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

Why Aren't The Ansar Worse Than Abubakr And Umar?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Usdul Ghaba Vol1 pg 816-817 Urdu translation biography of Ziyad b Summaya

Tabari Vol XVII pg 166-71 details Ziyads involvement in Basra and later pg 183 the campaign in Fars on Behalf of Ali

and transfering blame to ubaidullah b Abbas is lame since he was Ali's hand picked governer and later commander in chief of Hasan who defected to muaiwyah for a bribe.Why would Hasan and ALi appoint someone who would so easly defect to muaiwyah for a bribe ? clearly they had no crystal ball to forsee every event in the future.

What kind of logic is that? Didn’t Prophet and all the members of Ahlulbayt knew beforehand what was going to happen in Karbala still Imam Hussain (as) went there. Imam Ali (as) also knew about his killer and modus oprandi to be adopted still he went there in the mosque to offer salat. I don’t know people always draw inference from the appointments and then comment on the ilm of appointing authority yet there is no relationship between the two things. Iblees is one good example in this regard. One may defend or comment upon the appointments, my objection is only to the extent of linking it up with llm al ghaib thing etc.

Edited by B-N
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 230
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I doubt this. Even Sunni sources record Imam Zayn ul-Abideen (as) being asked of his opinion on Abu Bakr and Umar, so clearly it must have been at least somewhat of an issue at the time. Yet this woul

Cave? :huh: Honestly where on earth do you people get this cave reference? I have not seen a single narration regarding the Imām inside a cave. You seem to use this concept so bring your proof if you

Reports of Imam Ali using Hadith Khum to call people to himself are lacking from sunni sources in the period of the 2 khalifa but they appear during the period of Uthman . The major sunni books that m

Posted Images

  • Veteran Member

What kind of logic is that? Didn’t Prophet and all the members of Ahlulbayt knew beforehand what was going to happen in Karbala still Imam Hussain (as) went there. Imam Ali (as) also knew about his killer and modus oprandi to be adopted still he went there in the mosque to offer salat. I don’t know people always draw inference from the appointments and then comment on the ilm of appointing authority yet there is no relationship between the two things. Iblees is one good example in this regard. One may defend or comment upon the appointments, my objection is only to the extent of linking it up with llm al ghaib thing etc.

No its not the ilm gaid or the known prophecies that I'm linking it too, but this thread was about criticism of umar appointing people who later turned out to be enemies of AHlulbayt or umar's criticism as a [Edited Out] child and his illegitimacy to rule.The point was that even in Ali's time there were people who were appointed by him yet they later turned out to be enemies of him and his family.

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Usdul Ghaba Vol1 pg 816-817 Urdu translation biography of Ziyad b Summaya

Tabari Vol XVII pg 166-71 details Ziyads involvement in Basra and later pg 183 the campaign in Fars on Behalf of Ali

and transfering blame to ubaidullah b Abbas is lame since he was Ali's hand picked governer and later commander in chief of Hasan who defected to muaiwyah for a bribe.Why would Hasan and ALi appoint someone who would so easly defect to muaiwyah for a bribe ? clearly they had no crystal ball to forsee every event in the future.

Oh please, Urdu translations? It makes sense though. I reckon you ran to people from KFC forums and it took you guys 6 days to come up with something, even if a lie. Urdu "translations". Those are for lying, bigoted, inhuman yet literate monsters. Now don't play coy that you are unaware that all Urdu translations of books like Tarikh-e-Tabari are shamelessly distorted by the local depraved Wahabi priests. If I post scans of the Urdu translation of Tabari and scans from Arabic or English versions for comparison to show how they barbarized and molested those books via the act of translation then it would be extremely shameful not only for the publishers but for the entire nation that is tolerating such preposterous and shameless acts.

