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

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..."???

Yes Brother they always play same rijal game with Fadhail of Ahlul Bayt a.s , if the sanad of narration is shining like a sun still they try to cast doubt on it by giving some negative comments

For more detail look at book of Allamah Mir Hamid Hussain Hindi "Abaqatul Anwaar " where he had refuted all arguements of sunni scholars on sanad as well as different aspects of Hadith which indicate clearly regarding leadership of Ahlul bayt a.s

I read his refutation on Hadith Thaqalain which is Marvellous , May Allah Bless his soul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Brother they always play same rijal game with Fadhail of Ahlul Bayt a.s , if the sanad of narration is shining like a sun still they try to cast doubt on it by giving some negative comments

For more detail look at book of Allamah Mir Hamid Hussain Hindi "Abaqatul Anwaar " where he had refuted all arguements of sunni scholars on sanad as well as different aspects of Hadith which indicate clearly regarding leadership of Ahlul bayt a.s

I read his refutation on Hadith Thaqalain which is Marvellous , May Allah Bless his soul

 

 

Mashalla, thank you brother! Checking it now.

 

Allah bless you brother.

 

Can you type the name of the book in Arabic? Is it Arabic or English?

 

Edited by TheIslamHistory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mashalla, thank you brother! Checking it now.

Allah bless you brother.

Can you type the name of the book in Arabic? Is it Arabic or English?

Original was in Persian ,I have read it in Urdu , it has been also translated in Arabic by Ayatullah Sayyid Ali Milani

if u know urdu then u can download in Urdu from ziaraat.com

Edited by Muhammad Faysal Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

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

 

Thank you brother. I think I found the book here:

 

First Volume: http://www.alhakeem.com/arabic/pages/book.php?bi=9&itg=4&s=ca
Second Volume: http://www.alhakeem.com/arabic/pages/book.php?bi=10&itg=4&s=ca

 

Can you please point out which section he starts discussing the ahistorical jarh and ta`dil of the `Awamm?

 

Jazakallah khayran

 

في أمان الله

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

Thank you brother. I think I found the book here:

 

First Volume: http://www.alhakeem.com/arabic/pages/book.php?bi=9&itg=4&s=ca

Second Volume: http://www.alhakeem.com/arabic/pages/book.php?bi=10&itg=4&s=ca

 

Can you please point out which section he starts discussing the ahistorical jarh and ta`dil of the `Awamm?

 

Jazakallah khayran

 

في أمان الله

 

 

JazakAllah kheir brother.

was looking for it.

 

=)

Edited by Dar'ul_Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that guy Farid, I was there before until they disabled my account for no reason. That Zindeeq (Ebn Yazeed) said we have only black and white, my reply to him is that your religion has only GREY. Almost everything is unclear, even the character of Yazeed. That guy Ebn Yazeed does takfir of almost every living creature except wahabiya and him.

 

Message to Farid, we will smash your idols!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

Thank you brother. I think I found the book here:

 

First Volume: http://www.alhakeem.com/arabic/pages/book.php?bi=9&itg=4&s=ca

Second Volume: http://www.alhakeem.com/arabic/pages/book.php?bi=10&itg=4&s=ca

 

Can you please point out which section he starts discussing the ahistorical jarh and ta`dil of the `Awamm?

 

Jazakallah khayrrفي أمان الله

Salaam

Brother I read it in 3 vol of the book in response to the 8th question where he has briefly explained the method Jarh tadil of classical sunni scholars

May Allah bless who follow Qur'an and Pure Progeny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

Salaam

Brother I read it in 3 vol of the book in response to the 8th question where he has briefly explained the method Jarh tadil of classical sunni scholars

May Allah bless who follow Qur'an and Pure Progeny

 

wasalaam.

