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

Prophet: Whoever Loves Ahl Al-Kisa Will Be With Me

Rate this topic


Qa'im

Recommended Posts

  • Forum Administrators

Looking over the post again, it seems that the issue is not with Nasr, but with `Ali b. Ja`far (ra). Looking over their entries on him, I can find neither ta`deel or jarH of `Ali b. Ja`far:

 

Ibn Hajar:

 

  علي" بن جعفر بن محمد بن علي بن الحسين بن علي بن أبي طالب الهاشمي العلوي1 روى عن أبيه أنه كان سمع منه وأخيه موسى الكاظم وابن عم أبيه حسين بن زيد بن علي بن الحسين والثوري ومعتب مولاهم وأبي سعيد المكي وعنه ابنه أحمد ومحمد وابن ابنه عبد الله بن الحسن بن علي وعلي بن الحسن بن علي بن عمر بن علي بن أبي طالب وزيد بن علي بن حسين بن زيد بن علي بن حسين بن علي وابنه حسين بن زيد وابن بن أخيه إسماعيل بن محمد بن إسحاق بن جعفر وسلمة بن شبيب ونصر بن علي الجهضمي وغيرهم قال بن بن أخيه إسماعيل مات سنة عشر ومائتين له في الترمذي حديث واحد في الفضائل وأستغربه

 

 Mizan al-'Itidaal

 

 على بن جعفر [ت] بن محمد الصادق.
عن أبيه، وأخيه موسى، والثوري.
وعنه عبد العزيز الاويسى، ونصر بن علي الجهضمى، وأحمد البزى، وجماعة ما هو من شرط كتابي، لانى ما رأيت أحدا لينه، نعم ولا من وثقه، ولكن
حديثه منكر جدا، ما صححه الترمذي ولا حسنه، ورواه عن نصر بن علي، عنه عن أخيه موسى، عن أبيه، عن أجداده: من أحبنى.
أخبرني ابن قدامة، إجازة، أخبرنا عمر بن محمد، أخبرنا ابن ملوك، وأبو بكر القاضي، قالا: أخبرنا أبو الطيب الطبري، أخبرنا أبو أحمد الغطريفى، حدثنا عبد الرحمن بن المغيرة، حدثنا نصر بن علي، حدثنا علي بن جعفر بن محمد، حدثني أخي موسى، عن أبيه، عن أبيه محمد، عن أبيه على، عن أبيه، عن جده علي رضي الله عنه - أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أخذ بيد الحسن والحسين فقال: من أحبنى وأحب هذين وأبويهما كان معي في درجتي يوم القيامة.
قال الترمذي: لا يعرف إلا من هذا الوجه.

 

Lisan al-Mizan

 

" علي " بن جعفر الصادق بن محمد بن علي بن الحسين بن علي بن أبي طالب العلوي عن أبيه والثوري وعنه ابنه أحمد ونصر بن علي الجهضمي.

 

I had not initially expected `Ali b. Ja`far (ra) to be the issue, because of his status as a muhaddith and a student of his father Ja`far (as) and his brother Musa (as). So unless we can find tawtheeq for `Ali b. Ja`far, the narration would be majhool.

 

Still, the hadith poses some concerns for Sunnis. Saying this hadith is munkar is essentially calling `Ali b. Ja`far (ra) a liar. Being unofficially opposed to `Ali b. Ja`far due to the contents of his hadith is simply business as usual - rejection of the closest students of the Imams and the too-Shii side of their teachings.

Edited by Qa'im
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

 

قلت : هذا حديث منكر جـدا

 

This statement by Ahmad b. Hanbal is telling, very telling. Being munkar is a statement most clearly about the narration's content. So regardless of whether or not the chain has a "majhool" in it, he is commenting on the content, not the narrator(s). In fact, the statement would seem to indicate he didn't see a problem in the chain itself, but would go and accuse based on content ...you know the usually istiqraa'. The hadith had too much tashayyu` in it for the likes of the Proto Sunnis who were seeking to simply create an orthodoxy about what they already believed and masquerade this "science" of rijal and dirayah as "objective." What a silly facade.

 

اللهم صلّ على محمد وآل محمد الميامين والعن أعدائهم وظالميهم ومنكري فضائلهم إلى يوم الدين

 

في أمان الله

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators

Although traditional Sunni rijalists do not give jarH or ta`deel to `Ali b. Ja`far (ra), calling this narration munkar is an indirect attack against him, because the rest of the narrators are thiqa and connected. Still, it would be troubling that the son and brother of two prominent Imams [of value, to Ibn Tamiyya] had "extreme" beliefs regarding Ahl al-Bayt. Of course, there's no way the Imams believed those things themselves, right? Just their students, their followers, and their relatives ...

 

While Tirmidhi's acceptance of `Ali b. Ja`far (ra) is not enough for rijalists, it's another factor in the equation. The tawatur of narrations similar in ethos to this one is another factor.

Edited by Qa'im
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Jami` al-Tirmidhi, Volume 6, hadith 3733:

 

UZJHue5.jpg

 

Chain: Nasr b. `Ali al-Jahdami from `Ali b. Ja`far (ra) from Musa b. Ja`far (as) from Ja`far b. Muhammad (as) from Muhammad b. `Ali (as) from `Ali b. al-Husayn (as) from al-Husayn (as) from `Ali b. Abi Talib (as) from the Prophet (pbuh).

 

Content: Those who [sincerely] love the Prophet, `Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan and al-Husayn will be with the Prophet (pbuh) in Paradise.

 

Although Tirmidhi graded this hadith as hasan gharib (good, solitary narration), the editor (either Darussalam or Zubair `Ali Za`i) weakened the hadith and left a note at the bottom. The note was left untranslated, but it says that the hadith is mastoor - meaning, it is an unknown narrator and/or an unknown hadith, and most Sunni rijalists do not accept unknowns. It then says, "No one authenticated him except Tirmidhi. And al-Mutawakkil the Abbasid Caliph wanted to strike him with 1,000 lashes (Tarikh al-Khateeb)"

 

Up from Nasr b. `Ali al-Jahdami we see the golden chain, which is superior to all chains. The only Nasr b. `Ali in Shi`i books is one who narrates five times altogether, and his status is unknown. But, let's look deeper into the status of this man in Sunni books:

 

قال عبد الله بن أحمد : سألت أبي عنه ، فقال : ما به بأس ، ورضيه .

`Abdillah b. Ahmad said: I asked my father about him, so he said: There is no problem with him. And he approved him.

 

وقال عبد الرحمن بن أبي حاتم : سألت أبي عن نصر بن علي ، وعمرو بن علي الصيرفي : من أيهما أحب إليك ؟ قال : نصر أحب إلي ، وأوثق وأحفظ ، نصر ثقة.

