Ibn Taymyyah Jahl Of Hadith

Zurarah · June 28, 2010

salam

here i give a sample of ignorance of ibn taymyyah(la)

in his minhaj answering his master allmah al-hilli(ts) he said:

Çá ÇáÑÇÝÖí æÚä ÚãÑæ Èä ãíãæä ÞÇá áÚáí Èä ÃÈí ØÇáÈ ÚÔÑ ÝÖÇÆá áíÓÊ áÛíÑå ÞÇá ÇáäÈí Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã áÃÈÚËä ÑÌáÇð áÇ íÎÒíå Çááå ÃÈÏÇð íÍÈ Çááå æÑÓæáå æíÍÈå Çááå æÑÓæáå ÝÇÓÊÔÑÝ ÅáíåÇ ãä ÇÓÊÔÑÝ ÝÞÇá Ãíä Úáí Èä ÃÈí ØÇáÈ ÞÇáæÇ åæ ÃÑãÏ Ýí ÇáÑÍÇ íÍØä æãÇ ßÇä ÃÍÏåã íØÍä ÞÇá ÝÌÇÁ æåæ ÃÑãÏ áÇ íßÇÏ Ãä íÈÕÑ ÞÇá ÝäÝË Ýí Úíäíå Ëã åÒø áå ÇáÑÇíÉ ËáÇËÇð æÃÚØÇåÇ ÅíÇå ÝÌÇÁ ÈÕÝíÉ ÈäÊ Ííí ÞÇá Ëã ÈÚË ÃÈÇ ÈßÑ ÈÓæÑÉ ÈÑÇÁÉ ÝÈÚË ÚáíÇð ÎáÝå ÝÃÎÐåÇ ãäå æÞÇá áÇ íÐåÈ ÈåÇ ÅáÇ ÑÌá åæ ãäí æÃäÇ ãäå ¡ æÞÇá áÈäí Úãå Ãíßã íæÇáíäí Ýí ÇáÏäíÇ æÇáÂÎÑÉ ÞÇá æÚáí ÌÇáÓ ãÚåã ÝÃÈæÇ ÝÞÇá Úáí ÃäÇ ÃæÇáíß Ýí ÇáÏäíÇ æÇáÂÎÑÉ ¡ ÞÇá ÝÊÑßå Ëã ÃÞÈá Úáì ÑÌá ÑÌá ãäåã ÝÞÇá Ãíßã íæÇáíäí Ýí ÇáÏäíÇ æÇáÂÎÑÉ ÝÃÈæÇ ¡ ÝÞÇá Úáí ÃäÇ ÃæÇáíß Ýí ÇáÏäíÇ æÇáÂÎÑÉ ¡ ÝÞÇá ÃäÊ æáíí Ýí ÇáÏäíÇ æÇáÂÎÑÉ ¡ ÞÇá æßÇä Úáí Ãæá ãä ÃÓáã ãä ÇáäÇÓ ÈÚÏ ÎÏíÌÉ ÞÇá æÃÎÐ ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã ËæÈå ÝæÖÚå Úáì Úáí æÝÇØãÉ æÇáÍÓä æÇáÍÓíä ÝÞÇá ÅäãÇ íÑíÏ Çááå áíÐåÈ Úäßã ÇáÑÌÓ Ãåá ÇáÈíÊ æíØåÑßã ÊØåíÑÇ ¡ ÞÇá æÔÑì Úáí äÝÓå æáÈÓ ËæÈ ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã Ëã äÇã ãßÇäå æßÇä ÇáãÔÑßæä íÑãæäå ÈÇáÍÌÇÑÉ æÎÑÌ ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã ÈÇáäÇÓ Ýí ÛÒÇÉ ÊÈæß ÝÞÇá áå Úáí ÃÎÑÌ ãÚß ÝÞÇá áÇ ¡ ÝÈßì Úáí ÝÞÇá áå ÃãÇ ÊÑÖì Ãä Êßæä ãäí ÈãäÒáÉ åÇÑæä ãä ãæÓì ÅáÇ Ãäß áÓÊ ÈäÈí ¡ áÇ íäÈÛí Ãä ÃÐåÈ ÅáÇ æÃäÊ ÎáíÝÊí ¡ æÞÇá áå ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã ÃäÊ æáíí Ýí ßá ãÄãä ÈÚÏí ÞÇá æÓÏ ÃÈæÇÈ ÇáãÓÌÏ ÅáÇø ÈÇÈ Úáí ¡ ÞÇá æßÇä íÏÎá ÇáãÓÌÏ ÌäÈÇð æåæ ØÑíÞå áíÓ áå ØÑíÞ ÛíÑå æÞÇá áå ãä ßäÊ ãæáÇå

he said: the rafidhi said : from amru ibn maymoon that ali ibn abi talb had 10 virtues ...etc

in his answer ibn taymyyah said: this is not connected and it's mursal if it was indeed said by amru ibn maymoon.

ref : minhaj al-sunnah(al-bid'a not al-sunnah) v 4 p 8

i say what a useless nasibi this guy is : the hadith is connected and is not mursal in anyway and amru ibn maymoon narrated this hadith from ibn abbas and he declared that he was with ibn abbas (ra) during this incident so how on earth can this hadith be mursal?? here's the proof from sunan nasai kobra v 5 page 113:

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 ÅÐ ÃÊÇå ÊÓÚÉ ÑåØ

the underlined part of hadith from sunan nasai says: amru ibn maymoon told us : he was sat with ibn abbas so 9 people came to him...etc

so amru ibn maymoon was there and witnessed the whole incident.

also in tahdhib :

ÚãÑæ Èä ãíãæä ÇáÃæÏí ÃÈæ ÚÈÏ Çááå æíÞÇá ÃÈæ íÍíì ÇáßæÝí ÃÏÑß ÇáÌÇåáíÉ æáã íáÞ ÇáäÈí æÑæì Úä ÚãÑ æÇÈä ãÓÚæÏ æãÚÇÐ Èä ÌÈá æÃÈí ÐÑ æÃÈí ãÓÚæÏ ÇáÈÏÑí æÓÚÏ Èä ÃÈí æÞÇÕ æãÚÞá Èä íÓÇÑ æÚÇÆÔÉ æÃÈí åÑíÑÉ æÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ

and ibn hajar didn't object to his narration from ibn abbas neither did anyone untill ibn taymyyah !!!

sheikh al-islam indeed !!!!

anyway the hadith is about fadhail ali (as)

Imagine if their spiritual leader is such an ignorant in hadith then what about common little salafis we have today ?

anyway i thnk what happened here is that ibn taymyyah confused ÚãÑæ Èä ãíãæä Èä ãåÑÇä ÇáÌÒÑí amru ibn maymoon ibn mahran al-jazari with ÚãÑæ Èä ãíãæä ÇáÃæÏí amru ibn maymoon al-awdi who is the narrator here

aladdin · June 28, 2010

Imagine if their spiritual leader is such an ignorant in hadith then what about common little salafis we have today ?
anyway i thnk what happened here is that ibn taymyyah confused ÚãÑæ Èä ãíãæä Èä ãåÑÇä ÇáÌÒÑí amru ibn maymoon ibn mahran al-jazari with ÚãÑæ Èä ãíãæä ÇáÃæÏí amru ibn maymoon al-awdi who is the narrator here

Zurarah · June 28, 2010

thanks for support brother aladdin, i appreciate it .

for people who can't speak arabik then the hadith talks about few fadhail of ali (as) as repported by ibn Abbas(ra):

in this hadith there's few points about ali(as) :

-rasool Allah chose him to conquer khaibar and took banner from abu bakr and gave it to ali(as) and said : only a man from me and that i'm from him goes with the banner

- rasool Allah asked: who is willing to be my ally in this life and the hereafter ?? ali said: i do..

