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
Sign in to follow this  
toyibonline

They Betrayed Him

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Why don't you translate the whole quote instead of highlighting one part that is contradicted in the sentence directly after it where Ibn Hajar is stating that nobody agreed with Ibn Mundah? So if anyone, then it is you who would be charged of Tadlis.

And I'm still dying to know how you reached the conclusion that Imam Bukhari did Tadlis in the matn.

It seems that you don't have a Brain. I don't really care what other scholars said. What Ibn Munthah said cannot be denied. He has proof for what he is saying.

23 - Þ Ó ãÍãÏ Èä ÅÓãÇÚíá Èä ÅÈÑÇåíã Èä ÇáãÛíÑÉ ÇáÈÎÇÑí ÇáÇãÇã æÕÝå ÈÐáß ÃÈæ ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ãäÏÉ Ýí ßáÇã áå ÝÞÇá Ýíå ÇÎÑÌ ÇáÈÎÇÑí ÞÇá ÝáÇä æÞÇá áäÇ ÝáÇä æåæ ÊÏáíÓ æáã íæÇÝÞ Èä ãäÏÉ Úáì Ðáß æÇáÐí íÙåÑ Ãäå íÞæá ÝíãÇ áã íÓãÚ æÝíãÇ ÓãÚ áßä áÇ íßæä Úáì ÔÑØå Ãæ ãæÞæÝÇ ÞÇá áí Ãæ ÞÇá áäÇ æÞÏ ÚÑÝÊ Ðáß ÈÇáÇÓÊÞÑÇÁ ãä ÕäíÚå

Ibn Munthah said Bukhari would report Fulan said and Fulan said. This taldless in Saheh of Bukhari is common by him. Bukhari changed matns of ahadith, thats like lying upon what they said.

And also he would say Fulan (But naming his name) said so and so.

How can you trust this person at all times with his ahadith when he has distorted some of his ahadith?

As for the narrators in Sahih Bukhari, then in general they are strong when the narration is in the Usul, however they could be much weaker when they only occur in additional supportive narrations. But all that is completely irrelevant here. Even if a chain is made up solely of narrators from Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim it could still be weak. In particular, for it to be sahih, it has to be continuous. And that's not the case if it contains 'an'anah from Hushaym (outside of Sahih Bukhari).

You failed to tell between Bukhari and Fathul Bari, so why should I believe you when your scholars say something that contradicts yours and your a nasibi.

" Ëã ØÇÆÝÉ ãä ÍÝÇÙ ÇáÍÏíË ãËá : ÃÈí ÃÍãÏ ÇÈä ÚÏí ¡ æÃÈí ÇáÍÓä

ÇáÏÇÑÞØäí ¡ æÃÈí ÚÈÏ Çááå ÇÈä ãäÏÉ ¡ æÃÈí ÚÈÏ Çááå ÇáÍÇßã ¡ Ëã ãä ÈÚÏåã Åáì

íæãäÇ åÐÇ ¡ áãÇ ÕÍ ÚäÏåã Ãä ßá ãä ÃÎÑÌÇ ÍÏíËå Ýí åÐíä ÇáßÊÇÈíä æÅä

Êßáã Ýíå ÈÚÖ ÇáäÇÓ ¡ íßæä ÍÏíËå ÍÌÉ áÑæÇíÊåãÇ Úäå Ýí ÇáÕÍíÍ "

In fact, he did grade some of the narrations, but in many cases he would only summarize the grading by Al-Hakim although he himself opposes it. It's not my fault if you don't know that.

If you like to know more about the topic, I advise you to read the following article by Sheikh Muhammad al-Amin:

http://www.ibnamin.com/Manhaj/Zahabi.htm

As I pointed out, Adh-Dhahabi didn't authenticate it, but summarized the wrong authentication by al-Hakim. In order to know whether Adh-Dhahabi considers Abu Idris to be reliable you will have to find him in one of his books of Rijaal. But of course, you will fail in that because the guy is unknown.

Thats ofcource a nasibi anti-Ahlu Al-Bayt (as) link, ofcource they mixed lies just to hide the virtues Ahlu Albayt (as) . I mean they aregue with no proof.

Everyone knows why Al-Thahabi wrote Talkhees, but you are just being a nasibi, as usuall. The fact Al-Thabi disagreed and agreed at times with Al-Hakem is clear proof that Al-Thahabi was giving his own opinion.

Thats why you notice when someone quotes the opinion of Al-Thahabi from talkhees, they say in arabic Wa Wafaqahu Al-Tahabi ææÇÝÞå ÇáÐåÈí . And Al-Thabi agreed with him (concerning the authencity of the hadith).

Thats clear proof that Al-Thahabi went with the opinion of Ibn Habban.

That's irrelevant. Being a leader in the army could be an indication that he is trustworthy, but it doesn't help in determining whether his memory was good. Al-Bukhari's judgment doesn't just mean that his hadith may be questioned, but it is a well-known strong rejection of his narrations. Ibn Hajar calls him Sadooq Shi'i. Abu Hatim considered him to be weak. Ibn Adi even doubts that he really heard from Ali [radia Allahu 'anhu] so in that case the chain is even broken. And all agree that he was a Shi'i from the ghulaat. So his narration in anything that supports his bid'ah is useless.