Therefore, could you please produce a scan from a non-Urdu book? I know thats impossible. That is precisely why I ask you to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Oh please, Urdu translations? It makes sense though. I reckon you ran to people from KFC forums and it took you guys 6 days to come up with something, even if a lie. Urdu "translations". Those are for lying, bigoted, inhuman yet literate monsters. Now don't play coy that you are unaware that all Urdu translations of books like Tarikh-e-Tabari are shamelessly distorted by the local depraved Wahabi priests. If I post scans of the Urdu translation of Tabari and scans from Arabic or English versions for comparison to show how they barbarized and molested those books via the act of translation then it would be extremely shameful not only for the publishers but for the entire nation that is tolerating such preposterous and shameless acts.

Therefore, could you please produce a scan from a non-Urdu book? I know thats impossible. That is precisely why I ask you to do so.

I'm sorry but we have day jobs too which makes it a it bit hard to reply to every troll on this forum in a timely manner

secondly what is KFC forum ?

I have the hard copy of the book Usdul Ghaba myself from Al-Meezan Press Lahore and correlate it with the arabic version if you want

Tabari is an english translation which is published by SUNY press well known on amazon

Plus also read a detailed account of Ziyad in Michael's Morony's "IRaq after muslim conquest"

lastly u think I would waste my tme scanning a book for you ? Ziyad a supporter of ALi is a well documentedfact not an obscure footnote in history if charlatans like you refuse to believe it thats your loss I'm sorry we dont wasteour time copy pasting from other websites like you do to feel good about yourself in a munazara.If you are interested in serious discussion prove these PUBLISHED books wrong then come and talk to me.Plus you always claim you have read Tabari yourself ( "first" historian per your assertion why dont you look it up yourself its in ENglish "First civil war" edition by SUNY)

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

^ If you have the books then it should be easy to take a picture with your mobile or something and upload it right here. It'll take 5 minutes. You spend a lot of time posting baseless lies on SC so, surely, you should be able to post a scan.

And no Urdu translations / Pakistani publications please. Those are all absolutely worthless and proof read for distortion. Sorry.

Urdu translations of books published in India are an exception to the above though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Of course I have researched it. I'm not like you. I can destroy the credibility of each and every Urdu translation book that is done by Wahabis, Tabari above all, but that would seriously derail the thread. You can start a separate thread if you want me to prove that Urdu translations are garbage, e.g., events regarding Abu Zar (ra) demise and burial in Urdu "Tarikh-e-Tabari".

We have a lot to cover, so please, with sugar on top, produce the evidence about Ziyad's appointment by Ali (as). If you can't then you should not propagate lies for your own sake.

Edited by Darth Vader
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Here is what you want. From Arabic Tarikh Tabari:

أخذ علي البيعة على الناس وخبر زياد بن أبي سفيان وعبدالرحمن بن أبي بكرة

وكان في البيعة عليك عهد الله وميثاقه بالوفاء لتكونن لسلمنا سلما ولحربنا حربا ولتكفن عنا لسانك ويدك وكان زياد بن أبي سفيان ممن اعتزل ولم يشهد المعركة قعد وكان في بيت نافع بن الحارث وجاء عبدالرحمن بن أبي بكرة في المستأمنين مسلما بعدما فرغ علي من البيعة فقال له علي وعمك المتربص المقاعد بي فقال والله يا أمير المؤمنين إنه لك لواد وإنه على مسترك لحريص ولكنه بلغني أنه يشتكي فأعلم لك علمه ثم آتيك وكتم عليا مكانه حتى استأمره فأمره أن يعلمه فأعلمه فقال علي امش أمامي فاهدني إليه ففعل فلما دخل عليه قال تقاعدت عني وتربصت ووضع يده على صدره وقال هذا وجع بين فاعتذر إليه

زياد فقبل عذره واستشاره وأراده علي على البصرة فقال رجل من أهل بيتك يسكن إليه الناس فإنه أجدر أن يطمئنوا أو ينقادوا وسأكفيكه وأشير عليه فافترقا على ابن عباس ورجع علي إلى منزله

