from Sufi calling on the dead". I also know many young men who
abandoned their Shia beliefs and adopted the way of Ahlussunnah (see
for the definition of Ahlussunnah, above).
> > Please, read Minhaj as-Sunnah of Shaikh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah for
> > more.
>=20
> Ibn Taymiyyah lived at a time when ideas could be freely discussed and
> debated. I think that our own age may pale in comparison. It is
> fascinating to read these books, and also to consider what it might
> have been like to live in those times.
>=20
Shaikh al Islam, as one of the Criterion of discussion mentions the
following:
"AbduRahman Bin Mahdi and others have said: " men of knowledge will
write both what is for them and what is against them, while people
moved by impulses will write only that which is in their favor"
Therefore, discussion with the likes of Ridwan will be futile and
devoid of the above criterion, if you noticed from his posts.
<snip>
> There are conflicting accounts of its origin, and the history of the
> Shiites is complex. Mahmoud Shaltout seems to have approached this
> problem from the point of view of law, maintianing his focus upon the
> fundamental question: are these people Muslims or are they not.
> =20
I agree, "Mahmoud Shaltout seems to [may] have approached this problem
>from the point of view of law,". And Ridwan is exploiting it.
<snip>
>=20
> Eventually, we have to draw a line and that line is between Kufr and
> what is not. While the Shia do openly accuse Sunnis of kufr, I have
> rarely come across Sunni Muslims who reply in kind. Indeed, takfir was
> the first bid'a to enter into Islam.
>=20
The Khawarij were the first people to apply takfir wrongly. Remember
the qital of the apostates (ahlul Ridda0 by Khalifa Abubakar as-Siddiq
(radiallahu 'anh).
<snip>
> > Pure conjecture! I will use your words above, "Unfortunately, (Ibn
> > Hazm) speaks with considerably more authority than you.".
>=20
> Yes it is conjecture. I think it is important to ask questions. Why
> were Spanish Muslims talking about "Shias"? In any event, Ibn Hazm
> will confuse the "only four Madhdhab" dogmatics of those who imagine
> that their birth village experience encompasses Islam in every age and
> in every land.
>=20
Ibn Hazm writes about Muslim and non Muslim sects in his book al
Fisaal. The Shia happen to be one of them. If you are alluding to
injustice and bias, I direct you to read his Rasa'il (Rasa'il Ibn Hazm
Al Andalusi) in which he speaks very harshly about the kings of
Andalusia who started to befriend the Jews. Besides warning them that
they would share the punishment that was promissed to the Jews in the
Torah, he mentions the following ayahs as a warning:
"O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. They
are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends
is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk." - Surah Al
Ma'idah 51
"O ye who believe! Take not for intimates others than your own folk,
who would spare no pains to ruin you; they love to hamper you. Hatred
is revealed by (the utterance of) their mouths, but that which their
breasts hide is greater. We have made plain for you the revelations if
ye will understand" Surah Al Imraan 118.
"O ye who believe! Choose not for friends such of those who received
the Scripture before you, and of the disbelievers, as make a jest and
sport of your religion. But keep your duty to Allah if ye are true
believers" Surah Al Ma'idah 57
"Thou wilt find the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who
, believe (to be) the Jews and the idolaters. " - Surah Al Ma'idah 82
Including the Ayahs - Al Mumtahina 1 , Al Baqara 61,=20
> > Wa Alaikum asselaam wa Ruhemetullah,
> >
> > Saifu,
>=20
>=20
> Wa alakikum as-salaam,
>=20
>=20
> Omar
Wa Alaikum asselaam wa Ruhemetullah,
Saifu,
rj...@mailandnews.com
> Imaam ash-Shaaf'i said,
>
> "I have not seen among the heretics a people more famous
> for falsehood than the Raafidite Shi'ites."
>
> He also said, "Narrate knowledge from everyone you meet
> except the Raafidite Shi'ites, because they invent Hadeeths
> and adopt them as part of their religion." - Ibn Taymiyyah,
> Minhaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah, vol 1 page 38.
>
> Imaam Maalik said,
>
> "Do not speak to them nor narrate from them, for surely
> they are liars."
salaam 'alaykum,
I seriously doubt that any of the above quotation are authentic and the
reason is obvious.
You compilers of hadeeth including Bukhari and Muslim relied heavily on
literally hundreds of "Raafidite Shi'ites"!
So how could the above quotations be authentic when Muslim didn't take them
seriously? How could the above quotations be authentic when even Bukhari
didn't take them seriously either?
If the hadeeth narrated by the Shi`as is all rejected, then the vast majority
of the
prophetic legacy will be lost, as al-Dhahabi himself admits this while
narrating the biography
of Aban ibn Taghlib in his book Mizaan al 'Itidaal. There can be no better
testimony than that!
I will quote only 5 that Bukhari and Muslim relied upon just to illustrated
how
tremendous on the reliance on the "Raafidite Shi'ites" is:
1. Zubayd ibn al-Harith ibn `Abdul-Karim al-Yami al-Kufi
Also known as Abu `Abdul-Rahman, he is mentioned in al-Thahbi's Al-Mizan where
the author
says: "He is a trustworthy tabi`i who inclines towards Shi`ism." Then he
quotes statements
to prove that Zubayd's hadith has been verified by al-Qattan, and that there
are other
renown critics and verifiers who regard him trustworthy. Abu Ishaq al-Jawzjani
has
included a crude statement about him which is typical of his attitude and that
of other
Nasibis, stating,
"Among the residents of Kufa, there is a faction whose faith is not
appreciated [by
Nasibis], yet they happen to be masters of hadith. Among them are: Abu Ishaq,
Mansur,
Zubayd al-Yami, al-A`mash and other peers. People have tolerated them for no
reason other
than their truth in narrating hadith, and their narrations testify to the
authenticity of
one another,"
up to the conclusion of his statement which truth has dictated to him to
reveal. Often,
truth is spoken by the fair-minded just as it is by the stubborn and
obstinant. What harm
can reach these lofty pillars of knowledge, the masters of hadith in Islam, if
such a
critic does not appreciate their holding in high esteem the holy Prophet's kin
who are the
gates of salvation, the protectors of all humans on earth after the Prophet
(pbuh)
himself, his nation's ark of salvation? What harm can befall them from the
critic who has
no choice except to pursue his quest till reaching their door steps, and no
option but to
beg their own favours?
If dignitaries of my tribe are pleased with me,
Then let its villains chafe and be angry.
These authorities do not pay any attention to al-Jawzjani or others like him,
having been
held trustworthy by the authors of the sahih books and by those of all sunan
as well.
Refer to Zubayd's hadith in both Bukhari's and Muslim's Sahihs as transmitted
by Abu
Wa'il, al-Sha`bi, Ibrahim al-Nakh`i, and Sa`d ibn `Ubaydullah. Only Bukhari
quotes his
hadith through Mujahid. In Muslim's Sahih, his hadith is narrated by Murrah
al-Hamadani,
Muharib ibn Dithar, Ammarah ibn `Umayr, and Ibrahim al-Taymi. His hadith is
quoted in both
sahihs as transmitted by Shu`bah, al-Thawri, and Muhammad ibn Talhah. In
Muslim's Sahih,
his hadith is narrated by Zuhayr ibn Mu`awiyah, Fadil ibn Ghazwan, and Husayn
ibn
al-Nakh`i. He died, may Allah have mercy on his soul, in 124 A.H.
2. Sulayman ibn Mahran al-Kahili al-Kufi al-Asla`
He is one of the Shi`a nobility and a most trusted traditionist. Many a genius
among Sunni
men of knowledge, such as Ibn Qutaybah in his Ma`arif and al-Shahristani in
his Al-Milal
wal-Nihal, as well as many others, have all included him among Shi`a
dignitaries.
In his biography of Zubayd, al-Jawzjani says the following in his book
Al-Mizan: "Among
the people of Kufa, there are some folks whose sect is not appreciated, yet
they are the
masters of hadith among Kufi traditionists. Among them are: Abu Ishaq, Mansur,
Zubayd
al-Yami, al-A`mash, and other peers. People tolerate them only because they
are truthful
in narrating hadith," up to the end of his statement which clearly exposes his
stupidity
and prejudice. What harm can reach these dignitaries if the Nasibis do not
appreciate
their commitment to discharge the Divine commandment of seeking the Pleasure
of Allah
through remaining faithful to His Prophet's kin and kith? These Nasibis, as a
matter of
fact, tolerate these men not only because they are truthful in narrating
hadith, but
rather because they are indispensable. Had they rejected these men's hadith,
the majority
of the Prophet's ahadith would have then been abandoned, as al-Dhahabi himself
admits in
his Al-Mizan while discussing the biography of Aban ibn Taghlib. I think that
al-Mughirah's statement: "Abu Ishaq and your A`mash have rendered Kufa to
destruction" is
said due only to these men's Shi`a beliefs. Other than that, both Abu Ishaq
and al-A`mash
are oceans of knowledge and custodians of the prophetic legacy.
Al-A`mash has left us many interesting incidents which vividly portray his
greatness. One
of them, for example, is included by Ibn Khallikan in al-A`mash's biograpy in
Wafiyyat
al-A`yan where the author states:
"Hisham ibn `Abdul-Malik once wrote to al-A`mash saying: `Recount for me
`Uthman's virtues
and `Ali's vices.' Al-A`mash took the letter and tossed it into his
she-camel's mouth.
Then he turned to the messenger and said: `This is my answer.' The messenger,
however,
pleaded to al-A`mash saying that his master had vowed to kill him if he did
not return
with an answer. He also pleaded to al-A`mash's brothers to pressure their
brother to write
something. Finally, he wrote: `In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most
Merciful. Had
`Uthman had all the virtues of the people of the world, they would not have
availed you
aught, and had `Ali had in him all the vices of the people of the world, they
would not
have harmed you in the least; therefore, worry about your own soul, and peace
be with
you.'"
Another anecdote is narrated by Ibn `Abd al-Birr in his chapter on the
`ulema's statements
evaluating each other's work in his book Jami` Bayanul `Ilm wa Fada'ilih.[5]
The author
quotes `Ali ibn Khashram saying, "I have heard Abul-Fadl ibn Musa say, `I
entered the
house of al-A`mash once accompanied by Abu Hanifah to visit him during his
sickness. Abu
Hanifah said: `O Abu Muhammad! Had I not feared my visits would be a nuisance
to you, I
would have visited you more often'. Al-A`mash answered, `You are a nuisance to
me even at
your own home; so, imagine how I feel when I have to look at your face.'"
Abul-Fadl
continues to say that having left the house of al-A`mash, Abu Hanifah said,
`Al-A`mash
never observed the fast of the month of Ramadan.' Ibn al-Khashram then asked
al-Fadl what
Abu Hanifah meant. Al-Fadl answered, `Al-A`mash used to observe the suhur
during the month
of Ramadan according to the Prophet's hadith as narrated by Huthayfah
al-Yemani.'" In
fact, he used to observe the Holy Qur'anic verse: "Therefore, eat and drink
till you can
distinguish the white thread from the black one, from the dawn, and complete
the fast till
night-time."
Authors of Al-Wajiza and Bihar Al-Anwar have both quoted Hasan ibn Sa`id
al-Nakh`i who
quotes Sharik ibn `Abdullah, the judge, saying, "I visited al-A`mash when he
was sick
prior to his demise. While I was there, Ibn Shabramah, Ibn Layla and Abu
Hanifah entered
and inquired about his health. He told them that he was suffering from an
acute
feebleness, that he feared God for his sins, and he almost broke in tears. Abu
Hanifah
then said to him: `O Father of Muhammad! Fear Allah! Look now after yourself.
You used to
narrate certain ahadith about `Ali which, if you denounce, would be better for
you.'
Al-A`mash answered: `Do you dare to say this to a man like me?' He even
denounced him, and
there is no need here to go into that. He was, may Allah have mercy on his
soul, as
al-Thahbi describes him in his Al-Mizan, a trusted Imam. He was exactly what
Ibn Khallikan
had described while discussing his biography in his own Wafiyyat al-A`yan, a
trustworthy
and virtuous man of knowledge. Scholars have all conceded his truthfulness,
equity and
piety. Authors of the six sahih books, as well as many others besides them,
have all
relied on his authority. Refer to his hadith in Bukhari's and Muslim's Sahih
books from
Zayd ibn Wahab, Sa`id ibn Jubayr, Muslim al-Batin, al-Sha`bi, Mujahid, Abu
Wa'il, Ibrahim
al-Nakh`i and Abu Salih Thakwan. He is cited in these works by Shu`bah,
al-Thawri, Ibn
`Ainah, Abu Mua`awiyah Muhammad, Abu `Awanah, Jarir, and Hafs ibn Ghiyath.
Al-A`mash was
born in 61 A.H. and he died in 148 A.H., may Allah be merciful unto him.
3. `Alqamah ibn Qays ibn `Abdullah al-Nakh`i, Abu Shibil
He is uncle of al-Aswad and Ibrahim, sons of Yazid. He is also a follower of
the Progeny
of Muhammad (pbuh). Al-Shahristani, in his Al-Milal wal-Nihal, has included
him among
Shi`a nobility. He is master among the traditionists mentioned by Abu Ishaq
al-Jawzjani
who spitefully says, "There has been a group of people among the residents of
Kufa whose
sect [of Shi`ism is not appreciated; they are the masters among Kufi
traditionists."
`Alqamah and his brother `Ali have been companions of `Ali (as). They have
both
participated in Siffin where `Ali was martyred. The latter used to be called
"Abul-Salat"
(man of the prayers) due to his quite frequent prayers. `Alqamah drenched his
sword with
the blood of the oppressive gang. His foot slid, yet he continued to wage
jihad in the way
of Allah, remaining an enemy of Mu`awiyah till his death. Abu Bardah included
`Alqamah's
name among the emissary to Mu`awiyah during the latter's reign, but `Alqamah
objected and
even wrote to Abu Bardah saying: "Please remove my name (from the list);
please do remove
it." This is recorded by Ibn Sa`d in his biography of `Alqamah on page 57,
Vol. 6, of his
Tabaqat.