Stop adding your lies, I showed the opinion of the majority of your scholars and they said he is relaible. And Bukhari was a mudlis, so he should speak for himself. And How could he have not heard Imam Ali (as) when he was the leader of his army, unless he had his hands in his ears all the time when he was around Imam Ali (as). But of cource, that doesn't sound right jsut like your brains.

Fine, but not if a narration supports his bid'ah. Then it is rejected. Simply narrating Fada'il isn't enough.

But Al-Thahabi, Al-Hakem and Al-Hafiz Al-Bosayri didn't see it as bid'a did they?

But Al-Bani, mutaqi alhindi and Al-Hakem authenticated the hadith of Ja'far ibn Sulayman, who is shia but sadook, where he narrated that the prophet (pbuh) said Ali is the master of every beliver after me.

Wha about ghadeer, how many of your scholars authenticated ones containing shias in them? does it not support the bida'a of shias?

But as ibn hajar said rafd doesn't effect your relaibility.

æÈÇáÌãáÉ ÝÌãíÚ ØÑÞ ÇáÍÏíË æÇåíÉ æáíÓ ÝíåÇ ãÇ íÊÞæì ÈÛíÑå

As-Silsilah Ad-Da'ifah, No. 4905, which is really a good read as he discusses every chain. He also mentions that Imam Bukhari considered the narration to be weak.

So in summary, not a single chain of this narration is strong. If some scholar like Al-Hakim authenticated it, he was mistaken and was contradicted by much more reliable scholars like Ad-Daraqutni and Bukhari and Albani.

Al-Al-Bani is hujjah for nawaseb like you, not all sunnis accept him. So his opinion is rejected by the main sunnis. Secondly, a sunni scholar by the name of Hassan Assaqqaf wrote a book called the contradictions of Al-Albani and showed his stupidity.

But when you have scholars like below authenticating it, who are accepted my the majority, and if not all :

Al-Hakem authenticated this hadith twice in his al-mustadrak.

Al-Thahabi authenticated it as well twice in Talkhees.

Al-Hafiz Al-Bosayri in "Ethaaf Al-Khirah Al-Mehrah" said it's HASSAN (page 168 volume 186

Inconclusion, your arguments are rubish and plus Al-Albani's, as it contradicts the opinion of sunni scholars who have studied ilm arrijal inside out. And whaever you say is weak, and is no hujjah. Your arguments hold no weight, and I won't be accepting them anymore. As you keep trying to reject the opnion of your scholars, who are supposed to be hujjah.

And you can't tell the difference between Bukhari and Fathul Bari. So you want be to belive you over the authencity over a hadith, wheh nyou are condradicting your scholars.

You should have shame and some respect to your scholars, as you present to be ignorant and stupid who have no idea about ilm arijjal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except for useless insults, you didn't bring anything new which really shows how you failed.

I don't really care what other scholars said. What Ibn Munthah said cannot be denied. He has proof for what he is saying.

23 - Þ Ó ãÍãÏ Èä ÅÓãÇÚíá Èä ÅÈÑÇåíã Èä ÇáãÛíÑÉ ÇáÈÎÇÑí ÇáÇãÇã æÕÝå ÈÐáß ÃÈæ ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ãäÏÉ Ýí ßáÇã áå ÝÞÇá Ýíå ÇÎÑÌ ÇáÈÎÇÑí ÞÇá ÝáÇä æÞÇá áäÇ ÝáÇä æåæ ÊÏáíÓ æáã íæÇÝÞ Èä ãäÏÉ Úáì Ðáß æÇáÐí íÙåÑ Ãäå íÞæá ÝíãÇ áã íÓãÚ æÝíãÇ ÓãÚ áßä áÇ íßæä Úáì ÔÑØå Ãæ ãæÞæÝÇ ÞÇá áí Ãæ ÞÇá áäÇ æÞÏ ÚÑÝÊ Ðáß ÈÇáÇÓÊÞÑÇÁ ãä ÕäíÚå

Ibn Munthah said Bukhari would report Fulan said and Fulan said. This taldless in Saheh of Bukhari is common by him. Bukhari changed matns of ahadith, thats like lying upon what they said.

First of all, you keep bringing up the mistake by Ibn Mundah about alleged Tadlis in the chain and then go on to talk rubbish about alleged distortion of the matn. It's pretty obvious that you have no real argument.

Second, Ibn Mundah didn't provide proofs but simply interpreted the saying of Bukhari "X said to us" to be Tadlis which is wrong and many scholars refuted him. Of course you don't want to pay attention to that fact since your agenda is not to find the truth but simply to slander for the sake of slander.

The real reason why Imam Bukhari would sometimes use this form is in order to indicate that the narration is mawquf (although likely marfu') or in order to indicate that it falls short of fulfilling the sahih criteria on its own. This is the case when the chain is a supportive chain to a sahih chain also found in Sahih Bukhari.

For details, the interested reader is advised to read the short paragraph about that topic in the following nice article:

http://www.ibnamin.com/Manhaj/bukhari.htm

You failed to tell between Bukhari and Fathul Bari, so why should I believe you when your scholars say something that contradicts yours and your a nasibi.