تأمير ابن عباس على البصرة وتولية زياد الخراج

وأمر ابن عباس على البصرة وولى زيادا الخراج وبيت المال وأمر ابن عباس أن يسمع منه فكان ابن عباس يقول استشرته عند هنة كانت من الناس فقال إن كنت نعلم أنك على الحق وأن من خالفك على الباطل أشرت عليك بما ينبغي وإن كنت لا تدري أشرت عليك بما ينبغي كذلك فقلت إني على الحق وإنهم على الباطل فقال اضرب بمن أطاعك من عصاك ومن ترك أمرك فإن كان أعز للإسلام وأصلح له أن يضرب عنقه فاضرب عنقه فاستكتبته فلما ولى رأيت ما صنع وعلمت أنه قد اجتهد لي رأيه وأعجلت السبئية عليا عن المقام وارتحلوا بغير إذنه فارتحل في آثارهم ليقطع عليهم أمرا إن كانوا أرادوه وقد كان له فيها مقام

كتب إلي السري عن شعيب عن سيف عن محمد وطلحة قالا علم أهل المدينة بيوم الجمل يوم الخميس قبل أن تغرب الشمس من نسر مر بما حول المدينة معه شيء متعلقه فتأمله الناس فوقع فإذا كف فيها خاتم نقشه عبدالرحمن بن عتاب وجفل من بين مكة والمدينة من أهل البصرة من قرب من البصرة أو بعد وقد علموا بالوقعة مما ينقل إليهم النسور من الأيدي والأقدام

Ziyad was not appointed governor, rather he was put in charge of taxation department (bait-ul-maal) and Michael Moroney says in his many praises for Ziyad that it was because Ziyad was better able to account for and gather taxes as he knew the people of Basra while Ibn Abbas didn't.

So now that I've rather helped you out of the swamp of pointlessness you created, lets examine your point:

Why would Hasan and ALi appoint someone who would so easly defect to muaiwyah for a bribe ? clearly they had no crystal ball to forsee every event in the future.

^ This was not the subject. Let me reiterate from the previous posts in the thread.

The point was the prohibition of appointment of a zaneem (like Umar or Ziyad) being forbidden in the Qur'an. So, again, where exactly does it say that Ali (as) appointed Ziyad ibn Sumayya as governor or someone who must be obeyed? Secondly, you should remember that Tabari often simply writes that he "doesn't want to write down what happened". His word is not gospel, as they say.

Also, try not to derail the discussion so much in the future. It illuminates your dishonesty.

In contrast though, Umar did appoint other zaneem like himself in clear violation of the Qur'an. Oh but if I start listing his crimes and follies it'll take forever.

Edited by Darth Vader
Link to post
Share on other sites

And why don't you just provide some evidence to say that Umar was criticised for being caliph based on his lineage. If it's as clear as you say then there should be something from Imam Ali, or any Imam for that matter, doing exactly what you're doing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

And why don't you just provide some evidence to say that Umar was criticised for being caliph based on his lineage. If it's as clear as you say then there should be something from Imam Ali, or any Imam for that matter, doing exactly what you're doing.

I don't think we can make such an argument. It was not the job of the Imām (any of them) to poke holes into the lives of the Caliphs and scrutinise every action and decision they made. There are a plethora of narrations from the A`immah (as) that speak against the first three, Abu Bakr and `Umar especially and this is sufficient for us to reach a conclusion regarding their character and conduct. We are not required to go further and attack everything when the Imams have already explained to us their nature and status in the eyes of Islam.

Perhaps the Imams did speak about this exact issue and perhaps they didn't. We either don't know or have not found the narrations regarding this issue. Just because there is no Hadiths speaking about this, it doesn't mean the Imām never mentioned it. It just means if they did, it wasn't recorded.

