"Rafidi narrators in Sahih Bukhari
rja...@my-deja.com
'Ubayd Allah b. Musa al-'Absi(died 213 AH)
Sahih Bukhari [kitab al-'iman]
Sahih Muslim [kitab al-'iman]
Sahih al-Tirmidhi [kitab al-salat]
Sunan al-Nasa'i [kitab al-sahw]
Sunan Abu Dawud [kitab al-taharah]
Sunan Ibn Majah [kitab al-muqaddamah]
"Aboo Daawood said: He was an ardent Shee'ee, his ahaadeeth are
allowable....Ibn Mandah said: Ahmad ibn Hanbal used to point
'Ubaydullaah out to the people, and he was well known for Rafd (extreme
partisanship for 'Alee), and he would not let anyone enter his house who
was called 'Mu'aawiyah'". [The Creed of the Imaam of Hadeeth al-Bukhari
and of the Great Scholars from whom he narrated (Salafi Publications,
UK, 1997), p. 89 from Al-Dhahabi, Siyar A'lam al-Nubala, vol. 9, pp
ĸ553-557]
"A pious person, one of the important Shi'ah scholars ... considered
reliable by Yahya b. Ma'in, Abu Hatim said he was reliable, trustworthy
ĸ.. al-'Ijli said: He was an authority on the Qur'an..."[Al-Dhahabi,
Tadhkirat al-Huffaz under "'Ubayd Allah b. Musa al-'Absi"]
'Abbad b. Ya'qub al-Rawajini(died 250 AH)
Sahih Bukhari [kitab al-tawhid]
Sahih al-Tirmidhi [kitab al-manaqib]
Sunan Ibn Majah [kitab ma ja' fi al-jana'iz]
He was a trustworthy Rafidi and his hadith is in (Sahih of)
al-Bukhari.[Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani, Taqrib al-Tahdhib, under "'Abbad b.
Ya'qub al-Rawajani"]
Abu Hatim said: He was a shaykh, reliable. Ibn 'Adi said: He used to
denounce the Salaf. In him was extremism of Shi'ism. Salih b. Muhammad
said: He used to denounce 'Uthman. I heard him saying, "Allah is more
just than that he would admit Talhah and al-Zubayr into heaven after
they paid allegiance to 'Ali and then fought him." Ibn Hibban said: He
was a Rafidi inviting (others to his belief). He narrated this hadith
ĸ, "If you see Mu'awiyah on my pulpit, kill him!"
please see for more details:
http://al-islam.org/murajaat/default.asp?urlĸ16.htm
and
http://al-islam.org/nutshell/
thanks,
RiDwaan
--
The Messenger Of Allah Said (sawa)
"I Am Leaving Two Things Behind With You That If You Follow You Will
Never Go Astray After Me: The Book Of Allah And My Ahlul-Bayt. These
Two
Shall Never Seperate Until They Meet Me On The Day Of Judgement."
Innee Tarik Feekum Maa In Tamassaktum Bihimaa Lan TaDilluu Ba'di
Kitaaballahi Wa 'Itrati Ahla Bayti Wa Innahumaa Lan Yatafarraqaa Hattaa
Yaridaa 'Alayal Hawd.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/astray1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/astray2.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/astray3.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/khalifatain1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/khalifatain2.jpg
References:
Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 662-663,328, report of 30+ companions, with
reference to several chains of transmitters.
al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, Chapter of "Understanding (the virtues) of
Companions, v3, pp 109,110,148,533 who wrote this tradition is authentic
(Sahih) based on the criteria of the two Shaikhs (al-Bukhari and
Muslim).
Sunan, by Daarami, v2, p432
Musnad, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v3, pp 14,17,26,59, v4, pp 366,370-372, v5,
pp 182,189,350,366,419
see http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia
The Prophet also said (sawa):
Behold! My Ahl al-Bayt are like the Ark of Noah, whoever embarked in it
was saved, and whoever turned away from it was drowned.