The fact that you keep bringing up a simple mistake of mine into this discussion show more about you than about me. I was looking for the narration that your brother posted and where he stupidly assumed that there is a cycle in the chain in a combination of Sahih Bukhari with the sharh of Fath ul Bari. And I found a very similar looking chain in the Sharh, so I assumed that the poster actually took that. I later found the original narration and realised my mistake. That's all there is about it.

Other than that, I couldn't care less about whether you accept my word or not.

Thats ofcource a nasibi anti-Ahlu Al-Bayt as.gif link, ofcource they mixed lies just to hide the virtues Ahlu Albayt as.gif . I mean they aregue with no proof.

Everyone knows why Al-Thahabi wrote Talkhees, but you are just being a nasibi, as usuall. The fact Al-Thabi disagreed and agreed at times with Al-Hakem is clear proof that Al-Thahabi was giving his own opinion.

Thats why you notice when someone quotes the opinion of Al-Thahabi from talkhees, they say in arabic Wa Wafaqahu Al-Tahabi ææÇÝÞå ÇáÐåÈí . And Al-Thabi agreed with him (concerning the authencity of the hadith).

Thats clear proof that Al-Thahabi went with the opinion of Ibn Habban.

Thanks for proving that you didn't read the article.

Stop adding your lies, I showed the opinion of the majority of your scholars and they said he is relaible. And Bukhari was a mudlis, so he should speak for himself. And How could he have not heard Imam Ali as.gif when he was the leader of his army, unless he had his hands in his ears all the time when he was around Imam Ali as.gif. But of cource, that doesn't sound right jsut like your brains.

You brought exactly one scholar who called him a Thiqah which reminds me of how you declared the narration at hand to be mutawatir by bringing up the same chains several times.

Obviously, Ibn Adi doubts that he was indeed a member of the police.

But Al-Thahabi, Al-Hakem and Al-Hafiz Al-Bosayri didn't see it as bid'a did they?

Again, Adh-Dhahabi didn't authenticate it. Al-Bosayri said the chain is hassan, not the narration as you falsely claimed, ya mudallis. And Al-Hakim is well-known for his weakness in his Mustadrak.

But Al-Bani, mutaqi alhindi and Al-Hakem authenticated the hadith of Ja'far ibn Sulayman, who is shia but sadook, where he narrated that the prophet pbuh.gif said Ali is the master of every beliver after me.

Are you referring to the narration "anta wali kul mu'min min ba'di"?

Wha about ghadeer, how many of your scholars authenticated ones containing shias in them? does it not support the bida'a of shias?

Nope, because the context clarifies its meaning. Moreover, I assume that there are chains without Shia narrators.

Al-Al-Bani is hujjah for nawaseb like you, not all sunnis accept him. So his opinion is rejected by the main sunnis. Secondly, a sunni scholar by the name of Hassan Assaqqaf wrote a book called the contradictions of Al-Albani and showed his stupidity.

lol, why did you ask me for the reference if that's all you have to say afterwards? Al-Albani is highly respected for his expertise in Hadith among Ahl us-Sunnah. This isn't changed by stupid attacks of the like of the liar Hassan As-Saqqaf.

So in summary, not a single chain of this narration is strong. If some scholar like Al-Hakim authenticated it, he was mistaken and was contradicted by much more reliable scholars like Ad-Daraqutni and Bukhari and Albani.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the "I am still alive" comment.

NO! you really have dug your own grave' you are in this vicious circle which you really can't get out of

the uniquiness of the shia's we keep on slapping with your book's and you have to keep on lying agains't

your own book's and that is unique

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Except for useless insults, you didn't bring anything new which really shows how you failed.

First of all, you keep bringing up the mistake by Ibn Mundah about alleged Tadlis in the chain and then go on to talk rubbish about alleged distortion of the matn. It's pretty obvious that you have no real argument.

Second, Ibn Mundah didn't provide proofs but simply interpreted the saying of Bukhari "X said to us" to be Tadlis which is wrong and many scholars refuted him. Of course you don't want to pay attention to that fact since your agenda is not to find the truth but simply to slander for the sake of slander.

The real reason why Imam Bukhari would sometimes use this form is in order to indicate that the narration is mawquf (although likely marfu') or in order to indicate that it falls short of fulfilling the sahih criteria on its own. This is the case when the chain is a supportive chain to a sahih chain also found in Sahih Bukhari.

For details, the interested reader is advised to read the short paragraph about that topic in the following nice article:

http://www.ibnamin.com/Manhaj/bukhari.htm

As, always you don't have a clue of what you are talking about.

But here is some examples of Mr. Bukhari's tadlis.