And `Abd ar-Rahman b. Abi Hatim said: I asked my father about Nasr b. `Ali and `Amr b. `Ali as-Sayrafi: which of the two is more beloved by you? He said: Nasr is more beloved to me, and more reliable, and he has better memorization(?). Nasr is reliable.

 

وقال النسائي وابن خراش : ثقة.

And an-Nasa'i and Ibn Kharash said: Reliable.

وقال عبد الله بن محمد الفرهياني : نصر عندي من نبلاء الناس .

And `Abdillah b. Muhammad al-Farhayani said: Nasr to me is from the noblest of people.

 

---

 

In the hadith below, Nasr relates this hadith to the Caliph al-Mutawakkil:

 

عبد الله بن أحمد بن حنبل : حدثني نصر بن علي ، أخبرني علي بن جعفر بن محمد ، حدثني أخي موسى ، عن أبيه ، عن أبيه ، عن علي بن حسين ، عن أبيه ، عن جده: أن النبي -صلى الله عليه وسلم- : أخذ بيد حسن وحسين ، فقال : مَنْ أحبَّني وأحبَّ هذين وأبَاهُمَا وأُمَّهُمَا ، كان معي في درجتي يوم القيامة .

قلت : هذا حديث منكر جـدا . ثم قال عبد الله بن أحمد : لما حدث نصر بهذا ، أمر المتوكل بضربه ألف سوط ، فكلمه جعفر بن عبد الواحد ، وجعل يقول له : الرجل من أهل السنة ، ولم يزل به حتى تركه . وكان له أرزاق ، فوفرها عليه موسى .

`Abdillah b. Ahmad b. Hanbal said: This hadith is very weak. Then `Abdillah b. Ahmad said: When Nasr narrated this, al-Mutwakkil ordered to strike him 1,000 lashes. So Ja`far b. `Abd al-Wahid talked to him, and said to him: This man is from Ahl as-Sunna! And I will not leave him until he is left alone. And he (Nasr?) had wealth, so Musa saved it for him.

 

---

 

So here, we see that Nasr was considered a good, trustworthy Sunni narrator. Yet, his narration of a hadith that sounded Shi`i in content almost got him lashed 1,000 times under the `Abbasi Caliphate. We also find that the hadith is being weakened by reactionary rijalists, even though Nasr received high praise, and the rest of the chain consisted of the scholars and Imams of Ahl al-Bayt. Even if this hadith were a solitary one, that does not negate the strength of its chain. The claim that this hadith of Imam Ja`far's was unheard of stems from the rejection of most of Ja`far's students as Rawafid heretics.

 

This is yet again another effort to cover up the too-Shi`i side of the Imams (as). Hadiths like this suggest to readers that the Ahl al-Bayt really did teach what the Shi`a attribute to them. And that is, that the love and wilaya of Ahl al-Bayt are pivotal to the salvation of every person. al-Mutawakkil's reaction to the hadith confirms the suffering that actual Shi`as endured; and it establishes the need for the Imams and their followers to have kept quiet over such issues. If hatred of `Ali is hypocrisy, then what can we say about those who raised the sword against him and killed tens of thousands of Muslims?

 

 

Looking over the post again, it seems that the issue is not with Nasr, but with `Ali b. Ja`far (ra). Looking over their entries on him, I can find neither ta`deel or jarH of `Ali b. Ja`far:

 

Ibn Hajar:

 

  علي" بن جعفر بن محمد بن علي بن الحسين بن علي بن أبي طالب الهاشمي العلوي1 روى عن أبيه أنه كان سمع منه وأخيه موسى الكاظم وابن عم أبيه حسين بن زيد بن علي بن الحسين والثوري ومعتب مولاهم وأبي سعيد المكي وعنه ابنه أحمد ومحمد وابن ابنه عبد الله بن الحسن بن علي وعلي بن الحسن بن علي بن عمر بن علي بن أبي طالب وزيد بن علي بن حسين بن زيد بن علي بن حسين بن علي وابنه حسين بن زيد وابن بن أخيه إسماعيل بن محمد بن إسحاق بن جعفر وسلمة بن شبيب ونصر بن علي الجهضمي وغيرهم قال بن بن أخيه إسماعيل مات سنة عشر ومائتين له في الترمذي حديث واحد في الفضائل وأستغربه

 

 Mizan al-'Itidaal

 

 على بن جعفر [ت] بن محمد الصادق.

عن أبيه، وأخيه موسى، والثوري.

وعنه عبد العزيز الاويسى، ونصر بن علي الجهضمى، وأحمد البزى، وجماعة ما هو من شرط كتابي، لانى ما رأيت أحدا لينه، نعم ولا من وثقه، ولكن

حديثه منكر جدا، ما صححه الترمذي ولا حسنه، ورواه عن نصر بن علي، عنه عن أخيه موسى، عن أبيه، عن أجداده: من أحبنى.

أخبرني ابن قدامة، إجازة، أخبرنا عمر بن محمد، أخبرنا ابن ملوك، وأبو بكر القاضي، قالا: أخبرنا أبو الطيب الطبري، أخبرنا أبو أحمد الغطريفى، حدثنا عبد الرحمن بن المغيرة، حدثنا نصر بن علي، حدثنا علي بن جعفر بن محمد، حدثني أخي موسى، عن أبيه، عن أبيه محمد، عن أبيه على، عن أبيه، عن جده علي رضي الله عنه - أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أخذ بيد الحسن والحسين فقال: من أحبنى وأحب هذين وأبويهما كان معي في درجتي يوم القيامة.

قال الترمذي: لا يعرف إلا من هذا الوجه.

 

Lisan al-Mizan

 

" علي " بن جعفر الصادق بن محمد بن علي بن الحسين بن علي بن أبي طالب العلوي عن أبيه والثوري وعنه ابنه أحمد ونصر بن علي الجهضمي.

 

I had not initially expected `Ali b. Ja`far رضي الله عنه to be the issue, because of his status as a muhaddith and a student of his father Ja`far (as) and his brother Musa (as). So unless we can find tawtheeq for `Ali b. Ja`far, the narration would be majhool.

 

Still, the hadith poses some concerns for Sunnis. Saying this hadith is munkar is essentially calling `Ali b. Ja`far رضي الله عنه a liar. Being unofficially opposed to `Ali b. Ja`far due to the contents of his hadith is simply business as usual - rejection of the closest students of the Imams and the too-Shii side of their teachings.

 

 

 

Although traditional Sunni rijalists do not give jarH or ta`deel to `Ali b. Ja`far رضي الله عنه, calling this narration munkar is an indirect attack against him, because the rest of the narrators are thiqa and connected. Still, it would be troubling that the son and brother of two prominent Imams [of value, to Ibn Tamiyya] had "extreme" beliefs regarding Ahl al-Bayt. Of course, there's no way the Imams believed those things themselves, right? Just their students, their followers, and their relatives ...

 

While Tirmidhi's acceptance of `Ali b. Ja`far رضي الله عنه is not enough for rijalists, it's another factor in the equation. The tawatur of narrations similar in ethos to this one is another factor.