 

Thanks, I found it here: http://www.alhakeem.com/arabic/pages/book.php?bi=11&itg=4&s=ca

 

Anyone who can read arabic should read it, too. inshaa'Allah

 

في أمان الله

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

 

There are specific statements from scholars as early as Al-Shafi'i and Ibn Mubarak, I believe, that clearly imply that there is a difference between Shias and Rawafidh. Am obvious example of that mentality is that the hadiths of Shias were accepted while hadiths by Al-Rafidha were rejected totally. I'm not aware of any example in which a narrator is a known Rafidhi and is accepted as a thiqa.

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234959700-shi-a-authorities-relied-upon-by-sunnis/?p=1887029

 

"Objectivity."

 

I'm not saying that either. I do agree that there are tons of Shia narrators who we accept. Heck, Abdul-Razaq, Al-Nisae, and Al-Hakim are accepted as Shias too. Check out the last two pages of discussion. Keep in mind that we differentiate between Shias and Rafidha.

Note: I don't have much care for Shaltoot, since he rejects hadith that contradict with his knowledge. Very un-Sunni of him.

 

Lol. It is in fact very Sunni of him, as I argued here.

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234959700-shi-a-authorities-relied-upon-by-sunnis/?p=1888573

 

If you were not aware, Lord Botta is Farid.

 

في أمان الله

Edited by Dar'ul_Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dar'ul_Islam
 

 

I found hadiths Which are Weak, but under the footnotes, it only claims ( the Narrator For example ) is a lair, Without Referring to anything.
Is that Logical? How do they come up with these Determinations?

(salam)

Edited by TheIslamHistory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

al-Hamdulillah. Nope, there's been no update. Farid and his cheerleaders have yet to respond. What I think bothers me more is that some of those cheerleaders he has are Imami.

 

في أمان الله

realy?

why do they cheer for a nasibi? even if he said something correct, it is eventually wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

Farid and his cheerleaders have yet to respond. What I think bothers me more is that some of those cheerleaders he has are Imami.

 

في أمان الله

 

Like who? Are his/her initials N.Z by any chance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

Imami School of thought is somehow categories as sub branch of Shias, so why they are on their side, such a nexus is beyond my apprehension. I hope by putting a thread in their forum after your OP, actually they wanted to have more people among themselves for putting up more replies/ points which a single mind can not deliberate. Anyhow excellent work Bro Dar'ul_Islam. May Allah reward you for sharing the knowledge. Ameen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

The crux of the discussion is that where "rafd" not only weakens a reporter rather takes him outside the fold of Islam "Nasb" does not cause any such effect on the authenticity of the reporter and the reporter remains authentic, thiqa and reliable. Claps for Sunni rijal system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other side of the confusion coin, if Rafd is kufr, how come than 100 (or more) Rafidi authority were relied upon by Sunni hadith scholars?

 

http://www.najaf.org/english/book/12/16.htm

 

Someone estimated that around 30% of Sunni hadiths chains contain a rafidi within them.

 

Arabic :http://arabsh.com/files/0c35434a66fa/معجم-رواة-الشيعة-pdf.html

Edited by IbnSohan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other side of the confusion coin, if Rafd is kufr, how come than 100 (or more) Rafidi authority were relied upon by Sunni hadith scholars?

 

http://www.najaf.org/english/book/12/16.htm

 

Someone estimated that around 30% of Sunni hadiths chains contain a rafidi within them.

 

Arabic :http://arabsh.com/files/0c35434a66fa/معجم-رواة-الشيعة-pdf.html

(bismillah)

 

There is a difference between Rafd and Tashayu and there is difference between them and Shias/Imami/Twelvers of today. Those narrators believed in the great status of Abubakr and Umar and even narrated their virtues. 

 

Those narrators who were accused of Rafd and Tashayu were not Imami Twelvers and did not believe in divinely appointed Imams. Yes  there are narrators who were accused of Rafd in Sunni narrations just like there are Nasibi, Khariji and narrators of other sects. 