`Alqamah's fair-mindedness and prestige among Sunnis is undisputed in spite of
their
knowledge of his Shi`a beliefs. Authors of the six sahih books, as well as
others, have
all relied on his authority. Refer to his hadith in Muslim and Bukhari from
Ibn Mas`ud,
Abul-Darda'ah and `Ayesha. His hadith about `Uthman and Abu Mas`ud is recorded
in Muslim's
Sahih. In both sahih books, his hadith is narrated by his nephew Ibrahim
al-Nakh`i. In
Muslim's Sahih, his hadith is transmitted by `Abdul-Rahman ibn Yazid, Ibrahim
ibn Yazid,
and al-Sha`bi. He died, may Allah have mercy on his soul, in 62 A.H. in Kufa.
4. `Amr ibn `Abdullah Abu Issaq al-Subai`i al-Hamadani al-Kufi
He is Shi`a according to Ibn Qutaybah's Ma`arif, and Shahristani's Al-Milal
wal Nihal. He
was one of the masters of traditionists whose sect, in its roots and branches,
the Nasibis
do not appreciate due to the fact that Shi`as have followed in the footsteps
of Ahl
al-Bayt, deriving their method of worship from their own leadership in all
religious
matters. For this reason, al-Jawzjani has said in his biography of Zubayd in
Al-Mizan:
"Among the residents of Kufa, there is a group whose sect is not appreciated;
they are the
chiefs of Kufi traditionists such as Abu Ishaq, Mansur, Zubayd al-Yami,
al-A`mash and
other peers. People have tolerated them because of being truthful in narrating
hadith,
without adding aught of their own thereto."
Among what the Nasibis have rejected of Abu Ishaq's hadith is this one:
"`As the author of Al-Mizan indicates, Amr ibn Isma`il has quoted Abu Issaq
saying that
the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) has said, `Ali is like a tree whose root I am,
and whose
branches are `Ali, whose fruit are al-Hasan and al-Husayn, whose leaves are
the Shi`as.'"
In fact, al-Mughirah's statement "nobody caused the Kufis to perish except Abu
Ishaq and
al-A`mash" is uncalled for except for the fact that these men are Shi`as and
are loyal to
Muhammad's progeny (as). They have become custodians of all ahadith pertaining
to the
attributes of the latter, peace be upon them. They were oceans of knowledge,
and they
followed Allah's commandments. They are relied upon by the authors of all six
sahih books
and by others. Refer to Abu Ishaq's hadith in both sahih books from al-Bara'
ibn `Azib,
Yazid ibn Arqam, Harithah ibn Wahab, Sulayman ibn Sard, al-Nu`man ibn Bashir,
`Abdullah
ibn Yazid al-Khadmi, and `Amr ibn Maymun.
He is quoted in both sahih books by Shu`bah, al-Thawri, Zuhayr, and by his
grandson Yusuf
ibn Ishaq ibn Abu Ishaq. Ibn Khallikan says in `Amr's biography in Al-Wafiyyat
that `Amr
was born three years before `Uthman took charge of ruling the Muslims, and
that he died
either in 127 or in 128, or in 129, whereas both Yahya ibn Ma`in and
al-Mada'ini say that
he died in 132, and Allah knows best.
5. Mansur ibn al-Mu`tamir ibn `Abdullah ibn Rabi`ah al-Salami al-Kufi
He is one of the companions of Imams al-Baqir and al-Sadiq (as), and he has
narrated
hadith from them, as the author of Muntahal Maqal fi Ahwal al-Rijal states.
Ibn Qutaybah
includes him among Shi`a nobility in his book Al-Ma`arif. Al-Jawzjani has
included him
among the narrators "whose sect is not appreciated by [certain] people" in the
roots and
branches of religion, due to their adherence to what they have learned from
Muhammad's
progeny (as). Says he: "Among the people of Kufa there is a group whose sect
is not
appreciated; these are chiefs of Kufa's traditionists such as Abu Ishaq,
Mansur, Zubayd
al-Yami, al-A`mash and other peers. People have tolerated them just because
they are
truthful in narrating hadith."[18] Why do they bear so much grudge against
these truthful
men? Is it because of their upholding the Two Weighty Things? Or their
embarking upon the
Ark of Salvation? Or their entring into the city of the Prophet's knowledge
through its
Gate, the Gate of Repentance? Or is it their seeking refuge with the "Refuge
of all the
world"? Or is it their obedience to the Prophet's will to be kind unto his
descendants? Or
is it their heart's submission to Allah and their weeping for fear of Him, as
is well
known about them?
Stating the biography of Mansur ibn al-Mu`tamir ibn `Abdullah ibn Rabi`ah, Ibn
Sa`d says
the following about Mansur on page 235 of Vol. 6 of his Tabaqat: "He has lost
his
eye-sight because of excessive weeping for fear of Allah. He used to carry a
handkerchief
for the purpose of drying his tears. Some allege that he fasted and prayed for
sixty
years." Can a man of such qualities be a burden on people? No, indeed, but we
have been
inflicted by some people who do not know what fairness is; so, we are Allah's,
and unto
Him is our return.
In his biography of Mansur ibn al-Mu`tamir ibn `Abdullah ibn Rabi`ah, Ibn Sa`d
also quotes
Hammad ibn Zayd saying, "I have seen Mansur in Mecca, and I think he belongs
to those
Khashbis, yet I do not think that he tells a lie when he quotes hadith."
Behold the
underestimation, grudge, contempt and manifest enmity this statement bears.
How surprised
I am when I consider his statement: "I do not think that he tells lies..." As
if telling
lies is one of the practices of those who are sincere to Muhammad's progeny.
As if Mansur
alone is truthful, rather than all other Shi`a traditionists. Name-calling...
As if the
Nasibis could not find a name whereby they can call the Shi`as other than
misnomers such
as Khashbis, Turabis, Rafidis, etc. As if they have never heard the Almighty's
Commandment: "And do not exchange bad names; what an evil it is to use a bad
name after
having accepted faith (Qur'an, 49:11)." Ibn Qutaybah has mentioned the
"Khashbis" in his
book Al-Ma`arif and said: "These are Rafidis. Ibrahim al-Ashtar met
`Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad
in the battle-field. Most of Ibrahim's men had guaiacum wood panels;
therefore, they were
labelled `khashbis,' men associated with paneling, out of scorn." In fact,
they called
them so just to humiliate them and look down upon them and their wooden
weapons with which
they were able to beat Ibn Marjanah, predecessor of the Nasibis, thus
annihilating those
heretics, murderers of Muhammad's progeny. "Allah has cut off the tail of
those who
committed injustice; all praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds (Qur'an,
6:45)." There is
no harm, therefore, in this noble name, nor is there any harm in its synonyms
like
Turabis, after Abu Turab (Imam `Ali, as); we are proud of it.
We have digressed. Let us go back to our main topic and state that it is the
consensus of
traditionists to rely on Mansur. For this reason, all authors of the six sahih
books, as
well as others, rely on his authority, knowing that he is Shi`a. Refer to his
hadith in
Bukhari's and Muslim's Sahihs from Abu Wa'il, Abul Duha, Ibrahim al-Nakh`i and
other
peers. He quotes Shu`bah, al-Thawri, Ibn `Ayinah, Hammad ibn Zayd and others
who are the
most distinguished of that class of reporters of hadith. Ibn Sa`d has said
that Mansur's
death took place at the end of the year 132, adding, "He is a trusted
authority who has
reported a great deal of hadith; he is a man of sublime prestige; may Allah
have mercy on
him."
see http://al-islam.org/murajaat/16.htm for more details and notes. There are
at least 100 Shi'i Narrators mentioned there that the compiler of the Six
Authentic Sunni Hadeeth Collections have knowingly relied upon.
if you are proficient in arabic see:
http://www.aqaed.com/shialib/books/03/morajeat/indexs.html particularly
almuraja'ah #16
salaam,
Ridwaan
Omar
> Neither am I fond "of parties". I am not associating the title that
> was given by the Messenger of Allah (sallaahu 'alaihi wasallam), to
> any group that we know today. Based on the dgree of adherence the
> criterion of the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah
> (sallalahu 'alaihi wasallam), some groups of our time may be close to
> it (Ahlussanah) while others are far from it.=20
In our age of parties and factions it is not always easy to
distinguish someone who uses Ahlusunnah in the sense of not belonging.
Indeed, many disparate groups use this as their shingle. See, for
example, its outrageously hilarious expropriation at www.sunnah.org -
and, of course, in Pakistan, the same word means Wahhabi.
>The words of Imam Malik describes the term better:
> "Imam Malik was asked, "Who are the Ahlusunnah?" he said, "Ahlusunnah
> are those who do not have a title that they are identified with"."
That is, those who shun parties and factions, so your own usage:
=20
> > Here is what the Imams of the four Madhabs of Ahlusunnah says about
> > the Shia (Rafidha):
is somewhat puzzling. To claim a madhhab is, ipso facto, to claim
something that is at once removed from the Sunnah. There is no such
thing as an Imam of a Madhdhab for none of those to whom you refer
actually set out to establish a community of scholars who would be
loyal to himself and disparage others. What we have are madhdhabs
constructed around scholars and then parasitically attributed to them.
I know, we are not discussing Madhdhabs here, but your own use of the
word Ahlusunnah is not consistent with Imam Malik's assertion that
these are people who adopt no identifying title.
> The past is linked to our time by the fact that the Mufti of
> our time contradicted the Scholars of Islam of the past on an Issue
> which is Identical. That was the reason for my choice to quote the
> Scholars of the past. The ruling should be the same as long as the
> offence is identical.
A Mufti of our time is not qualitatively different from one of the
past. Both state their considered opinions which are not binding upon
anyone, not even themselves.
The advantage we have in reading someone who lives in our own times is
obvious: He speaks with full knowledge of people and events that
affect us directly in our lives - and while his station as a scholar
may be less that that of some of our past scholars, his knowledge of
us and our own lives and worlds may compensate for this shortcoming.
In any event, Shaltout is unlikely to have been ignorant of ancient
arguments and positions regarding the historical Shia, and we are
advised to give others the benefit of the doubt. Disagree if you
please but to state the obvious: that Shaltout disagrees with Imam
Shafi'i or Imam Malik on this or that, is really no argument at all.
If it were, then we would raise up our leaders as Lords before Allah,
Who does not impose upon us the views of any human being. This is a
great blessing rarely acknowledged.
> Ibn Hazm writes about Muslim and non Muslim sects in his book al
> Fisaal. The Shia happen to be one of them. If you are alluding to
> injustice and bias, I direct you to read his Rasa'il (Rasa'il Ibn Hazm
> Al Andalusi) in which he speaks very harshly about the kings of
> Andalusia who started to befriend the Jews.=20
I'm not sure what has provoked this harrange against the Jews. Ibn
Hazm might well write about them since they clearly participated in
the same society. I am not aware of any Shias in Medieval Spain -
although I suppose the Fatimid Dawa might have been active there for
some time.
Muslims have always been interested in the study of deviant sects and
factions. Sometimes these have been well documented, and sometimes
factions have been invented to contain or organize observed deviance.
Similarly, false hadith have been collected and organized so that we
may more easily identify and recognize them. None of this is directed
against people, but rather offered in their service, so that each may
know the path that is placed before him and take heed.
Assalamu alaikum,
Omar
Aaliyah Olson-Ahmed
another human being says? I say we should use our own brains for a change.
If people wanna say its a 5th school then bring it on. Everyone has their
opinion.
Aaliyah
"surayya" <sur...@khyber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aqq3r6$2ht$1...@blue.rahul.net...
GF Haddad
ews:<as73do$run$1...@blue.rahul.net>...
> Who cares what Al Azhar says anyway? Since when should we follow what
> another human being says? I say
But of course you do.
Hajj Gibril
Norrington Saddlery
course she has all the necessary competences in Arabic etc to be a
mujtahidah mutlaqah; nevertheless, Al-Azhar is a flawed authority nowadays
after too much sucking up to the "powers that be" in Egypt since Nasser's
day. As an oblique answer to the original question, a bit of history might
help. There are only four contemporarily accepted madhahib of the Ahlu-s
Sunnati wa-l Jama'ah (there were others, such as the Awza'i, the Zahiri,
etc., but they fell into dissuetude); and this was what was authoritatively
applied in the Ottoman Grand State. Late in the 19th Century the Ottomans
added a fifth, notional madh'hab which they named the Ja'fari - this was
described by them as being "for those Shi'ah who behave themselves" (i.e. in
the way of the number and manner of prayer, the adhan/iqamah, the attitude
towards Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, the Umayyads, A'ishah, and so on). There
never was any toleration for the Ithna Ash'ariyyah - the mainstream Shi'ah -
as long as they didn't mend their ways: this remains to this day. If the
12ers want to be accepted as mainstream Muslims, then they have to change
(as above) and eschew ideas about infallible imams etc. There is (and was
under the Ottomans) a certain limited tolerance given to the Zaidis, but
then they are not as wanton in their claims as the 12ers.
wa-s salam wa-l Eid mubarak
Daoud Sharafuddin
"Aaliyah Olson-Ahmed" <aaliya...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:as73do$run$1...@blue.rahul.net...
saifu
> Assalamu alaikum Saifu,
>
Wa Alaikum Asselaam Wa Ruhmetullah,
Bismillah, Alhamdulillah, wasselaatu Wasselam 'alaa resulilah,
> > Neither am I fond "of parties". I am not associating the title that
> > was given by the Messenger of Allah (sallaahu 'alaihi wasallam), to
> > any group that we know today. Based on the dgree of adherence the
> > criterion of the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah
> > (sallalahu 'alaihi wasallam), some groups of our time may be close to
> > it (Ahlussanah) while others are far from it.=20
>
> In our age of parties and factions it is not always easy to
> distinguish someone who uses Ahlusunnah in the sense of not belonging.
> Indeed, many disparate groups use this as their shingle. See, for
> example, its outrageously hilarious expropriation at www.sunnah.org -
> and, of course, in Pakistan, the same word means Wahhabi.
>
The example you gave (www.sunnah.org) is a precursor of the worst that
is to come - Dajjal. One could misuse Islam and Muslim in the same
manner. We can't abandon using "Islam" and "Muslim" because some
devient groups adopt it.
> >The words of Imam Malik describes the term better:
> > "Imam Malik was asked, "Who are the Ahlusunnah?" he said, "Ahlusunnah
> > are those who do not have a title that they are identified with"."
