Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Abu Tufayl

Response To Narrator Criticism In Sunni Rijal

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Jazakallah for this, very insightful. Its amazing that these people have the audacity to repeatedly claim that their Hadith science is one of the most sophisticated and exemplary systems in place, while the Shia have nothing of the sort! But in reality they just have a 'mind boggling' system that seeks to legitimise why their narrations are filled with manifest enemies of the AhlulBayt (as)!!

 

On a side note, they say that we have ourselves strengthened narrators even though they were Nasibi's, and therefore we are being hypocritical. An example of this claim is provided below:

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235015528-those-who-love-me-to-much-will-be-ruined-ali-as/#entry2608800

 

Is there any truth to this claim? And if true, is the difference that they strengthen Nasibi's for being Nasibi's, while our scholars have deemed them reliable for other reasons (if they have at all that is!!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

Jazakallah for this, very insightful. Its amazing that these people have the audacity to repeatedly claim that their Hadith science is one of the most sophisticated and exemplary systems in place, while the Shia have nothing of the sort! But in reality they just have a 'mind boggling' system that seeks to legitimise why their narrations are filled with manifest enemies of the AhlulBayt (as)!!

 

On a side note, they say that we have ourselves strengthened narrators even though they were Nasibi's, and therefore we are being hypocritical. An example of this claim is provided below:

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235015528-those-who-love-me-to-much-will-be-ruined-ali-as/#entry2608800

 

Is there any truth to this claim? And if true, is the difference that they strengthen Nasibi's for being Nasibi's, while our scholars have deemed them reliable for other reasons (if they have at all that is!!).

 

Yes, I implore and warn those amongst our brothers in this 'amr to not be envious and glorify their rijal system, it's a piece of manure. They may have more "information," but the rijali gradings are based on accepting those narrating their doctrines and filtering out Shi'ism, for the most part. 

 

As for us accepting narrations from a Nasibi. Ahmad b. Hilal is not a "nasibi" as we use the term today or that which is common. If you study the narrations regarding Ahmad b. Hilal, the nasb attributed to him is because he rejected the appointment of the Sufaraa' of the 12th Imam [as] (he did not believe they actually were appointed). It is not conventional "nasb" it was him fighting the nass of the Ma`sum [as]'s sufaraa'. On the other hand, there is ikhtilaf on his accusations, Tusi says he is accused of ghuluw. It cannot be said that He was a ghaali who became a Nasibi because tusi says explicitly that the Taa'ifa differentiated between what Ahmad b. Hilal narrated in his state of istiqaama and his period of misguidance - you cannot have been a ghaali and then called "mustaqeem."

 

 

Great work, but I believe it's Yahya b. Ma'een, not Mu'ayn.

 

I had previously had Ma`een, but then did Mu`ayn cause I heard/saw it elsewhere. Oh well.

 

في أمان الله

Edited by Dar'ul_Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

Yes, I implore and warn those amongst our brothers in this 'amr to not be envious and glorify their rijal system, it's a piece of manure. They may have more "information," but the rijali gradings are based on accepting those narrating their doctrines and filtering out Shi'ism, for the most part. 

 

As for us accepting narrations from a Nasibi. Ahmad b. Hilal is not a "nasibi" as we use the term today or that which is common. If you study the narrations regarding Ahmad b. Hilal, the nasb attributed to him is because he rejecting the appointment of the Sufaraa' of the 12th Imam [as] (he did not believe they actually were appointed). It is not conventional "nasb" it was him fighting the nass of the Ma`sum [as]'s sufaraa'. On the other hand, there is ikhtilaf on his accusations, Tusi says he is accused of ghuluw. It cannot be said that He was a ghaali who became a Nasibi because tusi says explicitly that the Taa'ifa differentiated between what Ahmad b. Hilal narrated in his state of istiqaama and his period of misguidance - you cannot have been a ghaali and then called "mustaqeem."

 

 

 

I had previously had Ma`een, but then did Mu`ayn cause I heard/saw it elsewhere. Oh well.