þÍÏËäÇ þ þÇáÍãíÏí þ þÍÏËäÇ þ þÓÝíÇä þ þÍÏËäÇ þ þÚãÑæ Èä ÏíäÇÑ þ þÞÇá ÃÎÈÑäí þ þØÇæÓ þ þÃäå ÓãÚ þ þÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ þ þÑÖí Çááå ÚäåãÇ þ þíÞæá ÈáÛ þ þÚãÑ Èä ÇáÎØÇÈ þ

þÃä þ þÝáÇäÇ þ þÈÇÚ ÎãÑÇ ÝÞÇá ÞÇÊá Çááå ÝáÇäÇ Ãáã íÚáã Ãä ÑÓæá Çááå þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þÞÇá þ þÞÇÊá Çááå þ þÇáíåæÏ þ þÍÑãÊ Úáíåã ÇáÔÍæã ÝÌãáæåÇ ÝÈÇÚæåÇ

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display...=2071&doc=0

But look at all the other books what they say:

Muslim in his saheh narrates:

þÍÏËäÇ þ þÃÈæ ÈßÑ Èä ÃÈí ÔíÈÉ þ þæÒåíÑ Èä ÍÑÈ þ þæÅÓÍÞ Èä ÅÈÑÇåíã þ þæÇááÝÙ þ þáÃÈí ÈßÑ þ þÞÇáæÇ ÍÏËäÇ þ þÓÝíÇä Èä ÚííäÉ þ þÚä þ þÚãÑæ þ þÚä þ þØÇæÓ þ þÚä þ þÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ þ þÞÇá þ

þÈáÛ þ þÚãÑ þ þÃä þ þÓãÑÉ þ þÈÇÚ ÎãÑÇ ÝÞÇá ÞÇÊá Çááå þ þÓãÑÉ þ þÃáã íÚáã Ãä ÑÓæá Çááå þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þÞÇá þ þáÚä Çááå þ þÇáíåæÏ þ þÍÑãÊ Úáíåã ÇáÔÍæã þ þÝÌãáæåÇ þ þÝÈÇÚæåÇ þ

þÍÏËäÇ þ þÃãíÉ Èä ÈÓØÇã þ þÍÏËäÇ þ þíÒíÏ Èä ÒÑíÚ þ þÍÏËäÇ þ þÑæÍ íÚäí ÇÈä ÇáÞÇÓã þ þÚä þ þÚãÑæ Èä ÏíäÇÑ þ þÈåÐÇ ÇáÅÓäÇÏ þ þãËáå

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display...=2961&doc=1

Ahmed in his musnad narrates:

þÍÏËäÇ þ þÓÝíÇä þ þÚä þ þÚãÑæ þ þÚä þ þØÇæÓ þ þÚä þ þÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ þ

þÐßÑ þ þáÚãÑ þ þÃä þ þÓãÑÉ þ þæÞÇá ãÑÉ ÈáÛ þ þÚãÑ þ þÑÖí Çááå Úäå þ þÃä þ þÓãÑÉ þ þÈÇÚ ÎãÑÇ ÞÇá ÞÇÊá Çááå þ þÓãÑÉ þ þÅä ÑÓæá Çááå þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þÞÇá þ þáÚä Çááå þ þÇáíåæÏ þ þÍÑãÊ Úáíåã ÇáÔÍæã þ þÝÌãáæåÇ þ þÝÈÇÚæåÇ

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display...m=165&doc=6

Nisa'ei in his sunan narrates:

þÃÎÈÑäÇ þ þÅÓÍÞ Èä ÅÈÑÇåíã þ þÞÇá ÃäÈÃäÇ þ þÓÝíÇä þ þÚä þ þÚãÑæ þ þÚä þ þØÇæÓ þ þÚä þ þÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ þ þÞÇá þ

þÃÈáÛ þ þÚãÑ þ þÃä þ þÓãÑÉ þ þÈÇÚ ÎãÑÇ ÞÇá ÞÇÊá Çááå þ þÓãÑÉ þ þÃáã íÚáã Ãä ÑÓæá Çááå þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þÞÇá þ þÞÇÊá Çááå þ þÇáíåæÏ þ þÍÑãÊ Úáíåã ÇáÔÍæã ÝÌãáæåÇ

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display...=4184&doc=3

Ibn Majah in his sunan narrates:

þÍÏËäÇ þ þÃÈæ ÈßÑ Èä ÃÈí ÔíÈÉ þ þÍÏËäÇ þ þÓÝíÇä þ þÚä þ þÚãÑæ Èä ÏíäÇÑ þ þÚä þ þØÇæÓ þ þÚä þ þÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ þ þÞÇá þ

þÈáÛ þ þÚãÑ þ þÃä þ þÓãÑÉ þ þÈÇÚ ÎãÑÇ ÝÞÇá ÞÇÊá Çááå þ þÓãÑÉ þ þÃáã íÚáã Ãä ÑÓæá Çááå þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þÞÇá þ þáÚä Çááå þ þÇáíåæÏ þ þÍÑãÊ Úáíåã ÇáÔÍæã þ þÝÌãáæåÇ þ þÝÈÇÚæåÇ

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display...=3374&doc=5

Al-Darami in his sunan narrates:

þÍÏËäÇ þ þãÍãÏ Èä ÃÍãÏ þ þÍÏËäÇ þ þÓÝíÇä þ þÚä þ þÚãÑæ íÚäí ÇÈä ÏíäÇÑ þ þÚä þ þØÇæÓ þ þÚä þ þÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ þ þÞÇá þ

þÈáÛ þ þÚãÑ þ þÃä þ þÓãÑÉ þ þÈÇÚ ÎãÑÇ ÝÞÇá ÞÇÊá Çááå þ þÓãÑÉ þ þÃãÇ Úáã Ãä ÇáäÈí þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þÞÇá þ þáÚä Çááå þ þÇáíåæÏ þ þÍÑãÊ Úáíåã ÇáÔÍæã ÝÌãáæåÇ ÝÈÇÚæåÇ