 

Check this helpful link, it discusses some of those Shia narrators:

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/56084-100-shia-narrators-in-sunni-books/

Edited by Abul Hussain Hassani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

al-Hamdulillah. Nope, there's been no update. Farid and his cheerleaders have yet to respond. What I think bothers me more is that some of those cheerleaders he has are Imami.

 

في أمان الله

 

Further reply from Farid:

[URL Edited]/index.php?showtopic=20419&st=20#entry143417

 

Also, read the posts of Muhammad Moin (on that link). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Farid, it took you months to post that? Literally nothing that you said actually refuted anything from darul Islam.

 

Your entire post was just you citing sunnis giving tawtheeq to bakris,politically inclined proto-sunnis from kufa, and undeniable giants among the shia that even ahmad ibn hanbal was reluctant to accept but was forced to due to status, somehow that makes your science "objective"?

 

Take any average thiqa imami his narrations will be thrown in the sea, your own shaykh bukhari said not to even pray behind us and considers us kuffar, are you saying that he will objectively analyze and consider ahadeeth from rawafidh?

 

Shafi said don't write from Imamis.

 

Malik said the same.

 

Hanbal said the same.

 

One needs to only go back to what ibn hajr said, he himself has said there is indeed a pattern among his madhab that weakens shia and strengthens nawasib, and filters shii narrations by saying they are "shadh", "ghareeb" or "he narrates X and X and hence he is weak".

 

All you did was give us a few example of sunnis giving tawtheeq to bakiris, thanks.

 

I challenge anyone go sit down and go through sahih bukhari and laugh, it's like a twisted story book devoid of any theological or fiqh benefits.

Edited by Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

There is a difference between Rafd and Tashayu and there is difference between them and Shias/Imami/Twelvers of today. Those narrators believed in the great status of Abubakr and Umar and even narrated their virtues. 

 

Those narrators who were accused of Rafd and Tashayu were not Imami Twelvers and did not believe in divinely appointed Imams. Yes  there are narrators who were accused of Rafd in Sunni narrations just like there are Nasibi, Khariji and narrators of other sects. 

 

Check this helpful link, it discusses some of those Shia narrators:

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/56084-100-shia-narrators-in-sunni-books/

 

I just have one question,

 

Sahih Bukahri Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325:

Narrated 'Aisha:

Fatima, the daughter of Allah's Apostle got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude till she died. Fatima remained alive for six months after the death of Allah's Apostle.

 

If Fatima a.s herself died angry with Abubakr, would she be considered a rafidah? Not only did she disagree with him, she accused him to taking away her rights, opposed his calipah, and even died angry.

 

Is anyone who does not support Abubakr immediately in the wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

it's sad that I have to continually copy and paste things from just two pages ago...

 

As to the point about Ahmad and the destruction of that book. First of all, Ahmad's method and bias is already been clarified by all we presented in the original post. As well as Ibn Mu`een's qa'id of taktheeb on any person who attacks a Sahabi, or the fact that there were thousands of rawafidh that lived in that time, many people have books of mataa`in recorded in their name - our sect exists and has this type of narratives and, yet, there's so little left of it. I wonder where it all went?

 

Ibn Hajr elaborates slightly upon this in his Lisān al-Mīzān:

 

قال اشهب سئل مالك رحمه الله عن الرافضة فقال لا تكلمهم ولا ترو عنهم فإنهم يكذبون وقال حرملة سمعت الشافعي يقول لم أر اشهد بالزور من الرافضة - وقال مؤمل بن أهاب سمعت يزيد بن هارون يقول يكتب عن كل صاحب بدعة إذا لم يكن داعية الا الرافضة فإنهم يكذبون وقال محمد بن سعيدالأصفهاني سمعت شريكا يقول احمل العلم عن كل من لقيت الا الرافضة فإنهم يضعون الحديث ويتخذونه دينا هذا آخر كلامه * قلت * فالمنع من قبول رواية المبتدعة الذين لم يكفروا ببدعتهم كالرافضة والخوارج ونحوهم ذهب إليه مالك وأصحابه والقاضي أبو بكر الباقلاني واتباعه - والقبول مطلقا الا فيمن يكفر ببدعة والا فيمن يستحل الكذب ذهب إليه أبو حنيفة وأبو يوسف وطائفة وروي عن الشافعي أيضا واما التفصيل فهو الذي عليه أكثر أهل الحديث بل نقل فيه ابن حبان اجماعهم - ووجه ذلك أن المبتدع إذا كان داعية كان عنده باعث على رواية ما يشيد به بدعته