Inna Mathala Ahli Baytee Feekum Mathalu Safeenati NuH man rakibaha najaa
Wa Man Takhallafa 'Anhaa halak
sample of Arabic text taken from http://www.muhaddith.com
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/safinah.jpg
References:
AlĸHakim records this tradition of the Prophet (S) in his Mustadrak, ii,
343, iii, 150:
Abu Nu`aym in Hilyat alĸ'awliya', iv, 306;
alĸKhatib in Ta'rikh Baghdad, xii, 19;
alĸSuyuti in alĸDurr alĸmanthur (al-Matba`at alĸMaymaniyyah,
Egypt,1314),
under verse 2:58 also in his Jami' al Sagheer.
alĸMuttaqi in Kanz alĸ`ummal, i, 250, vi, 216;
alĸHaythami in Majma` alĸzawa'id, ix, 167, 168;
alĸMuHibb alĸTabari in Dhakha'ir alĸ`uqba, 20; alĸManawi in Kunuz
alĸHaqa'iq, 132.
Yanabi Muwaddah, Qundoozi Hanafi, p 30, 370
al Sawaiq al Muhriqah, Ibn Hajar, p 184, 234
see http://al-islam.org/thaqalayn/nontl/index.HTM
GF Haddad
This topic with our Shi`a respondants is like an obsession that refuses to
be cured. This chronic state is no doubt related to the Prophet's (saws)
pronoucement: "The curse of Allah be on those who insult my Companions!"
Narrated from Ibn `Umar by al-Tabarani in al-Mu`jam al-Kabir and al-Awsat.
Al-Suyuti indicated that it is sahih in al-Jami` al-Saghir (#7278) and this
grading was confirmed by al-Haythami in Majma` al-Zawa'id (9:748) and Shaykh
Ahmad al-Ghumari in al-Mudawi (5:253).
<rja...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:996s7c$1s8$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> 'Ubayd Allah b. Musa al-'Absi(died 213 AH)
> "Aboo Daawood said: He was an ardent Shee'ee, his ahaadeeth are
> allowable....Ibn Mandah said: Ahmad ibn Hanbal used to point
> 'Ubaydullaah out to the people, and he was well known for Rafd (extreme
> partisanship for 'Alee), and he would not let anyone enter his house who
> was called 'Mu'aawiyah'". [The Creed of the Imaam of Hadeeth al-Bukhari
> and of the Great Scholars from whom he narrated (Salafi Publications,
> UK, 1997), p. 89 from Al-Dhahabi, Siyar A'lam al-Nubala, vol. 9, pp
> ÿ553-557]
The term Rafd above is used only in Ibn Mandah's report and only in the
sense that `Ubaydullah considered it his religious duty to curse the
opponents of `Ali such as Mu`awiya, not that he questioned in any way the
legitimacy of the imamate of Abu Bakr and `Umar. So they considered him a
person of bid`a, but not of bid`a mukaffira; and it is allowed to narrate
from him all that is unrelated to his deviancy.
> 'Abbad b. Ya'qub al-Rawajini(died 250 AH)
His case is worse than the preceding one as he used to attack `Uthman (ra).
Al-Bukhari did not narrate from him other than one hadith, and only in
confirmation of another chain which he named first.
Yet, neither `Abbad nor `Ubaydullah questioned the legitimacy of the Imamate
of Abu Bakr and `Umar; and `Ubaydullah related hadiths from `A'isha. So
there is no comparison with today's Rafidis, unless one compares bees with
dung-beetles on the grounds that both can fly. I believe that those early
Shi`is would themselves repudiate those who, today, write books attempting
to question the integrity of the Qur'an or vilifying the closest friends of
the Prophet (saws).
Hajj Gibril
Qas...@cyberia.net.lb
Below is a similar previous discussion I had had with one of your friends,
in which I referred back to one of *his* predecessors. The thread can be
looked up in the public archives of the site given.
