Jump to content

qiyam-ul-hidaya

Advanced Members
  • Content count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About qiyam-ul-hidaya

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

271 profile views
  1. i have an qyestion regarding hadith as safina of holy prophet(saw) is this hadith authentic from sunni scholars point of veiw . i tried it hard on net but could not find it so the best i could fine it is the sources of hadith but i could not locate it in musanaff ibn abu sahybi?? if u both consider it authentic abdaal and toyibonline plz can u provide the authentic chain??would be very kind of u.
  2. (salam) ! can anybody translate for me the following ahadiths (only the matn) would be very kind of him. here are there! æ would be kind of anyone to help me better understand them.looking forward for replies
  3. Shia Elme Rijal!

    salams! ÈÓã Çááå ÇáÑÍãä ÇáÑÍíã æÇáÍãÏ ááå ÑÈ ÇáÚÇáãíä¡ æÇáÕáÇÉ Úáì äÈíå ÇáßÑíã¡ æÂáå ÇáãäÊÌÈíä . there are actually 2 persons by name of ali bin abi hamza 1) one is ali bin abi hamza thimali (r.a)(ali bin thabit bin denar as thimali) Úáí Èä ÍãÒÉ ÇáËãÇáí he is authentic ,the son of abi hamza thimali® ,the cheif reliable narrator of imam ali bin hussain (s)and imam muhammed baqir (s) . 2)the second is ali bin hamza salym al batani® (his kuneyah ib abul-hasan) Úáí Èä ÃÈí ÍãÒÉ (1): æÇÓã ÃÈí ÍãÒÉ: ÓÇáã ÇáÈØÇÆäí¡his narrations are widely found in shia hadith literature .bu he was waqifi in aqeedah(those who dont believe in imamate of imam ali bin musa alridha ,infact a sub-sect of shiiasm) shia rijal authorities have criticized him to great deal labelling him a man of defective aqaids and weak narrator.al-kashi has quoted several traditions regarding him both strong and weak mainly containing his criticism by holy imams (as) .ayatullah al khoei defends him and tends to have some trust in him by declaring some of his narrations in shia hadith literature as sahih(sheikh saduk appears to trust him too?) but vast majority of shia scholars graded him weak .in my opinion ,he is fair ok but cannot be used as hujjah authentic.lets Allah knows the best.lets hear from brother abbas who has studied in hawzah and his more knowledgeable than me .bye
  4. Hadith Thaqalayn 2

    ÈÓã Çááå ÇáÑÍãä ÇáÑÍíã æÇáÍãÏ ááå ÑÈ ÇáÚÇáãíä¡ æÇáÕáÇÉ Úáì äÈíå ÇáßÑíã¡ æÂáå ÇáãäÊÌÈíä well the hadith al-thaqlayn has been authentically narrated in shia hadith literarature. reference:al-kafi vol.3 page number book of prayers(kitab as- salat) under the chapter (ÈÇÈ) * (ÊåíÆÉ ÇáÇãÇã ááÌãÚÉ æÎØÈÊå æÇáÇäÕÇÊ) page number 422 narration no:6 chain of transmission: matn of hadith is actually a part of longer hadith i am only quoting relevant words authenticty of narrators can be checked from shia rijal for books for instance i will quote from naqd al rijal of tafrashi 1)muhammed bin yahya is authentic and kuylani narrated from him 5167 / 811 - ã ÑÌÇá)2) ahmed bin muhammed bin esa was also authentic ÇáäÌÇÔí 3)hussain bin saed was also authentic . ßÊÇÈÇ 4)nudr bin suwaid also authentic : ÇáÝåÑÓÊ 5)yahya al halbi was also authentic 6) bured bin muawiyah and muhammed bin muslim both are authentic ÍÏËäí ÍãÏæíå Èä äÕíÑ the above mentioned hadith of alkafi has been declared by allamah majlisi , shiekh baqir al behbudi and sheikh shaheed ath-thani) 6-
  5. Abu Bakr Asked To Lead Prayers. Authenticity?

