Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Ghadeer khum, clear proof of appointment?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

By continually creating weak hadith tradition, you ignore the other major method of Hadith authentication. But again as self taught sunni mullah, you have much learning to do my child.

This maybe a very difficult concept for you to understand since you have no formal training. Please don't hurt yourself trying to understand concepts you have never heard of.

This well accepted methodology of authentication is what allows written Shia hadith to alwys be infinitely more reliable than the Oral traditions of the AhleSunnah. However when Ahlus sunnah quotea specific hadith , like 60 of your well researched and respected sunni authors do, based on older written traditions,  it has a way of eliminating a single weak hadith , when the proof comes from written transmissions compiled before the weak narrators. Hence the Bayah given was written about when your Sahih Sitta authors were not even born, much less running around the world collecting from the old oral traditions.

The point is that when within a certain narrator chain a single transmitter is considered weak but the tradition has been named in several books first compiled way before the first sunni hadith were written down, they relied on books that had been written way before. Even if someone wanted to change a specific hadith they might , but through the principle of the Bahth al Firsiti, they cannot change all the books written before.

The article below will illuminate you and I am quite sure you have never ever heard of this Hadith science.

 

Studying Shīʿa Hadith and History

 

The Approach to Authenticating Shia Hadith 

 

What is Fihrist? Why Fihrist?

 

Most readers will possess a rudimentary understanding of Rijal (or Ilm al-Rijal), the discipline in which the status of a narrator is studied in order to evaluate whether his reports should be accepted or not.

 

Much less is known about the Faharis (sing. Fihrist) – the name given to works composed by early Shi’i scholars in which they listed the titles of the books (mostly of Hadith) they possess in their libraries, as well as recording how they came to possess said books by giving the transmission paths linking them back to the original authors.

 

The earliest works of this kind, now lost, seem to have served as personal bibliographies, but representatives of a more mature stage of the genre[1] – the Fihrist of Tusi (d. 460) and Najashi (d. after 463[2]) – do survive and exhibit a broader concern[3].

 

A study of their contents reveals an attempt to document most of the authors in the Shia world, highlight some personal details about them, provide an evaluation of their status as narrators, list the titles of books attributed to them, and give chains to these last.  

 

The overwhelming majority of the titles listed in these two Fihrist do not survive, and later scholars have typically scoured them just to find an explicit declaration of Tawthiq (strengthening) or Tadh’if (weakening) of those mentioned therein. That has been the sum all of its utility in authenticating Hadiths. Until now …

The Bahth al-Fihristi

 

A novel approach to the authentication of Shia Hadiths is the one espoused by a leading contemporary scholar in Qum i.e. Ayatullah Sayyid Ahmad Madadi[4] and called the Bahth al-Fihristi. Its proponents claim to have uncovered the previously misunderstood methodology of the Qudama (early scholars) in dealing with the Hadith, which if we are to pursue today will require us to place the Fihrist at center-stage (hence the name)[5].

 

The Bahth al-Fihristi approach takes as its starting point the historical difference between Sunni and Shi’i transmission of Hadith. While Sunni Hadith had a long period where Hadiths were transmitted orally, Shi’i Hadith and from its inception has always been written in nature, with transmission involving the passing down of books of Hadith.

 

It is because of this, proponents argue, that much effort was expended by early Shi’i scholars to collect critical information about the authors of these books and the books themselves in works entitled Fihrist, with the aim of distinguishing between the books of Hadith that were reliable from those that were not.

 

Proponents of this approach see this genre to be the real Shi’i innovation, noting that Sunni activity in this regard is quite late. The oral nature of early Sunni Hadith transmission meant that they concentrated on individual narrators (i.e. Rijal) instead of books (i.e. Fihrist).

 

Shia Hadith transmission proceeded with a student going to an author (a companion) who has written down what he heard from the Imam in a book, and copying the book for themselves, before hearing the contents from the author (Sima’a) or reading it back to them (Qira’a) to safe-guard against errors. The student then obtained a licence (Ijaza) from the author to further transmit the book to the next generation (where  the process was repeated). 

 

The result of this process was that the authors of the later standard compilations (such as the Four Books) had true-copies of the original copies of these earlier books (sometimes multiple true-copies of the same work which they obtained via different routes) when they sat down to compose their own books by selecting, rearranging and subsuming the contents found in what came before.  

 

In other words, when dealing with Shia Hadith as found in later standard compilations (such as the Four Books) we are actually dealing with reports that originate from earlier ‘books of Hadith’, such as those authored by the companions of the Sadiqayn (1st generation works), companions of al-Kadhim and al-Ridha (2nd generation works), and pre-canonical compilations (3rd generational works)[7]. This means that we can, even today, isolate and partially reconstruct the earlier generation works before they were subsumed into later standard compilations.

 

Bahth al-Fihristi seeks first to identify which earlier book a particular Hadith (in the form accessible to us) originates from. The next step is to determine whether the earlier book from which the Hadith derives was widely accepted and became ‘famous’ or not. This is done by referring to descriptive statements by Tusi and Najashi about the book in their respective Fihrist where one can find allusions to whether the book was widely transmitted or not.

 

The crux of the Bahth al-Fihristi approach is the assertion that a particular individual strand to a book becomes superfluous (loses its significance) if the book is ‘famous’. This is because the widespread transmission of a famous book makes the book’s contents textually stable (unalterable). The rationale being that a copyist with sinister motives who transmits an altered version of a ‘famous’ book will be caught out because there are numerous alternative transmissions strands to the same book whose contents have become fixed (the diabolic copyist cannot alter all the ‘versions’ of the book out there).

 

Now the status of the lower intermediaries in the chain of the Hadith (as found in the standard compilations) becomes irrelevant and can be bypassed in any Rijali discussion, since they are in reality just Mashayikh al-Ijaza (passive transmitters) of a ‘famous’ book that is guaranteed to be going back to its author (an early companion). The end result is that a lot of reports that are technically considered Dhaif will become Sahih.

 

The most cogent argument in favour of Bahth al-Fihristi, framed within the context of reconstructing the practice of the Qudama, is given by one of Madadi’s students[8] in a key paper[9] which I translate below before proceeding to critique some of its postulations. 

 

 

 

The Methodology of the Qudama in Acting on the Reports and the Role of the Faharis in that

 

We must give an exposition of the methodology of the Qudama (early scholars) in how they dealt with the reports so that it becomes clear for you the reason behind the authoring of the Faharis by our fellows (i.e. the Imamiyya).

 

So I say – and from Allah Mighty and Majestic do I seek succour:   

 

The Shaykh (al-Tusi) said about the methodology of our fellows – the Imamiyya – and their practice:

 

If one of them gives a Fatwa (ruling) which they do not recognize, they would ask him – from where did you say this?

 

So if he directs them to a well-known book and a famous Asl[10], and if its narrators are Thiqa (trust-worthy) whose Hadith is not rejected, they remain silent and submit to that, accepting his words.

 

This has been their norm and practice from the time of the prophet and those who came after him from the ‘Aimma, and (especially) from the time of al-Sadiq Ja’far b. Muhammad, on whose authority knowledge became widespread and from whom much has been transmitted[11]. 

 

He says in another place:

 

If one of the transmitters narrates a report by Sima’a (having heard it from his source) or Qira’a (heaving read it back to his source) while the other narrates it by Ijaza (merely obtains a license to transmit without Qira’a or Sima’a) then it is incumbent to favour the transmission of the Sami’ (hearer) over the Mustajiz (licensee).

 

Unless the Mustajiz (licensee) is transmitting via his Ijaza (license) a well-known Asl or a famous book in which case this precedence is dropped[12]. 

 

It becomes evident from this that their practice was not to act upon the contents of any report, rather, on a report which appears in a well-known book or a famous Asl[13], and an additional condition is added to this, which is the Wathaqa (trust-worthiness) of the author of the book or the Asl (and the intermediaries between him and the Imam if any).

 

If this proves anything it is that a critical attitude towards chains with regard to famous books is unwarranted.

 

al-Tabrisi (d. after 558) said:

 

We will not attach a chain to most of the reports we include … except what I include on the authority of Abu Muhammad al-Askari – peace be upon him – for it is not equivalent to the rest (of what I include) in terms of fame … this is why I have given its chain …[14] 

 

al-Kaf’ami (d. 905) said:

 

I have collected it (i.e. the contents) from books whose authenticity is assured, (books) which have been made incumbent on us to hold on to because of the firmness of their handle. The recurrence of the successive eras has not altered them nor the passage of day and night[15]   

 

Ibn al-Ghadhairi said about al-Hasan b. Muhammad b. Yahya also called Ibn Akhi Tahir: 

 

He was a liar. He used to fabricate Hadith openly, claim (to narrate from) strange authorities who are not recognized and depend upon uknown narrators who are not mentioned.

 

The hearts are not assuaged by his transmissions except what he transmits from the books of his grandfather which are also transmitted from him (i.e. his grandfather) by other than him, and also (what he transmits) from one whose authored books are famous[16].

 

He said about Sahl b. Ahmad b. Abdallah b. Sahl al-Dibaji:

 

He was weak. He used to fabricate Hadiths and narrate from the Majahil (unknown).

 

There is no harm in what he transmits of the Ash’athiyat[17] and what is equivalent to it which has been transmitted by other than him[18].

 

He said about al-Hasan b. Asad al-Tafawi al-Basri:

 

He narrates from the weak (narrators) and they (i.e. the weak) narrate from him. He was corrupt in belief. I do not know of him having something in which he has done well except his transmission of the book of Ali b. Ismail b. Shuayb b. Maytham, and this (book) has been transmitted from him (i.e. Ali) by other than him (i.e. al-Hasan)[19].

 

Allama Hilli (d. 726) says in the entry on Ahmad b. Hilal al-Abartai:

 

Ibn al-Ghadhairi held back from accepting his Hadith, except what he narrates from al-Hasan b. Mahbub in his Kitab al-Mashyakha and Muhammad b. Abi Umayr in his Nawadir, for a large number of the Ashab al-Hadith heard these two books (from Ahmad) and depended on him for them[20].   

 

This proves that even though a narrator may be weak, corrupt in belief, a fabricator of Hadith, but if he is transmitting one of the famous books, then that is accepted from him, and he is not repudiated in that relay.

 

This does not mean that there is no role for Rijal at all, as the need for a Rijali evaluation to do with the author of the book and likewise the intermediaries between the author and the Imam remains. The is moreso for books that are not famous (where the transmission path to the book becomes as critical as the upper chain).

 

After all, this is exactly how we deal with the Four Books today. Because they are famous books, any Rijali discussion to do with them is limited only to the narrators between the authors (i.e. Kulayni, Saduq and Tusi) to the Imam (and not the chain from us to the authors).

 

A supporting evidence for this is that the Shaykh (Tusi) may sometimes quote a report from al-Kafi, and the report as found al-Kafi has two chains, one of them is weak as per the terminology of the Muta’akhirin (modernists) while the other is Sahih, so the Shaykh quotes the report with the weak chain[21]. There is no convincing explanation for this other than what we have proposed.

 

Another evidence for this is that when we study the ‘books of Rijal’ we find that the majority of the Tawthiqat (strengthening) and Tadh’ifat (weakening) pertain to authors and compilers[22].

 

If you consider Rijal al-Tusi for example, you will find that approximately 75% of the Tawthiqat and Tadh’ifat have to do with authors. In fact, you will not find the word ‘Thiqa’ before the period of Imam al-Baqir, that is to say, before the beginnings of authorship among the Shia. Likewise, approximately 90% of the Jarh and Ta’dil found in Rijal Ibn al-Ghadhairi has to do with authors.

 

It is because of this that we do not find Tawthiq or Tadh’if for a large number of narrators who were not authors of any books, and whose sole role was as passive transmitters of books authored by others. An example of such a one is Ahmad b. Muhammad b. al-Hasan b. al-Walid from whom Shaykh al-Mufid transmits a lot. Similarly, Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Yahya al-Attar from whom Shaykh al-Saduq transmits prolifically. Another figure is al-Husayn b. al-Hasan b. Aban.

 

The author of al-Ma’alim (d. 1011) said:

 

Them not being referred to in the books of Rijal is not an allusion to a lack of reliance upon them, for the reasons behind that could be manifold, the most evident being that they did not author any books, while most of the books authored by our earlier scholars on the Rijal were limited to discussing authors and providing chains to the transmission of their books[23].   

 

In any case, the utility of this approach (i.e. Bahth al-Fihristi) is to be found in scenarios where a chain to a book is weak as per the technical terminology of Rijal but the book itself is famous, so while the Hadiths in the book are considered Dha’if (weak) as per the methodology of the moderns, what becomes apparent from the approach of the Qudama (early ones) among our scholars – upon whom revolves Jarh and Ta’dil and the acceptance of Hadith and repudiation – is that they are considered Sahih (authentic).

 

Muhaqiq al-Majlisi (d. 1070) said:

 

There is no harm in Wijada (i.e. quoting from a book to which one does not have a chain) if the attribution of the book to its author is established[24].

 

His son the Allama al-Majlisi (d. 1110) said:

 

The manifest position (with regards to Wijada) is the permissibility of acting upon the famous and well-known books whose attribution to their respective authors is certain, like the Four Books and the other famous books (i.e. even if the chain to those books is weak or unavailable)[25].

 

Fadhil al-Khwajui (d. 1173) said:

 

The weakness of the path to the author of a book or an Asl does not harm because of their (i.e. the book’s or the Asl) fame at the point at which someone is quoting from them[26].           

 

The author al-Hadaiq (d. 1186) said in relation to a report quoted by Ibn Idris in the Mustatrafat of his Sarair:

 

The report of Ibn Abi Nasr is Sahih because it is taken (directly) from a famous Asl without intermediary[27].

 

It is because of this that you will find the Qudama deeming the reports in their books to be Sahih and basing this judgment on the fact that they (i.e. the reports) are taken from famous books.

 

al-Saduq says in the preface to Man La Yahdhuruhu al-Faqih:

 

I did not intend (to include) in it as per the intention of the (typical) authors of including all that which they transmit, rather, I intend to include (only) that which I give Fatwa by (i.e. on its basis), and rule as to its Sihha (correctness), and believe to be a Hujja (proof) in that which is between me and my Lord – sanctified is His mention and elevated is His power.

 

And all that which is in it (i.e. my book al-Faqih) is taken from famous books, on which we (the whole Ta’ifa) rely and to which we refer, such as the book of Hariz b. Abdallah al-Sijistani …[28]

 

 He says in al-Muqni:

 

I have authored this book of mine and have entitled it ‘al-Muqni’, so that the one who reads what is in it can be sufficed (from the root q–n–a) by it. I have deleted the chains (to the reports in it) so that carrying it (i.e. the book) does not become burdensome, its memorization does not become difficult, and its reader is not distracted, since what I elucidate in it is found in the Usul (original note-books), (which are) manifestly present (transmitted) on the authority of the Mashayikh, the Ulama, the Fuqaha, the Thiqat – may Allah have mercy on them[29]

 

This is the intent behind the saying of many of our scholars ‘mentioning the chain and paths is only for the sake of benediction and blessing’

 

Muhaqiq al-Majlisi said:

 

What is evident from them (i.e. the practice of the Qudama) is quoting from reliable and famous books. So if the author of the book is Thiqa – the report is considered Sahih. Because giving the chain to a book that is famous and Mutawatir is clearly only for benediction and blessing. Especially if it (the quoting) is from a group who are famous like Fudhayl b. Yasar and Muhammad b. Muslim – may Allah be pleased with them. A defect in the chains to them both does not detract[30].      

 

Shaykh Ahmad Al Ta’an al-Bahrani (d. 1315) said:

 

The pivot of the Qudama, especially the authors of the Four Books, was upon the famous books and reliable Usul. The giving of the chain was for benediction by mentioning the series of narrators and so that no one can presume a disconnection in the report[31].

 

Perhaps this same is alluded to by Shaykh Tusi also when he says at the beginning of the Mashyakha:

 

And now since Allah the Elevated has facilitated the completion of this book (i.e. Tahdhib al-Ahkam), then we will mention the chains through which we transmit these Usul and Musannafat, and we will mention them as briefly as possible, so that the reports can exit the bounds of the Marasil (disconnected) and join up with the category of the Musnadat (fully chained)[32]

 

Then he says at the conclusion:

 

I have presented a number of transmission paths to these Musannafat and Usul. A detailed account of which will require a lengthy commentary, and it is given in the Faharis that have been authored in this regard by the Shuyukh. Whoever wants it takes it from there – if Allah wills. We ourselves have given them comprehensively in the book Fihrist al-Shia[33].     

 

At this juncture we ask: What is the sense in directing (his readers) to look for the transmission path of a book from which the Shaykh narrates in both the Faharis of the Ashab and the Fihrist of the shaykh himself in equal measure?![34]

 

We promptly answer: This is in the sense that the books the Shaykh is quoting from are famous, and the mentioning of the transmission paths to them is only for them (i.e. the reports in them) to be considered among the Masanid (fully-chained reports)[35].  

 

It is from this that one recognizes why we need the Faharis – because it is only through them that we are able to identify the well-known Usul and the famous books.

 

If one were to ask: How can we distinguish the well-known Usul and the famous books (from those that are not) using the Faharis?

 

To answer this question one must acquire an understanding of the statements used by the Shaykh and al-Najashi in their respective Fihrists. For you will find in them – and especially in Fihrist al-Najashi – phrases from which one can discern the fame of a book, in fact some of them are explicit in that regard.

 

We will mention some of these phrases by way of example:

 

(a) He has a book with a lot of transmitters[36]

 

(b) He has book. A large number transmit it from him[37]

 

(c) He has a book. It is transmitted by a number of our companions[38]

 

(d) He has a book with numerous transmissions[39]

 

(e) He has a book. Large numbers of people (or companions) have transmitted it[40]

 

(f) He has a book. More than one has transmitted it[41]   

 

(g) The transmitters of this book are many[42] 

 

(h) He has a book. Transmitters (of it) on his authority are many[43]

 

In the same way, there are certain phrases from which one can discern the lack of fame (of a book). Among them: ‘He has a book. No one transmits it except so-and-so’[44]  

 

Be that as it may, the Qudama among our Ashab before the Shaykh and al-Najashi had eight Faharis:

 

(i) Fihrist of Sa’d b. Abdallah al-Ash’ari (d. 301)[45]

 

(ii) Fihrist of Abdallah b. Ja’far al-Himyari (d. circa 305)[46]

 

(iii) Fihrist of Humayd b. Ziyad al-Naynawai (d. 310)[47]

 

(iv) Fihrist of Muhammad b. Ja’far b. Butta (d. 330)[48]

 

(v) Fihrist of Muhammad b. al-Hasan b. al-Walid (d. 343)[49]

 

(vi) Fihrist of Ibn Qulawayh (d. 368)[50]

 

(vii) Fihrist of Shaykh al-Saduq (d. 381)[51]

 

(viii) Fihrist of Ibn Abdun (d. 423)[52] 

 

These Faharis, and despite their fame, did not reach us unfortunately[53]. Nevertheless, the Shaykh and al-Najashi authored their respective Fihrists and mentioned therein a lot of the books of the Qudama among our Ashab in addition to giving the transmission paths to them. 