-ali was the first to embrace islam after khadija

-he put himself in danger by sleeping in prophet(saw) bed

-about him and his sons and his wife (saw) was revealed the verse of purification.

-rasool Allah told him: you are to me like haroon was to musa..

- rasool Allah ordered the boarding of all dors in majjid apart from ali's door.

-he was from people of badr .

_ rasool Allah said: whoever i'm his maula ali is his maula.

next i will give some more examples of ignorance of ibn taymyyah but for the momenet let's wait for Botta and co to answer .

Zurarah · June 28, 2010

Also ibn taymyyah and co like ibn katheer tried to weaken hadith of brotherhood

now we are not talking about hadith from prophet but about athar of ali(as) who said it himself that he is the brother of rasool Allah(saww)and here's a hadith with strong sanad about this

32079 - حدثنا عبد الله بن نمير عن الحارث بن حصيرة قال حدثني أبو سليمان الجهني يعني زيد بن وهب قال سمعت عليا على المنبر وهو يقول أنا عبد الله وأخو رسوله صلى الله عليه و سلم لم يقلها أحد قبلي ولا يقولها أحد بعدي إلا كذاب مفتر

http://islamport.com/d/1/mtn/1/114/4266.html?zoom_highlightsub=%22%C5%E4%E3%C7+%E3%CB%E1%E4%C7+%DD%ED+%E5%D0%E5+%C7%E1%C3%E3%C9+%DF%D3%DD%ED%E4%C9+%E4%E6%CD+%22

the hadith is from musannaf ibn abi shaibah :

narrated abdullah ibn umair from harith ibn haseerah narrated abu sulaiman al-juhani meaning sulaiman ibn wahb he said i heard ali on the pulipit saying : i 'am the slave of Allah and the brother of rasool Allah nobody said it before me and nobody will say it after me but a liar.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Zurarah

Lord Botta · June 28, 2010

salam
here i give a sample of ignorance of ibn taymyyah(la)
in his minhaj answering his master allmah al-hilli(ts) he said:
Çá ÇáÑÇÝÖí æÚä ÚãÑæ Èä ãíãæä ÞÇá áÚáí Èä ÃÈí ØÇáÈ ÚÔÑ ÝÖÇÆá áíÓÊ áÛíÑå ÞÇá ÇáäÈí Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã áÃÈÚËä ÑÌáÇð áÇ íÎÒíå Çááå ÃÈÏÇð íÍÈ Çááå æÑÓæáå æíÍÈå Çááå æÑÓæáå ÝÇÓÊÔÑÝ ÅáíåÇ ãä ÇÓÊÔÑÝ ÝÞÇá Ãíä Úáí Èä ÃÈí ØÇáÈ ÞÇáæÇ åæ ÃÑãÏ Ýí ÇáÑÍÇ íÍØä æãÇ ßÇä ÃÍÏåã íØÍä ÞÇá ÝÌÇÁ æåæ ÃÑãÏ áÇ íßÇÏ Ãä íÈÕÑ ÞÇá ÝäÝË Ýí Úíäíå Ëã åÒø áå ÇáÑÇíÉ ËáÇËÇð æÃÚØÇåÇ ÅíÇå ÝÌÇÁ ÈÕÝíÉ ÈäÊ Ííí ÞÇá Ëã ÈÚË ÃÈÇ ÈßÑ ÈÓæÑÉ ÈÑÇÁÉ ÝÈÚË ÚáíÇð ÎáÝå ÝÃÎÐåÇ ãäå æÞÇá áÇ íÐåÈ ÈåÇ ÅáÇ ÑÌá åæ ãäí æÃäÇ ãäå ¡ æÞÇá áÈäí Úãå Ãíßã íæÇáíäí Ýí ÇáÏäíÇ æÇáÂÎÑÉ ÞÇá æÚáí ÌÇáÓ ãÚåã ÝÃÈæÇ ÝÞÇá Úáí ÃäÇ ÃæÇáíß Ýí ÇáÏäíÇ æÇáÂÎÑÉ ¡ ÞÇá ÝÊÑßå Ëã ÃÞÈá Úáì ÑÌá ÑÌá ãäåã ÝÞÇá Ãíßã íæÇáíäí Ýí ÇáÏäíÇ æÇáÂÎÑÉ ÝÃÈæÇ ¡ ÝÞÇá Úáí ÃäÇ ÃæÇáíß Ýí ÇáÏäíÇ æÇáÂÎÑÉ ¡ ÝÞÇá ÃäÊ æáíí Ýí ÇáÏäíÇ æÇáÂÎÑÉ ¡ ÞÇá æßÇä Úáí Ãæá ãä ÃÓáã ãä ÇáäÇÓ ÈÚÏ ÎÏíÌÉ ÞÇá æÃÎÐ ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã ËæÈå ÝæÖÚå Úáì Úáí æÝÇØãÉ æÇáÍÓä æÇáÍÓíä ÝÞÇá ÅäãÇ íÑíÏ Çááå áíÐåÈ Úäßã ÇáÑÌÓ Ãåá ÇáÈíÊ æíØåÑßã ÊØåíÑÇ ¡ ÞÇá æÔÑì Úáí äÝÓå æáÈÓ ËæÈ ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã Ëã äÇã ãßÇäå æßÇä ÇáãÔÑßæä íÑãæäå ÈÇáÍÌÇÑÉ æÎÑÌ ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã ÈÇáäÇÓ Ýí ÛÒÇÉ ÊÈæß ÝÞÇá áå Úáí ÃÎÑÌ ãÚß ÝÞÇá áÇ ¡ ÝÈßì Úáí ÝÞÇá áå ÃãÇ ÊÑÖì Ãä Êßæä ãäí ÈãäÒáÉ åÇÑæä ãä ãæÓì ÅáÇ Ãäß áÓÊ ÈäÈí ¡ áÇ íäÈÛí Ãä ÃÐåÈ ÅáÇ æÃäÊ ÎáíÝÊí ¡ æÞÇá áå ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã ÃäÊ æáíí Ýí ßá ãÄãä ÈÚÏí ÞÇá æÓÏ ÃÈæÇÈ ÇáãÓÌÏ ÅáÇø ÈÇÈ Úáí ¡ ÞÇá æßÇä íÏÎá ÇáãÓÌÏ ÌäÈÇð æåæ ØÑíÞå áíÓ áå ØÑíÞ ÛíÑå æÞÇá áå ãä ßäÊ ãæáÇå
he said: the rafidhi said : from amru ibn maymoon that ali ibn abi talb had 10 virtues ...etc
in his answer ibn taymyyah said: this is not connected and it's mursal if it was indeed said by amru ibn maymoon.
ref : minhaj al-sunnah(al-bid'a not al-sunnah) v 4 p 8
i say what a useless nasibi this guy is : the hadith is connected and is not mursal in anyway and amru ibn maymoon narrated this hadith from ibn abbas and he declared that he was with ibn abbas (ra) during this incident so how on earth can this hadith be mursal?? here's the proof from sunan nasai kobra v 5 page 113:
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 ÅÐ ÃÊÇå ÊÓÚÉ ÑåØ
the underlined part of hadith from sunan nasai says: amru ibn maymoon told us : he was sat with ibn abbas so 9 people came to him...etc
so amru ibn maymoon was there and witnessed the whole incident.
also in tahdhib :
ÚãÑæ Èä ãíãæä ÇáÃæÏí ÃÈæ ÚÈÏ Çááå æíÞÇá ÃÈæ íÍíì ÇáßæÝí ÃÏÑß ÇáÌÇåáíÉ æáã íáÞ ÇáäÈí æÑæì Úä ÚãÑ æÇÈä ãÓÚæÏ æãÚÇÐ Èä ÌÈá æÃÈí ÐÑ æÃÈí ãÓÚæÏ ÇáÈÏÑí æÓÚÏ Èä ÃÈí æÞÇÕ æãÚÞá Èä íÓÇÑ æÚÇÆÔÉ æÃÈí åÑíÑÉ æÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ
and ibn hajar didn't object to his narration from ibn abbas neither did anyone untill ibn taymyyah !!!
sheikh al-islam indeed !!!!
anyway the hadith is about fadhail ali (as)
Imagine if their spiritual leader is such an ignorant in hadith then what about common little salafis we have today ?
anyway i thnk what happened here is that ibn taymyyah confused ÚãÑæ Èä ãíãæä Èä ãåÑÇä ÇáÌÒÑí amru ibn maymoon ibn mahran al-jazari with ÚãÑæ Èä ãíãæä ÇáÃæÏí amru ibn maymoon al-awdi who is the narrator here

Ibn Taymiyah isn't perfect, but he was correct in this case. There is no authentic chain in which Amr bin Maymoon narrated the hadith of Ibn Abbas. Furthermore, Ahmad bin Hanbal was asked if Amr bin Maymoon narrated hadiths by Ibn Abbas and he said, "I don't know. I know nothing of this."