    salams ! well i guess the shia scholar syed ali milani ® discussed this issue of abu bakr (ra) leading parayers during last time of prophet muhammed (pbuh) in his risala fil salat al abu bakr both by narrations and isnads also.its available on www.aqaed.com.click for the link [email=http://aqaed.com]http://aqaed.com.an arabic individual can best translate it.its a very lengthy discussion .i will give a small c and p.thats it.bye salams Allah HAFIZ Ýí ÇáÃÍÇÏíË ÇáãæÖæÚÉ Ýí ßÊÈ ÇáÓäÉ
  6. Abu Hurayrah Al-mudallis Ul-a'zam

    well brother abbas ! do have arabic version of fadyl bin ayaad (misbah al-shariah) book attributed to saying of imam jaffer as sadiq(s)?? can u send me the arabic version via PM would be very kind of u????
  7. (salam) brother eman and inshallah! i also onced searched for authenticity of this hadith under discussion when some critics objected to it.all no two scholars(sunni-shia) apply same parameters of hadith authenticity.on sunni side most elaboarative on rijal-e-hadith seems to be done by asqalani .on sunni forum i saw the discussion of this hadith and they also arrived on same conclusion (that of asqalani verdict about this hadith).its here. ('Ali Qari:) The Hadith "I am the city of knowledge and 'Ali is its gate," was mentioned by Tirmidhi in his Jami', where he said it was unacknowledgeable. Bukhari also said this, and said that it was without legitimate claim to authenticity. Ibn Ma'in said that it was a baseless lie, as did Abu Hatim and Yahya ibn Sa'id. Ibn Jawzi recorded it in his book of Hadith forgeries, and was confirmed by Dhahabi, and others in this. Ibn Daqiq al-'Eid said, "This Hadith is not confirmed by scholars, and is held by some to be spurious." Daraqutni stated that it was uncorroborated. Ibn Hajar 'Asqalani was asked about it and answered that it was well authenticated (hasan), not rigorously authenticated (sahih), as Hakim had said, but not a forgery (mawdu'), as Ibn Jawzi had said. This was mentioned by Suyuti. The Hadith master (hafiz) Abu Sa'id 'Ala'i said, "The truth is that the Hadith is well authenticated (hasan), in view of its multiple means of transmission, being neither rigorously authenticated (sahih) nor weak (da'if), much less a forgery" (Risala al-mawdu'at, 26 ). now those who are critics of shias and biased against imam ali (as) they quote those scholars who labelled it weak.traditional sunnies accept it under the tawil that city has many gates one is ali (as) ,rest are companions (ra) (like faraz ahmed of sunnipath.com) .asqalani also mentions the hadith as merit of imam ali (as) in his book tadheeb ul--tadheeb(under biography of imam ali (as) ) and raises no objection over it
  8. Pen and Paper

    (bismillah) brother areef hamdi i like ur style of discussion.u seem to be logical fair enough.lets try to solve this query lets get it one by one yes that true but it is fairly reliable.i once asked tahasyed for the chains and he provided it the end narrator is ibn abbas (ra) there was a group of people.among the was umar (ra). the elders(umar and abu bakr) were more in favour(insisted) of quran as compared to hadith.this fact is very evident from history books of sunnies like tarikh al khulfa there is a hadith((weak sanad) related to abu bakr (ra) where he orders to burn the hadiths and follow quran. very important and crucial point .wether that was the third point ade by prophet or not.it is even mentioned as seperate accepted incident.1)why was the prophet (pbuh) insisting on immediate dispatch of usama bin zaid exepidition at his last hours?????? 2)who were ordered and who were not ordered to join osama bin zaid group?(both groups are important)............all expect ali and bani hashim were ordered to leave..even abu and umar were ordered to leave(refer to tabaqat ibn saad .riyadh ul-nadira and izza tul-khifa) hope u better clarify the above issues.let e know yr veiws hamdi here is the wikipedia veiw the 3 point ok there is disagreement over hadith books and history books .all narrators in the chains will have to be verified.then only comment can be made.bukhari does not have much room for itra of nabi (pbuh) .in tabaqat ibn saad it is related the head of prophet (pbuh) was in ali (as) lap not aysha (ra) lap.it states that prophet (pbuh) breath his last in ali (as) lap.ibn abbas was asked regarding this and he refuted that nabi died in ayesha lap.dont know what tabari .bidayah wun niyaha and ansab al ashraf states???lemme know yr reply hamdi and please scrutunize the queries left by me???the last query of yrs i will anwer later (salam)
  9. Did Ali (as) ever claimed Caliphate on the basis of Ghadir?

