Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله


Advanced Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jarry-haider

  • Rank
    Level 2 Member
  • Birthday 12/20/1990

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,702 profile views
  1. Salaam Alaikum, I am trying to download this book: http://www.4shared.com/file/134979010/486264b0/____.html?err=no-sess However, it is asking for a software known as ".bok". Can anyone recommend me any site via which I can download this software? or any other alternative? I direly need to view this book
  2. Salaam Alaikum, I am from Pakistan. Interestingly, I can't access my country's room, and I can only access Middle East rooms :D
  3. Good point! I would like to research it Inshallah.. However, just a quick question is there any Shi'ite scholar as per ur knowledge that said the tradition of Jabir Al Jua'afi to Jabir Al Ansari is Munqata'e?
  4. Salaam Alaikum brother, Thanks for your answer, but these are my points that I want to put in. Allama Ibne Hajar cites: æÞÇá ÃÈæ ãæÓì ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáãËäì ãÇÊ ÓäÉ 128 Abu Musa said that Jabir ibne Yazeed died in 128 Hijri. Source: Tehzeen ul Tehzeeb, Vol no 2, Hurf e Jeem, Narrator no 75. As for Jabir Al Ansari then Ibne Hajar cites: æÞÇá ãÍãÏ Èä íÍíì Èä ÍÈÇä ãÇÊ ÓäÉ 77 æßÐÇ ÞÇá ÃÈæ äÚíã ÞÇá æíÞÇá ãÇÊ æåæ Èä 94 ÓäÉ æÕáì Úáíå ÃÈÇä Èä ÚËãÇä æåæ ÂÎÑ ãä ãÇÊ ãä ÇáÕÍÇÈÉ ÈÇáãÏíäÉ Muhammad ibne Yahya ibne Habban said that Jabir Al Ansari died in 77 Hijri. This has also been said by Abu Naeem, His age was 94 years, and Abaan ibne Usman prayed his funeral, and he was the last person from the Sahaba in Madina when he died. Source: Tehzeen ul Tehzeeb, Vol no 2, Hurf e Jeem, Narrator no 67. Moreover, Allama Qazi Noor ullah Shostari who is also known as Shaheed e Thalis wrote a book Majalis ul Momineen. In that book he writes a heading: "Companions that were not from Banu Hasim tribe" In that heading he inluded Jabir Al Ansari, and quoted Imam Sadiq (as): "Among the companions of Prohpet (Saww), Jabir was the last person who died." Source: Majalis ul Momineen, Pg no 462, 3rd Majlis, Published by Akbar Hussain Jewani trust, Karachi. After that he writes a heading: "The discussion about pious Tabie'en" Under this heading he inlcuded "Jabir Ibne Yazeed Al Jua'afi" (Refer to pg no 529) btw, Tabi'i is said to be one that has seen companions of Holy Prohpet (saww) whether it be 1 companion. This is why, I think its highly proable that Jabir Al Jua'afi would have met Jabir Al Ansari. Thus, I don't really think that there is a very big gap between Jabir Al ansari, and Jabir Al Jua'afi. If still you think that Jabir ibne Yazeed didn't hear any narration from Jabir Al Ansari then please quote any scholar.
  5. Salaam Alaikum, Here is the answer for you. Jabir ibne Abdullah Al Ansari lived for quite long time, he was among the companions of Rasool Allah, Ali, Hasan, Hussain, Zain ul Abideen, and Baqar ul Uloom (Alahim Salaam). (Refer Mujam Rijal al Hadees vol no 4 pg no 330) You might question about the prove for it that Jabir (ar) was infact among the sahabi of Baqar (Alahis Salaam) then here is one of the tradition in Al Kafi, Úáí Èä ÅÈÑÇåíã ¡ Úä ÃÈíå ¡ Úä ÇÈä ÃÈí ÚãíÑ ( Úä ÇÈä ÃÈí äÌÑÇä ) ¡ Úä ÚÇÕã Èä ÍãíÏ ¡ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ãÓáã ¡ Úä ÃÈí ÌÚÝÑ Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ¡ ÞÇá : ÍÏËäí ÌÇÈÑ Úä ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå Ayatullah Khoie (Ar) declared this Chain to be Sahih. Secondly, Jabir ibne Yazeed was also from the companions of Imam Baqar and Imam Sadiq (Alahima Salaam) (Refer Mujam 4/338) So logically I don't think there is any problem when Jabir Al Jua'afi narrates from Jabir Ansari. Finally, Ayatullah Khoie (ar) writes at the end: æÑæì Úäå ÃÈæÍãÒÉ ÇáËãÇáí ¡ æÃÈæÇáÒÈíÑ ¡ æÌÇÈÑ Èä íÒíÏ Abu Hamza Sumali, Abu Zubair and Jabir ibne Yazeed narrated from Jabir ibne Abdullah Al Ansari ( Mujam 4/335)
  6. Salaam Alaikum, Jazakallahu Khairun I can only excess Arabic rooms, while whenever i click on AL GHADEER room the window doesn't appear...
