Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Jafar as-Sadiq denies that he is an Imam in Twelver sources?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

"Jafar from Fadhala bin Ayyub and more than one from Muawiya bin Ammar from Sa’id al-Araj who said: we were with Abu Abdullah (al-Sadiq) when two man sought permission (to enter upon him), and he granted them permission. One of them said: is there among you (i.e. the Ahl al-Bayt) an Imam whose obedience is obligatory? He (al-Sadiq) said: I do not know of such a one among us, he (the man) said: In Kufa there is a group who claim that among you there is anImam whose obedience is obligatory, and they do not lie, the people of righteousness, and striving, and discernment, among them is Abdullah bin Abi Ya’fur, and so and so, and so and so, so Abu Abdullah (al-Sadiq) said: I did not command them that nor did I say to them to say it, so what is my fault, and his face reddened, and he became intensely angry, he (Sa’id) said: so when they both saw the anger in his face, they stood up and left, he (al-Sadiq) said: do you know the two men? We said: yes, they are two men from the Zaydis, and they claim that the sword of the Messenger of Allah is with Abdullah b. al-Husayn […]"

Ikhtiyar Ma’rifat al-Rijal vol. 2, p. 727

What is the grading of this narration according to Shia standards?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Salam alaikom warahmatullahi wabarakatoh.

This is a very good question which even confuses many shi'a; that is; why are there ahadeeth in shi'i books that go against shi'i beliefs? The answer isn't a complicated one.

During the time of the Imams (A), the Umayyad and Abbasid governments (and even those before them) used to be extremely intolerant of the shi'a. The shi'a would be constantly spied on so as to prevent any threat to the Umayyad/Abbasid caliphate. Sometimes they would even be tortured or killed, if the authorities found them to be shi'a. Some examples are Ali Ibn Yaqteen (رضي الله عنه) and Hujr Ibn Adi (رضي الله عنه).

So, in order to prevent their shi'a from being executed, the Imams (A) would employ taqiyyah. Taqiyyah is when you hide your beliefs because your life may be in danger. For example, Ammar Ibn Yaser (رضي الله عنه), when he and his parents were being tortured by the pagans, and they ordered him to renounce Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and Rasoulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), he did so. He said that he disbelieved in Allah and His Prophet (na2ouzobillah). When he did this, he felt sad and went to Rasoulullah. Then this aayah was revealed:

مَنْ كَفَرَ بِاللَّهِ مِنْ بَعْدِ إِيمَانِهِ إِلَّا مَنْ أُكْرِهَ وَقَلْبُهُ مُطْمَئِنٌّ بِالْإِيمَانِ وَلَٰكِنْ مَنْ شَرَحَ بِالْكُفْرِ صَدْرًا فَعَلَيْهِمْ غَضَبٌ مِنَ اللَّهِ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ

Excepting someone who is compelled [to recant his faith] while his heart is at rest in it, those who disbelieve in Allah after [affirming] their faith and open up their breasts to unfaith, Allah’s wrath shall be upon them and there is a great punishment for them. [16:106]

This aayah permits the believers to recant their faith if they are compelled. This is exactly what the Imams (A) and their shi'a did in those times of oppression. (Note: Some shi'a who live in anti-shi'i place are still compelled to employ taqiyyah to save their lives from being taken). So back to the point, the Imams (A) would tell their untrustworthy shi'a (or the authorities) that they are just "regular muslims". (Back then, I don't think the term "Ahlul Sunnah wal-Jama3ah" was used much). 

So in the hadeeth that you quoted, (if it even is saheeh), the Imam (عليه السلام) said what he said in order to save the lives of either himself or his shi'a.

May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) guide us all. May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) bless you and grant you jannat al-firdaus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Ibn Murtuz said:

What is the grading of this narration according to Shia standards?

Slam you have censored rest of narration which indcates that Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) has shown evidences that he is rightful infallible Imam which after it has mentioned that two men have been from Zaydis so then Imam Jafar Sadiq (عليه السلام) has talked that he is rightful infallible Imam.

فَمِنْ ذَلِكَ مَا رَوَاهُ مُعَاوِيَةُ بْنُ وَهْبٍ عَنْ سَعِيدٍ بن سمان [اَلسَّمَّانِ] قَالَ: كُنْتُ عِنْدَ أَبِي عَبْدِ اَللَّهِ إِذْ دَخَلَ عَلَيْهِ رَجُلاَنِ مِنَ اَلزَّيْدِيَّةِ فَقَالاَ لَهُ أَ فِيكُمْ إِمَامٌ مُفْتَرَضٌ طَاعَتُهُ؟ قَالَ فَقَالَ لاَ فَقَالاَ لَهُ قَدْ أَخْبَرَنَا عَنْكَ اَلثِّقَاتُ أَنَّكَ تَقُولُ بِهِ وَ سَمَّوْا أَقْوَاماً وَ قَالُوا هُمْ أَصْحَابُ وَرَعٍ وَ تَشْمِيرٍ وَ هُمْ مِمَّنْ لاَ يَكْذِبُ فَغَضِبَ أَبُو عَبْدِ اَللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ السَّلاَمُ وَ قَالَ مَا أَمَرْتُهُمْ بِهَذَا فَلَمَّا رَأَيَا اَلْغَضَبَ فِي وَجْهِهِ خَرَجَا فَقَالَ لِي أَ تَعْرِفُ هَذَيْنِ؟ - قُلْتُ هُمَا مِنْ أَهْلِ سُوقِنَا وَ هُمَا مِنَ اَلزَّيْدِيَّةِ وَ هُمَا يَزْعُمَانِ أَنَّ سَيْفَ رَسُولِ اَللَّهِ عِنْدَ عَبْدِ اَللَّهِ بْنِ اَلْحَسَنِ

1 hour ago, Ibn Murtuz said:

