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  
Ali-F

Is Kamal Al Ummal A Shia Book?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
السلام عليكم
 
No it is not, it's a Sunni book written by Al-Muttaqi Al-Hindi (d. 975), a Sunni author, and the book itself is the rearrangement of Jalaal Al-Deen Al-Suyuti's (d. 911) Jami' Al-Kabeer, Jami' Al-Sagheer, and Zawa'id (refer to Al-Muttaqi's introduction in Kanz Al-Ummal). I'm dumbfounded when Shi'as quote this book for non-polemical purposes, as if the hadiths in it act as a Hujja (evidence) over us. On the subject as well, Ghurar Al-Hikam is also not a Shi'a book. Shi'as are in no short supply of narrations, we have no need to be quoting the books and narrations of the Sunnis.
 
والسلام

 

 

بِسْــــــــــــــــــمِ اﷲِالرَّحْمَنِ اارَّحِيم

 
 
I agree. There is no short supply of these sorts of Ahadīth on Facebook. I think, as a whole, we (the Imāmīyyah) need to become more aquatinted with our own Hadīth literature.
 
Ws. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 Ghurar Al-Hikam is also not a Shi'a book.
 

 

 

The Ghurar al-Hikam wa Durar al-Kalim {غرر الحکم و درر الکلم‎} is the most comprehensive collection of short quotations and aphorisms of Imam Ali ibn Abitalib (A.S). It contains 11,110 short sayings. This book is written by Abdul Wahid Tamimi al-Amidi. He has lived in the  5th and 6th centuries AH. There is not available much information about him, but for example Mirza Abdullah Afandi has introduced him as Shi'ah traditionalist (Muhadith) (Ryadul Ulama, pp. 281, 282). Also Allamah Majlisi at the beginning of his famous book, Biharul Anwar has considered him as Imamyah (Shi'ah) scholar (Bihar al-Anwar, vol.1, pp.16, 34). Ibn Shahr Ashub and Mirza Husayn Nuri have exalted him in their books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam alaykum the title says it all, but is it also authentic (i.e reliable by scholars)?

Sry, I wrote "Kammal al Ummal" I mean "Kanz al Ummal "

 

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
السلام عليكم
 
No it is not, it's a Sunni book written by Al-Muttaqi Al-Hindi (d. 975), a Sunni author, and the book itself is the rearrangement of Jalaal Al-Deen Al-Suyuti's (d. 911) Jami' Al-Kabeer, Jami' Al-Sagheer, and Zawa'id (refer to Al-Muttaqi's introduction in Kanz Al-Ummal). I'm dumbfounded when Shi'as quote this book for non-polemical purposes, as if the hadiths in it act as a Hujja (evidence) over us. On the subject as well, Ghurar Al-Hikam is also not a Shi'a book. Shi'as are in no short supply of narrations, we have no need to be quoting the books and narrations of the Sunnis.
 
والسلام

 

 

(salam)

 

The author of the book is sunnie, but  I have a question : why do we reject all ahadith of a book as soon as we hear the writer is sunnie?

 

Yes, by proving that the author is sunnie the ahadith in the book (which are only narrated there and not in our books) lose their reliability form jurisprudential aspect, but Islam is not just figh (jurisprudence) we have other fields in Islam, where there is no problem to use sunnie ahadith. 

 

So why do we deal with these ahadith as nonsense and condom whoever reads and uses them ??

 

والسلام علیکم و رحمه الله 

Edited by Malik.Ashtar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
السلام عليكم
 

(bismillah)

 

 

The Ghurar al-Hikam wa Durar al-Kalim {غرر الحکم و درر الکلم‎} is the most comprehensive collection of short quotations and aphorisms of Imam Ali ibn Abitalib (A.S). It contains 11,110 short sayings. This book is written by Abdul Wahid Tamimi al-Amidi. He has lived in the  5th and 6th centuries AH. There is not available much information about him, but for example Mirza Abdullah Afandi has introduced him as Shi'ah traditionalist (Muhadith) (Ryadul Ulama, pp. 281, 282). Also Allamah Majlisi at the beginning of his famous book, Biharul Anwar has considered him as Imamyah (Shi'ah) scholar (Bihar al-Anwar, vol.1, pp.16, 34). Ibn Shahr Ashub and Mirza Husayn Nuri have exalted him in their books.

 

Al-Aamidi was from Ibn Shahr Aashoob's Mishayikh, and he gave him Ijaaza to use narrations from Ghurar Al-Hikam in his Manaqib (this is nothing that is striking seeing as Ibn Shahr Aashoob used Sunni narrations in his Manaqib) as he states:

 

قد أذن لي الامدي في رواية غرر الحكم

 

Manaqib Aal Abi Talib volume 1 page 14

 

That being said, there were Sunni Mishayikh of Ulama so it's not highly unlikely that he can be one as well, Shaykh Mufeed, Shaykh Al-Ta'ifa Tusi, Sharif Radhi, Ilm Al-Huda Sharif Murtadha all had Sunni Mishayikh and are known for their Mu'tazila-like leanings.