 

 

 

A Practical Demonstration

 

Consider the report from al-Kafi reproduced below:

 

عدة من أصحابنا، عن سهل بن زياد، عن أحمد بن محمد بن أبي نصر، عن داود ابن سرحان قال: سمعت أبا عبدالله عليه السلام يقول: أربع لا يخلو منهن المؤمن أو واحدة منهن، مؤمن يحسده وهو أشدهن عليه، ومنافق يقفو أثره، أوعدو يجاهده أوشيطان يغويه

 

A number of our companions – Sahl b. Ziyad – Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Abi Nasr – Dawud b. Sirhan who said:

 

I heard Aba Abdillah عليه السلام saying: A believer is not free of four things or (at least) one of them: A fellow believer who is jealous of him – and this is the hardest of them all on him, a hypocrite who stalks him, an enemy who strives to oppose him, or a devil who tries to deceive him[54].      

 

The conventional approach would consider the report to be weak because of Sahl b. Ziyad in the chain[55].

 

Bahth al-Fihristi may come to a different conclusion. It begins first by identifying the earlier book from which the report originated. The most intiutive answer would be Dawud b. Sirhan, the primary narrator from the Imam.

 

In order to confirm this one needs to look up the entry of this Dawud b. Sirhan in the two Fihrist available to us to establish whether he had a book in the first place or not.

 

Tusi says simply:

 

داود بن سرحان، له كتاب

 

He has a book[56].

 

The next step would be to establish whether this report was originally part of this book or not.

 

There are two evidences that can be adduced towards this end:

 

(i) The same chain (i.e. A number of our companions > Sahl b. Ziyad > Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Abi Nasr > Dawud b. Sirhan) occurs 22 times[57] (apart from the report under discussion) in al-Kafi, spread across different chapters (mostly Fiqhi in nature such as Sawm, Nikah, Talaq etc). This indicates that this is a chain to a book and not instances of oral transmission.

 

(ii) Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Abi Nasr is one of the transmitters of Dawud’s book which is totally consistent with the evidence in al-Kafi. Consider the chain that Tusi gives in his Fihrist to Dawud’s book:

 

أخبرنا به ابن أبي جيد عن ابن الوليد، عن الحسن بن متيل، عن محمد بن الحسين بن أبي الخطاب، عن أحمد بن محمد بن أبي نصر، وابن أبي نجران، عنه

 

Reported it (i.e. the book) to us Ibn Abi Jayyid from Ibn al-Walid from al-Hasan b. Matil from Muhammad b. al-Husayn b. Abi al-Khattab from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Abi Nasr and Ibn Abi Najran from him (i.e. Dawud b. Sirhan)[58]. 

 

The next step would be to establish whether this book was ‘famous’ or not. When we go to the entry of Dawud b. Sirhan in the Fihrist of Najashi we find the following:

 

داود بن سرحان العطار: كوفي، ثقة، روى عن أبي عبد الله، وأبي الحسن عليهما السلام، ذكره ابن نوح، روى عنه هذا الكتاب جماعات من أصحابنا رحمهم الله

 

Dawud b. Sirhan the Perfume-seller

 

Kufan. Thiqa. He narrated from Abi Abdillah and Abi al-Hasan عليهما السلام. This was mentioned by Ibn Nuh. Large numbers of our companions – may Allah have mercy on them – have transmitted this book on his authority[59].

 

Bahth al-Fihristi argues that since the report comes from the ‘famous’ book of Dawud b. Sirhan then any chain to this book is just for ‘benediction and blessing’ and the weakness of Sahl b. Ziyad does not harm the transmission. This is because the book would have long been textually stable even before Kulayni’s time, and the latter could safely quote from his copy of it. Therefore 23 reports in al-Kafi which were previously considered Dhaif will now be considered Sahih.  

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

I hope to have presented an accessible primer to the Bahth al-Fihristi in the English language. Despite this, I myself have serious reservations about this approach and hope to publish a critical rejoinder to it in a future post – God willing.

 

 

 

Footnotes

 

[1] Consider Tusi’s summation of the state of the genre in the introduction to his own Fihrist: “When I saw that a number of the Shaykhs of our sect from among the Ashab al-Hadith had composed a Fihrist of the books of our companions and what they had authored of the Tasanif and transmitted of the Usul, but did not find anyone of them who had been comprehensive in that regard, nor did anyone mention most of them, rather the intention of each one of them was to mention only that which he himself has transmitted personally, and only that which is found in his own private store of books, no one of them undertook to include all of it (what is out there) …”.

 

[2] The earlier death-date (i.e. 450) given by Allama Hilli (d. 726) can be sidelined because of superior internal evidence from the Fihrist of Najashi itself.

 

[3] Najashi’s polemical motive, for example, is clear in his introduction when he declares that his book is written to defend against “the aspersion of a group of our opponents that ‘you do not have predecessors nor any authored works’”. He continues: “This is the statement of one who does not have knowledge concerning the people (i.e. different sects), nor has such a one encountered their reports, known their  stations, and the historical accounts of the people of knowledge (scholars among them), nor has such a one met someone who could enlighten him about that, and there is no proof against us from one who does not know and does not recognize. I have gathered of that what I could, and have not completed it all, because of the loss of a lot of books. I only say this as an (advance) excuse to the one who has received a book which I have not mentioned …”

 

[4] A former student of the Sayyids Khoei and Sistani who currently teaches advanced lessons in the seminary. 

 

[5] Of course they are quick to add that this does not mean that the Qudama did not pay attention to Ilm al-Rijal, rather they combined Rijal with another discipline called Ilm al-Fihrist. Thus you will see that Najashi’s book, and even though it belongs to the genre of Fihrist, does not ignore Rijali evaluations in terms of giving Tawthiq and Tadh’if to authors.      

 

[6] Malakiyan claims that the first Sunni work in this regard dates to the 10th century when Suyuti (d. 911) authored the book entitled Zad al-Masir fi al-Fihrist al-Saghir. He adds: “this is why many a time I have heard from my teacher Sayyid al-Madadi that Allah favoured the Shia with Ilm al-Fihrist”

 

[7] This explains the repeatability of the same chain over and over in the Four Books, because it is a  chain to a ‘book’ containing hundreds of Hadith and not disparate oral relay.

 

[8] He is Shaykh Muhammad Baqir Malakiyan, a teacher at the seminary in Qum specializing in Hadith studies. He has produced critical editions of both Jami’ al-Ruwat of Ardabili as well as the Fihrist of Najashi.  

 

[9] Muhammad Baqir Malakiyan, “Manhaj al-Qudama fi al-Amal bi al-Akhbar wa Dawr al-Faharis Fihi”, al-Ijtihad wa al-Tajdid, 45, (2018): 200-207.

 

[10] There has been much speculation about the meaning of Asl (pl. Usul). Allama Tustari concludes that these were original note-books of Hadith that did not betray any authorial editing such as arrangement, chapterization, or commentary. He bases this on a study of the contents of some of the Usul that have reached us, and also because Usul is always juxtaposed against the Musannafat, that is, works that have undergone Tasnif (authorial editing). See Qamus al-Rijal: Vol. 1, Pg. 65. However, proponents of Bahth al-Fihristi such as Madadi and his students Malakiyan and Arani, see the term as a descriptive attribute of certain books of Hadith containing legal content indicating their fame, acceptedness, reliability and role as reference works. They base this on the fact that a person having an Asl to his name was positively remarked upon, and also because there sometimes arose debate among early scholars about certain books whether they should be considered among the Usul or not (which were finite in number). See Rijal al-Najashi (ed. Muhammad Baqir Malakiyan): Vol. 1, Pgs. 22-24 and Faharis al-Shia: Vol. 1, Pgs. 44-46.       

 

[11] Uddat al-Usul: Vol. 1, Pgs. 126-127

 

[12] Uddat al-Usul: Vol. 1, Pg. 153

 

[13] Much is made of Saduq’s preface to his al-Faqih: “And all that which is in it (i.e. my book al-Faqih) is taken from famous books, on which we (the whole Ta’ifa) rely and to which we refer, such as the book of Hariz b. Abdallah al-Sijistani, the book of Ubaydallah b. Ali al-Halabi, the books of Ali b. Mahziyar al-Ahwazi, the books of al-Husayn b. Sa’id, the Nawadir of Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa, the book Nawadir al-Hikma – authorship of Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Yahya b. Imran al-Ash’ari, the book al-Rahma of Sa’d b. Abdallah, the Jami’ of our Shaykh Muhammad b. al-Hasan b. al-Walid – may Allah be pleased with him, the Nawadir of Muhammad b. Abi Umayr, the books of al-Mahasin of Ahmad b. Abi Abdillah al-Barqi, and the Risala of my father – may Allah be pleased with him – to me, among other books from the Usul and Musanaffat, my Turuq (paths) to which are well known in the Fihris of books which I have transmitted on the authority of my masters and predecessors – may Allah be pleased with them, and I expended utmost efforts in that …” (See Vol. 1, Pg. 3).

 

[14] al-Ihtijaj: Vol. 1, Pg. 14

 

[15] al-Misbah: Pg. 4

 

[16] Majma’ al-Rijal: Vol. 2, Pg. 154

 

[17] The title of a book of Hadith

 

[18] Majma’ al-Rijal: Vol. 3, Pg. 177

 

[19] Majma’ al-Rijal: Vol. 2, Pg. 98

 

[20] Khulasat al-Aqwal: Pg. 202, No. 6

 

[21] Consider for example:

 

(a) al-Kafi: Vol. 4, Pg. 420, Hadith No. 2 and compare it with Tahdhib al-Ahkam: Vol. 5, Pg. 116, Hadith No. 51. The report is evidently taken from the Mashyakha of Ibn Mahbub.

 

(b) al-Kafi: Vol. 6, Pg. 124, Hadith No. 4 and compare it with Tahdhib al-Ahkam: Vol. 8, Pg. 76, Hadith No. 176 (al-Istibsar: Vol. 3, Pg. 303, Hadith No. 4). The report is taken from the book of Ibn Bukayr.

 

(c) al-Kafi: Vol. 7, Pg. 381, Hadith No. 3 and compare it with Tahdhib al-Ahkam: Vol. 6, Pg. 276, Hadith No. 162. The report is taken from the Masail of Ali b. Suwayd. 

 

[22] In fact, the two most important sources for Rijali information we have are Fihrists by genre i.e. the Fihrist of al-Tusi and Fihrist of al-Najashi (misleadingly referred to as Rijal al-Najashi  by most). It is not surprising then to find that most Tawthiqat and Tadhi’ifat available have to do with authors (the subject of these books)   

 

[23] Muntaqa al-Jum’an: Vol. 1, Pgs. 39-40

 

[24] Rawdhat al-Muttaqin: Vol. 1, Pg. 73

 

[25] Mir’at al-Uqul: Vol. 1, Pg. 179

 

[26] al-Rasail al-Fiqhiyya: Vol. 1, Pg. 88

 

[27] al-Hadaiq al-Nadhira: Vol. 5, Pg. 358

 

[28] Man La Yahdhuruhu al-Faqih: Vol. 1, Pgs. 2-3

 

[29] al-Muqni: Pg.  5

 

[30] Rawdhat al-Muttaqin: Vol. 1, Pg. 29. See also: Vol. 1, Pg. 30; Vol. 1, Pg. 133; Vol. 1, Pg. 238; Vol. 1, Pg. 279; Vol. 1, Pg. 297; Vol. 1, Pg. 411; Vol. 2, Pg. 312; Vol. 2, Pg. 692; Vol. 14, Pg. 29; Vol. 14, Pg. 71. 

 

[31] al-Rasail al-Ahmadiyya: Vol. 2, Pg. 98

 

[32] Tahdhib al-Ahkam (al-Mashyakha): Vol. 10, Pg. 5

 

[33] Tahdhib al-Ahkam (al-Mashyakha): Vol. 10, Pg. 88

 

[34] As in, why direct them to refer to the Fahris of the Ashab which contain other Turuq to the book when these aren’t the Turuq that brought down the book to Tusi? He should have only directed them to his own Fihrist and his actual Turuq found therein.

 

[35] Since the books are famous, a particular individual Tariq to the books loses its significance (beyond all the Turuq indicating the fame of the book) and any Tariq that is given is just so that the reports in it are deemed Musnad. 

 

[36] Consider for example Rijal al-Najashi: Entry Nos. 25, 968

 

[37] Rijal al-Najashi: Entry Nos. 24, 27, 28, 31, 32, 36, 50 

 

[38] Rijal al-Najashi: Entry Nos. 173, 228, 361, 365, 366, 373 

 

[39] Rijal al-Najashi: Entry No. 120

 

[40] Rijal al-Najashi: Entry Nos. 297, 302, 328, 418, 420

 

[41] Rijal al-Najashi: Entry No. 432

 

[42] Rijal al-Najashi: Entry No. 105

 

[43] Rijal al-Najashi: Entry No. 582

 

[44] Rijal al-Najashi: Entry Nos. 10, 1125

 

[45] ‘and he has a Fihrist of the books he transmitted’ (Fihrist al-Tusi: Entry No. 316)

 

[46] ‘Fihrist of his books’ (Fihrist al-Tusi: Entry No. 439)

 

[47] ‘Humayd b. Ziyad said in his Fihrist’ (Rijal al-Najashi: Entry No. 615); ‘Humayd said in his Fihrist’ (Rijal al-Najashi: Entry No. 675)  

 

[48] ‘Ibn Butta mentioned him in his Fihrist’ (Rijal al-Najashi: Entry No. 507); ‘in the Fihrist of what he transmits there are many mistakes’ (Rijal al-Najashi: Entry No. 1019)

 

[49] ‘Muhammad b. al-Hasan b. al-Walid mentioned him in his Fihrist’ (Rijal al-Najashi: Entry No. 71)

 

[50] ‘he has a Fihrist of what he transmitted of the books and the Usul’ (Fihrist al-Tusi: Entry No. 141)

 

[51] ‘my paths to them are well-known in the Fihris of the books which I have transmitted on the authority of my Shuyukh and predecessors – may Allah be pleased with them’ (Man La Yahdhuruhu al-Faqih: Vol. 1, Pg. 4; See also Fihrist al-Tusi: Entry No. 300)

 

[52] ‘Ahmad b. Abdun added in his Fihrist’ (Fihrist al-Tusi: Entry No. 7)

 

[53] Shaykh Mahdi Khodamiyyan al-Arani has attempted to collect the traces of what can be sourced back to these eight Faharis extracted from the words of al-Tusi and al-Najashi – may Allah reward him. See his Faharis al-Shia, (Qum: Mu’assasa Turath al-Shia, 1431), 2 vols.   

 

[54] al-Kafi: Vol. 2, Pg. 250, Hadith No. 4

 

[55] al-Najashi says about him ‘he was weak in Hadith, not to be depended upon in it, Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa used to testify as to his Ghulu and lying, he (i.e. Ahmad) exiled him from Qum to Rayy and he (i.e. Sahl) used to reside therein ’ (Rijal al-Najashi: Entry No. 490). al-Tusi says about him ‘as for the first report then its narrator is Sahl b. Ziyad al-Adami and he is extremely weak in the estimation of the Nuqqad (experts) in the reports. Abu Ja’far ibn Babawayh excised him from the men (narrators) of Nawadir al-Hikma’ (al-Istibsar: Vol. 2, Pg. 261, Hadith No. 13)  

 

[56] Fihrist al-Tusi: Entry No. 285

 

[57] See: al-Kafi: Vol. 2, Pg. 14, Hadith No. 2; Vol. 3, Pg. 158, Hadith No. 7; Vol. 4, Pg. 101, Hadith No. 3; Vol. 4, Pg. 176, Hadith No. 2; Vol. 4, Pg. 178, Hadith No. 5; Vol. 4, Pg. 178, Hadith No. 2 (next chapter from the previous); Vol. 4, Pg. 368, Hadith No. 1; Vol. 5, Pg. 137, Hadith No. 2; Vol. 5, Pg. 265, Hadith No. 5; Vol. 5, Pg. 354, Hadith No. 1; Vol. 5, Pg. 384, Hadith No. 2; Vol. 5, Pg. 393, Hadith No. 3; Vol. 5, Pg. 407, Hadith No. 10; Vol. 5, Pg. 426, Hadith No. 1; Vol. 5, Pg. 437, Hadith No. 3; Vol. 5, Pg. 471, Hadith No. 1; Vol. 6, Pg. 90, Hadith No. 2; Vol. 6, Pg. 109, Hadith No. 3; Vol. 6, Pg. 167, Hadith No. 5; Vol. 7, Pg. 350, Hadith No. 5; Vol. 7, Pg. 380, Hadith No. 6; Vol. 7, Pg. 392, Hadith No. 13     

 

[58] Fihrist al-Tusi: Entry No. 285. Saduq’s chain to Dawud in his Mashyakha similarly has Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Abi Nasr as the primary transmitter of the former’s book.

 

[59] Rijal al-Najashi

 

How Rijālīs Know: The Case of al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. FaḍḍālMarch 4, 2022In "Hadith"

 

Are Shia Hadiths Reliable?September 24, 2019In "Hadith"

 

Ali b. Yaqtin: The Imam’s Secret AgentFebruary 20, 2021In "Personalities"

 

 

 

 

 

Previous Post Tusi and the Tahdhibayn (Pt. I)

 

Next Post Sayyid Sīstānī on Why Shīʿa and Sunni hadith differ

 

 

Edited by Hasani Samnani
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Hasani Samnani said:

By continually creating weak hadith tradition, you ignore the other major method of Hadith authentication. But again as self taught sunni mullah, you have much learning to do my child.

This maybe a very difficult concept for you to understand since you have no formal training. Please don't hurt yourself trying to understand concepts you have never heard of.

This well accepted methodology of authentication is what allows written Shia hadith to alwys be infinitely more reliable than the Oral traditions of the AhleSunnah. However when Ahlus sunnah quotea specific hadith , like 60 of your well researched and respected sunni authors do, based on older written traditions,  it has a way of eliminating a single weak hadith , when the proof comes from written transmissions compiled before the weak narrators. Hence the Bayah given was written about when your Sahih Sitta authors were not even born, much less running around the world collecting from the old oral traditions.

