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

A Short Story

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(salam)

The Holy Prophet (pbuh) declared:

Åäø ÚáíÇð ãäí æÃäÇ ãä Úáí æåæ æáí ßá ãÄãä ÈÚÏí

Certainly, Ali is from me and am from Ali, and he is the Master of every believer after me.

1. Al-Isabah 4/569 (Al-Asqalani declares its chain to be strong)

2. Kanz al-Ummal 11/608 No. 32941 (al-Hindi declares the hadith sahih)

3. Kanz al-Ummal 13/142 No. 36444 (al-Hindi cites Ibn Jarir al-Tabari’s declaration of the hadith as being sahih)

4. Al-Sunnah Ibn Abu Asim 550, No. 1187 (al-Albani declares its chain to be sahih)

5. Sahih Sunan al-Tirmidhi 3/521 (al-Albani declares the hadith sahih)

He also directly told Imam Ali (as):

ÃäÊ æáí ßá ãÄãä ÈÚÏí

You (Ali) are the master of every believer after me.

1. Mustadrak al-Hakim 3/143 No. 4652 (declared sahih by both al-Hakim and al-Dhahabi)

2. Musnad al-Tayalesi 1/360 No. 2752

3. Mu’jam al-Kabir, al-Tabarani, 12/97

4. Fadail al-Sahabah, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, 2/682 No. 1168

The reason for this is that the Ummah cannot be left without a guide after the Holy Prophet (pbuh). And, Imam Ali (as) was the most qualified creature that could continue his functions after him. Besides, a patricular principle was established by Allah (swt), which was a pointer to what was to come. NONE CAN PERFORM HIS FUNCTIONS IN THE CORRECT MANNER EXCEPT THE MEN OF HIS AHL AL-BAYT (as). We read:

«Úáí ãäí æÃäÇ ãä Úáí æáÇ íÄÏí Úäí ÅáÇ ÃäÇ Ãæ Úáí

Ali is from me and I am from Ali, and none can discharge my duties except me or Ali.

Musnad Ahmad 13/394-396 (Hamza Ahmad al-Zeen declares it sahih)

Tarikh Dimashq Ibn Asakir 12/15/1

Sunan al-Tirmidhi 5/300, No. 3803 (Imam al-Tirmidhi declares it hasan)

Khasais Amir al-Muminin, Imam al-Nisai, 67

Mu’jam al-Kabir, al-Tabarani, No. 3511

Sunan Ibn Majah 1/44, No. 119

Al-Sunan al-Kabir, Imam al-Nisai, 5/45, No. 8147

Siyar Alam al-Nubala 8/212 (al-Dhahabi declares it hasan)

Siyar Alam al-Nubala 8/212 (its annotator declares it sahih)

Sahih al-Jami’ al-Saghir 2/753 (al-Albani declares it hasan)

Sahih Sunan Ibn Majah 1/75 (al-Albani declares it hasan)

Tahdhib Khasais 67 (al-Huwayni al-Athri declares it sahih)

The Holy Prophet (pbuh) also put these words into practice. We read:

ÃäÓ Èä ãÇáß ÞÇá: «ÈÚË ÇáäÈí Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã ÈÈÑÇÁÉ ãÚ ÃÈí ÈßÑ¡ Ëã ÏÚÇå ÝÞÇá: áÇ íäÈÛí áÃÍÏ Ãäú íõÈáÛ åÐÇ ÅáÇ ÑÌá ãä Ãåáí¡ ÝÏÚÇ ÚáíÜøÇð ÝÃÚØÇå ÅíÇåÇ

Narrated Anas ibn Malik:

The Prophet (pbuh) sent Abubakr with Bara’a (i.e. Surat Taubah). Then, he recalled him and said: “It is not right for ANYONE to deliver that surah except a man from my family”. Then, he called Ali, and gave the surah to him.

Mustadrak al-Hakim 3/132-134 (both al-Hakim and al-Dhahabi declare it sahih)

Musnad Ahmad 3/331-333, No. 3062 (Ahmad Muhammad Shakir declares it sahih)

Tahdhib Khasais 67-68 (al-Huwayni al-Athri declares it sahih)

Somebody was to deliver Surat Taubah at Hajj on behalf of the Holy Prophet (pbuh). The Holy Prophet (pbuh) initially deliberately sent Abubakr with it, then recalled him, and gave it to Imam Ali (as). It was indeed to pass a clear message to all coming generations of Muslims.

Shaykh al-Albani, in his Zilal al-Jannah 2/338, No. 1189, records this declaration of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) to Imam Ali (as):

ÃãÇ ÊÑÖì Ãä Êßæä ãäí ÈãäÒáÉ åÇÑæä ãä ãæÓì ÅáÇ Ãäß áÓÊ ÈäÈí Åäå áÇ íäÈÛí Ãä ÃÐåÈ ÅáÇ æÃäÊ ÎáíÝÊí ÞÇá æÞÇá áå ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã ÃäÊ æáíí Ýí ßá ãÄãä ÈÚÏí

Are you not pleased that you are to me what Harun was to Musa, except that you are not a prophet. It is not right for me to leave except that you are my khalifah (successor). You are my wali (successor) over EVERY believer after me.

Al-Albani comments:

æÃÎÑÌå ÇáÍÇßã ÈØæáå ãä ØÑíÞ ÃÍãÏ Ëã ÞÇá ÕÍíÍ ÇáÅÓäÇÏ ææÇÝÞå ÇáÐåÈí

Al-Hakim has recorded it as part of a longer hadith through the route of Ahmad, and has declared its chain sahih, and al-Dhahabi agreed with it.

In Kitab al-Sunnah 1188, al-Albani also records:

ÃäÊ ãäí ÈãäÒáÉ åÇÑæä ãä ãæÓì ÃáÇ Åäß äÈíÇ Ãäå áÇ íäÈÛí Ãä ÃÐåÈ ÅáÇ æ ÃäÊ ÎáíÝÊí Ýí ßá ãÄãä ãä ÈÚÏí

Your rank in relation to me is like that of Harun to Musa except that you are not a prophet. It is not right for me to leave except that you are my khalifah (successor) upon every believer after me.

Al-Albani comments:

ÅÓäÇÏå ÍÓä

Its chain is hasan.

This is the version recorded in Fadail al-Sahabah of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, No. 1168:

ÃãÇ ÊÑÖì Ãä Êßæä ãäí ÈãäÒáÉ åÇÑæä ãä ãæÓì ÅáÇ Ãäß áíÓ ÈäÈí áÇ íäÈÛí Ãä ÃÐåÈ ÅáÇ æÃäÊ ÎáíÝÊí

Are you not pleased that you are to me what Harun was to Musa, except that you are not a prophet. It is not right for me to leave except that you are my khalifah (successor).

Its annotator, Wasiullah, states:

ÅÓäÇÏå ÍÓä

Its chain is hasan.

Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, in his al-Isabah (Dar al-Jayl, Beirut, first print, 1412; annotator: Ali Muhammad al-Bajawi) 4/568 has also recorded this, in a book where he has compiled authentic facts about the Sahabah:

ÃäÊ ãäí ÈãäÒáÉ åÇÑæä ãä ãæÓì ÅáÇ Ãäß áÓÊ ÈäÈí Ãí áÇ íäÈÛí Ãä ÇÐåÈ ÅáÇ æÃäÊ ÎáíÝÊí æÞÇá áå ÃäÊ æáí ßá ãÄãä ãä ÈÚÏí

Your rank in relation to me is like that of Harun to Musa except that you are not a prophet. It is not right for me to leave except you are my khalifah (successor). You are my wali (successor) over EVERY believer after me.

Imam al-Nisai has also recorded it in his al-Sunan al-Kubra (Dar al-Kutub al-Alamiyah, Beirut, first print, 1991):

ÃãÇ ÊÑÖì Ãä Êßæä ãäí ÈãäÒáÉ åÇÑæä ãä ãæÓì ÅáÇ Ãäß áÓÊ ÈäÈí Ëã ÞÇá ÃäÊ ÎáíÝÊí íÚäí Ýí ßá ãÄãä ãä ÈÚÏí

Are you pleased that your rank in relation to me is like that of Harun to Musa except that you are not a prophet. You are my successor over EVERY believer after me.

This is the chain for this one:

... ÃÎÈÑäÇ ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáãËäì ÞÇá ÍÏËäÇ íÍíì Èä ÍãÇÏ ÞÇá ÍÏËäÇ ÇáæÖÇÍ æåæ ÃÈæ ÚæÇäÉ ÞÇá ÍÏËäÇ íÍíì ÞÇá ÍÏËäÇ ÚãÑæ Èä ãíãæä ÞÇá : Åäí áÌÇáÓ Åáì Èä ÚÈÇÓ

Its annotators, Abdul Ghafar Sulayman al-Bandari and Sayyid Kisrawi Hasan, say:

ÞÇá Úäå ÃÍãÏ ÔÇßÑ :ÅÓäÇÏå ÕÍíÍ

Shaykh Ahmad Shakir has said about it: Its chain is sahih.