They didnt need to spend all their time speaking about the first three. Those close to them and their follows knew what the Imams have said about them (Abu Bakr, Umar, etc.) and this was enough for them. They (the Shi`a) didn't need to go and 'dig up more dirt' on them when the Imām has already given an answer regarding those particular individuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we can make such an argument. It was not the job of the Imām (any of them) to poke holes into the lives of the Caliphs and scrutinise every action and decision they made. There are a plethora of narrations from the A`immah (as) that speak against the first three, Abu Bakr and `Umar especially and this is sufficient for us to reach a conclusion regarding their character and conduct. We are not required to go further and attack everything when the Imams have already explained to us their nature and status in the eyes of Islam.

Perhaps the Imams did speak about this exact issue and perhaps they didn't. We either don't know or have not found the narrations regarding this issue. Just because there is no Hadiths speaking about this, it doesn't mean the Imām never mentioned it. It just means if they did, it wasn't recorded.

They didnt need to spend all their time speaking about the first three. Those close to them and their follows knew what the Imams have said about them (Abu Bakr, Umar, etc.) and this was enough for them. They (the Shi`a) didn't need to go and 'dig up more dirt' on them when the Imām has already given an answer regarding those particular individuals.

I agree. But I also disagree with some points. The Imams did not have to spend all their time concerning themselves with the Caliphs when more important matters could be discussed but at the same time Umar's lineage isn't a small thing when comparing it to the Quran. What's more important? To have a narration, weak or otherwise, saying that Umar was corrected by a woman, but absolutely nothing on him being a Caliph in direct violation of the Quran?

But the point isn't just about the view of the Imams, but the fact that this wasn't even an issue for anyone at all, which at this point leads me to a typical group of shias taking weak narrations and coming out with a baseless view.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Which weak narrations? Like this one?

[12 : 39 ]

و من كلام عمر رحم الله امرأ أهدى إلي عيوبي. قدم عمرو بن العاص على عمر و كان واليا لمصر فقال له في كم سرت قال في عشرين

قال عمر لقد سرت سير عاشق فقال عمرو إني و الله ما تأبطتنى الإماء و لا حملتني في غبرات الم آلي فقال عمر و الله ما هذا بجواب

الكلام الذي سألتك عنه و أن الدجاجة لتفحص في الرماد فتضع لغير الفحل و إنما تنسب البيضة إلى طرقها فقام عمرو مربد الوجه.

قلت الم آلي خرق سود يحملها النوائح و يسرن بها بأيديهن عند اللطم و أراد خرق الحيص هاهنا و شبهها بتلك و أنكر عمر فخره

بالأمهات و قال إن الفخر للأب الذي إليه النسب و سألت النقيب أبا جعفر عن هذا الحديث في عمر فقال إن عمرا فخر على عمر لأن أم

الخطاب زنجية و تعرف بباطحلي تسمى صهاك فقلت له و أم عمرو النابغة أمه من سبايا العرب فقال أمه عربية من عنزة سبيت في

بعض الغارات فليس يلحقها من النقص عندهم ما يلحق الإماء الزنجيات فقلت له أ كان عمرو يقدم على عمر بمثل ما قلت قال قد يكون

بلغه عنه قول قدح في نفسه فلم يحتمله له و نفث بما في صدره منه و إن لم يكن جوابا مطابقا للسؤال و قد كان عمر مع خشونته

يحتمل نحو هذا فقد جبهه الزبير مرة و جعل يحكي كلامه يمططه و جبهه سعد بن أبي وقاص أيضا فأغضى عنه و مر يوما في السوق

على ناقة له فوثب غلام من بني ضبة فإذا هو خلفه فالتفت إليه فقال فممن أنت قال ضبي قال جسور و الله فقال الغلام على العدو قال

عمر و على الصديق أيضا ما حاجتك فقضى حاجته ثم قال دع الآن لنا ظهر راحلتنا.

(شرح نهج البلاغة) by Ibn Abi Al-Hadid

There are simply too many narrations, both Sunni and Shia, that prove Umar as illegitimate of birth. Then the Qur'an clearly forbids such a person to be obeyed. Umar also has ALL the rest of the qualities mentioned in those verses I posted before. Most of the earliest Islamic books are full of proofs of that. What more does an honest being want.