 

في أمان الله

Edited by Hannibal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

Also, Ahmad b. Hilal also spent most of his life with the Imami community without a problem. This indicates that even if he had some deviant beliefs (which manifested later), they weren't that significant to the community, relatively speaking. 

 

This is correct. I just looked into this actually...

 

The major occultation occurred in 260 AH. The disagreement that Ahmad b. Hilal had was with the second Safeer's appointment, Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Uthman al-`Amri, and his father passed away in 265 AH. Ahmad b. Hilal died 267 AH. There were only 2 years of his period of inhirāf... while he was born in 190 AH. So out of the total 77 years he lived, 75 he was mustaqīm and the last 2 he became someone misguided.

 

في أمان الله

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)



Ahmed b Hilal Al'Eberta'ee?

He was cursed by Imam Al'askari.

 

The narrations indicate the la`n coming from Imam al-Qā'im عليه السلام rather than al-`Askarī عليه السلام. You can see his entry in Mu`jam here

 

The part in particular to see is that the la`n is coming from a Tawqī` from al-`Amrī and then:

 

ووقف على أبي جعفر، فلعنوه وتبرأوا منه، ثم ظهر التوقيع، على يد أبي القاسم حسين ابن روح، بلعنه، والبراءة منه

 

"He ceased upon Abī Ja`far so they [the Tā'ifa] cursed him and dissociated from him. Then the letter come forward on the hand of Abī al-Qāsim al-Husayn b. Rūh with his cursing and the dissociation from him"

 

 

Anyway, this isn't a topic about Ahmad b. Hilal, if you want to discuss this further, we can do it somewhere else. Let's stick to the main topic: Sunni rijal being a load of manure.

 

في أمان الله

Edited by Dar'ul_Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest this uses material that can only be used in anti-sunni rhetoric.  It's not a balanced view, and I'm sure someone will post a 'refutation of this refutation' fairly soon.

 


 

1 - `Umar b. Sa`d b. Abī Waqās : The murderer of al-Imam The Grandson The Martyr. al-`Ijlī said: thiqa (trustworthy, reliable). Ibn Hajr said in Tahzhīb al-Tahzheeb : He is a tābi`ī (first generation follower after the Companions), thiqa and he is the one who murdered al-Husayn. عليه السلام

 

Just to address this point, from what I know, the thiqah grading is based on the fact that the very few narrations ibn Sa'd did narrate weren't lies and were before Karbala so if he narrated truthfully then he's thiqah in relation to those narrations. Odd the way it works but there you go. 

 

Also, given that Yahya bin Ma’een is mentioned elsewhere in the article, what's his view of ibn Sa'd? If all sunni rijalists held the same view about him then there would be a case to put forward but there should be at least a balanced view of what sunni scholars say about ibn Sa'd, not just cherry picking the ones that suit the shia agenda.

Edited by Vigilare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't have time to go through the post at this point (I can leave that for brother Dar), but the 'Umar ibn Sa'ad part of Farid's post caught my eye:

 

I say: Al-Sanad has left out an important opinion, which is that of Yahya bin Ma’een, arguably the greatest of all the rijalis, in which he says: How can the killer of Al-Hussain be thiqa? (Tahtheeb Al-Tahtheeb) Why didn’t Al-Sanad quote the opinion of Yahya bin Ma’een? Perhaps it is because it will destroy his very argument that the Sunni system revolves around Nasb.

 

 

and

 

1st Mistake: He said: Ibn Hajr said in Tahzhīb al-Tahzheeb : He is a tābi`ī (first generation follower after the Companions), thiqa and he is the one who murdered al-Husayn. عليه السلام

I say: Ibn Hajar said no such thing in Tahtheeb Al-Tahtheeb.

 

 

The central position in Ibn Hajar's text is that he is thiqah, that's what the actual position in the entry is.

 

1) If you look at Ibn Hajar's own abridgment of the Tahdheeb, Taqrib al-Tahdheeb, you will see that Ibn Hajar himself considers him trustworthy:

 

عمر بن سعد بن أبي وقاص المدني نزيل الكوفة صدوق ولكن مقته الناس لكونه كان أميرا على الجيش الذين قتلوا الحسين بن علي

 

Umar ibn Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas al-Madani, settler in Kufa, he is trustworthy (saduq) although people have hated him for being the leader of the army that killed Husayn b. Ali.