However, this is not Ahmad bin Hanbal pleading ignorance. It is him rejecting that Amr bin Maymoon ever narrated from Ibn Abbas, and the proof is that he narrates this same hadith in his musnad:

ÍÏËäÇ ÚÈÏ Çááå ÍÏËäÇ íÍíì Èä ÍãÇÏ ÍÏËäÇ ÃÈæ ÚæÇäÉ ÍÏËäÇ ÃÈæ ÈáÌ ÍÏËäÇ ÚãÑæ Èä ãíãæä ÞÇá

Åäí áÌÇáÓ Åáì ÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ ÅÐ ÃÊÇå ÊÓÚÉ ÑåØ

Zurarah · June 28, 2010

oh really botta ?!

so was amru ibn maymoon a liar ?? he said he was sat with ibn abbas !

ÚãÑæ Èä ãíãæä ÞÇá : Çäì áÌÇáÓ Åáì ÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ

it's laughable that you are using an assertive tone as if you presented a solid proof!!!

amru ibn maymoon al-awdi is thiqat and met many sahabah and some even say he was sahabi but this is not proven.

i want solid proofs as words of ahmed then it's not clear from them that he denied this as you strangely concluded so please show us the whole paragraph so

we can look into it .

shukran

Zurarah · June 28, 2010

It looks like botta disappeared ! anyway untill he comes back i let his imam dhahabi destroy his claim:

4652 - ÃÎÈÑäÇ ÃÈæ ÈßÑ ÃÍãÏ Èä ÌÚÝÑ Èä ÍãÏÇä ÇáÞØíÚí ÈÈÛÏÇÏ ãä ÃÕá ßÊÇÈå ËäÇ ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÃÍãÏ Èä ÍäÈá ÍÏËäí ÃÈí ËäÇ íÍíì Èä ÍãÇÏ ) ËäÇ ÃÈæ ÚæÇäÉ ) ËäÇ ÃÈæ ÈáÌ ËäÇ ÚãÑæ Èä ãíãæä ÞÇá : Åäí áÌÇáÓ ÚäÏ ÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ ÅÐ ÃÊÇå ÊÓÚÉ ÑåØ ÝÞÇáæÇ : íÇ ÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ : ÅãÇ Ãä ÊÞæã ãÚäÇ æ ÅãÇ Ãä ÊÎáæ ÈäÇ ãä Èíä åÄáÇÁ ÞÇá : ÝÞÇá ÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ Èá ÃäÇ ÃÞæã ãÚßã ÞÇá æ åæ íæãÆÐ ÕÍíÍ ÞÈá Ãä íÚãì ÞÇá : ÝÇÈÊÏÄæÇ ÝÊÍÏËæÇ ÝáÇ äÏÑí ãÇ ÞÇáæÇ ÞÇá ÝÌÇÁ íäÝÖ ËæÈå æ íÞæá ÃÝ æ ÊÝ æÞÚæÇ Ýí ÑÌá áå ÈÖÚ ÚÔÑÉ ÝÖÇÆá áíÓÊ áÃÍÏ ÛíÑå æÞÚæÇ Ýí ÑÌá ÞÇá áå ÇáäÈí Õáì Çááå Úáíå æ Óáã : áÃÈÚËä ÑÌáÇ áÇ íÌÒíå Çááå ÃÈÏÇ íÍÈ Çááå æ ÑÓæáå æ íÍÈå Çááå æ ÑÓæáå ÝÇÓÊÔÑÝ áåÇ ãÓÊÔÑÝ ÝÞÇá : Ãíä Úáí ÝÞÇáæÇ : Åäå Ýí ÇáÑÍì íØÍä ÞÇá æ ãÇ ßÇä ÃÍÏåã áíØÍä ÞÇá ÝÌÇÁ æ åæ ÃÑãÏ áÇ íßÇÏ Ãä íÈÕÑ ÞÇá ÝäÝË Ýí Úíäíå Ëã åÒ ÇáÑÇíÉ ËáÇËÇ ÝÃÚØÇåÇ ÅíÇå ÝÌÇÁ Úáí ÈÕÝíÉ ÈäÊ Ííí ÞÇá ÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ Ëã ÈÚË ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æ Óáã ÝáÇäÇ ÈÓæÑÉ ÇáÊæÈÉ ÝÈÚË ÚáíÇ ÎáÝå ÝÃÎÐåÇ ãäå æ ÞÇá áÇ íÐåÈ ÈåÇ ÅáÇ ÑÌá åæ ãäí æ ÃäÇ ãäå ÝÞÇá ÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ æ ÞÇá ÇáäÈí Õáì Çááå Úáíå æ Óáã áÈäí Úãå : Ãíßã íæÇáíäí Ýí ÇáÏäíÇ æ ÇáÂÎÑÉ ÞÇá æ Úáí ÌÇáÓ ãÚåã ÝÞÇá ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æ Óáã æ ÃÞÈá Úáì ÑÌá ãäåã ÝÞÇá : Ãíßã íæÇáíäí Ýí ÇáÏäíÇ æ ÇáÂÎÑÉ ÝÃÈæÇ ÝÞÇá áÚáí ÃäÊ æáíí Ýí ÇáÏäíÇ æ ÇáÂÎÑÉ ÞÇá ÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ : æ ßÇä Úáí Ãæá ãä Âãä ãä ÇáäÇÓ ÈÚÏ ÎÏíÌÉ ÑÖí Çááå ÚäåÇ ÞÇá æ ÃÎÐ ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æ Óáã ËæÈå ÝæÖÚå Úáì Úáí æ ÝÇØãÉ æ ÍÓä æ ÍÓíä æ ÞÇá : ÅäãÇ íÑíÏ Çááå áíÐåÈ Úäßã ÇáÑÌÓ Ãåá ÇáÈíÊ æ íØåÑßã ÊØåíÑÇ ÞÇá ÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ : æ ÔÑì Úáí äÝÓå ÝáÈÓ ËæÈ ÇáäÈí Õáì Çááå Úáíå æ Óáã Ëã äÇã ãßÇäå ÞÇá ÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ : æ ßÇä ÇáãÔÑßæä íÑãæä ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æ Óáã ÝÌÇÁ ÃÈæ ÈßÑ ÑÖí Çááå Úäå æ Úáí äÇÆã ÞÇá æ ÃÈæ ÈßÑ íÍÓÈ Ãäå ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æ Óáã ÞÇá ÝÞÇá : íÇ äÈí Çááå ÝÞÇá áå Úáí : Åä äÈí Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã ÞÏ ÇäØáÞ äÍæ ÈÆÑ ãíãæä ÝÇÏÑßå ÞÇá ÝÇäØáÞ ÃÈæ ÈßÑ ÝÏÎá ãÚå ÇáÛÇÑ ÞÇá æ ÌÚá Úáí ÑÖí Çááå Úäå íÑãì ÈÇáÍÌÇÑÉ ßãÇ ßÇä Ñãí äÈí Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã æ åæ íÊÖæÑ æ ÞÏ áÝ ÑÃÓå Ýí ÇáËæÈ áÇ íÎÑÌå ÍÊì ÃÕÈÍ Ëã ßÔÝ Úä ÑÃÓå ÝÞÇáæÇ Åäß ááÆíã æ ßÇä ÕÇÍÈß áÇ íÊÖæÑ æ äÍä äÑãíå æ ÃäÊ ÊÊÖæÑ æ ÞÏ ÇÓÊäßÑäÇ Ðáß ÝÞÇá ÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ : æ ÎÑÌ ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æ Óáã Ýí ÛÒæÉ ÊÈæß æ ÎÑÌ ÈÇáäÇÓ ãÚå ÞÇá ÝÞÇá áå Úáí : ÃÎÑÌ ãÚß ÞÇá : ÝÞÇá ÇáäÈí Õáì Çááå Úáíå æ Óáã áÇ ÝÈßì Úáí ÝÞÇá áå : ÃãÇ ÊÑÖì Ãä Êßæä ãäí ÈãäÒáÉ åÇÑæä ãä ãæÓì ÅáÇ Ãäå áíÓ ÈÚÏí äÈí Åäå áÇ íäÈÛí Ãä ÃÐåÈ ÅáÇ æ ÃäÊ ÎáíÝÊí ÞÇá ÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ æ ÞÇá áå ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æ Óáã ÃäÊ æáí ßá ãÄãä ÈÚÏí æ ãÄãäÉ ÞÇá ÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ æ ÓÏ ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æ Óáã ÃÈæÇÈ ÇáãÓÌÏ ÛíÑ ÈÇÈ Úáí ÝßÇä íÏÎá ÇáãÓÌÏ ÌäÈÇ æ åæ ØÑíÞå áíÓ áå ØÑíÞ ÛíÑå ÞÇá ÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ : æ ÞÇá ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æ Óáã ãä ßäÊ ãæáÇå ÝÅä ãæáÇå Úáí ÞÇá ÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ æ ÞÏ ÃÎÈÑäÇ Çááå ÚÒ æ Ìá Ýí ÇáÞÑÂä Åäå ÑÖí Úä ÃÕÍÇÈ ÇáÔÌÑÉ ÝÚáã ãÇ Ýí ÞáæÈåã Ýåá ÃÎÈÑäÇ Ãäå ÓÎØ Úáíåã ÈÚÏ Ðáß ÞÇá ÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ : æ ÞÇá äÈí Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã áÚãÑ ÑÖí Çááå Úäå Ííä ÞÇá : ÇÆÐä áí ÝÇÖÑÈ ÚäÞå ÞÇá : æ ßäÊ ÝÇÚáÇ æ ãÇ íÏÑíß áÚá Çááå ÞÏ ÇØáÚ Úáì Ãåá ÈÏÑ ÝÞÇá ÇÚáãæÇ ãÇ ÔÆÊã

