The Imams (as) On The Companions (ra)

[Aabiss_Shakari 1,403]

Sorry they(wives of prophet(saw)) too didnt inherit anything.... Because those houses were already their own property , And were named after them like hujre ayesha etc... , even the quran says so....33:33 stay IN YOUR HOUSES........ the verse doesnt say, stay IN PROPHET'S houses....

And If you say so then you must surely find a discussion between hz abubakar(ra) and hz ali(ra) or hz abbas(ra) or hz umar(ra) and hz ali(ra) or hz abbas(ra) based on this issue that when the wives inherited why cant hz fatima(ra)....

I do not remember where i read it that when "When Hz Aysha riding a donkey stopped the funeral of Imam Hassan (as) from going in Masjid Nabvi for burial, Hazrat Abdullah Bin Abbas (r.a) was also there and he recited the following verses".

"O Aysha you rode on a CAMEL before

Now you are riding a DONKEY

A day may come when you will ride an ELEPHANT

You inherited only 1/8th part of inheritance left by the Prophet (pbuh) but you exploited the whole.

[aladdin 149]

No every appartment of the wives were their own...

So now they had apartments and not houses. The land for these apartments were bought by abu Bakr and he had them build for Ashia.

Her house was a single room.

You are thinking of Medina or Mecca? Where was the Prophet buried?

[Aabiss_Shakari 1,403]

I also read in a book these complements made by Hz. Usman.

When Hz. Usman stopped giving "Wazeefa" to Hz. Aysha and Hz. Hifsa, both of them visited him to ask him to restore their "Wazeefa" then Hz. Usman replied.

"O Aysha! is it not so that you and the person who even did not know how to wash after urinating (Hz. Abu Bakar) said that Prophet (pbuh) said that we prophet (pbuh) do not leave inheritance and what we leave is Tarqa and Tarqa is Sadqa. So by what right you can claim "Wazeefa" now?

On hearing this Hz. Aysha issued the fatwa that "Who will kill this Na'athal Jew (Hz. Usman), he has become apostate"

[ur wellwisher 1]

I do not remember where i read it.

sorry then.... its worthless

[Aabiss_Shakari 1,403]

sorry then.... its worthless

It is removed from my memory but not from the history books :angel:

[guest 34193 41]

Um guys, you know you've utterly derailed ninjaslim's thread. Out the more than 50 posts, hardly any have to do with what he asked for.

ninjaslim, want me to clean it up for you?

[ur wellwisher 1]

You are thinking of Medina or Mecca? Where was the Prophet buried?

ofcourse.. madinah.

It is removed from my memory but not from the history books :angel:

So unless you provide the reference we can check its authenticity , etc. Because it seems to be a fabrication. But before a counter attack from you, care to provide reference.

[serious-sam 0]

Can some of the Shi'ite brothers and sisters please post narrations attributed to the Imams (as) in which they (as) give their opinions on the Companions (ra), particularly those that the contemporary Shi'ites do not like? (I don't necessarily care about the grading. I just don't want anything that's fabricated.)

Al-kafi, vol. 8, page 245

- حنان، عن أبيه، عن أبي جعفر (عليه السلام) قال: كان الناس أهل ردة بعد النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله) (6) إلا ثلاثة فقلت: ومن الثلاثة؟ فقال: المقداد بن الاسود وأبو ذر الغفاري و سلمان الفارسي رحمة الله وبركاته عليهم ثم عرف اناس بعد يسير وقال: هؤلاء الذين

Reported by abi jafar (as): People became apostates after the death of the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam), except for three people: Miqdad ibn Aswad, Abu Dharr Ghifari and Salmaan Farsi.

Allamah Majlisi in “Mirat” said it’s hasan or muwathaq

Edited May 21, 2010 by serious-sam

[Jondab_Azdi 41]

Al-kafi, vol. 8, page 245

- حنان، عن أبيه، عن أبي جعفر (عليه السلام) قال: كان الناس أهل ردة بعد النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله) (6) إلا ثلاثة فقلت: ومن الثلاثة؟ فقال: المقداد بن الاسود وأبو ذر الغفاري و سلمان الفارسي رحمة الله وبركاته عليهم ثم عرف اناس بعد يسير وقال: هؤلاء الذين

Reported by abi jafar (as): People became apostates after the death of the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam), except for three people: Miqdad ibn Aswad, Abu Dharr Ghifari and Salmaan Farsi.

Allamah Majlisi in “Mirat” said it’s hasan or muwathaq

The more correct opinion is that the narration is daeef b/c of no (or unknown) wasitah b/w Shaykh al-Kulayni and Hannan b. Sadir.