 

(salam)

 

We already have loads of other authentic narrations in our books about loving Ahlulbayt. As far the claim that the narrator 'almost got lashed' for the narrating a narration that 'sounded shia' is totally wrong and false. It is clear you didn't read the narration fully and you translated half of the narration. The narration is an insult to the Prophet [saw]. It says "you will be in the LEVEL of the Prophet (saw)". Even if it was said to Ali he would have also lashed the narrator. Don't forget that Abbasids themselves were descendants of Ahlulbayt. 

 

As far Ali bin Jaafar is concerned then he is Majhool, as you also mentioned. And It has nothing to do with what you are trying to say. 

 

Actually, more descendents and sons of Ahlulbayt and Ali are Majhool, condemned, misguided, not trustworthy according Shia books and scholars. Remember, It is the Shia who call brother of Hasan Askari  'Jaafar Kadhab' or Jaafar the Liar. I am sure you aware of what shia narrations say about the sons of Ali and Hussain, Muhammad bin Ali and others and how they rejected the Imamah of the 'true' Imams. And I came accross this shia website al-islam.org claiming the grandson of Hasan bin Ali and great grandson of the Prophet [saw] used to fabricated narrations in other words he used to lie upon the Prophet [saw] :

 

They claim he, Abdullah Ibn al-Hasan, fabricated the narration about the Mahdi: "his father’s name is the same as that of the Prophet’s father". 

http://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia-ahlul-bayt-dilp-team/special-specifications-imam-al-mahdi

 

Note: I replaced some of your emoticans with text because the system doesn't allow me to reply due to many emoticons. 

 

(bismillah)

 

This statement by Ahmad b. Hanbal is telling, very telling. Being munkar is a statement most clearly about the narration's content. So regardless of whether or not the chain has a "majhool" in it, he is commenting on the content, not the narrator(s). In fact, the statement would seem to indicate he didn't see a problem in the chain itself, but would go and accuse based on content ...you know the usually istiqraa'. The hadith had too much tashayyu` in it for the likes of the Proto Sunnis who were seeking to simply create an orthodoxy about what they already believed and masquerade this "science" of rijal and dirayah as "objective." What a silly facade.

 

اللهم صلّ على محمد وآل محمد الميامين والعن أعدائهم وظالميهم ومنكري فضائلهم إلى يوم الدين

 

في أمان الله

 

See my reply above.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
 

As far Ali bin Jaafar is concerned then he is Majhool, as you also mentioned. And It has nothing to do with what you are trying to say. 

 

(bismillah)

I would like add more about Ali bin Jafaar. 

 

In Tahdheeb al-Kamal the author al-Mizzi casts doubt on him hearing from his father, simply because his father died 148 Hijri while he died 210 Hijri.

Point is that Ali bin Jafaar was not influenced by his father's ideas and guidance, as he died when he was very small. This is why he narrated it from his brother instead of his father.

As for his brother Musa, he might have heard it from him and narrated it with a slight mistake, the Prophet (saw) might have said: "Whoever loves them is with me in heaven." but Ali bin Jafaar being the Majhoul that he is, mistakenly added "Whoever loves them is with me AT MY LEVEL in heaven."

It does not necessarily mean he lied, it could be a mistake in the chain or the text since he is a Majhoul. His father al-Sadiq was not a Majhoul, he was a Thiqah and we trust his narrations, if we had heard it from his mouth we would have to believe it, as for his unknown small son who barely ever met him, then NO.

I add, that it is also possible to make a different type of Ta'weel for the Hadith and accept it either-way. The Hadith says that whoever loves these four people would be in the highest level of heaven right? What is meant by this text? Does it mean that one can drop prayer and just settle for loving them? Does it mean one can disbelieve in the previous prophets and just rely on their love? Certainly not, as this would contradict the Qur'an and authentic Sunnah. So the only logical and acceptable explanation left is to say that if a pious god fearing believer, does everything that is required of him and more, he shall not reach the high distinct status of the Prophet (saw) unless his belief and worship is accompanied by the love of Ali and his family.

What does this mean to us? Well there were two innovations, one was to raise Ali above his level, the one doing this shall perish according to the authentic narrations. The other innovation is to hate Ali and lie against him, this person would also perish. The Hadith above is confirming this meaning, that if one belonging to the Nawasib was to worship the Lord day and night, his actions will perish and he won't reach this high status except through their love.

The final explanation, is that if Ali bin Jafaar was actually affected by some of the extremists from the Ghulat of the time, and actually meant that their love alone without anything else would raise a person to this level, then we also have no issue in branding him an extremist nor would that be impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

(bismillah)

I would like add more about Ali bin Jafaar. 

 

In Tahdheeb al-Kamal the author al-Mizzi casts doubt on him hearing from his father, simply because his father died 148 Hijri while he died 210 Hijri.

Point is that Ali bin Jafaar was not influenced by his father's ideas and guidance, as he died when he was very small. This is why he narrated it from his brother instead of his father.

As for his brother Musa, he might have heard it from him and narrated it with a slight mistake, the Prophet (saw) might have said: "Whoever loves them is with me in heaven." but Ali bin Jafaar being the Majhoul that he is, mistakenly added "Whoever loves them is with me AT MY LEVEL in heaven."

It does not necessarily mean he lied, it could be a mistake in the chain or the text since he is a Majhoul. His father al-Sadiq was not a Majhoul, he was a Thiqah and we trust his narrations, if we had heard it from his mouth we would have to believe it, as for his unknown small son who barely ever met him, then NO.

I add, that it is also possible to make a different type of Ta'weel for the Hadith and accept it either-way. The Hadith says that whoever loves these four people would be in the highest level of heaven right? What is meant by this text? Does it mean that one can drop prayer and just settle for loving them? Does it mean one can disbelieve in the previous prophets and just rely on their love? Certainly not, as this would contradict the Qur'an and authentic Sunnah. So the only logical and acceptable explanation left is to say that if a pious god fearing believer, does everything that is required of him and more, he shall not reach the high distinct status of the Prophet (saw) unless his belief and worship is accompanied by the love of Ali and his family.

What does this mean to us? Well there were two innovations, one was to raise Ali above his level, the one doing this shall perish according to the authentic narrations. The other innovation is to hate Ali and lie against him, this person would also perish. The Hadith above is confirming this meaning, that if one belonging to the Nawasib was to worship the Lord day and night, his actions will perish and he won't reach this high status except through their love.

The final explanation, is that if Ali bin Jafaar was actually affected by some of the extremists from the Ghulat of the time, and actually meant that their love alone without anything else would raise a person to this level, then we also have no issue in branding him an extremist nor would that be impossible.