åÐÇ ÍÏíË ÕÍíÍ ÇáÅÓäÇÏ æ áã íÎÑÌÇå ÈåÐå ÇáÓíÇÞÉ

so al-hakim said : sahih : not mursal not munqati but sahih

but more than this then dhahabi said : surprise surprise : SAHIH

good luck trying botta!!!!!!

ps: the hadith from mustadrak is the same hadith shown in the first post and it was narrated also by nasai (rah)

Lord Botta · June 28, 2010

oh really botta ?!
so was amru ibn maymoon a liar ?? he said he was sat with ibn abbas !
عمرو بن ميمون قال : انى لجالس إلى ابن عباس
it's laughable that you are using an assertive tone as if you presented a solid proof!!!
amru ibn maymoon al-awdi is thiqat and met many sahabah and some even say he was sahabi but this is not proven.
i want solid proofs as words of ahmed then it's not clear from them that he denied this as you strangely concluded so please show us the whole paragraph so
we can look into it .

Look up the tarjama of Abu Bilj in Sharh ilal Al-Tirmithi by Ibn Rajab.

It looks like botta disappeared ! anyway untill he comes back i let his imam dhahabi destroy his claim:
so al-hakim said : sahih : not mursal not munqati but sahih
but more than this then dhahabi said : surprise surprise : SAHIH
good luck trying botta!!!!!!
ps: the hadith from mustadrak is the same hadith shown in the first post and it was narrated also by nasai (rah)

Al-Thahabi said that this hadith is munkar in Mizan Al-I'itidal. See under Abu Bilj's biograghy.

You should also be aware that naming the narrator Amr bin Maymoon is a mistake by Abu Bilj and that the real narrator is Maymoon Abu Abdullah. See Tahtheeb Al-Tahtheeb under Maymoon Abu Abdullah and Sharh ilal Al-Tirmithi under Abu Bilj.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Lord Botta

Zurarah · June 28, 2010

Look up the tarjama of Abu Bilj in Sharh ilal Al-Tirmithi by Ibn Rajab.
Al-Thahabi said that this hadith is munkar in Mizan Al-I'itidal. See under Abu Bilj's biograghy.

show us the paragraph please because i don't have access to mizan or many other books now as yasoob.com is not working.

i wanna see what dhahabi said : is it about this particular hadith he called sahih in mustadrak or is it about different cahin or did he reject the whole thing as munkar?

back to the topic : even if dhahabi said munkar then this is still proof for us not against us because dhahabi (if he said so) used the nakarah card and if the sanad

was mursal then he would use the irsal instead or both but to overlook the irsal if it was proven then it's out of the question.

second point is even weaker as both maymoon abu abdilleh( weak) and amru ibn maymoon narrated this hadith and i dont see the point of ibn rajab(and i believe this is where you got it from) standing against the slightest facts.

thanks

Edited June 28, 2010 by Zurarah

Nader Zaveri · June 28, 2010

(salam)

(bismillah)

show us the paragraph please because i don't have access to mizan or many other books now as yasoob.com is not working.

Here is from my copy of Meezaan Al-'Itidaal:

(salam)

Lord Botta · June 28, 2010

back to the topic : even if dhahabi said munkar then this is still proof for us not against us because dhahabi (if he said so) used the nakarah card and if the sanad
was mursal then he would use the irsal instead or both but to overlook the irsal if it was proven then it's out of the question.

Allow me to bring this one home for those of you that didn't get what just happened here:

Botta Logic :

There are two flaws in the hadith:

1- Amr bin Maymoon didn't hear the hadith from neither the Prophet (pbuh) nor Ibn Abbas. This is the view of ibn Taymiyah and Imam Ahmad.

2- The hadith is munkar according to Al-Thahabi.

Wasil Logic:

There are no flaws in the hadith:

1- Imam Ahmad and Ibn Taymiyah are wrong, since there is a [weak] narration in which Amr bin Maymoon heard Ibn Abbas.

2- The fact that Al-Thahabi pointed out another flaw in the hadith means that he disagrees with Imam Ahmad and Ibn Taymiyah and that the hadith is connected. So, technically, the existence of the second flaw cancels out the first flaw, so there are no flaws.

=========

I hope you realize how stupid this argument is. If you are on Shiachat in order to "destroy" me then you should try a bit harder than this.