 

 

Ashhab said: Mālik [b. Anas] was asked about the Rafida so he said: Do not speak to them and do not narrate from them, for they will undoubtedly be lying. 

 

Harmala said: I heard al-Shāfi`ī saying: I do not accept the lying testimonies of the Rafida.

 

Mu’ammal b. Ahhāb said: I head Yazīd b. Hārūn saying: Write from every innovator as long he does not proselytize except for the Rafida. Verily they will lie.

 

Muhammad b. Sa`īd al-Isbahānī said: I heard Shurayk saying: Take knowledge from anyone you meet, except for the Rafida because they fabricate Hadith and take it as religion.

 

Mālik, his companions, Qādī Abū Bakr al-Bāqalānī, and his followers all forbade accepting the narration of the innovator [absolutely, even if] their innovation did not make them disbelievers like the Rafida and Kharija.

 

Abū Hanīfa, Abū Yūsuf, a group and it is also attributed to al-Shāfi`ī that they believed in accepting the narrations of the innovators absolutely so long as their innovation did not make them disbelievers nor do they legalize lying.

 

The Ahl al-Hadith distinguished between the proselytizer and the non-proselytizer. In fact, Ibn Hibbān reports consensus among them on this issue. That means the innovator that proselytizes has a motive to spread the narrations that support his innovation.

 

وقال كثير من العلماء يقبل أخبار غير الدعاة من أهل الأهواء فأما الدعاة فلا يحتج بأخبارهم وممن ذهب إلى ذلك أبو عبدالله أحمد بن محمد بن حنبل

 

al-Khatīb al-Baghdādī : Many of the scholars agree with accepting the reports of the innovator that does not proselytize. As for the proselytizer, his report is not used as evidence. Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Hanbal was from among those who affirmed this doctrine.

 

 

جعفر بن سليمان من الثقات المتقنين في الروايات غير أنه كان ينتحل الميل إلى أهل البيت ولم يكن بداعية إلى مذهبه وليس بين أهل الحديث من أئمتنا خلاف أن الصدوق المتقن إذا كان فيه بدعة ولم يكن يدعو إليها أن الاحتجاج بأخباره جائز فإذا دعا إلى بدعته سقط الاحتجاج بأخباره ولهذه العلة ما تركوا (8) حديث جماعة ممن كانوا ينتحلون البدع ويدعون إليها وإن كانوا ثقات واحتججنا بأقوام ثقات انتحالهم كانتحالهم سواء غير أنهم لم يكونوا يدعون إلى ما ينتحلون وانتحال العبد بينه وبين ربه إن شاء عذبه وإن شاء عفا عنه وعلينا قبول الروايات عنهم إذا كانوا ثقات على حسب ما ذكرناه في غير موضع من كتبنا

 

Ibn Hibbān: Ja`far b. Sulaymān is from the trustworthy and precise narrators, even though inclined to the superiority the Ahl al-Bayt عليهم السلام. However, he did not proselytize his beliefs.

 

There leaders of Ahl al-Hadith consensually deem permissible using the narrations of truthful and precise innovators as proof as long as he does not proselytize his innovation. However, if he proselytized his innovation, then his narrations are void.

 

For this reason, they would abandon the narrations of deviated groups that proselytized, even if they were thuqāt. However, we have accepted the narrations of thuqāt innovators with the same innovation because they did not proselytize.