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display...=2012&doc=8

And here is another example of his tadlis

Look at this hadith in saheh muslim

þæ ÍÏËäí þ þÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÃÓãÇÁ ÇáÖÈÚí þ þÍÏËäÇ þ þÌæíÑíÉ þ þÚä þ þãÇáß þ þÚä þ þÇáÒåÑí þ þÃä þ þãÇáß Èä ÃæÓ þ þÍÏËå ÞÇá þ þÃÑÓá Åáí þ þÚãÑ Èä ÇáÎØÇÈ þ þÝÌÆÊå Ííä ÊÚÇáì ÇáäåÇÑ ÞÇá ÝæÌÏÊå Ýí ÈíÊå ÌÇáÓÇ Úáì ÓÑíÑ þ þãÝÖíÇ þ þÅáì þ þÑãÇáå þ þãÊßÆÇ Úáì æÓÇÏÉ ãä þ þÃÏã þ þÝÞÇá áí þ þíÇ þ þãÇá þ þÅäå ÞÏ þ þÏÝ þ þÃåá ÃÈíÇÊ ãä Þæãß æÞÏ ÃãÑÊ Ýíåã þ þÈÑÖÎ þ þÝÎÐå ÝÇÞÓãå Èíäåã ÞÇá ÞáÊ áæ ÃãÑÊ ÈåÐÇ ÛíÑí ÞÇá ÎÐå þ þíÇ þ þãÇá þ þÞÇá ÝÌÇÁ þ þíÑÝÇ þ þÝÞÇá åá áß íÇ ÃãíÑ ÇáãÄãäíä Ýí þ þÚËãÇä þ þæÚÈÏ ÇáÑÍãä Èä ÚæÝ þ þæÇáÒÈíÑ þ þæÓÚÏ þ þÝÞÇá þ þÚãÑ þ þäÚã ÝÃÐä áåã ÝÏÎáæÇ Ëã ÌÇÁ ÝÞÇá åá áß Ýí þ þÚÈÇÓ þ þæÚáí þ þÞÇá äÚã ÝÃÐä áåãÇ ÝÞÇá þ þÚÈÇÓ þ þíÇ ÃãíÑ ÇáãÄãäíä ÇÞÖ Èíäí æÈíä åÐÇ ÇáßÇÐÈ ÇáÂËã ÇáÛÇÏÑ ÇáÎÇÆä ÝÞÇá ÇáÞæã ÃÌá íÇ ÃãíÑ ÇáãÄãäíä ÝÇÞÖ Èíäåã æÃÑÍåã þ þÝÞÇá þ þãÇáß Èä ÃæÓ þ þíÎíá Åáí Ãäåã ÞÏ ßÇäæÇ ÞÏãæåã áÐáß þ

þÝÞÇá þ þÚãÑ þ þÇÊÆÏÇ þ þÃäÔÏßã ÈÇááå ÇáÐí ÈÅÐäå ÊÞæã ÇáÓãÇÁ æÇáÃÑÖ ÃÊÚáãæä Ãä ÑÓæá Çááå þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þÞÇá þ þáÇ äæÑË ãÇ ÊÑßäÇ ÕÏÞÉ ÞÇáæÇ äÚã Ëã ÃÞÈá Úáì þ þÇáÚÈÇÓ þ þæÚáí þ þÝÞÇá ÃäÔÏßãÇ ÈÇááå ÇáÐí ÈÅÐäå ÊÞæã ÇáÓãÇÁ æÇáÃÑÖ ÃÊÚáãÇä Ãä ÑÓæá Çááå þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þÞÇá áÇ äæÑË ãÇ ÊÑßäÇå ÕÏÞÉ ÞÇáÇ äÚã ÝÞÇá þ þÚãÑ þ þÅä Çááå Ìá æÚÒ ßÇä ÎÕ ÑÓæáå þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þÈÎÇÕÉ áã íÎÕÕ ÈåÇ ÃÍÏÇ ÛíÑå ÞÇá þ