 

Here you can see that al-Sanad is understanding Ibn Hajar's quotation of al-Ijli in the Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb very well given it is an expression of his own view which is confirmed by his own Taqrib (al-Dhahabi also seems to agree with Ibn Hajar's opinion in his Mizan al-'Itidal)

 

2) Finally, Sanad is not trying to argue that there was a fully directed and especially consorted conspiracy by all Sunni rijalists. He's trying to argue that there was a general tendency with many of the hadith experts and rijalists to create some kind of an artificial system that confirmed their own religious views through various filterings, censorings and dismissals. Although there was no consorted effort in doing so on a case by case basis (which is why you can see different opinions), but as a whole you see the enterprise largely (although not absolutely) functioning this way. This happens through accrediting butchers and haters of Ahl al-Bayt, dismissing Shia narrators wholesale (minor view), or the much much more popular custom of accepting the reports of Shias when it agrees with their views, and dismissing them when it doesn't. 

 

So even if we say ibn Ma'een opinion is that he was not thiqah at all (I don't find his statement to be fully clear), it does nothing to refute Sanad's thesis. Most Sunni rijalists have opted for considering him trustworthy, which makes his view of secondary importance in the broader context of things.

Edited by Hannibal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Sunni Rijal system, any narration that record an incident of hatred or insult to any of Ahlulbayt by a certain narrator, this incident will be perceived by Sunni scholars as a merit to the narrator. He will be either more jealous on Islam than the prophet himself, or he was caring about the prophet so he said do not over burden him by the pen and paper or that killing Imam Husain just proves that I bn Sa'ad was strong in faith that he fought against the outlaws and the dichotomy in the ummah, he kept its unity etc of the excauses that are made for those Sahabis

 

On the other hand, when someone from that era, be it  a sahabi or a tabe'i, belongs to the other camp (that claim that  khilafah is tawqeef from Allah and not Shura, who do not consider the first three as infallible or holy figures or at least, do  consider Ali to have merits that non of the sahabah has)

Those who belong to this camp had been moved by hawa (opinions, likings etc) not trustworthy.

 

It all gets down to the hadith that hatred of Imam Ali is the measure of hypocrisy, most hypocrites do not see this hadith to hold value in terms of rijals, they may think that prophet was speaking in metaphor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Sunni Rijal system, any narration that record an incident of hatred or insult to any of Ahlulbayt by a certain narrator, this incident will be perceived by Sunni scholars as a merit to the narrator. He will be either more jealous on Islam than the prophet himself, or he was caring about the prophet so he said do not over burden him by the pen and paper or that killing Imam Husain just proves that I bn Sa'ad was strong in faith that he fought against the outlaws and the dichotomy in the ummah, he kept its unity etc of the excauses that are made for those Sahabis

 

 

That statement is so beyond ridiculous it's redonkulous.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im suprised the guys on that terrorist forum follow our posts so attentively!

 

Looks like they are looking for excuses and making up scenarios for why they have narrated from those who openely had 'bughz' of Ali (as).

 

They can find a million and one reasons for why the narrations of such people are acceptable, but anyone who curses Abu Bakr & Umar, well thats a different story. Hypocrocy at its finest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

يقول الحافظ الذهبى :

كما تقرر عن الكف عن كثيرٍ مما شجر بين الصحابة وقتالهم رضي الله عنهم أجمعين .