  7. Revived... Just visited Shia chat to revive this thread..
  8. coudl u email me brother:


  9. Salaam Alaikum... Guys sorry for not replying...:( I will be back with a reply very soon... Just damn busy because of loads of assignments, Ramadhan and Ayaam-e-Shahadat e Maula Kaynat Hazrat Ali (as)... I hope you will wait... :)
  10. Come on.. So you accept that Arnawat was wrong.. :D I still say that Salim is weak because he has been declared weak by Nisaie, Ibne Jarood, Yahya ibne Mueen. These three are earlier scholars that used to pass their verdict on a particular narrator. While, you have provide tautheeq of 2 early scholars i.e. Ibne Habban and Ujli. Lets us compare the Jirah and tade'el for this narrator. There seems to be 3 Jirah versus 2 tade'el thus this narrator can't be used as a proof. (Refer to this equation 3 Jirah> 2 Tade’el) While other tade'el that you have presented with could not serve your purpose because of the fact they were latter scholars that would pass the judgement based on the judgement of early scholars. For this, you presented the qaul of Tahawi, so with the same token I presented you the qaul of Ibne Hazam. Thus, this would serve no purpose for you. A plain lie. Take this when Maula Ali (as) used this hadith as a proof among people. This is the incident of 35 Hijri when Amir ul Momieen Maula Ali (as) came to know that people are disputing regarding his caliphate. Thus, Maula Ali (as) came to Rahiba which is an open place in Kufa where there were number of people gathered around. Therefore, to refute the doubts of the people regarding his caliphate, he used this hadith as a proof. عن أبي الطفيل، قال: جمع علي رضي الله عنه الناس في الرحبة، ثم قال لهم: أنشد الله كل امرئ مسلم سمع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم يقول يوم غدير خم، ما سمع لما قام، فقام ثلاثون من الناس — وقال أبو نعيم: فقام ناس كثير— فشهدوا حين أخذه بيده، فقال للناس: أتعلمون أنى أولى بالمؤمنين من أنفسهم؟ قالوا: نعم، يا رسول الله! قال: من كنت مولاه فهذا مولاه، اللهم! وال من والاه، وعاد من عاداه. “Abū Tufayl has narrated that ‘Alī (as) gathered the people in an open place and said to them: I make every Muslim swear and ask him if he has heard the Prophet (as) say something (about me) on the day of Ghadīr Khum, he should stand up. At this, thirty persons stood up — while Abū Nu‘aym said that a larger number of people stood up — and they bore witness that (we remember that time) when the Messenger of Allāh (as) said to the people while holding your hand: Do you know that I am nearer than the lives of the believers? All of them said: yes, O Messenger of Allāh! Then he said: one who has me as his master has this (‘Alī) as his master. O Allāh! Befriend him who befriends him (‘Alī) and be his enemy who is his (‘Alī’s) enemy. Source: Fadhail-e-Sahab, Vol no 2, pg no 682, tradition no 1167. Sheikh Wasil ullah declared the chain of this tradition to be “Sahih”. For more references check: http://www.minhajbooks.com/english/control/btext/cid/2/bid/248/btid/763/read/txt/Hadith%2041%20to%2051.html#_ftn47 Moreover, I have the book "Al Ghadeer" of Allama Amini (ar) with me, so if you want more routes for this then you can ask. Moreover, there is a tradition from Manaqib Khawarzami in which it is written that Maula Ali (as) used this hadith as a proof for his caliphate in Shura founded by Umar ibne Khattab. This can be used as a Shahid. Now, my question is still unanswered. My point is that since Ahle Sunnat used this hadith in their ilmul kalaam to prove the caliphate of Sheikheen along with Abu Bakar's leading the prayers and Ayat-e-Estekhlaaf. However, we see that Abu Bakar didn't use a single such thing to prove his caliphate in Saqifa. He rather used the argument that caliphate