Abu Bakr nominated him as his successor and the next king. Want evidence of that too? Do you want more evidence of Umar's (lack of) lineage?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which weak narrations? Like this one?

[12 : 39 ]

و من كلام عمر رحم الله امرأ أهدى إلي عيوبي. قدم عمرو بن العاص على عمر و كان واليا لمصر فقال له في كم سرت قال في عشرين

قال عمر لقد سرت سير عاشق فقال عمرو إني و الله ما تأبطتنى الإماء و لا حملتني في غبرات الم آلي فقال عمر و الله ما هذا بجواب

الكلام الذي سألتك عنه و أن الدجاجة لتفحص في الرماد فتضع لغير الفحل و إنما تنسب البيضة إلى طرقها فقام عمرو مربد الوجه.

قلت الم آلي خرق سود يحملها النوائح و يسرن بها بأيديهن عند اللطم و أراد خرق الحيص هاهنا و شبهها بتلك و أنكر عمر فخره

بالأمهات و قال إن الفخر للأب الذي إليه النسب و سألت النقيب أبا جعفر عن هذا الحديث في عمر فقال إن عمرا فخر على عمر لأن أم

الخطاب زنجية و تعرف بباطحلي تسمى صهاك فقلت له و أم عمرو النابغة أمه من سبايا العرب فقال أمه عربية من عنزة سبيت في

بعض الغارات فليس يلحقها من النقص عندهم ما يلحق الإماء الزنجيات فقلت له أ كان عمرو يقدم على عمر بمثل ما قلت قال قد يكون

بلغه عنه قول قدح في نفسه فلم يحتمله له و نفث بما في صدره منه و إن لم يكن جوابا مطابقا للسؤال و قد كان عمر مع خشونته

يحتمل نحو هذا فقد جبهه الزبير مرة و جعل يحكي كلامه يمططه و جبهه سعد بن أبي وقاص أيضا فأغضى عنه و مر يوما في السوق

على ناقة له فوثب غلام من بني ضبة فإذا هو خلفه فالتفت إليه فقال فممن أنت قال ضبي قال جسور و الله فقال الغلام على العدو قال

عمر و على الصديق أيضا ما حاجتك فقضى حاجته ثم قال دع الآن لنا ظهر راحلتنا.

(شرح نهج البلاغة) by Ibn Abi Al-Hadid

There are simply too many narrations, both Sunni and Shia, that prove Umar as illegitimate of birth. Then the Qur'an clearly forbids such a person to be obeyed. Umar also has ALL the rest of the qualities mentioned in those verses I posted before. Most of the earliest Islamic books are full of proofs of that. What more does an honest being want.

Abu Bakr nominated him as his successor and the next king. Want evidence of that too? Do you want more evidence of Umar's (lack of) lineage?

Ibn Hadid? Right.

But actually, that's not what I asked for but since you can't I'll drop it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

^ Actually, he was criticized during his caliphate for being a zaneem. Thats also by Ibn Hadid in that same book.

And he was criticized for being a ill tempered, misbehaving man by Talha when Abu Bakr nominated him before his death.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Actually, he was criticized during his caliphate for being a zaneem. Thats also by Ibn Hadid in that same book.

And he was criticized for being a ill tempered, misbehaving man by Talha when Abu Bakr nominated him before his death.

I'll check that out then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Meanwhile, would any Sunni person kindly explain to me why they hate the Shia for not taking some of the companions of the holy Prophet (pbuh) as immaculate? Or for criticizing them?

I mean whats the big deal with criticism of some ashaab of the Rasool Allah (pbuh)?

We have a whole lot of other far more important and actually imperative matters and differences to discuss. Pardon me, but I believe its a clever trick by the Sunni clergy so that people may never gain awareness about all the other things that actually really matter.

Thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
  • Advanced Member

Sunnis take the hadith of following the stars (... are like the stars which ever one of them you follow you will be rightly guided) to be the companions (at large) whilst shias take it to be the Ahl ul Bayt (as).