The point is that when within a certain narrator chain a single transmitter is considered weak but the tradition has been named in several books first compiled way before the first sunni hadith were written down, they relied on books that had been written way before. Even if someone wanted to change a specific hadith they might , but through the principle of the Bahth al Firsiti, they cannot change all the books written before.

The article below will illuminate you and I am quite sure you have never ever heard of this Hadith science.

 

Studying Shīʿa Hadith and History

 

The Approach to Authenticating Shia Hadith 

 

What is Fihrist? Why Fihrist?

 

Most readers will possess a rudimentary understanding of Rijal (or Ilm al-Rijal), the discipline in which the status of a narrator is studied in order to evaluate whether his reports should be accepted or not.

 

Much less is known about the Faharis (sing. Fihrist) – the name given to works composed by early Shi’i scholars in which they listed the titles of the books (mostly of Hadith) they possess in their libraries, as well as recording how they came to possess said books by giving the transmission paths linking them back to the original authors.

 

The earliest works of this kind, now lost, seem to have served as personal bibliographies, but representatives of a more mature stage of the genre[1] – the Fihrist of Tusi (d. 460) and Najashi (d. after 463[2]) – do survive and exhibit a broader concern[3].

 

A study of their contents reveals an attempt to document most of the authors in the Shia world, highlight some personal details about them, provide an evaluation of their status as narrators, list the titles of books attributed to them, and give chains to these last.  

 

The overwhelming majority of the titles listed in these two Fihrist do not survive, and later scholars have typically scoured them just to find an explicit declaration of Tawthiq (strengthening) or Tadh’if (weakening) of those mentioned therein. That has been the sum all of its utility in authenticating Hadiths. Until now …

The Bahth al-Fihristi

 

A novel approach to the authentication of Shia Hadiths is the one espoused by a leading contemporary scholar in Qum i.e. Ayatullah Sayyid Ahmad Madadi[4] and called the Bahth al-Fihristi. Its proponents claim to have uncovered the previously misunderstood methodology of the Qudama (early scholars) in dealing with the Hadith, which if we are to pursue today will require us to place the Fihrist at center-stage (hence the name)[5].

 

The Bahth al-Fihristi approach takes as its starting point the historical difference between Sunni and Shi’i transmission of Hadith. While Sunni Hadith had a long period where Hadiths were transmitted orally, Shi’i Hadith and from its inception has always been written in nature, with transmission involving the passing down of books of Hadith.

 

It is because of this, proponents argue, that much effort was expended by early Shi’i scholars to collect critical information about the authors of these books and the books themselves in works entitled Fihrist, with the aim of distinguishing between the books of Hadith that were reliable from those that were not.

 

Proponents of this approach see this genre to be the real Shi’i innovation, noting that Sunni activity in this regard is quite late. The oral nature of early Sunni Hadith transmission meant that they concentrated on individual narrators (i.e. Rijal) instead of books (i.e. Fihrist).

 

Shia Hadith transmission proceeded with a student going to an author (a companion) who has written down what he heard from the Imam in a book, and copying the book for themselves, before hearing the contents from the author (Sima’a) or reading it back to them (Qira’a) to safe-guard against errors. The student then obtained a licence (Ijaza) from the author to further transmit the book to the next generation (where  the process was repeated). 

 

The result of this process was that the authors of the later standard compilations (such as the Four Books) had true-copies of the original copies of these earlier books (sometimes multiple true-copies of the same work which they obtained via different routes) when they sat down to compose their own books by selecting, rearranging and subsuming the contents found in what came before.  

 

In other words, when dealing with Shia Hadith as found in later standard compilations (such as the Four Books) we are actually dealing with reports that originate from earlier ‘books of Hadith’, such as those authored by the companions of the Sadiqayn (1st generation works), companions of al-Kadhim and al-Ridha (2nd generation works), and pre-canonical compilations (3rd generational works)[7]. This means that we can, even today, isolate and partially reconstruct the earlier generation works before they were subsumed into later standard compilations.

 

Bahth al-Fihristi seeks first to identify which earlier book a particular Hadith (in the form accessible to us) originates from. The next step is to determine whether the earlier book from which the Hadith derives was widely accepted and became ‘famous’ or not. This is done by referring to descriptive statements by Tusi and Najashi about the book in their respective Fihrist where one can find allusions to whether the book was widely transmitted or not.

 

The crux of the Bahth al-Fihristi approach is the assertion that a particular individual strand to a book becomes superfluous (loses its significance) if the book is ‘famous’. This is because the widespread transmission of a famous book makes the book’s contents textually stable (unalterable). The rationale being that a copyist with sinister motives who transmits an altered version of a ‘famous’ book will be caught out because there are numerous alternative transmissions strands to the same book whose contents have become fixed (the diabolic copyist cannot alter all the ‘versions’ of the book out there).

 

Now the status of the lower intermediaries in the chain of the Hadith (as found in the standard compilations) becomes irrelevant and can be bypassed in any Rijali discussion, since they are in reality just Mashayikh al-Ijaza (passive transmitters) of a ‘famous’ book that is guaranteed to be going back to its author (an early companion). The end result is that a lot of reports that are technically considered Dhaif will become Sahih.

 

The most cogent argument in favour of Bahth al-Fihristi, framed within the context of reconstructing the practice of the Qudama, is given by one of Madadi’s students[8] in a key paper[9] which I translate below before proceeding to critique some of its postulations. 

 

 

 

The Methodology of the Qudama in Acting on the Reports and the Role of the Faharis in that

 

We must give an exposition of the methodology of the Qudama (early scholars) in how they dealt with the reports so that it becomes clear for you the reason behind the authoring of the Faharis by our fellows (i.e. the Imamiyya).

 

So I say – and from Allah Mighty and Majestic do I seek succour:   

 

The Shaykh (al-Tusi) said about the methodology of our fellows – the Imamiyya – and their practice:

 

If one of them gives a Fatwa (ruling) which they do not recognize, they would ask him – from where did you say this?

 

So if he directs them to a well-known book and a famous Asl[10], and if its narrators are Thiqa (trust-worthy) whose Hadith is not rejected, they remain silent and submit to that, accepting his words.

 

This has been their norm and practice from the time of the prophet and those who came after him from the ‘Aimma, and (especially) from the time of al-Sadiq Ja’far b. Muhammad, on whose authority knowledge became widespread and from whom much has been transmitted[11]. 

 

He says in another place:

 

If one of the transmitters narrates a report by Sima’a (having heard it from his source) or Qira’a (heaving read it back to his source) while the other narrates it by Ijaza (merely obtains a license to transmit without Qira’a or Sima’a) then it is incumbent to favour the transmission of the Sami’ (hearer) over the Mustajiz (licensee).

 

Unless the Mustajiz (licensee) is transmitting via his Ijaza (license) a well-known Asl or a famous book in which case this precedence is dropped[12]. 

 

It becomes evident from this that their practice was not to act upon the contents of any report, rather, on a report which appears in a well-known book or a famous Asl[13], and an additional condition is added to this, which is the Wathaqa (trust-worthiness) of the author of the book or the Asl (and the intermediaries between him and the Imam if any).

 

If this proves anything it is that a critical attitude towards chains with regard to famous books is unwarranted.

 

al-Tabrisi (d. after 558) said:

 

We will not attach a chain to most of the reports we include … except what I include on the authority of Abu Muhammad al-Askari – peace be upon him – for it is not equivalent to the rest (of what I include) in terms of fame … this is why I have given its chain …[14] 

 

al-Kaf’ami (d. 905) said:

 

I have collected it (i.e. the contents) from books whose authenticity is assured, (books) which have been made incumbent on us to hold on to because of the firmness of their handle. The recurrence of the successive eras has not altered them nor the passage of day and night[15]   

 

Ibn al-Ghadhairi said about al-Hasan b. Muhammad b. Yahya also called Ibn Akhi Tahir: 

 

He was a liar. He used to fabricate Hadith openly, claim (to narrate from) strange authorities who are not recognized and depend upon uknown narrators who are not mentioned.

 

The hearts are not assuaged by his transmissions except what he transmits from the books of his grandfather which are also transmitted from him (i.e. his grandfather) by other than him, and also (what he transmits) from one whose authored books are famous[16].

 

He said about Sahl b. Ahmad b. Abdallah b. Sahl al-Dibaji:

 

He was weak. He used to fabricate Hadiths and narrate from the Majahil (unknown).

 

There is no harm in what he transmits of the Ash’athiyat[17] and what is equivalent to it which has been transmitted by other than him[18].

 

He said about al-Hasan b. Asad al-Tafawi al-Basri:

 

He narrates from the weak (narrators) and they (i.e. the weak) narrate from him. He was corrupt in belief. I do not know of him having something in which he has done well except his transmission of the book of Ali b. Ismail b. Shuayb b. Maytham, and this (book) has been transmitted from him (i.e. Ali) by other than him (i.e. al-Hasan)[19].

 

Allama Hilli (d. 726) says in the entry on Ahmad b. Hilal al-Abartai:

 

Ibn al-Ghadhairi held back from accepting his Hadith, except what he narrates from al-Hasan b. Mahbub in his Kitab al-Mashyakha and Muhammad b. Abi Umayr in his Nawadir, for a large number of the Ashab al-Hadith heard these two books (from Ahmad) and depended on him for them[20].   

 

This proves that even though a narrator may be weak, corrupt in belief, a fabricator of Hadith, but if he is transmitting one of the famous books, then that is accepted from him, and he is not repudiated in that relay.

 

This does not mean that there is no role for Rijal at all, as the need for a Rijali evaluation to do with the author of the book and likewise the intermediaries between the author and the Imam remains. The is moreso for books that are not famous (where the transmission path to the book becomes as critical as the upper chain).

 

After all, this is exactly how we deal with the Four Books today. Because they are famous books, any Rijali discussion to do with them is limited only to the narrators between the authors (i.e. Kulayni, Saduq and Tusi) to the Imam (and not the chain from us to the authors).

 

A supporting evidence for this is that the Shaykh (Tusi) may sometimes quote a report from al-Kafi, and the report as found al-Kafi has two chains, one of them is weak as per the terminology of the Muta’akhirin (modernists) while the other is Sahih, so the Shaykh quotes the report with the weak chain[21]. There is no convincing explanation for this other than what we have proposed.

 

Another evidence for this is that when we study the ‘books of Rijal’ we find that the majority of the Tawthiqat (strengthening) and Tadh’ifat (weakening) pertain to authors and compilers[22].

 

If you consider Rijal al-Tusi for example, you will find that approximately 75% of the Tawthiqat and Tadh’ifat have to do with authors. In fact, you will not find the word ‘Thiqa’ before the period of Imam al-Baqir, that is to say, before the beginnings of authorship among the Shia. Likewise, approximately 90% of the Jarh and Ta’dil found in Rijal Ibn al-Ghadhairi has to do with authors.

 

It is because of this that we do not find Tawthiq or Tadh’if for a large number of narrators who were not authors of any books, and whose sole role was as passive transmitters of books authored by others. An example of such a one is Ahmad b. Muhammad b. al-Hasan b. al-Walid from whom Shaykh al-Mufid transmits a lot. Similarly, Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Yahya al-Attar from whom Shaykh al-Saduq transmits prolifically. Another figure is al-Husayn b. al-Hasan b. Aban.

 

The author of al-Ma’alim (d. 1011) said:

 

Them not being referred to in the books of Rijal is not an allusion to a lack of reliance upon them, for the reasons behind that could be manifold, the most evident being that they did not author any books, while most of the books authored by our earlier scholars on the Rijal were limited to discussing authors and providing chains to the transmission of their books[23].   

 

In any case, the utility of this approach (i.e. Bahth al-Fihristi) is to be found in scenarios where a chain to a book is weak as per the technical terminology of Rijal but the book itself is famous, so while the Hadiths in the book are considered Dha’if (weak) as per the methodology of the moderns, what becomes apparent from the approach of the Qudama (early ones) among our scholars – upon whom revolves Jarh and Ta’dil and the acceptance of Hadith and repudiation – is that they are considered Sahih (authentic).

 

Muhaqiq al-Majlisi (d. 1070) said:

 

There is no harm in Wijada (i.e. quoting from a book to which one does not have a chain) if the attribution of the book to its author is established[24].

 

His son the Allama al-Majlisi (d. 1110) said:

 

The manifest position (with regards to Wijada) is the permissibility of acting upon the famous and well-known books whose attribution to their respective authors is certain, like the Four Books and the other famous books (i.e. even if the chain to those books is weak or unavailable)[25].

 

Fadhil al-Khwajui (d. 1173) said:

 

The weakness of the path to the author of a book or an Asl does not harm because of their (i.e. the book’s or the Asl) fame at the point at which someone is quoting from them[26].           

 

The author al-Hadaiq (d. 1186) said in relation to a report quoted by Ibn Idris in the Mustatrafat of his Sarair:

 

The report of Ibn Abi Nasr is Sahih because it is taken (directly) from a famous Asl without intermediary[27].

 

It is because of this that you will find the Qudama deeming the reports in their books to be Sahih and basing this judgment on the fact that they (i.e. the reports) are taken from famous books.

 

al-Saduq says in the preface to Man La Yahdhuruhu al-Faqih:

 

I did not intend (to include) in it as per the intention of the (typical) authors of including all that which they transmit, rather, I intend to include (only) that which I give Fatwa by (i.e. on its basis), and rule as to its Sihha (correctness), and believe to be a Hujja (proof) in that which is between me and my Lord – sanctified is His mention and elevated is His power.

 

And all that which is in it (i.e. my book al-Faqih) is taken from famous books, on which we (the whole Ta’ifa) rely and to which we refer, such as the book of Hariz b. Abdallah al-Sijistani …[28]

 

 He says in al-Muqni:

 

I have authored this book of mine and have entitled it ‘al-Muqni’, so that the one who reads what is in it can be sufficed (from the root q–n–a) by it. I have deleted the chains (to the reports in it) so that carrying it (i.e. the book) does not become burdensome, its memorization does not become difficult, and its reader is not distracted, since what I elucidate in it is found in the Usul (original note-books), (which are) manifestly present (transmitted) on the authority of the Mashayikh, the Ulama, the Fuqaha, the Thiqat – may Allah have mercy on them[29]

 

This is the intent behind the saying of many of our scholars ‘mentioning the chain and paths is only for the sake of benediction and blessing’

 

Muhaqiq al-Majlisi said:

 

What is evident from them (i.e. the practice of the Qudama) is quoting from reliable and famous books. So if the author of the book is Thiqa – the report is considered Sahih. Because giving the chain to a book that is famous and Mutawatir is clearly only for benediction and blessing. Especially if it (the quoting) is from a group who are famous like Fudhayl b. Yasar and Muhammad b. Muslim – may Allah be pleased with them. A defect in the chains to them both does not detract[30].      

 

Shaykh Ahmad Al Ta’an al-Bahrani (d. 1315) said:

 

The pivot of the Qudama, especially the authors of the Four Books, was upon the famous books and reliable Usul. The giving of the chain was for benediction by mentioning the series of narrators and so that no one can presume a disconnection in the report[31].

 

Perhaps this same is alluded to by Shaykh Tusi also when he says at the beginning of the Mashyakha:

 

And now since Allah the Elevated has facilitated the completion of this book (i.e. Tahdhib al-Ahkam), then we will mention the chains through which we transmit these Usul and Musannafat, and we will mention them as briefly as possible, so that the reports can exit the bounds of the Marasil (disconnected) and join up with the category of the Musnadat (fully chained)[32]

 

Then he says at the conclusion:

 

I have presented a number of transmission paths to these Musannafat and Usul. A detailed account of which will require a lengthy commentary, and it is given in the Faharis that have been authored in this regard by the Shuyukh. Whoever wants it takes it from there – if Allah wills. We ourselves have given them comprehensively in the book Fihrist al-Shia[33].     

 

At this juncture we ask: What is the sense in directing (his readers) to look for the transmission path of a book from which the Shaykh narrates in both the Faharis of the Ashab and the Fihrist of the shaykh himself in equal measure?![34]

 

We promptly answer: This is in the sense that the books the Shaykh is quoting from are famous, and the mentioning of the transmission paths to them is only for them (i.e. the reports in them) to be considered among the Masanid (fully-chained reports)[35].  

 

It is from this that one recognizes why we need the Faharis – because it is only through them that we are able to identify the well-known Usul and the famous books.

 

If one were to ask: How can we distinguish the well-known Usul and the famous books (from those that are not) using the Faharis?

 

To answer this question one must acquire an understanding of the statements used by the Shaykh and al-Najashi in their respective Fihrists. For you will find in them – and especially in Fihrist al-Najashi – phrases from which one can discern the fame of a book, in fact some of them are explicit in that regard.

 

We will mention some of these phrases by way of example:

 

(a) He has a book with a lot of transmitters[36]

 

(b) He has book. A large number transmit it from him[37]

 

(c) He has a book. It is transmitted by a number of our companions[38]

 

(d) He has a book with numerous transmissions[39]

 

(e) He has a book. Large numbers of people (or companions) have transmitted it[40]

 

(f) He has a book. More than one has transmitted it[41]   

 

(g) The transmitters of this book are many[42] 

 

(h) He has a book. Transmitters (of it) on his authority are many[43]

 

In the same way, there are certain phrases from which one can discern the lack of fame (of a book). Among them: ‘He has a book. No one transmits it except so-and-so’[44]  

 

Be that as it may, the Qudama among our Ashab before the Shaykh and al-Najashi had eight Faharis:

 

(i) Fihrist of Sa’d b. Abdallah al-Ash’ari (d. 301)[45]

 

(ii) Fihrist of Abdallah b. Ja’far al-Himyari (d. circa 305)[46]

 

(iii) Fihrist of Humayd b. Ziyad al-Naynawai (d. 310)[47]

 

(iv) Fihrist of Muhammad b. Ja’far b. Butta (d. 330)[48]

 

(v) Fihrist of Muhammad b. al-Hasan b. al-Walid (d. 343)[49]

 

(vi) Fihrist of Ibn Qulawayh (d. 368)[50]

 

(vii) Fihrist of Shaykh al-Saduq (d. 381)[51]

 

(viii) Fihrist of Ibn Abdun (d. 423)[52] 

 

These Faharis, and despite their fame, did not reach us unfortunately[53]. Nevertheless, the Shaykh and al-Najashi authored their respective Fihrists and mentioned therein a lot of the books of the Qudama among our Ashab in addition to giving the transmission paths to them. 