In Majma' al-Zawaid 9/157, No. 14696, we read:

ÃáÇ ÊÑÖì Ãä Êßæä ãäí ÈãäÒáÉ åÇÑæä ãä ãæÓì ¿ ÅáÇ Ãäß áÓÊ ÈäÈí Åäå áÇ íäÈÛí Ãä ÃÐåÈ ÅáÇ æÃäÊ ÎáíÝÊí " . æÞÇá áå ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã : " ÃäÊ æáí ßá ãÄãä ÈÚÏí

Are you not pleased that your rank in relation to me is like that of Harun to Musa except that you are not a prophet? It is not right for me to leave except that you are my khalifah. You are the master of ALL believers.

Al-Haythami comments:

" ÑæÇå ÃÍãÏ æÇáØÈÑÇäí Ýí ÇáßÈíÑ æÇáÃæÓØ ÈÇÎÊÕÇÑ æÑÌÇá ÃÍãÏ ÑÌÇá ÇáÕÍíÍ ÛíÑ ÃÈí ÈáÌ ÇáÝÒÇÑí æåæ ËÞÉ

Ahmad and al-Tabarani in al-Kabir and al-Awsat have recorded it in a summarized form, and the narrators of Ahmad are narrators of Sahih except Abu Bilj al-Fazari, and he is thiqah.

This should be sufficient for the wise!

THE BETRAYAL

The Holy Prophet (pbuh) himself predicted what was to come. We read in al-Mustadrak, Hadith Number 4676, these words of Imam Ali (as):

ÍÏËäÇ ÃÈæ ÍÝÕ ÚãÑ Èä ÃÍãÏ ÇáÌãÍí ÈãßÉ ¡ ËäÇ Úáí Èä ÚÈÏ ÇáÚÒíÒ ¡ ËäÇ ÚãÑæ Èä Úæä ¡ ËäÇ åÔíã ¡ Úä ÅÓãÇÚíá Èä ÓÇáã ¡ Úä ÃÈí ÅÏÑíÓ ÇáÃæÏí Úä Úáí ÑÖí Çááå Úäå ÞÇá : Åä ããÇ ÚåÏ Åáíø ÇáäÈí Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã Ãä ÇáÃãÉ ÓÊÛÏÑ Èí ÈÚÏå .

From what the Holy Prophet told me is that the Ummah will betray me after him.

Imam al-Hakim said:

åÐÇ ÍÏíË ÕÍíÍ ÇáÅÓäÇÏ æáã íÎÑÌÇå

The chain is sahih although they(Bukhari and Muslim) have not recorded it.

Imam al-Dhahabi has also said about the hadith:

ÕÍíÍ

It is sahih.

See http://islamport.com/d/1/mtn/1/22/480.html...C8%DA%CF%E5+%22.

So, they did betray him, and seized his right. And this is why the Ahl al-Bayt (as) never recognized the kingship of Abubakr and his successors. We read in al-Isabah 2/77:

æÞÇá íÍíì Èä ÓÚíÏ ÇáÃäÕÇÑí Úä ÚÈíÏ Èä Íäíä ÍÏËäí ÇáÍÓíä Èä Úáí ÞÇá ÃÊíÊ ÚãÑ æåæ íÎØÈ Úáì ÇáãäÈÑ ÝÕÚÏÊ Åáíå ÝÞáÊ ÇäÒá Úä ãäÈÑ ÃÈí æÇÐåÈ Åáì ãäÈÑ ÃÈíß ÝÞÇá ÚãÑ áã íßä áÃÈí ãäÈÑ

Narrated al-Husayn ibn Ali:

I went to Umar while he was given a sermon over the minbar (pulpit). I ascended to him and said: "Come down from the minbar of my father, and go to the minbar of your father!". Umar answered: "It is not the minbar of my father".

Al-Hafiz al-Asqalani states:

ÓäÏå ÕÍíÍ

Its chain is sahih.

Al-Dhahabi too in his Siyar Alam al-Nubala 3/285 has recorded it, with this comment:

ÅÓäÇÏå ÕÍíÍ

Its chain is sahih.

We should remember that the minbar is the symbol of the Prophet's (pbuh) khilafah. Interestingly, the above narration, declared to have a sahih chain by both al-Asqalani and al-Dhahabi, also has this further statement of Umar to Imam al-Husayn (as):

ÝÅäãÇ ÃäÈÊ ãÇ ÊÑì Ýí ÑÄæÓäÇ Çááå Ëã ÃäÊã

None, apart from Allah, is above our heads except you people (i.e. Ahl al-Bayt).

And, of course, it has a sahih chain!

Let me end this with this quote from Tarikh Khulafa of Imam al-Suyuti (English translation), the part on Umar:

Ibn ‘Asakir narrated that Abu’l-Bakhtari said: ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab used to give the khutbah on the minbar. Al-Hussein ibn ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, stood up before him and said, ‘Come down from my father’s minbar.’ ‘Umar said, ‘It is the minbar of your father and not the minbar of my father. Who told you to do this?’ ‘Ali stood and said, ‘By Allah, no-one told him to do this. I will certainly cause you (al-Hussein) some pain, traitor.’ He (‘Umar) said, ‘Don’t hurt the son of my brother, for he has told the truth, it is the minbar of his father.’

Culled from this Sunni website http://www.bogvaerker.dk/Umar.html

Edited by toyibonline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Subhanallah

:yaali:

Ya Ali

(salam)

I only mentioned that some people betrayed Imam Ali (as). Of course, they are going to Hellfire. But, what about us, who have accepted his wilayah?

Ibn Hajar al-Makki, in his al-Sawaiq al-Muhriqah (Musassat al-Risalat, Beirut, first print, 1997; annotators: Abdul Rahman ibn Abdullah al-Turki and Kamil Muhammad) 2/468, states:

æÃÎÑÌ ÇáÏÇÑÞØäí íÇ ÃÈÇ ÇáÍÓä ÃãÇ ÃäÊ æÔíÚÊß Ýí ÇáÌäÉ

Al-Darqutni has narrated this hadith:

O father of al-Hasan (i.e. Imam Ali)! As for you and your Shi'a, you will be in Paradise!

Al-Makki states:

ÞÇá ÇáÏÇÑÞØäí áåÐÇ ÇáÍÏíË ÚäÏäÇ ØÑÞÇÊ ßËíÑÉ

Al-Darqutni said that this hadith, with us, has lots of chains.

Of course, for anyone with some knowledge of the Sunni ilm al-hadith, that shows that it has a basis. It cannot be denied. It is authentic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(salam)

I only mentioned that some people betrayed Imam Ali (as). Of course, they are going to Hellfire. But, what about us, who have accepted his wilayah?

Ibn Hajar al-Makki, in his al-Sawaiq al-Muhriqah (Musassat al-Risalat, Beirut, first print, 1997; annotators: Abdul Rahman ibn Abdullah al-Turki and Kamil Muhammad) 2/468, states:

æÃÎÑÌ ÇáÏÇÑÞØäí íÇ ÃÈÇ ÇáÍÓä ÃãÇ ÃäÊ æÔíÚÊß Ýí ÇáÌäÉ

Al-Darqutni has narrated this hadith:

O father of al-Hasan (i.e. Imam Ali)! As for you and your Shi'a, you will be in Paradise!

Al-Makki states:

ÞÇá ÇáÏÇÑÞØäí áåÐÇ ÇáÍÏíË ÚäÏäÇ ØÑÞÇÊ ßËíÑÉ

Al-Darqutni said that this hadith, with us, has lots of chains.

Of course, for anyone with some knowledge of the Sunni ilm al-hadith, that shows that it has a basis. It cannot be denied. It is authentic!

Salamou Alaykom Brother Toyyib,

Thanks for the postings, very interesting hadiths as I have heard most of them before but I never knew they deemed it @ least Hasan.

That hadith quoted up there is interesting...

But then what is the defense/excuse of the Sunnis according to this quoted hadith if you know any?

WaSalam and Fee Amanillah,

Abu Fadhl Al-Hashem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salamou Alaykom Brother Toyyib,

Thanks for the postings, very interesting hadiths as I have heard most of them before but I never knew they deemed it @ least Hasan.

That hadith quoted up there is interesting...

But then what is the defense/excuse of the Sunnis according to this quoted hadith if you know any?

WaSalam and Fee Amanillah,

Abu Fadhl Al-Hashem

Wa 'alaikum salam brother,

Honestly speaking, I do not know why Sunnis remain what they are. There are just too many sound proofs for us in their books. But, can we force the blind to see.

I did not have access to as much proofs as I have posted here on ShiaChat when I converted to Shi'ism. So, I just wonder why people can still blindly follow whatever they follow!