 

It just becomes a matter of who is better, the companions at large with all their differnces in opinions and quarrels ammongst each other or the Ahl ul Bayt (as) with the exclusion of anybody else from the quraish or ansar.

 

Obviously taking the Ahl ul Bayt is going to give you a straight way without all these differences of opinions and differences in ijtihad and in ray and (local) ijma's  (which, according to sunni tradition, all lead to the same salvation)

 

Taking the companions (an the following generations) at large as your guiding stars is going to leave you confused on every matter from Iman, to Walayah (who are the ones in authority? - Military rulers, Jurists or Somebody else?) to Tahara (how to do wudu, how much blood breaks wudu etc.), to Salah (praying with arms down, folded on the belly or on the chest), to the paying of the Zakat (Muawiyah said that 2 mudds of wheat from syria is the same as 1 sa of dates for the zakat ul fitr), to fasting (when to break a fast on a journey). ---------- just a few examples!


...

 

Btw: What do you think of tradition 4 of Kitab Sulaym bin Qais al Hilali ???

Edited by jasir
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sunnis take the hadith of following the stars (... are like the stars which ever one of them you follow you will be rightly guided) to be the companions (at large) whilst shias take it to be the Ahl ul Bayt (as).

 

It just becomes a matter of who is better, the companions at large with all their differnces in opinions and quarrels ammongst each other or the Ahl ul Bayt (as) with the exclusion of anybody else from the quraish or ansar.

 

Obviously taking the Ahl ul Bayt is going to give you a straight way without all these differences of opinions and differences in ijtihad and in ray and (local) ijma's  (which, according to sunni tradition, all lead to the same salvation)

 

Taking the companions (an the following generations) at large as your guiding stars is going to leave you confused on every matter from Iman, to Walayah (who are the ones in authority? - Military rulers, Jurists or Somebody else?) to Tahara (how to do wudu, how much blood breaks wudu etc.), to Salah (praying with arms down, folded on the belly or on the chest), to the paying of the Zakat (Muawiyah said that 2 mudds of wheat from syria is the same as 1 sa of dates for the zakat ul fitr), to fasting (when to break a fast on a journey). ---------- just a few examples!

...

 

Btw: What do you think of tradition 4 of Kitab Sulaym bin Qais al Hilali ???

 

By the Way, Adding to the Hadith About the My companions are like starts:

 

حدثنا الحاكم أبو علي الحسين بن أحمد البيهقي قال حدثني محمد بن يحيى الصولي، قال حدثني محمد بن موسى بن نصر الرازي، قال: حدثني أبي، قال: سئل الرضا عليه السلام عن قول النبي (ص): أصحابي كالنجوم بأيهم اقتديتم اهتديتم، وعن قوله عليه السلام: دعوا لي أصحابي فقال عليه السلام: هذا صحيح يريد من لم يغير بعده ولم يبدل قيل: وكيف يعلم أنهم قد غيروا أو بدلوا؟ قال: لما يروونه: من أنه (ص) قال: ليذادن برجال من أصحابي يوم القيامة عن حوضي كما تذاد غرائب الإبل عن الماء فأقول: يا رب أصحابي أصحابي فيقال لي: إنك لا تدري ما أحدثوا بعدك؟ فيؤخذ بهم ذات الشمال فأقول: بعدا وسحقا لهم افترى هذا لمن لم يغير ولم يبدل.

 

 Imam Reza (as) was asked about the Prophet’s statement “my companions are like the stars whomever you refer to you will be guided” and his statement “leave my companions to myself”. He (Reza) replied:  ‘That’s true but he meant those who didn’t change after him’. He was asked: ‘How one shall know they have changed?’ He (Reza) replied: ‘Through what thy narrate that he (prophet) said: ‘Some of my companions will be taken away from my pool on day of resurrection as the camels are taken away from the water, and I will say: O Allah my companions my companions!! I will be answered “you don’t know what they have done after you?” then they will be taken to the left and I will say woe to them’’.Do you see, this is for those who didn’t change after him.