>
> That is, those who shun parties and factions, so your own usage:
>
It is based on the Qur'an and the Sunnah, to shun parties and
factions.
Thus, the position of the Salaf (early generation of the Muslim
community) that
I am referring. But one can't help using the labels as it is evident
from the examples found in the Qur'an and Sunnah and the need for it
in our everyday Practical applications.
For example, "And if two PARTIES of believers fall to fighting, then
make peace between them. And if one party of them doeth wrong to the
other, fight ye that which doeth wrong till it return unto the
ordinance of Allah; then, if it return, make peace between them
justly, and act equitably. Lo! Allah loveth the equitable." - Surah
Al-Hujurat. Verse 9.
In contrast, We find the Ayah: "and be not of those who ascribe
partners (unto Him); Of those who SPLIT up their religion and became
schismatics, each sect exulting in its tenets." - Surah ArÂRum. Verse
31-32.
We will have groups and we have to deal with them - to "make peace
between them" and to clasify them so that we know how to deal with
them. The real world is very diffrent from what you wish it to be. You
may wish that groups and sects did not exist but that is not the will
of Allah (subhanehu wat'alaa). Shaikh al-islam Ibn Taymiyya discusses
the issue of division and its causes in a fairly detailed manner in
His Iqtida' as-Sirrat al-Mustaqeem - here is an excerpt:
" The Prophet had thus fortold the splitting up of his community into
seventy-three sects of which seventy-two are doubtlessly those who
plunged as those who plunged before them ("before them" refers to the
children of Israel).
This agrees with what Muslim Reported ' ... (the Messenger of Allah)
said, ' I asked Allah for three things two of which He granted me and
one of which He refused . I asked Allah not to destroy my people by
drought and He granted me that; I asked Him not to destroy my peoplr
by drowning and He granted me that; I asked Him not to let war arise
among them but He refused.' " ...
... This notion, preserved from tyhe Prophet in several ways, alludes
to the facts that dessension and discord was bound to occure in Islam.
He used to warn his people therof, so that he whom Allah wishes well
may escape. Like wise an-Nazzal bin Sabras reports 'Abdullah Ibn
Mas'ud as saying, ' I heared a man recite a Qur'anic verse I had
heared the prophet recite diffrently. So I caught him by the hand and
off we went to the prophet. As soon as I mentioned the matter to the
Prophet, I saw signs of displeasure come over his face. "both are
right", he said. "Do not contradict one another for those before you
did contradict ane another and perished therefrom.' This is
Transmitted by Muslim." - End quote ( I have used Muhamad Umar Memon's
annotated Translation of the Iqtida' as-Sirrat al-Mustaqeem.
You may get a copy of the book in Aabic or to take advantage of the
research and refrences by reading Muhamad Umar Memon's "Ibn Taimiya's
Struggle against Popular Religion with annotated Translation of his
Iqtida' as-Sirrat al-Mustaqeem. The book is out of print and
therefore, you need to look for it in libraries and may be found at
amazon.com as a used book. It contains a very usefull discussion
concerning Sufism and in general innovations in religion.
> > > Here is what the Imams of the four Madhabs of Ahlusunnah says about
> > > the Shia (Rafidha):
>
> is somewhat puzzling.
There is nothing puzzeling if you took all my statements as a whole
instead of
"the edit format" which you take peace by peace. I use the labels not
because I encourage it or belong to one, but as a reference of what is
a "fait accompli". In practice, the scholars of Islam agree (with the
exception of some) that the majority of Muslims have to refer to their
ullema to understand the religion. Given this position, the only issue
left to discuss would be the blameworthy relationship among the
madhabs and the behaviour of those who associate themselves with the
said madhabs.
> To claim a madhhab is, ipso facto, to claim
> something that is at once removed from the Sunnah. There is no such
> thing as an Imam of a Madhdhab for none of those to whom you refer
> actually set out to establish a community of scholars who would be
> loyal to himself and disparage others. What we have are madhdhabs
> constructed around scholars and then parasitically attributed to them.
>
To claim a madhab which requires loyalty to the Imam "and disparage
others" is
far "removed from the Sunnah" - it is blameworthy and condemned in
both the Qur'an and Sunnah. It is true that the Imams did not sanction
the establishment of a madhabs that is named after them. The practical
question that we need to answer is, what is the alternative to
folowing the knowledge and guidance that is contained in the
*teachings* of the Imams. We must live as a community and we need an
understanding and interpretation that is uniform. The teaching of the
Imams (less the sectarianism that is introduced by the followers)
becomes the most valuable source of this need. One may point to the
sectarianism to denounce madhabs.It must be said that such behaviour
would disqualify the Madhabs if it also disqualifies the individualism
that would be the outcome, if every muslim attempted to interpret the
Quran and the Sunnah with little or no knowlegde. And what a confusion
that it would create. Remeber about the danger:
"Hast thou seen him who chooseth for his god his own lust? Wouldst
thou then be guardian over him?" - Al-Furqaan 43.
On the other hand there is an agreement that the knowledgable must not
follow the interpretation of others - taqleed is not allowed for those
who are capable. Although, in the strictest sense no one can avoid
taqleed.
In our definition of Taqleed, the common people are required to refer
to the people of knowledge. Imam Ibn Abdil-Barr presents this
position: " the Scholars are in agreement that the common people
(al-'Amma) are required to follow their Ullema, and they are those
who are refered in the words of Allah 'Azza Wa-Jall: " Ask the
followers of the Reminder if ye know not?" - (Surah Al-Anbiyaa 7). " -
Jami' Bayaan al-'Ilm Wa Fadhlih V. 2 page 115 .
> I know, we are not discussing Madhdhabs here, but your own use of the
> word Ahlusunnah is not consistent with Imam Malik's assertion that
> these are people who adopt no identifying title.
>
I have to speak Ridwan's language infact, apply widely used
terminologies -
he refered to the madhabs and to contrast, I presented the position of
the
Imams (who did not establish a madhab after their names) of the
madhabs. The
alternative to not using the lables and terminologies that are used in
the context of the discussion, is mute. Notice that you are refering
to Imam Malik's Statement in the context of this discussion, Salafi,
and Sufi in another, and you do not belong to any of them.
> > The past is linked to our time by the fact that the Mufti of
> > our time contradicted the Scholars of Islam of the past on an Issue
> > which is Identical. That was the reason for my choice to quote the
> > Scholars of the past. The ruling should be the same as long as the
> > offence is identical.
>
> A Mufti of our time is not qualitatively different from one of the
> past. Both state their considered opinions which are not binding upon
> anyone, not even themselves.
>
You are turning the issue into a question of technicality. In the
context of the current discussion, there is a qualitative diffrence.
You have acknowledged my concern, "Authority from the Egyptian
Government" in an earlier post. Azhar is well known for producing many
strange fatwas. Idealy, I acknowledge that "someone who lives in our
own times" would have better information to correctly address the
Issue of our time. But as I said before, the core Shi'a belief that
Ridwan is presenting is no diffrent from the one that was known to
imam Malik or the other Imams. The Rafidha Shia may have become more
tactful in calling to their way, but their core belief remains the
same. The fatwa of the Shaikh would have been more acceptable, if it
contained a discussion or a warning about some of the objectionable
beliefs of the Shia. We do not see any concern that the fatwa may be
misued to mislead people - ridwan is exploiting it.
I am against the careless disregard of the Rafiite Shia fitna which
took hold in Muslim circles following the Iranian revolution. I have
read some of the shia litterature and have seen much from the writings
of the likes of Khumeini and here on SRI Ridwan and other Shia that
prompts me to warn against their attempt to mislead. You may have
noticed their agressive effort trying to proselytize the non-Shi'
Muslims. The following Ayah may describe my observations and concern:
"O ye who believe! Take not for intimates others than your own folk,
who would spare no pains to ruin you; they love to hamper you. Hatred
is revealed by (the utterance of) their MOUTHs, but that which their
breasts hide is greater. We have made plain for you the revelations if
ye will understand." - Surah Al-Imraan. Verse 118.
> The advantage we have in reading someone who lives in our own times is
> obvious: He speaks with full knowledge of people and events that
> affect us directly in our lives - and while his station as a scholar
> may be less that that of some of our past scholars, his knowledge of
> us and our own lives and worlds may compensate for this shortcoming.
>
His Fatwa does not support the claim: "speaks with full knowledge of
people and events that affect us directly in our lives".
Unfortunately, he added to the confusion by telling us that there is
no diffrence. It is an open secret that the 12er Shia consider as
Kafir anyone who does not testify to the Wilayaa/Imamate of Ali and
his 11 descendants. Even Ridwan (a Rafidha Shia) does not accept this
ascertion. Recall our exchange on an earlier post, I wrote:
"rj110 does not intend to follow the fatwa of Shaikh Mahmood
Shaltoot."
You wrote:
" This is beside the point. "
The likes of Ridwan believe the non-Shi'i Muslims to be disbelievers -
this takfir includes all the Sahaba except a group that ranges from
three to ten. How did this takfir escape the Mufti of Al azhar? Here
is Ridwan, he was responding to you Omar Mirza in the thread (Meaning
of 25:30 Quran Forsaken ):
"Why would the Prophet complain about his people if the majority of
them became
Muslims?
He will complain because he ordered them to follow the Qur'an and
Ahlul-Bayt
together telling them that these two are inseperable. If they
rejected the
later they infact rejected the former." - End quote
A Shia source confirms Ridwan's position:
" Hanan, 'an abeehi, 'an abi Ja'afar 'alaihi asselaam qaal: kaana
an-nas ahlu riddah ba'da an-Nabiyyi (sallalahu 'alaihi wasallam) illa
thalaatha faqultu: weman athlathaa? faqaal: Al Miqdaad bin al-Aswad wa
Abu Dharr al-Ghiffari wa Salmaan al-Farisi ruhmetullahi wa barakatuhu
'alaihim ... " - Rawdhat al-Kafi page 204.
Other narrations or variations of the above include Ammar Bin Yassir
(radiallahu 'nahum) and a few others.
I am not surprised by what the Shaikh said in the current fatwa, for I
have seen many strange fatwas from Azhar. Although it does not
represent the most serious one, for example, a former President of Al
Azhar University gave a Fatwa in which he affirmed that the Qibla from
North America was South east. This fatwa was confirmed by Shaikh
Atiyya Saqar, Chairman of the fatwa committee of Al Azhar - the later
fatwa was requested by, and addressed to the Ahbash - the
controversial group who is behind the Qibla fitna in North America.
The last standing Fatwa from Al Azhar revised the above Fatwa and
affirmed that the Qibla in North America is to the North east. The
earlier fatwa was exploited by the Ahbash that they were able to
confuse/mislead many people in North America. There is a similarity
with what Ridwan is attempting to do here on SRI - note that they are
using a Fatwa from the famous Azhar.
> In any event, Shaltout is unlikely to have been ignorant of ancient
> arguments and positions regarding the historical Shia, and we are
> advised to give others the benefit of the doubt.
His Fatwa does not reveal this knowledge (ancient arguments and
positions) as he omits the obvious diffrence between the 12er Shia and
the other madhabs. You may argue that he is giving an independent
opinion which may have been influenced by the Azhar based Sunni and
Shia rapprochement effort which was established some 50 years ago. His
fatwa is devoid of any remider about the major diffrence which is
acknowledged by the 12er Shia. The statements that i quoted from the
Imams can be used as standard. One need to prove that the rafidha
Shi'ites of our time have abandoned those beliefs and behaviours to be
able to make amendment to the position of the Imams which is the
position followed by Ahlussunnah. The positions of the Imams is
reitrated by those who came after them until today. For example, Imaam
al-Alusi (died 1270 Hijrah) in his tafsir of the Verse reitrates Imam
Malik's position: Concerning the Raafidite Shi`ites cursing the
Sahaabah:
He quoted the Ayah, "Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and those with
him are harsh with the disbelievers and gentle among themselves. So
that the disbelievers may become enraged with them." He then said,
"Whoever becomes enraged when the Sahaabah are mentioned is one about
whom the verse speaks." - see Ruhul Ma'ani by Imam al-Alusi
Among the major difrences is the core Rafidha Shi'ite belief about the
Wilaya/Imamate. The Rafidha (12er Shia) make the Wilaya/Imamate an
article of faith. They condider all those who do not testify to this
Wilaya/Imamate as disbelievers.:
" Hanan, 'an abeehi, 'an abi Ja'afar 'alaihi asselaam qaal: kaana
an-nas ahlu riddah ba'da an-Nabiyyi (sallalahu 'alaihi wasallam) illa
thalaatha faqultu: weman athlathaa? faqaal: Al Miqdaad bin al-Aswad wa
Abu Dharr al-Ghiffari wa Salmaan al-Farisi ruhmetullahi wa barakatuhu
'alaihim ... " - Rawdhat al-Kafi page 204.
In Rawdhat al-Kafi You will also read that the first person to give
allegiance to Abu Bakar (radiallahu 'anhu) was Iblees: " 'Aliyy bin
Ibraheem, 'an abeehi, 'an Hammad bin Isa, 'an Ibraheem ibn Umar al
Yamaani, 'an Saleem bin qays al-Hilaali qaal: ... - until we said -
Qaala Salmaan radiallahu 'anhu: fa Ataitu 'Aliyyan 'alaihi aseelaam wa
Huwa yaghsilu Rasulallahi (sallalahu 'alaihi wasallam) fa akhbartuhu
ma Sana'a an-nas wa Qultu inna Aba Bakr as-Sa't 'alaa Minbar
Rasulallahi (sallalahu 'alaihi wasallam) wallahi ma yardha 'an
yubayi'uh 'alaa yadin wahid innahum layubay'unahu biyadayhi jami'an
biyaminihi washimalihi faqalali: Ya Salman hal Tadri man awwalu man
bayaa'hu 'alaa minbar Rasulallahi (sallalahu 'alaihi wasallam)? Qultu
la Adree -until we read Aliyy (radiallahu say): - awwalu man baya'ahu
'alaa Minbary Iblees la'natullah fi surati rajulin shaikh ..." - see
Rawdhat al Kafi p. 283 -284.
> Disagree if you
> please but to state the obvious: that Shaltout disagrees with Imam
> Shafi'i or Imam Malik on this or that, is really no argument at all.