Jafar from Fadhala bin Ayyub and more than one from Muawiya bin Ammar from Sa’id al-Araj who said: we were with Abu Abdullah (al-Sadiq) when two man sought permission (to enter upon him), and he granted them permission. One of them said: is there among you (i.e. the Ahl al-Bayt) an Imam whose obedience is obligatory? He (al-Sadiq) said: I do not know of such a one among us, he (the man) said: In Kufa there is a group who claim that among you there is anImam whose obedience is obligatory, and they do not lie, the people of righteousness, and striving, and discernment, among them is Abdullah bin Abi Ya’fur, and so and so, and so and so, so Abu Abdullah (al-Sadiq) said: I did not command them that nor did I say to them to say it, so what is my fault, and his face reddened, and he became intensely angry, he (Sa’id) said: so when they both saw the anger in his face, they stood up and left, he (al-Sadiq) said: do you know the two men? We said: yes, they are two men from the Zaydis, and they claim that the sword of the Messenger of Allah is with Abdullah b. al-Husayn […]"

it continues as

Quote

فَقَالَ كَذَبَا لَعَنَهُمَا اَللَّهُ وَ هُوَ مَا رَآهُ عَبْدُ اَللَّهِ بْنُ اَلْحَسَنِ بِعَيْنَيْهِ وَ لاَ بِوَاحِدَةٍ مِنْ عَيْنَيْهِ وَ لاَ رَآهُ أَبُوهُ اَللَّهُمَّ إِلاَّ أَنْ يَكُونَ رَآهُ عِنْدَ عَلِيِّ بْنِ اَلْحُسَيْنِ عَلَيْهِمَا السَّلاَمُ فَإِنْ كَانَا صَادِقَيْنِ فَمَا عَلاَمَةٌ فِي مَقْبِضِهِ وَ مَا أَثَرَهُ فِي مَوْضِعِ مَضْرَبِهِ - وَ إِنَّ عِنْدِي لَسَيْفَ رَسُولِ اَللَّهِ وَ إِنَّ عِنْدِي لَرَايَةَ رَسُولِ اَللَّهِ صَلَّى اَللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَ آلِهِ وَ دِرْعَهُ وَ لاَمَتَهُ وَ مِغْفَرَهُ فَإِنْ كَانَا صَادِقَيْنِ فَمَا عَلاَمَةٌ مِنْ دِرْعِ رَسُولِ اَللَّهِ صَلَّى اَللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَ آلِهِ وَ إِنَّ عِنْدِي لَرَايَةَ رَسُولِ اَللَّهِ صَلَّى اَللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَ آلِهِ اَلْمِغْلَبَةَ وَ إِنَّ عِنْدِي أَلْوَاحَ مُوسَى وَ عَصَاهُ وَ إِنَّ عِنْدِي لَخَاتَمَ سُلَيْمَانَ بْنِ دَاوُدَ وَ إِنَّ عِنْدِي اَلطَّسْتَ اَلَّذِي كَانَ مُوسَى يُقَرِّبُ بِهَا اَلْقُرْبَانَ وَ إِنَّ عِنْدِيَ اَلاِسْمَ اَلَّذِي كَانَ رَسُولُ اَللَّهِ إِذَا وَضَعَهُ بَيْنَ اَلْمُسْلِمِينَ وَ اَلْمُشْرِكِينَ - لَمْ يَصِلْ مِنَ اَلْمُشْرِكِينَ إِلَى اَلْمُسْلِمِينَ نُشَّابَةٌ وَ إِنَّ عِنْدِي لَمِثْلَ اَلتَّابُوتِ اَلَّذِي جَاءَتْ بِهِ اَلْمَلاَئِكَةُ وَ مَثَلُ اَلسِّلاَحِ فِينَا كَمَثَلِ اَلتَّابُوتِ فِي بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ كَانَتْ بَنُو إِسْرَائِيلَ فِي أَيِّ أَهْلِ بَيْتٍ وُجِدَ اَلتَّابُوتُ عَلَى أَبْوَابِهِمْ أُوتُوا اَلنُّبُوَّةَ وَ مَنْ صَارَ إِلَيْهِ اَلسِّلاَحُ مِنَّا أُوتِيَ اَلْإِمَامَةَ وَ لَقَدْ لَبِسَ أَبِي دِرْعَ رَسُولِ اَللَّهِ صَلَّى اَللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَ آلِهِ فَخَطَّتْ عَلَى اَلْأَرْضِ خَطَطاً وَ لَبِسْتُهَا أَنَا وَ كَانَتْ تَخُطُّ عَلَى اَلْأَرْضِ يَعْنِي طَوِيلَةً مِثْلُ مَا كَانَتْ عَلَى أَبِي وَ قَائِمُنَا مَنْ إِذَا لَبِسَهَا مَلَأَهَا إِنْ شَاءَ اَللَّهُ تَعَالَى .

Hazrat Imam  Ja'far bin Muhammad (peace be upon him) said that: Both of them are telling lies, may Allah's curse be upon them. And I swear by Allah, the All-Knowing Allah, that Abd Abdullah ibn Al-Hasan did not see that sword with his both eyes, even with his one own eye, and his father did not see that sword unless he saw it in the presence of my honorable grandfather, Ali bin Abi Talib, peace be upon him, and if those two Zaydis ,If they are honest in their belief, ask them about the sign on the handle,effect and the sign, , that is, ask about the handle and the place where the sign was carved. O Saeed, the sword of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and progeny of that Prophet, and  the flag the shield, the Jawshan, the helmet of the head of Hazrat Sayyed Al-Bariyyah, are with me, and if someone claims that the shield of the owner of the power and piety in front of that person, he should show The sign of it should be stated and revealed, that it is the right of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and his family and peace be upon him, and the Tablets of Moses, and the staff of that Prophet,peace be  upon him and upon our Prophet, peace be upon him, and greeting on them , and the ring of Suleiman bin Dawood (peace be upon them) and the bowl that was with Moses which  By means of it  his sacrifice was accepted by Hazrat Muhayman Subhaan(Allah), and it was an instrument of experience and test, is with Me, and that name that was with Hazrat Rasool, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his progeny , which, because it was with Rasool,which when  he put it between  Muslims and polytheists. That rebellious tribe did not harm the people of Islam and faith and did not harm anyone by they arrows . Also, the coffin that the angels brought for the prophets of the Israelites is like a weapon among us, which is like a coffin among the Israelites, when they found it on the door of every house, prophecy was ordained for the people of that house, and also a weapon for the house to become Imam. It is related to the people of that house, my honorable father, when he wore the shield of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and hiis progeny, that shield was very long, as if the skirts of its edges were touching the ground, and I also has wear the armor of the Messenger of Allah, as his stature was long with on body of  his  majesty in similar fashion it has been tall for mee too. , and when our Qaim will wear armor  of the Messenger of Allah Almighty, and it will be fitted to his blessed body,  Allah willing.