 

Ayon Akhbar al reza lil-Qami 2/87 

-The chain of narration of this Hadith contains Muhammad bin Musa bin Nasr who has been declared weak. 

Ibn Taymiyyah Al-Hirani Al-Damishqi

The "Sheikh-ul-Islam" of Salafies and Deobandies, Ibne Taymiyyah writes about this hadith

Briefly, this Hadith of "Sahaba like Stars" is weak. Hadith Masters have declared it weak. Imam Bazaz said, "It is not correct to refer this Hadith to Rasool Allah (saww), and also this Hadith don't exist in the authentic books of Ahadith.

Minhaj-us-Sunnah, vol. 4, page 239, published in Egypt

Imam Abu Hiyyan Andalasi

"This Hadith of "Sahaba are like Stars" should not be referred to Rasool Allah (saww). This is a fabricated Hadith and in no way that Rasool Allah (saww) said it. Imam Ibn Hazm Andalasi said it to be a lie.

Tafseer-ul-Bahar Al-Muheet, vol. 5, page 527-528, published by Darul Maarifa, Bairut

Hafidh Ibne Qayyim Ibn Jawziyyah

The Isnad (chain of narration) of famous Hadith of "Sahaba are Stars" are not proved. Hafidh Ibn Bar has said with reference to Bazaz that it is not right to refer it to Rasool Allah (saww).

A'alam al-Moq'een, page 364, published in Delhi

Allamah Qazi Muhib Ullah Bihari, in his book "Muslim-us-Suboot" page 510, published in Luknow, did a detail discussion upon the validity ??? of "Ijma on Sheikhain" and refuted the claims of supporters of this idea. He wrote:

"Some people, in order to prove the validity of "Ijma on Sheikhain" bring those Ahadith in support like "Follow Abu Bakr and Umar after me….." or "Follow the Sunnah of rightly guided Khulafa after me". The answer to this is that these rightly guided Khulafa are only Ahle-Bait?? and the "Followers"?? are told to follow only Ahle-Bait while Mujhtahideen?? oppose them in their opinions. And as well as the Hadith of "Sahaba are like Stars" and "Ahadith of Humaira?? (Aisha)" are concerned, then both of them are weak and fabricated.

We read in Naseem:

"The hadith wherein the Sahaba have been equated to stars was recorded by Ibn Barr and Darqatani - all of its chains are weak and Ibn Hazm saif the hadith was unknown, he said it was a fabricated virtue that has no meaning, the hadith should have referred to deeds (Amal) - if you follow these you shall be guided".

Mulla 'Ali Qari in Sharh Shifa

"Ibn Barr narrated the tradition of stars on the authority of Jabir and passed comment that this Isnad should not be viewed as authority. Abdul ibn Hameed narrated it in his Musnad. Bazaaz said that the hadith is Munkar not Sahih. Ibn Adi narrated this in Kamil with a weak chain. Bayhaqi also narrated oit, commenting that it was well known but weak, Alibi stated that Qadhi Iyad should not have classified this as a correct tradition"

(salam) 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

By the Way, Adding to the Hadith About the My companions are like starts:

 

حدثنا الحاكم أبو علي الحسين بن أحمد البيهقي قال حدثني محمد بن يحيى الصولي، قال حدثني محمد بن موسى بن نصر الرازي، قال: حدثني أبي، قال: سئل الرضا عليه السلام عن قول النبي (ص): أصحابي كالنجوم بأيهم اقتديتم اهتديتم، وعن قوله عليه السلام: دعوا لي أصحابي فقال عليه السلام: هذا صحيح يريد من لم يغير بعده ولم يبدل قيل: وكيف يعلم أنهم قد غيروا أو بدلوا؟ قال: لما يروونه: من أنه (ص) قال: ليذادن برجال من أصحابي يوم القيامة عن حوضي كما تذاد غرائب الإبل عن الماء فأقول: يا رب أصحابي أصحابي فيقال لي: إنك لا تدري ما أحدثوا بعدك؟ فيؤخذ بهم ذات الشمال فأقول: بعدا وسحقا لهم افترى هذا لمن لم يغير ولم يبدل.