 

The servant’s innovated doctrine is between him and his Lord. If He so desires, he will punish him. If He so desires, he will pardon him. However, it is our duty to accept the narrations from him if they are thuqāt according to what we have mentioned on more than one occasion from our books.

Edited by Dar'ul_Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Farid said :

 

 
Good point. How about you list out who you consider to be a Twelver Shi'ee? You see, the last time I checked, even staunch Rafidhis like Abu Al-Salt Al-Harawi were Bakris according to your scholars. 

 

 

 Habibi even if Abu Al Salt's real name was Abu Ishaaq ibn barmitsva al yahoodi and was a jew and not a twelver it wouldn't change the fact that your salaf did not narrate or consider narrations from the shia who said anything negative against the companions, me and you farid don't have to debate this point since we both know this is true. 

 

Farid said:

1Darul Islam does not dare comment on the second view presented by Al-Thahabi, even though Al-Thahabi argues that all three are valid views that have been held by scholars. Maybe Darul Islam himself wants us to accept the narrations of Rafidha even if they are known as lying fabricators of hadith, perhaps that will show some objectivity.
 
2Ya miskeen, please learn how to follow your own sect before attacking others. What do you do when you have conflicting narrations from your Imams ya miskeen? Please stick to criticising tashayyu.

 

 

So if Thahabi is saying this, it negates the fact that your salaf acted in the way we are saying? So if Thahabi says all of this, it erases all the entries we posted from your books from the salaf? There is something called anomaly, and there is something called a pattern, if most of your scholar's method was to reject on face value any narrations from staunch shias and then you come to me with one of your khalaf who says that "one opinion is that we should see if the narrate anything good" it doesn't change the fact that most of your scholars from the khalaf, and most if not all among your salaf were not objective and actually rejected rafidhi hadith as it evident from their own words, I don't understand the confusion. Also opinion number two from Thahabi itself is subjective since who determines what is good or bad?
 
Regarding your second paragraph, darul islam is saying that we both do the same thing, both of our science's are bias, so you are just reinforcing what he is saying.
 
Farid Says:
 
3Please respond to my point about how we have the same merit attributed to the shaikhain and Ali, but weaken the ones attributed to the shaikhain and authenticate the ones attributed to Ali. If you cannot, and you will not, ya miskeen, then please don't blame something as vague as the "socio-political" times. Nobody buys that junk.

 

 

The scholars of your madhab will reject what is obviously fake via chain or matn just like a zaydi or a khariji will, same thing with the shia.
 
If we have unknown scholars saying "Abu bakr is to me as Harun is to Musa", not only is the matn going to be rejected since it's obviously a fake, the chain itself supports the conclusion, there is nothing objective here just common sense.
Edited by Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salams,

 

I think people should be reminded here that this is not a rijal debate on who is reliable and who is not or "my system of rijal is better than yours". It is a debate about the epistemological status of evaluating narrators namely what are the primary factors that contribute to accepting or rejecting a narrator? Is it just memory truthfulness? Do we have objective access to these? 

 

The answer is not very much and here is a quick summary of what has been said so far in answering why this is not the case. The claim that is being made here is that one of the most significant determinants of a narrator's credibility  - if not the most important - were the sectarian biases of the evaluators themselves namely that much of the assessment (although not in totality) of whether or not a narrator was reliable, trustworthy, fabricator, liar etc. depended on the doctrinal beliefs that a narrator held and whether or not it conflicted or at least posed a significant problem to the prejudices of the evaluator.

 

Does this mean that all people who held "unorthodox" beliefs or practices were rejected? No because this would deplete most of the hadith corpus that Sunnis today for example rely on. So a more systematic grading of unorthodoxy was established. 