 

 

 

Rather this is only one from many instances where the students of Imam jafar as saadiq (as) are labelled as majhul or "ghareeb in narrating". Also if you look in the books of the Sunnis, there is a clear and unmistakable pattern of this occurring to the point where many proto-Sunni scholars would avoid taking narrations from Imam jafar as saadiq (as) and his students based upon what they narrate.

 
Sufyan said: "We used to laugh at the Hadeeth obtainer if he went to three, Rabi'a, Muhammad bin Abi Bakr bin Hazm and Jaffar bin Muhammad (a.s) because they were not good in Hadeeth."
 
Source: Siyar Alam Al-Nubala. Vol. 6, Pg. # 572.
 
Yahya bin Sa'eed said: "Mujalid is more beloved to me than him (Imam Jaffar Sadiq (a.s)), there is something in my feelings against him (Jaffar)."
 
Source: Mizaan Al-I'tidaal. Vol. 2, Pg. # 144.
 
 
Ibn Uyaina said under the Chapter of, Ja'far ibn Muhammad ibn Alee bin Hussain ibn Alee bin Abi Talib (a.s): "There was some thing in his memorizing."
 
Source: Al-Tamheed. Vol. 2, Pg. # 66. 
 
Ibn Hibban:
 
"It is wajib to accept his hadeeth (Imam Redha (a.s)), provided that they are narrated from him by other than his progeny and his Shi'ee, and Abus-Sulat in particular, as the reports narrated from him have such falsehoods in which there is sin from Abus-Sulat and his progeny and his Shi'ee."
 
Source: Al-Thuqat. Vol. 8, Pg. # 452. 
 
 
What's sad is that Sufyan Al-Thawri is a mujtahid mutlaq, and is considered to be one of the leaders of Ahlus sunnah. The Mujtahid Mutlaqs are Hanifa, Shafii, Sufyan, Awzaii, Tabarani, Malak and Hanbal. Yahya Ibn maeen is also said to be the best scholar in ilm ar rijaal.

 

 

Regarding your statement of Ali Ibn jafar  being majhul, then your crtiteria of who is majhul and who is a good narrator is very weak. A person narrating very little narrations is not a sign of him being weak, there are reliable men in the Sunni hadith realm who narrated very few hadith maybe 1 or 2 and are still considered thiqah. Also the fact that Ali Ibn Jafar has no blameworthiness in his narrating, and is also the shaykh of nasr ibn Ali shows why the hadith was narrated hasan. 

Edited by Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

 

 

 

I add, that it is also possible to make a different type of Ta'weel for the Hadith and accept it either-way. The Hadith says that whoever loves these four people would be in the highest level of heaven right? What is meant by this text? Does it mean that one can drop prayer and just settle for loving them? Does it mean one can disbelieve in the previous prophets and just rely on their love? Certainly not, as this would contradict the Qur'an and authentic Sunnah. So the only logical and acceptable explanation left is to say that if a pious god fearing believer, does everything that is required of him and more, he shall not reach the high distinct status of the Prophet (saw) unless his belief and worship is accompanied by the love of Ali and his family.

 

 

 

LOOL seriously? This is what you call "logical"? SubhanAllah, at what senseless lengths you people go to hide the truth. It baffles me....

 

You are saying just because it says if you love the ahlulbayt you will go to heaven, it contradicts belief since faith is not only dependent on love but by action and obedience as well? Have you read the quran? Do you not understand, with love comes obedience? Do you not understand with love comes action? How do you show you love someone? By following and obeying them. Just as in the Quran Allah says, if you love Me, then Follow Muhammad. So clearly, you are isolating the hadith and turning it literal and mistranslating it. You are going to such a length that it honestly makes you look incompetent, with due respect. The hadith isnt talking about bollywood love, its talking about the loved portrayed in the quran, and about leadership and obedience,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Rather this is only one from many instances where the students of Imam jafar as saadiq (as) are labelled as majhul or "ghareeb in narrating". Also if you look in the books of the Sunnis, there is a clear and unmistakable pattern of this occurring to the point where many proto-Sunni scholars would avoid taking narrations from Imam jafar as saadiq (as) and his students based upon what they narrate.

 
Sufyan said: "We used to laugh at the Hadeeth obtainer if he went to three, Rabi'a, Muhammad bin Abi Bakr bin Hazm and Jaffar bin Muhammad (a.s) because they were not good in Hadeeth."
 
Source: Siyar Alam Al-Nubala. Vol. 6, Pg. # 572.
 
Yahya bin Sa'eed said: "Mujalid is more beloved to me than him (Imam Jaffar Sadiq (a.s)), there is something in my feelings against him (Jaffar)."
 
Source: Mizaan Al-I'tidaal. Vol. 2, Pg. # 144.
 
 
Ibn Uyaina said under the Chapter of, Ja'far ibn Muhammad ibn Alee bin Hussain ibn Alee bin Abi Talib (a.s): "There was some thing in his memorizing."
 
Source: Al-Tamheed. Vol. 2, Pg. # 66. 
 
Ibn Hibban:
 
"It is wajib to accept his hadeeth (Imam Redha (a.s)), provided that they are narrated from him by other than his progeny and his Shi'ee, and Abus-Sulat in particular, as the reports narrated from him have such falsehoods in which there is sin from Abus-Sulat and his progeny and his Shi'ee."
 
Source: Al-Thuqat. Vol. 8, Pg. # 452. 
 
 
What's sad is that Sufyan Al-Thawri is a mujtahid mutlaq, and is considered to be one of the leaders of Ahlus sunnah. The Mujtahid Mutlaqs are Hanifa, Shafii, Sufyan, Awzaii, Tabarani, Malak and Hanbal. Yahya Ibn maeen is also said to be the best scholar in ilm ar rijaal.

 

 

Regarding your statement of Ali Ibn jafar  being majhul, then your crtiteria of who is majhul and who is a good narrator is very weak. A person narrating very little narrations is not a sign of him being weak, there are reliable men in the Sunni hadith realm who narrated very few hadith maybe 1 or 2 and are still considered thiqah. Also the fact that Ali Ibn Jafar has no blameworthiness in his narrating, and is also the shaykh of nasr ibn Ali shows why the hadith was narrated hasan. 

 

  (salam)

 

Yes some scholars of Hadith had their opinions on Jafar bin Muhammad but He was Thiqah and great scholar according to majority of scholars (I can quote you their opinions if you want) and his narrations are all over our books in Sahih Muslim and others. Jaafar was not an infallible person that you are acting so surprised that some scholars made those statements about him. Infact, the narrations of Jafar bin Muhammad in Sahih Muslim are more than the narrations of Abubakr.

 

I suggest you read this: 

http://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/narrations-from-ahl-albayt-present-in-books-the-main-books-of-ahlesunnah/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 

Jaafar was not an infallible person that you are acting so surprised that some scholars made those statements about him. Infact, the narrations of Jafar bin Muhammad in Sahih Muslim are more than the narrations of Abubakr.