**haideriam** · June 28, 2010

(bismillah)

(salam)

bro zurzrah could still be right for he might have a very technical point there

which at this point in time is beyond your petty imagination

rather not , you are still trying to cheat and fool

nader still to your rescue

the one who does not care about sunni ways but still full of their literature

he is a closet alright

(wasalam)

Zurarah · June 28, 2010

Allow me to bring this one home for those of you that didn't get what just happened here:
Botta Logic :
There are two flaws in the hadith:
1- Amr bin Maymoon didn't hear the hadith from neither the Prophet (pbuh) nor Ibn Abbas. This is the view of ibn Taymiyah and Imam Ahmad.
2- The hadith is munkar according to Al-Thahabi.
Wasil Logic:
There are no flaws in the hadith:
1- Imam Ahmad and Ibn Taymiyah are wrong, since there is a [weak] narration in which Amr bin Maymoon heard Ibn Abbas.
2- The fact that Al-Thahabi pointed out another flaw in the hadith means that he disagrees with Imam Ahmad and Ibn Taymiyah and that the hadith is connected. So, technically, the existence of the second flaw cancels out the first flaw, so there are no flaws.
=========
I hope you realize how stupid this argument is. If you are on Shiachat in order to "destroy" me then you should try a bit harder than this.

at least mr botta don't misquote me while i'm here , u are lying to my face which is strange.

i didn't say ahmed is wrong as i didn't see what did ahmed say to judge it and i don't believe a word you say without seeing proof for it so show us what did ahmed say(this is the second time i ask for this)

secondly you are playing games as usual:

-one time the hadith is mursal which is not backed by any proof so far .

-then you quoted dhahabi saying it's munkar or more accurately from manakeer abu balaj(rah)

-then you claim the narrator is not amru ibn maymoon but maymoon abu abdilleh based on some flimsy assumption by ibn rajab.

make up your mind mate!

1-dhahabi himself said hadith sahih and if he said munkar later then the matn is munkr and there's nothing wrong noticed by dhahabi about sanad and we know that fadhail ali (as) are many of them manakeer for dhahabi.

2-ibn taymyyah didn't say hadith munkar but said mursal which is not correct as there's many narrations where amru ibn maymoon said he was with ibn abbas and here we have one of them and amru ibn maymoon is thiqat but you are trying to make him look like a liar. the man says i heard ibn abbas and you say no !! what does this mean.

3-the narrator is amru ibn maymoon as the hadith says and no body commented on this : neither nasai or dhahabi or anyone as far as i know rejected that abu balaj heard from amru ibn maymoon and amru ibn maymoon met many sahabah like omar and others and in hadith about incident where omar was stabbed he said i was with omar and only ibn abbas was there .

u are clinging to straws

aladdin · June 28, 2010

bro zurzrah could still be right for he might have a very technical point there
which at this point in time is beyond your petty imagination
rather not , you are still trying to cheat and fool

How true what you have mentioned above.

And, he is calling brother Zurarah as Wasil.

If he continues disrespecting brother Zurarah, then we have to call him Lord Duck, because botta/bottah means duck in Arabic.

nader still to your rescue
the one who does not care about sunni ways but still full of their literature
he is a closet alright

Closet for sure without any doubt. It is the double of the botta!

Edited June 28, 2010 by aladdin

Zurarah · June 28, 2010

How true what you have mentioned above.
And, he is calling brother Zurarah as Wasil.
If he continues like that then we have to call him Lord Duck, because botta/bottah means duck in Arabic.
Closet for sure without any doubt. It is the double of the botta!

i think we should start calling him nutter (nutta ) ;)

**haideriam** · June 28, 2010

i think we should start calling him nutter (nutta ) ;)

(bismillah)

(salam)

maybe the best thing is to ignore/disregard his rant for it has nothing to do with the matn

it is diversionary and semi condesending

but if we ignore

the thing will go back to the ducker and diver

typical east ender

(wasalam)

Edited June 28, 2010 by haideriam

Zurarah · June 28, 2010

(bismillah)
(salam)
maybe the best thing is to ignore/disregard his rant for it has nothing to do with the matn
it is diversionary and semi condesending
but if we ignore
the thing will go back to the ducker and diver
typical east ender
(wasalam)

i won't ignore him now brother , unless i get bored of him which will happen eventually. first of all i want to humiliate him and expose him in front of everyone that he's dishonest and only plays games.

look at his avatar : he's saying indirectly: you are all retards and i'm here to take the mick out of you ! believe me he is showing great disdain and hatred for shia but using indirect signs.

aladdin · June 28, 2010

i won't ignore him now brother , unless i get bored of him which will happen eventually. first of all i want to humiliate him and expose him in front of everyone that he's dishonest and only plays games.

Salam brother,

He has already been humiliated several times, by being caught cheating, lying, deceiving, forging, adding, subtracting and so forth. He has tick skin like an elephant and a rhinoceros.

You are very knowledge brother. MasahAllah for your logic, knowledge and patience.

May Allah bi haqe Mohammad (pbuh) and aale Mohammad (as) to give you good in this life and good in the afterlife, so that you can continue with your logic, common sense, aql, knowledge, pursuance to increase the love of true AhlulBayt and AhlulKisa in others.

Edited June 28, 2010 by aladdin

**haideriam** · June 28, 2010

i won't ignore him now brother , unless i get bored of him which will happen eventually. first of all i want to humiliate him and expose him in front of everyone that he's dishonest and only plays games.
look at his avatar : he's saying indirectly: you are all retards and i'm here to take the mick out of you ! believe me he is showing great disdain and hatred for shia but using indirect signs.

(bismillah)

(salam)

he has expressed such an opinion in reply to one of the brothers about his avatar

i believe it was bro aabiss

he has already been exposed

this was a salafia onslaught on the shia forum

but like i have said before

this is to save the attrition within their ranks

for it looks like they are feeling the pinch of salafis converting to shiaism

(wasalam)

Zurarah · June 28, 2010

(bismillah)
(salam)
he has expressed such an opinion in reply to one of the brothers about his avatar
i believe it was bro aabiss
he has already been exposed
this was a salafia onslaught on the shia forum
but like i have said before
this is to save the attrition within their ranks
for it looks like they are feeling the pinch of salafis converting to shiaism
(wasalam)

jazakom Allah khairan you and brother aladdin, and may Allah keep us on the middle path of ahlbait(as) and be saved in this life and the hereafter ameen ya rabb.

now back to botta :

looks like botta is conferring with his friends : efendi and others but he didn't present proof as yet from where ahmed ibn hanbal said that amru ibn maymoon didn't hear from ibn abbas :

Amr bin Maymoon didn't hear the hadith from neither the Prophet nor Ibn Abbas. This is the view of ibn Taymiyah and Imam Ahmad.

i want to see where ahmed said ; amru ibn maymoon al-awdi didn't hear from ibn habbas. if imam ahmed said he doesn't know then not knowing is not like saying: no he didn't hear !! so where did he get that ahmed ibn hanbal view that amru ibn maymoon didn't hear from ibn abbas.

i am waiting

Edited June 28, 2010 by Zurarah

ghulam-e-ali · June 28, 2010

(salam)