I am stating more than "the obvious". There is a link because Ridwan
is presenting the 12er Shia as a "madhab" relative to the madhabs
which are named after the four Imams. It is a valid argument because
most of the people that Ridwan is targeting are attached to one of the
madhabs and thus, his presentaion of a fatwa related to madhabs. The
position of the respective Imams of the madhabs becomes relevant in
dealing with the issue of adding the "5th Madhab" which actually is a
sect atempting to pass a "madhab".
> If it were, then we would raise up our leaders as Lords before Allah,
> Who does not impose upon us the views of any human being. This is a
> great blessing rarely acknowledged.
>
Your concern can be addressed by anlysing the validity of the
statements and
positions of the Imams. If the Imams made a mistake you may point out
the mistake so that we can discuss it. Given the context of the
discussion, the statement "raise up our leaders as Lords before Allah"
is unwaranted. You need to provide evidence that it has occured. It is
also possible to take our own vein desires as "Lords before Allah":
"Hast thou seen him who maketh his DESIRE his god, ..." - Al-Jaathiya.
Verse 23.
Meanwhile, we are required to ask about what we do not understand -
the Imams become a valuable source of this understanding - except when
one is knowladgeable.
" Ask the followers of the Reminder if ye know not?" - Surah
Al-Anbiyaa 7.
The overriding argument is that the core shia belief remains the same
and the same rulling should apply. Judges in secular courts use of
rulings from the past to apply to a similar case.
> > Ibn Hazm writes about Muslim and non Muslim sects in his book al
> > Fisaal. The Shia happen to be one of them. If you are alluding to
> > injustice and bias, I direct you to read his Rasa'il (Rasa'il Ibn Hazm
> > Al Andalusi) in which he speaks very harshly about the kings of
> > Andalusia who started to befriend the Jews.
>
> I'm not sure what has provoked this harrange against the Jews.
I assume you are not refering to the Ayahs of the Qur'an that are
revealed concerning the Jews as, "this harrange" (harangue). I will
consider "the Jews" to mean "the kings of Andalusia" - The Ayahs that
he used are self explanatory -taking the jews as friends and advisors
....
> Ibn
> Hazm might well write about them since they clearly participated in
> the same society. I am not aware of any Shias in Medieval Spain -
> although I suppose the Fatimid Dawa might have been active there for
> some time.
>
I do not see the relevance of "participated in the same society" to
know
about the core beliefs of the Rafidha Shia (12er Shia). If you refer
to Al Fisaal of Imam Ibn Hazm, for example, he speaks about Socrates,
Herodotus, and many other Greek figures - and he did not participate
in the greek society they lived in. Imam Ibn Hazm's statement was made
in the context of the Rafidha Shi'ite claim that the Qur'an which is
in the hands of Muslims is of a questionable authority.
According to the story in Imam Ibn Hazm's al Fisaal: Imaam ibn Hazm
was debating with some Spanish Catholic priests . He brought before
them evidence of textual distortions in the Bible and the loss of
original manuscripts. When they replied by pointing out to him Shi`ite
claim that the Qur'an is also distorted, Imam Ibn Hazm informed them
that the Rafida (Shi`ite) could not be used as evidence against the
Qur'an or against Muslims because they are not themselves Muslims." -
al-Fisaal fee al-Milal wa an-Nihal, Ibn Hazm.
This Rafidha (Shi'ite) belief is confirmed from the books such as "al
Kafi" by al Kulaini - among others - here is a transliteration
including the source:
" Muhammad bin Yahya, 'an Muhammad bin al-Hussain, 'an Abdurahman bin
abo Hashim, 'an Saalim bin salamah qaala: Qaraa'rajulun 'alaa abi
'abdillah 'alaihi asselaam, wa ana astamiu' hurufan minal Qur'an laysa
'alaa Ma yaqrauha an-nas. Faqaala abu 'Abdullah 'alaihi asselaam: Hufu
'an Hadha alqiraat, Iqra' kamaa yaqrau' an-nas hatta yaqumal qaa'imu
fa'idha qaamal qa'imu 'alaihi asselaam qaraa' kitaballahi 'azza
wajall'alaa haddih wa akhrajal mashaf al-lladhi katabahu 'Aliyy
'alaihi asselaam wa qaal: akhrajahu Aliyy 'alaihi asselaam ilan-nas
heena faragha minhu wa katabahufaqaala lehum: Hadha kitabullahi 'azza
waJall kamaaa anzalahu Allahu 'alaa Muhamad sallalahu 'alaihi
wasallam, waqad Jama'tuhu minal Lawhayn faqalu: Huwa dha
'indanamashafun Jaami' fihi al-Quran la Hajata lana fihi, Faqalaa amma
wallahi ma terawnehu ba'da yawmikum haadhaabadaa, innamaa kaana
'Alayya an ukhbirukum Heena jama'tuhu litaqre'uh." -------- Kitaab
Fadhl al Qur'an (V. 2, p. 633), al Usool min al-Kafi, Ta'leef thiqatul
Islaam abi Ja'afar Muhammad bin Ya'qub bin Ishaaq al Kulayni ar-Razi,
al Juz' athaani, Muassasat daar al Kutub al Islaamiyya fi al-suqil
sultani - Tehran.
" 'an abi Baseer qaala: dakhaltu 'alaa abi 'Abdullah (Ja'far as-Sadiq)
... Qaala Abi 'Abdullah (Ja'far as-Sadiq): wa Inna 'indanaa lamashaf
Fatima 'alaiha asselaam ... Qalaa: qultu wamaa mashaf Fatima? Qalaa
Mashafu feehi mithla Qur'anikum hadha thalaatha marrat wallahi ma
feehi min Qur'anikum harfun waahid " ----- V. 1, P. 239 al Usool min
al-Kafi , Ta'leef thiqatul Islaam abi Ja'afar Muhammad bin Ya'qub bin
Ishaaq al Kulayni ar-Razi, al Juz' athaani, Muassasat daar al Kutub al
Islaamiyya fi al-ssuqil sultani - Tehran.
> Muslims have always been interested in the study of deviant sects and
> factions. Sometimes these have been well documented, and sometimes
> factions have been invented to contain or organize observed deviance.
> < snip>.
It is not a simple interest. It is a practical excercise that helps
identify the
devient groups such that one could guard himself against corruption of
the core beliefs. The scholars are obliged to inform us, and we are
required to ask that which we do not understand: " Ask the followers
of the Reminder if ye know not?" - Surah Al-Anbiyaa 7.
>
> Assalamu alaikum,
>
>
> Omar
Wa Alaikum Asselaam Wa Ruhmetullah,
Saifu,
Zuiko Azumazi
"saifu" <saifu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ef863243.0212...@posting.google.com...<snip>
> " The Prophet had thus fortold the splitting up of his community into
> seventy-three sects of which seventy-two are doubtlessly those who
> plunged as those who plunged before them ("before them" refers to the
> children of Israel).
>
I posted an article a couple of months ago about the "seventy-three sects"
because I wanted to understand its political implications on the community
[Ummah]. No one gave an adequate response to the 'disunity' aspect and its
impact on, so called, 'fundamentalist' movements that have adopted a
'singular' doctrine. Can you elucidate on this paradox?
>
Peace
--
Zuiko Azumazi.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> Comment:-
> I posted an article a couple of months ago about the "seventy-three sects"
> because I wanted to understand its political implications on the community
> [Ummah]. No one gave an adequate response to the 'disunity' aspect and its
> impact on, so called, 'fundamentalist' movements that have adopted a
> 'singular' doctrine. Can you elucidate on this paradox?
> >
After some research:
The actual hadeeth refers to the political breakup of the Muslim world
that was to happen within 100 years after the death of the Prophet.
Jamaah in some narrations is equated with sultanate, i.e. power. The
Prophet urged the Muslims during the time of fitna not to become
renegades of the government to ensure that bloodshed would not be
spilt.
The narration, if all the various hadeeth, are collected point to this
political phenomenon. If this becomes clear, than obviously the
narration does not point to differences that pertain to human thought,
but the type of disunity which endangers the lives of many Muslims.
Even Ali (R) is reported tro have allowed the existence of the
Khawarij, and would not fight them as long as they accedded to
peaceful behaviour.
saifu
> saifu wrote:
> > Imaam ash-Shaaf'i said,
>
> > "I have not seen among the heretics a people more famous
> > for falsehood than the Raafidite Shi'ites."
>
> > He also said, "Narrate knowledge from everyone you meet
> > except the Raafidite Shi'ites, because they invent Hadeeths
> > and adopt them as part of their religion." - Ibn Taymiyyah,
> > Minhaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah, vol 1 page 38.
> >
> > Imaam Maalik said,
>
> > "Do not speak to them nor narrate from them, for surely
> > they are liars."
> salaam 'alaykum,
> I seriously doubt that any of the above quotation are authentic and
the
> reason is obvious. You compilers of hadeeth including Bukhari and
Muslim relied heavily
> on literally hundreds of "Raafidite Shi'ites"!
It is like claiming that "Bukhari and Muslim relied heavily on
literally hundreds of 'trustworthy' liars".
> So how could the above quotations be authentic when Muslim didn't
take them
> seriously? How could the above quotations be authentic when even
Bukhari
> didn't take them seriously either?
Your premise "Raafidite Shi'ites" equals "Trustworthy Shi'ites" is
invalid and thus, the argument based on what is invalid becomes
invalid. Summarizing the position of Ahlussunnah wal Jam'aah - Shaikh
al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya says:
"Although, the Khawarij will exit from Islam (religion) the way an
arrow passes through its target, and that the Prophet sallalahu
'alaihi wasallam ordered fighting them, and the Sahaba and the Ullema
of the Muslims agree fighting them, as in the authentically
established Hadith from the Prophet sallalahu 'alaihi wasallam,
concerning them, from 10 diffrent routes as narrated by Muslim, and
Bukhari who narrated three of them. They (Khawarij) are not among
those who knowingly relate a lie; In fact they are known for their
truthfulness to the extent that it is said: Their Hadith (narrations)
are the most authentic. [... until he said] But the Rafidha
(Shi'ites), the basis of their innovation is one of Heresy and
disbelief, and knowingly telling a lie is found in them in abandance
more than others. And this is acknowledged by themselves that they
say: "Our religion is taqiyya** (dissimulation), and this as one of
them saying with his tongue in opposition to what is in his heart; and
this is a lie and Nifaq (hypocrisy). And while behaving as such they
claim they are the true belivers with the exclusion of others from the
people the Milaat (Muslim ummah) ... " - Minhaaj as-Sunnah
an-Nabawiyyah, vol 1 Page 68.
** Taqiyya, according to the Rafidite Shi'ite:
"Ibn Umayr, from Hishaam bin saalim, from Abee Umar al-A'ajamy who
said: 'Abu Abdullah, alaihi asselaam told me: "O aba Umar, Taqqiyah
composes nine-tenth of the religion of Allah and whoever does not use
taqqiya has no religion. Taqqiya is to be used in everything except
the prohibition of wine and the rubbing of socks for wudu'" " -
al-Usul min al-Kafi V. 2 page 217.
> If the hadeeth narrated by the Shi`as is all rejected, then the vast
majority
> of the prophetic legacy will be lost, as al-Dhahabi himself admits
this while
> narrating the biography of Aban ibn Taghlib in his book Mizaan al
'Itidaal.
> There can be no better testimony than that!
Useless rhetoric! Your argument is basesd on the false premise that
Imam Bukhari and Imam al-Dhahabi accept narrations from "Rafidite
Shi'ite" (liars).According to Ahlussunnah scholars of Jarh wa T'adeel
such as Imam ad-Dhahabi "inclines towards Shi`ism" (as in the 5
examples that you gave, below, and I will add 'Abdurrazak as-San'aniy
from Imam ad-Dhahabi's Al Kashif) is understood as in the following
classification of a narrator:
----------
"3362 - 'Abdurrazak bin Hammam bin Nafi' al Hafidh abu Bakar
as-San'aniy, Ahadul A'alaam (he narrated from) Ibn Jurayj, and
Mu'ammar, and Thawr, and from him Ahmad, and Ishaq, and Ar-Ramdiyy,
and ad-Dabariyy; He composed books. He died at (the age) of 85 in the
year 211"
and in the Hashia (commentary) of al-Kashif, by Imam Burhanudeen Ibn
al 'Ajami al-Halabi:
"3362 - (4064) (( Trustworthy, Hafidh and a well known writer. He
became blind in his last days and changed, he was inclined towards
Shi'ism (wakaana YaTashayyu') [Until we read]
inclines towards Shi`ism (Tashayyu'), according to their convention
(scholars of Jarh wa T'adeel): the love of 'Aliyy and elevating (his
position) above all the Sahaba except Abubakar and Omar. If
('Abdurazzak) elevated him ('Aliyy) above the position of Abubakr and
Omar - radiallahu 'anhum a'jma'een - he would have exceeded the proper
bounds in his Tashayyu'. According to Ahlusunnah, 'Aliyy is elevated
in position above all the Sahaba except Abubakar and Omar; and Uthman
taking into considaration that their views concerning him (Uthman) is
settled - and accordingly, 'Abdurazzak's disagreement with others
concerning the elevation of 'Aliyy over Uthman is more fitting. And in
"Tahdheeb At-Tahdheeb" the biography of 'Ubaidullah bin Musa, one of
the trustworthy among the Shi'a - (ref.#) 5307 -
' Ahmad (ibn Hanbal) dropped him because of his inclination towards
Shi'ism; Ahmad was reproached because of his (acceptance of)
narrations from 'Abdurazzak, and he mentioned that 'Abdurazzak had
reformed '. And in al-'Ilal of Abdullahi Ibn Ahmad (ibn Hanbal),
'Abdurazzak said: ' By Allah, I never felt confortable to elevate
'Aliyy over Abubakr and Omar ...' (conferming Imam Ahmad's statement,
"'Abdurazzak had reformed") ".