 

First, there were different degrees of Shi'ism which spanned from thinking Ali was greater than Uthman to thinking that Ali was better than the Shaykhayn (Abu Bakr and Umar) up to outright rejection of the Shaykhayn (this was usually called Rafd). The second step was to see whether or not this individual in question proselytized his beliefs (if he did, alarm bells would go off) and the final step was whether or not the tradition being narrated agreed with the biases of the evaluator or not. This is where ideas of accepting narrator X's narrations on hajj are accepted but not his narrations on fasting because the latter don't agree with our a prior assumptions of how fasting should be like.

 

 

So as you can see, the systematic mechanism of filtration in rijal evaluation was heavily based on sectarian biases (both Shi'i and Sunni). This is not a conspiracy, this is a fact acknowledged by the evaluators themselves. 

 

Please close attention to what Dar wrote previously

 

al-Zhahabī in “Mīzān al-I`tidāl:”

 

One may say: How is the tawthīq for the innovator acceptable and stray from the proper measure of trustworthiness, justice, and precision? 

 

The response - Innovations are of two types:

 

1 - Lesser innovations, such as exaggeration in Tashayyu` or tashayyu` without exaggeration and corruption, were phenomena adhered to by many the Tabi`in and their successors. They were religious, pious, and honest. If their narrations were rejected, then a large number of prophetic reports would be lost. That would be a ruinous outcome.

 

2 - Greater innovations, such as complete, exaggerated rafd, disparaging Abū Bakr and `Umar, and proselytizing this, are innovations of those whose Hadith are not accepted, there is no value in them.

 

al-Zhahabi’s statement is clear: The proto-Sunni scholars were accepting the narrations of the “lesser innovators” simply because their corpus of usable of narrations would be significantly less if they were rejected. This implies that they would be rejected if it were possible to sufficiently function without their narrations. Again, we see that an individual’s creed and views were a major factoring in accepting them and their narrations. When they narrated by their “innovation,” disagreeing with proto-Sunni doctrine(s), they were rejected. Otherwise, they were acceptable. This is the objectivity of “Ahl al-Sunna.”

 

 

 

Did this kind of step by step filtration always happen? No, but this was the pattern. Just because there are some rare minor examples that don't neatly fit the above does not mean that the pattern and general rule did not exist. Exceptions prove the Rule

 

But does this mean that there are no other means of objectively (or at least close to it) knowing what the Prophet (s) or Imams taught? No as there are alternative epistemological means using chains of transmission or asaaneed to establish that .. but I won't go into that as it is irrelevant here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this revert story of an ex-Sunni Yemani cleric who converted to Shia Islam to be quite relevant to this study. http://jafrianews.com/2014/05/04/yemeni-wahabi-cleric-converted-to-shiism-discloses-the-secrets-and-pillars-of-wahabism/

 

This specifically caught my attention. 

 

 

Mr. Esam Al-Emad, would you kindly tell us how you converted to Shia? 

Yes, when I was specializing in Hadith sciences in Saudi Arabia, I studied a book entitled Al-Atabul Jamil ‘Alaa Ahlil Jarh wat-Ta’adil which is written by a Sunni scholar about Ilm-e Rejal (biographical science) of Ahl-e Sunnat. It was stated in that book that according to Ahl-e Sunnat, religious and historical tendencies affect the selection of traditions and individuals in Rejal and Hadith sciences. The distribution and circulation of this book in Saudi Arabia created a lot of hubbub and later as many as ten books were written against the same book. I have read some of them and after reading them, I felt like I never had any confidence on what I was reading or what Sunni scholars told. We were reading ideological books written according to prophetic traditions. The Holy Prophet’s traditions have been transmitted through a chain of narrators whose biographies are to be found in Ilm-e Rejal. If a doubt or a misgiving arises about the science of hadith, then one would begin to doubt about ideological books such as “Al-Tawhid” written by Muhammad Abdu because these beliefs are verified through the traditions and the traditions are based on Ilm-e Rejal.