I think I once read Bro. Abdaal accepting that the hadith is authentic. However, he gave it a new interpretation. i.e. the term "Shi'a" there applies only to the Sahabah who followed Imam Ali (as), like Salman al-Muhammadi (as), Abu Dhar al-Ghifari (ra), and others.

toyib , u sound knowledgeable in ahadiths. Have you been on the haq chaar yaar website? Can you refute the hadiths,please?

I have gone to that website a few times, the last time as Anti-Nasibi. However, their akhlaq frustrates me each time. Rather than address the issues, they attack you.

Plus, I am not that knowledgeable in hadith. Syed Jarry Haider is much more knowledgeable than I am when it comes to hadith, both Sunni and Shi'a. And he was a major participant on that website, and used to destroy the Nawasib in a groundbreaking way. I don't know if he is still active there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've also been on the site several times. When they "argue", they use shia hadiths, which kind of freaks me out. Also they use the books of al saduq and other ulema. I guess it was probably beacause it was the first time i've seen a sunni use shia ahadiths.

Bro, they ALWAYS use weak Shi'a hadiths. Only if you had read some of Syed Jarry Haider's debates with them. His id on that website is Vsd. Of course, if the only hadiths from our books you can quote are the weak, batil ones, then what reasons do I have to debate with you, especially when your language is very bad?? Bro, THAT exactly is their problem on that site.

As you must have noticed, we rely only on their own authentic narrations. THEY NEVER CAN DO THAT WITH OUR HADITHS. Just take my word!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First and foremost, the first two caliph disobeyed the commands of the Prophet (pbuh).

Bro Toyib, I don't think the problem relies in the hadiths. I will tell you even if you present them with an AUTHENTIC hadith that doesn't accept dispute they will still declare it fabrication. Yes it is that serious. These people have no hope. However, you should not stop what you're doing. Eventually a few people will see the path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jazak Allah brother Touyibonline :)

toyib , u sound knowledgeable in ahadiths. Have you been on the haq chaar yaar website? Can you refute the hadiths,please?

That is the most filthiest forum on net. It is good that people like alilal (i think some number is also after this nick) are there who stop reasonable Shia persons from taking part in the forum. I know many knowledgeable Shias visited and talked on that forum (like brother link) but the non sense and immoral behavior of the Nasibi moderators and Nasibi members stopped them from continuing. However forumofislam.com was a good forum to visit and have balanced views of Shias and Sunnis but that forum is down now.

I've also been on the site several times. When they "argue", they use shia hadiths, which kind of freaks me out. Also they use the books of al saduq and other ulema. I guess it was probably beacause it was the first time i've seen a sunni use shia ahadiths.

BTW you seem alilal from Nasibi forum :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leave the authenticity discussion for a while, tell how any of the hadith qouted by u hurt any of the belief of Ahlussunnah wal Jama'ah in any way. @toyib

I bet it doesn't! :!!!: . Certainly, you cannot force the blind to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I bet it doesn't! :!!!: . Certainly, you cannot force the blind to see.

what else i can hope from som1 who doesn't understand simple talk. Its amazing that you've posted those hadith which prove our point more than yours.

ÝÓÈÍÇä Çááå

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its amazing that you've posted those hadith which prove our point more than yours.

ÝÓÈÍÇä Çááå

I'm sorry, but have you been praying too close to burning joss sticks and "inhaled" ? How do those ahadeeth possibly strengthen your point? That is, unless you are using some sort of weird nasibi batini ta'weel, where everything that is haqq is interpreted as batil and vice versa ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

Shows that Imam 'Ali (as)'s appointment is a divine appointment and it is the hukm of Allah (swt). Also shows that Imam `Ali (as) is his political, spiritual, and social successor and better than any other "companion."

(salam)

Al Imamah lutf minallah. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In Kitab al-Sunnah 1188, al-Albani also records:

ÃäÊ ãäí ÈãäÒáÉ åÇÑæä ãä ãæÓì ÃáÇ Åäß äÈíÇ Ãäå áÇ íäÈÛí Ãä ÃÐåÈ ÅáÇ æ ÃäÊ ÎáíÝÊí Ýí ßá ãÄãä ãä ÈÚÏí

Your rank in relation to me is like that of Harun to Musa except that you are not a prophet. It is not right for me to leave except that you are my khalifah (successor) upon every believer after me.

Al-Albani comments:

ÅÓäÇÏå ÍÓä

Its chain is hasan.

This is the version recorded in Fadail al-Sahabah of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, No. 1168:

ÃãÇ ÊÑÖì Ãä Êßæä ãäí ÈãäÒáÉ åÇÑæä ãä ãæÓì ÅáÇ Ãäß áíÓ ÈäÈí áÇ íäÈÛí Ãä ÃÐåÈ ÅáÇ æÃäÊ ÎáíÝÊí

Are you not pleased that you are to me what Harun was to Musa, except that you are not a prophet. It is not right for me to leave except that you are my khalifah (successor).

Its annotator, Wasiullah, states:

ÅÓäÇÏå ÍÓä

Its chain is hasan.

Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, in his al-Isabah (Dar al-Jayl, Beirut, first print, 1412; annotator: Ali Muhammad al-Bajawi) 4/568 has also recorded this, in a book where he has compiled authentic facts about the Sahabah:

ÃäÊ ãäí ÈãäÒáÉ åÇÑæä ãä ãæÓì ÅáÇ Ãäß áÓÊ ÈäÈí Ãí áÇ íäÈÛí Ãä ÇÐåÈ ÅáÇ æÃäÊ ÎáíÝÊí æÞÇá áå ÃäÊ æáí ßá ãÄãä ãä ÈÚÏí

Your rank in relation to me is like that of Harun to Musa except that you are not a prophet. It is not right for me to leave except you are my khalifah (successor). You are my wali (successor) over EVERY believer after me.

Imam al-Nisai has also recorded it in his al-Sunan al-Kubra (Dar al-Kutub al-Alamiyah, Beirut, first print, 1991):

ÃãÇ ÊÑÖì Ãä Êßæä ãäí ÈãäÒáÉ åÇÑæä ãä ãæÓì ÅáÇ Ãäß áÓÊ ÈäÈí Ëã ÞÇá ÃäÊ ÎáíÝÊí íÚäí Ýí ßá ãÄãä ãä ÈÚÏí

Are you pleased that your rank in relation to me is like that of Harun to Musa except that you are not a prophet. You are my successor over EVERY believer after me.

This is the chain for this one:

... ÃÎÈÑäÇ ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáãËäì ÞÇá ÍÏËäÇ íÍíì Èä ÍãÇÏ ÞÇá ÍÏËäÇ ÇáæÖÇÍ æåæ ÃÈæ ÚæÇäÉ ÞÇá ÍÏËäÇ íÍíì ÞÇá ÍÏËäÇ ÚãÑæ Èä ãíãæä ÞÇá : Åäí áÌÇáÓ Åáì Èä ÚÈÇÓ

Its annotators, Abdul Ghafar Sulayman al-Bandari and Sayyid Kisrawi Hasan, say:

ÞÇá Úäå ÃÍãÏ ÔÇßÑ :ÅÓäÇÏå ÕÍíÍ

Shaykh Ahmad Shakir has said about it: Its chain is sahih.

In Majma' al-Zawaid 9/157, No. 14696, we read:

ÃáÇ ÊÑÖì Ãä Êßæä ãäí ÈãäÒáÉ åÇÑæä ãä ãæÓì ¿ ÅáÇ Ãäß áÓÊ ÈäÈí Åäå áÇ íäÈÛí Ãä ÃÐåÈ ÅáÇ æÃäÊ ÎáíÝÊí " . æÞÇá áå ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã : " ÃäÊ æáí ßá ãÄãä ÈÚÏí

Are you not pleased that your rank in relation to me is like that of Harun to Musa except that you are not a prophet? It is not right for me to leave except that you are my khalifah. You are the master of ALL believers.

Al-Haythami comments:

" ÑæÇå ÃÍãÏ æÇáØÈÑÇäí Ýí ÇáßÈíÑ æÇáÃæÓØ ÈÇÎÊÕÇÑ æÑÌÇá ÃÍãÏ ÑÌÇá ÇáÕÍíÍ ÛíÑ ÃÈí ÈáÌ ÇáÝÒÇÑí æåæ ËÞÉ

Ahmad and al-Tabarani in al-Kabir and al-Awsat have recorded it in a summarized form, and the narrators of Ahmad are narrators of Sahih except Abu Bilj al-Fazari, and he is thiqah.

This should be sufficient for the wise!

Well, The first thing you need to realize that thhe world khalifa doesn't necessarily means a Caliph of Muslim state.