إن هذه الرواية ضعيفة فيها إرسال فالواسطة بين الشيخ الكليني عليه الرحمة وحنان بن سدير غير معروفة

See: http://www.shiaweb.org/books/waqfa/pa8.html

Second, there are scholars such as Shaykh al-Radhy who consider Sadir (Father of Hannan) as majhool b/c of no clear tawthiq and b/c of the fact that the narrations in Rijal al-Kashi in praise of him are all weak.

From Shaykh al-Radhy. . .

سدير بن حكيم الصيرفي لم تثبت وثاقته

Third, there is an authentic narration from Imam al-Baqir (as) which proves that Imam Ali (as) saved the companions from becoming kafir. Read here:

w/s

Edited May 21, 2010 by Jondab_Azdi

[guest 34193 41]

The more correct opinion is that the narration is daeef b/c of no wasitah b/w Shaykh al-Kulayni and Hannan b. Sadir.

إن هذه الرواية ضعيفة فيها إرسال فالواسطة بين الشيخ الكليني عليه الرحمة وحنان بن سدير غير معروفة

See: http://www.shiaweb.org/books/waqfa/pa8.html

سدير بن حكيم الصيرفي لم تثبت وثاقته

That's nonsense, the wasita is mentioned in the hadith right before that one:

340 - علي بن ابراهيم، عن أبيه، عن حنان بن سدير، ومحمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد عن محمد بن إسماعيل، عن حنان بن سدير، عن أبيه قال: سألت أبا جعفر (عليه السلام) عنهما (3) فقال: يا أبا الفضل ما تسألني عنهما فوالله ما مات منا ميت قط إلا ساخطا عليهما وما منا اليوم إلا ساخطا عليهما يوصي بذلك الكبير منا الصغير، إنهما ظلمانا حقنا ومنعانا فيئنا وكانا أول من ركب أعناقنا وبثقا علينا بثقا (4) في الاسلام لا يسكر أبدا حتى يقوم قائمنا أو يتكلم متكلمنا (5). ثم قال: أما والله لو قد قام قائمنا [ أ ] وتكلم متكلمنا لابدى من امورهما ما كان يكتم ولكتم من امورهما ما كان يظهر والله ما أسست من بلية ولا قضية تجري علينا أهل البيت إلا هما أسسا أولها فعليمهما لعنة الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين.

[Jondab_Azdi 41]

^Assumption and very weak assumption b/c Shaykh didn't say 'with the same sanad...' or something like that.

w/s

[guest 34193 41]

^Assumption and very weak assumption b/c Shaykh didn't say 'with the same sanad...' or something like that.

w/s

err, no.. fairly standard practice for the time... sounds like someone trying very hard to find a way to reject a narration whose import they dislike...

w/s

[Lord Botta 2]

^ Macisaac seems about right on this one. However, doesn't that contradict narrations that praise Abu Sa'eed Al-Khudari?

[Qa'im 11,143]

(salam)

Same goes for narrations on Ammar ibn Yasir (ra) and Bilal al-Habbashi (ra).

[Jondab_Azdi 41]

^ Macisaac seems about right on this one. However, doesn't that contradict narrations that praise Abu Sa'eed Al-Khudari?

Even if we ignore the problem of wasitah b/w al-Kulayni (ar) and Hannan b. Sadir, the chain is still daeef b/c of majhool Sadir. There is no clear tawthiq for him. Some consider the narrations of Sadir hasan b/c of narrations in praise of him in rijal al-Kashi, but they are all weak. That's why Shaykh al-Radhy and some others considers his narrations as daeef.

هذه الرواية غير صحيحة سنداً و متناً , أما السند فان راويها سدير ممن لم تثبت وثاقته , فلم يرد فيه توثيق , ودعوى وروده في أسانيد كامل الزيارات أو تفسير علي بن ابراهيم هي دعوى غير تامة لبطلان المبنى , كما ان دعوى ابن شهراشوب ان سديراً كان من خواص أصحاب الصادق عليه السلام غير مقبولة فقد تفرد بها ابن شهراشوب وهو متأخر دون اساطين علم الرجال من المتقدمين و لعله استفادها من روايات اما ان يكون راويها سدير نفسه أو من روايات مادحة لسدير مطعون في سندها .

مضافاً الى ان العلامة الحلي نقل عن علي بن احمد العقيقي قوله في سدير انه كان مخلطاً و هذا يعني ان له روايات منكرة

w/s

Edited May 21, 2010 by Jondab_Azdi

[Lord Botta 2]

Shias need more Shaikh Radhys. It is good to see someone take hadith science seriously.