> I will quote only 5 that Bukhari and Muslim relied upon just to
illustrated
> how tremendous on the reliance on the "Raafidite Shi'ites" is:
As you were told by Shibli Zamaan (who is known to refute your Rafidha
Shi'ite claims, here on SRI), you do not know the beliefs of your own
sect (Rafidite Shi'ites or 12er Shia) let alone understand the beliefs
and Rijaal al Hadith classification of Ahlussunnah. You are trying to
present individuals "who inclines towards Shi`ism" as "Raafidite
Shi'ites" which is an insult to the 5 individuals and many others like
them. Your presentaion of the 5 narrators is also misleading because
it contains truthfull statements - provided it is understood in the
context of the above definition of "who inclines towards Shi`ism" but
it is also laced with a Rafidha Shi'ite abusive commentary against the
same people that you use as your source of Information - for example
it uses the derogatory term "Nasibis" which the Rafidha Shi'ite use
against Ahlussunah. You do not verify or understand what you present
as evidence - for example - Sulayman ibn Mahran al-Kahili al-Kufi
al-Asla' who is known as al-A'amash is a witness against you,
"Raafidite Shi'ites":
Al-A'amash said: " I have met people and they do not call them
(Raafidite Shi'ites) except the liars (al-Kadhabeen)" He also said:
"Take note and remeber That I do not trust them (Raafidite Shi'ites)
that they may say, ' We have found al-A'amash with a lady' ". - Minhaj
As-Sunnah V. 1 page 60-61.
> 1. Zubayd ibn al-Harith ibn `Abdul-Karim al-Yami al-Kufi.
<snip - Refer to Riwans previous post for complete reading>
> 2. Sulayman ibn Mahran al-Kahili al-Kufi al-Asla`
He is known as al-A'amash (bleary-eyed).
> He is one of the Shi`a nobility and a most trusted traditionist. Many
a genius
> among Sunni men of knowledge, such as Ibn Qutaybah in his Ma`arif and
al-Shahristani in
> his Al-Milal wal-Nihal, as well as many others, have all included him
among Shi`a
> dignitaries. In his biography of Zubayd, al-Jawzjani says the
following in his book
> Al-Mizan: "Among the people of Kufa, there are some folks whose sect
is not appreciated,
> yet they are the masters of hadith among Kufi traditionists. Among
them are: Abu Ishaq, Mansur,
> Zubayd al-Yami, al-A`mash, and other peers. People tolerate them only
because
> they are truthful in narrating hadith,"
He is listed by Imam ad-Dhahabi, in Mizaan al-i'tidaal as: '
Al-A'amash is Sulayman ibn Mahran al-Kahili al-Kufi (v.1 423) one of
the reliable leaders, he is catagorized among the Juniors of the
Tabi'een; they did not see anything reproachable except his Tadlees ..
He removes doubt from those who narrate to him and those who narrate
from him (directly); We can not assert that he is aware of the
weakness of it (where he is making Tadlees) as this is Haram.' Ibn
Hajar also mentioned him in Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb and quoting al-'I'jly
says: 'that he was inclined towards Shi'ism, and he died in the year
148.' - See his biography in Shadharaat adh-Dhahab v. 1 Pages
220-223, Tahdheeb -at-Tahdheeb v. 4 Pages 222-226, and Rawdat
al-Jannaat Pages 319-320.
<Snip - "Raafidite Shi'ies" trade mark rhetoric >
> Al-A`mash has left us many interesting incidents which vividly
portray his
> greatness. One of them, for example, is included by Ibn Khallikan in
al-A`mash's biograpy
> in Wafiyyat al-A`yan where the author states: "Hisham ibn
`Abdul-Malik once wrote to al-A`mash saying:
>`Recount for me `Uthman's virtues and `Ali's vices.' Al-A`mash took
the
letter and tossed it into his she-camel's mouth.
> Then he turned to the messenger and said: `This is my answer.' The
messenger,
> however, pleaded to al-A`mash saying that his master had vowed to
kill him if he did
> not return with an answer. He also pleaded to al-A`mash's brothers to
pressure their
> brother to write something. Finally, he wrote: `In the Name of Allah,
Most Gracious, Most
> Merciful. Had `Uthman had all the virtues of the people of the world,
they would not have
> availed you aught, and had `Ali had in him all the vices of the
people of the world, they
> would not have harmed you in the least; therefore, worry about your
own soul, and peace
> be with you.'"
The above is another supporting evidence that Al-A`mash is not a
"Raafidite Shi'ies". As you can see, He says the Truth in the face of
a request from a tyrant, and he does not use Taqiyya (dissimulation)
to save his life as the "Raafidite Shi'ies" claim to do.
> Another anecdote is narrated by Ibn `Abd al-Birr in his chapter on
the
> `ulema's statements evaluating each other's work in his book Jami`
Bayanul `Ilm wa Fada'ilih.[5]
> The author quotes `Ali ibn Khashram saying, "I have heard Abul-Fadl
ibn Musa say, `I
> entered the house of al-A`mash once accompanied by Abu Hanifah to
visit him during his
> sickness. Abu Hanifah said: `O Abu Muhammad! Had I not feared my
visits would be a
> nuisance to you, I would have visited you more often'. Al-A`mash
answered, `You are a
> nuisance to me even at your own home; so, imagine how I feel when I
have to look at your
> face.'" Abul-Fadl continues to say that having left the house of
al-A`mash, Abu Hanifah
> said, `Al-A`mash never observed the fast of the month of Ramadan.'
Ibn al-Khashram then
> asked al-Fadl what Abu Hanifah meant. Al-Fadl answered, `Al-A`mash
used to observe the
> suhur during the month of Ramadan according to the Prophet's hadith
as narrated by
> Huthayfah al-Yemani.'"
There is some text missing from your quote, above (about Al-a'amash
not taking a bath from Janabah). You also omitted a very important
warning of Imam Ibn `Abd al-Barr which is the main reason for the
presentation of the narration. Imam Ibn `Abd al-Barr's warning: "And
this is one of their statements that we do not listen to, we do not
pay attention to, and take seriously". The title of section where the
above story was listed also aludes to the warning, above: " Section,
the ruling on the statements of the Ullema against one another; and
the sub-section: " the statements of the Ullema against one another is
not accepted". By your omission of the most cogent part of the
narration, you have further exposed the integrity of your argument
and in the process did not advance the "Raafidite Shi'ies" position
which we are discussing. I will use Imam ad-Dhahabi - the same person
that you are attempting to present as one who accepts "Raafidite
Shi'ies" as trustworthy narrators - In Al Muntaqaa min Minhaaj
al-I`tidaal he narrates:
Ibn al-Mubaarak said: "Religion is (acquired) from Ahlul-Hadeeth,
scholastic theology and strategem (to avoid religious statute) from
people with subjective opinion (Ahlur-R'ay), and lies from the
Raafidite (Shi`ites)." - Al Muntaqaa min Minhaaj al-I`tidaal, p. 48,
by Imam Adh-Dhahabi.
> Authors of Al-Wajiza and Bihar Al-Anwar
Since it would be too offensive, I will not quote the contents of
Bihar Al-Anwar. Ali and Fatimah and the family of the Messenger of
Allah (sallalahu 'alaihi wasallam), (ridwanullahi 'alaihim) whom the
rafidite Shi'ite claim they love, were not excluded from the filth
that is contained in Bihar Al-Anwar. Let Ridwan read it since he is a
Raafidite Shi'ies and would be immune to the repulsion others may feel
if exposed to it - (let him read Bihaar al-Anwar, vol. 43, p. 78, vol.
40, p. 2).
After reading Bihaar al-Anwaar, vol.2 p. 1319, Tafseer al- Burhan,
vol. 3, p. 310, vol. 21, p. 98 one would confirm that the belief
Raafidite Shi'ies is inspired by Shaitan (la'anatullahi 'alaihi). You
think you are reading a pagan book rather than an Islamic one.
> have both quoted Hasan ibn Sa`id al-Nakh`i who quotes Sharik ibn
`Abdullah,
> the judge,
As corroborating evidence against your argument to prove that Sharik
is not from among the "Rafidite Shi'ite", here is Sharik as a
witnessing against you, Raafidite Shi'ites:
" Muhammad bin Al Asbahani said, ' I heard Sharik say, "I Narrate
knowledge from everyone I meet except the Raafidite (Shi`ites),
because they invent Hadeeths and adopt them as part of their
religion." [This Sharik is Sharik Ibn Abdullah al Qadi, Qadi of
Al-Kufa and from the contamporaries of At-Thawri and abu Hanifa, and
he is one of the Shi'ites who is known to declare, "I am among the
Shia (of Aliyy), and this his testimony against them (rafidite
Shi'ite)"] " -Minhaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah, vol 1 page 60.
> < snip - no objection concerning Al-A'amash except, to Ridwan's
"Raafidite Shi'ites" twist.>
> 3. `Alqamah ibn Qays ibn `Abdullah al-Nakh`i, Abu Shibil
<snip - Refer to Riwans previous post for complete reading>
> 4. <snip - Refer to Riwans previous post for complete reading>
> 5. Mansur ibn al-Mu`tamir ibn `Abdullah ibn Rabi`ah al-Salami al-Kufi
> < snip>
> In his biography of Mansur ibn al-Mu`tamir ibn `Abdullah ibn Rabi`ah,
Ibn Sa`d
> also quotes Hammad ibn Zayd saying, "I have seen Mansur in Mecca, and
I think he belongs
> to those Khashbis, yet I do not think that he tells a lie when he
quotes hadith."
> Behold the underestimation, grudge, contempt and manifest enmity this
statement bears.
> How surprised I am when I consider his statement: "I do not think
that he tells lies..."
> As if telling lies is one of the practices of those who are sincere
to Muhammad's progeny.
> As if Mansur alone is truthful, rather than all other Shi`a
traditionists. Name-calling...
> As if the Nasibis could not find a name whereby they can call the
Shi`as other than
> misnomers such as Khashbis, Turabis, Rafidis, etc. As if they have
never heard the Almighty's
> Commandment: "And do not exchange bad names; what an evil it is to
use a bad
> name after having accepted faith (Qur'an, 49:11)."
Do you practice the above commandment? - or it does not apply to the
Raafidite Shi'ite. What does the "Nasabis" and "those heretics" below
mean - you mean Ahlussunah.
> Ibn Qutaybah has mentioned the
> "Khashbis" in his book Al-Ma`arif and said: "These are Rafidis.
Ibrahim al-Ashtar met
> `Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad in the battle-field. Most of Ibrahim's men had
guaiacum wood panels;
> therefore, they were labelled `khashbis,' men associated with
paneling, out of scorn."
> In fact, they called them so just to humiliate them and look down
upon them and their wooden
> weapons with which they were able to beat Ibn Marjanah, predecessor
of the Nasibis, thus
> annihilating those heretics, murderers of Muhammad's progeny.
> "Allah has cut off the tail of those who committed injustice;
> all praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds (Qur'an,
> 6:45)." There is no harm, therefore, in this noble name, nor is there
any harm in its synonyms like Turabis,
> after Abu Turab (Imam `Ali, as); we are proud of it.
Here is ash Sha'abi speaking about al Khashabiyya** (Khashbis):
"I have not seen more feebleminded as the Khashabiyya; If they were
birds they would be Rakhama, and if they were animals they would be
Humura. By Allah, if I asked from them that they fill this house with
gold in return for lying concerning Ali, they would have given me; By
Allah, I will never lie against him." - Minhaaj as-Sunnah
an-Nabawiyyah, vol 1, page 22.
**al Khashabiyya refers to a sub-sect of the Shi'ites who refuse to
fight with swords and prefer to use wooden weapons. As Ibn Hazm
states, in al-Fassl v. 5, p. 45: "Some Shi'ites did not allow the
carying of weapons until their awaited one appeared; and they used to
kill people using strangulation, stones and the Khashabiyya wood,
only."
> <snip - Rafida Shi'ites posturing>
> see http://al-islam.org/murajaat/16.htm for more details and notes.
There are
> at least 100 Shi'i Narrators mentioned there that the compiler of the
Six
> Authentic Sunni Hadeeth Collections have knowingly relied upon.
The problem is with Rafidha Shi'ites and not with those classied as in
the following:
"inclines towards Shi`ism (Tashayyu'), according to their convention
(scholars of Jarh wa T'adeel): the love of 'Aliyy and elevating (his
position) above all the Sahaba except Abubakar and Omar. If
('Abdurazzak**) elevated him ('Aliyy) above the position of Abubakr
and Omar - radiallahu 'anhim a'jma'een - he would have exceeded the
proper bounds in his Tashayyu'"
** 'Abdurrazzak is classified as: "Trustworthy, Hafidh and a well
known writer. He became blind in his last days and changed, he was
inclined towards Shi'ism (wakaana YaTashayya')"
> salaam,
> Ridwaan
Saifu,
rj...@mailandnews.com
saifu wrote:
> > I seriously doubt that any of the above quotation are authentic and
> the
> > reason is obvious. You compilers of hadeeth including Bukhari and
> Muslim relied heavily
> > on literally hundreds of "Raafidite Shi'ites"!
>
> It is like claiming that "Bukhari and Muslim relied heavily on
> literally hundreds of 'trustworthy' liars".
I was very offended by your post with you insistence that Shi'ah can never
be truthful and that Shi'ah are liars. But then I thought it over and
realized that it is really just a matter of ignorance. You are ignorant of
the fact that your Scholars of Rijaal have described literally hundreds of
Shi'i narrators of Hadeeth as Truthful (Shi'i Suduq). I took the time to
compile a sample list of them.
You may look up more at http://al-islam.org/murajaat/
and if you are proficient in Arabic try
http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/morajeat/fehrest.htm
I hope you find it useful.
1. Aban ibn Taghlib
He was a Kufi] reciter of the Holy Qur'an. Al胖hahabi has recorded his
biography in his own Mizan saying, "Aban ibn Taghlib, MAW, of Kufa, is a
persistant Shi`a. He, nevertheless, is TRUTHFUL; so, we will rely on his
Truthfulness, and let him be punished for his innovation.
2. Ahmed ibn al胞ufdil
He is Ahmed ibn al胞ufdil ibn al胛ufi al胄afri. Abu Zar`ah and Abu Hatim
quote him and rely upon him while being fully aware of his status among
Shi`as. In Ahmed's biography, as stated in Al-Mizan, Abu Hatim highlights
this fact by saying: "Ahmed ibn al胞ufdil is one of the Shi`a chiefs, and
he is TRUTHFUL.