--
From: GF Haddad <Qas...@cyberia.net.lb>
To: MSA-EC <msa...@listbot.com>
Subject: Re: rafidah narrators in the ahlal sunna texts ....
Date: Friday, July 14, 2000 02:59 AM
MSA-EC - http://sunnah.org
Salam `alaykum:
With regard to the title of this thread let it be said right away that
there are no Rafidis in the Hadith compilations of the Sunni Masters.
>i am tempted to this post this as a follow up to a comment about the
views
>of certain ahlal sunna authorities on the Shi'i.
I wish you had resisted the temptation. Discussing hadith transmission is
not a Shi`a forte and fosters many misconceptions which then have to be
cleaned up.
>The reader will notice the term Rafidi every now and then in the
following
>biographies. The Sunni scholars generally define a Rafidi as a Shi'ah
who
>openly criticizes or rejects the legitimacy of the Caliphs before 'Ali
(a).
I.e. one who disparages and violates the Consensus of the Companions. I
find it useful at this point - unfortunately - to remind the readers of
the pains taken by the pious Sunni Salaf in defining the status of the
Rafidis Shi`a with a clear conscience. For truly, as `Umar said, you
cannot swindle a Believer.
1. Rafidi = "He who insults Abu Bakr and `Umar" (Imam Ahmad)
2. Rafidi = "Whoever disrespects the Two Shaykhs [Abu Bakr and `Umar]
while accepting the validity of their imamate." (al-Dhahabi)
3. Extreme Rafidis = "those who not only insult the two Shaykhs - Abu Bakr
and `Umar, Allah be well-pleased with them - but also reject the validity
of their imamate." (al-Dhahabi)
4. Al-Tabari considers Rafidis kafir and al-Shafi`i forbade praying behind
them.
5. According to some Hanafis, to insult the two Shaykhs (Abu Bakr and
`Umar) constitutes disbelief (kufr). BUT the claim that Abu Hanifa
declared Shi`is Kafir is a lie.
6. Cursing the Companions deserves corporeal punishment according to the
vast majority, while according to some of the Malikis and Hanafis the
offender is (to be) executed.
7. To insult the Companions is a "major grave indecency" (al-Nawawi)
8. Rafidis have nothing to do with the moderate Shi`is of the pious Salaf.
9. To prefer `Ali to `Uthman is neither Rafd (rejectionism) nor a bid`a
(heretical innovation), for several of the Companions and Successors did.
...
>'Abbad b. Ya'qub al-Rawajini (died 250 AH)
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>Sahih Bukhari [kitab al-tawhid] Sahih al-Tirmidhi [kitab al-manaqib]
Sunan
>Ibn Majah [kitab ma ja' fi al-jana'iz]
>
>He was a trustworthy Rafidi and his hadith is in (Sahih of) al-Bukhari.
[Ibn
>Hajar al-'Asqalani, Taqrib al-Tahdhib, under "'Abbad b. Ya'qub
>al-Rawajani"]
The term Ibn Hajar used is saduq. I would translate saduq not as
"trustworthy," which I reserve for thiqa - a higher grade than saduq -,
but "truthful" or "reliable" as you yourself quote below.
>Abu Hatim said: He was a shaykh, reliable. Ibn 'Adi said: He used to
>denounce the Salaf. In him was extremism of Shi'ism. Salih b. Muhammad
>said: He used to denounce 'Uthman. I heard him saying, "Allah is more
just
>than that he would admit Talhah and al-Zubayr into heaven after they paid
>allegiance to 'Ali and then fought him." Ibn Hibban said: He was a Rafidi
>inviting (others to his belief). He narrated this hadith …, "If you see
>Mu'awiyah on my pulpit, kill him!" [Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani, Tahdhib
>al-Tahdhib, under "'Abbad b. Ya'qub al-Rawajani"]
You should have also quoted from IH that this `Abbad used to say in
public "`Ali dug out the seas of the world and al-Husayn caused them
to flow"! Ibn Hajar also narrates from al-Khatib that Ibn Khuzayma stopped
narrating from `Abbad. And you may know that Ibn Khuzayma, like Sufyan
al-Thawri, prefers `Ali to `Uthman (see e.g. Lisan al-Mizan 1:78), so the
reason he stopped was not the acceptable, moderate Shi`ism of preferring
`Ali to `Uthman but the unacceptable Rafidism of attacking Abu Bakr and
`Umar.