وما زال يمر بنا ذلك في الدواوين والكتب والأجزاء ولكن أكثر ذلك منقطع وضعيف ، وبعضه كذب ، وهذا فيما بأيدينا وبين علمائنا ، فينبغي طيه وإخفاؤه ، بل إعدامه لتصفو القلوب ، وتتوفر على حب الصحابة والترضي عنهم ، وكتمان ذلك متعين عن العامة وآحاد العلماء ، وقد يرخص في مطالعة ذلك خلوة للعالم المنصف العري من الهوى بشرط أن يستغفر لهم سير اعلام النبلاء 10\92

 

Alhafiz Althahabi in Seyer A'alaam Annubalaa said : As it has been established that we should not discuss the dispute between the companions and their fights may Allah be pleased with all of them. These incidents can be found through out our books  but most of them have interrupted chains or weak chains or simply a fabrication, but regarding those that we confirmed (of these historical events) we must hide , no, we must destroy them so the hearts will be clear (from hatred) instead hearts will be full of love to companions, this act of hiding of these events is a must on the general population and on the individual scholars, it will be allowed for a scholar to read these events under conditions : he must be free from hawa and he must pray for forgiveness   for all of them (the companions)

 

This is called hypocracy and hiding the truth in the religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jazakallah for this detailed reply!! There is a lot to digest there, and some valuable references.

 

In essence, my reading of the above concludes that you make up a system that you like and agree on, then you proceed to praise and criticise narrators based on the level of their narrations conforming with your 'already established truth'.  If a Shia somehow manages to get through the multiple filters invented to block him, he is then confronted with the principle that anything he narrates that proves his belief is automatically to be rejected!! They have no problems with his ability to narrate, with his worship, with his relations with others, the only thing that makes him an automatic 'liar' is when his narrations dont fit the already agreed belief system. But as for a Nasibi, he walks through every filter smiling with a huge card proclaiming his Nasb, and gets a pat on the back too!!

 

Someone who insults Abu Bakr and Umar is to be rejected and is labelled a Dajjal, but the person who is from the KILLERS of the Grandson of the Prophet (saaw) is reliable and narrates in Bukhari!!! And what's worse is that instead of admitting a huge error with such a system, they proceed to justify it even today!! As pointed out quite effectively in the post, they have no understanding of the concept of 'Adalah'.

 

If nothing else, making a rebuttal to this rebuttal should keep those dudes on the Terrorist Forum busy for a while :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.worldcat.org/title/atb-al-jamil-ala-ahl-al-jarh-wa-al-tadil/oclc/768702401?referer=di&ht=edition

 

Here's a book by Sheikh Muhammad b. Aqil al-Alawi, who is a Sunni scholar from the Ba'Alawi family of Tarim, Yemen, that largely argues what Sheikh al-Sanad argues: partisanship towards the Umayyads encouraged a mainstream Sunni tendency to criticize pro-Alid predecessors as untrustworthy and appraise anti-Alid predecessors as reliable. 

 

This scholar has also written two books defaming Muawiyah b. Abi Sufyan as an enemy of God and encouraging Sunni scholars to reject him as such. The first book garnered severe criticism from the Wahhabi establishment, and the second book was produced in response to this criticism. His teacher Sayyid Abu Bakr b. Ibn Shihab, also from the Ba'Alawi family, wrote a supplementary book to support al-Alawi's arguments.

 

Of course, this will all be very hard to digest for our opponents whose staunch textualism aided by a general incompetency with basic rules of logic removes any possibility for them to be objective in their search for religious truth and causes them to resort to personal attacks against scholars and censorship. Congratulations to all of you for you are surely the sons of Muawiyah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

Our Opponent said:  I'll respond later and demonstrate how the views that you are sharing are far from your shaikhs views.

 

We Say: I actually do not care if the concept of "deviant belief" is invoked my our scholarship in rijāl. I am aware of Sh. al-Tūsī's statements in al-`Udda where he says the narration of the people holding deviant doctrines (Fathiyya, Wāqifiyya, `Āmmiyya, etc.) is deferred away from in cases of conflict with "tariīq al-haqq." Or al-Sadūq not giving fatwā by the narration of some of the Wāqifa. Even the era of al-`Allam al-Hillī where they rejected any and all non-Imamis (with some exceptions like Ashāb al-Ijmā`). I'd also notice that these are in the cases fiqh and ahkām.

 

The only people whose books and narrations were destroyed (arguably), and they were being accused harshly based on beliefs, where the "ghullāt," but they are "extremists" from our own sect. Besides, many and most scholars today will disagree and criticize these accusations. Especially the accusations and istiqrā' from al-Fadl b. Shāzhān, Ibn al-Ghadā'irī, and al-Najāshī.