3. Isma`il ibn `Abdul苧ahman ibn Abu Karimah al胛ufi
Better known as al-Sadi, he is the renown interpreter of the Holy Qur'an.
Stating his biography, al胖hahabi describes him as "charged with Shi`ism."
Husayn ibn Waqid al胞aruzi discusses him, claiming that he heard him once
cursing Abu Bakr and `Umer. In spite of all these charges, he is quoted by
al茅hawri and Abu Bakr ibn `Ayyash and many in such class of writers.
Muslim and authors of the four sahih books consider him an authority, while
Ahmed grants him his full confidence. Ibn `Adi says that he is TRUTHFUL.
4. Jabir ibn Yazid ibn al-Harith al-Ju`fi al-Kufi
Al-Dhahabi has narrated his biography in his own Al-Mizan, describing him
as one of the Shi`a `ulema.
Relying on the authority of Za'idah, al-Dhahabi has included his biography
in his Al-Mizan and said: "Jabir al-Ju`fi is a Rafidi who curses..." In
spite of that, both al-Nisa'i and Abu Dawud rely on his authority. Refer to
the hadith which he narrates concerning accidental prostrations in both
sahihs. Shihab, Abu `Awanah, and many of their calibre, quote him.
Al-Dhahabi, who mentions him in his Al-Mizan, has put the initials of both
Abu Dawud and al-Tirmithi on his name to indicate their reliance on his
authority. He also quotes Sufyan saying that Jabir al-Ju`fi is God-fearing
while narrating hadith, and that he has said: "I have never seen anyone
more pious than him [Jabir]." He also quotes Shu`bah saying that Jabir is
TRUTHFUL, and "Whenever Jabir narrated hadith, we listened, since he is the
most trustworthy of all men.
5. Ja`fer ibn Ziyad al-Ahmar al-Kufi
Abu Dawud has mentioned him saying: "He is a TRUTHFUL Shi`a." Al-Jawzjani
has said: "He has deviated from the path," meaning from al-Jawzjani's path
to that of the Prophet's Progeny (as). Ibn `Adi has described him as a
pious Shi`a. His grandson al-Husayn ibn `Ali ibn Ja`fer ibn Ziyad has said:
"My grandfather Ja`fer was one of the chiefs of Shi`as in Khurasan."
6. Al-Harith ibn Hasirah Abul Nu`man al-Azdi al-Kufi
Al-Harith ibn Hasirah narrates through Abu Dawud al-Subai`i, through `Umran
ibn Hasin, saying: "I was sitting once in the presence of the Messenger of
Allah, peace be upon him and his progeny, with `Ali sitting beside him. The
Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his progeny, recited `Or who else
[other than Allah] that would respond to the one in dire need for help,
remove his distress, and make ye vicegerents on earth?' `Ali was shaken and
moved a great deal; thereupon, the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him
and his progeny, patted `Ali's shoulder and said: `Nobody loves you except
a true believer [a mu'min], and nobody hates you except a hypocrite till
the Day of Judgment.'"
Traditionists such as Muhammad ibn Kuthayyir and others have quoted the
hadith cited above from Al-Harith ibn Hasirah. Al-Dhahabi has transmitted
it while stating the biography of Nafi` ibn al-Harith through the same
chain of narrators. When he comes to Al-Harith ibn Hasirah, he comments
saying, "He is TRUTHFUL; but he is also Rafidi."
7. Khalid ibn Mukhlid al-Qatwani
Also known as Abul-Haytham al-Kufi, he is one of Bukhari's mentors, as the
latter states in his Sahih. Ibn Sa`d mentions him on page 283, Vol. 6, of
his Tabaqat, saying, "He was a staunch Shi`a. He died in Kufa in
mid-Muharram of 213 A.H. during the reign of al-Ma'mun. He was extremist in
his Shi`a beliefs, and writers have documented this fact."
Abu Dawud mentions him saying: "He is TRUTHFUL; but he follows Shi`ism."
8. Zayd ibn al-Habab, Abul-Hasan al-Kufi al-Tamimi
Ibn Qutaybah has included his biography among those whose biographies he
has included among Shi`a dignitaries in his work Al-Ma`arif. Al-Dhahabi has
mentioned him in his Al-Mizan, describing him as "pious, trustworthy,
TRUTHFUL." He indicates his being vouched as trustworthy by Ibn Ma`in and
Ibn al-Madini. He has quoted Abu Hatim and Ahmed describing him as
TRUTHFUL, adding that `Adi has said: "He is one of the reliable Kufi
traditionists whose trustworthiness is never doubted."
9. Sa`id ibn Ashwa`
He is mentioned in al-Dhahabi's Al-Mizan where the author says: "Sa`id ibn
Ashwa` is a famous and TRUTHFUL Kufi judge. Al-Nisa'i says that there is
nothing wrong with his hadith, and that he is a friend of al-Sha`bi.
Al-Jawzjani describes him as extremist, heretic, and a Shi`a zealot."
Both al-Bukhari and Muslim rely on his authority in their respective
sahihs. His hadith from al-Sha`bi is regarded as authentic by authors of
both sahih books. In both Bukhari's and Muslim's Sahihs, his hadith is
quoted by Zakariyyah ibn Abu Za'idah and Khalid al-Haththa'. He died during
the reign of Khalid ibn `Abdullah.
10. Sulayman ibn Mahran al-Kahili al-Kufi al-Asla`
He is one of the Shi`a nobility and a most trusted traditionist. Many a
genius among Sunni men of knowledge, such as Ibn Qutaybah in his Ma`arif
and al-Shahristani in his Al-Milal wal-Nihal, as well as many others, have
all included him among Shi`a dignitaries.
In his biography of Zubayd, al-Jawzjani says the following in his book
Al-Mizan: "Among the people of Kufa, there are some folks whose sect is not
appreciated, yet they are the masters of hadith among Kufi traditionists.
Among them are: Abu Ishaq, Mansur, Zubayd al-Yami, al-A`mash, and other
peers. People tolerate them only because they are TRUTHFUL in narrating
hadith,"
11. Sharik ibn `Abdullah ibn Sinan al-Nakh`i al-Kufi, the judge
Imam Abu Qutaybah, in his Ma`arif, has unreservedly included him among
Shi`a nobility. At the conclusion of Sharik's biography as recorded in
Al-Mizan, `Abdullah ibn Idris swears that Sharik is a Shi`a.
Once the name of Mu`awiyah was mentioned in his presence and was described
as "clement." Sharik, as stated in his biography in Al-Mizan as well as in
Ibn Khallikan's Wafiyyat al-A`yan, said: "Whoever discards equity and
fights `Ali can never be clement." He narrated one hadith from Asim, Tharr,
`Abdullah ibn Mas`ud successively indicating that the Prophet (pbuh) had
said: "If you see Mu`awiyah on my pulpit, kill him." This is quoted by
al-Tabari, and al-Tabari in turn is quoted by al-Dhahabi while the latter
discusses the biography of Abbad ibn Ya`qub.
Ibn Khallikan's Wafiyyat includes a biography of Sharik where the author
quotes a dialogue between Sharik and Mis`ab ibn `Abdullah al-Zubairi, in
the presence of the `Abbaside ruler al-Mahdi. Mis`ab asked Sharik: "Do you
really belittle Abu Bakr and `Umer?" up to the conclusion of the incident.
In spite of all of this, al-Dhahabi has described him as a "TRUTHFUL imam."
He also quotes Ibn Ma`in saying that Sharik is "TRUTHFUL, trustworthy."
12. `Abbad ibn Ya`qub al-Asadi al-Ruwajni al-Kufi
He is mentioned by Dar Qutni who says, "`Abbad ibn Ya`qub is a TRUTHFUL
Shi`a." Ibn Hayyan mentions him and says, "`Abbad ibn Ya`qub used to invite
people to Rafidism."
In spite of his intolerance and prejudice, Abu Hatim has mentioned him and
said that he is a trusted shaykh. Al-Dhahabi mentions him in his Al-Mizan
and says, "He is one of the extremist Shi`as, leaders of innovators; yet he
is TRUTHFUL when narrating hadith."
Bukhari quotes him directly while discussing tawhid in his own sahih.
13. `Abdullah ibn `Umer ibn Muhammad ibn Aban ibn Salih ibn `Umayr
al-Qarashi al-Kufi
Also known as Mishkadanah, he is mentor of Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Baghwi,
and many other peers who all learned hadith from him. Abu Hatim has
mentioned him testifying to his Truthfulness. He quotes his hadith and
states that he is a Shi`a. Salih ibn Muhammad ibn Jazrah has mentioned him
and said that he is a Shi`a "extremist."
14. `Abdul-Malik ibn `Ayan
He is brother of Zararah, Hamran, Bakir, `Abdul-Rahman, Malik, Musa, Daris,
and Umm al-Aswad, all descendants of `Ayan, and all are notable Shi`as.
They have won the sublime cup for serving the Islamic Shari`a, and they
have produced a blessed and righteous progeny that adheres to their sect
and views.
Al-Dhahabi mentions `Abdul-Malik in his Al-Mizan, citing Abu Wa'il and
others quoting Abu Hatim saying that he has reported authentic ahadith, and
that Ma`in has said that there is nothing wrong with his hadith, while
another authority testifies thus: "He is TRUTHFUL, yet he is Rafidi, too."
15. `Adi ibn Thabit al-Kufi
Ibn Ma`in has described him as a "Shi`a extremist," while Dar Qutni calls
him "Rafidi, extremist, but also reliable." Al-Jawzjani says that the man
has "deviated." Al-Mas`udi says, "We have never seen anyone who is so
outspoken in preaching his Shi`a views like `Adi ibn Thabit." In his
Al-Mizan, al-Dhahabi describes him as "the learned scholar of Shi`as, the
most TRUTHFUL among them, the judge and Imam of their mosques.
16. `Ali ibn Ghurab Abu Yahya al-Fazari al-Kufi
Ibn Hayyan has described him as "an extremist Shi`a." Probably for this
reason, al-Jawzjani drops him completely. Abu Dawud has said that `Ali's
hadith has been rejected, while both Ibn Ma`in and Dar Qutni trust him. Abu
Hatim has said that there is nothing wrong with his hadith. Abu Zar`ah says
he considers him TRUTHFUL.
17. `Ali ibn Qadim Abul-Hasan al-Khuza`i al-Kufi
He is mentor of Ahmed ibn al-Furat, Ya`qub al-Faswi and a group of their
peers who have all learned hadith from him and relied on his authority. Ibn
Sa`d mentions him on page 282, Vol. 6, of his Tabaqat and describes him as
an "extremist Shi`a." Probably for this reason alone that Yahya regards his
hadith as "weak." Abu Hatim says that he is TRUTHFUL.
18. `Ali ibn al-Munthir al-Tara'ifi
He is professor of al-Tirmithi, al-Nisa'i, Ibn Sa`id, `Abdul-Rahman ibn Abu
Hatim, and other peers who have all learned hadith from him and relied on
his authority. Al-Dhahabi mentions him in his Al-Mizan, marking his name
with TSQ as an indication of which authors of the sunan quote his hadith.
He quotes the following from al-Nisa'i: "`Ali ibn al-Munthir is a staunch
Shi`a, very trustworthy." He states that Ibn Hatim has said that the man is
TRUTHFUL and trustworthy, and that he reports hadith from Fudayl, Ibn
`Ayinah and al-Walid ibn Muslim. Al-Nisa'i testifies to the fact that he is
"a staunch Shi`a," and that he relies on his hadith which is recorded in
both sahih books.
19. `Ali ibn al-Hashim ibn al-Barid Abul-Hasan al-Kufi al-Khazzaz al-`Aithi
He is one of Imam Ahmed's mentors. Abu Dawud mentions him and describes him
as a "well-ascertained Shi`a." Ibn Haban says that he is an "Shi`a
extremist." Ja`fer ibn Aban says, "I have heard Ibn Namir say that `Ali ibn
Hashim is extremist in his Shi`a beliefs." Al-Bukhari has said that both
`Ali ibn Hashim and his father are over-zealous in their Shi`a beliefs.
Probably for this reason, al-Bukhari has rejected his hadith, but all other
five authors of the sahih books have relied on his authority. Ibn Ma`in and
others have trusted him, while Abu Dawud has included him among the most
reliable traditionists. Abu Zar`ah has said that he is TRUTHFUL, and
al-Nisa'i has stated that there is nothing wrong with his hadith.
Al-Dhahabi mentions him in his Al-Mizan, quoting what we have already cited
above.
Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, in a chapter dealing with `Ali's character in his
own Tarikh (history), Vol. 12, page 116, quotes Muhammad ibn Sulayman
al-Baghindi saying that `Ali ibn Hashim ibn al-Barid is TRUTHFUL, a man who
used to follow Shi`ism.
20. `Amr ibn `Abdullah Abu Issaq al-Subai`i al-Hamadani al-Kufi
He is Shi`a according to Ibn Qutaybah's Ma`arif, and Shahristani's Al-Milal
wal Nihal. He was one of the masters of traditionists whose sect, in its
roots and branches, the Nasibis do not appreciate due to the fact that
Shi`as have followed in the footsteps of Ahl al-Bayt, deriving their method
of worship from their own leadership in all religious matters. For this
reason, al-Jawzjani has said in his biography of Zubayd in Al-Mizan: "Among
the residents of Kufa, there is a group whose sect is not appreciated; they
are the chiefs of Kufi traditionists such as Abu Ishaq, Mansur, Zubayd
al-Yami, al-A`mash and other peers. People have tolerated them because of
being TRUTHFUL in narrating hadith, without adding aught of their own
thereto."
21. `Awf ibn Abu Jamila al-Basri, Abu Sahl
He is well known as "al-A`rabi" [the bedouin], although his origin is
really not from the desert. Al-Dhahabi mentions him in his Al-Mizan and
says that "He is also called `Awf the TRUTHFUL, while some say that he
follows Shi`ism; despite that, a group of scholars has trusted him."
22. Malik ibn Isma`il ibn Ziyad ibn Dirham Abu Hasan al-Kufi al-Hindi
He is one of Bukhari's mentors as stated in the latter's Sahih. Ibn Sa`d
mentions him on page 282, Vol. 6, of his Tabaqat. He concludes by saying
that "Abu Ghassan is trustworthy, TRUTHFUL, a very staunch Shi`a."