i looked at this hadeeth from a very different angle

let me share

we find in mustadarak imam hakim, vol 3, page 143

4652 - أخبرنا أبو بكر أحمد بن جعفر بن حمدان القطيعي ببغداد من أصل كتابه ثنا عبد الله بن أحمد بن حنبل حدثني أبي ثنا يحيى بن حماد ثنا أبو عوانة ثنا أبو بلج ثنا عمرو بن ميمون قال إني لجالس عند ابن عباس إذ أتاه تسعة رهط فقالوا: يا ابن عباس : إما أن تقوم معنا و إما أن تخلو بنا من بين هؤلاء قال فقال ابن عباس بل أنا أقوم معكم قال و هو يومئذ صحيح قبل أن يعمى قال: فابتدؤوا فتحدثوا فلا ندري ما قالوا قال فجاء ينفض ثوبه و يقول أف و تف وقعوا في رجل له بضع عشرة فضائل ليست لأحد غيره وقعوا في رجل قال له النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم : لأبعثن رجلا لا يجزيه الله أبدا يحب الله و رسوله و يحبه الله و رسوله فاستشرف لها مستشرف فقال : أين علي فقالوا: إنه في الرحى يطحن قال و ما كان أحدهم ليطحن قال فجاء و هو أرمد لا يكاد أن يبصر قال فنفث في عينيه ثم هز الراية ثلاثا فأعطاها إياه فجاء علي بصفية بنت حيي قال ابن عباس ثم بعث رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فلانا بسورة التوبة فبعث عليا خلفه فأخذها منه و قال لا يذهب بها إلا رجل هو مني و أنا منه فقال ابن عباس و قال النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم لبني عمه : أيكم يواليني في الدنيا و الآخرة قال و علي جالس معهم فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم و أقبل على رجل منهم فقال : أيكم يواليني في الدنيا و الآخرة فأبوا فقال لعلي أنت وليي في الدنيا و الآخرة قال ابن عباس : و كان علي أول من آمن من الناس بعد خديجة رضي الله عنها قال و أخذ رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم ثوبه فوضعه على علي و فاطمة و حسن و حسين و قال: إنما يريد الله ليذهب عنكم الرجس أهل البيت و يطهركم تطهيرا قال ابن عباس: و شرى علي نفسه فلبس ثوب النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم ثم نام مكانه قال ابن عباس: و كان المشركون يرمون رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فجاء أبو بكر رضي الله عنه و علي نائم قال و أبو بكر يحسب أنه رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم قال فقال: يا نبي الله فقال له علي : إن نبي الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قد انطلق نحو بئر ميمون فادركه قال فانطلق أبو بكر فدخل معه الغار قال و جعل علي رضي الله عنه يرمى بالحجارة كما كان رمي نبي الله صلى الله عليه وسلم و هو يتضور و قد لف رأسه في الثوب لا يخرجه حتى أصبح ثم كشف عن رأسه فقالوا إنك للئيم و كان صاحبك لا يتضور و نحن نرميه و أنت تتضور و قد استنكرنا ذلك فقال ابن عباس: و خرج رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم في غزوة تبوك و خرج بالناس معه قال فقال له علي: أخرج معك قال : فقال النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم لا فبكى علي فقال له : أما ترضى أن تكون مني بمنزلة هارون من موسى إلا أنه ليس بعدي نبي إنه لا ينبغي أن أذهب إلا و أنت خليفتي قال ابن عباس و قال له رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم أنت ولي كل مؤمن بعدي و مؤمنة قال ابن عباس و سد رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم أبواب المسجد غير باب علي فكان يدخل المسجد جنبا و هو طريقه ليس له طريق غيره قال ابن عباس : و قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم من كنت مولاه فإن مولاه علي قال ابن عباس و قد أخبرنا الله عز و جل في القرآن إنه رضي عن أصحاب الشجرة فعلم ما في قلوبهم فهل أخبرنا أنه سخط عليهم بعد ذلك قال ابن عباس: و قال نبي الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لعمر رضي الله عنه حين قال : ائذن لي فاضرب عنقه قال: و كنت فاعلا و ما يدريك لعل الله قد اطلع على أهل بدر فقال اعلموا ما شئتم

[in first edition published by dar-ul-harmain, qahira; it is vol 3, page 154, hadeeth 4715]

imam hakim says that the hadeeth is SAHIH

now, the interesting thing in this hadeeth is how this hadeeth has been presented in sunan-ul-kubra, first edition, vol 7, page 416-417.

and it says

أما ترضى أن تكون مني بمنزلة هارون من موسى إلا أنه ليس بعدي نبي إنه لا ينبغي أن أذهب إلا و أنت خليفتي ثم قال أنت خليفتي يعني في كل مؤمن من بعدي

ponder on the words

ثم قال أنت خليفتي يعني في كل مؤمن من بعدي

[i have the scans available]

i was quite surprised at this, and so i checked this narration in nisai's khasais-e-ali

i have three different copies of khasais, and i found that this is present in two of them

first one is basically a sharah of khasais-e-ali by qari faizi; he mentions it in page 163; and this book has been published by maktaba bab-ul-ilm; but what he did is that he wrote this in arabic part, but did not translate it; however, he termed it sahih as per takhreej of hakim etc.

other one is in the khasais-e-ali, which has been published by maktaba mo'ala, kuwait; and it is on page 50. [its takhreej has been done by ahmad meereen baloshi]; he has written it in the arabic part, but said that hadeeth is munkar

now, let us come to the takhreej part of it

1-imam hakim termed it sahih as i already said

2-wasiullah ibn mohammad abbass said about this hadeeth in fadail-us-sahaba, imam ahmad bin hanbal, hadeeth 1168; first edition, page 682; second edition, page 849

he said

ISNAAD HASAN

[but we do not find the wordings in fadail-us-sahaba, both editions]

3-abu ishaq haweeni, who has done takhreej of khasais, in his book, page 34 terms this sanad HASAN [but again, we do not find it written there, i mean the wordings]

4- lastly, haithmi says about this hadeeth

14696- عن عمرو بن ميمون - يعني الأودي - قال‏:‏ إني لجالس إلى ابن عباس إذ أتاه سبعة رهط فقالوا له‏:‏ يا ابن عباس إما تقوم معنا وإما أن يخلونا هؤلاء، قال‏:‏ فقال ابن عباس‏:‏ بل أقوم معكم، وهو يومئذ صحيح قبل أن يعمى‏.‏

قال‏:‏ فانتبذوا فتحدثوا، فلا أدري ما قالوا‏.‏ قال‏:‏ فجاء ينفض ثوبه ويقول‏:‏ أف ويتف‏!‏ وقعوا في رجل قال له النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم‏:‏ ‏"‏لأبعثن رجلاً لا يخزيه الله أبداً، يحب الله ورسوله‏"‏‏.‏ فاستشرف لها من استشرف، قال‏:‏ ‏"‏أين علي‏؟‏‏"‏‏.‏ قالوا‏:‏ في الرحل يطحن، قال‏:‏ ‏"‏وما كان أحدكم ليطحن‏"‏‏.‏ قال‏:‏ فجاء وهو أرمد لا يكاد يبصر قال‏:‏ فنفث في عينيه ثم هز الراية ثلاثاً فأعطاها إياه، قال‏:‏ فجاء بصفية بنت حيي، قال‏:‏ فبعث فلاناً بسورة التوبة، فبعث علياً خلفه فأخذها منه، قال‏:‏ ‏"‏لا يذهب بها إلا رجل مني وأنا منه‏"‏‏.‏ قال‏:‏ وقال لبني عمه‏:‏ ‏"‏أيكم يواليني في الدنيا والآخرة‏؟‏‏"‏‏.‏ فأبوا، فقال علي‏:‏ أنا أواليك في الدنيا والآخرة‏.‏ ‏[‏فقال‏:‏ ‏"‏أنت وليي في الدنيا والآخرة‏"‏‏.‏‏]‏ قال‏:‏ وكان أول من أسلم من الناس بعد خديجة‏.‏ قال‏:‏ وأخذ رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ثوبه فوضعه على علي وفاطمة وحسن وحسين رضي الله عنهم وقال‏:‏ ‏"‏‏{‏إنما يريد الله ليذهب عنكم الرجس أهل البيت ويطهركم تطهيراً‏}‏‏"‏‏.‏ قال‏:‏ وشرى علي نفسه، لبس ثوب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ثم نام مكانه، وكان المشركون يرمون رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فجاء أبو بكر وعلي نائم‏.‏ قال‏:‏ وأبو بكر يحسب أنه نبي الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال‏:‏ يا نبي الله، فقال له علي‏:‏ إن نبي الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قد انطلق نحو بئر ميمونة فأدركه، فانطلق أبو بكر فدخل معه الغار‏.‏