 

There is nothing to be surprised from your scholars believe about the infallibility of the Imams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  (salam)

 

Yes some scholars of Hadith had their opinions on Jafar bin Muhammad but He was Thiqah and great scholar according to majority of scholars (I can quote you their opinions if you want) and his narrations are all over our books in Sahih Muslim and others. Jaafar was not an infallible person that you are acting so surprised that some scholars made those statements about him. Infact, the narrations of Jafar bin Muhammad in Sahih Muslim are more than the narrations of Abubakr.

 

I suggest you read this: 

http://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/narrations-from-ahl-albayt-present-in-books-the-main-books-of-ahlesunnah/

 

 

You said that his narrations are all over your books, show me. Jafar as saadiq (as) had hundreds of students, the amount of hadith in sahih bukhari and other books are so amazingly small it's obvious they avoided him on purpose.

 

You also made the statement that I am "surprised" that the scholars made statements about imam jafar as saadiq(as), then know that I am not surprised, I know that the proto-sunnis would ignore and mock the Ahlul bayt (As) ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Jami` al-Tirmidhi, Volume 6, hadith 3733:

 

UZJHue5.jpg

 

Chain: Nasr b. `Ali al-Jahdami from `Ali b. Ja`far (ra) from Musa b. Ja`far (as) from Ja`far b. Muhammad (as) from Muhammad b. `Ali (as) from `Ali b. al-Husayn (as) from al-Husayn (as) from `Ali b. Abi Talib (as) from the Prophet (pbuh).

 

Content: Those who [sincerely] love the Prophet, `Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan and al-Husayn will be with the Prophet (pbuh) in Paradise.

 

Although Tirmidhi graded this hadith as hasan gharib (good, solitary narration), the editor (either Darussalam or Zubair `Ali Za`i) weakened the hadith and left a note at the bottom. The note was left untranslated, but it says that the hadith is mastoor - meaning, it is an unknown narrator and/or an unknown hadith, and most Sunni rijalists do not accept unknowns. It then says, "No one authenticated him except Tirmidhi. And al-Mutawakkil the Abbasid Caliph wanted to strike him with 1,000 lashes (Tarikh al-Khateeb)"

 

Up from Nasr b. `Ali al-Jahdami we see the golden chain, which is superior to all chains. The only Nasr b. `Ali in Shi`i books is one who narrates five times altogether, and his status is unknown. But, let's look deeper into the status of this man in Sunni books:

 

قال عبد الله بن أحمد : سألت أبي عنه ، فقال : ما به بأس ، ورضيه .

`Abdillah b. Ahmad said: I asked my father about him, so he said: There is no problem with him. And he approved him.

 

وقال عبد الرحمن بن أبي حاتم : سألت أبي عن نصر بن علي ، وعمرو بن علي الصيرفي : من أيهما أحب إليك ؟ قال : نصر أحب إلي ، وأوثق وأحفظ ، نصر ثقة.

And `Abd ar-Rahman b. Abi Hatim said: I asked my father about Nasr b. `Ali and `Amr b. `Ali as-Sayrafi: which of the two is more beloved by you? He said: Nasr is more beloved to me, and more reliable, and he has better memorization(?). Nasr is reliable.

 

وقال النسائي وابن خراش : ثقة.

And an-Nasa'i and Ibn Kharash said: Reliable.

وقال عبد الله بن محمد الفرهياني : نصر عندي من نبلاء الناس .

And `Abdillah b. Muhammad al-Farhayani said: Nasr to me is from the noblest of people.

 

---

 

In the hadith below, Nasr relates this hadith to the Caliph al-Mutawakkil:

 

عبد الله بن أحمد بن حنبل : حدثني نصر بن علي ، أخبرني علي بن جعفر بن محمد ، حدثني أخي موسى ، عن أبيه ، عن أبيه ، عن علي بن حسين ، عن أبيه ، عن جده: أن النبي -صلى الله عليه وسلم- : أخذ بيد حسن وحسين ، فقال : مَنْ أحبَّني وأحبَّ هذين وأبَاهُمَا وأُمَّهُمَا ، كان معي في درجتي يوم القيامة .

قلت : هذا حديث منكر جـدا . ثم قال عبد الله بن أحمد : لما حدث نصر بهذا ، أمر المتوكل بضربه ألف سوط ، فكلمه جعفر بن عبد الواحد ، وجعل يقول له : الرجل من أهل السنة ، ولم يزل به حتى تركه . وكان له أرزاق ، فوفرها عليه موسى .

`Abdillah b. Ahmad b. Hanbal said: This hadith is very weak. Then `Abdillah b. Ahmad said: When Nasr narrated this, al-Mutwakkil ordered to strike him 1,000 lashes. So Ja`far b. `Abd al-Wahid talked to him, and said to him: This man is from Ahl as-Sunna! And I will not leave him until he is left alone. And he (Nasr?) had wealth, so Musa saved it for him.

 

---

 

So here, we see that Nasr was considered a good, trustworthy Sunni narrator. Yet, his narration of a hadith that sounded Shi`i in content almost got him lashed 1,000 times under the `Abbasi Caliphate. We also find that the hadith is being weakened by reactionary rijalists, even though Nasr received high praise, and the rest of the chain consisted of the scholars and Imams of Ahl al-Bayt. Even if this hadith were a solitary one, that does not negate the strength of its chain. The claim that this hadith of Imam Ja`far's was unheard of stems from the rejection of most of Ja`far's students as Rawafid heretics.

 

This is yet again another effort to cover up the too-Shi`i side of the Imams (as). Hadiths like this suggest to readers that the Ahl al-Bayt really did teach what the Shi`a attribute to them. And that is, that the love and wilaya of Ahl al-Bayt are pivotal to the salvation of every person. al-Mutawakkil's reaction to the hadith confirms the suffering that actual Shi`as endured; and it establishes the need for the Imams and their followers to have kept quiet over such issues. If hatred of `Ali is hypocrisy, then what can we say about those who raised the sword against him and killed tens of thousands of Muslims?

This hadith points to Ahl al Kisa being Masom but not to 12 Imams being Masom. It actually is more beneficial to the Zaydi perspective than to the Ithna Ashariyyah one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This hadith points to Ahl al Kisa being Masom but not to 12 Imams being Masom. It actually is more beneficial to the Zaydi perspective than to the Ithna Ashariyyah one

 

 

I have a question for you, is 3sma a necessary attribute for an imam? If yes then why are most of your Imams not masum? And if no then they was Imam Ali (as) masum and not the others?

Edited by Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I have a question for you, is 3sma a necessary attribute for an imam? If yes then why are most of your Imams not masum? And if no then they was Imam Ali (as) masum and not the others?

Imam Ali (as) , as well as Imams Hassan (as) and Hussein (as) was Ahl al Kisa. These are the people referred to in Surah 33:33 and all of them , in Zaydi belief, were Masom. But no being Masom is not a necessary attribute for being Imam. Being a descendant of Muhammad (saws) through Fatima (as) is, as well as excelling in knowledge and being willing to fight the oppressors as well as rallying the people to your leadership and cause. 