Úä ÇáäæÇÓ Èä ÓãÚÇä ÑÖí Çááå Úäå ÞÇá: ÐßÑ ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã ÇáÏÌÇá ÐÇÊ ÛÏÇÉ ÝÎÝÖ Ýíå æÑÝÚ ÍÊì ÙääÇå Ýí ØÇÆÝÉ ÇáäÎá ÝáãÇ ÑÍäÇ Åáíå ÚÑÝ Ðáß ÝíäÇ ÝÞÇá ãÇ ÔÃäßã ¿ ÞáäÇ íÇ ÑÓæá Çááå ÐßÑÊ ÇáÏÌÇá ÇáÛÏÇÉ ÝÎÝÖÊ Ýíå æÑÝÚÊ ÍÊì ÙääÇå Ýí ØÇÆÝÉ ÇáäÎá ÝÞÇá ÛíÑ ÇáÏÌÇá ÃÎæÝäí Úáíßã Åä íÎÑÌ æÃäÇ Ýíßã ÝÃäÇ ÍÌíÌå Ïæäßã æÅä íÎÑÌ æáÓÊ Ýíßã Ýßá ÇãÑíÆ ÍÌíÌ äÝÓå æÇááå ÎáíÝÊí Úáì ßá ãÓáã

ÑæÇå ãÓáã

Here in the above hadith Prophet has said, ''æÇááå ÎáíÝÊí Úáì ßá ãÓáã'' i.e. Allah is my Khalifa over all muslims (as a layperson can think). But here ''my khalifa'' doesn't mean the head of the state. It means here that Allah will take care of Muslims after Prophet left this world.

Traslator of Riyadhus Saliheen, Aisha Bewely, translate it as:

1808 . ….Allah watching over every Muslim

Similarly, Shaykh Ibn Uthaimin explain this in his commentry of Riyadh As-Saliheen. He said:

æÇááå ÎáíÝÊí Úáì ßá ãÄãä ÝÇÓÊÎáÝ ÑÈå ÚÒ æÌá Ãä íßæä ãÄíÏÇ ááãÄãäíä æÇÞíÇ áåã ãä ÝÊä ÇáÏÌÇá ÇáÐí áíÓ Èíä ÎáÞ ÂÏã æÞíÇã ÇáÓÇÚÉ ÝÊäÉ ÃÔÏ ãäåÇ äÓÃá Çááå Ãä íÞíäÇ æÅíÇßã ÝÊäÊå

Similarly, Allamah Abdur-Rahman Mubarakpuri in “Tuhfat Al-Ahwadhi”(6/500):

"æÇááå ÎáíÝÊí Úáì ßá ãÓáã" íÚäí æÇááå ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì æáí ßá ãÓáã æÍÇÝÙå ÝíÚíäå Úáíå æíÏÝÚ ÔÑå

i.e. ''Allah is my Successor (kalifa) over all muslims'' means Allah is Wali (guardian) of all muslims and their protector.....''

No one can claim here ''kalifha'' means ''Ruler of a state'' nor ''Imam''.

After uderstanding that ''Khalifa does't necessarily means ''head of a state'', there are other meanins also, now let us move further to the main point...

It is not hidden from any shia what was the background of the hadith. Prophet was leaving for Tabuk by appointing Ali [r] as leader in his absence just like he had left Uthman in badr, and Ibn Umm Maktoom other time.

But when some Munafiq started mocking Ali [r], he started rquesting the Prophet to allow him for Tabuk. Ali [r] said:

ÝÞÇá : íÇ ÑÓæá Çááå ! ÊÎáÝäí Ýí ÇáäÓÇÁ æÇáÕÈíÇä ¡ ÝÞÇá : ( ÃãÇ ÊÑÖì Ãä Êßæä ãäí ÈãäÒáÉ åÇÑæä ãä ãæÓì ÅáÇ Ãäå áÇ äÈí ÈÚÏí )

i.e. O Messenger of Allah are you leaving me among children and women.

By that prophet replied: You are to me as Harun was to Moses.

How Ali [r] to Prophet was as Harun[a] to Moses [a]?? Its mention in the Qur'an:

æóæóÇÚóÏúäóÇ ãõæÓóì ËóáóÇËöíäó áóíúáóÉð æóÃóÊúãóãúäóÇåóÇ ÈöÚóÔúÑò ÝóÊóãøó ãöíÞóÇÊõ ÑóÈøöåö ÃóÑúÈóÚöíäó áóíúáóÉð æóÞóÇáó ãõæÓóì áöÃóÎöíåö åóÇÑõæäó ÇÎúáõÝúäöí Ýöí Þóæúãöí æóÃóÕúáöÍú æóáóÇ ÊóÊøóÈöÚú ÓóÈöíáó ÇáúãõÝúÓöÏöíäó

ie. . 142. And when We did appoint for Moses thirty nights (of solitude), and added to them ten, and he completed the

whole time appointed by his Lord of forty nights; and Moses said unto his brother: Take my place among the people.

Do right, and follow not the way of mischief makers. [surah Al-A'raf verse-142]

So just like Prophet Musa [a] appointed Harun [a] a guardian of Bani Israel in his absence, similarly Our Prophet appointed Ali [r] guardian over people of Medina when left for Tabuk with his other companions. Note the above verse does say Musa [a] made Harun [r] ''khalifa''.

Imam Tabri said in tafseer of this verse...

ÞÇá ÃÈæ ÌÚÝÑ: íÞæá ÊÚÇáì ÐßÑå: áãÇ ãÖì áãæÚÏ ÑÈå ÞÇá áÃÎíå åÇÑæä:(ÇÎáÝäí Ýí Þæãí)¡ íÞæá: ßä ÎáíÝÊí Ýíåã Åáì Ãä ÃÑÌÚ

i.e. Abu Ja'afar (Tabri) said:.... (ukhlufnee fi qawmi) means: be my calipha among them TILL I CAME BACK.

So it is clear Musa [a] was not telling his brother that he would be caliph after his death. Similarly, Prophet was not telling Ali[r] that he would be Khalifa after Prophet's death. It simply means Prophet appointed him guardian and Protector of people of Medina until Prophet and other Muslims came back to Medina.

In conclusion, Prophet said that to to tell him, he need not to be sad.... Prophet left him as a guardian in medina jsut like Musa [a] left his brother Harun [a]..... So Prophet was telling Ali, this is not any disgrace, You have an example of harun [a] before you.SO YOU [ALI] NEED NOT TO LISTEN ALL THOSE HYPOCRITES WHO ARE MOCKING YOU. YOUR EXAMPLE IS SAME AS HARUN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing even if we accept that prophet was telling him that he'll be his caliph head of the state, then also it doesn't contradict sunni belief.

Surely Ali [r] became caliph later. How does the hadith imply that he would be caliph just after Prophet's death???

If one says tis is cz Prophet said to Ali [r],''Khaleefati (my caliph)".

In reply i would say, Prophet also call Jesus [a] ''khaleefati'' i.e. My Caliph.

From Tasir Durr Al-Manthur:

æÃÎÑÌ ÇÈä ÃÈí ÔíÈÉ æÃÍãÏ æÃÈæ ÏÇæÏ æÇÈä ÌÑíÑ æÇÈä ÍÈÇä Úä ÃÈí åÑíÑÉ « Ãä ÇáäÈí Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã ÞÇá : ÇáÃäÈíÇÁ ÃÎæÇÊ áÚáÇÊ ¡ ÃãåÇÊåã ÔÊì ¡ æÏíäåã æÇÍÏ ¡ æÅäí Ãæáì ÇáäÇÓ ÈÚíÓì Èä ãÑíã ¡ áÃäå áã íßä Èíäí æÈíäå äÈí ¡ æÅäå ÎáíÝÊí Úáì ÃãÊí

So does that imply Prophet Isa [a] Leader of this Ummah just after Prophet Muhammad????

____________

Also, if we take those hadith qouted by toyibonline to mean that Prophet was saying Ali[r] would be leader of Ummah just after his deat... But we know Ali [r] was not the leader after Prophet 's death. So what toyib is trying to prove?? Prophet was lying?? wal'iyadhu billah.

Continue later Insha Allah...

Note--All wat i said is just based on the text. The Isnad can also be criticized.

Ignore any spelling mistakes... My keyboard isn't working well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Hz Ali [r] wasn't aware of any such declaration about prophet's successor. Atleast in the sunni authentic sources...