þãÇ þ þÃÝÇÁ þ þÇááå Úáì ÑÓæáå ãä Ãåá ÇáÞÑì Ýááå æááÑÓæá þ

þãÇ ÃÏÑí åá ÞÑà ÇáÂíÉ ÇáÊí ÞÈáåÇ Ãã áÇ þ þÞÇá ÝÞÓã ÑÓæá Çááå þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þÈíäßã ÃãæÇá þ þÈäí ÇáäÖíÑ þ þÝæÇááå ãÇ þ þÇÓÊÃËÑ þ þÚáíßã æáÇ ÃÎÐåÇ Ïæäßã ÍÊì ÈÞí åÐÇ ÇáãÇá ÝßÇä ÑÓæá Çááå þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þíÃÎÐ ãäå äÝÞÉ ÓäÉ Ëã íÌÚá ãÇ ÈÞí þ þÃÓæÉ ÇáãÇá þ þËã ÞÇá ÃäÔÏßã ÈÇááå ÇáÐí ÈÅÐäå ÊÞæã ÇáÓãÇÁ æÇáÃÑÖ ÃÊÚáãæä Ðáß ÞÇáæÇ äÚã Ëã äÔÏ þ þÚÈÇÓÇ þ þæÚáíÇ þ þÈãËá ãÇ äÔÏ Èå ÇáÞæã ÃÊÚáãÇä Ðáß ÞÇáÇ äÚã ÞÇá ÝáãÇ ÊæÝí ÑÓæá Çááå þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þÞÇá þ þÃÈæ ÈßÑ þ þÃäÇ æáí ÑÓæá Çááå þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þÝÌÆÊãÇ ÊØáÈ ãíÑÇËß ãä ÇÈä ÃÎíß æíØáÈ åÐÇ ãíÑÇË ÇãÑÃÊå ãä ÃÈíåÇ ÝÞÇá þ þÃÈæ ÈßÑ þ þÞÇá ÑÓæá Çááå þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þãÇ äæÑË ãÇ ÊÑßäÇå ÕÏÞÉ ÝÑÃíÊãÇå ßÇÐÈÇ ÂËãÇ ÛÇÏÑÇ ÎÇÆäÇ æÇááå íÚáã Åäå áÕÇÏÞ ÈÇÑ ÑÇÔÏ ÊÇÈÚ ááÍÞ Ëã ÊæÝí þ þÃÈæ ÈßÑ þ þæÃäÇ æáí ÑÓæá Çááå þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þææáí þ þÃÈí ÈßÑ þ þÝÑÃíÊãÇäí ßÇÐÈÇ ÂËãÇ ÛÇÏÑÇ ÎÇÆäÇ æÇááå íÚáã Åäí áÕÇÏÞ ÈÇÑ ÑÇÔÏ ÊÇÈÚ ááÍÞ ÝæáíÊåÇ Ëã ÌÆÊäí ÃäÊ æåÐÇ æÃäÊãÇ ÌãíÚ æÃãÑßãÇ æÇÍÏ ÝÞáÊãÇ ÇÏÝÚåÇ ÅáíäÇ ÝÞáÊ Åä ÔÆÊã ÏÝÚÊåÇ ÅáíßãÇ Úáì Ãä ÚáíßãÇ ÚåÏ Çááå Ãä ÊÚãáÇ ÝíåÇ ÈÇáÐí ßÇä íÚãá ÑÓæá Çááå þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þÝÃÎÐÊãÇåÇ ÈÐáß ÞÇá ÃßÐáß ÞÇáÇ äÚã ÞÇá Ëã

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display...SearchLevel=QBE

But if we look in bukhari, those underlined words just magicaly disappear .

ÍÏËäÇ þ þÚÈÏ Çááå Èä íæÓÝ þ þÍÏËäÇ þ þÇááíË þ þÍÏËäí þ þÚÞíá þ þÚä þ þÇÈä ÔåÇÈ þ þÞÇá ÃÎÈÑäí þ þãÇáß Èä ÃæÓ ÇáäÕÑí þ þæßÇä þ þãÍãÏ Èä ÌÈíÑ Èä ãØÚã þ þÐßÑ áí þ

ÐßÑÇ ãä Ðáß ÝÏÎáÊ Úáì þ þãÇáß þ þÝÓÃáÊå ÝÞÇá ÇäØáÞÊ ÍÊì ÃÏÎá Úáì þ þÚãÑ þ þÃÊÇå ÍÇÌÈå þ þíÑÝÇ þ þÝÞÇá åá áß Ýí þ þÚËãÇä þ þæÚÈÏ ÇáÑÍãä þ þæÇáÒÈíÑ þ þæÓÚÏ þ þíÓÊÃÐäæä ÞÇá äÚã ÝÏÎáæÇ ÝÓáãæÇ æÌáÓæÇ ÝÞÇá åá áß Ýí þ þÚáí þ þæÚÈÇÓ þ þÝÃÐä áåãÇ ÞÇá þ þÇáÚÈÇÓ þ þíÇ ÃãíÑ ÇáãÄãäíä ÇÞÖ Èíäí æÈíä ÇáÙÇáã ÇÓÊÈÇ ÝÞÇá ÇáÑåØ þ þÚËãÇä þ þæÃÕÍÇÈå íÇ ÃãíÑ ÇáãÄãäíä ÇÞÖ ÈíäåãÇ æÃÑÍ ÃÍÏåãÇ ãä ÇáÂÎÑ ÝÞÇá ÇÊÆÏæÇ ÃäÔÏßã ÈÇááå ÇáÐí ÈÅÐäå ÊÞæã ÇáÓãÇÁ æÇáÃÑÖ åá ÊÚáãæä Ãä ÑÓæá Çááå þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þÞÇá þ þáÇ äæÑË ãÇ ÊÑßäÇ ÕÏÞÉ íÑíÏ ÑÓæá Çááå þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þäÝÓå þ

ÞÇá ÇáÑåØ ÞÏ ÞÇá Ðáß ÝÃÞÈá þ þÚãÑ þ þÚáì þ þÚáí þ þæÚÈÇÓ þ þÝÞÇá ÃäÔÏßãÇ ÈÇááå åá ÊÚáãÇä Ãä ÑÓæá Çááå þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þÞÇá Ðáß ÞÇáÇ äÚã ÞÇá þ þÚãÑ þ þÝÅäí ãÍÏËßã Úä åÐÇ ÇáÃãÑ Åä Çááå ßÇä ÎÕ ÑÓæáå þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þÝí åÐÇ ÇáãÇá ÈÔíÁ áã íÚØå ÃÍÏÇ ÛíÑå ÝÅä Çááå íÞæá þ