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/2933_اختيار-معرفة-الرجال-الشيخ-الطوسي-ج-٢/الصفحة_309#top

https://hadith.inoor.ir/fa/hadith/290577/translate?rownumber=NaN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Ibn Murtuz said:

Abdullah bin Abi Ya’fur

Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Yaʿfūr al-Abdī al-Kūfī, (Arabic:ابومحمد عبدالله بن أبي یعفور العبدي الکوفي), (d. 131/748-9) known as Ibn Abi Ya'fur was a hadith narrator and a companion of Imam al-Sadiq (a). He was accepted as a reliable hadith narrator by Imam al-Sadiq (a) and Imam al-Kazim (a). Also, he is admired and praised in several hadiths.

 

Credibility and Status

Al-Najashi considered him as thiqa thiqa[9] (the most trustworthy of the trustworthy); Muhaddith Nuri regarded him as a notable twelver jurist such as Zurara.[10] In addition, he was a man of piety and ijtihad among companions of Imam in Kufa.

According to narrations of Al-Shaykh al-Tusi from Imam al-Sadiq (a), Ibn Abi Ya'fur was the most obedient person to the orders of Imams.[11] In a narration, Imam al-Sadiq (a) said: "No one obeyed all the commands of Allah thoroughly except Abd Allah b. Abi Ya'fur."[12] As Al-Shaykh al-Tusi has stated, Abu Hamza Ma'qil al-'Ijli quoted from Ibn Abi Ya'fur that he has said to Imam al-Sadiq (a): If you order me about a Pomegranate that half of it is Halal and the other half is Haram, I will obey you without hesitation.[13]

After Ibn Abi Ya'fur passed away, Imam al-Sadiq (a) wrote a letter to Mufaddal b. Umar al-Ju'fi and mentioned him as one who obeyed the commands of Allah, Prophet Muhammad (s), and Imams (a).[14]

Quote

A Member of the Disciples

In the well-known hadith of the disciples[15] in which Imam al-Kazim (a) mentioned the names of notable companions of Prophet Muhammad (s) and Imams, he considered Ibn Abi Ya'fur as companion of Imam al-Baqir (a) and Imam al-Sadiq (a).

Denomination

Ibn Abi Ya'fur was definitely a Shi'a Muslim. However, due to the political situations of the time in Umayyad and Abbasid era, it was hazardous for Shi'a Muslims to declare their beliefs publicly. According to al-Kulayni,[16]Ibn Abi Ya'fur refused to answer clearly Abu Yusuf Qadi's question about following Shi'ism. However, Abu Yusuf admired Ibn Abu Ya'fur for being 'sincerely trustworthy' in this incident. Nevertheless, according to the time of Ibn Abi Ya'fur's demise, it doesn't seem very likely.

 

Quote

Al-Shaykh al-Tusi[17] mentioned a sect called Ya'fur. Al-Mashkur in his glosses on Al-Maqalat wa al-firaq by al-Ash'ari[18] discussed the possibility that this sect is attributed to Ibn Abi Ya'fur. However it is incorrect, they are considered as Ghulat (exaggerators) of Shi'a who are attributed to Muhammad b. Ya'fur.[19]

Al-Ash'ari[20] considered Ibn Abi Ya'fur as one of those Shi'a Muslims who believed that Imam al-Kazim (a) was the succeeding Imam after Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (a) and due to their stability, followers of 'Abd Allah al-Aftah accepted the Imamate of Musa al-Kazim (a) and supported him.

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Abd_Allah_b._Abi_Ya'fur

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Ibn Murtuz said:

 

 

"Jafar from Fadhala bin Ayyub and more than one from Muawiya bin Ammar from Sa’id al-Araj who said: we were with Abu Abdullah (al-Sadiq) when two man sought permission (to enter upon him), and he granted them permission. One of them said: is there among you (i.e. the Ahl al-Bayt) an Imam whose obedience is obligatory? He (al-Sadiq) said: I do not know of such a one among us, he (the man) said: In Kufa there is a group who claim that among you there is anImam whose obedience is obligatory, and they do not lie, the people of righteousness, and striving, and discernment, among them is Abdullah bin Abi Ya’fur, and so and so, and so and so, so Abu Abdullah (al-Sadiq) said: I did not command them that nor did I say to them to say it, so what is my fault, and his face reddened, and he became intensely angry, he (Sa’id) said: so when they both saw the anger in his face, they stood up and left, he (al-Sadiq) said: do you know the two men? We said: yes, they are two men from the Zaydis, and they claim that the sword of the Messenger of Allah is with Abdullah b. al-Husayn […]"

Ikhtiyar Ma’rifat al-Rijal vol. 2, p. 727

What is the grading of this narration according to Shia standards?

 

you should have posted other half of the remaining hadith in which Imam Jafar Al Sadiq (عليه السلام) says that these Zaidi people say that the sword of Prophet (PBUHHP) is in the custody of Abdullah ibn Hasan while reality is that actually it is we who have custody of Prophet (PBUHHP) and it is the Imam who always have the custody of the sword of Prophet (PBUHHP). So, Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) declared himself to be an Imam. 

In the beginning Imam Jafar Al Sadiq (عليه السلام) refused the zaidis to be their Imam because zaidis consider a person an Imam who follows their defined set of rules rather than having his own strategy as prescribed by Divine knowledge. It is worth remembering that people don't guide Imam, Imam guide the people. 