قال‏:‏ وجعل علي يرمي بالحجارة، كما كان يرمى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وهو يتضور، قد لف رأسه في الثوب لا يخرجه حتى أصبح، ثم كشف رأسه فقالوا‏:‏ إنك لليئم، كان صاحبك نرميه لا يتضور وأنت تتضور، وقد استنكرنا ذلك‏.‏ قال‏:‏ وخرج بالناس في غزوة تبوك قال‏:‏ فقال له علي‏:‏ أخرج معك، فقال له النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم‏:‏ ‏"‏لا‏"‏‏.‏ فبكى علي فقال له‏:‏ ‏"‏ألا ترضى أن تكون مني بمنزلة هارون من موسى‏؟‏ إلا أنك لست بنبي، إنه لا ينبغي أن أذهب إلا وأنت خليفتي‏"‏‏.‏ وقال له رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم‏:‏ ‏"‏أنت ولي كل مؤمن بعدي‏"‏‏.‏ قال‏:‏ وسد أبواب المسجد غير باب علي، قال‏:‏ فيدخل المسجد وهو جنب وهو طريقه، ليس له طريق غيره‏.‏ قال‏:‏ وقال‏:‏ ‏"‏من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه‏"‏‏.‏ قال‏:‏ وأخبرنا الله أنه قد رضي عنهم، عن أصحاب الشجرة، فعلم ما في قلوبهم، هل حدثنا أنه سخط عليهم بعد‏؟‏ قال‏:‏ وقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لعمر حين قال‏:‏ ائذن لي فلأضرب عنقه، قال‏:‏ ‏"‏وكنت فاعلاً، وما يدريك لعل الله اطلع إلى أهل بدر فقال اعملوا ما شئتم‏"‏‏.‏

رواه أحمد والطبراني في الكبير والأوسط باختصار ورجال أحمد رجال الصحيح غير أبي بلج الفزاري وهو ثقة وفيه لين‏.‏

so he casts doubts on abu balaj al fazari

but, we find that ibn moin says he is thiqa, also ibn saad said this, and also darqutni said this

abu hatim said he is truthful and there is nothing bad about him.............

so what i find funny is

that those who spoke good about the hadeeth; they did not mention this part;

and those who rejected it; mentioned it......................like balooshi....

take care

fi aman Allah

Edited June 28, 2010 by ghulam-e-ali

**iraqi_shia** · June 28, 2010

Ibn Taymiyah isn't perfect, but he was correct in this case. There is no authentic chain in which Amr bin Maymoon narrated the hadith of Ibn Abbas. Furthermore, Ahmad bin Hanbal was asked if Amr bin Maymoon narrated hadiths by Ibn Abbas and he said, "I don't know. I know nothing of this."
However, this is not Ahmad bin Hanbal pleading ignorance. It is him rejecting that Amr bin Maymoon ever narrated from Ibn Abbas, and the proof is that he narrates this same hadith in his musnad:
ÍÏËäÇ ÚÈÏ Çááå ÍÏËäÇ íÍíì Èä ÍãÇÏ ÍÏËäÇ ÃÈæ ÚæÇäÉ ÍÏËäÇ ÃÈæ ÈáÌ ÍÏËäÇ ÚãÑæ Èä ãíãæä ÞÇá
Åäí áÌÇáÓ Åáì ÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ ÅÐ ÃÊÇå ÊÓÚÉ ÑåØ

As a relevant side issue, do you agree that the attack on the ten points listed in the hadith is wrong? As in, they are true, and this attack at least shows a hint of "nasibism".

Forget about the chain etc, im not interested in that, Im more interested to know why Ibn Taymiah wanted to try and discredit Imam Ali AS.

Zurarah · June 28, 2010

Lord botta is nowhere to be found !

**haideriam** · June 28, 2010

(bismillah)

(salam)

does bottah in arabic mean duck

which means to have gone underground

like as in ducking and diving

I'd "dodge and dive" less if you were clearer with your questions.

(wasalam)

aladdin · June 28, 2010

he has expressed such an opinion in reply to one of the brothers about his avatar
i believe it was bro aabiss
he has already been exposed
this was a salafia onslaught on the shia forum

Very true, he has claimed that he is teaching the Shias on this site. And, brother MacIsaac has told him, "No thanks."

Here is the discourse between brother MacIsaac and bottah.

However, I'm assuming that the hadith is still authentic because it suits your desires, right?
/\ To you your religion, and to me my religion.
@ Macisaac: There is no need for harsh statements like those. I'm simply teaching these young Shias about a science that they have neglected for such a long time.
No thanks.

Yes, they have been exposed, the ones who claim to be Wahhabis such as bottah and ur wellwisher. And, the others have been exposed too, who are Wahhabis cum Missionaries in Taqiyyah such as Serious Sam, Mr. Zaveri and Mr. lotfilms.

but like i have said before
this is to save the attrition within their ranks
for it looks like they are feeling the pinch of salafis converting to shiaism

They are desperate brother. And, they are showing their desperation, as they are feeling the pinch!

Zurarah · June 28, 2010

i wonder if brother Nader has anything to add or any comment to submit as he's unusually silent!

aladdin · June 28, 2010

i looked at this hadeeth from a very different angle
let me share
we find in mustadarak imam hakim, vol 3, page 143
[in first edition published by dar-ul-harmain, qahira; it is vol 3, page 154, hadeeth 4715]
imam hakim says that the hadeeth is SAHIH
now, the interesting thing in this hadeeth is how this hadeeth has been presented in sunan-ul-kubra, first edition, vol 7, page 416-417.
and it says
ponder on the words
Ëã ÞÇá ÃäÊ ÎáíÝÊí íÚäí Ýí ßá ãÄãä ãä ÈÚÏí
[i have the scans available]
i was quite surprised at this, and so i checked this narration in nisai's khasais-e-ali
i have three different copies of khasais, and i found that this is present in two of them
first one is basically a sharah of khasais-e-ali by qari faizi; he mentions it in page 163; and this book has been published by maktaba bab-ul-ilm; but what he did is that he wrote this in arabic part, but did not translate it; however, he termed it sahih as per takhreej of hakim etc.
other one is in the khasais-e-ali, which has been published by maktaba mo'ala, kuwait; and it is on page 50. [its takhreej has been done by ahmad meereen baloshi; he has written it in the arabic part, but said that hadeeth is munkar
now, let us come to the takhreej part of it
1-imam hakim termed it sahih as i already said
2-wasiullah ibn mohammad abbass said about this hadeeth in fadail-us-sahaba, imam ahmad bin hanbal, hadeeth 1168; first edition, page 682; second edition, page 849
he said
ISNAAD HASAN
[but we do not find the wordings in fadail-us-sahaba, both editions]
3-abu ishaq haweeni, who has done takhreej of khasais, in his book, page 34 terms this sanad HASAN [but again, we do not find it written there, i mean the wordings]
4- lastly, haithmi says about this hadeeth
so he casts doubts on abu balaj al fazari
but, we find that ibn moin says he is thiqa, also ibn saad said this, and also darqutni said this
abu hatim said he is truthful and there is nothing bad about him.............
so what i find funny is
that those who spoke good about the hadeeth; they did not mention this part;
and those who rejected it; mentioned it......................like balooshi....

Salam brother.

We have seen that Mr. Bottah has been lying, cheating, forging, deceiving, adding, subtracting and so forth. We should expect the same behavior from his masters. Especially, in printing books and quoting right and left from these books.

For this reason Ayatollah Haideri is very careful when he quotes from these books. He always gives the book name, the publisher, date of publication, number of printing, country of printing, page number and so forth.

What is very scary that Mr. Zaveri disguise as a Shia quotes these books right and left with scan and being master of Arabic language. Then he offers the Shias on this site to PM him, if they need any help with hadiths and rijal. Very scary indeed!