ãÇ þ þÃÝÇÁ þ þÇááå Úáì ÑÓæáå ãäåã ÝãÇ ÃæÌÝÊã þ

ÇáÂíÉ ÝßÇäÊ åÐå ÎÇáÕÉ áÑÓæá Çááå þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þËã æÇááå ãÇ ÇÍÊÇÒåÇ Ïæäßã æáÇ ÇÓÊÃËÑ ÈåÇ Úáíßã æÞÏ ÃÚØÇßãæåÇ æÈËåÇ Ýíßã ÍÊì ÈÞí ãäåÇ åÐÇ ÇáãÇá æßÇä ÇáäÈí þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þíäÝÞ Úáì Ãåáå äÝÞÉ ÓäÊåã ãä åÐÇ ÇáãÇá Ëã íÃÎÐ ãÇ ÈÞí ÝíÌÚáå ãÌÚá ãÇá Çááå ÝÚãá ÇáäÈí þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þÈÐáß ÍíÇÊå ÃäÔÏßã ÈÇááå åá ÊÚáãæä Ðáß ÝÞÇáæÇ äÚã Ëã ÞÇá þ þáÚáí þ þæÚÈÇÓ þ þ ÃäÔÏßãÇ Çááå åá ÊÚáãÇä Ðáß ÞÇáÇ äÚã Ëã ÊæÝì Çááå äÈíå þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þÝÞÇá þ þÃÈæ ÈßÑ þ þÃäÇ æáí ÑÓæá Çááå þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þÝÞÈÖåÇ þ þÃÈæ ÈßÑ þ þÝÚãá ÝíåÇ ÈãÇ Úãá ÝíåÇ ÑÓæá Çááå þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þæÃäÊãÇ ÍíäÆÐ æÃÞÈá Úáì þ þÚáí þ þæÚÈÇÓ þ þÊÒÚãÇä Ãä þ þÃÈÇ ÈßÑ þ þÝíåÇ ßÐÇ æÇááå íÚáã Ãäå ÝíåÇ ÕÇÏÞ ÈÇÑ ÑÇÔÏ ÊÇÈÚ ááÍÞ Ëã ÊæÝì Çááå þ þÃÈÇ ÈßÑ þ þÝÞáÊ ÃäÇ æáí ÑÓæá Çááå þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þæÃÈí ÈßÑ þ þÝÞÈÖÊåÇ ÓäÊíä ÃÚãá ÝíåÇ ÈãÇ Úãá Èå ÑÓæá Çááå þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þæÃÈæ ÈßÑ þ þËã ÌÆÊãÇäí æßáãÊßãÇ Úáì ßáãÉ æÇÍÏÉ æÃãÑßãÇ ÌãíÚ ÌÆÊäí ÊÓÃáäí äÕíÈß ãä ÇÈä ÃÎíß æÃÊÇäí åÐÇ íÓÃáäí äÕíÈ ÇãÑÃÊå ãä ÃÈíåÇ ÝÞáÊ Åä ÔÆÊãÇ ÏÝÚÊåÇ ÅáíßãÇ Úáì Ãä ÚáíßãÇ ÚåÏ Çááå æãíËÇÞå áÊÚãáÇä ÝíåÇ ÈãÇ Úãá Èå ÑÓæá Çááå þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þæÈãÇ Úãá ÝíåÇ þ þÃÈæ ÈßÑ þ þæÈãÇ ÚãáÊ ÝíåÇ ãäÐ æáíÊåÇ æÅáÇ ÝáÇ ÊßáãÇäí ÝíåÇ ÝÞáÊãÇ ÇÏÝÚåÇ ÅáíäÇ ÈÐáß ÝÏÝÚÊåÇ ÅáíßãÇ ÈÐáß ÃäÔÏßã ÈÇááå åá ÏÝÚÊåÇ ÅáíåãÇ ÈÐáß ÞÇá ÇáÑåØ äÚã ÝÃÞÈá Úáì þ þÚáí þ þæÚÈÇÓ þ þÝÞÇá ÃäÔÏßãÇ ÈÇááå åá ÏÝÚÊåÇ ÅáíßãÇ ÈÐáß ÞÇáÇ äÚã ÞÇá ÃÝÊáÊãÓÇä ãäí ÞÖÇÁ ÛíÑ Ðáß ÝæÇáÐí ÈÅÐäå ÊÞæã ÇáÓãÇÁ æÇáÃÑÖ áÇ ÃÞÖí ÝíåÇ ÞÖÇÁ ÛíÑ

Hmmmmm.......

Obviously, Ibn Adi doubts that he was indeed a member of the police.

You are just a liar, he just said he didn't narrate from Imam Ali (as). But obvaisely his wrong because history has proven otherwise.

So hadith is saheh, since the narrators are relaible.

Again, Adh-Dhahabi didn't authenticate it. Al-Bosayri said the chain is hassan, not the narration as you falsely claimed, ya mudallis. And Al-Hakim is well-known for his weakness in his Mustadrak.

Here we go again speaking with no proof, AS ALWAYS. You are trying to change something that has been agreed upon for hundred of years because of hatred to Imam Ali (as).