It is shameful that you only pasted half of the Hadith and not the remaining half which clearly mentions what Imam Jafar Al Sadiq said about his imamah. This just shows that you guys can go to Haram in order to make your wrong right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...
  • Advanced Member

Imagine the prophet denying that he is a prophet in front of polytheists. Imagine our prophet saying to abu jahl, of course buddy, you can absolutely worship idols. There is even a narration authentic according to shia standards that sajjad never told zaid bin ali that he was an imam, and mumin al taq ater being confronted by zaid made the excuse that sajjad was afraid that you will reject him and die in hellfire. That's like saying our prophet never told fatima, abbas and hamza that he is a prophet of allah but secretly told random yemenis. All this shows how reactionary twelver sect is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 12/1/2023 at 12:22 AM, hanbali said:

according to shia standards that sajjad never told zaid bin ali that he was an imam,

Salam Zaid has known Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام) as his infallible Imam without any doubt about that.

On 12/1/2023 at 12:22 AM, hanbali said:

and mumin al taq ater being confronted by zaid made the excuse that sajjad was afraid that you will reject him and die in hellfire.

This is your totall misunderstanding their conversation or being under affection of Wahabi misinterpretation .

On 12/1/2023 at 12:22 AM, hanbali said:

That's like saying our prophet never told fatima, abbas and hamza that he is a prophet of allah but secretly told random yemenis. All this shows how reactionary twelver sect is.

Yoi  insult to prophet Muhammad (pbu) just for justifying your nonsense which all of lady Fatima, abbas and hamza (رضي الله عنه) have recognized him as prophet without his asking because they have enough knowledge about it which lady Fatima has had divine knowledge about it which all of them certainly has been first muslims which you insult them as daughter of prophet Muhammad (pbu) and greatest Sahaba which you claimm about yemenis shows your total ignorance & hatred toward them because prophet Muhammad (pbu) has called them to Islam through Imam Ali (عليه السلام) but they have rejected Khalid ib Walid the hero of Wahabis which prophet (pbu) called them to Islam openly which there is many records about it which has been recorded by both of Sunni & shia sources which all of Sahabas have been witness of it so therefore your claims about calling them secreatly is just a void imagination by you in opposition to all undeniable facts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
56 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam Zaid has known Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام) as his infallible Imam without any doubt about that.

On 12/1/2023 at 2:22 AM, hanbali said:

Well your sources says otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
23 hours ago, hanbali said:

Well your sources says otherwise.

Salam you don't anything which you just reply based on reactionary procedure of your sect which in our sources it has been said that he knew Imam sajjad (عليه السلام) & Imam Baqir (عليه السلام) & Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) as his infallible Imam which he has revolted to return leadership to Ahlul bayt (عليه السلام) & infallible Imam of his time  which Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) & rest of infallible Imams after him have endorsed his uprising of him against cursed Ummayads which there is narration from prophet Muhammad (pbu) about Zayd & his  devout companions in uprising that they will enter to Paradise while they put their feet over neck of other people . 

Quote

, Zayd after being a student in the presence of his honourable father was one of the distinguished students of the school of thought of Imam Bāqir and Imam Ṣādiq (peace be upon them). Sheikh Ṣadūq also quoted Imam Riḍa (peace be upon him) in the book “’Uyūn Akhbār al- Riḍa (peace be upon him) and wrote: He was indeed one of the scholars from among the family of Muhammad (may God bless him and his family). [Sheikh Ṣadūq, Muhammad ibn Ali, ‘Uyūn Akhbār al- Riḍa, vol.2, p.225]

Zayd is believed the first narrator of Al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya of Imam Zain al-‘Abidin. Several works of hadith, theology, and Qur’anic exegesis are attributed to him

Prophecy of Martyrdom

It is documented that the martyrdom of Zayd has been prophesized by the Infallibles. Imam Husain narrated that his grandfather Hadrat Muhammad (PBUHH) prophesied his death: The Holy Prophet put his sacred hand on my back and said: “O Husain, it will not be long until a man will be born among your descendants. He will be called Zayd; he will be killed as a martyr. On the Day of Resurrection, he and his companions will enter heaven, setting their feet on the necks of the people.”

Claims to the Imamate

Sunni sources as well as Zaydi books have claimed that Zayd claimed to be an Imam. However, from the existing narrations and the explicit confession of his eminence to the Imamate of the twelve Imams (peace be upon them), it is proven against this claim. These narrations clearly show that Zayd, in case of victory, will give the right to its original owners.

After his death, some felt that he was the rightful successor to his father, rather than his half-brother Muhammad al-Bāqir. Those who believe in this line of succession are known as the Zaydi sect within Shi’a Islam.

On the contrary, the Ithna ‘Ashari sources do not believe that Zayd claimed imamate for himself. For instance, Shaykh Mufid in his book, titled al-Irshād states thus: However that was not his intention because he knew of the right of his brother, peace be on him, to the Imamate before him, and of his bequest of trusteeship (wasiyya) at his death to Abu ‘Abd Allãh (i.e., Jafar al-Ṣādiq), peace be on him.” [al-Irshād, p. 404]

In addition, no evidence was noticed in the relationship between Imam Jafar al-Ṣādiq and Zayd ibn Ali that would portray that Zayd ibn ‘Ali was claiming the status of Imamate for himself. Furthermore, according to a report, when Imam Jafar al-Ṣādiq was informed about the martyrdom of Zayd ibn Ali, he felt very sad and set apart a thousand dinars of his own money for the families of those of Zayd’s followers who were killed with him.

https://en.al-shia.org/martyrdom-of-zayd-al-shahid/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • Advanced Member

This is something that needs to be dealt with. This is an isolated solitary report, you can hardly go one way or another with it.

But if you accept that there are Imams chosen by Allah, divinely appointed, specific, whose obedience is mandatory to follow, and then you have the same Imams denying their Imamah publicly and swearing they are not Imams, that is a ridiculous problem.

It then opens the door to the claim against Shias that, Divine Imamah is fabricated, that the Ghulat of Kufa and liars would claim things about the Imam, which the Imam would deny, and then claim it was all Taqqiyah.