23. Muhammad ibn Khazim
He is very well known as Abu Mu`awiyah al-Darir al-Tamimi al-Kufi.
Al-Dhahabi mentions him saying, "Muhammad ibn Khazim al-Darir is confirmed,
TRUTHFUL; nowhere at all have I seen his hadith as weak; I shall discuss
him in my chapter on kunayat." When the author mentions him in his said
chapter, he states: "Abu Mu`awiyah al-Darir is one of the most renown and
trustworthy Imams of hadith," and he goes on to say: "Al-Hakim has said
that both Shaykhs rely on his authority, and he is famous for being an
extremist Shi`a."
All authors of the six sahihs have relied on his authority.
24. Muhammad ibn `Abdullah al-Dabi al-Tahani al-Nisaburi, Abu `Abdullah
al-Hakim
He is an Imam of huffaz, those who memorize the entirety of the holy Qur'an
and hadith by heart, and author of about one thousand books. He toured the
lands seeking knowledge and learning hadith from about two thousand
mentors. He may be compared with the most renown scholars of his time such
as al-Sa`luki. Imam ibn Furk and all other Imams consider his status to be
superior even to their own. They appreciate him and his contributions; they
cherish his name and reputation, without doubting his mastership at all.
All learned Sunni scholars who could not achieve as much as he did envy
him. He is one of the Shi`a heroes, a protector of the Islamic Shari`a.
The author of Al-Mizan narrates his biography and describes him as "a
TRUTHFUL Imam, a very renown Shi`a."
The author of Al-Mizan narrates his biography and describes him as "a
TRUTHFUL Imam, a very renown Shi`a." He quotes Ibn Tahir saying: "I once
asked Abu Isma`il `Abdullah al-Ansari about al-Hakim Abu Abdullah. He said:
`He is an Imam in hadith, a wretched Rafidi.'" Al-Dhahabi has recounted a
few of his interesting statements such as his saying that the Chosen One
(pbuh) came to the world circumcised, with a smile on his face, and that
`Ali (as) is a wasi. The author adds the following: "His being TRUTHFUL and
knowledgeable of what he reports is a unanimously accepted fact."
25. Muhammad ibn Fudayl ibn Ghazwan Abu `Abdul-Rahman al-Kufi
Ibn Qutaybah has included him among Shi`a dignitaries in his work
Al-Ma`arif, and Ibn Sa`d has mentioned him on page 271, Vol. 6, of his
Tabaqat, saying, "He is a trustworthy and reliable traditionist who as
reported a great deal of hadith; he also is a Shi`a, and some scholars [for
this reason] do not rely on his authority." Al-Dhahabi has mentioned him in
his chapter containing those well-known because of their fathers'
reputation at the conclusion of his Mizan, describing him as a TRUTHFUL
Shi`a.
26. Ma`ruf ibn Kharbuth al-Karkhi
Al-Dhahabi describes him in his Mizan as "a TRUTHFUL Shi`a," marking his
name with the initials of al-Bukhari, Muslim, and Abu Dawud to indicate
that they all quote his hadith.
27. Mansur ibn al-Mu`tamir ibn `Abdullah ibn Rabi`ah al-Salami al-Kufi
He is one of the companions of Imams al-Baqir and al-Sadiq (as), and he has
narrated hadith from them, as the author of Muntahal Maqal fi Ahwal
al-Rijal states. Ibn Qutaybah includes him among Shi`a nobility in his book
Al-Ma`arif. Al-Jawzjani has included him among the narrators "whose sect is
not appreciated by [certain] people" in the roots and branches of religion,
due to their adherence to what they have learned from Muhammad's progeny
(as). Says he: "Among the people of Kufa there is a group whose sect is not
appreciated; these are chiefs of Kufa's traditionists such as Abu Ishaq,
Mansur, Zubayd al-Yami, al-A`mash and other peers. People have tolerated
them just because they are TRUTHFUL in narrating hadith."
salaam,
Ridwaan
saifu
> salaam 'alaykum
>
> saifu wrote:
>
> > > I seriously doubt that any of the above quotation are authentic and
> the
> > > reason is obvious. You compilers of hadeeth including Bukhari and
> Muslim relied heavily
> > > on literally hundreds of "Raafidite Shi'ites"!
> >
> > It is like claiming that "Bukhari and Muslim relied heavily on
> > literally hundreds of 'trustworthy' liars".
>
> I was very offended by your post with you insistence that Shi'ah can never
> be truthful and that Shi'ah are liars. But then I thought it over and
> realized that it is really just a matter of ignorance. You are ignorant of
> the fact that your Scholars of Rijaal have described literally hundreds of
> Shi'i narrators of Hadeeth as Truthful (Shi'i Suduq). I took the time to
> compile a sample list of them.
>
> You may look up more at http://al-islam.org/murajaat/
> and if you are proficient in Arabic try
> http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/morajeat/fehrest.htm
>
> I hope you find it useful.
>
You usually waite some time before coming back with the same refuted
argument.
I refuted your argument in my last post and you are posting the same
argument with a slight change. I will post my reply again since it
deals with the same issue. Here is what I posted last time:
Bismillah, Alhamdulillah, Wasselaatu wasselam 'alaa resulillah,
> saifu wrote:
> > Imaam ash-Shaaf'i said,
>
> > "I have not seen among the heretics a people more famous
> > for falsehood than the Raafidite Shi'ites."
>
> > He also said, "Narrate knowledge from everyone you meet
> > except the Raafidite Shi'ites, because they invent Hadeeths
> > and adopt them as part of their religion." - Ibn Taymiyyah,
> > Minhaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah, vol 1 page 38.
> >
> > Imaam Maalik said,
>
> > "Do not speak to them nor narrate from them, for surely
> > they are liars."
> salaam 'alaykum,
> I seriously doubt that any of the above quotation are authentic and
the
> reason is obvious. You compilers of hadeeth including Bukhari and
Muslim relied heavily
> on literally hundreds of "Raafidite Shi'ites"!
It is like claiming that "Bukhari and Muslim relied heavily on
literally hundreds of 'trustworthy' liars".
> He is one of the Shi`a nobility and a most trusted traditionist. Many
a genius
> among Sunni men of knowledge, such as Ibn Qutaybah in his Ma`arif and
al-Shahristani in
> his Al-Milal wal-Nihal, as well as many others, have all included him
among Shi`a
> dignitaries. In his biography of Zubayd, al-Jawzjani says the
following in his book
> Al-Mizan: "Among the people of Kufa, there are some folks whose sect
is not appreciated,
> yet they are the masters of hadith among Kufi traditionists. Among
them are: Abu Ishaq, Mansur,
> Zubayd al-Yami, al-A`mash, and other peers. People tolerate them only
because
saifu
> Comment:-
> I posted an article a couple of months ago about the "seventy-three sects"
Bismillah, Alhamdulillah,
I will search and read those posts which were posted in response to
your question and see, if i can add more.
saifu,
saifu
> "saifu" <saifu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ef863243.0212...@posting.google.com...
> > om...@email.is (Omar) wrote in message
> news:<ari5jk$2hg$1...@blue.rahul.net>...
> <snip>
Bismillah, Alhamdulillah, Wasselaatu Wasselaam 'alaa Resulillah,
> > " The Prophet had thus fortold the splitting up of his community into
> > seventy-three sects of which seventy-two are doubtlessly those who
> > plunged as those who plunged before them ("before them" refers to the
> > children of Israel).
> >
> Comment:-
> I posted an article a couple of months ago about the "seventy-three sects"
> because I wanted to understand its political implications on the community
> [Ummah]. No one gave an adequate response to the 'disunity' aspect and its
> impact on, so called, 'fundamentalist' movements that have adopted a
> 'singular' doctrine. Can you elucidate on this paradox?
> >
>
A brief discussion of what the "seventy-three sects" represent will be
attempted to understand the background. To discuss the ramifications
would be very lengthy and requires a book by itself. The existance of
the "seventy-three sects" is foretold by the Messenger of Allah
(sallalahu 'alaihi wasallam). But who makes up the seventy-three
sects? And which one among the "seventy-three sects" represent the
single sect/group that will be on the correct path. One important
point that needs to be made is that it would be a mistake to start
counting to account for all the "seventy-three sects". Needless to
say, it is open to abuse by the diffrent sects and groups, each one
claiming to be that single sect or group (I noticed in one of the
responses to your post that an Ahmadi folloer was promoting his sect
as that single sect). And you do not have to go far to see this claim
and counter claim by the representatives of the diffrent groups and
sects - Salafi, Ash'ari, Ahmadiya, Shia, Qur'an only group, and so on
- you will find it live on SRI. The ongoing descussion on SRI of the
diffrent positions representing sects and groups would be valuable for
you to have an understanding of the position of the Sects/groups - As
I will present some examples of the major sects and their associated
beliefs, you will notice that each one requirs a detailed explanation
which would be lengthy if attempted. More often, one will find that
those who are bold to declare themselves to be that single sect/group
that is on the correct path, to be farthest from it.
The following statement would provide the understanding of Ahlusunnah
concerning the status of the 72 sects: Shaikh Al Islam Ibn Taymiyya
says:
"From the (evidense) of the Qur'an and Sunnah there are two catagories
of those who openly profess Islam: A believer or a Munafiq
(hypocrite), where the Munafiq will be in the lowest deep of hell
fire. The other, the believer, may come short in his belief and does
not deserve the title (believer) in the fullest sense, or he may be
one who deserves to be called a believer in the fullest sense. [until
he said] And the (status) of the one who has belief in in his heart
and believes in the Messenger and the Message that he brought with
him, but makes a mistake leading to innovations in the process of his
attempt of interpratation (faulty interpretation or understanding of
the religious laws); this does not ammount to disbelief. The Khawarij
were the most open in professing their innovation, and also in
fighting the community of believers and condemning it with disbelief.
But there is no one among the Sahaba (the companions of the Messnegr
of Allah) who judged them with disbelief, not Ali bin Abi Talib or
others. They judged them as Muslims who were oppressors and
transgressors as in the stories that I mentioned concerning them at
another point (in his Majmu' Al Fatawa).
The same ruling apply in the case of the rest of the 72 sects/groups
(73 less the one rightly guided sect). Whoever is a Munafiq
(hypocrite) among them, he is a disbeliever covertly, even if he makes
mistakes in the process of interpretation (normally that can be
excused) no matter what his mistake is (excusable or other wise). In
some of them, there may occure parts of the signs of Nifaq but may not
be the kind of Nifaq that would make the individual to deserve to be
in the lowest deep of hell fire. Whoever says that all the 72
sects/groups are Kufar (disbelievers) of the kind that completly takes
them out of the Muslim community (Millat), he contradicted the Qur'an
and the Sunnah, and the I'jma' (unanimity) of the Sahaba, ridwanullahi
'alaihim a'jma'een; in fact the I'jma' of the four Imams (Abu Hanifa,
Malik, As-Shafi'i, Ahmad), including others. There is no one among
them who considers all the 72 sects/groups to be disbelievers. The
reality is that each of the groups declare the kufr of the other. " -
Majmu' Al fatawaa v.7, p. 217 by Shaikh Al islam Ibn Taymiyya.
The Position of Ahlussunah on all issues holds the middle way - for
example in contrast to the two extreems of the Murjiah (briefly
discussed below) and the Khawarij (mentioned above) - the position of
Ahlussunah wal Jam'ah, as Shaikh Al Islam Ibn Taymiyya says:
"It is known that every group contains the good and the bad, the
honest and the heretic. What is obligatory is to be the Ally of the
Awliya of Allah and the mutaqeen - in every way necessary; to hate the
Kuffar and the Munafiqeen in every way. And the believing fasiq will
be given his due of alliance to the extent of his Faith (Iman), and he
will be given his due of enmity according to the level of his fisq
(sinfulnesss)[until He said] certainly, there will be among the
fasiqeen who will enter the fire (hell), if Allah so descides,
although no one may be a permanant resident of Hell among the
believers. There is no doubt that the Munafiqun (Hypocrites) will
abide in (Hell) forever as well, those who are open with their Kufr" -
Majmu' Al-Fatawa V. 28, P. 478.
My position of who closely represents the single sect/group will not
be part of this post. Except to mention Ahlussunnah as my point of
refrence - as established from the definitions just below. I will try
to limit myself to providing you with some examples of the
sects/groups and the criterion that will help identify "the single
sect/group that will be on the correct path". You may ask questions
and ask for clarifications to induce response that would address your
needs.
First the evidence of the the existance of the 73 sects and the
critereon that helps identify the sigle sects that will be on the
right path:
"From what was reported from 'Awf ibn Maalik, who said: "The Messenger
of Allah (sallalahu 'alaihi wasallam) said: 'The Jews were divided
into seventy-one sects, one of which is in Paradise and seventy are in
the Fire. The Christians were divided into seventy-two sects,
seventy-one of which are in the Fire and one is in Paradise. By the
One in Whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, my Ummah will be divided
into seventy-three sects, one of which will be in Paradise and
seventy-two will be in the Fire'. When It was said, O Messenger of
Allaah, who are they? He said, Al-Jamaa'ah." - Sunan Ibn Maajah.
Note: What is meant by al-Jama'ah is those who follow the Sunnah (thus
Ahlusunnah) of the Messenger of Allah (sallalahu 'alaihi wasallam) and
practice his Companions. This understanding is supported by what is
narrated in another Hadith where the Messenger of Allah (sallalahu
'alaihi wasallam) in response to 'O Messenger of Allaah, which one is
it (the saved sect)' He said: " (the one upon the path) that I and my
Companions are upon" narrated by An-Nasai'.
The same Message is transmitted in diffrent ways:
"I have left you upon clear proofs, its night is like its day, and no
one deviates from it except one who is destroyed (haalik), and whoever
lives (long) from amongst you will see great controversy. So stick to
what you know from my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly-guided
Khalifahs; cling to it with your teeth." - Sunan Ibn Majah.
He (sallalahu 'alaihi wasallam) also said: "The best generation is my
generation, then the one that come after it, then the one after it" -
Bukhari and Muslim.
He (sallalahu 'alaihi wasallam) also said: "Preserve me with my
companions, then those who come after then, then with those after
them, thereafter lie would dominate " - Sunan Ibn Majah.