But here is proof that when Al-Thahabi says this hadith is saheh in talkhees that means it HIS opinion.

Al-Albani says in his books Assilsilah Assahihah, concerning a hadith that was authenticated by both Al-Hakem and Al-Thahabi

ÞÇá ÇáÃáÈÇäí Ýí " ÇáÓáÓáÉ ÇáÕÍíÍÉ " 4 / 10 :

ÃÎÑÌå ÇáÍÇßã ( 4 / 122 ) ãä ØÑíÞ ÇÈä æåÈ Úä ÃÈí åÇäí ÇáÎæáÇäí Úä ÃÈí Úáí

ÇáÌäÈí - æ åæ ÚãÑæ Èä ãÇáß - Úä ÝÖÇáÉ Èä ÚÈíÏ ÑÖí Çááå Úäå Ãäå ÓãÚ ÑÓæá

Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã íÞæá : ÝÐßÑå . æ ÞÇá : " ÕÍíÍ ÇáÅÓäÇÏ " . æ æÇÝÞå

ÇáÐåÈí . æ åæ ßãÇ ÞÇáÇ . æ ÃÎÑÌå ÇáÊÑãÐí ( 2 / 56 ) æ ÇÈä ÍÈÇä ( 2541 )

æ ÇáÍÇßã ( 1 / 35 ) æ ßÐÇ ÇÈä ÇáãÈÇÑß Ýí " ÇáÒåÏ " ( 553 ) æ ãä ØÑíÞå

ÇáÞÖÇÚí Ýí " ãÓäÏå " ( Þ 52 / 1 ) æ ÃÍãÏ ( 6 / 19 ) ãä ØÑíÞ ÍíæÉ Èä ÔÑíÍ :

ÃÎÈÑäí ÃÈæ åÇäí ... ÈáÝÙ : " ØæÈì áãä åÏí ... " ÇáÍÏíË . æ ÞÇá ÇáÊÑãÐí :

" ÍÏíË ÍÓä ÕÍíÍ " . æ ÞÇá ÇáÍÇßã : " ÕÍíÍ Úáì ÔÑØ ãÓáã " . æ æÇÝÞå ÇáÐåÈí .

æ ÃÞæá : ÇáÕæÇÈ : Ãäå ÕÍíÍ ÝÞØ ßãÇ ÞÇáÇ Ýí ÇáÑæÇíÉ ÇáÃæáì

http://islamport.com/d/1/alb/1/19/136.html...%D0%E5%C8%ED%22

So when Al-Thahabi says something is saheh that means he is agreeing with Al-Thahabi, ya jahel....

Further proof...

ÞáÊ : æ åÐÇ ÓäÏ ÕÍíÍ Úáì ÔÑØ ÇáÔíÎíä ßãÇ ÞÇá ÇáÍÇßã ¡ æ æÇÝÞå ÇáÐåÈí

http://islamport.com/d/1/alb/1/19/119.html...%D0%E5%C8%ED%22

There is more proof, but this is enogh, even for the blind.

Hatred towards Imam Ali (as) makes you blind. We are arguing over useless stuff.

Lanatullah Ala Annawaseb.

And about Al-Bosayri, I wasn't really distiguishing between the hadith and the isnaad. But thats how we usually talk in discussions, if one of us says so and so scholar said the hadith is saheh, he doesn't specifically mean the scholar was talking about the hadith.

Anyway, hadith declared saheh by Al-Hakem, Al-Thahabi and Hassan By Al-Bosayri... And thats enough to prve it's authencity.. And plus the fact that it has other chians supportig it.

Are you referring to the narration "anta wali kul mu'min min ba'di"?

Yes...

Nope, because the context clarifies its meaning. Moreover, I assume that there are chains without Shia narrators.

But it supports his bida, shias claim ghadir khumm proves imam Ali (pbuh) Imamah.

And by the way, the context actually proves that the prophet (pbuh) was appionting Imam Ali (as), because the prophet (pbuh) mentioned hadith Al-Thaqlayn and said do i not have more authority over you? Which makes that mawla meant authority not friendship.

lol, why did you ask me for the reference if that's all you have to say afterwards? Al-Albani is highly respected for his expertise in Hadith among Ahl us-Sunnah. This isn't changed by stupid attacks of the like of the liar Hassan As-Saqqaf.

So in summary, not a single chain of this narration is strong. If some scholar like Al-Hakim authenticated it, he was mistaken and was contradicted by much more reliable scholars like Ad-Daraqutni and Bukhari and Albani.

Addarqatani never said its weak nor did bukhari ya khazaab. Show me were they did?

Al-Albani is a wahabi. Other sunnis dont accept him, and he is only one.

Al-Thahabi and Al-Hakem who are know more about ilm arijjal said it's saheh.

And Albosayri said its hassan.

They are accepted my the maority and out number Al-Albani.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bro Albaqyr, may the peace and blessings of Allah (swt) be upon you and your progeny till Doomsday and beyond. You are our golden jewel, which we cannot do without.

You are a true soldier of Imam Mahdi (as).

For those willing to learn about Albaani and his disqualification as a scholar of hadith, this link is a superb one http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/albintro.htm

People like Mufti and Muhawir are only following in his footsteps and ignorance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...