[Abu Tufayl 2,606]

Let me add a qualifier to my previous request. I don't want any hadith from Sunni books. Give me hadith from shi'a books and the interpretation as well (if you'd like). It was a simple request...I thought it was understood that I didn't want anything from Sunni books.

Mkay, it isn't very pretty. I'm assuming by "companions" its usually a reference to "the first two" similar to how most Sunnis throw the statement "Shi'ah hate the companions!" to actually mean "Shi'ah don't like the first two"

From an old post by Brother Mansab:

- علي بن ابراهيم، عن أبيه، عن حنان بن سدير، ومحمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد عن محمد بن إسماعيل، عن حنان بن سدير، عن أبيه قال: سألت أبا جعفر (ع) عنهما فقال: يا أبا الفضل ما تسألني عنهما فوالله ما مات منا ميت قط إلا ساخطا عليهما وما منا اليوم إلا ساخطا عليهما يوصي بذلك البير منا الصغير، إنهما ظلمانا حقنا ومنعانا فيئنا وكانا أول من ركب أعناقنا وبثقا علينا بثقا في الاسلام لا يسكر ابدا حتى يقوم قائمنا أو يتكلم متكلمنا.

ثم قال: أما والله لو قد قام قائمنا وتكلم متكلمنا لابدى من امورهما ما كان يكتم ولكتم من امورهما ما كان يظهر والله ما أسست من بلية ولا قضية تجري علينا أهل البيت إلا هما أسسا أولها فعليمهما لعنة الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين.

- الكافي للشيخ الكليني, ج 8 ص 245

'Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi from his father from Hanaan ibn Sadeer, and Muhammad ibn Yahya from Ahmed ibn Muhammad from Muhammad ibn Isma'il from Hanaan ibn Sadeer, from Sadeer who said: I asked Abu Ja'far (a.s.) regarding the two. Abu Ja'far (a.s.) said: "Ya Abu al-Fadhl! Do not ask me about those two! I swear by Allah that no one from among us dies except with anger for both of them. There is no one from us today except that they are angry at both of them. The old from among us informs the young about that! These two oppressed us and prevented us from taking our rights. They were the first to ride on our necks! They opened up a door of oppression against us in Islam which will never close until our Qa'em rises or our speaker speaks." Abu Ja'far (a.s.) then said: "He will expose matters concerning them that have been hidden and he shall hide matters concerning them which have been brought up (falsely). I swear by Allah that no affliction or trouble has been caused against Ahlul'bayt (a.s.) except that they are the roots causes of these. Thus, may the curse of Allah, his Angels, and all of Mankind be upon them both."

- al-Kafi of Sheikh al-Kulayni, volume 8, page 245

- حنان عن أبيه، عن أبي جعفر (ع) قال: قلت له: ما كان ولد يعقوب أنبياء؟ قال: لا ولكنهم كانوا أسباط أولاد الانبياء ولم يكن يفارقوا الدنيا إلا سعداء تابوا وتذكروا ما صنعوا وإن الشيخين فارقا الدنيا ولم يتوبا ولم يتذكرا ما صنعا بأمير المؤمنين (ع) فعليهما لعنة الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين.

- الكافي للشيخ الكليني, ج 8 ص 246

[same chain as before] from Hanaan from his father who said: "I said to Abu Ja'far (a.s.): "Were the sons of Ya'qub (a.s.) prophets?" He said: "No, but they were sons of prophets and they did not leave this world until they were satisifed and repentful and remembered what they did. And surely the Sheikhain did not leave this world after caring about what they did to Ameer al-Mu'mineen (a.s.). Thus, may the curse of Allah, his Angels, and all of Mankind be upon them both."

- al-Kafi of Sheikh al-Kulayni, volume 8, page 246

الحديث الحادي و الأربعون و الثلاثمائة

: حسن أو موثق

- المرآة العقول في شرح أخبار آل الرسول لعلامة مجلسي , ج 28 ص 213

"Tradition 340: Hasan or Muwaththaq"

- Miraat al-'Uqool of 'Allamah Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, volume 26, page 213

الحديث الثالث و الأربعون و الثلاثمائة

: حسن أو موثق

- المرآة العقول في شرح أخبار آل الرسول لعلامة مجلسي , ج 28 ص 215

"Tradition 343: Hasan or Muwaththaq"

- Miraat al-'Uqool of 'Allamah Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, volume 26, page 215

Some individuals who are prefer hardcore strict rijaal may get their panties in a bunch but these traditions exist.

(salam)

Edited May 21, 2010 by Dar'ul_Islam

[Jondab_Azdi 41]

^Same problem with all the above narrations i.e. Sadir. See:

w/s

[guest 34193 41]

^ Macisaac seems about right on this one. However, doesn't that contradict narrations that praise Abu Sa'eed Al-Khudari?