 

 

 

A Practical Demonstration

 

Consider the report from al-Kafi reproduced below:

 

عدة من أصحابنا، عن سهل بن زياد، عن أحمد بن محمد بن أبي نصر، عن داود ابن سرحان قال: سمعت أبا عبدالله عليه السلام يقول: أربع لا يخلو منهن المؤمن أو واحدة منهن، مؤمن يحسده وهو أشدهن عليه، ومنافق يقفو أثره، أوعدو يجاهده أوشيطان يغويه

 

A number of our companions – Sahl b. Ziyad – Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Abi Nasr – Dawud b. Sirhan who said:

 

I heard Aba Abdillah عليه السلام saying: A believer is not free of four things or (at least) one of them: A fellow believer who is jealous of him – and this is the hardest of them all on him, a hypocrite who stalks him, an enemy who strives to oppose him, or a devil who tries to deceive him[54].      

 

The conventional approach would consider the report to be weak because of Sahl b. Ziyad in the chain[55].

 

Bahth al-Fihristi may come to a different conclusion. It begins first by identifying the earlier book from which the report originated. The most intiutive answer would be Dawud b. Sirhan, the primary narrator from the Imam.

 

In order to confirm this one needs to look up the entry of this Dawud b. Sirhan in the two Fihrist available to us to establish whether he had a book in the first place or not.

 

Tusi says simply:

 

داود بن سرحان، له كتاب

 

He has a book[56].

 

The next step would be to establish whether this report was originally part of this book or not.

 

There are two evidences that can be adduced towards this end:

 

(i) The same chain (i.e. A number of our companions > Sahl b. Ziyad > Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Abi Nasr > Dawud b. Sirhan) occurs 22 times[57] (apart from the report under discussion) in al-Kafi, spread across different chapters (mostly Fiqhi in nature such as Sawm, Nikah, Talaq etc). This indicates that this is a chain to a book and not instances of oral transmission.

 

(ii) Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Abi Nasr is one of the transmitters of Dawud’s book which is totally consistent with the evidence in al-Kafi. Consider the chain that Tusi gives in his Fihrist to Dawud’s book:

 

أخبرنا به ابن أبي جيد عن ابن الوليد، عن الحسن بن متيل، عن محمد بن الحسين بن أبي الخطاب، عن أحمد بن محمد بن أبي نصر، وابن أبي نجران، عنه

 

Reported it (i.e. the book) to us Ibn Abi Jayyid from Ibn al-Walid from al-Hasan b. Matil from Muhammad b. al-Husayn b. Abi al-Khattab from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Abi Nasr and Ibn Abi Najran from him (i.e. Dawud b. Sirhan)[58]. 

 

The next step would be to establish whether this book was ‘famous’ or not. When we go to the entry of Dawud b. Sirhan in the Fihrist of Najashi we find the following:

 

داود بن سرحان العطار: كوفي، ثقة، روى عن أبي عبد الله، وأبي الحسن عليهما السلام، ذكره ابن نوح، روى عنه هذا الكتاب جماعات من أصحابنا رحمهم الله

 

Dawud b. Sirhan the Perfume-seller

 

Kufan. Thiqa. He narrated from Abi Abdillah and Abi al-Hasan عليهما السلام. This was mentioned by Ibn Nuh. Large numbers of our companions – may Allah have mercy on them – have transmitted this book on his authority[59].

 

Bahth al-Fihristi argues that since the report comes from the ‘famous’ book of Dawud b. Sirhan then any chain to this book is just for ‘benediction and blessing’ and the weakness of Sahl b. Ziyad does not harm the transmission. This is because the book would have long been textually stable even before Kulayni’s time, and the latter could safely quote from his copy of it. Therefore 23 reports in al-Kafi which were previously considered Dhaif will now be considered Sahih.  

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

I hope to have presented an accessible primer to the Bahth al-Fihristi in the English language. Despite this, I myself have serious reservations about this approach and hope to publish a critical rejoinder to it in a future post – God willing.

 

 

 

Footnotes

 

[1] Consider Tusi’s summation of the state of the genre in the introduction to his own Fihrist: “When I saw that a number of the Shaykhs of our sect from among the Ashab al-Hadith had composed a Fihrist of the books of our companions and what they had authored of the Tasanif and transmitted of the Usul, but did not find anyone of them who had been comprehensive in that regard, nor did anyone mention most of them, rather the intention of each one of them was to mention only that which he himself has transmitted personally, and only that which is found in his own private store of books, no one of them undertook to include all of it (what is out there) …”.

 

[2] The earlier death-date (i.e. 450) given by Allama Hilli (d. 726) can be sidelined because of superior internal evidence from the Fihrist of Najashi itself.

 

[3] Najashi’s polemical motive, for example, is clear in his introduction when he declares that his book is written to defend against “the aspersion of a group of our opponents that ‘you do not have predecessors nor any authored works’”. He continues: “This is the statement of one who does not have knowledge concerning the people (i.e. different sects), nor has such a one encountered their reports, known their  stations, and the historical accounts of the people of knowledge (scholars among them), nor has such a one met someone who could enlighten him about that, and there is no proof against us from one who does not know and does not recognize. I have gathered of that what I could, and have not completed it all, because of the loss of a lot of books. I only say this as an (advance) excuse to the one who has received a book which I have not mentioned …”

 

[4] A former student of the Sayyids Khoei and Sistani who currently teaches advanced lessons in the seminary. 

 

[5] Of course they are quick to add that this does not mean that the Qudama did not pay attention to Ilm al-Rijal, rather they combined Rijal with another discipline called Ilm al-Fihrist. Thus you will see that Najashi’s book, and even though it belongs to the genre of Fihrist, does not ignore Rijali evaluations in terms of giving Tawthiq and Tadh’if to authors.      

 

[6] Malakiyan claims that the first Sunni work in this regard dates to the 10th century when Suyuti (d. 911) authored the book entitled Zad al-Masir fi al-Fihrist al-Saghir. He adds: “this is why many a time I have heard from my teacher Sayyid al-Madadi that Allah favoured the Shia with Ilm al-Fihrist”

 

[7] This explains the repeatability of the same chain over and over in the Four Books, because it is a  chain to a ‘book’ containing hundreds of Hadith and not disparate oral relay.

 

[8] He is Shaykh Muhammad Baqir Malakiyan, a teacher at the seminary in Qum specializing in Hadith studies. He has produced critical editions of both Jami’ al-Ruwat of Ardabili as well as the Fihrist of Najashi.  

 

[9] Muhammad Baqir Malakiyan, “Manhaj al-Qudama fi al-Amal bi al-Akhbar wa Dawr al-Faharis Fihi”, al-Ijtihad wa al-Tajdid, 45, (2018): 200-207.

 

[10] There has been much speculation about the meaning of Asl (pl. Usul). Allama Tustari concludes that these were original note-books of Hadith that did not betray any authorial editing such as arrangement, chapterization, or commentary. He bases this on a study of the contents of some of the Usul that have reached us, and also because Usul is always juxtaposed against the Musannafat, that is, works that have undergone Tasnif (authorial editing). See Qamus al-Rijal: Vol. 1, Pg. 65. However, proponents of Bahth al-Fihristi such as Madadi and his students Malakiyan and Arani, see the term as a descriptive attribute of certain books of Hadith containing legal content indicating their fame, acceptedness, reliability and role as reference works. They base this on the fact that a person having an Asl to his name was positively remarked upon, and also because there sometimes arose debate among early scholars about certain books whether they should be considered among the Usul or not (which were finite in number). See Rijal al-Najashi (ed. Muhammad Baqir Malakiyan): Vol. 1, Pgs. 22-24 and Faharis al-Shia: Vol. 1, Pgs. 44-46.       

 

[11] Uddat al-Usul: Vol. 1, Pgs. 126-127

 

[12] Uddat al-Usul: Vol. 1, Pg. 153

 

[13] Much is made of Saduq’s preface to his al-Faqih: “And all that which is in it (i.e. my book al-Faqih) is taken from famous books, on which we (the whole Ta’ifa) rely and to which we refer, such as the book of Hariz b. Abdallah al-Sijistani, the book of Ubaydallah b. Ali al-Halabi, the books of Ali b. Mahziyar al-Ahwazi, the books of al-Husayn b. Sa’id, the Nawadir of Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa, the book Nawadir al-Hikma – authorship of Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Yahya b. Imran al-Ash’ari, the book al-Rahma of Sa’d b. Abdallah, the Jami’ of our Shaykh Muhammad b. al-Hasan b. al-Walid – may Allah be pleased with him, the Nawadir of Muhammad b. Abi Umayr, the books of al-Mahasin of Ahmad b. Abi Abdillah al-Barqi, and the Risala of my father – may Allah be pleased with him – to me, among other books from the Usul and Musanaffat, my Turuq (paths) to which are well known in the Fihris of books which I have transmitted on the authority of my masters and predecessors – may Allah be pleased with them, and I expended utmost efforts in that …” (See Vol. 1, Pg. 3).

 

[14] al-Ihtijaj: Vol. 1, Pg. 14

 

[15] al-Misbah: Pg. 4

 

[16] Majma’ al-Rijal: Vol. 2, Pg. 154

 

[17] The title of a book of Hadith

 

[18] Majma’ al-Rijal: Vol. 3, Pg. 177

 

[19] Majma’ al-Rijal: Vol. 2, Pg. 98

 

[20] Khulasat al-Aqwal: Pg. 202, No. 6

 

[21] Consider for example:

 

(a) al-Kafi: Vol. 4, Pg. 420, Hadith No. 2 and compare it with Tahdhib al-Ahkam: Vol. 5, Pg. 116, Hadith No. 51. The report is evidently taken from the Mashyakha of Ibn Mahbub.

 

(b) al-Kafi: Vol. 6, Pg. 124, Hadith No. 4 and compare it with Tahdhib al-Ahkam: Vol. 8, Pg. 76, Hadith No. 176 (al-Istibsar: Vol. 3, Pg. 303, Hadith No. 4). The report is taken from the book of Ibn Bukayr.

 

(c) al-Kafi: Vol. 7, Pg. 381, Hadith No. 3 and compare it with Tahdhib al-Ahkam: Vol. 6, Pg. 276, Hadith No. 162. The report is taken from the Masail of Ali b. Suwayd. 

 

[22] In fact, the two most important sources for Rijali information we have are Fihrists by genre i.e. the Fihrist of al-Tusi and Fihrist of al-Najashi (misleadingly referred to as Rijal al-Najashi  by most). It is not surprising then to find that most Tawthiqat and Tadhi’ifat available have to do with authors (the subject of these books)   

 

[23] Muntaqa al-Jum’an: Vol. 1, Pgs. 39-40

 

[24] Rawdhat al-Muttaqin: Vol. 1, Pg. 73

 

[25] Mir’at al-Uqul: Vol. 1, Pg. 179

 

[26] al-Rasail al-Fiqhiyya: Vol. 1, Pg. 88

 

[27] al-Hadaiq al-Nadhira: Vol. 5, Pg. 358

 

[28] Man La Yahdhuruhu al-Faqih: Vol. 1, Pgs. 2-3

 

[29] al-Muqni: Pg.  5

 

[30] Rawdhat al-Muttaqin: Vol. 1, Pg. 29. See also: Vol. 1, Pg. 30; Vol. 1, Pg. 133; Vol. 1, Pg. 238; Vol. 1, Pg. 279; Vol. 1, Pg. 297; Vol. 1, Pg. 411; Vol. 2, Pg. 312; Vol. 2, Pg. 692; Vol. 14, Pg. 29; Vol. 14, Pg. 71. 

 

[31] al-Rasail al-Ahmadiyya: Vol. 2, Pg. 98

 

[32] Tahdhib al-Ahkam (al-Mashyakha): Vol. 10, Pg. 5

 

[33] Tahdhib al-Ahkam (al-Mashyakha): Vol. 10, Pg. 88

 

[34] As in, why direct them to refer to the Fahris of the Ashab which contain other Turuq to the book when these aren’t the Turuq that brought down the book to Tusi? He should have only directed them to his own Fihrist and his actual Turuq found therein.

 

[35] Since the books are famous, a particular individual Tariq to the books loses its significance (beyond all the Turuq indicating the fame of the book) and any Tariq that is given is just so that the reports in it are deemed Musnad. 

 

[36] Consider for example Rijal al-Najashi: Entry Nos. 25, 968

 

[37] Rijal al-Najashi: Entry Nos. 24, 27, 28, 31, 32, 36, 50 

 

[38] Rijal al-Najashi: Entry Nos. 173, 228, 361, 365, 366, 373 

 

[39] Rijal al-Najashi: Entry No. 120

 

[40] Rijal al-Najashi: Entry Nos. 297, 302, 328, 418, 420

 

[41] Rijal al-Najashi: Entry No. 432

 

[42] Rijal al-Najashi: Entry No. 105

 

[43] Rijal al-Najashi: Entry No. 582

 

[44] Rijal al-Najashi: Entry Nos. 10, 1125

 

[45] ‘and he has a Fihrist of the books he transmitted’ (Fihrist al-Tusi: Entry No. 316)

 

[46] ‘Fihrist of his books’ (Fihrist al-Tusi: Entry No. 439)

 

[47] ‘Humayd b. Ziyad said in his Fihrist’ (Rijal al-Najashi: Entry No. 615); ‘Humayd said in his Fihrist’ (Rijal al-Najashi: Entry No. 675)  

 

[48] ‘Ibn Butta mentioned him in his Fihrist’ (Rijal al-Najashi: Entry No. 507); ‘in the Fihrist of what he transmits there are many mistakes’ (Rijal al-Najashi: Entry No. 1019)

 

[49] ‘Muhammad b. al-Hasan b. al-Walid mentioned him in his Fihrist’ (Rijal al-Najashi: Entry No. 71)

 

[50] ‘he has a Fihrist of what he transmitted of the books and the Usul’ (Fihrist al-Tusi: Entry No. 141)

 

[51] ‘my paths to them are well-known in the Fihris of the books which I have transmitted on the authority of my Shuyukh and predecessors – may Allah be pleased with them’ (Man La Yahdhuruhu al-Faqih: Vol. 1, Pg. 4; See also Fihrist al-Tusi: Entry No. 300)

 

[52] ‘Ahmad b. Abdun added in his Fihrist’ (Fihrist al-Tusi: Entry No. 7)

 

[53] Shaykh Mahdi Khodamiyyan al-Arani has attempted to collect the traces of what can be sourced back to these eight Faharis extracted from the words of al-Tusi and al-Najashi – may Allah reward him. See his Faharis al-Shia, (Qum: Mu’assasa Turath al-Shia, 1431), 2 vols.   

 

[54] al-Kafi: Vol. 2, Pg. 250, Hadith No. 4

 

[55] al-Najashi says about him ‘he was weak in Hadith, not to be depended upon in it, Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa used to testify as to his Ghulu and lying, he (i.e. Ahmad) exiled him from Qum to Rayy and he (i.e. Sahl) used to reside therein ’ (Rijal al-Najashi: Entry No. 490). al-Tusi says about him ‘as for the first report then its narrator is Sahl b. Ziyad al-Adami and he is extremely weak in the estimation of the Nuqqad (experts) in the reports. Abu Ja’far ibn Babawayh excised him from the men (narrators) of Nawadir al-Hikma’ (al-Istibsar: Vol. 2, Pg. 261, Hadith No. 13)  

 

[56] Fihrist al-Tusi: Entry No. 285

 

[57] See: al-Kafi: Vol. 2, Pg. 14, Hadith No. 2; Vol. 3, Pg. 158, Hadith No. 7; Vol. 4, Pg. 101, Hadith No. 3; Vol. 4, Pg. 176, Hadith No. 2; Vol. 4, Pg. 178, Hadith No. 5; Vol. 4, Pg. 178, Hadith No. 2 (next chapter from the previous); Vol. 4, Pg. 368, Hadith No. 1; Vol. 5, Pg. 137, Hadith No. 2; Vol. 5, Pg. 265, Hadith No. 5; Vol. 5, Pg. 354, Hadith No. 1; Vol. 5, Pg. 384, Hadith No. 2; Vol. 5, Pg. 393, Hadith No. 3; Vol. 5, Pg. 407, Hadith No. 10; Vol. 5, Pg. 426, Hadith No. 1; Vol. 5, Pg. 437, Hadith No. 3; Vol. 5, Pg. 471, Hadith No. 1; Vol. 6, Pg. 90, Hadith No. 2; Vol. 6, Pg. 109, Hadith No. 3; Vol. 6, Pg. 167, Hadith No. 5; Vol. 7, Pg. 350, Hadith No. 5; Vol. 7, Pg. 380, Hadith No. 6; Vol. 7, Pg. 392, Hadith No. 13     

 

[58] Fihrist al-Tusi: Entry No. 285. Saduq’s chain to Dawud in his Mashyakha similarly has Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Abi Nasr as the primary transmitter of the former’s book.

 

[59] Rijal al-Najashi

 

How Rijālīs Know: The Case of al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. FaḍḍālMarch 4, 2022In "Hadith"

 

Are Shia Hadiths Reliable?September 24, 2019In "Hadith"

 

Ali b. Yaqtin: The Imam’s Secret AgentFebruary 20, 2021In "Personalities"

 

 

 

 

 

Previous Post Tusi and the Tahdhibayn (Pt. I)

 

Next Post Sayyid Sīstānī on Why Shīʿa and Sunni hadith differ

 

 

Again, stick to the topic akhi. The debate is not over whose science of hadith is superior. The debate is whether ghadeer is a clear proof or not. No need to copy paste long articles as to how shia hadith sciences is better. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Abu Hadi said:

 

I guarantee you that if instead of 'Mawla', the Prophet would have said 'Ali is the Caliph after me', he still would not have accepted it. He would have said either 

1) I don't think the Prophet would use the world 'Caliph' because at the time of Ghadir the institution of Caliphate had not be established. 

2) The word Caliph is not exclusive to one person, so he would have said that there were two caliphs, Abu Bakr and Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) and there is no reason why it couldn't be that way

Don't try to assume what I would say if the prophet clearly said that. Answer the questions asked. No one in this whole world appoint their successor like this. 

 

1 hour ago, Abu Hadi said:

The Ummayads and Abbasids managed to strip away most of the context from Ghadir by recording fake alternate versions that include different text and different context or left out important details. IMHO, there is still enough context left to understand it, but you need to make some effort

That's just your assumption. My assumption is that prophet never said those alleged 'details' which shia try to make us believe. 

 

1 hour ago, Abu Hadi said:

Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) didn't gather thousands of companions at a place with no water, in the midday, in the hot sun, and make them wait and tell those who went ahead to come back to tell everyone

'Hey guys, Ali is my friend

Rasulullah did stop them near water. For your king information ghadeer means pond. At that hot day, they stopped there to replenish. And since the companions fought with ali at yemen. Prophet made his last sermon on taking care of his family and taking ali as his beloved friend. He said do i not have authority over you more than yourselves they said yes, then he said whoever I'm beloved friend ali is his beloved friend, o Allah love  those who love him, hate those who hate him. 