    (bismillah) bro khurram -jaffery the sunni fellow has raised a nice point ............yes! he is trying to say that ali (as) did not use this hadith in his favour..a traditional sunni arguement but we as shias have solid reasons to reject this statment for following reasons1) ali (as) was busy in burial of prophet (as) ...by the time ali (as) came to safiqa(was called to safiqa) the caliphate issue had already been decided. ali would have used this hadith in his favour if people had argeed with it but alas!the case was already decided 2) sunnies say that arguement of umar (ra) ....caliphate and prophethood cannot be unified at one place we shias say no b-c ali (as) was of the opinion that both can be unified at one place for the detail discussion of this fact veiw urdu version of kitab-ul-imamamah by sallem bin qais hilali at hubeali.com.the book contains some weak narrations but a fair deal of its contents in muhtaber according to shia scholars. 3)like the sunni u pointed bro.khurram...tell him that traditional sunnies say that ali (as) claim for caiphate (according to sunnies was based on the fact) that i am nearer relative of the prophet in the proof ali (as) cited the verse of the quran.... aming the relatives of ibrahim few possess more right than others(i dont exactly remember it it would be very nice if shia bro"sis comes with exact verse) does the sunni cares to believe in it 4)even historians like ibn katheer(a hard core committed sunni) are confused when did ali give bayyah to abu-bakr/// 6 months later. 5) sunnies agree that ali (as) was not happy of his exclusion from caliphatehood nomination or ijthehad concept of companions (pbuh) 6) if the sunii beliefs that ali claim of caliphate was not rite because ali did use the hadith of ghadir-khum in his favour then what does the sunni makes of following hadith (the hadiths are discussed in great detail by sheikh g.f haddad in response to shias) when did the sheikheen abu (ra) bakr and umar (ra) used these hadiths in thier favour to prove their caliphatehood especi hadith nos.3 and 4....ask sunnies to read their own classdical texts like tabari ..bidayah..ansab o ashraf..prove the application of above mentioned hadiths????OE elsewhat had these hadiths been valid there was no need for safiqa or was ali (as) ignorant of these hadiths????
  10. Yanabi' Al-Mawaddah

    (bismillah) salams to all! i think u people are following a beaten track . i would to share my veiws too 1) 'Yanabee Al-Mawaddah' written by a 'Sulaiman Al-Qundoozi':every individual sunni-shia having in depth knowledge knows that neither is qundoozi a front line sunni scholar or his book is any authority over ahl-e-sunnah. he(weak lineant in eyes of sunnies) is one among those sunnies those who more affinity for ahlul-bayt instead of companions.ahl-e-sunna could have deployed a better excuse against him rather saying the book is falsely attibuted to ahl-e-sunna its not the first time they did so they have done it on many occasions for e.g a)they say book imamah wa siyasah was never wriiten or falsely attributed to ibn qutaybah.. what about kitab al-maarif in that book too qutaybah at times takes stand against companions like the lepoderma scar of anas bin malik sunnies once again say...no chain of narration :D ...for this incident check the whole issue hereburs of anas bin malik 2)books like faraid -us samtain and tazkirah al-khas have exclusive shia inclinations ..for what sake were they expected to be sunnies books???? 3)balazari book ansab alashraf is of full of anti-umayyad narrations similarly tabari has individual sparks of showing affinity for ali and company ...within 5 years they will also not be included in sunnies books.4)lets not forget ibn-arabi futuhat-e-makkiyah this is the most commercial type cheap tactic to say that book cannot be contributed to sunni library. there are many sunni aqeeda narrators that have exclusively reported narrations from imams they were lablled as shias of imams had more affinity for itra (as) of prophet (pbuh) . nadeem in his fehrest includes al-waqidi as under cover shia scholar do u believe in that tahasyed?????? he was much late historian(died in 1237 ah) how could his book be included in earlier compilations moreover not a front-line scholar no use our standards for declaring hadith authentic differ from the sunnies .i know in our countries like pakistan its hard to get a reliable scholar who understand arabic and has all arabic shia hadiths with him then only u will know the differnce brother coloreal by the way tell me whats the narration u are discussing????may i know secondly scratch the authenticity ofall sunni hadiths in favour of ali (as) ..u willknow not more than a handful r authentic for rest of companions nearly all are authentic??amazing naanote:try to read or get translated arabic book itself they are much better
  11. (bismillah) brothers and sisters of arabic origins can u sugeest any arabic website where i can find mujam-al-rijal of ayatullah khoei .one website i know that is www.u-of-islam.net but the problem is that apart from initial page that crazy letters appear for me because i dont have proper fonts to veiw arabic of above mentioned website?? from where should i download that fonts to veiw arabic of that website???secondly plz sugest me arabic websites having shia books of ilm-erijal in detail??? (salam)
  12. PRAYER WITH OPEN HAND

    (salam) brother truthseeker!thanks for yr efforts .i have found an pdf article relevant to topic of the thread .its written by maliki scholars who have comprehensively refuted all reports of joining hands in prayers(right hand over left hand).its very useful and worth reading.here is it sadl vs qabd
  13. YA ALI MADAD