There's no contradiction, nor with the praise given to others such as `Ammar b. Yasir (ra). What the narration (and while I would need to double check this, I don't think it's the only hadith we have that says this) is indicating is that it was only those three in particular who from the beginning stood steadfast by the Imam (as) without even a moment of hesitation while everyone else, even if they sooner or later came back to him, did not, which considering our belief about his station would in fact be a ridda. If you read the praise of Abu Sa`id, it specifically says he "returned" to the Imam (as), which would indicate he was not one of those who was there from the beginning even though he died upon it, may Allah be pleased with him.

Shias need more Shaikh Radhys. It is good to see someone take hadith science seriously.

more like taking it selectively (i.e. whatever makes the "shaykhain" look bad and sets us apart from Sunnis by hook or by crook will be rejected as "da`if")

[Jondab_Azdi 41]

more like taking it selectively (i.e. whatever makes the "shaykhain" look bad and sets us apart from Sunnis by hook or by crook will be rejected as "da`if")

^Very biased statement. If you had said this about Syed Fadhlallah or Shaykh al-Maiad, I would have agreed with you to some extent. But Shaykh al-Radhy? Not at all. There are proper reasoning about Sadir being majhool. No tawthiq from mutaqaddimeen and narrations in praise of him being weak.

w/s

Edited May 21, 2010 by Jondab_Azdi

[guest 34193 41]

^Very biased statement. If you had said this about Syed Fadhlallah or Shaykh al-Maiad, I would have agreed with you to some extent. But Shaykh al-Radhy? Not at all. There are proper reasoning about Sadir being majhool. No tawthiq from mutaqaddimeen and narrations in praise of him being weak.

w/s

Oh please. You know damn well the only reason Radhi is being "strict" on this one is because he's trying to reject any and every hadith that goes against the shaykhain as such. Funny how he'll reject the praise of Ibn Shahrashood as being too "late" and then cite Hilli's book in the same quote... And in that regard cite al-`Aqeeqi even though there isn't a clear tawthiq of al-`Aqeeqi himself. As to the reason for rejecting the praise narrations of Sadir, it's more of the extremely mechanical "doesn't fit into this later system we made up centuries after the rijal books were written" type rejection, i.e. pretty baseless.

Seriously bro, you do realize the consequences of so casually throwing out hadiths don't you? And for what? To protect the reputation of Jibt and Taghut of all people? SubhanAllah.

[Jondab_Azdi 41]

That Aqeeqi argument was used by al-Maiad, not al-Radhy. And even if we ignore the weakness of Sadir (انه كان مخلطاً) mentioned by Aqeeqi, Sadir is still majhool if not daeef. We don't have any tawthiq for him from Mutaqaddimeen and no sahih hadith in praise of him.

Seriously bro, you do realize the consequences of so casually throwing out hadiths don't you? And for what? To protect the reputation of Jibt and Taghut of all people? SubhanAllah.

It's not about protecting anyone. I don't take my deen from "jibt and Taghut". I prefer to follow what has reached us through reliable companions of Imams of Ahlul bayt (as) and not unknowns. It's actually the reciters of third shahadah in adhan who are following the sunnah of "jibt and Taghut" by introducing bidah and are indirectly protecting their reputation.

It was the sunnah of second to add things to adhan. Who is following the sunnah of second today? The one who is following the sunnah of second is the one protecting them.

w/s

Edited May 21, 2010 by Jondab_Azdi

[Abu'l Khattab 1,024]

(salam) (bismillah)

ãÍãÏ Èä íÍíì¡ Úä ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ¡ Úä ÇáÍÓä Èä ãÍÈæÈ¡ Úä åÔÇã Èä ÓÇáã¡ Úä ÒÑÇÑÉ ÞÇá: ÞáÊ áÇÈí ÌÚÝÑ (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã): ÃÎÈÑäí Úä ãÚÑÝÉ ÇáÇãÇã ãäßã æÇÌÈÉ Úá