 

The "you too" (tu quoque) fallacy does not solve the issue hand nor absolve your scholars from their bias and sectarianism. I am not arguing, at this moment, that our rijāl system is better or unbiased. That is irrelevant to the discussion. The enterprise of rijāl, jarh and ta`dīl, from any sect, is a self-serving system. 

 

في أمان الله

Edited by Dar'ul_Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

Our Opponent said:  I'll respond later and demonstrate how the views that you are sharing are far from your shaikhs views.

 

We Say: I actually do not care if the concept of "deviant belief" is invoked my our scholarship in rijāl. I am aware of Sh. al-Tūsī's statements in al-`Udda where he says the narration of the people holding deviant doctrines (Fathiyya, Wāqifiyya, `Āmmiyya, etc.) is deferred away from in cases of conflict with "tariīq al-haqq." Or al-Sadūq not giving fatwā by the narration of some of the Wāqifa. Even the era of al-`Allam al-Hillī where they rejected any and all non-Imamis (with some exceptions like Ashāb al-Ijmā`). I'd also notice that these are in the cases fiqh and ahkām.

 

The only people whose books and narrations were destroyed (arguably), and they were being accused harshly based on beliefs, where the "ghullāt," but they are "extremists" from our own sect. Besides, many and most scholars today will disagree and criticize these accusations. Especially the accusations and istiqrā' from al-Fadl b. Shāzhān, Ibn al-Ghadā'irī, and al-Najāshī.

 

The "you too" (tu quoque) fallacy does not solve the issue hand nor absolve your scholars from their bias and sectarianism. I am not arguing, at this moment, that our rijāl system is better or unbiased. That is irrelevant to the discussion. The enterprise of rijāl, jarh and ta`dīl, from any sect, is a self-serving system. 

 

في أمان الله

 

I would expand your point by saying that the Imami Shi'a often dealt with people of their own sect (ghulat) or close to it (like the Waqifiya) more harshly than they did with proto-Sunnis narrators. There are of course exceptions at times, but this is the general pattern I have observed.

 

On the other hand, Sunnis did not do the same with the nasibis of their own sect. So although the Shia system of jarh and ta'dil was not objective and was self-serving and no one can dispute it, it seems to be less dogmatic and less self-serving than that of the Sunnis, at least on this particular issue that we are discussing.

 

But I know this is beyond the point of the post, so I'll leave it at that.

 

The main point is that Farid claimed that what Sanad said was false and was a baseless theory. It's a bit ironic that Farid seems to be acknowledging it now and playing the "you too" card :D

 

Again, great work Dar.

 

---

I would also like to add this. There has been a claim going around that some how the Sunni rijal system is objective self-critiquing enterprise. Dar's post showed otherwise, that it was far from being so. It was not interested with truth or history, but more interested in being self-serving. 

 

If the Shia did this, it doesn't mean that the above premise is false. So it's about time that some of our so-called Imamis woke up and smell the coffee and stop being fascinated by an illusion.

Edited by Hannibal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for explaining that guys.

 

So in laymen terms for people like me, we can basically expect a response that says 'look, you have done this too, look here and here....' instead of them defending their original stance which was a categoric 'you are lying about our methodology!!'.

 

So in the end we have to choose between 2 self-serving systems (of different degrees). From these 2, one group has narrated and authenticated Ahadith that state enmity with Ali (a) is a sign of Hypocrisy, and then proceeded to narrate from numerous Munafiqs lol They then topped this extraordinary feat of Nasb off by authenticating the killer of the Prince of Paradise (as)!!

 

I dont know about anyone else, but the Shia system could narrate from dolphins and bumblebees, and it still would be far more appealing then the alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for explaining that guys.

 

So in laymen terms for people like me, we can basically expect a response that says 'look, you have done this too, look here and here....' instead of them defending their original stance which was a categoric 'you are lying about our methodology!!'.

 

So in the end we have to choose between 2 self-serving systems (of different degrees). From these 2, one group has narrated and authenticated Ahadith that state enmity with Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã is a sign of Hypocrisy, and then proceeded to narrate from numerous Munafiqs lol They then topped this extraordinary feat of Nasb off by authenticating the killer of the Prince of Paradise (as)!!