In this way, a fabricator could claim anything and everything about the Imam, and then claim the Imam only told them this secret knowledge. Anyone who went to try to verify this, may then find the Imam denying it, to which the fabricator could simply say, he was just hiding it from you and he only shares it with me and a select few. 

I am not making any conclusions here. But it is worrying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 12/2/2023 at 6:48 AM, hanbali said:

Well your sources says otherwise.

I don't agree with the Hanbali brother, but he isn't wrong.

We have a clear hadith where Zayd b. Ali outright denies divine Imamah and the hadith is Saheeh:

Can we base much of a single report? I'm not so sure. 

Al Kafi: https://thaqalayn.net/hadith/1/4/1/5

5. A number of our people have narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn 'Isa from Ali ibn al-Hakam from Aban who has that al-Ahwal reported to him the following: "Zayd ibn Ali ibn al-Husayn  sent a message to me for a meeting with him when he was in hiding. When I met him, he said, 'O Abu Ja'far, what do you say if someone from us comes to you asking to join us? Will you rise up with him (against the enemies)?' I said, 'If such a person would be your father or brother I would join him.' He then said, 'I want to rise up against these people. Come and join me.' I said, 'No, may Allah make my soul of service to you.' He then said, 'Is it that you distance yourself away from me?' I said, “It is only one soul. If Allah's Authority on earth existed, then those keeping away from you would have saved themselves and those joining you would have faced their destruction. If no Divine Authority existed on earth then people joining and keeping away from you would be the same.'

He (Zayd bin Ali (son of Imam Sajjad as)): then said, 'O Abu Ja'far, I would sit with my father at the same table and he would feed me chunky morsels and cool off for me the hot ones out of kindness and diligent care. Do you think he was not afraid for me from the fire of hell? So he has informed you about religion and did not inform me? "

I said, 'May Allah make my soul of service to you, this also is of the kindness of your father to you. To save you from the fire he did not inform you. He was concerned for you that after having the information you might ignore his guidance and become subject to fire. He informed me also. If I follow I will be safe and I will be destroyed, if I disobeyed (him), for which (my destruction) he was not that much concerned.' "

Then I told him, 'May Allah make my soul of service to you, are you of a higher degree of excellence or the prophets?"

He said, 'It is the prophets.' I said, 'Consider what Ya'qub said to Joseph, "My son do not tell your dream to your brothers. They may plot against you." Why did he not inform the brothers so that they would not plot against Joseph? He hid it from them and so also your father has done; he was afraid for you.' He then said, 'When you say that, I swear to Allah that your friend the Imam  did tell me in Medina that I will be killed and crucified in al-Kunasa and that he has a book with him that lists the people killed and crucified.' "I then went for Hajj and reported the story of Zayd to Abu 'Abd Allah,  and what I said to Zayd. The Imam  said, 'It seems you surrounded him from his front, back, left, right, above and below and did not leave for him any way out!'"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 2/8/2024 at 3:09 PM, In Gods Name said:

I don't agree with the Hanbali brother, but he isn't wrong.

We have a clear hadith where Zayd b. Ali outright denies divine Imamah and the hadith is Saheeh:

Salm this false conclusion from this hadith has been refuted countless times which your repeating of it has no point about denying  divine Imamah.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salm this false conclusion from this hadith has been refuted countless times which your repeating of it has no point about denying  divine Imamah.

 

I am not denying Imamah, but the son of Imam Zain ul Abideen, Zayd, himself in the hadith posted clearly denies Imamah. This hadith is Saheeh allegedly from al Kafi according to the Akhbari/Tahreef scholar Majlisi (who claimed the Quran had missing words and verses):

I said, “It is only one soul. If Allah's Authority on earth existed, then those keeping away from you would have saved themselves and those joining you would have faced their destruction. If no Divine Authority existed on earth then people joining and keeping away from you would be the same.'

He (Zayd bin Ali (son of Imam Sajjad as)): then said, 'O Abu Ja'far, I would sit with my father at the same table and he would feed me chunky morsels and cool off for me the hot ones out of kindness and diligent care. Do you think he was not afraid for me from the fire of hell? So he has informed you about religion and did not inform me? "

I said, 'May Allah make my soul of service to you, this also is of the kindness of your father to you. To save you from the fire he did not inform you. He was concerned for you that after having the information you might ignore his guidance and become subject to fire. He informed me also. If I follow I will be safe and I will be destroyed, if I disobeyed (him), for which (my destruction) he was not that much concerned.' "

 

Edited by In Gods Name
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/30/2023 at 3:52 PM, hanbali said:

Imagine the prophet denying that he is a prophet in front of polytheists. Imagine our prophet saying to abu jahl, of course buddy, you can absolutely worship idols. There is even a narration authentic according to shia standards that sajjad never told zaid bin ali that he was an imam, and mumin al taq ater being confronted by zaid made the excuse that sajjad was afraid that you will reject him and die in hellfire. That's like saying our prophet never told fatima, abbas and hamza that he is a prophet of allah but secretly told random yemenis. All this shows how reactionary twelver sect is.

I am not denying Imamah but ...

In this way, a fabricator could claim anything and everything about the Imam, and then claim the Imam only told them this secret knowledge. Anyone who went to try to verify this, may then find the Imam denying it, to which the fabricator could simply say, he was just hiding it from you and he only shares it with me and a select few. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
On 2/8/2024 at 5:03 PM, In Gods Name said:

This is something that needs to be dealt with. This is an isolated solitary report, you can hardly go one way or another with it.

But if you accept that there are Imams chosen by Allah, divinely appointed, specific, whose obedience is mandatory to follow, and then you have the same Imams denying their Imamah publicly and swearing they are not Imams, that is a ridiculous problem.

It then opens the door to the claim against Shias that, Divine Imamah is fabricated, that the Ghulat of Kufa and liars would claim things about the Imam, which the Imam would deny, and then claim it was all Taqqiyah.

In this way, a fabricator could claim anything and everything about the Imam, and then claim the Imam only told them this secret knowledge. Anyone who went to try to verify this, may then find the Imam denying it, to which the fabricator could simply say, he was just hiding it from you and he only shares it with me and a select few. 