 

This is what Ibn Shahr Aashoob   (ra) wrote about him in his Ma'aalim:

 

عبد الواحد بن محمد بن عبد الواحد الآمدي التميمي، له كتاب غرر الحكم ودرر الكلم، يذكر فيه أمثال امير المؤمنين عليه السلام وحكمه

 

Ma'aalim Al-Ulama page 116 tarjuma 549

 

There is no exaltation of him in this and this is the student of Abdul-Waahid. Al-Mirza Abdullah Al-Ifindi Al-Isfahani   (ra) author of Kitab Riyadh Al-Ulama was from the students of Al-Majlisi   (ra) who asserted that Abdul-Waahid Al-Aamidi was in fact from the Ulama of the Shi'a, beyond that he records in the Tarjuma of Abdul-Waahid:

 

ولكن قال في شأن علي عليه السلام في ديباجة كتابه غرر الحكم هكذا: علي كرم الله وجهه، فلعله من باب التقية، أو هومن النساخ

 

Riyadh Al-Ulama volume 3 page 281

 

He gave him the Sunni prayer of Karram Allah Wajhuhu in his book Ghurar Al-Hikam, and the author here states it could be that it was Taqiyya, or a scribe had done this, but there is also the possibility that Abdul Waahid Al-Aamidi was a Sunni, don't forget that he was from the students of Al-Ghazali who is a famously known Sunni-Sufi alim. Al-Nuri Al-Tabarsi greatly asserts his Tashayyu in volume 3 of his Khatimah Al-Mustadrak yes, and does this by quoting Al-Majlisi and Ibn Shahr Aashoob and Al-Ifindi Al-Isfahani, and Al-Majlisi himself gives a number of arguments for Al-Aamidi being a Shi'a, such as how Ibn Shahr Aashoob separated between the Aamah sources of his Manaqib and between him, however, he was writting about what he took from his Mishayikh in that part of the introduction, and also separated between the Aammah and Abul-Hasan Al-Bayhaqi, but the latter is still claimed to be a Shafi'i by some. Allama Majlisi also says he narrated pro-Shi'a narrations in Ghurar Al-Hikam, but this is also a weak argument, there are narrations in Musnad Ahmad that prove the Khilafah of Imam Ali (as), does Ahmad ibn Hanbal become a Shi'a as well now?

 

But beyond all this, him being claimed by Shi'as to be Shi'a doesn't make him Shi'a, and this is not the first time the Shi'as have tried claiming someone like this. Sunnis have also included him in works of Sunni Tabaqat, such as Al-Zakarali in his work of Tabaqat of Sunni Ulama known as "Al-A'laam" (Volume 4 page 177). In my time researching this man and his book, I have not come across any strong evidence to suggest he was Shi'a, rather the opposite suggesting that this student of Al-Ghazali was in fact a Sunni.

 

(salam)

 

The author of the book is sunnie, but  I have a question : why do we reject all ahadith of a book as soon as we hear the writer is sunnie?

 

Yes, by proving that the author is sunnie the ahadith in the book (which are only narrated there and not in our books) lose their reliability form jurisprudential aspect, but Islam is not just figh (jurisprudence) we have other fields in Islam, where there is no problem to use sunnie ahadith. 

 

So why do we deal with these ahadith as nonsense and condom whoever reads and uses them ??

 

والسلام علیکم و رحمه الله 

 

Why would you take a Sunni narration, narrated through a Sunni chain, recorded by a Sunni Muhaddith? For God's sake, a large number if not a majority of their narrations come from three individuals, Abu Hurayra, Anas ibn Malik, and Aisha, the Imam (as) said regarding these three that no one lied against the Prophet (saww) like them. Beyond that how do we know that these narrations had not been altered? What about the narrations of the Imams saying not to accept anything that's not from them? What about the sahih saying of the Imam (as), go east or west there will be no true knowledge like there is from them? What possible need do we have to refer to the books of the Sunnis anyways, are we in some shortage of Ahadith? By the way, forgetting fiqhi issues, you can't accept Fadha'il of Ahlul-Bayt (as) from them either, the issue with accepting their narrations is not only restricted to fiqhi issues.

 

والسلام

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why would you take a Sunni narration, narrated through a Sunni chain, recorded by a Sunni Muhaddith? For God's sake, a large number if not a majority of their narrations come from three individuals, Abu Hurayra, Anas ibn Malik, and Aisha, the Imam (as) said regarding these three that no one lied against the Prophet (saww) like them. Beyond that how do we know that these narrations had not been altered? What about the narrations of the Imams saying not to accept anything that's not from them? What about the sahih saying of the Imam (as), go east or west there will be no true knowledge like there is from them? What possible need do we have to refer to the books of the Sunnis anyways, are we in some shortage of Ahadith? By the way, forgetting fiqhi issues, you can't accept Fadha'il of Ahlul-Bayt (as) from them either, the issue with accepting their narrations is not only restricted to fiqhi issues.

 

 

I agree with all the points you've mentioned.

 

My point was: they have some ahadith (some of them from our Imams and a lot them from those three) + so many great shia scholars like Sheikh Tosi , Sheykh Tabarsi , Shaheed Al-Awwal , Shaheed Ath-thani and ... used their ahadith in other field of Islamic sciences except than figh + some of their ahadith are approved by the ahadith that we have + some of their ahadith are not against Quran and what our Imams said + we also have many dhaeef (weak) ahadith in our books (Al-Kafi, At-Tazheeb and...) and scholars believe they are useful so they didn't omit them form our books up to now =  their ahadith are not at the level of ours but they are not nonsense, at least we can get some historical report from them(some historical points that have nothing to do with Imamah, so that one says the fabricated that), exactly like our dhaeef ahadith they are not at the level of sahih ahadith and no one is allowed to use them in jurisprudential fatwas but they are useful in other branches of knowledge in Islam.  

 

I think this kind of rejection of their ahadith is not what great scholars in shia did and do, I think it is more likely based on (with all due respect) an emotional belief  rather than a scientific conclusion.  

 

والسلام علیکم

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...