 

 Imam Reza (as) was asked about the Prophet’s statement “my companions are like the stars whomever you refer to you will be guided” and his statement “leave my companions to myself”. He (Reza) replied:  ‘That’s true but he meant those who didn’t change after him’. He was asked: ‘How one shall know they have changed?’ He (Reza) replied: ‘Through what thy narrate that he (prophet) said: ‘Some of my companions will be taken away from my pool on day of resurrection as the camels are taken away from the water, and I will say: O Allah my companions my companions!! I will be answered “you don’t know what they have done after you?” then they will be taken to the left and I will say woe to them’’.Do you see, this is for those who didn’t change after him.

 

Ayon Akhbar al reza lil-Qami 2/87 

-The chain of narration of this Hadith contains Muhammad bin Musa bin Nasr who has been declared weak. 

Ibn Taymiyyah Al-Hirani Al-Damishqi

The "Sheikh-ul-Islam" of Salafies and Deobandies, Ibne Taymiyyah writes about this hadith

Briefly, this Hadith of "Sahaba like Stars" is weak. Hadith Masters have declared it weak. Imam Bazaz said, "It is not correct to refer this Hadith to Rasool Allah (saww), and also this Hadith don't exist in the authentic books of Ahadith.

Minhaj-us-Sunnah, vol. 4, page 239, published in Egypt

Imam Abu Hiyyan Andalasi

"This Hadith of "Sahaba are like Stars" should not be referred to Rasool Allah (saww). This is a fabricated Hadith and in no way that Rasool Allah (saww) said it. Imam Ibn Hazm Andalasi said it to be a lie.

Tafseer-ul-Bahar Al-Muheet, vol. 5, page 527-528, published by Darul Maarifa, Bairut

Hafidh Ibne Qayyim Ibn Jawziyyah

The Isnad (chain of narration) of famous Hadith of "Sahaba are Stars" are not proved. Hafidh Ibn Bar has said with reference to Bazaz that it is not right to refer it to Rasool Allah (saww).

A'alam al-Moq'een, page 364, published in Delhi

Allamah Qazi Muhib Ullah Bihari, in his book "Muslim-us-Suboot" page 510, published in Luknow, did a detail discussion upon the validity ??? of "Ijma on Sheikhain" and refuted the claims of supporters of this idea. He wrote:

"Some people, in order to prove the validity of "Ijma on Sheikhain" bring those Ahadith in support like "Follow Abu Bakr and Umar after me….." or "Follow the Sunnah of rightly guided Khulafa after me". The answer to this is that these rightly guided Khulafa are only Ahle-Bait?? and the "Followers"?? are told to follow only Ahle-Bait while Mujhtahideen?? oppose them in their opinions. And as well as the Hadith of "Sahaba are like Stars" and "Ahadith of Humaira?? (Aisha)" are concerned, then both of them are weak and fabricated.

We read in Naseem:

"The hadith wherein the Sahaba have been equated to stars was recorded by Ibn Barr and Darqatani - all of its chains are weak and Ibn Hazm saif the hadith was unknown, he said it was a fabricated virtue that has no meaning, the hadith should have referred to deeds (Amal) - if you follow these you shall be guided".

Mulla 'Ali Qari in Sharh Shifa

"Ibn Barr narrated the tradition of stars on the authority of Jabir and passed comment that this Isnad should not be viewed as authority. Abdul ibn Hameed narrated it in his Musnad. Bazaaz said that the hadith is Munkar not Sahih. Ibn Adi narrated this in Kamil with a weak chain. Bayhaqi also narrated oit, commenting that it was well known but weak, Alibi stated that Qadhi Iyad should not have classified this as a correct tradition"

(salam) 

 

 

May Allah reward you, I appreciate your feedback brother.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...