It is recorded in Sahih Bukhari:

Ãä Úáí Èä ÃÈí ØÇáÈ ÑÖí Çááå Úäå ÎÑÌ ãä ÚäÏ ÇáäÈí Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã Ýí æÌÚå ÇáÐí ÊæÝí Ýíå¡ ÝÞÇá ÇáäÇÓ: íÇ ÃÈÇ ÍÓä¡ ßíÝ ÃÕÈÍ ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã¿ ÞÇá: ÃÕÈÍ ÈÍãÏ Çááå ÈÇÑÆÇð¡ ÝÃÎÐ ÈíÏå ÇáÚÈÇÓ ÝÞÇá: ÃáÇ ÊÑÇå¡ ÃäÊ æÇááå ÈÚÏ ËáÇË ÚÈÏ ÇáÚÕÇ¡ æÇááå Åäí áÃÑì ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã ÓíÊæÝì Ýí æÌÚå¡ æÅäí áÃÚÑÝ Ýí æÌæå Èäí ÚÈÏ ÇáãØáÈ ÇáãæÊ¡ ÝÇÐåÈ ÈäÇ Åáì ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã ÝäÓÃáå: Ýíãä íßæä ÇáÃãÑ¡ ÝÅä ßÇä ÝíäÇ ÚáãäÇ Ðáß¡ æÅä ßÇä Ýí ÛíÑäÇ ÃãÑäÇå ÝÃæÕì ÈäÇ¡ ÞÇá Úáí: æÇááå áÆä ÓÃáäÇåÇ ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã ÝãäÚäÇåÇ áÇ íÚØíäÇåÇ ÇáäÇÓ ÃÈÏÇð¡ æÅäí áÇ ÃÓÃáåÇ ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã ÃÈÏÇð.

Volumn 008, Book 074, Hadith Number 282.

-----------------------------------------

Narated By 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas : 'Ali bin Abu Talib came out of the house of the Prophet during his fatal ailment. The people asked ('Ali), "O Abu Hasan! How is the health of Allah's Apostle this morning?" 'Ali said, "This morning he is better, with the grace of Allah." Al-'Abbas held Ali by the hand and said, "Don't you see him (about to die)? By Allah, within three days you will be the slave of the stick (i.e., under the command of another ruler). By Allah, I think that Allah's Apostle will die from his present ailment, for I know the signs of death on the faces of the offspring of 'Abdul Muttalib. So let us go to Allah's Apostle to ask him who will take over the Caliphate. If the authority is given to us, we will know it, and if it is given to somebody else we will request him to recommend us to him. " 'Ali said, "By Allah! If we ask Allah's Apostle for the rulership and he refuses, then the people will never give it to us. Besides, I will never ask Allah's Apostle for it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(salam)

The Holy Prophet (pbuh) declared:

Åäø ÚáíÇð ãäí æÃäÇ ãä Úáí æåæ æáí ßá ãÄãä ÈÚÏí

Certainly, Ali is from me and am from Ali, and he is the Master of every believer after me.

1. Al-Isabah 4/569 (Al-Asqalani declares its chain to be strong)

2. Kanz al-Ummal 11/608 No. 32941 (al-Hindi declares the hadith sahih)

3. Kanz al-Ummal 13/142 No. 36444 (al-Hindi cites Ibn Jarir al-Tabari’s declaration of the hadith as being sahih)

4. Al-Sunnah Ibn Abu Asim 550, No. 1187 (al-Albani declares its chain to be sahih)

5. Sahih Sunan al-Tirmidhi 3/521 (al-Albani declares the hadith sahih)

He also directly told Imam Ali (as):

ÃäÊ æáí ßá ãÄãä ÈÚÏí

You (Ali) are the master of every believer after me.

1. Mustadrak al-Hakim 3/143 No. 4652 (declared sahih by both al-Hakim and al-Dhahabi)

2. Musnad al-Tayalesi 1/360 No. 2752

3. Mu’jam al-Kabir, al-Tabarani, 12/97

4. Fadail al-Sahabah, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, 2/682 No. 1168

Firsly, There is a Shi'a narrators in the chain i.e. Ja'afar bin Suleiman. And according to Imam Tirmidi he alone narrates this hadith in this way:

He said in Sunan:

áÇó äóÚúÑöÝõåõ ÅöáÇø ãöäú ÍóÏöíËö ÌóÚúÝóÑö Èäö ÓõáóíúãóÇäó

Allama Abdur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri said in “Tuhfat Al-Ahwadhi”( 10/211), the last part of the hadith i.e. Ba'adi (after me) is not authentic, as it only comes through two shi'i narrators. He said about Jafar bin Suleiman:

æÞÏ ÇÓÊÏá Èå ÇáÔíÚÉ Úáì Ãä ÚáíÇð ÑÖí Çááå Úäå ßÇä ÎáíÝÉ ÈÚÏ ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã ãä ÛíÑ ÝÕá¡ æÇÓÊÏáÇáåã Èå Úä åÐÇ ÈÇØá ÝÅä ãÏÇÑå Úä ÕÍÉ ÒíÇÏÉ áÝÙ ÈÚÏí æßæäåÇ ÕÍíÍÉ ãÍÝæÙÉ ÞÇÈáÉ ááÇÍÊÌÇÌ æÇáÃãÑ áíÓ ßÐáß ÝÅäåÇ ÞÏ ÊÝÑÏ ÈåÇ ÌÚÝÑ Èä ÓáíãÇä æåæ ÔíÚí Èá åæ ÛÇá Ýí ÇáÊÔíÚ

Then goes on to prove his Shi'ism by qouting scholars.

He then say, there is another narrator who has narrated this narration. This narrated by Ajlaj Al-kindi also, but he also was well known shi'a. Mubarakpuri said:

ÃÌáÍ ÇáßäÏí åÐÇ ÃíÖÇð ÔíÚí ÞÇá Ýí ÇáÊÞÑíÈ: ÃÌáÍ Èä ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÍÌíÉ íßäì ÃÈÇ ÍÌíÉ ÇáßäÏí íÞÇá ÇÓãå íÍíì ÕÏæÞ ÔíÚí ÇäÊåì¡ æßÐÇ Ýí ÇáãíÒÇä æÛíÑå¡ æÇáÙÇåÑ Ãä ÒíÇÏÉ ÈÚÏí Ýí åÐÇ ÇáÍÏíË ãä æåã åÐíä ÇáÔíÚííä¡ æíÄíÏå Ãä ÇáÅãÇã ÃÍãÏ Ñæì Ýí ãÓäÏå åÐÇ ÇáÍÏíË ãä ÚÏÉ ØÑÞ áíÓÊ Ýí æÇÍÏÉ ãäåÇ åÐå ÇáÒíÇÏÉ

i.e. Ajlaj Al-Kindi is also shi'i. Its mention in ''Taqreeb'': Ajlaj bin Abdullah.....saduq shi'i.'' Similar thing is mention in Al-Meezan etc. It seems the extra word in the hadith (i.e. ''Ba'adi'' after me) is the confusion of these two shi'i narrators. What support this, is the fact that this hadith has been narrated by Imam Ahmed with diferent chains, and none of them contain the ziyadah (extra word) ''Ba'di''.

So according to the rule this can't be accepted as the narration support shi'ism. And we Ahle Sunnah do not accept pro-shia hadith narrated by shi'a narrators, just like we don't accept anti-ahle bayt narration by a nasibi narrator.

secondly, those scholars who had declared this hadith to be Sahih or Hasan, they declared it so because they dint consider these narrations to be pro-shia. The Wali in these narrations means close friend, to them, as in quran ''waliyyun hameem''. And that is why they didn't apply the rule on this narration (the according to which the narration of a Mubtadi' are not accepted in support of his Bid'ah even if the narrator are Thiqah, Truthful).

Al-Albani said, after delaring this narration to be Sahih and after critisin Shaykh Al-Islam for rejecting this, in Silsilah As-Saheeha”(2223):

ÝÇáÍÏíË áíÓ Ýíå Ïáíá ÇáÈÊÉ Úáì Ãä ÚáíÇ ÑÖí

Çááå Úäå åæ ÇáÃÍÞ ÈÇáÎáÇÝÉ ãä ÇáÔíÎíä ßãÇ ÊÒÚã ÇáÔíÚÉ áÃä ÇáãæÇáÇÉ ÛíÑ

ÇáæáÇíÉ ÇáÊí åí ÈãÚäì ÇáÅãÇÑÉ ¡ ÝÅäãÇ íÞÇá ÝíåÇ : æÇáí ßá ãÄãä . åÐÇ ßáå ãä

ÈíÇä ÔíÎ ÇáÅÓáÇã æ åæ Þæí ãÊíä ßãÇ ÊÑì ¡ ÝáÇ ÃÏÑí ÈÚÏ Ðáß æÌå ÊßÐíÈå ááÍÏíË

ÅáÇ ÇáÊÓÑÚ æ ÇáãÈÇáÛÉ Ýí ÇáÑÏ Úáì ÇáÔíÚÉ ¡ ÛÝÑ Çááå áäÇ æ áå

i.e. "In this hadith there is no proof of Ali [r] having more rightful for Khilafah than Shaikhain as Shi'a think. Because the Muwalaat here is that which is dhidd (opposite) of Mu'adaat NOt that walayah which means leadership, because in that case it would be like this: ''Waali (with a hamza after waw) kulli Mu'min" ........"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Also the scholars are soft in Fazail. Thats why you see Dhahabi qoutin this hadith in his ''Siyar'' without questioning its authenticity, besides the fact he himself indicated towards the inkar (contradicting establised narration) in this hadith.