 

We do not have the same beliefs as you regarding there always needing to be an Imam and all Imams being Masom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Imam Ali (as) , as well as Imams Hassan (as) and Hussein (as) was Ahl al Kisa. These are the people referred to in Surah 33:33 and all of them , in Zaydi belief, were Masom. But no being Masom is not a necessary attribute for being Imam. Being a descendant of Muhammad (saws) through Fatima (as) is, as well as excelling in knowledge and being willing to fight the oppressors as well as rallying the people to your leadership and cause.

We do not have the same beliefs as you regarding there always needing to be an Imam and all Imams being Masom.

So your imams are not Massom? What's the point of having an imam? As in what's the difference in just following a very knowledgable marajai/scholar (any) that happens to be from the lineage of Fatima?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

So your imams are not Massom? What's the point of having an imam? As in what's the difference in just following a very knowledgable marajai/scholar (any) that happens to be from the lineage of Fatima?

Well a scholar who excels in knowledge , is a descendant of Fatima (as) and raises the sword against the oppressor certainly qualifies for the Imamate in the Zaydi view. I'm not sure I see the necessity of being Masom to lead the Ummah. I mean not even the Sunnis call the khalifas Masom. In fact the only people I know to be Masom are RasulAllah (saws) and Ahl al Kisa (as) . Those 5 are known to be Masom through Qur'an and mutawatir hadith. Those are the only ones we see good evidence for being infallible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Well a scholar who excels in knowledge , is a descendant of Fatima (as) and raises the sword against the oppressor certainly qualifies for the Imamate in the Zaydi view. I'm not sure I see the necessity of being Masom to lead the Ummah. I mean not even the Sunnis call the khalifas Masom. In fact the only people I know to be Masom are RasulAllah (saws) and Ahl al Kisa (as) . Those 5 are known to be Masom through Qur'an and mutawatir hadith. Those are the only ones we see good evidence for being infallible.

How are you able to satisfy that last condition; about raising the sword. If you are picking your imams in such a way how do you come to satisfy that condition? Must they take an oath or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

How are you able to satisfy that last condition; about raising the sword. If you are picking your imams in such a way how do you come to satisfy that condition? Must they take an oath or something?

No they actually raise the sword and fight. Our Imams (as) are warriors and scholars just like RasulAllah (saws).

Anyway keep in mind that the requirement of being a Fatimid is one we share with all the other Shia. The other Shia also claim that their Imams (as) excelled in knowledge. So where we differ is that we only regard the first 3 Imams (as) as Masom and we hold that they must fight the oppressors

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing specifically Shia about loving the Ahlul Bayt.  Unfortunately our understanding of Ahlul Sunna has been warped by the Influence of Wahabism (A relatively modern and recent occurrence).  Traditional Sunni Islam and Traditional Shia Islam are hardly that different.     

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

No they actually raise the sword and fight. Our Imams (as) are warriors and scholars just like RasulAllah (saws).

Anyway keep in mind that the requirement of being a Fatimid is one we share with all the other Shia. The other Shia also claim that their Imams (as) excelled in knowledge. So where we differ is that we only regard the first 3 Imams (as) as Masom and we hold that they must fight the oppressors

So all of your recent and past imams have raised the sword and fought without a fail? If so, can you show me proof of how your most recent imam raised the sword and fought? (Btw, thank you I'm learning).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Imam Majideen al Muayyadi (as) began the Houthi revolution which began in 2004 and continues to this day 7 years after his death. I can't post links here or rather do not know how to. I am terrible with computers. But azzaidiah.com has info on him in Arabic and if you want to learn more about our Imams in English you can always join my Facebook page called The Zaidi School of Thought. My name there is Kemo SubhanAllah and there are several 12ers who are members


There is nothing specifically Shia about loving the Ahlul Bayt.  Unfortunately our understanding of Ahlul Sunna has been warped by the Influence of Wahabism (A relatively modern and recent occurrence).  Traditional Sunni Islam and Traditional Shia Islam are hardly that different.     

 

 

 

Indeed . The original differences were mostly political. Imams Zayd (as), Baqir (as) and Sadiq (as) often discussed Islam with Abu Hanifa the founder of the Hanafi school of Sunni Islam. In fact Mr. Hanifa supported Imam Zayd's (as) revolution. Study circles in that time often included Sunni and Shia scholars. The big theological divide came later

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Question for you iqra, what is your stance on AB?

what is AB ?

I'm gonna just go ahead and assume that you are talking about Abu Bakr and that you are asking for the Zaydi opinion rather than my personal one.

 

The Zaydi position is that RasulAllah (saws) was clear about his desire for Ali (as) to lead the Ummah. It is therefore an error on both the part of Abu Bakr and Umar to have taken the caliphate. Imam Zayd (as) avoided denouncing them and said that his family had avoided denouncing them as well so as Zaydi we do not curse them. Jarudiyyah Zaydi thought is harsher on them than Sulaymaniyah Zaydi thought. I myself lean towards the Jarudiyyah position. Uthman is disliked. Talha and Zubayr are cursed along with muawiyah and yazid (la).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Then let Allah give him his punishment. In our belief the Imams(as) at least upp to Zayd (as) did not curse him so we refrain from doing so. We disassociate ourselves from his wrongful actions and accept that Allah will deal with him in a manner befitting his conduct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find your position to be contradictory and problematic due to the fact that in many times during zaydi history any person who challenged the true Imam or wished to remove his authority is considered to be a sinner and a rebel.

 

Then how can you say that AB was not a sinner and a rebel in the biggest degree when rasulallah(S) was most clear on who to be the khalifa after him yet abu bakr (la) took the leadership for himself while ameer l mumineen buried as-saadiq al ameen?

 

In fact anyone who rides out against the true Imam is a kafir, then how about the one who usurped his position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I find your position to be contradictory and problematic due to the fact that in many times during zaydi history any person who challenged the true Imam or wished to remove his authority is considered to be a sinner and a rebel.

 

Then how can you say that AB was not a sinner and a rebel in the biggest degree when rasulallah(S) was most clear on who to be the khalifa after him yet abu bakr (la) took the leadership for himself while ameer l mumineen buried as-saadiq al ameen?

 

In fact anyone who rides out against the true Imam is a kafir, then how about the one who usurped his position?

 

I find your position to be contradictory and problematic due to the fact that in many times during zaydi history any person who challenged the true Imam or wished to remove his authority is considered to be a sinner and a rebel.

 

Then how can you say that AB was not a sinner and a rebel in the biggest degree when rasulallah(S) was most clear on who to be the khalifa after him yet abu bakr (la) took the leadership for himself while ameer l mumineen buried as-saadiq al ameen?

 

In fact anyone who rides out against the true Imam is a kafir, then how about the one who usurped his position?