Concerning the quotes of Ali Zahra and other Shi`i contributors on the
question of `Abbad ibn Ya`qub from Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (5:95), of the
words:
(1) "Narrated from him, al-Bukhari, al-Tirmidhi..."; (2) "Ibn 'Adi: He
used to denounce the Salaf. " (3) Ibn Hibban: He was a Rafidi inviting
(others to his belief). These translations - I am sorry to say - bear the
now-familiar stamp of Shi`i light-handedness. For the original actually
states:
(1) "Narrated from him: al-Bukhari - a single hadith, and coupled with
another chain, - al-Tirmidhi..." etc. The answer to the Shi`is is in these
additions that they usualy avoid to mention. Furthermore, what al-Bukhari
took is a hadith that has nothing to do with his politics or his Rafidism,
just as the rest of his narrations in the other Sunni compilations.
(2) "Ibn `Adi: He used to insult (yashtum) the Salaf." I suppose
"denounce" sounds noble whereas "insult" is ignominious, but "yashtum" can
hardly be translated other than as "insult" or "curse." And the Salaf here
include Abu Bakr and `Umar, so this fits the above definitions of Rafidis.
(3) Ibn Hibban: "He was a Rafidi inviting others to his belief and, on top
of that, narrating denounced reports from well-established authorities and
so he deserves to be abandoned [as a narrator]."
>'Abd al-Malik b. A'yan al-Kufi
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>Sahih al-Bukhari [kitab al-tawhid] Sahih Muslim [kitab al-'iman] Sahih
>al-Tirmidhi [kitab tafsir al-Qur'an] Sunan al-Nasa'i [kitab al-'iman wa
>al-nudhur] Sunan Abu Dawud [kitab al-buyu'] Sunan Ibn Majah [kitab
al-zakah]
All together, the above narrate a total of THREE hadiths through him
through six chains and, in Bukhari and Muslim's cases, only as
*corroborative chains* not as stand-alone! Finally, none of these hadiths
bear on doctrine.
>He was Rafidi Shi'i, one of (the people of) opinion. [Abu Ja'far
al-'Uqayli,
>Du'afa al-'Uqayli, under "'Abd al-Malik b. A'yan"]
>
>He was Rafidi, reliable (saduq). [Al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-Kamal, under "'Abd
>al-Malik b. A'yan"]
>
>Al-'Ijli said: He was from Kufah, a Tabi'i (Successor), reliable. Sufyan
>said: 'Abd al-Malik b. 'A'yan the Shi'i narrated to us, he was a Rafidi
to
>us, a man of opinion. Hamid said: Those three brothers, 'Abd al-Malik,
>Zurarah, and Hamran were Rawafid all of them. Abu Hatim said: He was one
of
> the earliest to embrace Shi'ism, (he was) on the position of
truthfulness,
> having good traditions, and his traditions are written. [Ibn Hajar
>al-'Asqalani, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, under "'Abd al-Malik b. A'yan"]
It is funny that in the first instance you quote Ibn Hajar's Taqrib but
not in the second. This is because the Taqrib is Ibn Hajar's final word
and, in this case, it does not suit you. The final word on `Abd al-Malik
ibn A`yan is that he is "saduq shi`i" (Taqrib 1:362 #4164), a truthful
shi`i, - most likely weak ("da`if", cf. Tahrir Taqrib al-Tahdhib 2:379
#4164)- but *not* a Rafidi.