 

I dont know about anyone else, but the Shia system could narrate from dolphins and bumblebees, and it still would be far more appealing then the alternative.

 

Please remember that despite the problems, there are still methods in deriving, objectively speaking, what the Imams taught historically. We can't do this with everything in Shi'ism, but we can do enough to derive the core tenets of Shi'ism (this includes law, theology, ethics, school doctrines etc.)

Edited by Hannibal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

Our Opponent said:  I'll respond later and demonstrate how the views that you are sharing are far from your shaikhs views.

 

 

I have misread this, I believe. He is trying to say that what I have argued and what al-Sanad حفظه الله have argued are not the same. This is an unimportant point (and untrue). To understand al-Sanad حفظه الله's statements of exaggeration (a common arabic literary device) as mutlaq is illogical (especially in the introduction). His point was that the Sunni system of narrator criticism is controlled by their kalām and doctrine and not about truthfulness and accuracy absolutely. This phenomena is especially true when it came to the Shi`ah and Rafida while the Nasiba were not scrutinized with the same intensity, if at all. Yes, I have elaborated and expanded the arguments beyond what al-Sanad has said. However, his discussion was aimed to show that the Sunni system is not objective, but very biased due to their criticisms stemming from their `aqida and kalam. The point about Nasb [opposing the Shia/supporting nawasib is a form of nasb] against these people is from a fascist Imami perspective as this discussion's audience were Imami students.

 

We have mentioned many examples of this that the criticisms they have applied and ruled for a narrator are based on their principles of theology and the Rijālī scholar used them in giving opinions on a narrator by investigating their narrations or the teachers of the narrator that they would seek out to study and narrate from.

The Arabic:

 

وقد ذكرنا أمثلة ونماذج كثيرة من أن مستنداتهم في الجرح والتعديل إنما هي قواعد ومبان كلامية يستند إليها الرجالي في تقييم ومحاكمة الرواي من خلال مذهبه الإعتقادي بتوسط مضامين الروايات التي يرويها أو مشايخ الرواي الذين ينتمي إليهم في التتلمذ والرواية

 

 

 

The Conclusion: The matter of Jarh and Ta`dīl is subjected to the ijtihād of the rijāli according it was grounded in from inquiries of belief so his conclusions that he put out were nothing but his fatāwā, meaning his ijtihād and the majority of the matter is not grounded in assessing the moral behavior of the narrator.

 

المحصل: أن الجرح والتعديل خاضع الإجتهاد صاحب الجرح والتعديل الخبير الرجالي حسب ما يتبنى من المسائل الإعتقادية فنتائجه التي يبرزها ليست إلا فتاواه وإجتهاداته وليست في غالب الأمر مستندة إلى السلوك الأخلاقي للراوي

 

في أمان الله

Edited by Dar'ul_Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To increase knowledge of All Brothers

Ayatollah Sayyid Saeed AL hakim in his book FI RIJABU AQIDAH has dedicated 250 pages on this issue , that how sunni scholars used to weak narrator on basis on personal problems with them , or they don't have same beliefs regarding Quran is created or preexisting , how they try to weak the ahadith which contain merits of Imam Ali p.b.u.h and lot more

I read this book two times it is one of best

May Allah bless who follow Qur'an and Ahlul bayt a.s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To increase knowledge of All Brothers

Ayatollah Sayyid Saeed AL hakim in his book FI RIJABU AQIDAH has dedicated 250 pages on this issue , that how sunni scholars used to weak narrator on basis on personal problems with them , or they don't have same beliefs regarding Quran is created or preexisting , how they try to weak the ahadith which contain merits of Imam Ali p.b.u.h and lot more

I read this book two times it is one of best

May Allah bless who follow Qur'an and Ahlul bayt a.s

 

Your right. I was reading Mustadrak al Hakim. It Suprisingly most of the Hadith about Ahlulbayt (as) where rejcted and on the footnotes he only says:

"A lier! who ever Manupliated..."???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...