How is my position contradictory? I said Allah will deal with him according to his conduct . Do you deny this ? I never said even once , nor do the rest of the Zaydiyyah , that Abu Bakr had a right to the caliphate. I/we say that Allah will deal with him according to his deeds and we leave it at that. I / we do not see him as being as foul as yazeed (la) or muawiyah(la) or talha and zubayr but this does not mean we do not think he usurped his title. We see this as disobedience though while you see it as disbelief and Allah knows best

Also Abu Bakr did not violently rebel. He schemed and plotted. This is bad, but not as bad as shedding blood within the Ummah as others did. Besides that we adhere to Ahl al Bayt. Imam Zayd (as) did not curse Abu Bakr and Umar so therefore we do not. We are following Imam (as) in this matter rather than just our personal feelings. My personal feelings about Abu Bakr are that he was a usurper and a renegade and I dislike him strongly. I would say the same for Umar. But the Ahl al Bayt have/had far more knowledge in these matters than I do and far more right to pass judgement. Therefore I defer to their opinion. Imam Ali (as) did not run around cursing them either, he even, for his own reasons which we cannot second guess because he was a Masom Imam, gave the bayah and accepted, for a time that Abu Bakr had the caliphate. I do not see any strong evidence that he or the other Imams (as) cursed him and Imam Zayd (as) says that they did not.

 

 

 

 

So to be clear I am NOT a fan of Abu Bakr nor will I defend him in any shape form or fashion. I , as a Zaydi Shia ,simply defer to the Ahl al Bayt on this matter & leave his punishment in the hands of Allah

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find your position to be contradictory and problematic due to the fact that in many times during zaydi history any person who challenged the true Imam or wished to remove his authority is considered to be a sinner and a rebel.

 

Then how can you say that AB was not a sinner and a rebel in the biggest degree when rasulallah(S) was most clear on who to be the khalifa after him yet abu bakr (la) took the leadership for himself while ameer l mumineen buried as-saadiq al ameen?

 

In fact anyone who rides out against the true Imam is a kafir, then how about the one who usurped his position?

 

 

U Mr. are a retard! r u mixing history with their beliefs? Or is that u r just weak in english?

So Hazrat Abu Bakr  (ra) is kafir in ur eyes? LAANAT ON AALE SABA! 

 

I have a surprise for u.. do u know Aqeel ibn abi talib fought against Hazrat Ali  (ra) in the battle of siffin? whats his status?

How is my position contradictory? I said Allah will deal with him according to his conduct . Do you deny this ? I never said even once , nor do the rest of the Zaydiyyah , that Abu Bakr had a right to the caliphate. I/we say that Allah will deal with him according to his deeds and we leave it at that. I / we do not see him as being as foul as yazeed (la) or muawiyah(la) or talha and zubayr but this does not mean we do not think he usurped his title. We see this as disobedience though while you see it as disbelief and Allah knows best

Also Abu Bakr did not violently rebel. He schemed and plotted. This is bad, but not as bad as shedding blood within the Ummah as others did. Besides that we adhere to Ahl al Bayt. Imam Zayd (as) did not curse Abu Bakr and Umar so therefore we do not. We are following Imam (as) in this matter rather than just our personal feelings. My personal feelings about Abu Bakr are that he was a usurper and a renegade and I dislike him strongly. I would say the same for Umar. But the Ahl al Bayt have/had far more knowledge in these matters than I do and far more right to pass judgement. Therefore I defer to their opinion. Imam Ali (as) did not run around cursing them either, he even, for his own reasons which we cannot second guess because he was a Masom Imam, gave the bayah and accepted, for a time that Abu Bakr had the caliphate. I do not see any strong evidence that he or the other Imams (as) cursed him and Imam Zayd (as) says that they did not.

 

 

 

 

So to be clear I am NOT a fan of Abu Bakr nor will I defend him in any shape form or fashion. I , as a Zaydi Shia ,simply defer to the Ahl al Bayt on this matter & leave his punishment in the hands of Allah

 

 

 

What do u have to say about this narration? Do u believe in its authenticity?

 

الامام الشهيد زيد بن علي عندما بدأ يستعد لقتال بني اميه تجمع اليه اصحابه فأمرهم الامام بسيرة النبي صلى الله عليه واله وسلم وسيرة الامام علي عليه السلام فقال له

بعض من اصحابه : قد سمعنا مقالتك فما قولك في الشيخين ؟

الامام زيد: ما عساي ان اقول فيهما امنا بالله وجاهدا في الله حق جهاده وصحبا رسول الله احسن الصحبه .

بعض اصحاب الامام : أليس هذان الشيخان هما من سلبا حق ابيك (يقصدوا الامام علي ) فأخذ الناس هذا الامر سنه منهم وإلا فلماذا تقاتل بني اميه اذا أليس لانهم سلبوكم حقكم ؟!.

الامام زيد : لا والله ليس بنو اميه كابي بكر وابن الخطاب لقد أقاما الدين وانهوا البدع ونشروا العدل والصلاح بين الامه وبنو اميه ضالمون لكم ولي وللناس هم من قتلوا الحسين واهل بيته هم من يقومون بالفساد والبدع .

بعض اصحابه : لا بد لك أن تبرا من الشيخين ؟ 

الامام زيد : لا والله لا ابرأ منهما ما سمعت احدا من اهل بيتي يبرأ منهم 

بعض اصحابه : إما أن تبرا من الشيخين والا رفضناك ؟

الامام زيد : اذهبوا فأنتم الرافضه .

ولم يقاتلوا مع الامام زيد فليف نون من اتباع الامام زيد ثم نكون رافضه

Translation:

When Imam Zaid PBUH was getting ready to revolt against the Umayyad Ruler Hashim he was approached by a group of those who called themselves the Shiites of ahlulbayt.

“Shiites: We heard your Call, what say you of the two Sheikhs (Shaykhan / Abu Bakr & Umar)?

Imam Zaid: What Can I Say about Them, They Believed in Allah and fought In his cause a Truthful Jihad, They were The Prophet’s Best Companions.

Shiites: Aren’t they the ones who took the right of your fathers? If not then why do you fight the Umayyads?

Imam: By God the Umayyads are unlike Abu bakr and Ibn al Khattab, They have strengthened the religion and erased the innovations and spread justice and goodness in the Ummah Whereas the Umayyads have oppressed Me, You and the Ummah They (Yazid) are the killers of Hussein and his family and have spread innovations and misguidance amongst the people.

Shiites: You must disassociate yourself from the two sheikhs.

Imam: By Allah I will Not! Nor have I heard that any from my family have done so.

Shiites: Either you disassociate yourself from them or we Refuse(Rafidah) you.

Imam: Go for you are the Rafidhah!!! (Refusors).”

Edited by Invoker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

U Mr. are a retard! r u mixing history with their beliefs? Or is that u r just weak in english?