belong to Muhajireen because they were the first one to accept Islam blah blah. This itselfs shows that these hadiths even if proof right doesn't seem to back up Ahle Sunnat claim because Abu Bakar never used it as a proof. We can discuss the points raised by Abu Bakar to prove his caliphate in detail because each point presented by Abu Bakar actually supports Shia stance. However, this thing is off the topic for this thread. Should we laugh over it? These are the books of Ahle Sunnat and Salafis that prove that Abdul Malik ibne Umair was a Mudallis, and there is nothing such written that you mentioned. Ibne Hajar wrote: ع عبد الملك بن عمير القبطي الكوفي تابعي مشهور من الثقات مشهور بالتدليس وصفه الدارقطني وابن حبان وغيرهما Abdul Malik ibne Umair was a tabi'i and thiqa, but he was famous for his tadlees. Darul Qutni, Ibne Habban and others have said about his tadlees. Source: Tabqatul Mudalliseen, pg no 41. Abul Wafa wrote: 47 - ع عبد الملك بن عمير مشهور به ذكره غير واحد Abdul Malik ibne Umair was famous for his tadlees, and this has been said by many scholars. Source: Al Tabiyeen Li Asmaa-il-Mudalliseen, pg no 39, narrator no 47, Published by Dar ul Kutub Elmiya, Beirut, Lebanon. Pakistani Salafi scholar, Zubair Ali Zaie has written the same thing in his book: Al Fathul Mubeen Fi Tehqeeqe Tabqatul Mudaliseen, pg no 56, Published by Maktabe Islamia, Lahore, Pakistan . Moreover, Abdul Malik ibne Umair can never narrate a hadith directly from Rabi'i, and you did the work for me..:D Ibn Abi Hatim said in "Ilal Al-Hadith" (2/381).... 2655- وَسَأَلْتُ أَبِي عَنْ حَدِيثٍ ؛ رَوَاهُ إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ سَعْدٍ ، عَنِ الثَّوْرِيِّ ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الْمَلِكِ بْنِ عُمَيْرٍ ، عَنْ هِلالٍ مَوْلَى رِبْعِيٍّ ، عَنْ رِبْعِيٍّ ، عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم ، قَالَ : اقْتَدُوا بِاللَّذَيْنِ مِنْ بَعْدِي. وَرَوَاهُ زَائِدَةُ وَغَيْرُهُ ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الْمَلِكِ ، عَنْ رِبْعِيٍّ ، عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم. قُلْتُ : فَأَيُّهُمَا أَصَحُّ ؟ قَالَ أَبِي : حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ كَثِيرٍ ، عَنِ الثَّوْرِيِّ ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الْمَلِكِ بْنِ عُمَيْرٍ ، عَنْ مَوْلًى لِرِبْعِيٍّ ، عَنْ رِبْعِيٍّ ، عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ. قُلْتُ : فَأَيُّهُمَا أَصَحُّ ؟ قَالَ : مَا قَالَ الثَّوْرِيُّ ، زَادَ رَجُلا وَجَوَّدَ الْحَدِيثِ ، فَأَمَّا إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ سَعْدٍ فَسَمَّى الرَّجُلَ ، وَأَمَّا ابْنُ كَثِيرٍ فَلَمْ يُسَمِّ الْمَوْلَى You have translated wrongly... Ibne Abi Hatim was only asking about the proper route for this hadith not about the authenticity of the hadith.. Abdul Malik ibne Umair was a Mudallis, and this is the clear sign of his tadlees when he removed the Majhul narrator aka Mol'a Rabi'i ( مَوْلًى لِرِبْعِيٍّ ). This further strenghtens our stance. Abi Hatim then answered that the more correct route not the correct hadith is the way which is coming from Abdul Malik ibne Umair from Mol'a Rabi'i from Rabi'i from Hudhaifa. To further attest my point, I would like to mention this statement: قَالَ : مَا قَالَ الثَّوْرِيُّ ، زَادَ رَجُلا وَجَوَّدَ الْحَدِيثِ This shows that Abu Hatim was telling about the chain not the hadith. Since, once it is established that Mol'a Rabi'i is the narrator, so let me give you what is said by Ibne Hazam: وأما الرواية اقتدوا باللذين من بعدي فحديث لا يصح ، لأنه مروي عن مولى لربعي مجهول وعن المفضل الضبي وليس بحجة The hadith "Follow me...", so this hadith is not Sahih because it is narrated by Mol'a Rabi'i who is unknown, and Mufadhal Al Dhabbi who is not Hujjat. Source: Al Ahkaam, Vol