I am not making any conclusions here. But it is worrying.

In the same way waqifis can narrate whatever they want from imam and when faced by the imam denying it then they can just say imam was doing taqiyyah. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On 11/30/2023 at 3:52 PM, hanbali said:

Imagine the prophet denying that he is a prophet in front of polytheists. Imagine our prophet saying to abu jahl, of course buddy, you can absolutely worship idols. There is even a narration authentic according to shia standards that sajjad never told zaid bin ali that he was an imam, and mumin al taq ater being confronted by zaid made the excuse that sajjad was afraid that you will reject him and die in hellfire. That's like saying our prophet never told fatima, abbas and hamza that he is a prophet of allah but secretly told random yemenis. All this shows how reactionary twelver sect is.

Your comparing apples to oranges. These are two situations which are different in many ways.

Please study Islamic History. The mushrik during the time of Rasoulallah had many limitations which the later 'Caliphs' didn't have. 

First, Rasoulallah((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) was under the protection of Abu Talib for the first part of his mission so according to Arab custom they could not kill him. He was then in the Shaab of Abu Talib for a few years before the Hijra. During those years he did not present a problem for the Mushrik because he was isolated from Mecca. After the Hijra he was in Medina and was the Head of State. Much harder for them to get to him although they tried. 

Also Rasoulallah((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) had Imam Ali(عليه السلام) the best bodyguard in human history to protect him. There are other ways in which the situation is different but I think this proves the point. 

The situation of the Imams and Shia were totally different. The Imams were not afraid for their own lives as all of them were Shahid. They were afraid for the lives of their Shia at points in History where the 'Caliphs' and their henchmen were very ruthless and we're actively trying to find an excuse to wipe them out. They were also capable of doing it. So Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) protected them thru taqiyya just as he protected Rasoulallah thru other means depending on the circumstances of the time and what the enemies were doing. The response is always driven by the actions of the enemies and the circumstances of the mumineen at that point in history. 

IMHO you are taking an extremely simplistic and almost cartoon like view of a situation which is in reality very complex. 

Also if u read the entire Hadith and don't just cherry pick the parts that prove your point you will see that Imam Sadiq is not flatly denying his Imamate but he is making the situation ambigous and we have other Hadith where the Imams do this. They do this knowing that there sincere followers who really want to know have enough other good information to know who the Imam is. The ones who simply want cherry pick and quote out of context to do propaganda or for other reasons will do that also. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
35 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

Your comparing apples to oranges. These are two situations which are different in many ways.

Please study Islamic History. The mushrik during the time of Rasoulallah had many limitations which the later 'Caliphs' didn't have. 

First, Rasoulallah((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) was under the protection of Abu Talib for the first part of his mission so according to Arab custom they could not kill him. He was then in the Shaab of Abu Talib for a few years before the Hijra. During those years he did not present a problem for the Mushrik because he was isolated from Mecca. After the Hijra he was in Medina and was the Head of State. Much harder for them to get to him although they tried. 

The situation of the Imams and Shia were totally different. The Imams were not afraid for their own lives as all of them were Shahid. They were afraid for the lives of their Shia at points in History where the 'Caliphs' and their henchmen were very ruthless and we're actively trying to find an excuse to wipe them out. They were also capable of doing it. So Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) protected them thru taqiyya just as he protected Rasoulallah thru other means depending on the circumstances of the time and what the enemies were doing. The response is always driven by the actions of the enemies and the circumstances of the mumineen at that point in history

It's you who are comparing apples with oranges. Even if imams suffered more than the messenger of allah which  I will debunk in the second, there is no excuse as to why the imam didn't even told his own son about imamate and told some random kufans about it. That would be like prophet never told fatima, khadija, ali, umm kulthoom that he is a prophets but told some random people living far from Arabia. And secondly even if abu talib granted protection to the prophet, then what about when abu talib died. Did the prophet went and denied that he is a prophet? Did he told them to worship idols? Did he started doing taqiyyah? Even when abu talib was alive, his followers were brutally tortured in front of him, many polytheist used used to beat prophet severely many times. Even when he migrated to madina, he used to sleep with guards protecting him. 

I don't recall shia being tortured in the middle of the city in scorching sunlight. And imams still did taqiyyah with their own shia. They use to give contradictory answers to them to save their lives. 

And according to your sound narrations prophets suffered more than the imams. 

Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from his father and Muhammad ibn Isma’il from Fadl ibn Shadhan all from Hammad ibn ‘Isa from Rib’i ibn ‘Abd Allah from Fudayl ibn Yasar from Imam Abu Ja’far(عليه السلام), who has said the following: “People who are put to the most severe trials and sufferings are the prophets, then the successors(Awsiya) of Prophets and then those similar to the last group in position and so forth.”[Al-Kafi, H 2344, CH 102, h 4 ; Grading: Like Sahih as per Majlisi in Mirat al-Uqool, vol 9, page 326].

So there is no excuse for the imams to deny their imamah in front people while prophets don't. 

50 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

Also if u read the entire Hadith and don't just cherry pick the parts that prove your point you will see that Imam Sadiq is not flatly denying his Imamate but he is making the situation ambigous and we have other Hadith where the Imams do this. They do this knowing that there sincere followers who really want to know have enough other good information to know who the Imam is. The ones who simply want cherry pick and quote out of context to do propaganda or for other reasons will do that also.