Dhahabi said in “Tareekh al-Islam”…

" Åä ÚáíÇð ãäí æÃäÇ ãäå æåæ æáí ßá ãÄãä ÈÚÏí " . ÑæÇå ÞÊíÈÉ¡ æÈÔÑ Èä åáÇá¡ æØÇÆÝÉ¡ Úä ÌÚÝÑ¡ æáã íÊÇÈÚå Úáíå ÃÍÏ.

ÃÎÑÌå ÇáäÓÇÆí¡ æÇáÊÑãÐí æÞÇá: ÍÏíË ÍÓä ÛÑíÈ.

æÑæÇå ÇáÅãÇã ÃÍãÏ Ýí ãÓäÏå Úä ÚÈÏ ÇáÑÒÇÞ¡ æÚÝÇä Úäå.

æÅÓäÇÏå Úáì ÔÑØ ãÓáã æÅäãÇ áã íÎÑÌå Ýí ÕÍíÍå áäßÇÑÊå

i.e. ''...."Ali is from me and am from Ali, and he is the wali of every believer after me". Narrated through Qutaibah and Bishr, and a group from Ja'afar, and no one support Ja'far in this hadith. Recorded by Nasai, and Tirmidhi he said: Hadith is hasan ghareeb. And also narrated by Imam Ahmed in his Musnad from Abdur-Razzaq, and Affan. And the Isnad is on the condition of Muslim, but he did not narrate it because of the nakarah in the hadith.''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Firsly, There is a Shi'a narrators in the chain i.e. Ja'afar bin Suleiman. And according to Imam Tirmidi he alone narrates this hadith in this way:

He said in Sunan:

لاَ نَعْرِفُهُ إِلاّ مِنْ حَدِيثِ جَعْفَرِ بنِ سُلَيْمَانَ

Tirmidhi was wrong, as you're quote from Mubarakpuri below clearly shows - Ibn Sulayman is not the only narrator.

Allama Abdur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri said in “Tuhfat Al-Ahwadhi”( 10/211), the last part of the hadith i.e. Ba'adi (after me) is not authentic, as it only comes through two shi'i narrators. He said about Jafar bin Suleiman:

وقد استدل به الشيعة على أن علياً رضي الله عنه كان خليفة بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من غير فصل، واستدلالهم به عن هذا باطل فإن مداره عن صحة زيادة لفظ بعدي وكونها صحيحة محفوظة قابلة للاحتجاج والأمر ليس كذلك فإنها قد تفرد بها جعفر بن سليمان وهو شيعي بل هو غال في التشيع

Then goes on to prove his Shi'ism by qouting scholars.

He then say, there is another narrator who has narrated this narration. This narrated by Ajlaj Al-kindi also, but he also was well known shi'a. Mubarakpuri said:

أجلح الكندي هذا أيضاً شيعي قال في التقريب: أجلح بن عبد الله بن حجية يكنى أبا حجية الكندي يقال اسمه يحيى صدوق شيعي انتهى، وكذا في الميزان وغيره، والظاهر أن زيادة بعدي في هذا الحديث من وهم هذين الشيعيين، ويؤيده أن الإمام أحمد روى في مسنده هذا الحديث من عدة طرق ليست في واحدة منها هذه الزيادة

i.e. Ajlaj Al-Kindi is also shi'i. Its mention in ''Taqreeb'': Ajlaj bin Abdullah.....saduq shi'i.'' Similar thing is mention in Al-Meezan etc. It seems the extra word in the hadith (i.e. ''Ba'adi'' after me) is the confusion of these two shi'i narrators. What support this, is the fact that this hadith has been narrated by Imam Ahmed with diferent chains, and none of them contain the ziyadah (extra word) ''Ba'di''.

Right, so Ja'far ibn Sulayman wasnt the only narrator then, we have a second - AlKindi. Both of these narrators are reliable, but because they are ''Shia'' (not Ithna Asheri, but believe that Imam Ali [a] was the best companion), the hadith is rejected. You're free to follow this circular principle of yours, but the narrators remain truthful and reliable, and the fact that we have 2 reliable narrators saying the same thing makes it unlikely the addition was due to confusion.

Secondly, AlKindi and Ibn Sulayman are NOT the only narrators of the hadith. There is another chain that has no ''Shia'' in it:

حدثنا ‏ ‏عبد الله ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏يحيى بن حماد ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏أبو عوانة ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏أبو بلج ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏عمرو بن ميمون

...قال ابن عباس و قال له رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم أنت ولي كل مؤمن بعدي و مؤمنة

Ibn Abbas narrates that the Prophet said to Ali: ''You are the Wali of every male and female believer after me''

This hadith has been recorded in Musnad Ahmed ibn Hanbel here, and Talkhis Dhahabi 3/143.

Al-Hakim said: Sahih. Dhahabi said: Sahih.

So what we actually have is three chains for the hadith, all of them narrated by reliable narrators. (Actually its more than 3 if you count the different narrators from/to Jafar ibn Sulayman). Any individual weakness is made up for by the multiple transmission.

Al-Albani said, after delaring this narration to be Sahih and after critisin Shaykh Al-Islam for rejecting this, in Silsilah As-Saheeha”(2223):

فالحديث ليس فيه دليل البتة على أن عليا رضي

الله عنه هو الأحق بالخلافة من الشيخين كما تزعم الشيعة لأن الموالاة غير

الولاية التي هي بمعنى الإمارة ، فإنما يقال فيها : والي كل مؤمن . هذا كله من

بيان شيخ الإسلام و هو قوي متين كما ترى ، فلا أدري بعد ذلك وجه تكذيبه للحديث

إلا التسرع و المبالغة في الرد على الشيعة ، غفر الله لنا و له

i.e. "In this hadith there is no proof of Ali [r] having more rightful for Khilafah than Shaikhain as Shi'a think. Because the Muwalaat here is that which is dhidd (opposite) of Mu'adaat NOt that walayah which means leadership, because in that case it would be like this: ''Waali (with a hamza after waw) kulli Mu'min" ........"

This is a poor argument. If it was necessary for the Prophet to say Waali instead of Wali then why does this hadith in Bukhari quote Abu Bakr after the death of the Prophet saying ''I am the Wali of the Messenger of God'' and Umar after Abu Bakr's death say ''I am the wali of the wali of the Messenger of God'' (Bukhari h.6231 here). Wali means successor, and it was understood to mean that by the Arabs. It is not necessary to say Waali to mean successor, as shown by the hadith quoted above.

Edited by .InshAllah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tirmidhi was wrong, as you're quote from Mubarakpuri below clearly shows - Ibn Sulayman is not the only narrator.

Right, so Ja'far ibn Sulayman wasnt the only narrator then, we have a second - AlKindi. Both of these narrators are reliable, but because they are ''Shia'' (not Ithna Asheri, but believe that Imam Ali [a] was the best companion), the hadith is rejected. You're free to follow this circular principle of yours, but the narrators remain truthful and reliable, and the fact that we have 2 reliable narrators saying the same thing makes it unlikely the addition was due to confusion.

Secondly, AlKindi and Ibn Sulayman are NOT the only narrators of the hadith. There is another chain that has no ''Shia'' in it:

ÍÏËäÇ þ þÚÈÏ Çááå þ þÍÏËäÇ þ þíÍíì Èä ÍãÇÏ þ þÍÏËäÇ þ þÃÈæ ÚæÇäÉ þ þÍÏËäÇ þ þÃÈæ ÈáÌ þ þÍÏËäÇ þ þÚãÑæ Èä ãíãæä

...ÞÇá ÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ æ ÞÇá áå ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æ Óáã ÃäÊ æáí ßá ãÄãä ÈÚÏí æ ãÄãäÉ

Ibn Abbas narrates that the Prophet said to Ali: ''You are the Wali of every male and female believer after me''

This hadith has been recorded in Musnad Ahmed ibn Hanbel here, and Talkhis Dhahabi 3/143.

Al-Hakim said: Sahih. Dhahabi said: Sahih.

So what we actually have is three chains for the hadith, all of them narrated by reliable narrators. (Actually its more than 3 if you count the different narrators from/to Jafar ibn Sulayman). Any individual weakness is made up for by the multiple transmission.

This is a poor argument. If it was necessary for the Prophet to say Waali instead of Wali then why does this hadith in Bukhari quote Abu Bakr after the death of the Prophet saying ''I am the Wali of the Messenger of God'' and Umar after Abu Bakr's death say ''I am the wali of the wali of the Messenger of God'' (Bukhari h.6231 here). Wali means successor, and it was understood to mean that by the Arabs. It is not necessary to say Waali to mean successor, as shown by the hadith quoted above.