no 6, pg no 809. Moreover, you may bring that Ibne Hajar said him "Maqbool", so please refer to this thread: أكثر ابن حجر من اطلاق كلمة (مقبول) على مجاهيل التابعين Ibne Hajar use this term "Maqbool" for Majhul Tabi'een. Link: http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=39379&highlight=%C7%E1%E3%DE%C8%E6%E1+%CD%CC%D1 Maqbal ibne Hadi said: قال مقبل بن هادي الوادعي : هلال مولى ربعي مجهول ، لم يرو عنه إلا عبد الملك بن عمير ولم يوثقه معتبر Halaal Mol'a Rabi'i is Majhul, no one has narrated from him except Abdul Malik ibne Umair, and his tautheeq is not authentic. Source: Ahadees-e-Mua'alata Dhairahas Sahata, pg no 118, hadees no 120, Darul Athaar. COMMENTS: You presented me with the saying of scholars that authenticated this hadith, so when we Shia present you with the scholars authentiticating Hadith-e-Madinatul Elm and others then you people comment that scholars can make mistake blah blah. With the same token, I ‘d like to say that scholars can make mistake therefore, this hadith is weak inspite of their authentication. IN NUTSHELL: These are the points for Sanad: 1, Abdul Malik ibne Umair is a Mudallis, and he is from the third Martaba whose tradition can only be accepted according to Salafis when they clearly say that they heard a hadith or written the hadiths etc. The term “from” is a sign of weakness 2, Halaal Mol’a Rabi’i is unknown, and declared Majhul by Ibne Hazam, so how can he be trusted upon in the matter of Aqidah? 3, I have asked my respected opponent to provide me with a single Sahih or even hasan chain that says the same matan, but he is unable to provide it uptil now. These are few points with respect to Matan: 1, Why didn’t Sheikhayn used this hadith in Saqifa which could serve the best argument for their caliphate. We see that they rather used other spurious arguments in Saqifa? 2, The history shows that Abu Bakar and Umar used to dispute in certain matters then can any Salafi answer that whome we should follow? If we follow both then it is impossible? If they say that we can follow any one of them then this tradition automatically becomes null and void. Scans:
  11. Salaam Alaikum... Please don't spoil this beautiful thread with regards to debate of Fadak.. Please refer to this article for all answers that are cut and pasted by Ahlelbayt(dot)com: http://answering-ansar.org/answers/fadak/en/index.php I hope brothers would continue their participation in this thread..:)
  12. Lets make it simple, what you have posted is addressed many times... SOS why don't you call Efendi for a debate with me on this topic... My claim is: Ibne Saba wasn't a kind of a person that is potrayed by Ahle Sunnat i.e. he was the first one to invent the belief of caliphate of Ali (as) soon after the death of Prohpet(as) and blah blah. My belief is that he was from Ghulat as evident from Sahih tradition of Rijal by Al Kashi..As far as Khilafat bila Fasal of Maula Ali (as) is concerned then we have Sahih hadees for it from your books... I will prove my statement from both Quran and Hadees.. This is a challenge for Ahle Sunnat!!! you too can debate over it here..
  13. ^^^ I initially told you that Abdul Malik ibne Umair is a Mudallis... This tradition is narrated by him Mu-an-an. It is weak as per standard of Ahle Sunnat...
  14. Salaam Alaikum.. I just want to make one thing clear that hadith weak via sanad may not necessarily be weak via matan.. We should be cautious in it.. Our scholars have used weak hadith in amaal specially. Please refer Majlisi's tehzeeb ul Islam, and he has used some weak hadiths. Similarly, refer to Tafseer-e-Ayaashi that is a bunch of Mursal hadiths, so does this mean that our scholars have totally reject it? The answer is "NO"....
  • Create New...