Answer to letter №16 from book “al-Murajiat”.Prepared by ibn Abi Effendi.

In this letter dajal Abdulhussain al-Musawi gave a brief info on 100 narrators. As usual he misquoted some scholars, closed his eyes on important information from others, and simply lied in many places in this letter.

1) Abban ibn Taglib. As said Dhahabi, extreme shia in those times, were people who talked about Uthman, Talha, Zubayr and Moawiyah, and all people who fought against Ali. But extreme shia in our times, are people who makes clear takfir upon those companions, and make tabarra from shaykhan. No doubt that ibn Taglib, was far away from lunatics, which called shias in present times.

2) Ibrahim ibn Yazeed ibn Umar an-Nakhai. No one except ibn Qutayba didn’t mention him among shias. And words of ibn Qutayba aren’t enough. There are some good proofs that he’s not shia. Ibn Abi Shaiba narrated in “Mosannaf” (#36583), that Ibrahim said: “Abu Bakr was a first one who accepted Islam”. All narrators are thiqat. Tirmizi in “Sunnan” (#3735) narrated that Amr ibn Murrah said to Ibrahim, that it was narrated from Zayd ibn Arqam: “Ali was the first one who accepted Islam”. Ibrahim rejected that, and said that Abu Bakr was the first one. So judge yourself, can this pious man be consider as shia. His tashayu was only in preferring Ali upon Uthman in love. It was narrated from him, that he said: “Ali is more beloved for me that Uthman, but it’s better for me to fall from the sky, than to say something bad about Uthman”. (Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Salih al-Habdan “Mukhtasar hilliyatul awliya” p 864). But even he didn’t say that Ali was better! He only loved him more than Uthman, it was narrated that people talked in his presence about Uthman and Ali, and one man said that Ali was better. Upon hearing that Ibrahim said: “If that’s your own point of view, don’t sit with us anymore”. (Ibid p 864).It was narrated that Ibrahim (rahimuhullah) hated building mosques upon graves. (AbdulAziz ibn Abdullah al-Mabdal “Aqwal at-tabein fi masail tawhid and iman” p 665). And it’s well known that Abdulhussain and people like him, placed mosques upon almost all possible graves.

3) Ahmad ibn Muffadal al-Kofe. Abdulhussain said:

Abu Zurah and Abu Hatim quote him and rely upon him while being fully aware of his status among Shi`as.

No doubt that it’s pure lie and ignorance. In “Mizan” stated that these two scholars narrated from him, and it’s well known fact that if people narrated from someone, that doesn’t mean they thought that he could be relied upon. Because they can simply quote his ahadeth as a shawahid for more strong narrations, or record them for further examination.

Also this dajal Abdulhussain said:

Dhahabi mentions him in his book Al-Mizan, putting on his name Abu Dawud's and al Nasa'i's initials, indicating thereby that they consider him an authority. Refer to his hadith in their sahih through Ath-Thawri.

And that’s another example of clear lie. Because if someone from scholars narrated from people, as I said, that doesn’t mean they consider them as an authority. Second, we should notice that there are no such books, like “Sahih” Abu Dawud or Nasai. Both of scholars had books named “Sunnan”. Those initials that he was talking about, only means that Nasai and Abu Dawud narrated from this person. Abdulhussain quoted “Mizanul itidal” (1/157/#625), when he talked about this narrator. But he simply closed his eyes, on some important notes from scholars on this Ahmad ibn Muffadal. For example, Al-Azdi said that he was munkar-al-hadith.

4) Ismail ibn Abban. Bukhari said that he was saduq, and didn’t say thiqat. Daraqutni said that he’s not strong in his view. (“Mizanul itidal” 1/212/#825).

5) Ismail ibn Khalifat. It’s strange that I didn’t find this man in translations of “Murajiat” to English. However in Arabic version of that book, he comes under the number 5. Abdulhussain said:

حديثه حاتم أبو وحسن“And Abu Hatim said his narrations are good”.

Exactly as his Jew forefathers, Abdulhussain omitted important and not paying part of sentence. In “Mizanul itidal” (4/490/#9957) written that Abu Hatim said: “He’s not to be relied on, and his ahadeth are good”. Bukhari noticed that Abdurrahman ibn Mahdi left narrating from him. And it was narrated two controversial opinions from ibn Maeen. Once he said he was weak, and other time said thiqat.

1

Abdulhussain said that Tirmizi in his “Saheeh” and others narrated ahadeth from this narrators. But this dajal forgot to say, that Tirmizi himself noticed that this narrator was weak in the eyes of muhadithin. (see “Sunnan” #198).

6) Ismail ibn Zakariya Haleqani al-Kufi. We have two different opinions narrated rom Ahmad and ibn Maeen. It was narrated that Ahmad said: It’s not a big deal in him. And it was narrated that he said: Weak ahadeth. Ibn Maeen said he was thiqat, as narrated from him Abbas ad-Duri. Layth ibn Ubadat and Maymune narrated that he said he’s weak. (“Mizanul itidal” 1/228/#878).