Actuall, Ja'far and Ajleh Al-Kindi are both mukhtalifun feeh. There is disagreement regarding their weakness, specially Al-kindi. So your jazm on them bieng reliable isn't correct.Beside that other narrators dint narrate the ziydah, as shown by al-Mubarakfuri. Also, it contradicts the sahih hadith of Buraidah which contain different wording. And the hadith of Abu Balaj is itself is a long topic, as it contains Nakarah (Dhahabi said in Al-Meezan). And i don't think a munkar can be used as mutabi'ah and shahid. So its not all about you find three narrators so they make a hadith strong. There are many things to consider.

Normally authenticity discussion stretch long, thats why said in starting to ponder on the text first. Because there is no reason to argue about authenticity of a narration which does not support your cause.

Regarding the term ''wali'', then there is nothing for you to prove it means ''Imam after the death of Prophet (pbuh) ''. All you are saying is just based on assumption. Wali has been used in Qur'an for several meanings. Qur'an is full of examples. I don't think Prophet (pbuh) would choose this worrd knowing the fact that Qur'an use that word in many meanings. Also none of the companios thoght that to mean leadership after the death of Prophet , including Ali (ra) as i qouted earlier from Sahih Bukhari.

(salam)

(salam)

I only mentioned that some people betrayed Imam Ali (as). Of course, they are going to Hellfire. But, what about us, who have accepted his wilayah?

Ibn Hajar al-Makki, in his al-Sawaiq al-Muhriqah (Musassat al-Risalat, Beirut, first print, 1997; annotators: Abdul Rahman ibn Abdullah al-Turki and Kamil Muhammad) 2/468, states:

æÃÎÑÌ ÇáÏÇÑÞØäí íÇ ÃÈÇ ÇáÍÓä ÃãÇ ÃäÊ æÔíÚÊß Ýí ÇáÌäÉ

Al-Darqutni has narrated this hadith:

O father of al-Hasan (i.e. Imam Ali)! As for you and your Shi'a, you will be in Paradise!

Al-Makki states:

ÞÇá ÇáÏÇÑÞØäí áåÐÇ ÇáÍÏíË ÚäÏäÇ ØÑÞÇÊ ßËíÑÉ

Al-Darqutni said that this hadith, with us, has lots of chains.

Of course, for anyone with some knowledge of the Sunni ilm al-hadith, that shows that it has a basis. It cannot be denied. It is authentic!

See this and this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam,

It is strange this ahlussunah guy has stooped so low simply to oppose a valid merit of Imam Ali (as). He even brought a hadith that supports the Nusayris:

Ali is my khalifah after me.

Allah is my khalifah after me!

Anyway, ahlussunah, you have made absolutely NO point! You need to read this article to see how wrong you are!

But, let me summarize for you:

1. The hadith has been narrated from DIFFERENT chains, and in DIFFERENT versions.

2. There is a SAHIH ALL-SUNNI CHAIN for the hadith

Again, the Holy Prophet (pbuh) has said "after me" to show that the word "Wali" means successor! How can you say it means "Ali is the friend of the believers AFTER ME!!"? Does that make any sense even to you? Be honest please!

And, your submission that Imam Ali (as) was the successor of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) AFTER UTHMAN is hilarious! The hadith says "after me", not "after Uthman". I am sure you know there is a world of difference between the two.

As for your submission:

"Allah is my khalifah"

It is pure kufr! It shows that the Holy Prophet (pbuh) was occupying a certain position which Allah (swt) then occupied after him!! Wha kufr!

You simply have made absolutely NO point!

As for your points regarding the hadith of Shi'as being in Paradise, you have done nothing but exposed your own ignorance! A knowledgeable Sunni would know that when a hadith has lots of chains, EVEN IF ALL OF THEM ARE WEAK, such an hadith is authentic. Therefore, proving a few chains of the hadith to be weak does you no good. The hadith is authentic, and nothing can change that.

Edited by toyibonline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam,

It is strange this ahlussunah guy has stooped so low simply to oppose a valid merit of Imam Ali (as). He even brought a hadith that supports the Nusayris:

Ali is my khalifah after me.

Allah is my khalifah after me!

I brought it to show you are following the same literalism as Nusairis. I translated it as ''successor'', later on i qouted Ibn Uthaimin, and Mubarakpuri to show that it doesn't mean successor as a literalists like toyib can think. To give you an easy example...

ÝóÎóáóÝó ãöäú ÈóÚúÏöåöãú ÎóáúÝñ ÃóÖóÇÚõæÇ ÇáÕøóáóÇÉó æóÇÊøóÈóÚõæÇ ÇáÔøóåóæóÇÊö ÝóÓóæúÝó íóáúÞóæúäó ÛóíøðÇ

Anyway, ahlussunah, you have made absolutely NO point! You need to read this article to see how wrong you are!

Ahh thanks. I haven't read it before but after reading it i don't know what new argument has given in the link. All the argument present there has already been discussed here. Some points are under discussion. But whats new there?

But, let me summarize for you:

1. The hadith has been narrated from DIFFERENT chains, and in DIFFERENT versions.

2. There is a SAHIH ALL-SUNNI CHAIN for the hadith

So? Presence of many turq doesn't imply authenticity everytime. Scholars are aware of this. I have read somewhere, Albani has been criticized for his softness in declaring the ahadeeth authentic just based on many chains. YOu might also be aware of the saying of Hafiz Zayla'i Al-Hanafi regarding Hadith Tayr.

Again, the Holy Prophet (pbuh) has said "after me" to show that the word "Wali" means successor! How can you say it means "Ali is the friend of the believers AFTER ME!!"? Does that make any sense even to you? Be honest please!

And, your submission that Imam Ali (as) was the successor of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) AFTER UTHMAN is hilarious! The hadith says "after me", not "after Uthman". I am sure you know there is a world of difference between the two.

Ok lets just ponder in the text. Its just simple. Prophet said ''after me'' and we know Ali (ra) was the khalifa after Prophet , after the calipate of Uthman (ra) . Prophet (pbuh) dint say ''he'll be first wali after me''. And its much more simple if you consider the fact that Ali (ra) was not the khalifa after Prophet (pbuh) . Anything which Prophet declare then its like the Promise of Allah [swt], no one can change it. So here if Prophet meant to say his successor before anyone, then it imply the Prophet was lying. Wal'Iyadh billah, because it was Abu Bakr (ra) who become leader next after Prophet (pbuh) .

As for your submission:

"Allah is my khalifah"

It is pure kufr! It shows that the Holy Prophet (pbuh) was occupying a certain position which Allah (swt) then occupied after him!! Wha kufr!

Huh? That was for you man. See above.

You simply have made absolutely NO point!

And i know no one can convince you.

As for your points regarding the hadith of Shi'as being in Paradise, you have done nothing but exposed your own ignorance! A knowledgeable Sunni would know that when a hadith has lots of chains, EVEN IF ALL OF THEM ARE WEAK, such an hadith is authentic. Therefore, proving a few chains of the hadith to be weak does you no good. The hadith is authentic, and nothing can change that.

Thats why you need to start your study again.

(salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actuall, Ja'far and Ajleh Al-Kindi are both mukhtalifun feeh. There is disagreement regarding their weakness, specially Al-kindi. So your jazm on them bieng reliable isn't correct.

This is only because you dont like the hadith. There is near unanimous agreement that Ja'far ibn Sulayman is reliable. Both Dhahbi and Ibn Hajar authenticated him, and these are the biggest scholars of sunni hadith. Not to mention Albani. A number of scholars have weakened Kindi, but ibn Hajar who reviewed all of the opinions regarded him as reliable. It's a famous salafi tactic to weaken narrators of hadith they dont like.

Beside that other narrators dint narrate the ziydah, as shown by al-Mubarakfuri. Also, it contradicts the sahih hadith of Buraidah which contain different wording.

The hadith of Buraydah is the one quoted by Mubarakfuri, not something different. It didnt stop Albani from grading the hadith of ''wali after me'' as authentic.

And the hadith of Abu Balaj is itself is a long topic, as it contains Nakarah (Dhahabi said in Al-Meezan). And i don't think a munkar can be used as mutabi'ah and shahid. So its not all about you find three narrators so they make a hadith strong. There are many things to consider.

The hadith's chain is reliable, and its contents support that in the other 2 hadith. This should be enough for anyone.

Regarding the term ''wali'', then there is nothing for you to prove it means ''Imam after the death of Prophet (pbuh) ''. All you are saying is just based on assumption. Wali has been used in Qur'an for several meanings. Qur'an is full of examples. I don't think Prophet (pbuh) would choose this worrd knowing the fact that Qur'an use that word in many meanings. Also none of the companios thoght that to mean leadership after the death of Prophet , including Ali (ra) as i qouted earlier from Sahih Bukhari.

You claimed that ''wali'' cant mean successor. I showed you that it can. We can know from the context th meaning that was intended. As toyib has explained ''after me'' proves it meant successor. Whether people accpetd him as the successor or not is irrelevant, he still remained the successor of the Prophet .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I brought it to show you are following the same literalism as Nusairis. I translated it as ''successor'', later on i qouted Ibn Uthaimin, and Mubarakpuri to show that it doesn't mean successor as a literalists like toyib can think. To give you an easy example...