The Qur'an praises the first generation and those who follow them:
"And the first to lead the way, of the Muha'jirin and the Ansar, and
those who followed them in goodness Allah is well pleased with them
and they are well pleased with Him and He hath made ready for them
Gardens underneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide for
ever. That is the supreme triumph." - Surah at-Tawba 100.
"Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard
against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves. Thou (O
Muhammad) seest them bowing and falling prostrate (in worship),
seeking bounty from Allah and (His) acceptance. The mark of them is on
their foreheads from the traces of prostration. Such is their likeness
in the Torah and their likeness in the Gospel like as sown corn that
sendeth forth its shoot and strengtheneth it and riseth firm upon its
stalk, delighting the sowers that He may enrage the disbelievers with
(the sight of) them. Allah hath promised, unto such of them as believe
and do good works, forgiveness and immense reward."- Surah Al-Fath
29.
"And (it is) for the poor fugitives who have been driven out from
their homes and their belongings, who seek bounty from Allah and help
Allah and His messenger. They are the loyal.
Those who entered the city and the faith before them love these who
flee unto them for refuge, and find in their breasts no need for that
which hath been given them, but prefer (the fugitives) above
themselves though poverty become their lot. And whoso is saved from
his own avarice such are they who are successful.
And those who came (into the faith) after them say: Our Lord Forgive
us and our brethren who were before us in the faith, and place not in
our hearts any rancor toward those who believe. Our Lord! Thou art
Full of Pity, Merciful." - Surah Al Hashr 8 - 10.
There are diffrent types of diffrences that lead to divisions. The
first major division of the type which is temporary occured during the
life time of the first generation of Muslims - the Sahaba (companions
of the Messenger of Allah (sallalahu 'alaihi wasallam). Briefly, it
happened as a result of a disagreement between two groups on how to
deal with the murderers of the third Khalifa, Uthman (radiallahu
'anhu); The disagreement was exploited by the hypochrites who wanted
to see Islam distroyed. This would be understood as the type of
division which is temporary and both sides should be treated equaly as
sincere believers. The manner which both sides treated each other -
which was with honour and grace - also supports this understanding.
For example, during the period of the conflict, they used to have
normal social relashionships such as marriage, exchange of knowledge.
For example, when the leader of the group which was based in Shaam
(todays Syria, Libanon, palestine), Amir Mu'awiya, heard that the King
of the Romans was advancing with a large Army of Christian forces to
the North of the Muslim domain, he wrote a letter with the following
message: 'By Allah, If you do not desist and return back to your
country, I will join forces with my Cusin (Ali, the leader of the
opposition) against you, and I will drive you out from all of your
land and make the earth, vast as it is, straitened for you' - Al
Bidaya Wa A-Nihayaa V.8, P. 119. This was their relationship despite
the fact that the conflict was one of the deadliest in the History of
Islam. The Scholars agree that this is the kind of division alluded in
the Qur'anic verse:
"And if two parties of believers fall to fighting, then make peace
between them. And if one party of them doeth wrong to the other, fight
ye that which doeth wrong till it return unto the ordinance of Allah;
then, if it returns, make peace between them justly, and act
equitably. Lo! Allah loveth the equitable." - Surah al-Hujuraat 9.
" The believers are naught else than brothers. Therefore make peace
between your brethren and observe your duty to Allah that haply ye may
obtain mercy." - Surah al-Hujuraat 10.
The second type of division that results because of diffrences that is
related to the fundamentals of Islamic belief is the one which leads
to a permanent division - representing sects/groups - as implied in
the exsitance of the 73 sects/groups. The first sect/group that split
from the main body of Muslims was the Khawarij (briefly discussed
above). The Khawarij are misguided by their declaring that the person
who commits sin goes beyond the pale of Islam and is doomed to eternal
Fire. The correct view which is the view of Ahlusunnah is that the one
who commits a major sin apart from shirk (Idolatry) does not go out of
Islam. Similarly, the early Shi'ites also split from the main body of
Muslims. The later - after some changes in the fundamentls of religion
that further devited them from the critreon of the Qur'an and Sunnah
- became known as the Rafidi'te Shi'ites is a subject of many threads
on this NG. The Rafidi'te Shi'ites are misguided with - most prominent
of their position being with regard to the Sahabah - whom they
desparage and denounce as kafirs even though they are the companions
of the the Messenger of Allah (sallalahu 'alaihi wasallam) and the
best generation of the Ummah (Islamic community). But through time the
Rafidi'te Shi'ite's beliefs changed - incorporating beliefs in
parallel with the creeds of the Christians which is based on the
alleged crucifiction of Esaa 'alaihi asselam - similarly, the
Rafidi'te Shi'ites core belief in part revolvs around the martrydom of
the Grandson of the Messenger of Allah (sallalahu 'alaihi wasallam).
The Rafidi'te Shi'ites further split into several diffrent sects. It
is interesting to note that both groups (the Khawarij and the Si'ites)
came to be as a result of the dynamics of the conflict that occured as
in what was presented in the example of the first type of division
(the in-fighting of the Sahaba).
The Murji'ah sect is misguided with regard to Eman (faith) and say
that deeds are separate from faith and that faith does not increase or
decrease. The correct view of Ahlusunnah, as Imam Ibn Abdil-Barr says:
" The salaf unanimously agreed that Faith (Iman) is: testimony and
action (and) increases and decreases; and the meaning of this is,
testimony of the heart and of action; then testimony of the toungue
and action with the limbs"
Others are misguided with regard to the issue of al-qadaa' wa'l-qadar
(divine decree), and said that man has no choice in what he does. The
correct view which is held by Ahlusunnah states that man has freewill
on the basis of which he will be called to account for his actions.
Others such as the Jahmiyya and M'utazila, which also infected some
other sects with some of their msiguidance, are misguided with regard
to the attributes of Allah (subhanehu wa ta'alaa) for example, they
say about the Qur'an, that it is created. The correct view which is
held by Ahlussunnah is that it is the words of Allah and not created.
And there are many other sects/groups who deviated from the correct
path of Islam and introduced new beliefs in the religion of Islam.
It would be important to note that the School of thoughts which are
represented by the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali schools are not
considered neither as sects nor as groups. All four fall under the
single sect, Ahlussunah Wal Jama'ah. There do not differ in the
fundamentals; they differ in some of the branches which is a result of
the diffrent understanding that is natural to the human kind.
A true believer does not declare that he belongs to the single saved
sect, but humbly asks Allah to make him and others to be among the
followers of the Sunnah that will be saved from the Fire, and to admit
him and others to Paradise and be in the company of the righteous.
The result of the exsitance of these sects and groups is obvious that
it caused the Muslim nation to be weak. On the positive side, despite
the division, there is a prophecy which foretold the continuity of the
religion of Islam, and that it will always have faithful adherents to
its teachings:
"It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir b. Samura that the
Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) said: This religion will continue
to exist, and a group of people from the Muslims will continue to
fight for its protection until the Hour is established." - Sahih
Muslim
"It his been narrated on the authority of Umair b. Umm Hani who said:
I heard Mu'awiya say (while delivering a sermon from the pulpit) that
he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: A group
of people from my Umma will continue to obey Allah's Command, and
those who desert or oppose them shall not be able to do them any harm.
They will be
dominating the people until Allah's Command is executed (i. e.
Resurrection is established)." sahih Muslim.
Imam An-Nawawi, in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim, commenting on the above
hadeeth said,
"And in this hadeeth there is a clear miracle as the description (of
the fighting group) continue to exist from the time of the Prophet
(sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam) until now; and it will continue to exist
until the will of Allah (subhanehu wa ta'ala) is fulfilled, as
mentioned in the hadeeth".
> Peace
Salaam,
Saifu.
saifu
> news:ef863243.0212...@posting.google.com...
> > om...@email.is (Omar) wrote in message
> news:<ari5jk$2hg$1...@blue.rahul.net>...
Bismillah, Alhamdulillah, Wasselaatu Wasselaam 'alaa Resulillah,
> <snip>
> > " The Prophet had thus fortold the splitting up of his community into
> > seventy-three sects of which seventy-two are doubtlessly those who
> > plunged as those who plunged before them ("before them" refers to the
> > children of Israel).
> >
> Comment:-
> I posted an article a couple of months ago about the "seventy-three sects"
> because I wanted to understand its political implications on the community
> [Ummah]. No one gave an adequate response to the 'disunity' aspect and its
> impact on, so called, 'fundamentalist' movements that have adopted a
> 'singular' doctrine. Can you elucidate on this paradox?
> >
>
A brief discussion of what the "seventy-three sects" represent will be
the religious laws); this does not amount to disbelief. The Khawarij
were the most open in professing their innovation, and also in
fighting the community of believers and condemning it with disbelief.
But there is no one among the Sahaba (the companions of the Messnegr
of Allah) who judged them with disbelief, not Ali bin Abi Talib or
others. They judged them as Muslims who were oppressors and
transgressors as in the stories that I mentioned concerning them at
another point (in his Majmu' Al Fatawa).
The same ruling apply in the case of the rest of the 72 sects/groups
(73 less the one rightly guided sect). Whoever is a Munafiq
(hypocrite) among them, he is a disbeliever covertly, even if he makes
mistakes in the process of interpretation (normally that can be
excused) no matter what his mistake is (excusable or other wise). In
some of them, there may occure parts of the signs of Nifaq but may not
be the kind of Nifaq that would make the individual to deserve to be
in the lowest deep of hell fire. Whoever says that all the 72
sects/groups are Kufar (disbelievers) of the kind that completly takes
them out of the Muslim community (Millat), he contradicted the Qur'an
and the Sunnah, and the I'jma' (unanimity) of the Sahaba, ridwanullahi
'alaihim a'jma'een; including the I'jma' of the four Imams (Abu
Hanifa, Malik, As-Shafi'i, Ahmad), including others. There is no one
among them who considers all the 72 sects/groups to be disbelievers.
The reality is that each of the groups declare the kufr of the other.
" - Majmu' Al fatawaa v.7, p. 217 by Shaikh Al islam Ibn Taymiyya.
The Position of Ahlussunah on all issues holds the middle way - for
example in contrast to the two extreems of the Murjiah (briefly
discussed below) and the Khawarij (mentioned above) - the position of
Ahlussunah wal Jam'ah, as Shaikh Al Islam Ibn Taymiyya says:
"It is known that every group contains the good and the bad, the
honest and the heretic. What is obligatory is to be the Ally of the
Awliya of Allah and the mutaqeen in every way necessary; to hate the
disbelivers and the Munafiqeen in every way. And the believing fasiq
Ahlusunnah) of the Messenger of Allah (sallalahu 'alaihi wasallam) and
the practice his Companions. This understanding is supported by what
is narrated in another Hadith where the Messenger of Allah (sallalahu
'alaihi wasallam) in response to 'O Messenger of Allaah, which one is
it (the saved sect)' He said: " (the one upon the path) that I and my
Companions are upon" narrated by An-Nasai'.
The same Message is transmitted in diffrent ways:
"I have left you upon clear proofs, its night is like its day, and no
one deviates from it except one who is destroyed (haalik), and whoever
lives (long) from amongst you will see great controversy. So stick to
what you know from my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly-guided
Khalifahs; cling to it with your teeth." - Sunan Ibn Majah.
He (sallalahu 'alaihi wasallam) also said: "The best generation is my
generation, then the one that come after it, then the one after it" -
Bukhari and Muslim.
He (sallalahu 'alaihi wasallam) also said: "Preserve me with my
companions, then those who come after then, then with those after
them, thereafter lie will dominate " - Sunan Ibn Majah.
sincere believers. The manner in which both sides treated each other -
which was with honour and grace - also supports this understanding.
For example, during the period of the conflict, they used to have
normal social relashionships such as marriage, exchange of knowledge.
For example, when the leader of the group which was based in Shaam
(todays Syria, Libanon, palestine), Amir Mu'awiya, heard that the King
of the Romans was advancing with a large Army of Christian forces to
the North of the Muslim domain, he wrote a letter with the following
message: 'By Allah, If you do not desist and return back to your
country, I will join forces with my Cusin (Ali, the leader of the
opposition) against you, and I will drive you out from all of your
land and make the earth, vast as it is, straitened for you' - Al
Bidaya Wa A-Nihayaa V.8, P. 119. This was their relationship despite
the fact that the conflict was one of the deadliest in the History of
Islam. The Scholars agree that this is the kind of division alluded in
the Qur'anic verse:
"And if two parties of believers fall to fighting, then make peace
between them. And if one party of them doeth wrong to the other, fight
ye that which doeth wrong till it return unto the ordinance of Allah;
The Murji'ah sect is misguided with regard to Eman (faith) and believe
that deeds are separate from faith and that faith does not increase or
decrease. The correct view of Ahlusunnah, as Imam Ibn Abdil-Barr says:
" The salaf unanimously agreed that Faith (Iman) is: testimony and
action (and) increases and decreases; and the meaning of this is,
testimony of the heart and of action; then testimony of the toungue
and action with the limbs"
Others are misguided with regard to the issue of al-qadaa' wa'l-qadar
(divine decree), and they believe that man has no choice in what he
does. The correct view which is held by Ahlusunnah states that man has
freewill on the basis of which he will be called to account for his
actions.
Others such as the Jahmiyya and M'utazila, which also infected some
other sects with some of their misguidance, are misguided with regards
to the attributes of Allah (subhanehu wa ta'alaa) for example, they
say about the Qur'an, that it is created. The correct view which is
held by Ahlussunnah is that it is the words of Allah and not created.
And there are many other sects/groups who deviated from the correct
path of Islam and introduced new beliefs in the religion of Islam.
It would be important to note that the School of thoughts which are
represented by the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali schools are not
considered neither as sects nor as groups. All four fall under the
single sect, Ahlussunah Wal Jama'ah. They do not differ in the
Zuiko Azumazi
> "Zuiko Azumazi" <azu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3e04bdd7$0$7811$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>...
> > "saifu" <saifu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:ef863243.0212...@posting.google.com...
> > > om...@email.is (Omar) wrote in message
> > news:<ari5jk$2hg$1...@blue.rahul.net>...
> > <snip>
>
compile. I need to study it, with some reflection, before I ask any
questions.
Thanks again.
Peace
--
Zuiko Azumazi.