 

1 hour ago, Abu Hadi said:

This is not the way I think of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h). He is more noble, more valiant and more dignified than to do something like that and cause them to suffer and waste their time to tell them something trivial. 

That didn't make sense to me when I first accepted Islam and had mostly Sunni friends (when they tried to explain Ghadir to me) and it still doesn't make sense. I will never accept that about my Prophet(p.b.u.h)

Rasulullah appointing him in such a vague manner that his own companions never understood it, make another guy the ruler and also making the story of ghadeer widespread among people thinking it some kind of a virtue is much more nonsense than this. Prophet was clear in his speech like the sun in the day. It makes absolutely no sense to me as to why sad bin abi waqqas can narrate this in front of muawiya when muawiya criticized ali, while not at the time when they were discussing about caliphate after umar. It is absolutely nonsensical. Shia always boast as to how ghadeer was narrated by 100 of companions, and those companions were the ones who usurped his right. Why the usurpers will go out widespreading the narrations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, sunni muslim said:

Again, stick to the topic akhi. The debate is not over whose science of hadith is superior. The debate is whether ghadeer is a clear proof or not. No need to copy paste long articles as to how shia hadith sciences is better. 

 

This was to show that your arguments regarding weakness of certain traditions was a false dialectic.

I was afraid  it might be too difficult to read and comprehend for you and you have proven and delineated that fear.

I was also afraid that lengthy article might create fear in those with limited language skills.

 

it's ok brother if reading is hard I can send you audio files.

The purpose was to try to create within you a love for knowledge and raise your intellectual level,  but as the saying goes ...

you can bring the horse to water....


 "The capacity to
 learn is a gift ( from our Creator);
 the ability to  learn is a skill;
 the willingness to  learn is a choice."

Edited by Hasani Samnani
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 minutes ago, Hasani Samnani said:

This was to show that your arguments regarding weakness of certain traditions was a false dialectic.

I was afraid  it might be too difficult to read and comprehend for you and you have proven and delineated that fear.

I was also afraid that lengthy article might create fear in those with limited language skills.

 

it's ok brother if reading is hard I can send you audio files.

The purpose was to try to create within you a love for knowledge and raise your intellectual level,  but as the saying goes ...

you can bring the horse to water....


 "The capacity to
 learn is a gift ( from our Creator);
 the ability to  learn is a skill;
 the willingness to  learn is a choice."

I read the entire article which you quoted. It is similar to the shia claiming that since we have 400 usuls that's why shia tradition is superior to sunni oral preservation. Sorry but there are much more reasons that why shia sources are completely unreliable, which is the one of my planned topics which I will start soon inshallah. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
7 hours ago, sunni muslim said:

First of all. He was usamah bin zaid not zaid. And umar was one of the soldiers of the army not abu bakr. 

Ge didn't stopped 100,000 Muslims in the middle of the dessert. That is a very absurd number of people. Rather they were stopped so that they can replenish from the pond. Then they offered salah and then prophet started the khutbah about taking care of ahlul bayt and taking loving ali. And umar did used that as proof of abu bakr's superiority in saqifa. 

There is no proof of that. 

Fine, Usama bin Zayd bin Harith (formerly ibn Muhammad). Point still stands. All sahaba were to go on the expedition so the only way Abu Bakr didn't have to go was if he was not from the sahaba.

So how many people were at Ghadeer? 2?

Can you please find me 1 narration about Saqifah where Umar uses Abu Bakr's leading prayer as proof of eligibility for Caliphate?

The sunnia narrative about 17 prayers breaks down because we hear he was leading prayers but the narrations about the death of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) say that Abu Bakr returned from As-Sunh. And if you dig deep enough, you will find out that he was there with his newly wedded wife.

Still waiting for the Sermon of Ghadeer...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Fine, Usama bin Zayd bin Harith (formerly ibn Muhammad). Point still stands. All sahaba were to go on the expedition so the only way Abu Bakr didn't have to go was if he was not from the sahaba.

Simple, the prophet didn't command every single companion to go fight romans. Abu bakr was there leading the prayer. 

 

1 hour ago, ShiaMan14 said:

So how many people were at Ghadeer? 2?

I didn't see any narrations regarding that. But 100000 is an absurd number since only Muslims who were returning to madina were there. 

 

1 hour ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Can you please find me 1 narration about Saqifah where Umar uses Abu Bakr's leading prayer as proof of eligibility for Caliphate?

Sure. 

It was narrated that Rafi' atTaʼi, Abu Bakrʼs companion during the campaign of as-Salasil, said:

I asked him about how they came to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr and he said - when telling him about what the Ansar said and what Abu Bakr said to them and what `Umar bin al-Khattab said to the Ansar when he reminded them that he had led them in prayer on the instructions of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) when he was sick They swore allegiance to me because of that and I Accepted it from them, but I was concerned that there would be turmoil that would lead to apostasy,

حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ عَيَّاشٍ، حَدَّثَنَا الْوَلِيدُ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ، قَالَ أَخْبَرَنِي يَزِيدُ بْنُ سَعِيدِ بْنِ ذِي، عَصْوَانَ الْعَنْسِيُّ عَنْ عَبْدِ الْمَلِكِ بْنِ عُمَيْرٍ اللَّخْمِيِّ، عَنْ رَافِعٍ الطَّائِيِّ، رَفِيقِ أَبِي بَكْرٍ فِي غَزْوَةِ السُّلَاسِلِ قَالَ وَسَأَلْتُهُ عَمَّا قِيلَ مِنْ بَيْعَتِهِمْ فَقَالَ وَهُوَ يُحَدِّثُهُ عَمَّا تَكَلَّمَتْ بِهِ الْأَنْصَارُ وَمَا كَلَّمَهُمْ بِهِ وَمَا كَلَّمَ بِهِ عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ الْأَنْصَارَ وَمَا ذَكَّرَهُمْ بِهِ مِنْ إِمَامَتِي إِيَّاهُمْ بِأَمْرِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي مَرَضِهِ فَبَايَعُونِي لِذَلِكَ وَقَبِلْتُهَا مِنْهُمْ وَتَخَوَّفْتُ أَنْ تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ تَكُونُ بَعْدَهَا رِدَّةٌ‏.‏

Grade: Sahih. Its isnad is jayyid 

1 hour ago, ShiaMan14 said:

The sunnia narrative about 17 prayers breaks down because we hear he was leading prayers but the narrations about the death of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) say that Abu Bakr returned from As-Sunh.

Prophet didn't passed away at the time of any fardh prayer. 

Edited by sunni muslim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Cool said:

He literally disobeyed the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), caused him to show anger. He was deliberately hesitant to obey the command of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) to go with Jesh e Usama. 

False. Prophet never commanded him to go with jesh e usama. There is a narration which says this which is tarikh ibn asakir but that is shadh, mutawatir hadeeth says that prophet commanded him to lead the prayer. 

 

11 minutes ago, Cool said:

Not only this, if you go through the asbab e nazool of last verse of Sura e Jumma, you will find the names of two mentioned in their with among 12 who stayed with Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and never left him standing in prayers

That is their virtue. You don't even know what the you are quoting. 

 

11 minutes ago, Cool said:

just like they used to mention their names in the battle of Uhad with those who stayed with Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) & never ran away from the battlefield

Sorry to break your heart again. All the narrations which says Abu bakr and umar fled are all weak and in contrast there are authentic narrations which says Abu bakr and umar were among the 12 people who stayed with the prophet. Uthman fled from uhud, but guess what, ammar bin yasir also fled from the battlefield. Bang. 

Edited by sunni muslim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

@Hasani Samnani, see brother the tru virtue of these two. They not only ran away from battlefield but also from the mosque. 

You see Chapter Jumma was revealed at Madina. How many Muslims would be there in the mosque while Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was delivering the sermon. Suddenly a trade caravan came and all the companions rushed towards that caravan except 12, leaving Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) standing. 

Do you know what Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said when they all left him standing? 

He (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said if these 12 were not stayed here, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) rains fire on Madina.

The way they have put the names of Abu Bakr & Umar in that narration is quite similar to that where they named the two never ran away from Uhud. :hahaha:

What a virtue!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Cool said:

@Hasani Samnani, see brother the tru virtue of these two. They not only ran away from battlefield but also from the mosque. 

You see Chapter Jumma was revealed at Madina. How many Muslims would be there in the mosque while Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was delivering the sermon. Suddenly a trade caravan came and all the companions rushed towards that caravan except 12, leaving Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) standing. 

Do you know what Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said when they all left him standing? 

He (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said if these 12 were not stayed here, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) rains fire on Madina.

The way they have put the names of Abu Bakr & Umar in that narration is quite similar to that where they named the two never ran away from Uhud. :hahaha:

What a virtue!!

The narration says that everyone ran towards the caravan except 12 and Abu bakr and umar were among those 12. Try again 

Edited by sunni muslim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

And Umar was the one who doubted on Prophet s a w at the time of Sulah e Hudaybiyyah? 

Umar was the one who, at the time of his death, expressed desire to pay ransom for getting rid of torment of hell?

And Umar was the person who called the Hudayfah and asked from him whether his name is among the names of munafiqeen or not??

Now lets see some verses:

يُنَادُونَهُمْ أَلَمْ نَكُنْ مَعَكُمْ ۖ قَالُوا بَلَىٰ وَلَٰكِنَّكُمْ فَتَنْتُمْ أَنْفُسَكُمْ وَتَرَبَّصْتُمْ وَارْتَبْتُمْ وَغَرَّتْكُمُ الْأَمَانِيُّ حَتَّىٰ جَاءَ أَمْرُ اللَّهِ وَغَرَّكُمْ بِاللَّهِ الْغَرُورُ {14}

[Shakir 57:14] They will cry out to them: Were we not with you? They shall say: Yea! but you caused yourselves to fall into temptation, and you waited and doubted, and vain desires deceived you till the threatened punishment of Allah came, while the archdeceiver deceived you about Allah.

فَالْيَوْمَ لَا يُؤْخَذُ مِنْكُمْ فِدْيَةٌ وَلَا مِنَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا ۚ مَأْوَاكُمُ النَّارُ ۖ هِيَ مَوْلَاكُمْ ۖ وَبِئْسَ الْمَصِيرُ {15}

[Shakir 57:15] So today ransom shall not be accepted from you nor from those who disbelieved; your abode is the fire; it is your friend and evil is the resort.

Those who think that Mowla means friend will be receive fire as their Mowla in hereafter هِيَ مَوْلَاكُمْ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, sunni muslim said:

is similar to the shia claiming that since we have 400 usuls that's why shia tradition is superior to sunni oral preservation

It seems like the mantaq behind this statement is self explanatory.

2 hours ago, Cool said:

The way they have put the names of Abu Bakr & Umar in that narration is quite similar to that where they named the two never ran away from Uhud. :hahaha:

What a virtue!!

I often wonder if in Sura AR Rahman 

when the ayat is repeatedly proclaimed....

﴿فَبِأَيِّ آلَاءِ رَبِّكُمَا تُكَذِّبَانِ﴾
[ الرحمن: 61]

So which of the favors of your Lord would you ( two)  deny?

now most mufaseyreen mean the Two being addressed as Jinnat and Insaan.

could it Also pertain to these Two who denied so many favors of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

And on so many occasions were caught in fear in caves, running away from battles, when sisters like umm ummarah stayed and fought like a lioness,  until becoming unconscious from her many wounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, sunni muslim said:

Prophet didn't passed away at the time of any fardh prayer. 

Uhhhhh salaat is 5 times a day , are you quite sure about your statement or are you confabulating.

2 hours ago, sunni muslim said:

All the narrations which says Abu bakr and umar fled are all weak and in contrast there are authentic narrations which says Abu bakr and umar were among the 12 people who stayed with the prophet.

 

Uthman fled from uhud,

"Welllll isn't that conveeeeenient "

Dana Carvey as church lady

I guess 2 out of 3 is not bad.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, Muslim2010 said:
10 hours ago, Cool said:

I like to add the following as presented / posted in this thread extended on 7 pages:

Thanks for this excellent summarization, and Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) bless you for taking time to bring such people out of darkness and into the light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

This thread proves the saying of Imam Ali((عليه السلام)), 'There is enough light for those who wish to see'. The reverse is also true, that there is not enough light in the universe for those who don't wish to see. 

I guarantee you that if

So true in this case.

4 hours ago, sunni muslim said:
4 hours ago, Cool said:

 

The narration says that everyone ran towards the caravan except 12 and Abu bakr and umar were among those 12.  

You seem to make many statements, and unlike my brothers,  you never provide any clear proof.

5 hours ago, sunni muslim said:

All the narrations which says Abu bakr and umar fled are all weak and in contrast there are authentic narrations which says Abu bakr and umar were among the 12 people who stayed with the prophet

I dare you to find a authentic narration that said that Umar stayed,  he was the one being taunted,while having fled up the mountain , by Abu Sufyan.

Imam Ali, Abu Djana( who protected our Nabi with his own body as a human shield and was subsequently martyred. Umm Umara( Nusayba) and brave momina who suffered 13 wounds and lost a lot of blood and  consciousness,  and when she woke up , the first thing she asked was how was our Nabi.

7 meccans sahaba and 7 Ansar

And you dare slander Ammar e Yasir,  who sacrificed so much for Islam. His mother was the first Shohadaa among the women.

May Allah provide you a just definitive and decision for such words. The true hadiths regarding his character are too numerous to list. Have you no fear of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

Fear Allah, his wrath is often more painful for those who had a chance at guidance and turned away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 8/18/2022 at 9:07 PM, sunni muslim said:

You didn't understand the hadith. The hadith says if he would have taken a khaleel besides Allah, he would have taken abu bakr. Not ali. It is a superior merit than manzila and ghadeer combined. 

Salam You have not provided chain of your hadith because you can't prove it's authencity of it because it's a Wahid (single) narration from a weak chain of narrators in opposition to Mutawatir & authentic hadith of Ghadeer which also according to chain of this hadith , it has been said by prophet Muhammad (pbu) when he has been in his death bed few days before tragedy of Thursday which according to Umar the second caliph , prophet has been affected by pain & illness so his words in those days for bringing "Pen & paper" & in similar fashion your hadith about superior merit of Abubakr  have been nonsense of an ill person  , which Sunnah.com has not mentiond grading of it so therefore your personal grading of it as Sahih is void ,so therefore if you consider this unauthentic weak hadith  as superior merit of Abubakr so then rest of merits of Abubakr & Umar & Uthman have no value for anyone .

Quote

”Ibn ‘Abbas used to say, "It was a great disaster that their quarrel and noise prevented Allah’s Apostle from writing a statement for them.

لما حضر النبي وفي البيت رجال فيهم عمر قال النبي: هلم أكتب لكم كتاباً لاتضلون بعده. قال عمر: إن النبي قد غلب عليه الوجع وعندكم القرآن ، فحسبنا كتاب الله...

. .

The above tradition can also be found in Sahih Muslim, Chapter of "Kitabul-Wasiyyah”in section "Babut-Tarkil-Wasiyyah", 1980 Edition, Arabic version (Saudi Arabia), v3, p1259, Tradition (#1637/22).

 

As you see in the above traditions, the Prophet (S) was accused of talking no sense by an opposition group among the companions whose leader was Umar.

Quote

In the above tradition, Ibn Abbas mentioned Umar and his company prevented Prophet from writing his will which could prevent people from going astray after him. So the conclusion from the above tradition is that the writing it did NOT take place. In the following tradition, however, Sa’id Ibn Jubair alleged that the Prophet said three things but he has forgotten the third one which was beneficial for Muslims:

Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 4.393

https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia/tragedy-thursday

which by looking at chain of narrators 

أَبِي شَيْبَةَ has narrated attack of Umar to lady Fatima (عليه السلام) so therefore is a weak narrator accrding to you .

Two persons  have been mentioned as إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ  which one of them  has been a trustwothy agent & judge of Abbasids who believed to "creation of Quran" which he arrested Ahmad ibn Hanbal then sent him to court of Mamun the Abbasid king for rejection of "creation of Quran" so therefore he is too weak narrator for both of Sunnis & Shias 

https://fa.wikifeqh.ir/اسحاق_بن_ابراهیم

another إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ  has been  a shia scholars by title of Ibn Wahab which has believed to appointing Amir al Muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as successor of prophet Muhammad (pbu) in day of Ghadeer so therefor he is a weak narrator for you. 

Quote

Many scholars namely Taha Husayn and 'Ali Hasan 'Abd al-Qadir recognized and endorsed Ibn Wahb as Shi'a.

Family

His ancestors, were official scribes of 'Abbasi caliphs since the time of Yazid b. Abi Sufyan in Damascus until 3rd/9th century in Baghdad. His ancestors are as follows: Ishaq b. Ibrahim b. Sulayman b. Wahb b. Sa'id b. 'Amr b. Hasin b. Qays b. Qabbal.

His grandfather, Sulayman was the prime minister of two 'Abbasi caliphs, Muhtadi and Mu'tamid. His father, Ibrahim lived until 264/877-8. It is reported that 'Abbasi caliph confiscated the properties of Ibrahim, Ibn Wahb's father, his grandfather Sulayman and his uncle Wahb.

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Ibn_Wahb

 زَكَرِيَّاءُ بْنُ عَدِيٍّ is a coomon sunni narrator that his narrations are neither  strong nor weak .

https://www.alim.org/hadith/sahih-bukhari/4/55/2745/

https://sunnah.com/muslim:330c

عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو is unknown which if it means Ubayd Allah ibn Umar ibn Khattab so then he has been too  weak because of his enmity with Amir al muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام)  which has been slained in battle of Siffin as commander of elite battalion of cursed Muawiah.

Quote

Ubayd Allah ibn Umar ibn al-Khattab (Arabic: عبيد الله بن عمر بن الخطاب, romanized: ʿUbayd Allāh ibn ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb; died summer 657) was a son of Caliph Umar (r. 634–644). His killing of Hormuzan, whom he suspected of involvement in his father's assassination in 644, and his pardon by Caliph Uthman (r. 644–656) was opposed by Ali, the cousin of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. When Ali became caliph in 656, he refused Ubayd Allah's appeal to uphold Uthman's pardon, prompting Ubayd Allah to defect to Ali's principal enemy, the governor of Syria Mu'awiya ibn Abi Sufyan. The latter made Ubayd Allah a commander of his elite battalion at the Battle of Siffin, where he was slain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubayd_Allah_ibn_Umar

زَيْدِ بْنِ أَبِي أُنَيْسَةَ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ مُرَّةَ،  which both of them have narrated Hadith of Ghadir which are Thiqa according to both of Sunnnis & Shias nevertheless you single handly denied authencity of anyone who has narrated Hadith of Ghadir so therefore they are weak accoding to you .

عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ الْحَارِثِ النَّجْرَانِيِّ which in some sources it has been mentionted that he  hasn supported uprising of martyr Muslim ibn Aqil (رضي الله عنه) against cursed Yazid which عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ الْحَارِثِ النَّجْرَانِيِّ has been martyred by cursed Ibn Ziad for uprising against cursed Zyad in support of martyr Muslim ibn Aqil (رضي الله عنه) which in another report by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani he has been mentioned as appointed judge by ibn Zubair which at the end has been killed due to poisoning.

https://fa.wikifeqh.ir/ابومحمد_عبدالله_بن_حارث_نوفلی_هاشمی

Quote

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ، وَإِسْحَاقُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، - وَاللَّفْظُ لأَبِي بَكْرٍ - قَالَ إِسْحَاقُ أَخْبَرَنَا وَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا زَكَرِيَّاءُ بْنُ عَدِيٍّ، عَنْ عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو، عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ أَبِي أُنَيْسَةَ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ مُرَّةَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ الْحَارِثِ النَّجْرَانِيِّ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي جُنْدَبٌ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَبْلَ أَنْ يَمُوتَ بِخَمْسٍ وَهُوَ يَقُولُ ‏ "‏ إِنِّي أَبْرَأُ إِلَى اللَّهِ أَنْ يَكُونَ لِي مِنْكُمْ خَلِيلٌ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ تَعَالَى قَدِ اتَّخَذَنِي خَلِيلاً كَمَا اتَّخَذَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ خَلِيلاً وَلَوْ كُنْتُ مُتَّخِذًا مِنْ أُمَّتِي خَلِيلاً لاَتَّخَذْتُ أَبَا بَكْرٍ خَلِيلاً أَلاَ وَإِنَّ مَنْ كَانَ قَبْلَكُمْ كَانُوا يَتَّخِذُونَ قُبُورَ أَنْبِيَائِهِمْ وَصَالِحِيهِمْ مَسَاجِدَ أَلاَ فَلاَ تَتَّخِذُوا الْقُبُورَ مَسَاجِدَ إِنِّي أَنْهَاكُمْ عَنْ ذَلِكَ ‏"‏ ‏.‏

Jundub reported: I heard from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) five days before his death and he said: I stand acquitted before Allah that I took any one of you as friend, for Allah has taken me as His friend, as he took Ibrahim as His friend. Had I taken any one of my Ummah as a friend, I would have taken Abu Bakr as a friend. Beware of those who preceded you and used to take the graves of their prophets and righteous men as places of worship, but you must not take graves as mosques; I forbid you to do that.

Sahih Muslim 532
https://sunnah.com/muslim:532


Reference     : Sahih Muslim 532
In-book reference     : Book 5, Hadith 28
USC-MSA web (English) reference     : Book 4, Hadith 1083
  (deprecated numbering scheme)

https://sunnah.com/muslim:532

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 8/18/2022 at 9:11 PM, sunni muslim said:

Nope. Ghadeer is authentic. Shia just use weak and fabricated narrations with the authntic narrations of ghadeer in order to dramatize the incident. They will say angels were celebrating and what not. 

Dermatizing incident doesfroghtening of Shaitan from Umar or revealing verses of Quran in favor of of Umar in his oppositions with prophet Muhammad (pbu) .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 8/18/2022 at 9:07 PM, sunni muslim said:

Indeed, wahabis are wrong in understanding of this hadith. I'm a sunni hanafi not a wahabi. 

Salam you have not mentioned that your Deobandi or Barelvi which Deobandies are very near too Wahabists rather than Barelvis which in similar fashion of Wahabists you have denied Imamate & succession of amir Al muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام) in Ghadeer Khum.

Quote

The main difference between Wahabi and Deobandi is on the doctrine of taqlid

 

Quote

 the Hanafi sect is divided further into two sects. Deobandi and Barelvi. Both originated from the Indian subcontinent. Currently, the Deobandi school of thought is prevalent primarily in Pakistan and Afghanistan. 

 

Quote

image.png.7fc0050501adaea26d212c9701817b97.png

https://islaminsight.org/2020/06/04/wahhabism-pure-islam-or-extremism-major-differences-between-the-hanafi-wahabi-ahle-hadith-by-maulana-muhammad-yousuf-ludhianvi-shaheed/

Difference between Deobandi, and Wahabi

Deobandism’s founders, Rashid Ahmad Gangohi and Qasim Nanautavi were inspired by Wahhabism and Ibn Abdul Wahhab. They adopted Wahhabi theology and mixed it with Hanafi legal practice. The beliefs of Wahhabis, which oppose Sunni-Sufi practices such as Milad, Urs, etc. and beliefs such as Nur Muhammadiyya (light of Muhammad (SAAW)), the intercession of Muhammad (SAAW), universal knowledge of Muhammad (SAAW) which is from God, and others were adopted by the Deobandis. The main difference between Wahabi and Deobandi is on the doctrine of taqlid. taqlīd

https://nazuksuratehaal.com/who-are-deobandi-difference-between-deobandi-barelvi-and-wahabi/amp/

Quote

BARAILWIYYAT:- Barailwis are also Ahlussunnah Wal Jamaa’ah and they too follow the Hanafi School of thought. This group is connected to an institution in a place called Barailee. There respected Alim is Moulana Ahmad Radaa Khan Sahib. He also opposed some innovations but practically took part in them. He did not play a big role in trying to eradicate the innovations; rather, he merely claimed to have love for Allah and Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) and the pious saints. He went so deep in this that he finally uttered such things which were not permissible and were against the Islamic believes e.g. Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) is the knower of the unseen and he is Mukhtar’e Kul (he had the authority and rights to do what ever he desired) , He use to present himself at the graves of the pious saints and take vows on there names and so on. When the Ulama of Deoband stood up against them in these matters, the Barailwees labelled them as the enemies of Allah and his Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam), and sometimes labelled them as the “WAHABEES”.

https://islamqa.org/hanafi/askimam/15964/what-is-the-difference-between-deobandis-wahabis-and-barelvies-in-the-indian-subcontinent-please-give-a-detailed-reply-to-this-and-how-did-they-originate/

Difference Between Sunni and Wahabi

Quote

1. Wahabi Muslims are followers of Muhammad ibne Abdul wahab present in the 18th century in Saudi Arabia whereas Sunni Muslims are followers of Prophet Muhammad and his companions.

2. Sunni Muslims believe in intercession and mysticism whereas Wahabis call them as deviants and wrongful innovations in Islam.

3. Sunni Muslims strictly follow one of the four schools of thoughts or madhabs of fiqah or Islamic jurisprudence whereas Wahabis follow their sheikh.

4. Wahabis do not observe annual Sufi festivals, events or the birthday of Prophet Muhammad.

5. Sunni Muslims wear charms and believe in healing powers unlike Wahabi beliefs like visiting tombs or shrines of saints.



Read more: Difference Between Sunni and Wahabi | Difference Between http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-sunni-and-wahabi/#ixzz7cUSJPQ8X

https://maindifference.net/difference-between-sunni-and-wahabi/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 8/18/2022 at 8:53 PM, sunni muslim said:

Sure, here it is. 

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ، وَإِسْحَاقُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، - وَاللَّفْظُ لأَبِي بَكْرٍ - قَالَ إِسْحَاقُ أَخْبَرَنَا وَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا زَكَرِيَّاءُ بْنُ عَدِيٍّ، عَنْ عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو، عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ أَبِي أُنَيْسَةَ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ مُرَّةَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ الْحَارِثِ النَّجْرَانِيِّ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي جُنْدَبٌ 

The chain is authentic. 

I have provided enough refutation about unauthenthicity of chain which only جُنْدَبٌ is enough for refuting authencity of it  although existance of weak narrators & enemies of Amir al Muminin Imam ali (عليه السلام) in chain of narration which جُنْدَبٌ   which  Samara ibn Jundab one of elite  supporters of cursed Muawaih which by order of cursed Muawyah ,he has fabricated a hadith in favor of Ibn  Muljam the killer of  Amir Al mumini Imam Ali (عليه السلام) also bease on some reports he has sold wine during caliphate of Umar the second sunni caliph which due that  Umar has cursed him which Wahabists  has praised him in similar fashion of Khalid ibn Walid for praticipating in conquest of Iran which surly you will say Iranian shias will reject him due to this action. 

Quote

As for the story of Samara ibn Jundab, Abu Ja'far al-Iskafi, teacher of Ibn Abi al-Hadid, says: Mu'awiyah gave Samara one hundred thousand drachmas to cite the following narration for the people in the name of the Prophet: "The verses 'And among men is he whose speech about the life of this world causes you to wonder, and he calls on Allah to witness as to what is in his heart, yet he is the most violent of adversaries. And when he turns back, he runs along in the land that he may cause mischief in it and destroy the tilth and the stock, and Allah does not love mischief-making.' 353 are descended about 'Ali and the verse: 'Among men is he who sells himself to seek the pleasure of Allah' 354 is descended about Ibn Muljam, the killer of 'Ali."

 

Quote

Samara ibn Jundab was one of those who agreed to co-operate with Mu'awiyah and carry out his order. His reward was the deputyship of the governor of Basra. In addition to his wicked deeds in the past, he started a terrible massacre in that city.

 

Quote

At-Tabari writes: Ibn Sirin, well-known scholar, was asked: "Did Samara ibn-Jundab kill anyone at all?" He answered: "Could those who were killed by him be counted at all? Once Ziyad on going to Kufah, chose Samara and his deputy, and when he returned after six months, Samara had killed eight thousand innocent people! It is said that one morning he killed forty-seven men all of whom were memorizes of the Qur'an."356

https://www.shiavault.com/books/the-role-of-aisha-in-the-history-of-islam-volume-3/chapters/14-tradition-making-or-a-cover-for-inferiority-complexes/

 

Quote

He may have led the funeral prayers for Sajah, the one time self-proclaimed prophetess who opposed Medina during the Ridda wars before submitting to Islam and settling in Basra.[11] Samura remained in office at the time of Ziyad's death in August/September 673 and was kept in the post by Mu'awiya for six or eighteen months afterward.[12] He was replaced by Abd Allah ibn Amr ibn Ghaylan.[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samura_ibn_Jundab

Quote

Samra ibn Jundab

Samura ibn Jundab al-Fazārī was a companion of the Islamic prophet Muhammad who fought at the Battle of Uhud in 627 and later participated in the Muslim conquest of Iran in the 630s–640s. In 670–673 he served as the lieutenant governor of Basra under Ziyad ibn Abihi, the supreme governor of Iraq and the eastern Umayyad Caliphate. During his deputy rule over Basra, he is held by the Islamic traditional sources to have ordered wide-scale executions of Kharijites in his jurisdiction. He remained governor of Basra under the Umayyad caliph Mu'awiya I for six to eighteen months after Ziyad's death in August/September 673 until the Caliph replaced him.

https://www.spectroom.com/1022508798-samra-ibn-jundab

Quote

As for the rule “One should not harm himself, nor should he harm others”, Zurarah has reported Imam Baqir (عليه السلام) as saying: “Samara ibn Jundab had a date-palm tree in the orchard of a man from the Ansar. The house of the Ansari man was in the front part of the orchard. Samara used to enter the orchard without getting permission. The man asked him to get permission before entering the orchard, but Samara paid no attention. The man complained about that to the Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) who ordered Samara to get permission before entering the orchard. Samara still refused to comply.

The Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) asked him to sell the orchard, but Samara was not ready to sell it even. The Holy prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said: ‘There shall be a tree for you in paradise for this tree.’ Samara did not accept the offer. The Holy Prophet told the Ansari man to uproot the tree in compliance with ‘One should not harm himself (intendedly), nor should he harm others.’

In certain traditions, we read: “go, uproot the tree and throw it to its owner.”5

Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) has been reported as saying: “There is no faith to one whose neighbor is not safe from his evils.”6

 

Hadith & its Corruption/ Fabrication -ARTICLES / BOOKS

As a result, we have agreed upon, even we were somehow different at the beginnings, that the Sunni respected Abu Hurayra, Samara bin Jundub, al-Magheera, Mu’awiya, Amr bin al-Aass, Marwan bin al-Hakam and the likes because they (the Sunni) sanctified the prophet (s) and those, who were among the prophet’s companions. At the same time we criticized them just to sanctify the prophet and his Sunna just like an open minded, who understood the meaning of holiness and greatness.

Quote

The second word concerned Abu Hurayra, Samara bin Jundub al-Fazari and Abu Mahthoora al-Jumahi, whom the Prophet warned one day by saying: “The last of you to die will be in Hell.”[400]

 

Quote

One word remained that was said by ibn Abdul Birr about this warning concerning these three men. He said in his book al-Istee’ab about Samara bin Jundub: “He died in Basra during the reign of Mu’awiya in fifty-eight of hijra. He fell into a pot full of hot water, which he was to sit on as treatment because he suffered from bad tetanus, and died. That confirmed the Prophet’s saying to him, Abu Hurayra and to a third one with them: “The last of you to die will be in (fire) Hell.”

https://www.islamic-laws.com/sunnihadithcor.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

 

Quote

The second word concerned Abu Hurayra, Samara bin Jundub al-Fazari and Abu Mahthoora al-Jumahi, whom the Prophet (S.) warned one day by saying: “The last of you to die will be in Hell.”5

Refer to al-Issaba and al-Istee’ab (biography of Samara bin Jundub).

https://www.al-islam.org/abu-hurayra-abd-al-husayn-sharaf-al-din-al-musawi/conclusion

Quote

It is reported on the authority of Hasan:

Jundab b. 'Abdullah al-Bajali narrated this hadith in this mosque which we can neither forget and at the same time we have no apprehension that Jundab could attribute a lie to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). He (the Holy Prophet) observed: A person belonging to the people of the past suffered from a boil, and then the rest of the hadith was narrated.
 
وَحَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ الْمُقَدَّمِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا وَهْبُ بْنُ جَرِيرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي قَالَ، سَمِعْتُ الْحَسَنَ، يَقُولُ حَدَّثَنَا جُنْدَبُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْبَجَلِيُّ، فِي هَذَا الْمَسْجِدِ فَمَا نَسِينَا وَمَا نَخْشَى أَنْ يَكُونَ جُنْدَبٌ كَذَبَ عَلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ خَرَجَ بِرَجُلٍ فِيمَنْ كَانَ قَبْلَكُمْ خُرَاجٌ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ فَذَكَرَ نَحْوَهُ ‏.‏
 
Reference  : Sahih Muslim 113b
In-book reference  : Book 1, Hadith 215
USC-MSA web (English) reference  : Book 1, Hadith 208
  (deprecated numbering scheme)
 

وَحَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ الْمُقَدَّمِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا وَهْبُ بْنُ جَرِيرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي قَالَ، سَمِعْتُ الْحَسَنَ، يَقُولُ حَدَّثَنَا جُنْدَبُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْبَجَلِيُّ، فِي هَذَا الْمَسْجِدِ فَمَا نَسِينَا وَمَا نَخْشَى أَنْ يَكُونَ جُنْدَبٌ كَذَبَ عَلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ خَرَجَ بِرَجُلٍ فِيمَنْ كَانَ قَبْلَكُمْ خُرَاجٌ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ فَذَكَرَ نَحْوَهُ ‏.‏

It is reported on the authority of Hasan: Jundab b. 'Abdullah al-Bajali narrated this hadith in this mosque which we can neither forget and at the same time we have no apprehension that Jundab could attribute a lie to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). He (the Holy Prophet) observed: A person belonging to the people of the past suffered from a boil, and then the rest of the hadith was narrated.

Sahih Muslim 113b
https://sunnah.com/muslim:113b

 

 

Selling wine
Some Sunni sources have narrated a report about the sale of wine by Samrah bin Jundab during the time of the second caliph: Sahih Muslim[17] and Sunan Ibn Majah[18], both of which are among the six Sunni Sahaahs, have narrated this incident that Samrah informed Umar. He sold wine. Umar said, May Allah  kills Samra.... Bukhari also narrated the same narration in his authentic book and only used the expression "Fulan" "فلان" instead of Samra's name.[19]

Some Sunni writers have mentioned justifications for this act of Samrah.[20]

Sahih Muslim  , v3 , p 1207

Sunan Ibn Majah , v 4, p 470

Sahih Bukhari  , v 3 , p 82

Quote
  1. مسلم، صحیح مسلم، بیروت، ج۳، ص۱۲۰۷.
  2.  ابن‌ماجه، سنن ابن‌ماجه، ج۴، ص۴۷۰.
  3.  بخاری، صحیح بخاری، ۱۴۲۲ق، ج۳، ص۸۲.
  4.  سعید بن منصور، التفسیر من سنن سعید بن منصور، ۱۹۹۷م، ج۴، پاورقی ص۱۶۰۲
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
  • Moderators
18 hours ago, sunni muslim said:

Rasulullah did stop them near water. For your king information ghadeer means pond. At that hot day, they stopped there to replenish. And since the companions fought with ali at yemen. Prophet made his last sermon on taking care of his family and taking ali as his beloved friend. He said do i not have authority over you more than yourselves they said yes, then he said whoever I'm beloved friend ali is his beloved friend, o Allah love  those who love him, hate those who hate him. 

It was the early fall in Hijaz, which is a very hot time of year. The area is desolate, it is not a normal place where the Arabs would stop their caravans. You can do a google image search and see what the place looks like. Yes, there was a pond there, but it was not a settlement. Even today there is no settlement of any significance. 

So Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) asked all those muslims to stop in an area which wasn't a settlement, at a place where they did not normally stop, in the middle of the day, in the hot season, to do what ? Tell that 'Ali is my friend'. 

The other advice he gave, like taking care of family, etc, he said that on many occasions before. So why would he stop them under these conditions to say it again ? 

I want you to think about what I am saying, not just how you will 'retort' me. Imagine if you were there, and you had some urgent business to get to in Yemen, after you went to Hajj, and you heard 'The Prophet is going to make us stop and stay here'. So you stopped and you stayed there for hours, under the hot sun. Then you heard the Prophet speak. Then he said

'Hey guys, Ali is my friend...and here is some other stuff about family that I already told you before many times'. 

What would you think about that Prophet ? That he is a respectable man ? or would you think 'Why is he wasting our time and making us wait under that hot sun for this ? I know I would be thinking the latter, not the former. I am being honest. I stopped and put my urgent business on hold because I thought he (The Prophet) had something very important to say, and he didn't say anything important. 

So in this context, now insert the word 'Friend' and see if it makes any sense to you. If it doesn't, then you should reconsider your position vis a via Ghadir. Just some brotherly advice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
On 8/20/2022 at 3:24 AM, guess said:

You seem to make many statements, and unlike my brothers,  you never provide any clear proof.