So the most accurate opinion of those cited by Ibn Hajar in the Tahdhib
then retained by him in the Taqrib is that of Abu Hatim al-Razi, except
that it is typically mistranslated in a way that cajoles Shi`i illusions.
The correct translation is not "He was one of the earliest to embrace
Shi'ism, (he was) on the position of truthfulness, having good traditions,
and his traditions are written" but "He was one of
the early Shi`is [=moderate], he can be considered reliable [as a
narrator] (mahalluhu al-sidq = less than saduq), he is passable in his
traditions (salih al-hadith), and his hadiths are written."
The expression "his hadiths are written" in the terminology of hadith
scholars means: they should not be discarded but retained as
corroborations of other chains, not as independent reports.
>'Abd al-Razzaq al-San'ani (died 211 AH)
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
This Shaykh from whom al-Bukhari narrated is also an example of a moderate
Shi`i, NOT a Rafidi. BTW it is related that when AR wanted to leave San`a
the people were depressed at losing this great `Alim from their city. One
of them advised in their Shura: "Put chains on him." So they married him
off to a beautiful lady.
...
>confident that this will invite comments,
You should have included Imam al-Nasa'i and Imam al-Hakim, they were both
also accused of (moderate) Shi`ism. Imam al-Nasa'i actually died - Allah
have mercy on him - from a savage beating at the hands of some Nasibis
(haters of `Ali).
The rule of the hadith masters was to accept the narration of
innovators - even Rafidis if they are not considered disbelievers - on one
condition: _that their narration has nothing to do with promoting their
innovation_.
There may be other reasons for acceptance. For example: the Kharijis'
narrations were accepted because according to Kharijis themselves, lying
entails kufr. The hadith scholars took this into consideration to conclude
that it was highly improbable or nearly impossible that a Khariji narrator
lie. If he also happened to have accuracy (dabt), That made them
trustworthy (thiqa) as a narrator of this or that particular narration.
There are, as a rule, *no Rafidis* among the narrators of Sunni hadith
compilations, except within the narrow parameters seen in the case of
al-Rawajini whom you cited. As for your example of 'Abd al-Malik b. A'yan
al-Kufi, it supports the opposite of what you claim. You live and you
learn.
Back in September of last year I gave up on a discussion thread entitled
"Re: 100 Shi'ite Narrators of Hadeeth Relied Upon By The Sunnites" with
someone who was also keen on "inviting comments," by the name of
shams_...@hotmail.com. Evidently you and he used the same website to
toss up this salad - alas - for the purposes of confusion and
misrepresentation.
Hajj Gibril
GF Haddad
Qas...@cyberia.net.lb
rja...@my-deja.com
>
> As-Salamu `alaykum:
>
> This topic with our Shi`a respondants is like an obsession that refuses to
> be cured. This chronic state is no doubt related to the Prophet's (saws)
> pronoucement: "The curse of Allah be on those who insult my Companions!"
salaam,
please tell us the context of the above tradition. Who was the Prophet
talking to when he said this? Was he talking to a companion? If so why
would he tell this to a companion, was it that some companions were
abusing other companions? Or was it that there were certain persons in
the time of the Prophet (sawa) who the Prophet did not consider as his
companions and he said it to them?
Most of the Sunni scholars consider all those who adopted
Islam during the time of the Prophet, saw the Prophet, and
prayed with him to be of his companions. However, it seems
that the Messenger himself did not agree with these scholars.
Al-Tabari in his History part 3, page 68, reported that there
was an argument between Khalid Ibn Al-Walid and Abdul
Rahman Ibn Awf when Khalid killed some members of Banu
Jadhimah.
The Messenger of God sent Khalid as a missionary for Islam
(not as a fighter). Khalid exceeded the order of the Messenger
and killed a number of men from Banu Jadhimah after he gave
them the assurance of no-harm.