فَخَلَفَ مِنْ بَعْدِهِمْ خَلْفٌ أَضَاعُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَاتَّبَعُوا الشَّهَوَاتِ فَسَوْفَ يَلْقَوْنَ غَيًّا

I can see your problem. If you accept these hadiths, your entire faith collapses. But, I invite you to read this particular hadith one more time without bias:

أنت مني بمنزلة هارون من موسى ألا إنك نبيا أنه لا ينبغي أن أذهب إلا و أنت خليفتي في كل مؤمن من بعدي

Your rank in relation to me is like that of Harun to Musa except that you are not a prophet. It is not right for me to leave except that you are my khalifah (successor) upon EVERY believer after me.

This hadith, as I have shown, has come in several riwaayat with different chains, all of which are reliable. I don't expect you to accept it though. However, the fact that the Holy Prophet (pbuh) has mentioned "EVERY believer" is sufficient to show that he meant his immediate successor. Also, the word "after me" proves that khalifah there means "successor" and nothing else!

Once again, I don't expect you to agree with me. But, the truth is VERY clear to the honest hearts.

As for this comment:

Ok lets just ponder in the text. Its just simple. Prophet said ''after me'' and we know Ali (ra) was the khalifa after Prophet , after the calipate of Uthman (ra) . Prophet (pbuh) dint say ''he'll be first wali after me''. And its much more simple if you consider the fact that Ali (ra) was not the khalifa after Prophet (pbuh) . Anything which Prophet declare then its like the Promise of Allah [swt], no one can change it. So here if Prophet meant to say his successor before anyone, then it imply the Prophet was lying. Wal'Iyadh billah, because it was Abu Bakr (ra) who become leader next after Prophet (pbuh) .

It is born out of ignorance. Muhammad (pbuh) was the Imam of the worlds, jinns, angels, mankind, everything during his lifetime. Therefore, his successor MUST succeed him in all these communities too. Answer me: was Abubakr the leader of the jinns during his caliphate? If he was, where is your proof? If he was not, then who was? Or, do you mean to say that the jinns had no successor of the Holy Prophet (pbuh)? When the Holy Prophet (pbuh) mentioned "every believer", he meant all these communities too.

So, Imam Ali (as) was the successor of Muhammad (pbuh) among the true believers among humans, jinns and all other creatures. The fact that Abubakr and his people did not accept this does not change that fact. Look at the Qur'an, in many places, Allah (swt) testifies that Muhammad (pbuh) is His Messenger (pbuh). Yet, the majority of the earth today reject this fact. Does that make Allah (swt) a liar (naudhobillah)?

You measure caliphate only on political authority. But, in that, you are completely mistaken. Muhammad (pbuh) was the Imam even when he was still in Makkah under the protection of Abu Talib (ra). He had no political authority then. Besides, you don't need human armies to exercise authority over the angels and jinns!

And, as for your ignorance regarding hadiths with numerous chains, Shaykh al-Albani has a message for you in his Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Sahihah 4/355, No. 1761:

أن الحديث الضعيف يتقوى بكثرة الطرق

Even the weak hadith becomes strong through many chains!

Edited by toyibonline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is only because you dont like the hadith. There is near unanimous agreement that Ja'far ibn Sulayman is reliable. Both Dhahbi and Ibn Hajar authenticated him, and these are the biggest scholars of sunni hadith.

Wow... Dhahabi and Ibn Hajar were both among Muta'khhireen. And Yahya ibn Sa'eed, Yazeed ibn Zurai', SUleiman bin Harb did not consider him reliable. Ibn Sa'd said, thiqah with weakness in him. Your claim of unanimous agreement is a huge thing which none of the sunni scholar ever claimed. Anyways, my point was there is no agreement.

A number of scholars have weakened Kindi, but ibn Hajar who reviewed all of the opinions regarded him as reliable. It's a famous salafi tactic to weaken narrators of hadith they dont like.

Its typical rafidi tactic to cherry pick a hadith from a sunni book and then select a scholar wich suite you.lol YOu are accusing me and i am trying to ignore sanad talk. SO now ibn hajar's taqreeb is hujjah. In the case of mukhtalif feeh narrator, he gave tarjeeh to what he thinks is more correct. Its need to use something called 'common sense' to get this point.

The hadith of Buraydah is the one quoted by Mubarakfuri, not something different. It didnt stop Albani from grading the hadith of ''wali after me'' as authentic.

Ok.. I thought Albani was a nasibi. Anyways Abu Ishaq Al-Huwainy in the tahqeeq of ''al-khasa'is'' declared the chain to be authentic but it doesn't stop him to indicate towards its shudhudh.

The hadith's chain is reliable, and its contents support that in the other 2 hadith. This should be enough for anyone.

Abu Balaj narrates manakeer.

You claimed that ''wali'' cant mean successor.

Where?

I showed you that it can. We can know from the context th meaning that was intended. As toyib has explained ''after me'' proves it meant successor.

And i told you earlier, Ali (ra) was leader after Prophet (pbuh) but not next to Pophet (pbuh). If one says ''Sahih Muslim is a Sahih book but after Quran'' then it is NOT wrong. But if one says ''Muslim is ASAHH book after Quran'' then a sunni would surely object, he'll say ''ASAHH book after Quran is Sahih Bukhari.''

Whether people accpetd him as the successor or not is irrelevant, he still remained the successor of the Prophet .

According to your type of understanding, Prophet (pbuh) declared Ali (ra) to be his Caliph. But he actually became caliph after Uthman (ra) .

The hadith simply says ''he is the leader after me'' (according to your thinking), but he wasn't. A leader is leader bcz he leads the people. But if one doesn't lead the people then there is no reason to call him reador. so if people do not accept him then he isn't leader. Toyib example of Messenger is silly. I'll come to it soon. Insha Allah.

(salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asalam alaikom

Please bring forth any hadith which mentions abu bakr, umar or uthman which are similar to these hadtihs..or mentions them been khalif after prophet muhammad(as).

if you can i will become sunni and accept abu bakr as my first khalif otherwise NO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And i told you earlier, Ali (ra) was leader after Prophet (pbuh) but not next to Pophet (pbuh). If one says ''Sahih Muslim is a Sahih book but after Quran'' then it is NOT wrong. But if one says ''Muslim is ASAHH book after Quran'' then a sunni would surely object, he'll say ''ASAHH book after Quran is Sahih Bukhari.''

According to your type of understanding, Prophet (pbuh) declared Ali (ra) to be his Caliph. But he actually became caliph after Uthman (ra) .

The hadith simply says ''he is the leader after me'' (according to your thinking), but he wasn't. A leader is leader bcz he leads the people. But if one doesn't lead the people then there is no reason to call him reador. so if people do not accept him then he isn't leader. Toyib example of Messenger is silly. I'll come to it soon. Insha Allah.

(salam)

Its so surprising that Holy Prophet SAWW choses his FOURTH Caliph and successor while for frst three caliphs and successors was left undecided by Holy Prophet SAWW??

Edited by Firoz Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asalam alaikom

Please bring forth any hadith which mentions abu bakr, umar or uthman which are similar to these hadtihs..or mentions them been khalif after prophet muhammad(as).

if you can i will become sunni and accept abu bakr as my first khalif otherwise NO.

Calm down... No need to get emotional.

There are sayings of Ali [ra] in which he accept that the best of this Ummah were Abu Bakr and Umar [ra]. That narration is mutawatir, narrated from him through approx 20 companions (shi'a), including his son Muhammad b. Al-Hanafiyya (ra)

For the sayings of Prophet , check Kitab As-Sunnah of ibn abi Aasim. kitab as-sunnah isn't all about hadith of abu balj.lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its so surprising that Holy Prophet SAWW choses his FOURTH Caliph and successor while for frst three caliphs and successors was left undecided by Holy Prophet SAWW??

Have you read full hadith??? To praise Abu Bakr (ra) at the time when people were criticizing Ali (ra) doesn't seems logical to me.

Also you people read just selected narrations from sunni books. You do not differentiat between Munaqib and Khasa'is, and there arises main problem. If Prophet (pbuh) called Abu Ubaydah (ra) ''ameen of this ummah'' doesn't mean Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali were not ''Ameen'', and hence liars. Na'udhu billah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SubhanAllah, i missed a beautiful post...

Why do not you straightly say that all hadiths found in praise of Hazrat Ali (as) and Ahlul bait (as) in Quran are weak? Bias has no cure.

Why should i, when i don't believe so??? We have lots of Ahadith in praise of Ahle Bayt (as) . So we don't need to stick to weak one if we have strong one.

The fact is, thre are hundreds of hadith in Fadail of other companions which has been declared weak or fabricated by scholars. Every book of fabricated narrations (arranged topicwise) contains a chapter on each great companions where scholars hav collected weak and fabricated narrations about senior companions.

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...