ÌãíÚ ÇáÎáÞ¿ ÝÞÇá: Åä Çááå ÚÒæÌá ÈÚË ãÍãÏÇ (Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå) Åáì ÇáäÇÓ ÃÌãÚíä ÑÓæáÇ æ ÍÌÉ ááå Úáì ÌãíÚ ÎáÞå Ýí ÃÑÖå¡ Ýãä Âãä ÈÇááå æÈãÍãÏ ÑÓæá Çááå æÇÊÈÚå æÕÏÞå ÝÅä ãÚÑÝÉ ÇáÇãÇã ãäÇ æÇÌÈÉ Úáíå¡ æãä áã íÄãä ÈÇááå æÈÑÓæáå æáã íÊÈÚå æáã íÕÏÞå æíÚÑÝ ÍÞåãÇ (1) ÝßíÝ íÌÈ Úáíå ãÚÑÝÉ ÇáÇãÇã æåæ áÇ íÄãä ÈÇááå æÑÓæáå æíÚÑÝ ÍÞåãÇ (1)¿! ÞÇá: ÞáÊ: ÝãÇ ÊÞæá Ýíãä íÄãä ÈÇááå æÑÓæáå æíÕÏÞ ÑÓæáå Ýí ÌãíÚ ãÇ ÃäÒá Çááå¡ íÌÈ Úáì ÇæáÆß ÍÞ ãÚÑÝÊßã¿ ÞÇá: äÚã ÃáíÓ åÄáÇÁ íÚÑÝæä ÝáÇäÇ æÝáÇäÇ ÞáÊ: Èáì¡ ÞÇá: ÃÊÑì Ãä Çááå åæ ÇáÐí ÃæÞÚ Ýí ÞáæÈåã ãÚÑÝÉ åÄáÇÁ¿ æÇááå ãÇ ÃæÞÚ Ðáß Ýí ÞáæÈåã ÅáÇ ÇáÔíØÇä¡ áÇ æÇááå ãÇ Ãáåã ÇáãÄãäíä ÍÞäÇ ÅáÇ Çáå ÚÒæÌá.

^ Sahih according to MacIsaac

(wasalam)

[89jghur32 516]

Um guys, you know you've utterly derailed ninjaslim's thread. Out the more than 50 posts, hardly any have to do with what he asked for.

ninjaslim, want me to clean it up for you?

Please do, I'd really appreciate it. I didn't think this would be so hard. I asked for a few hadith, that's it. :unsure:

[serious-sam 0]

The more correct opinion is that the narration is daeef b/c of no (or unknown) wasitah b/w Shaykh al-Kulayni and Hannan b. Sadir.

Åä åÐå ÇáÑæÇíÉ ÖÚíÝÉ ÝíåÇ ÅÑÓÇá ÝÇáæÇÓØÉ Èíä ÇáÔíÎ Çáßáíäí Úáíå ÇáÑÍãÉ æÍäÇä Èä ÓÏíÑ ÛíÑ ãÚÑæÝÉ

See: http://www.shiaweb.org/books/waqfa/pa8.html

Second, there are scholars such as Shaykh al-Radhy who consider Sadir (Father of Hannan) as majhool b/c of no clear tawthiq and b/c of the fact that the narrations in Rijal al-Kashi in praise of him are all weak.

From Shaykh al-Radhy. . .

ÓÏíÑ Èä Íßíã ÇáÕíÑÝí áã ÊËÈÊ æËÇÞÊå

Third, there is an authentic narration from Imam al-Baqir (as) which proves that Imam Ali (as) saved the companions from becoming kafir. Read here:

w/s

I highly agree with you.

But what about this:

Allamah Majlesee in “Bihar al anwar” vol.28, page 199:

“From a free-slave of Alee ibn Husayn [ibn Alee may Allaah be pleased with them] that he said : ‘I was with him (i.e. Alee ibn Husayn may Allaah be pleased with him) in one of the situations where he was alone, so I said : ‘Indeed I have a right upon you , that you inform me about these two men : Aboo Bakr and Umar?’

So he replied : “Kaafiraan [They are two kaafirs /disbelievers] , Kaafir man ahabbahumaa [And whoever loves them is a kaafir].”

May be this report is also weak.

One request: Show us any sahih hadith (according to you) which goes against shaykhain. simple.

[Jondab_Azdi 41]

I highly agree with you.

But what about this:

Allamah Majlesee in “Bihar al anwar” vol.28, page 199:

“From a free-slave of Alee ibn Husayn [ibn Alee may Allaah be pleased with them] that he said : ‘I was with him (i.e. Alee ibn Husayn may Allaah be pleased with him) in one of the situations where he was alone, so I said : ‘Indeed I have a right upon you , that you inform me about these two men : Aboo Bakr and Umar?’

So he replied : “Kaafiraan [They are two kaafirs /disbelievers] , Kaafir man ahabbahumaa [And whoever loves them is a kaafir].”

May be this report is also weak.

Yes it's clearly weak. See this post:

One request: Show us any sahih hadith (according to you) which goes against shaykhain. simple.

The narration quoted in post 72 is sahih. It's clearly against the khilafah of Shaykhayn but there is mention of cursing or la'n in it.

محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن الحسن بن محبوب، عن هشام بن سالم، عن زرارة

^ Sahih according to MacIsaac

Not only a/c to macisaac, it's sanad is sahih a/c to all Imamis, except the ignorant bidatis of answering-ansar.org who considers Hisham b. Salim (ra) unreliable.