Here is the full narration

Jafar from Fadhala bin Ayyub and more than one from Muawiya bin Ammar from Sa’id al-Araj who said: we were with Abu Abdullah (al-Sadiq) when two man sought permission (to enter upon him), and he granted them permission. One of them said: is there among you (i.e. the Ahl al-Bayt) an Imam whose obedience is obligatory? He (al-Sadiq) said: I do not know of such a one among us, he (the man) said: In Kufa there is a group who claim that among you there is anImam whose obedience is obligatory, and they do not lie, the people of righteousness, and striving, and discernment, among them is Abdullah bin Abi Ya’fur, and so and so, and so and so, so Abu Abdullah (al-Sadiq) said: I did not command them that nor did I say to them to say it, so what is my fault, and his face reddened, and he became intensely angry, he (Sa’id) said: so when they both saw the anger in his face, they stood up and left, he (al-Sadiq) said: do you know the two men? We said: yes, they are two men from the Zaydis, and they claim that the sword of the Messenger of Allah is with Abdullah b. al-Husayn […]

Where did he kept the matter vague? He clearly denied that obedience to one of them is obligatory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 minutes ago, sunnism said:

Here is the full narration

Jafar from Fadhala bin Ayyub and more than one from Muawiya bin Ammar from Sa’id al-Araj who said: we were with Abu Abdullah (al-Sadiq) when two man sought permission (to enter upon him), and he granted them permission. One of them said: is there among you (i.e. the Ahl al-Bayt) an Imam whose obedience is obligatory? He (al-Sadiq) said: I do not know of such a one among us, he (the man) said: In Kufa there is a group who claim that among you there is anImam whose obedience is obligatory, and they do not lie, the people of righteousness, and striving, and discernment, among them is Abdullah bin Abi Ya’fur, and so and so, and so and so, so Abu Abdullah (al-Sadiq) said: I did not command them that nor did I say to them to say it, so what is my fault, and his face reddened, and he became intensely angry, he (Sa’id) said: so when they both saw the anger in his face, they stood up and left, he (al-Sadiq) said: do you know the two men? We said: yes, they are two men from the Zaydis, and they claim that the sword of the Messenger of Allah is with Abdullah b. al-Husayn […]

Is this authentic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, sunnism said:

Yes

Any chance of proving this brother? Barakallahu feek.

Also - Rasulullah saw was attacked many times, stoned, and there was even a massive conspiracy to murder him.

Ali b. Abi Talib during the Makkan period was barely a young teenager, becoming a young adult, and hardly was capable of defending the Prophet saw on his own.

<>

Furthermore, Imam Hussain as was outright murdered by Yazid, could he not have gone around giving major speeches Taqqiyah mode off?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 minutes ago, In Gods Name said:

Any chance of proving this brother? Barakallahu feek.

Also - Rasulullah saw was attacked many times, stoned, and there was even a massive conspiracy to murder him.

Ali b. Abi Talib during the Makkan period was barely a young teenager, becoming a young adult, and hardly was capable of defending the Prophet saw on his own.

<>

Furthermore, Imam Hussain as was outright murdered by Yazid, could he not have gone around giving major speeches Taqqiyah mode off?

 

Check the rijal. All of them are trustworthy. And plus imams doing taqiyyah is mutawatir in shi'i tradition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 minutes ago, In Gods Name said:

Can you please give me the source and the arabic?

 Do it yourself. I ain't going to spoonfed you everything

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 minutes ago, In Gods Name said:

Akhi, in every discussion if we bring daleel at minimum we need to cite the primary source and bring the Arabic.

I do not know who the sheikh of kashi 'jafar'  is but there is an another chain in kafi

عدة من أصحابنا، عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى، عن علي بن الحكم، عن معاوية ابن وهب، عن سعيد السمان قال: كنت عند أبي عبد الله عليه السلام إذ دخل عليه رجلان من الزيدية فقالا له: أفيكم إمام مفترض الطاعة؟ قال: فقال: لا (3) قال: فقالا له:

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/1122_الكافي-الشيخ-الكليني-ج-١/الصفحة_280

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
4 hours ago, sunnism said:

It's you who are comparing apples with oranges. Even if imams suffered more than the messenger of allah which  I will debunk in the second, there is no excuse as to why the imam didn't even told his own son about imamate and told some random kufans about it. That would be like prophet never told fatima, khadija, ali, umm kulthoom that he is a prophets but told some random people living far from Arabia. And secondly even if abu talib granted protection to the prophet, then what about when abu talib died. Did the prophet went and denied that he is a prophet? Did he told them to worship idols? Did he started doing taqiyyah? Even when abu talib was alive, his followers were brutally tortured in front of him, many polytheist used used to beat prophet severely many times. Even when he migrated to madina, he used to sleep with guards protecting him. 

I don't recall shia being tortured in the middle of the city in scorching sunlight. And imams still did taqiyyah with their own shia. They use to give contradictory answers to them to save their lives. 

And according to your sound narrations prophets suffered more than the imams. 

Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from his father and Muhammad ibn Isma’il from Fadl ibn Shadhan all from Hammad ibn ‘Isa from Rib’i ibn ‘Abd Allah from Fudayl ibn Yasar from Imam Abu Ja’far(عليه السلام), who has said the following: “People who are put to the most severe trials and sufferings are the prophets, then the successors(Awsiya) of Prophets and then those similar to the last group in position and so forth.”[Al-Kafi, H 2344, CH 102, h 4 ; Grading: Like Sahih as per Majlisi in Mirat al-Uqool, vol 9, page 326].

So there is no excuse for the imams to deny their imamah in front people while prophets don't. 

Here is the full narration

Jafar from Fadhala bin Ayyub and more than one from Muawiya bin Ammar from Sa’id al-Araj who said: we were with Abu Abdullah (al-Sadiq) when two man sought permission (to enter upon him), and he granted them permission. One of them said: is there among you (i.e. the Ahl al-Bayt) an Imam whose obedience is obligatory? He (al-Sadiq) said: I do not know of such a one among us, he (the man) said: In Kufa there is a group who claim that among you there is anImam whose obedience is obligatory, and they do not lie, the people of righteousness, and striving, and discernment, among them is Abdullah bin Abi Ya’fur, and so and so, and so and so, so Abu Abdullah (al-Sadiq) said: I did not command them that nor did I say to them to say it, so what is my fault, and his face reddened, and he became intensely angry, he (Sa’id) said: so when they both saw the anger in his face, they stood up and left, he (al-Sadiq) said: do you know the two men? We said: yes, they are two men from the Zaydis, and they claim that the sword of the Messenger of Allah is with Abdullah b. al-Husayn […]

Where did he kept the matter vague? He clearly denied that obedience to one of them is obligatory

1. Let's assume for a minute that this is a real hadith, although there are problems with it, first it is a lone narration not recorded elsewhere and second the Isnad is not clean and pristine, but let's just assume for now

Let's also assume your translation is correct, although I see a few problems with it when looking at the original, but let's just assume for now. 