I didn't made any statement. The narration that he quoted itself says that but as usual he doesn't even know what he is quoting.

On 8/20/2022 at 3:24 AM, guess said:
On 8/19/2022 at 9:51 PM, sunni muslim said:

 

I dare you to find a authentic narration that said that Umar stayed,  he was the one being taunted,while having fled up the mountain , by Abu Sufyan

 Sure

We read in Dala’il al-Nubuwwah li-Abu Nu`aym in an authentic report:

[Al-Zuhri from `Abdullah bin Ka`b bin Malik who said: Ka`b was the first to recognize the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) after the defeat of the Muslims, and after the rumors spread that Rasul-Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) got killed. Ka`b said: I recognized his eyes radiating from under the battle helmet, so I called in my loudest voice: “O Muslims, I bear good news; this is Rasul-Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).” When they realized this they carried him to the narrow roads (for safety), with him was Abu Bakr, `Umar, `Ali, Talhah, al-Zubayr, al-Harith bin al-Simah and a group of Muslims. When he was lying in the road, Ubay bin Khalaf tracked him saying: “O Muhammad, may I perish if I don’t make you perish.” We said: “O Rasul-Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) should one of us go to him and face him?” He replied: “Leave him (to me).” Then he (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) leaned down and grabbed a spear from al-Harith and charged towards ibn Khalaf with such a force that we all fell back from around him like the hairs on the back of a camel fly, the spear struck ibn Khalaf sending him flying off of his horse.]

It was also reported:

[Ibn `Abbas said: Sa`d bin `Ubadah told me: A group from the companions of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) gave him an oath of allegiance until death on the day of Uhud when the Muslims were defeated, so they were patient and they persevered and protected him with their bodies, the man among them would say: “May my self be sacrificed for yours O Rasul-Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). May my face be a protection for yours O RasulAllah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).” Until several of them died and from these men were Abu Bakr, `Umar, `Ali, al-Zubayr, Talhah, Sa`d, Sahl bin Hunayf, ibn abi al-Aqlah, al-Harith bin al-Simah, abu Dujanah and al-Habbab bin alMundhir. Rasul-Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) tried climbing a large rock but could not because he carried two heavy armors, so Talhah bin `Ubaydullah carried him and supported him until he climbed it so he (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said: “Talhah has deserved it (meaning Jannah).”

On 8/20/2022 at 3:24 AM, guess said:

Imam Ali, Abu Djana( who protected our Nabi with his own body as a human shield and was subsequently martyred. Umm Umara( Nusayba) and brave momina who suffered 13 wounds and lost a lot of blood and  consciousness,  and when she woke up , the first thing she asked was how was our Nabi.

7 meccans sahaba and 7 Ansar

True, talha, zubayr and sad bin abi waqqas also defended the prophet, talha's left hand was paralysed in that battle. 

 

On 8/20/2022 at 3:24 AM, guess said:

And you dare slander Ammar e Yasir,  who sacrificed so much for Islam. His mother was the first Shohadaa among the women.

I never slandered him. It was reply to you shiites, who taunt the companions who fled from the battlefield, but guess what, ammar also fled and he was not amongst the 13 companions who stayed with the prophet. If you say uthman was a coward, betrayer of the prophet, then the same allegation would be applied to ammar.

 

On 8/20/2022 at 9:10 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam You have not provided chain of your hadith because you can't prove it's

I already did. I provided the chain and if you can't read then that's not my problem. 

 

On 8/18/2022 at 6:23 PM, sunni muslim said:

Sure, here it is. 

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ، وَإِسْحَاقُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، - وَاللَّفْظُ لأَبِي بَكْرٍ - قَالَ إِسْحَاقُ أَخْبَرَنَا وَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا زَكَرِيَّاءُ بْنُ عَدِيٍّ، عَنْ عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو، عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ أَبِي أُنَيْسَةَ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ مُرَّةَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ الْحَارِثِ النَّجْرَانِيِّ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي جُنْدَبٌ 

 

On 8/20/2022 at 9:10 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

because you can't prove it's authencity of it

I can. 

 

On 8/20/2022 at 9:10 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

it's a Wahid (single) narration from a weak chain of narrators

Sorry it is not khabr ul ahad. It is narrated by jundub, abu saeed khudri, anas bin malik, abdullah bin masood. And it does not contain weak narrators as I will prove. 

 

On 8/20/2022 at 9:10 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

it has been said by prophet Muhammad (pbu) when he has been in his death bed few days before tragedy of Thursday which according to Umar the second caliph , prophet has been affected by pain & illness so his words in those days for bringing "Pen & paper" & in similar fashion your hadith about superior merit of Abubakr  have been nonsense of an ill person  , which Sunnah.com has not mentiond grading of it so therefore your personal grading of it as Sahih is void ,so therefore if you consider this unauthentic weak hadith  as superior merit of Abubakr so then rest of merits of Abubakr & Umar & Uthman have no value for anyone .

Completely irrelevant. 

 

On 8/20/2022 at 9:10 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

which by looking at chain of narrators 

أَبِي شَيْبَةَ has narrated attack of Umar to lady Fatima (عليه السلام) so therefore is a weak narrator accrding to you .

Sorry he is not abi shayba, he is ibn abi shaybah. And he is one of the most trustworthy narrators. 

أبو حاتم بن حبان البستي : متقن حافظ دين، ممن كتب وجمع وصنف وذاكر، وكان أحفظ أهل زمانه للمقاطيع

أبو حفص عمر بن شاهين : صدوق

أبو زرعة الرازي : ما رأيت أحفظ منه

أحمد بن حميد الجهمي : أحفظ أهل الكوفة

أحمد بن حنبل : صدوق وهو أحب إلى من عثمان

أحمد بن شعيب النسائي : ثقة

أحمد بن صالح الجيلي : كوفي ثقة وكان حافظا للحديث

ابن أبي حاتم الرازي : كوفى ثقة، روى عن شريك وأبي الأحوص وعباد وهشيم

ابن حجر العسقلاني : ثقة حافظ صاحب تصانيف

الخطيب البغدادي : كان متقنا حافظا مكثرا صنف المسند والاحكام والتفسير

الذهبي : سيد الحفاظ، إليه المنتهى في الثقة

القاسم بن سلام الهروي : ربانيو الحديث أربعة ذكره منهم، ومرة: انتهى الحديث إلي أربعة إلي: أبي بكر بن أبي شيبة، وأحمد بن حنبل، ويحيى بن معين، وعلي ابن المديني، فأبو بكر أسردهم له وأحسنهم وضعا لكتاب، وأحمد أفقهم فيه، ويحيى أجمعهم له، وعلي أعلمهم به

جعفر بن محمد الفريابي : سألت محمد بن نمير عن بني أبي شيبه فقال فيهم قولا لم أحب أن أذكره

صالح بن محمد جزرة : أحفظ من أدركنا عند المذاكرة

عبد الباقي بن قانع البغدادي : ثقة ثبت

عبد الرحمن بن يوسف بن خراش : ثقة

عبدان بن أحمد الأهوازي : كان يقعد عند الاسطوانة كثير كلهم سكوت الا أبو بكر فانه يهدر

عمرو بن علي الفلاس : ما رأيت أحفظ منه

قتيبة بن سعيد : كتبت عنه كل شىء

يحيى بن عبد الحميد الحماني : أولاد ابن أبي شيبة من أهل العلم كانوا يزاحموننا عند كل محدث

يحيى بن معين : الكوفة خراب إلا ابني أبي شيبة: أبو بكر وعثمان، ومرة: أبو بكر عندنا صدوق، ولو ادعى السماع من أجل من شريك لكان مصدقا فيه

يعقوب بن شيبة السدوسي : كان فيه تهاون بالحديث، لم يكن يفصل هذه الأشياء يعني الألفاظ

He is thiqa. 

On 8/20/2022 at 9:10 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Two persons  have been mentioned as إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ  which one of them  has been a trustwothy agent & judge of Abbasids who believed to "creation of Quran" which he arrested Ahmad ibn Hanbal then sent him to court of Mamun the Abbasid king for rejection of "creation of Quran" so therefore he is too weak narrator for both of Sunnis & Shias 

https://fa.wikifeqh.ir/اسحاق_بن_ابراهیم

another إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ  has been  a shia scholars by title of Ibn Wahab which has believed to appointing Amir al Muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as successor of prophet Muhammad (pbu) in day of Ghadeer so therefor he is a weak narrator for you. 

Sorry, ishaq bin ibrahim here is ishaq bin rahawayh, one of the greatest trustworthy imams. 

أبو حاتم الرازي : العجب من إتقانه وسلامته من الغلط مع ما رزق من الحفظ وقال مرة: إمام من أئمة المسلمين

أبو حاتم بن حبان البستي : كان من سادات أهل زمانه فقها وعلما وحفظا

أبو دواد السجستاني : تغير قبل أن يموت بخمسة أشهر

أبو زرعة الرازي : ما رؤي أحفظ من إسحاق

أبو يحيى محمد بن يحيى الشعراني : ما رأيت بيد إسحاق كتابا قط وما كان يحدث إلا حفظا

أحمد بن حنبل : مثل إسحاق يسأل عنه؟ إسحاق عندنا إمام من أئمة المسلمين ، ومرة : إذا حدثك أبو يعقوب أمير المؤمنين فتمسك به

أحمد بن سعيد بن إبراهيم : لو كان الثوري وابن عيينة والحمادان في الحياة لاحتاجوا إليه

أحمد بن شعيب النسائي : أحد الأئمة، ومرة: ثقة مأمون

ابن حجر العسقلاني : ثقة حافظ مجتهد قرين أحمد بن حنبل

الذهبي : الإمام عالم خراسان

المزي : أحد أئمة المسلمين وعلماء الدين اجتمع له الحديث والفقه والحفظ والصدق والورع والزهد

زكريا بن داود الخفاف : أملى علينا أحد عشر ألف حديث من حفظه، ثم قرأها فلم يزد حرفا ولا نقصه

سعيد بن ذؤيب المروزي : ما أعلم علي وجه الأرض مثل إسحاق

عبد اللطيف بن إبراهيم بن الكيال الشافعي : إمام من أعلام الأئمة

قتيبة بن سعيد : إمام

محمد بن أسلم الطوسي : ما أعلم أحدا كان أخشي لله من إسحاق وكان أعلم الناس ولو كان سفيان الثوري في الحياة لاحتاج إلى إسحاق

محمد بن إسحاق بن خزيمة : والله لو أن إسحاق بن إبراهيم الحنظلي كان في التابعين لأقروا له بحفظه وعلمه وفقهه

وهب بن جرير البصري : أحى السنة بأرض المشرق

On 8/20/2022 at 9:10 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

 

 زَكَرِيَّاءُ بْنُ عَدِيٍّ is a coomon sunni narrator that his narrations are neither  strong nor weak

Sorry zakariya bin adiy is also thiqa 

أحمد بن صالح الجيلي : ثقة رجل صالح

ابن حجر العسقلاني : ثقة جليل يحفظ

ابن زبر الربعي : روى له، ونقل عن عبد الحمن بن مرزوق قوله: وما كتبت عن أحد أفضل منه

الذهبي : ما رأيت أحفظ منه

المنذر بن شاذان : ما رأيت أحفظ منه

عبد الرحمن بن يوسف بن خراش : ثقة جليل ورع

محمد بن سعد كاتب الواقدي : صالح ثقة صدوق

يحيى بن معين : لا بأس به

On 8/20/2022 at 9:10 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

 

عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو is unknown which if it means Ubayd Allah ibn Umar ibn Khattab so then he has been too  weak because of his enmity with Amir al muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام)  which has been slained in battle of Siffin as commander of elite battalion of cursed Muawiah

Sorry ubaydullah bin amr her is ubaydullah bin amr bin abi waleed who is thiqa. 

أبو بكر البيهقي : ثقة

أبو حاتم الرازي : صالح الحديث، ثقة صدوق، لا أعرف له حديثا منكرا

أبو حفص عمر بن شاهين : ثقة

أحمد بن شعيب النسائي : ثقة

أحمد بن صالح الجيلي : ثقة

ابن حجر العسقلاني : ثقة فقيه ربما وهم

محمد بن سعد كاتب الواقدي : ثقة صدوق ربما وهم، ومرة: كان ثقة كثير الحديث، وربما أخطأ، وكان أحفظ من روى عن عبد الكريم الجزري

محمد بن عبد الله بن نمير : ثقة

مصنفوا تحرير تقريب التهذيب : ثقة، وقوله ربما وهم، اقتبسها من ابن سعد، وقد انفرد بها، فلا يعتد لها

يحيى بن معين : ثقة

On 8/20/2022 at 9:10 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:
Quote

زَيْدِ بْنِ أَبِي أُنَيْسَةَ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ مُرَّةَ،  which both of them have narrated Hadith of Ghadir which are Thiqa according to both of Sunnnis & Shias nevertheless you single handly denied authencity of anyone who has narrated Hadith of Ghadir so therefore they are weak accoding to you

Nope, both are authentic. And for your kind information, I never weakened hadith ghadeer. 

On 8/20/2022 at 9:10 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

 

عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ الْحَارِثِ النَّجْرَانِيِّ which in some sources it has been mentionted that he  hasn supported uprising of martyr Muslim ibn Aqil (رضي الله عنه) against cursed Yazid which عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ الْحَارِثِ النَّجْرَانِيِّ has been martyred by cursed Ibn Ziad for uprising against cursed Zyad in support of martyr Muslim ibn Aqil (رضي الله عنه) which in another report by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani he has been mentioned as appointed judge by ibn Zubair which at the end has been killed due to poisoning

Provide the chain for your claims. And also the arabic quote. 

 

On 8/20/2022 at 10:13 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam you have not mentioned that your Deobandi or Barelvi which Deobandies are very near too Wahabists rather than Barelvis which in similar fashion of Wahabists you have denied Imamate & succession of amir Al muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام) in Ghadeer Khum

Doesn't matter, wahabis, deobandis, and barelvis all deny that ghadeer means appointment. 

 

On 8/20/2022 at 10:45 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

I have provided enough refutation about unauthenthicity of chain which only جُنْدَبٌ is enough for refuting authencity of it  although existance of weak narrators & enemies of Amir al Muminin Imam ali (عليه السلام)

Your 'refutation' was terrible. You provided ni evidence from scholars of jarh wa tadil, who weakened any of the narrators. While I provided statements of scholars who made tawtheeq of the narrators in the chain. So try again. 

 

On 8/20/2022 at 10:45 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

which جُنْدَبٌ   which  Samara ibn Jundab one of elite  supporters of cursed Muawaih which by order of cursed Muawyah ,he has fabricated a hadith in favor of Ibn  Muljam the killer of  Amir Al mumini Imam Ali (عليه السلام) also bease on some reports he has sold wine during caliphate of Umar the second sunni caliph which due that  Umar has cursed him which Wahabists  has praised him in similar fashion of Khalid ibn Walid for praticipating in conquest of Iran which surly you will say Iranian shias will reject him due to this action. 

 Jundub in this narration is jundub bin abdullah not samura bin jundub. 

Edited by Mahdavist
Inappropriate comment removed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Abu Hadi said:

I'm not sure what you mean by that. We are not talking about the whole world. We are talking about 7th century Hijaz. Do you want him to appoint someone like the Caesar of Rome did ? Like the King of Persia did ? That would be ridiculous as he was speaking to the Arabs who lived around Mecca, not to the Romans or the Persians. In that time, and that place, this is the way successors were appointed. The leader of the tribe, in this case the tribe was all the muslims, makes it clear to the people thru a declarative statement that many of the people hear, and make it clear to them who he is talking about. That is why he was raised on a pulpit, and he raised his arm 'so that you could see his armpits' as most of the hadith record. Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) is making it clear to them who is the leader. 

It doesn't matter if we are talking about 7 th century hijaz. No one appoints their successor like this. Even your imams never appointed like this. They appointed clearly by saying this is the imam after me. 

1- `Ali ibn abi Talib:

Al-Kafi 1/180

يا بني أنت ولي الأمر

When `Ali was on his death bed, he approached his son Al-Hasan and said “O’ my son, you are the person of authority.”

2- Al-Hasan bin `Ali:

He says,

الأئمة بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليهوآله وسلم اثنا عشر، تسعة من صلب أخي الحسين

“The leaders after the messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) are twelve, nine from the progeny of my brother al-Husayn.”

Al-Kafi 1/182

واختارني علي عليه السلام بالإمامة، واخترت أنا الحسين عليه السلام

Al-Hasan said to Ibn Al-Hanafiyyah: “`Ali chose me for leadership, and I choose Al-Husayn.”

3- Al-Husayn bin `Ali:

He says,

أخبرك يا أخا العرب، إن الإمام والخليفة بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم أمير المؤمنين علي عليه السلام والحسن وأنا وتسعة من ولدي منهم علي ابني

“I shall tell you my Arab brother, the leader and successor after the messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is the cheif of believers `Ali (عليه السلام) and al-Hasan and myself, then nine of my descendants including this son of mine `Ali.”

He was also asked,

فقلت: بأبي وأمي يا ابن رسول الله إن كان ما نعوذ بالله أن نراه فيك فإلى من؟ قال: إلى علي ابني هذا، هو الإمام وأبو الأئمة

“I said: May my parents be a ransom for you O son of Rasul-Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), if what we fear for you takes place then who shall succeed you? He replied: “It goes to my son `Ali, he is the leader and the father of the leaders.”

4- `Ali bin Husayn:

He says about al-Baqir,

يا بني إن الإمامة في ولده إلى أن يقوم قائمنا عليه السلام فيملأها قسطا وعدل وأنه الإمام أبو الأئمة معدن الحلم وموضع العلم يبقره بقرا

“O son, leadership is in his (al-Baqir’s) progeny until that one rises (عليه السلام) so he may fill it with justice, he (al-Baqir) is the leader, father of leaders, the essence of gentleness and the place of deep knowledge.”

5- Muhammad bin `Ali:

He said that the leaders are twelve after the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) then listed them until he said,

وأنا ثم بعدي هذا ووضع يده على كتف جعفر

“ِAnd myself, then after me (in leadership) is this one, and he placed his hand on Ja`far’s shoulder.”

A man asks him who shall succeed him in leadership,

فإن كان هذا كائن يا ابن رسول الله فإلى من بعدك؟ قال:إلى جعفر وهو سيد أولادي وأبو الأئمة، صادق في قوله وفعله

If something should happen O son of Rasul-Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), then who is after you? He replied: “To Ja`far, he is the master of my children and the father of the leaders, truthful in his words and actions.”

Muhammad bin Muslim sat with al-Baqir when his son Ja`far came in, so al-Baqir said,

يا محمد هذا إمامك بعدي فاقتد به واقتبس من علمه

“O Muhammad, this is your leader after me, so follow his example and take from his knowledge.”