We have already proven in Reply one that from the Shi'a texts of Rijjal that Hisham bin Salim who had a "al fasad aqeedah and believed that you physically see Allah (swt)" (Rijjal Kashi page 184). A narration by a man with views that diametrically oppose Shi'a aqeedah means that they are to be rejected.

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/umme_kulthum/en/chap10.php

Astagfirullah.

w/s

Edited May 22, 2010 by Jondab_Azdi

[guest 34193 41]

(and while I would need to double check this, I don't think it's the only hadith we have that says this)

Found some more. Same meaning as the hadith in al-Kafi but with three other isnads and some more details. From al-Ikhtisas:

يحيى، عن أبيه، عن محمد بن الحسين، عن الحسين بن محبوب، عن الحارث

قال: سمعت عبدالملك بن أعين يسأل أبا عبدالله عليه السلام فلم يزل يسأله حتى قال: فهلك الناس إذا؟ فقال: إي والله يا ابن أعين هلك الناس أجمعون، قلت: أهل الشرق والغرب؟ قال: إنها فتحت على الضلال، إي والله هلكوا إلا ثلاثة نفر: سلمان الفارسي، وأبوذر، والمقداد ولحقهم عمار، وأبوساسان الانصاري، وحذيفة، وأبوعمرة فصاروا سبعة.(1)

Yahya from his father from Muhammad b. al-Husayn from al-Husayn b. Mahbub from al-Harith. He said: I heard Abd al-Malik b. A`yan asking Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام without ceasing until he said: So the people were destroyed then? So he said: Yea, by Allah, O son of A'yan, the people were destroyed altogether. I said: The people of East and the West? He said: Verily it opened up upon misguidance, that is, by Allah, they were destroyed except for three individuals: Salman al-Farsi, and Abu Dharr, and al-Miqdad, and `Ammar joined them, and Abu Sasan al-Ansari, and Hudhayfa, and Abu `Umra, so they became seven.

عدة من أصحابنا، عن محمد بن الحسن (2)، عن محمد بن الحسن الصفار، عن أيوب بن نوح، عن صفوان بن يحيى، عن مثنى بن الوليد الحناط، عن بريد بن معاوية، عن جعفر عليه السلام قال: ارتد الناس بعد النبي صلى الله عليه وآله إلا ثلاثة نفر: المقداد بن الاسود، وأبوذر الغفاري وسلمان الفارسي، ثم إن الناس

عرفوا ولحقوا بعد.

A number of our companions from Muhammad b. al-Hasan from Muhammad b. al-Hasan as-Saffar from Ayyub b. Nuh from Safwan b. Yahya from Muthanna b. al-Waleed al-Hannat from Burayd b. Mu`awiya from Ja`far عليه السلام. He said: The people apostatized after the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله except for three individuals: al-Miqdad b. al-Aswad, and Abu Dharr al-Ghafari, and Salman al-Farsi. Then the people recognized and joined after.

وعنه عن محمد بن الحسن، عن محمد بن الحسن الصفار، عن محمد بن الحسين،

عن موسى بن سعدان، عن عبدالله بن القاسم الحضرمي، عن عمرو بن ثابت قال: سمعت أبا عبدالله عليه السلام يقول: إن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله لما قبض ارتد الناس على أعقابهم كفارا إلا ثلاثا: سلمان والمقداد، وأبوذر الغفاري، إنه لما قبض رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله جاء أربعون رجلا إلى علي بن أبي طالب عليه السلام فقالوا: لا والله لا نعطي أحدا طاعة بعدك أبدا، قال: ولم؟ قالوا: إنا سمعنا من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله فيك يوم غدير [ خم ]، قال: وتفعلون؟ قالوا: نعم قال: فأتوني غدا محلقين، قال: فما أتاه إلا هؤلاء الثلاثة، قال: وجاءه عمار بن ياسر بعد الظهر فضرب يده على صدره، ثم قال له: مالك أن تستيقظ من نومة الغفلة، ارجعوا فلا حاجة لي فيكم أنتم لم تطيعوني في حلق الرأس فكيف تطيعوني في قتال جبال الحديد، ارجعوا فلا حاجة لي فيكم.(3)