Ibn-e Hajar Al-Asqalani, who is one of the top ranking Sunni scholars, is reported to have said: “I am really sorry to see that early Sunni scholars who lived during the first to the fourth centuries regarded every Shia, whom they should have considered as early narrator, as liar and considered every anti-Ahlulbayt (a.s.) and anti-Shiite narrator as honest and faithful”. Al-Asqalani says, “I wonder why early scholars adopted a stance against the saying of the Prophet! The Prophet (pbuh) said: Whosoever is Ali’s supporter, he is a believer (Momeen) and whosoever is Ali’s enemy, he is a Munafiq (hypocrite).” Al-Asqalani has said: “This saying of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) is authentic and I am certain about its authenticity”. Also, Al-Asqalani says:

“I just noticed that our scholars are acting against this tradition, that is to say, they introduce Imam Ali’s friends as liars and considering as honest those who are his enemies.”

و- وقولك: ((فهم يبقونها كما هي ويكون تصحيح وتضعيف الحديث بحسب درجة معارضته لرغبات المصحح والمصنف له)).

فنقول: أنتم أولى بهذا الاتهام منا، حيث أنكم تروون عن الخوارج والنواصب ولا تروون عن الشيعة وتضعفونهم وتوثقون الخوارج والنواصب.
وقال ذلك واعترف به ابن حجر العسقلاني في كتابه (تهذيب التهذيب 8- 411) قال: وقد كنت أستشكل توثيقهم (علماء الرجال السنة) الناصبي غالباً وتوهينهم الشيعة مطلقاً ولا سيما أن علياً ورد في حقه (لا يحبه إلا مؤمن ولا يبغضه إلا منافق).
فالخوارج والنواصب مبغضون لعليَّ(ع) ومبغضه منافق بنص حديث رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله) الذي رواه مسلم وذكره ابن حجر هنا والمنافق قد وصفه رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله) بقوله: إن حدث كذب!!
ومع ذلك ترى علماء العامة يوثقون النواصب عموماً ويضعفون الشيعة كثيراً كما اعترف ابن حجر بذلك.
وكذا الحال مع الخوارج فقد وثقوهم هكذا وبجرة قلم ولكونهم (الخوارج) يعتقدون أن مرتكب الكبيرة كافر والكذب كبيرة فالكاذب كافر فيجب أن يكونوا صادقين!!
ولكنهم أنفسهم قد نقلوا عن خارجي بل كبير الخوارج بعد أن تاب وخرج من الخوارج، فقال كما نقله الخطيب البغدادي في (الكفاية ص151) والقرطبي في تفسيره (1- 78) وابن حجر في (تهذيب التهذيب 8/ 114) و(لسان ميزانه 1/10): إن هذه الأحاديث دين فانظروا عمن تأخذون دينكم فإنا (الخوارج) كنا إذا هوينا أمراً صيّرناه حديثاً.
وأما روايتهم عن الشيعة فمرة يشرقون معها وأخرى يغربون! حيث رأينا تصريح إبن حجر في توهينهم للشيعة مطلقاً.
وصرح إبن حجر كما في (تهذيب التهذيب 1/ 94) و(لسان الميزان 1/9) والذهبي كما في (ميزان الاعتدال 1/ 6) بقول آخر مثله حيث قالا عن الشيعة والرواية عنهم: ثم بدعة كبرى كالرفض الكامل والغلو فيه والحط على أبي بكر وعمر والدعاء إلى ذلك، فهذا النوع لا يحتج بهم ولا كرامة.
فلماذا لا يحتج بمن يطعن في أبي بكر وعمر عندهم ويحتج بمن يبغض علياً ويطعن فيه ويحاربه ويكفره!! (( إِن هَذَا إِلَّا اختِلَاقٌ )) (ص:7).

 

 

http://www.aqaed.com/faq/3686/

Edited by Al-Najashi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this revert story of an ex-Sunni Yemani cleric who converted to Shia Islam to be quite relevant to this study. http://jafrianews.com/2014/05/04/yemeni-wahabi-cleric-converted-to-shiism-discloses-the-secrets-and-pillars-of-wahabism/

 

(salam)

You mean ex-Zaydi?