6- Ja`far bin Muhammad:

Says that the leaders are twelve then counts until he says,

ثم أنا، وبعدي موسى ولدي

“Then myself, and after me is my son Musa”

He was asked,

قلت: فمن بعدك يا ابن رسول الله؟ قال: إني قد أوصيت إلى ولدي موسى وهو الإمام بعدي

I said: Who is after you O son of Rasul-Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)? He (عليه السلام) replied: “I have tasked my son Musa with the execution of my will and he is the leader after me.”

Al-Kafi 1/309

قُلْتُ لَهُ إِنْ كَانَ كَوْنٌ وَ لَا أَرَانِي اللَّهُ ذَلِكَ فَبِمَنْ أَئْتَمُّ قَالَ فَأَوْمَأَ إِلَى ابْنِهِ مُوسَى

He was asked: If a tragedy should happen then who should I follow as leader? He (Ja`far) pointed towards his son Musa.

Al-Kafi 1/310

دَعَا أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ( عليه السلام ) أَبَا الْحَسَنِ ( عليه السلام ) يَوْماً وَ نَحْنُ عِنْدَهُ فَقَالَ لَنَا عَلَيْكُمْ بِهَذَا فَهُوَ وَ اللَّهِ صَاحِبُكُمْ بَعْدِي

One day, Aba `Abdillah (عليه السلام) called on aba all-Hasan (عليه السلام) while we sat around him then told us: “By Allah, stick with this one for he is the one you shall accompany after me.”

7- Musa bin Ja`far:

Al-Kafi 1/190

اشهدوا أن ابني هذا وصيي والقيم بأمري وخليفتي من بعدي

Al-Kadhim said: “Bare witness that this son of mine is the executor of my will, the one in charge of my affair and my successor after me.”

Al-Kafi 1/312

فَأَشَارَ إِلَى ابْنِهِ أَبِي الْحَسَنِ ( عليه السلام ) فَقَالَ هَذَا صَاحِبُكُمْ مِنْ بَعْدِي

When asked He pointed to his son abu al-Hasan (عليه السلام) and said: “This is the one you shall accompany after me.”

Al-Kafi 1/313

فَأَخْبِرْنِي مَنِ الْإِمَامُ بَعْدَكَ فَقَالَ ابْنِي فُلَانٌ يَعْنِي أَبَا الْحَسَنِ

He was asked: Inform me of the leader after you. He responded: This son of mine meaning aba al-Hasan.

8- `Ali bin Musa:

He said to his companion,

يا دعبل الإمام بعدي محمد ابني

“O Da`bal, the leader after me is my son Muhammad.”

Al-Kafi 1/320

When asked,

فَقَالَ لِي الْإِمَامُ ابْنِي

He told me: The leader is my son. (He had no son except Muhammad according to al-Mufid)

Al-Kafi 1/321

فَلَا أَرَانَا اللَّهُ يَوْمَكَ فَإِنْ كَانَ كَوْنٌ فَإِلَى مَنْ فَأَشَارَ بِيَدِهِ إِلَى أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ ( عليه السلام ) وَ هُوَ قَائِمٌ بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ فَقُلْتُ جُعِلْتُ فِدَاكَ هَذَا ابْنُ ثَلَاثِ سِنِينَ فَقَالَ وَ مَا يَضُرُّهُ مِنْ ذَلِكَ فَقَدْ قَامَ عِيسَى ( عليه السلام ) بِالْحُجَّةِ وَ هُوَ ابْنُ ثَلَاثِ سِنِينَ

They said to him: May we not see that day (when you die) but if it comes then to who shall it pass? He (عليه السلام) pointed to his son abu Ja`far (عليه السلام) who stood in front of him, I said: May I be your ransom, this is a three year old kid? He (عليه السلام) answered: “No harm, `Isa (عليه السلام) established the argument while at the age of three.”

9- Muhammad bin `Ali:

الإمام بعدي ابني علي، أمره أمري وقوله قولي وطاعته طاعتي

He said: “The leader after me is my son `Ali, his command is mine, his word is mine and his obedience is my obedience.”

Al-Kafi 1/323

الْأَمْرُ مِنْ بَعْدِي إِلَى ابْنِي عَلِيٍّ

He said: “The one in charge of the affair after me is my son `Ali.”

10- `Ali bin Muhammad:

He said,

الإمام بعدي الحسن ابني، وبعد الحسن ابنه القائم

“The leader after me is my son al-Hasan, and after al-Hasan is his son who shall rise.”

And he said,

الخلف من بعدي ابني الحسن

“The successor after me is my son al-Hasan.”

Al-Kafi 1/326

فَقُلْتُ لَهُ جُعِلْتُ فِدَاكَ هَذَا صَاحِبُنَا بَعْدَكَ فَقَالَ لَا صَاحِبُكُمْ بَعْدِيَ الْحَسَنُ

I said to him: May I be your ransom, is this the one we must accompany after you? He answered: “No, your companion after me is al-Hasan.”

This is how an appointment looks like. Not like whoever I'm master, so and so is his master. 

1 hour ago, Abu Hadi said:

So Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) asked all those muslims to stop in an area which wasn't a settlement, at a place where they did not normally stop, in the middle of the day, in the hot season, to do what ? Tell that 'Ali is my friend'. 

The other advice he gave, like taking care of family, etc, he said that on many occasions before. So why would he stop them under these conditions to say it again ? 

I want you to think about what I am saying, not just how you will 'retort' me. Imagine if you were there, and you had some urgent business to get to in Yemen, after you went to Hajj, and you heard 'The Prophet is going to make us stop and stay here'. So you stopped and you stayed there for hours, under the hot sun. Then you heard the Prophet speak. Then he said

'Hey guys, Ali is my friend...and here is some other stuff about family that I already told you before many times'. 

What would you think about that Prophet ? That he is a respectable man ? or would you think 'Why is he wasting our time and making us wait under that hot sun for this ? I know I would be thinking the latter, not the former. I am being honest. I stopped and put my urgent business on hold because I thought he (The Prophet) had something very important to say, and he didn't say anything important. 

So in this context, now insert the word 'Friend' and see if it makes any sense to you. If it doesn't, then you should reconsider your position vis a via Ghadir. Just some brotherly advice. 

Again typical shia response. Strawmaning the sunni position without even understanding it. First of all regarding prophet already said before ghadeer is also can be directed toward you. You claim that prophet already appointed ali as his successor in dawat dul ashira and what not, then why did he again said that in ghadeer stopping thousands of Muslims there. And also why didn't he said in a clear cut manner rather than using a word which ten different meanings, also misguiding his companions because none of them understood this to be appointment. Why didn't he said in a clear cut manner that ali is my successor. 

Now learn the sunni version first before spewing nonsense and strawmaning sunni position again. The prophet sent ali to yemen. He had a dispute with the soldiers, and those soldiers complained to the prophet in mecca, prophet rebuked them and mentioned the virtues of ali, then the prophet made his sermon at arafat, where there were vast majority of companions and he mentioned his last message to humanity. Verse of ikmal al deen was revealed there. Then he retured to medina, meccans stayed at mecca, yemenis, najdis, omanis and all companions went back to their respective homes. After that he stayed at ghadeer which was a pond, to freshen up, then he offered prayer, then he said take care of my ahlul bayt, and whoever I'm beloved friend ali is his beloved friend, o Allah love those who love ali, hate those who hate ali. That's it. Any man with a bit of integrity would not make his successor by saying vague words such as whoever I'm master so and so is his master. That's an insult to the best of creation. 

1 hour ago, Abu Hadi said:

 

The way that Rasoulallah stated it was in fact perfect. He said that 'Do I not have more right over you than you have over your own selves ?'. They answered 'Yes', then he said 'Whosoever I am his Leader, this Ali is his leader'. Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) is saying that whatever I am to you, Ali is also to you this, in full and not in part. Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) was their Spiritual Leader, their Political Leader, their Military Leader, their mentor, their guide, their teacher, etc. All these roles are encompassed by the word Maula in the context it was used at Ghadeer. So all these roles were given to Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) by using this word in this context

This explanation is nonsense. Imagine a president of a country saying to his people, o people am I not your president, they all say yes, then he say whoever I'm president so and so is his president. Absolutely ridiculous. People would laugh at that president for saying that. One government doesn't have two presidents at the same time. Prophet was the only leader at that time. It may be difficult for you to understand so let's take this example, imagine khamenai saying, whoever I'm supreme leader so and so is his supreme leader. Wow, makes so much sense. :hahaha:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, sunni muslim said:

It doesn't matter if we are talking about 7 th century hijaz. No one appoints their successor like this. Even your imams never appointed like this. They appointed clearly by saying this is the imam after me. 

1- `Ali ibn abi Talib:

Al-Kafi 1/180

يا بني أنت ولي الأمر

When `Ali was on his death bed, he approached his son Al-Hasan and said “O’ my son, you are the person of authority.”

2- Al-Hasan bin `Ali:

He says,

الأئمة بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليهوآله وسلم اثنا عشر، تسعة من صلب أخي الحسين

“The leaders after the messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) are twelve, nine from the progeny of my brother al-Husayn.”

Al-Kafi 1/182

واختارني علي عليه السلام بالإمامة، واخترت أنا الحسين عليه السلام

Al-Hasan said to Ibn Al-Hanafiyyah: “`Ali chose me for leadership, and I choose Al-Husayn.”

3- Al-Husayn bin `Ali:

He says,

أخبرك يا أخا العرب، إن الإمام والخليفة بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم أمير المؤمنين علي عليه السلام والحسن وأنا وتسعة من ولدي منهم علي ابني

“I shall tell you my Arab brother, the leader and successor after the messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is the cheif of believers `Ali (عليه السلام) and al-Hasan and myself, then nine of my descendants including this son of mine `Ali.”

He was also asked,

فقلت: بأبي وأمي يا ابن رسول الله إن كان ما نعوذ بالله أن نراه فيك فإلى من؟ قال: إلى علي ابني هذا، هو الإمام وأبو الأئمة

“I said: May my parents be a ransom for you O son of Rasul-Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), if what we fear for you takes place then who shall succeed you? He replied: “It goes to my son `Ali, he is the leader and the father of the leaders.”

4- `Ali bin Husayn:

He says about al-Baqir,

يا بني إن الإمامة في ولده إلى أن يقوم قائمنا عليه السلام فيملأها قسطا وعدل وأنه الإمام أبو الأئمة معدن الحلم وموضع العلم يبقره بقرا

“O son, leadership is in his (al-Baqir’s) progeny until that one rises (عليه السلام) so he may fill it with justice, he (al-Baqir) is the leader, father of leaders, the essence of gentleness and the place of deep knowledge.”

5- Muhammad bin `Ali:

He said that the leaders are twelve after the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) then listed them until he said,

وأنا ثم بعدي هذا ووضع يده على كتف جعفر

“ِAnd myself, then after me (in leadership) is this one, and he placed his hand on Ja`far’s shoulder.”

A man asks him who shall succeed him in leadership,

فإن كان هذا كائن يا ابن رسول الله فإلى من بعدك؟ قال:إلى جعفر وهو سيد أولادي وأبو الأئمة، صادق في قوله وفعله

If something should happen O son of Rasul-Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), then who is after you? He replied: “To Ja`far, he is the master of my children and the father of the leaders, truthful in his words and actions.”

Muhammad bin Muslim sat with al-Baqir when his son Ja`far came in, so al-Baqir said,

يا محمد هذا إمامك بعدي فاقتد به واقتبس من علمه

“O Muhammad, this is your leader after me, so follow his example and take from his knowledge.”

6- Ja`far bin Muhammad:

Says that the leaders are twelve then counts until he says,

ثم أنا، وبعدي موسى ولدي

“Then myself, and after me is my son Musa”

He was asked,

قلت: فمن بعدك يا ابن رسول الله؟ قال: إني قد أوصيت إلى ولدي موسى وهو الإمام بعدي

I said: Who is after you O son of Rasul-Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)? He (عليه السلام) replied: “I have tasked my son Musa with the execution of my will and he is the leader after me.”

Al-Kafi 1/309

قُلْتُ لَهُ إِنْ كَانَ كَوْنٌ وَ لَا أَرَانِي اللَّهُ ذَلِكَ فَبِمَنْ أَئْتَمُّ قَالَ فَأَوْمَأَ إِلَى ابْنِهِ مُوسَى

He was asked: If a tragedy should happen then who should I follow as leader? He (Ja`far) pointed towards his son Musa.

Al-Kafi 1/310

دَعَا أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ( عليه السلام ) أَبَا الْحَسَنِ ( عليه السلام ) يَوْماً وَ نَحْنُ عِنْدَهُ فَقَالَ لَنَا عَلَيْكُمْ بِهَذَا فَهُوَ وَ اللَّهِ صَاحِبُكُمْ بَعْدِي

One day, Aba `Abdillah (عليه السلام) called on aba all-Hasan (عليه السلام) while we sat around him then told us: “By Allah, stick with this one for he is the one you shall accompany after me.”

7- Musa bin Ja`far:

Al-Kafi 1/190

اشهدوا أن ابني هذا وصيي والقيم بأمري وخليفتي من بعدي

Al-Kadhim said: “Bare witness that this son of mine is the executor of my will, the one in charge of my affair and my successor after me.”

Al-Kafi 1/312

فَأَشَارَ إِلَى ابْنِهِ أَبِي الْحَسَنِ ( عليه السلام ) فَقَالَ هَذَا صَاحِبُكُمْ مِنْ بَعْدِي

When asked He pointed to his son abu al-Hasan (عليه السلام) and said: “This is the one you shall accompany after me.”

Al-Kafi 1/313

فَأَخْبِرْنِي مَنِ الْإِمَامُ بَعْدَكَ فَقَالَ ابْنِي فُلَانٌ يَعْنِي أَبَا الْحَسَنِ

He was asked: Inform me of the leader after you. He responded: This son of mine meaning aba al-Hasan.

8- `Ali bin Musa:

He said to his companion,

يا دعبل الإمام بعدي محمد ابني

“O Da`bal, the leader after me is my son Muhammad.”

Al-Kafi 1/320

When asked,

فَقَالَ لِي الْإِمَامُ ابْنِي

He told me: The leader is my son. (He had no son except Muhammad according to al-Mufid)

Al-Kafi 1/321

فَلَا أَرَانَا اللَّهُ يَوْمَكَ فَإِنْ كَانَ كَوْنٌ فَإِلَى مَنْ فَأَشَارَ بِيَدِهِ إِلَى أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ ( عليه السلام ) وَ هُوَ قَائِمٌ بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ فَقُلْتُ جُعِلْتُ فِدَاكَ هَذَا ابْنُ ثَلَاثِ سِنِينَ فَقَالَ وَ مَا يَضُرُّهُ مِنْ ذَلِكَ فَقَدْ قَامَ عِيسَى ( عليه السلام ) بِالْحُجَّةِ وَ هُوَ ابْنُ ثَلَاثِ سِنِينَ

They said to him: May we not see that day (when you die) but if it comes then to who shall it pass? He (عليه السلام) pointed to his son abu Ja`far (عليه السلام) who stood in front of him, I said: May I be your ransom, this is a three year old kid? He (عليه السلام) answered: “No harm, `Isa (عليه السلام) established the argument while at the age of three.”

9- Muhammad bin `Ali:

الإمام بعدي ابني علي، أمره أمري وقوله قولي وطاعته طاعتي

He said: “The leader after me is my son `Ali, his command is mine, his word is mine and his obedience is my obedience.”

Al-Kafi 1/323

الْأَمْرُ مِنْ بَعْدِي إِلَى ابْنِي عَلِيٍّ

He said: “The one in charge of the affair after me is my son `Ali.”

10- `Ali bin Muhammad:

He said,

الإمام بعدي الحسن ابني، وبعد الحسن ابنه القائم

“The leader after me is my son al-Hasan, and after al-Hasan is his son who shall rise.”

And he said,

الخلف من بعدي ابني الحسن

“The successor after me is my son al-Hasan.”

Al-Kafi 1/326

فَقُلْتُ لَهُ جُعِلْتُ فِدَاكَ هَذَا صَاحِبُنَا بَعْدَكَ فَقَالَ لَا صَاحِبُكُمْ بَعْدِيَ الْحَسَنُ

I said to him: May I be your ransom, is this the one we must accompany after you? He answered: “No, your companion after me is al-Hasan.”

This is how an appointment looks like. Not like whoever I'm master, so and so is his master. 

:hahaha:

You forgot one critical thing in your 'analysis'. 

How is the Prophet going to say 'This is the Imam after me', when he was a Rasoul? 

Alhamduillah, he didn't follow your advice. People would have been very confused. The point of Ghadir was to establish the concept of Imamate after Resalat. All the examples you gave is an Imam appointing another Imam, not a Rasoul appointing an Imam. :hahaha:

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Abu Hadi said:

You forgot one critical thing in your 'analysis'. 

How is the Prophet going to say 'This is the Imam after me', when he was a Rasoul not an Imam ? 

Alhamduillah, he didn't follow your advice.

That contradict your belief. According to you prophet was both rasul and imam just like ibrahim. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, sunni muslim said:

 

Again typical shia response. Strawmaning the sunni position without even understanding it. First of all regarding prophet already said before ghadeer is also can be directed toward you. You claim that prophet already appointed ali as his successor in dawat dul ashira and what not, then why did he again said that in ghadeer stopping thousands of Muslims there. And also why didn't he said in a clear cut manner rather than using a word which ten different meanings, also misguiding his companions because none of them understood this to be appointment. Why didn't he said in a clear cut manner that ali is my successor. 

:hahaha:

1) Because many of those Sahaba were not there at Dawat Ashira, nor were they there at the other times when Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) appointed Imam Ali((عليه السلام)). Simple. 

He wanted to say it in front of many so that noone could say 'I didn't hear the Prophet say that'. There were not newspapers or social media at that time. 

 

Your last 'point' has been addressed in my earlier posts. Go back and read for clarification. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, sunni muslim said:

That contradict your belief. According to you prophet was both rasul and imam just like ibrahim. 

True, that's why I corrected my post. I guess you just love my posts so much you can't wait to read them. :love: Please refer to the corrected version. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Abu Hadi said:

You forgot one critical thing in your 'analysis'. 

How is the Prophet going to say 'This is the Imam after me', when he was a Rasoul? 

Alhamduillah, he didn't follow your advice. People would have been very confused. The point of Ghadir was to establish the concept of Imamate after Resalat. All the examples you gave is an Imam appointing another Imam, not a Rasoul appointing an Imam. :hahaha:

He also doesn't have to. The prophet can say ali is your ruler after me, listen and obey him. As simple as that

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...