And from him from Muhammad b. al-Hasan from Muhammad b. al-Hasan as-Saffar from Muhammad b. al-Husayn from Musa b. Sa`dan from `Abdullah b. al-Qasim al-Hadrami from `Amr b. Thabit. He said: I heard Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام saying: Verily when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله passed away, the people turned upon their heels as kuffar except for three: Salman and al-Miqdad and Abu Dharr al-Ghafari. Verily when the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله passed away, forty men came to `Ali b. Abi Talib عليه السلام and said: No, by Allah, we will not obey anyone after you ever. He said: And why? They said: Verily we heard from the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله regarding you on the day of Ghadir [Khumm]. He said: And you are acting (by it)? They said: Yes. So he said: So come to me tomorrow with shaven heads. He said: So there did not come to him (anyone) except for those three. He said: And `Ammar b. Yasir came to him after zhuhr. So he struck his hand upon his breast then he said to him: What is with you that you awaken from the sleep of forgetfulness. Go back for I have no need of you. You did not obey me in the shaving of the head, so how would you obey me in fighting the mountain of iron. Go back for I have no need of you.

A report to this effect is also mentioned in Tusi's summary of Kashshi's book of rijal (The online versions of this seem a bit garbled in terms of where the report begins and ends so I haven't quoted it).

As to the possible significance of the shaven heads, a brother pointed out to me that the Arabs used to do that prior to going out to battle.

[Ya Baqiyatullah (aj) 46]

(salam)

This may be a silly question, but why haven't the pious wives of the Prophet been mentioned in the above ahadith and why haven't the Ahlul Bayt or other members of Imam Ali (as) family been mentioned?

[guest 34193 41]

Please do, I'd really appreciate it. I didn't think this would be so hard. I asked for a few hadith, that's it. :unsure:

Ok, invisibled off topic posts (i.e. talking about Sunni hadiths, fadak, etc). In sha Allah, let's try to keep this on topic, it's an interesting and important subject.

(salam)

This may be a silly question, but why haven't the pious wives of the Prophet been mentioned in the above ahadith and why haven't the Ahlul Bayt or other members of Imam Ali (as) family been mentioned?

(wasalam)

Perhaps it's referring to the ashab in general, while family members aren't usually (if I'm not mistaken) counted in that. We don't for instance (at least so far as I've seen) refer to Umm Salama as a sahaba as such, she was a wife of the Prophet (pbuh), nor would the Imams al-Hasan (as) and al-Husayn (as) be called "ashab", they were Ahl al-Bayt.

[Jondab_Azdi 41]

Found some more. Same meaning as the hadith in al-Kafi but with three other isnads and some more details. From al-Ikhtisas:

يحيى، عن أبيه، عن محمد بن الحسين، عن الحسين بن محبوب، عن الحارث

قال: سمعت عبدالملك بن أعين يسأل أبا عبدالله عليه السلام فلم يزل يسأله حتى قال: فهلك الناس إذا؟ فقال: إي والله يا ابن أعين هلك الناس أجمعون، قلت: أهل الشرق والغرب؟ قال: إنها فتحت على الضلال، إي والله هلكوا إلا ثلاثة نفر: سلمان الفارسي، وأبوذر، والمقداد ولحقهم عمار، وأبوساسان الانصاري، وحذيفة، وأبوعمرة فصاروا سبعة.(1)

Yahya from his father from Muhammad b. al-Husayn from al-Husayn b. Mahbub from al-Harith. He said: I heard Abd al-Malik b. A`yan asking Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام without ceasing until he said: So the people were destroyed then? So he said: Yea, by Allah, O son of A'yan, the people were destroyed altogether. I said: The people of East and the West? He said: Verily it opened up upon misguidance, that is, by Allah, they were destroyed except for three individuals: Salman al-Farsi, and Abu Dharr, and al-Miqdad, and `Ammar joined them, and Abu Sasan al-Ansari, and Hudhayfa, and Abu `Umra, so they became seven.

عدة من أصحابنا، عن محمد بن الحسن (2)، عن محمد بن الحسن الصفار، عن أيوب بن نوح، عن صفوان بن يحيى، عن مثنى بن الوليد الحناط، عن بريد بن معاوية، عن جعفر عليه السلام قال: ارتد الناس بعد النبي صلى الله عليه وآله إلا ثلاثة نفر: المقداد بن الاسود، وأبوذر الغفاري وسلمان الفارسي، ثم إن الناس

عرفوا ولحقوا بعد.

A number of our companions from Muhammad b. al-Hasan from Muhammad b. al-Hasan as-Saffar from Ayyub b. Nuh from Safwan b. Yahya from Muthanna b. al-Waleed al-Hannat from Burayd b. Mu`awiya from Ja`far عليه السلام. He said: The people apostatized after the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله except for three individuals: al-Miqdad b. al-Aswad, and Abu Dharr al-Ghafari, and Salman al-Farsi. Then the people recognized and joined after.