 

 

 

Ibn-e Hajar Al-Asqalani, who is one of the top ranking Sunni scholars, is reported to have said: “I am really sorry to see that early Sunni scholars who lived during the first to the fourth centuries regarded every Shia, whom they should have considered as early narrator, as liar and considered every anti-Ahlulbayt (a.s.) and anti-Shiite narrator as honest and faithful”

 

I am not sure whether Ibn Hajar really said this but this is a baseless statement and anyone who read Sunni Hadith sciences know this very well.

 

 

Al-Asqalani says, “I wonder why early scholars adopted a stance against the saying of the Prophet! The Prophet  (pbuh) said: Whosoever is Ali’s supporter, he is a believer (Momeen) and whosoever is Ali’s enemy, he is a Munafiq (hypocrite).” Al-Asqalani has said: “This saying of the Holy Prophet  (pbuh) is authentic and I am certain about its authenticity”. Also, Al-Asqalani says:

“I just noticed that our scholars are acting against this tradition, that is to say, they introduce Imam Ali’s friends as liars and considering as honest those who are his enemies.”

 

The narration is translated incorrectly above. The correct translation is "only a believer loves Ali, and only a hypocrite hates him".

 

Anyways, Sunni scholars consider this narration to be authentic and it has come through only one narrator who is a Shia, Adi bin Thabit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

You mean ex-Zaydi?

 

He comes from a Zaidi background just like many Yemenis however he himself was not a Zaidi but a full blown Sunni Salafi both in belief and in practice. He had a full Salafi education and would lead Friday prayers in a Salafi masjid. But later on through online debates he doubted himself and converted to Shi'ism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There really is no difference between a 'shia' or a 'rawafidh'. Only Zayidi's maybe or a tiny tiny percent from what i hear are not considered rawafidh. But the overwhelming majority of us reject the appointment of Abu-Bakr and Umar and Uthman.

 

The whole naming of 'shia' is short of 'shia of ali'. Wilayah of Ali a.s by Muhammed pbuh comanded by Allah swt is one of the key beliefs we have in our school with regards to what makes you shia - isn't it?

 

If you believe Imam Ali a.s was the rightful Caliph, then anyone who usurped his position you reject.

 

A shia was either openly or not openly a 'rawafidh' surely.

 

And by the way, shia's and sunni's both agree that both Fatima a.s and Ali a.s and members with Ali a.s opposed Abu Bakr for six months - they rejected him. Was Ali a.s a Rawafidh for 6 months ? Had Ali a.s died in that state, would you have rejected all the hadiths narrated from him?

 

With all due respect, Aisha narrates many hadith, yet the Quran tells us of a story where she deceived/lied to the Prophet pbuh to cause disunity between him and another wise out of jealousy. This is not a shia rawafidh kuffar attacking his 'mother' , this is what Allah swt himself tells us in the Quran.

 

Mother of the believers does not mean all these women were pure. When Aisha and Hafsah deceived and lied to the prophet pbuh, the Quran warned them that Allah swt could replace them with more obidient wives.

 

Mother of the believers means no man can marry them after Muhammed pbuh , hence these women are like 'mothers'.

 

We are accused of being black and white. The problem is, we are the only ones with an analytical and logical approach to the companions - we do not say 99% of them were pure and righteous. When a companion fights and kills another, we do not say r.a to them both, we analytically decide who was on the haq and who wasn't.

 

The only reason it would benefit our brothers in the ahle Sunnah to make the 'black and white' of Muawiyah less clear of his wrong-doings is to water it down , provide excuses. The Bani-Umayyah was the ones who comissioned the first collecting/noting down of hadiths, many of the enemies of the ahlulbayt a.s are considered trustworthy, and if you collapse the Baniummayah and it's allies you could wreak havock into their hadith and 'authenticities', even the possibility that chains could be fabricated altogether.

Edited by Logical Islamic

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...