First, the sentence that you highlighted is undone by the sentence after this which you did not highlight. This group of people are telling the Imam that so and so is claiming Imamate. When he said 'I did not tell them to do that...' and he became angry what does that tell you ? If he really was telling people he was not the Imam and he had no claim on this why would he say 'I did not tell them to say that' and he became angry ? Why ? Did you ask yourself that question ? 

Second, you left out the second part of the hadith which completely destroys your claim that Imam Sadiq is saying he is not the Imam. You just put '[...]'. I wonder why. When I see that (not posting the full hadith) I get suspicious. My suspicions were correct this time. At least every Shia knows, and this is taught from a very young age that the current Imam possesses the sword and shield of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h). Because there is only one sword and shield, there is only one current Imam, the possessor of these, along with other artifacts from Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h). 

Let me just put in the part that you left out (cough...cough)

...'He said: By God, I have the sword of the Messenger of God, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, his family, and his nation...'. He goes on to name the other artifacts that he has that were from Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h). 

The 'He is Imam Sadiq((عليه السلام)). So Is that 'denying' he is the Imam ? Really ? He is telling them he is the Imam without saying the words. Game Set Match. The Imams of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) are way more clever than you could possibly imagine. So don't even try to imagine it. 

That is what I mean by ambiguity. It is ambiguous to the 'Caliph's' thugs who were going after the Shia, but not to the Shia themselves. It is perfectly clear to them what Imam Sadiq meant by the statement. 

I'm surprised I responded to this one, I had a few extra minutes in between my Sunday chores, but please don't try to bait me into a long discussion about this. If you quote me or tag me further in this thread don't 'wait' for my response. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
51 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

1. Let's assume for a minute that this is a real hadith, although there are problems with it, first it is a lone narration not recorded elsewhere and second the Isnad is not clean and pristine, but let's just assume for now

Let's also assume your translation is correct, although I see a few problems with it when looking at the original, but let's just assume for now. 

First, the sentence that you highlighted is undone by the sentence after this which you did not highlight. This group of people are telling the Imam that so and so is claiming Imamate. When he said 'I did not tell them to do that...' and he became angry what does that tell you ? If he really was telling people he was not the Imam and he had no claim on this why would he say 'I did not tell them to say that' and he became angry ? Why ? Did you ask yourself that question ? 

Second, you left out the second part of the hadith which completely destroys your claim that Imam Sadiq is saying he is not the Imam. You just put '[...]'. I wonder why. When I see that (not posting the full hadith) I get suspicious. My suspicions were correct this time. At least every Shia knows, and this is taught from a very young age that the current Imam possesses the sword and shield of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h). Because there is only one sword and shield, there is only one current Imam, the possessor of these, along with other artifacts from Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h). 

Let me just put in the part that you left out (cough...cough)

...'He said: By God, I have the sword of the Messenger of God, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, his family, and his nation...'. He goes on to name the other artifacts that he has that were from Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h). 

The 'He is Imam Sadiq((عليه السلام)). So Is that 'denying' he is the Imam ? Really ? He is telling them he is the Imam without saying the words. Game Set Match. The Imams of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) are way more clever than you could possibly imagine. So don't even try to imagine it. 

That is what I mean by ambiguity. It is ambiguous to the 'Caliph's' thugs who were going after the Shia, but not to the Shia themselves. It is perfectly clear to them what Imam Sadiq meant by the statement. 

I'm surprised I responded to this one, I had a few extra minutes in between my Sunday chores, but please don't try to bait me into a long discussion about this. If you quote me or tag me further in this thread don't 'wait' for my response. 

You are one of a kind. I am not saying that denying that you have narrations where imam tells his secrets to his supposed close followers. I obviously know about that. We all know the reality of the second addition. I am objecting that imam use to deny that he is the imam in front of people. That is not permissable for him. He is a guide to people, how can he deny that he is an imam? If he isn't guiding the people then what's the point of him being a guide. Suppose if prophet didn't proclaim himself as prophet publically and even deny that he is a prophet, and abu jahl died without believing in the prophethood of our prophet, then would he be accountable for his disbelief in the akhirah. He can simply say in the day of judgement that I asked muhammad but he denied that he is a prophet. Can the prophet called guide in these scenario. 

And forget about this narration. What about the fourth imam not telling his own son about his  imamah but tell some random kufans about it. Think about it and you will know the answer. Actually you know the answer but since you are emotionally attached to your beliefs, you won't accept it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
20 hours ago, sunnism said:

I do not know who the sheikh of kashi 'jafar'  is but there is an another chain in kafi

عدة من أصحابنا، عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى، عن علي بن الحكم، عن معاوية ابن وهب، عن سعيد السمان قال: كنت عند أبي عبد الله عليه السلام إذ دخل عليه رجلان من الزيدية فقالا له: أفيكم إمام مفترض الطاعة؟ قال: فقال: لا (3) قال: فقالا له:

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/1122_الكافي-الشيخ-الكليني-ج-١/الصفحة_280

This is weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, In Gods Name said:

This is weak.

It is authentic. You probably gonna weaken it by saying that we don't know who are those number of companions kulayni is talking about. It is because you know nothing about shi'i rijal. 

Edited by sunnism
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
10 minutes ago, sunnism said:

It is authentic. You probably gonna weaken it by saying that we don't know who are those number of companions kulayni is talking about. It is because you know nothing about shi'i rijal. 

No, it's been graded weak by Majlisi  and not included by Bahbudi.

I am aware of what 'a number of companions' mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
18 minutes ago, In Gods Name said:

No, it's been graded weak by Majlisi  and not included by Bahbudi.

I am aware of what 'a number of companions' mean.

Why it is weak? All the narrators are trustworthy

 

Edited by sunnism
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...