Some men from Banu Jadhimah had killed Al-Fakih Ibn
Al-Mughirah Al-Makhzumi, uncle of Khalid, and Awf Ibn
Abd-Awf, father of Abdul Rahman, before the conquest of
Mecca. Now Khalid acted in revenge in spite of the Prophet's
orders.
In their heated dialogue, Abdul Rahman said to Khalid: "You
followed the method of the pre-Islamic era." Khalid said: "I only
avenged the killing of your father." Abd Al-Rahman: "You lie. I
already killed the killer of my father, but you avenged the killing
of your uncle."
Their heated argument led to a verbal abuse on the part of
Khalid. When the Prophet found out about it, he said to Khalid:
"...Khalid, leave my companions alone. By God, should you
have a piece of gold the size of Uhud Mountain, and you spend
it in the path of God, your charity would not compare to a
morning or evening trip in defense of Islam by any one of my
companions." (Ibn Hisham, in his Sirat of the Prophet, part 2,
page 421).
This statement of the Prophet indicates that Khalid was not
considered a companion of the Prophet because he told him to
leave his companions alone.
Thus, the Prophet clearly indicated that Khalid is not one of his
companions. Yet, this statement was uttered by the Prophet
after the conquest of Mecca (which took place two years after
Khalid adopted Islam, shortly after the pact of
Al-Hudaybiyyah).
The exclusion of Khalid from the community of the Prophet's
companions means the exclusion of thousands of companions
who adopted Islam during the time of the Prophet, who met the
Prophet, and who prayed behind him.
Please see http://al-islam.org/underattack/ for more details
> I believe that those early
> Shi`is would themselves repudiate those who, today, write books attempting
> to question the integrity of the Qur'an or vilifying the closest friends of
> the Prophet (saws).
The Shi'ah do not question the integrity of the Qur'an. Please see:
http://al-islam.org/al-tawhid/default.asp?url=misconceptions/misconceptions.htm
and
http://al-islam.org/protection/
I wonder how you can be so careless in accusing your fellow muslim
brothers of such a belief. Are you not aware that the reports that
question the integrity of the Qur'an in Sunni sources are 10x worse than
anything like the Shi'ah have?
I will give you an example and would like you to explain it if you can:
Jalaaluddeen Suyooti mentions two surah's after Surah al Naas in his
commentary of the Qur'an, Durr al Manthoor called Surah al Khal'i and
Surah al Hafd. Are you aware of this? Please see:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/surah-al-hafd.jpg
Furthermore Suyuti mentions that Ibn Mas'ood did not include Surah Falaq
and Surah Naas in his Mashaf because he didn't believe they were part of
the Qur'an. So are you going to call Ibn Mas'ood or Suyooti kafirs or
Shi'ah or Innovators?
In the Shi'ah encyclopedia you will find a pretty detailed account of
such questionable traditions in the Sunni Sihaah. Please see:
http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter8/3.html
These reports are even from Bukhari mentioning such strange things like
the verse of stoning and another verse that says that "only dirt would
fill the belly of the son of Adam" and other weird stuff like chunks of
missing and altered verses.
Lastly you should be well aware that the Compilers of the Six Sihaah
have taken traditions from more than 300 Shi'i Narrators.
If the Shi'ah are so bad as you say then why did your Traditionalist
accept ahaadeeth from such "innovators" and "kafirs"?
Why do you people try to hide the fact that half of the muslims of the
first two centuries were Shi'ah?
I am only including the short summary biographies of 5 Shi'i Ruwaat
heavily relied upon by the Sunni Traditionalists including Bukhari and
Muslim and you are welcome to you to look up another 95 at:
http://al-islam.org/murajaat/default.asp?url=16.htm
The Shi'ah have never curse any of the companions of the Prophet
(sawa). Yes we are displeased with the conduct of certain companions
towards the Prophet's family (sawa) and we don't try to hide these
atrocities as the Sunnis do. We openly speak of their errors to show
where they went wrong so that later generations would not make the same
mistakes they made of abandoning the Prophets advise of following the
two weighty things.