    (bismillah) hahahaha!glad brother kin_han i came to your thread at same time u posted yr answer but sorry brother i was searching the isnad factors regarding imam ali (as) giving his ring to the poor and being interpreted as wali of Allah.i shall resort later in my thread to that isnad thread.kin-han! u were late in yr response i thought u have quitted the thread or labelled my post as lack of quality one.thanks to Allah u responded.i am busy with my exams nowadays. lets start analyzing with yr answers.one by one i appreciate good replies dont posses grudge against any sunni beliefs i appreciate yr efforts but a basic problem problem lies here sunni only count those hadiths as authentic which have authentic sanad and ijmah of their scholars.no knowledgable sunnies count sahih muslim-bukhari as 100 percent untill unless isnad of narrations is reliable so the quantity does not matter most but quality does.if u are well at home with arabic.search books of ilm-e-rijal like ibn hajr asqalani or dhahabi books of rijal..its a gruesome task but u will get the answer definately i know that ali (as) is part of ahlul-bayt but not an offence to u same sahih muslim excludes wives from ahlul-bayt(lets see yr reply on this hadith).now definately for sunnies inad is weak or interpretation is different. yes i readily agree that greater the nymber of hadiths a companion (ra) merits does make him superior to all like wise abu huraira (ra) has narrated greastest number of hadiths(5374-includins repetitions and the rest of them abubakr (ra) - 142 umar (ra) - 537 uthman (ra) - 146 Ali (as) - 586 but he(abu hurairah) was not taken as most scholarly persons among sunni pioneers the ahl-e-sunnah belief that all whole knowledge of sunnah can be compressed down to two companions ali (as) and abdullah bin-masud (ra) it is well-established among sunnies that greatest fuqahas of times were ali (as) and umar (ra) as they utilized their knowledge of hadiths for solving fiqhi issues.hope u are in terms in my statements.here the verdict regarding ali(s) from relible sunnies every line of sunni beliefs included ali (as) without an undue preferencelets well brother i apologize that your query will take some time because i dont know arabic nor possess the copy of al-kafi .u want any specific fact to be verfied just state it.we shia brothers will respond to it.but dont loose hope i have referd yr query to some of my knowledgable shia friends.we will soon sort out the answer hope for the best brother. well definately i dont agree with u because i dont agree with some basic rules of isnad for instance let say narrator A narrated from B from C from D from E.....some narration#hadith howcome if narrator c is liar he confers an massive impact on trustworty narrators like a,b,d and e . his untrustworthiness can only be bought into consideration if matn of the narration is the anti-quran or sunnah .a liar cannot be 24#7 a liar his life if he is not a liar yet a weak narrator yet the hadith cannot be completely rejected.if u dont my point i will throw great detail on it when only topic will isnad factor discussion ok leave it aside for while aply this rule mentioned by me to this isnad regarding narration of ali (as) giving ring to the poor......Muhammad ibn ‘Ali as-Sa’igh—Khalid ibn Yazid al-‘Umari—Ishaq ibn ‘Abdilllah ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Husayn—Hasan ibn Zayd—his father Zayd ibn Hasan—his grandfather—‘Ammar.........a hadith is only to be called false if contains majority of narrators in its sanad as weak#liars or forgerers having anti-quran sunnah matn and most important NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE NOT LIKE SUNNIES who reject hadiths on basis of only having weak unauthentic sanad.now look this fact has an weak sanad so kin_han what are yr comments now????u consider it weak or authentic?????lets see yr arguements now ibn-kathir book contains an authentic sanad that relates from prophet (pbuh) that chose abu bakr (ra) as khalif after me .baihqi narrates with fair hasan sanad that prophet (pbuh) told the ummah after me follow umar (ra) and abu bakr (ra) I DONT TERM THEM FABRICATION BUR DONT BELIEVE IN THEM AS THEY ARE DEVOID OF ANY HISTORICAL EVIDENCE BEHIND THEM STATE ME KIN_HAN A SINGLE INCIDENT WHERE SHEIKEHEN (ra) USED THESE HADITHS to prove their caliphate AFTER PROPHET (pbuh) IN ORDER TO COUNTER ACT THE PEOPLE WHO OPPOSED THEM AT SAFIQA BANI SAIDA REMEMBER THE GREAT SCHOLARS IN OUR BELIEFS ALI (as) WAS NOT AWARE OF THIS HADITH STRANGE NAA????WHAT ABOUT ZUBAIR BIN AWAM (ra) AND WHOLE ANSAR???SO THAT MY BASIS FOR NOT BELIEVEING IN THESE HADITHS.IF U PROVE ME THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE BEHIND THEM I ACCEPT SUNNI MADHAB RITE ON SPOT :) . my objection is equivalent to sunni objection that in whole nahjul-balagha ali (as) never used hadith of ghadir-e-khum as a tool in arguement against muaviah in letters he wrote to muawiyah .ali (as) only was stand that he was most near relative of nabi (pbuh) ali is gate of knowlege..the hadith has tremendous historical evidence check the sunni books of hadiths tafseers ali"s name appears in profusely in hadiths and narrations yet u call that hadith as fabrication AMAZING NAA i dont doubt yr love as a sunni for imam ali (as) but prove me the fact that shias give undue preference to (as) ali the rest of sahabas (ra) u have no knowledge of isnad factor then from where u took this stuff well c&p are never are problem from me but all material they contain shud be authentic one definately u have presented sahih veiw of ahl-esunnah BUT ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE PICTURE I WILL DO THE JUSTICE TO BOTH SUNNI AND SHIA MASSES AND PRESENT THE WHOLE THE VEIW OF AHL-ESUNNAH check it out kin_han so kin_han check yr cp and my cp just look the pathetic ways used by ahl-e-sunnah to taint the reality.sunnies belief ali (as) as wali but narration of beggar is not authentic hahahahahaha :D a man can see but he is blind.so your quest for authentic chain must be over let leave alone aside the sunni interpretation so the man in authentic isnaads(FOR SUNNIES) who gave the ring to poor was hazrat ubada bin as samit(r.a) SUCH A BLESSED MAN WAS HAZRAT UBADA IBN AS SAMIT THEN KIN_HAN WHY DID THAT SUNNI-SHIA MASSES NEVER HEARD HIS NAME IN ANY KIND OF ISLAMIC ACTIVITY OR ROLE IN BATTLES OR OF WHAT POSITION WAS HE AS HADITH NARRATOR DURING PROPHET (SAW) ERA OR PERIOD OF KHULFA-E-RASHIDEEN AT LEAST I HEARD HIS NAME FOR FIRST TIME WHAT ABOUT U KIN_HAN????WHAT ARE HISTORICAL FACTS ASSOCIATED TO THIS COMPANION OF RASUL(SAW)???SIMPLY THAT HE WAS MENTIONED IN AUTHENTIC ISNADS IS TOO WEAK TO CONSTITUE AN UPPER HAND BELIEF REGARDING HIM.bye for now kin_han till your further reply last yr emotions :dry: .... ^_^ .... :wub: Allah HAFIZ (salam) MAY Allah INCREASE YOUR KNOWLEDGE
  14. YA ALI MADAD