وعنه عن محمد بن الحسن، عن محمد بن الحسن الصفار، عن محمد بن الحسين،

عن موسى بن سعدان، عن عبدالله بن القاسم الحضرمي، عن عمرو بن ثابت قال: سمعت أبا عبدالله عليه السلام يقول: إن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله لما قبض ارتد الناس على أعقابهم كفارا إلا ثلاثا: سلمان والمقداد، وأبوذر الغفاري، إنه لما قبض رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله جاء أربعون رجلا إلى علي بن أبي طالب عليه السلام فقالوا: لا والله لا نعطي أحدا طاعة بعدك أبدا، قال: ولم؟ قالوا: إنا سمعنا من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله فيك يوم غدير [ خم ]، قال: وتفعلون؟ قالوا: نعم قال: فأتوني غدا محلقين، قال: فما أتاه إلا هؤلاء الثلاثة، قال: وجاءه عمار بن ياسر بعد الظهر فضرب يده على صدره، ثم قال له: مالك أن تستيقظ من نومة الغفلة، ارجعوا فلا حاجة لي فيكم أنتم لم تطيعوني في حلق الرأس فكيف تطيعوني في قتال جبال الحديد، ارجعوا فلا حاجة لي فيكم.(3)

And from him from Muhammad b. al-Hasan from Muhammad b. al-Hasan as-Saffar from Muhammad b. al-Husayn from Musa b. Sa`dan from `Abdullah b. al-Qasim al-Hadrami from `Amr b. Thabit. He said: I heard Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام saying: Verily when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله passed away, the people turned upon their heels as kuffar except for three: Salman and al-Miqdad and Abu Dharr al-Ghafari. Verily when the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله passed away, forty men came to `Ali b. Abi Talib عليه السلام and said: No, by Allah, we will not obey anyone after you ever. He said: And why? They said: Verily we heard from the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله regarding you on the day of Ghadir [Khumm]. He said: And you are acting (by it)? They said: Yes. So he said: So come to me tomorrow with shaven heads. He said: So there did come to him (anyone) except for those three. He said: And `Ammar b. Yasir came to him after zhuhr. So he struck his hand upon his breast then he said to him: What is with you that you awaken from the sleep of forgetfulness. Go back for I have no need of you. You did not obey me in the shaving of the head, so how would you obey me in fighting the mountain of iron. Go back for I have no need of you.

A report to this effect is also mentioned in Tusi's summary of Kashshi's book of rijal (The online versions of this seem a bit garbled in terms of where the report begins and ends so I haven't quoted it).

As to the possible significance of the shaven heads, a brother pointed out to me that the Arabs used to do that prior to going out to battle.

When it comes to proving your point, you don't care quoting from daeef books like al-Ikhtisas ; )

From Syed al-Khoei

هذه الروايات كلّها ضعيفة غير ما رواه في الاختصاص، ولكنه أيضاً لايمكن الاعتماد عليه لعدم ثبوت نسبة الكتاب إلى الشيخ المفيد

and btw, the individual chains are also daeef.

w/s

Edited May 22, 2010 by Jondab_Azdi

[serious-sam 0]

The narration quoted in post 72 is sahih. It's clearly against the khilafah of Shaykhayn but there is mention of cursing or la'n in it.

Which 72nd post! Can u here post the link please.

[Qa'im 11,143]

(salam)

What about Abbas ibn Abd al-Mutalib (ra) who gave bay'a to Ali in sermon 5 of NB?

[89jghur32 516]

Are there anymore interesting narrations? I thought Shi'ites would have more of these types, given how much they stress tabarra.

[Abdaal 2]

The 12r Shias of the past relied on narrations from Mullah Baqir Al Majalisi's sources. The 12rs Shias of today are more interested in refuting and debating. Therefore, they rather post narrations from 'Sunni' sources as opposed to their own. I was once discussing issue of mattam. The 12r posted a long copy and paste for sunni sources, when I asked him to post it from shia sources he was able to only post a narration through Bibi Zaineb bintu Ali (as).

[Abu'l Khattab 1,024]

Are there anymore interesting narrations? I thought Shi'ites would have more of these types, given how much they stress tabarra.

(salam)

There are always more, but the thing with those ones is that most are weak. Remember, 3 volumes of Bihaar al Anwar were banned because of excessive hate towards the caliphs.

(wasalam)

The 12r Shias of the past relied on narrations from Mullah Baqir Al Majalisi's sources. The 12rs Shias of today are more interested in refuting and debating. Therefore, they rather post narrations from 'Sunni' sources as opposed to their own. I was once discussing issue of mattam. The 12r posted a long copy and paste for sunni sources, when I asked him to post it from shia sources he was able to only post a narration through Bibi Zaineb bintu Ali (as).

LOL, ur funny

Edited May 24, 2010 by haidar al karrar