May Allah guide you and show you the light. Here are the short
summaries of 5 great Shi'i traditionalist heavily relied upon by the
Complilers of the Sunni Sihaah.
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-Thahbi 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."
salaam,
RiDwaan
GF Haddad
> The Shi'ah do not question the integrity of the Qur'an.
Was not Ruhollah Khomayni a Shi`i, and did he not author Kashf al-Asrar
(Tehran, 1324 Sh./1945), and does not that book question the integrity of
the Qur'an? -
Among other similar works by other extremists.
http://www.jamiat.org.za/shia_fal.html
Hajj Gibril
rja...@my-deja.com
> > The Shi'ah do not question the integrity of the Qur'an.
>
> Was not Ruhollah Khomayni a Shi`i, and did he not author Kashf al-Asrar
> (Tehran, 1324 Sh./1945), and does not that book question the integrity of
> the Qur'an? -
> Among other similar works by other extremists.
salaam 'alaykum,
The late Ruhullah Khumayni (ar) was a Shi'i, he did author Kashf
al-Asrar and he did NOT question the
integrity of the Qur'an. My God are you making statements or just
posing questions in order to mislead?
Show me where in Kashf al Asraar did he question the integrity of the
Qur'an, please.
The argument of the article you site is that Sayyid Khumayni quoted from
a book called Mustadrak al Wasaa'il written by the late Husain Nuri who
authored the book Faslul Khitaab which discusses the traditions in BOTH
Sunni and Shi'i resources that apparently question the integrity of the
Qur'an. By the way did you know 3/4 of the book is a discussion of such
traditions in Sunni sources only?
So the author argues that Khumayni believes in Tahreef because he quotes
>from the Mustadrak compiled by Nuri.
The argument is so fallacious it doesn't deserve a response. It is like
me saying that Haji Jibreel believes in Tahreef of the Qur'an because he
quotes from the Jami' al Sagheer of Suyuti and Suyuti wrote Durr al
Manthoor where he quotes several traditions that state that there are
two missing surahs in the Qur'an called Surah al Hafd and Surah al Khal'
(which is true btw).
I am still looking forward to how you explain Suyuti mentioning these
two alleged surah's. Please see:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/surah-al-hafd.jpg
Yes there are some traditions in both Sunni and Shi'i books of hadeeth
that seem to indicate distortions in the Qur'anic text. The sunni use
the abrogation defense to clear away the purport of those traditions and
the Shi'ah use the distortion in meaning defense. To get an idea see
Shaykh Sudooqs 'Itiqaad an excerpt follows.
The consensus among Shi'i scholars has always been that the Qur'an is
what is with the people, no more and no less. Allah has protected it
>from distortion as He promised and Allah doesn't break His promises.
[15:9]Surely We have revealed the Reminder and We will most surely be
its guardian.
[41:42]Falsehood shall not come to it from before it nor from behind it;
a revelation from the Wise, the Praised One.
CHAPTER 33
THE BELIEF CONCERNING THE EXTENT (mablagh) OF THE QUR'AN
Says the Shaykh Abu Ja'far: Our belief is that the Qur'an, which Allah
revealed to His Prophet Muhammad, is (the same as)
the one between the two boards (daffattyn). And it is that which is in
the hands of the people, and is not greater in extent than
that.
And he who asserts that we say that it is greater in extent than this
(the present text) is a liar.
http://www.sicm.org.uk/suduk/Suduk33.html
GF Haddad
> The late Ruhullah Khumayni (ar) was a Shi'i, he did author Kashf
> al-Asrar and he did NOT question the
> integrity of the Qur'an. My God are you making statements or just
> posing questions in order to mislead?
"It was easy for the Ashaabs (of Rasulullah - sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam)
to remove verses from the Holy Quran and deliberately add verses to it,
in this way forever concealing from the people of the world the true Quran."
(Kashf al-Asrar by Ruhollah Khomeini, Page 114).