    (bismillah) salams kin_han! thanks for a nice discussion and good manners u have displayed well i just want to focus on one point of your discussion.inshallah, if time allows we will have in detail arguement on that .for time-being u continue with the thread and provide me the answer in detail(if feasible) ok well its really strange and harsh reality all common hadiths regarding imam ali (as) commonly circulated among sunni-shia masses dont have authentic isnad.i have yet to wittness any hadith in favour of imam ali (as) which has rigourously authentic isnad apart from 1)hadith of kaiber 2)hadith in which prophet (pbuh) declares that ali (as) u are same to me as harun (as) was to musa (as) .apart from that in which merit of imam ali (as) ahl-e-sunnah believe in ??????all are rejected on basis of isnad really strange 1)ali as gate of knowledge ...experts of sunni ilm-e-rijal say that either it can be depresssed to a forgery nor elevated to be sahih 2)ali born in kabah has weak isnad)hadith of ghadir-e-khum ,has authentic as well as inauthentic isnads the word mawla does mean friend the next hadith is the one which u pointed in your previous discussion the authentic isnad says that if wasanother companion who gave the ring??? so kin-han what is sunni basis on relying on isnad only and caring least about mat^n of the narration???any justification that u reply on isnad so much ???is the isnad only fact u sunnies look for??please provide me the answer with justification then i will raise my objections????and look forward for the your answers kin-han hope u reply to my points. my area for discussion will only be the isnad factor sunnies hold so much in high esteem (salam) because this isnad factor critiziing merits of IMAM ali (as) is total contraindication to some to ahl-e-sunnah belefs of pioneers
  15. hazrat abu talib

    (salam) well i my shia brothers! hazrat abu talib was a momin in regard to this fact we have authentic evidence from ahl-e-sunnah hadith literature>>>> proof 2
×