So Hazrat Abu Bakr  (ra) is kafir in ur eyes? LAANAT ON AALE SABA! 

 

I have a surprise for u.. do u know Aqeel ibn abi talib fought against Hazrat Ali  (ra) in the battle of siffin? whats his status?

 

 

 

What do u have to say about this narration? Do u believe in its authenticity?

 

الامام الشهيد زيد بن علي عندما بدأ يستعد لقتال بني اميه تجمع اليه اصحابه فأمرهم الامام بسيرة النبي صلى الله عليه واله وسلم وسيرة الامام علي عليه السلام فقال له

بعض من اصحابه : قد سمعنا مقالتك فما قولك في الشيخين ؟

الامام زيد: ما عساي ان اقول فيهما امنا بالله وجاهدا في الله حق جهاده وصحبا رسول الله احسن الصحبه .

بعض اصحاب الامام : أليس هذان الشيخان هما من سلبا حق ابيك (يقصدوا الامام علي ) فأخذ الناس هذا الامر سنه منهم وإلا فلماذا تقاتل بني اميه اذا أليس لانهم سلبوكم حقكم ؟!.

الامام زيد : لا والله ليس بنو اميه كابي بكر وابن الخطاب لقد أقاما الدين وانهوا البدع ونشروا العدل والصلاح بين الامه وبنو اميه ضالمون لكم ولي وللناس هم من قتلوا الحسين واهل بيته هم من يقومون بالفساد والبدع .

بعض اصحابه : لا بد لك أن تبرا من الشيخين ؟ 

الامام زيد : لا والله لا ابرأ منهما ما سمعت احدا من اهل بيتي يبرأ منهم 

بعض اصحابه : إما أن تبرا من الشيخين والا رفضناك ؟

الامام زيد : اذهبوا فأنتم الرافضه .

ولم يقاتلوا مع الامام زيد فليف نون من اتباع الامام زيد ثم نكون رافضه

Translation:

When Imam Zaid PBUH was getting ready to revolt against the Umayyad Ruler Hashim he was approached by a group of those who called themselves the Shiites of ahlulbayt.

“Shiites: We heard your Call, what say you of the two Sheikhs (Shaykhan / Abu Bakr & Umar)?

Imam Zaid: What Can I Say about Them, They Believed in Allah and fought In his cause a Truthful Jihad, They were The Prophet’s Best Companions.

Shiites: Aren’t they the ones who took the right of your fathers? If not then why do you fight the Umayyads?

Imam: By God the Umayyads are unlike Abu bakr and Ibn al Khattab, They have strengthened the religion and erased the innovations and spread justice and goodness in the Ummah Whereas the Umayyads have oppressed Me, You and the Ummah They (Yazid) are the killers of Hussein and his family and have spread innovations and misguidance amongst the people.

Shiites: You must disassociate yourself from the two sheikhs.

Imam: By Allah I will Not! Nor have I heard that any from my family have done so.

Shiites: Either you disassociate yourself from them or we Refuse(Rafidah) you.

Imam: Go for you are the Rafidhah!!! (Refusors).”

I am familiar with this hadith as are all of the rest of the Zaydis on earth. It is one of the reasons we do not curse Abu Bakr and Umar. I clearly stated, and will again, that my personal feelings towards them are harsher than many of those in my madhab but I defer to the Ahl al Bayt (as) on the matter and believe that Allah will deal with him based on whatever he has earned from his actions.

 

 

 

It is ALSO true that Imam Zayd (as) said that Imam Ali (as) had more right to leadership than anybody else after RasulAllah (saws) and that he many times confirmed said Imamate. The Zaydi position is that Abu Bakr Umar and Uthman were fisq (disobedient) but not kafirs or that we do not have the evidence to call them kafirs.They rebelled against the legitimate authority and we leave it at that. The Shia who turned their back on Imam Zayd (as) were looking for a reason to do so. They did not want to join his revolution and if you look further into the hadith you will see that they were attempting to reject him even BEFORE he said what he did about  Abu Bakr and Umar. Furthermore you will see by this hadith that there were people already at this time who resented Abu Bakr and Umar for taking the caliphate. Otherwise they could not have used Imam Zayd's (as) refusal to do takfir on them as an excuse. So the animosity towards them is NOT a later Shia invention.  Indeed history tells us that the Ansar did not want ANYBODY from amongst the Muhajirun to be khalifa EXCEPT Imam Ali (as). There was objection and opposition to Abu Bakr from day one and Ali (as) had Shia from day one.

 

But I am a Zaydi not a 12er and I do not curse him. Allah knows best

It must be said though that there ARE Zaydis who doubt this narration. Imam zayd (as) died soon after the incident and so was never able to confirm having said this or at least having phrased it in the way the hadith suggests. Many hadith attributed to Imam Zayd (as) are false and are interpolations coming in later through the Mutazilites. The Mutazilites agree with us on many issues but not on the Imamate, they are Sunnis not Shia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Invoker riding out against an Imam according to ibn umar is kufr or at least a huge sin that will cause someone to be raised as a betrayer.

 

Narrated Nafi': When the people of Medina dethroned Yazid bin Muawiya, Ibn 'Umar gathered his special friends and children and said, "I heard the Prophet saying, 'A flag will be fixed for every betrayer on the Day of Resurrection,'and we have given the oath of allegiance to this person (Yazid) in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle and I do not know of anything more faithless than fighting a person who has been given the oath of allegiance in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle , and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone Yazid, by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me."
 
Sahih Bukhari Book 88 H 227
 
 
According to ibn umar, yazeed ibn muawiya (la 3layhuma) is the rightful Imam, anyone who does not give him baya is faithless and will be raised up on the day of judgement as a betrayer.
 
However no worries, yazeed and muawiya were just doing "ijithad", just like when yazeed did ijithad when he sacked medina, such beautiful deduction skills I wonder what principles of fiqh he used?
 
 
Regarding my question to Iqra, I will ask you again, if someone rides out against an Imam who is appointed by Allah then he is a kafir? Yes or no.
 
Can someone be a believer and at the same time rejects Rasulallah as saadiq al ameen (ص) and takes power for himself?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I am not going to say that. I will say they are disobedient but not kafir . They MAY be kafir but not accepting the Imam is not by itself enough to call someone a kafir.

When and where did Imam Ali (as) say that Abu Bake and Umar are kafirs? When did he call Ayesha a kafir? I defer to the judgement of the Imams (as) on these matters. So give me a mutawatir hadith that shows Ali (as) Hassan (as) or Hussein (as)calling them kafir. If not then why not simply leave their fate in the hands of Allah.

I would say the SUNNIS have a bigger issue in that regard because so much of their hadith comes through Ayesha. She rebelled against Uthman AND Ali (as) and shed blood in the process. Zaydi Muslims aren't using Abu Bake and Umar as hadith narrators. We wipe our hands of them.

And Allah knows best

Edited by IQRA07
Link to comment
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...