Zurarah · June 28, 2010

Edited

by the way and before a go watching the match i want to add this surprise to botta :

the hadith he's trying to weaken was declared sahih by : surprise surprise : AL-ALBANI

see silsilah sahiha by sheikh Al-albani

but of course botta knows better than al-albani because information botta has about amru ibn maymoon and irsal etc was not available to sheikh al-albani!

Edited June 28, 2010 by Zurarah

aladdin · June 28, 2010

What is very scary that Mr. Zaveri disguise as a Shia quotes these books right and left with scan and being master of Arabic language. Then he offers the Shias on this site to PM him, if they need any help with hadiths and rijal. Very scary indeed!

Even Mr. Zaveri is a Shia (which I don't think so), he has to be very, very careful. How does he know that the books he has with him, those books have not been tampered with.

And, for this reason he should leave the fatwas online, as fiqh is the domain of the Marjas, whose taqlid we do. As, for the discussions too, he can't be sure that what he is quoting right and left has not been tampered with.

He has already confessed that he is not an Arab and that he is still learning Arabic, which is not at par yet!

**haideriam** · June 28, 2010

(bismillah)

(salam)

/\ /\ bro zurzrah and aladdin

the surprise that you mention is for us and not for botta

he knows all this and is covering

like he has done all this time

it is the others who probably know this too and need to be careful

but then ofcourse you have not read the footnotes and the tarjumah in italics of course ;) :lol:

forget the end result

the aim is to weaken with the tarjumah

and make all forget the end result or the conclusion

(wasalam)

Edited June 28, 2010 by haideriam

**iraqi_shia** · June 28, 2010

gosh ! i can't believe i'm going to say this but i miss Botta!!!!
slapping him around a bit is such fun!
i have few surprises for him ! sigh ! :)
by the way and before a go watching the match i want to add this surprise to botta :
the hadith he's trying to weaken was declared sahih by : surprise surprise : AL-ALBANI
see silsilah sahiha by sheikh Al-albani
but of course botta knows better than al-albani because information botta has about amru ibn maymoon and irsal etc was not available to sheikh al-albani!

Bro, try to improve your akhlaq.

Have you considered the value of searching for the truth?

perhaps he is right, in which case, invite him to bring his arguement in a soft way so we can find the truth. If he is wrong and you are right, dont make it difficult for him to accept the truth.

Zurarah · June 28, 2010

Bro, try to improve your akhlaq.
Have you considered the value of searching for the truth?
perhaps he is right, in which case, invite him to bring his arguement in a soft way so we can find the truth. If he is wrong and you are right, dont make it difficult for him to accept the truth.

ok inshallah

i edited it so edit that part in your post brother.

it was a joke but if you didn't like it then it's deleted

wassalam

Edited June 28, 2010 by Zurarah

Logic · June 28, 2010

Bro, try to improve your akhlaq.
Have you considered the value of searching for the truth?
perhaps he is right, in which case, invite him to bring his arguement in a soft way so we can find the truth. If he is wrong and you are right, dont make it difficult for him to accept the truth.

To be honest i lol'ed at the pic.

aladdin · June 28, 2010

i looked at this hadeeth from a very different angle

Salam brother,

Not only the best post of this thread, but the best post ever. Need to think about it further and then to reply you some more on it!

As a relevant side issue, do you agree that the attack on the ten points listed in the hadith is wrong? As in, they are true, and this attack at least shows a hint of "nasibism".
Forget about the chain etc, im not interested in that, Im more interested to know why Ibn Taymiah wanted to try and discredit Imam Ali AS.

Salam brother,

Excellent thoughts. Would love for Mr. Bottah to answer the points you have raised.

Edited June 28, 2010 by aladdin

Lord Botta · June 28, 2010

@ Wasil:

I just realized something about your first post that I unfortunately didn't notice up until now.

You brought up this thread because you are trying to imply that Ibn Taymiyah is jahil in hadith. You said this:

anyway i thnk what happened here is that ibn taymyyah confused ÚãÑæ Èä ãíãæä Èä ãåÑÇä ÇáÌÒÑí amru ibn maymoon ibn mahran al-jazari with ÚãÑæ Èä ãíãæä ÇáÃæÏí amru ibn maymoon al-awdi who is the narrator here

This doesn't seem to be the case. It seems as though Ibn Taymiyah knew that it was Amr bin Maymoon the mukhadram. Either way, the narration would be mursal in this case since Amr bin Maymoon didn't narrate the hadith of the Prophet (pbuh).

the hadith he's trying to weaken was declared sahih by : surprise surprise : AL-ALBANI
see silsilah sahiha by sheikh Al-albani

Please include hadith #.

2-ibn taymyyah didn't say hadith munkar but said mursal which is not correct as there's many narrations where amru ibn maymoon said he was with ibn abbas and here we have one of them and amru ibn maymoon is thiqat but you are trying to make him look like a liar. the man says i heard ibn abbas and you say no !! what does this mean.

Ibn Taymiyah is referring to the hadith in which Amr bin Maymoon narrates through the Prophet (pbuh) directly without any man in between. In this sense, he is correct. Ibn Taymiyah did go on to reject specifics about the hadiths that he did consider to be munkar. Go back to the same page from Minhaj Al-Sunnah. Furthermore, I am not trying to make Amr bin Maymoon out as a liar. As I have said before, the narrator in question is Maymoon Abu Abdullah, for he has a similar name and is known for fabricating hadiths of a similar nature. This is why scholars like Abdul Ghani bin Sa'eed believed that Abu Bilj made this mistake and this is why Ibn Rajab supported his view.

3-the narrator is amru ibn maymoon as the hadith says and no body commented on this : neither nasai or dhahabi or anyone as far as i know rejected that abu balaj heard from amru ibn maymoon and amru ibn maymoon met many sahabah like omar and others and in hadith about incident where omar was stabbed he said i was with omar and only ibn abbas was there .

*sighs*

I never rejected that Abu Bilj heard the narrations of Amr bin Maymoon. What I am saying is that Amr bin Maymoon didn't narrate the hadiths of Ibn Abbas. Sure, they were contemporaries, but as you can see above. Even Imam Ahmad rejected that he narrated his hadith. Plus, meeting someone doesn't mean that you narrated their hadiths, which is even the case with Shia hadith science. (i.e. Ibrahim bin Hisham --> Al-Ridha)

look at his avatar : he's saying indirectly: you are all retards and i'm here to take the mick out of you ! believe me he is showing great disdain and hatred for shia but using indirect signs.

Was that what you were thinking when you came in here with the Borat avatar? =p

I think your weakest argument is that the scholars having different reasons for rejecting the hadith. This is not a flaw. This simply means that there are more reasons than one.

Here is an example for those that are having trouble understanding where I am coming from.

Narrator X :

Yahya bin Ma'een said that he has a weak memory.

Abu Hatim Al-Razi said that he is a liar.

In this case, we would accept both of these testimonies and state that narrator X has a weak memory and is a liar. However, what Wasil is trying to do is to argue that since Yahya bin Ma'een didn't call him a liar, then Abu Hatim Al-Razi's opinion should be rejected, since both negative testimonies cancel each other out. I don't know how he comes up with these things, but hey... whatever floats your boat dude.

=======================

@ Iraqi_shia:

As a relevant side issue, do you agree that the attack on the ten points listed in the hadith is wrong? As in, they are true, and this attack at least shows a hint of "nasibism".
Forget about the chain etc, im not interested in that, Im more interested to know why Ibn Taymiah wanted to try and discredit Imam Ali AS.

He didn't criticize all of the points. Also, as I've proven in the Ibn Taymiyah thread, there is a chapter in the book where he lists the most authentic hadiths about Ali with some of these being a few of them.

Sign In

Ibn Taymyyah Jahl Of Hadith

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation

Recently Browsing 0 members

Topics