7) Ismail ibn Abbad ibn Abbas al-Taleqani, Abul Qasim. I couldn’t find anyone from critics of jarh wa tadil which would praise him.

8) Ismail ibn Abdurrahman ibn Abu Karima as-Suddi. Scholars differed in him a lot. Ahmad said: Thiqat. Ibn Maeen said: There is weakness in his ahadeth. Abu Hatim said that he’s not to be relied on. Yahya Qattan: There is no problem with him. Ibn Adi: He’s saduq in my view. Ibn Mahdi said: Weak. Layth ibn Abu Sulaim accused him in lie. (“Mizanul itidal” 1/236/#907).Abdulhussain said:

Husayn ibn Waqid al-Marwazi discusses him claiming that he heard him once cursing Abu Bakr and `Umer. In spite of all these charges he is quoted by al-Thawri and Abu Bakr ibn `Ayyash and many in such class of writers. 

If that is saheeh, we can answer that scholars who narrated from him simply didn’t hear him cursing shaykhan. Because I am in doubt that someone from Islamic scholars would narrate from dogs, which opens their filthy mouth on the shaykhan.

9) Talid ibn Sulaiman al-Kufi. Ibn Maeen accused him in lie. Nasai said he’s weak. (“Mizanul itidal” 1/358/№1339). Hatib narrated from ibn Maeen: “Talid was liar. He abused Uthman, and each and every one who would abuse Uthman, Talha or any other companion is dajal, it’s not permitted to write (ahadeth) from him, and may curse of Allah, angels and all human be upon him”. (“Tareeh al-Baghdad” 7/137). Dhahabi said that Talid is weak in his “Kashaf” (#670). Same view expressed ibn Hajar in “Taqrib”. It was narrated two different opinions from imam Ahmad. Mizzi in “Tahzib al-kamal” in the bio of Talid, wrote: “Ibrahim ibn Yaqub al-Juzajane said: “I heard Imam Ahmad said: Narrated to us Talid ibn Sulaiman, and he was lying in our opinion”.

10) Thabit ibn Dinar Abu Safiyat, Abu Hamza as-Somali. Ahmad and ibn Maeen said he’s nothing. Nasai said he’s not truthful. Abu Hatim said: His ahadeth soft. (“Mizanul itidal” 1/363/#1358). Heythami said he’s weak. (“Majmau zawaid” #10224). Daraqutni said he’s weak, Ali ibn Junayd said he’s abandoned. (Ibn Jawzi “Duafa wal matrukin” #608)

11) Thuwayr ibn Abu Fakhita. Liar. Ibn Maeen said he’s nothing. Abu Hatim and others said he’s weak. Daraqutni said he’s abandoned. Thawri said: “Thuwayr pillar from pillars of lie”. Bukhari said: “Yahya and ibn Mahdi left him”. Nasai said: Not truthful. (“Mizanul itidal” 1/375/#1408).

12) Jabir ibn Yazid ibn al-Harith al-Ju`fi al-Kufi. Rafidi, liar and heretic. He was a firm believer in kufr, named “rajat”. He believed that aimma from ahlalbayt would come back to this world, to take a revenge from their enemies. Imam Hasan ibn Alee ibn Khalf, better known like imam Barbaharee (d 329 h), said: “The return to this world of those who have died (rajat) is an innovation and is disbelief in Allaah, the Sublime. Whoever professes to believe it, is a disbeliever in Allaah and in this there is no doubt. Whoever believes in ar-rajah and says that Alee ibn Abee Talib is alive and will return before the Day of Resurrection and says the same concerning Muhammad ibn Ali, Jafar ibn Muhammad and Moosa ibn Jafar and talks about station of the imams and they known unseen, beware of them! THEY ARE DISBELIEVERS IN ALAAH, THE SUBLIME”. (“Sharhus sunna” p 102, #160. “Al-haneef” 1995).Ahmad ibn Abdullah ibn Salih ibn Moslem al-Ijli, author of book “Thiqat”, said: “Whoever would believe in return of Ali ibn Abu Talib, is disbeliever, and whoever would believe that Quran has been created, is disbeliever”. (“al-Athar al-waradat an aimmatu sunnah fi abwabil itikadat min siyar alamun nubala” p 404)When Hasan ibn Ali heard that shias claimed Ali would come back before doomsday, he said: “They lied by Allah! They are not (our) shias. If we would know that he would come back, we wouldn’t give his wifes in the marriage or divide his property”. (“Atharul waradat min aimmatul sunna fi abwabil itikadat” p 592).Regarding this Jabir, Shabei said: “You wouldn’t die unless you would lie upon messenger”. And as said Ismail, didn’t pass much time, and Jabir was exposed as liar. Yahya al-Qattan left his ahadeth. Abu Hanifa said that he didn’t see liar greater than Jabir. Layth ibn Abu Sulaim called him liar. Nasai said he’s abandoned. Abu Dawud said his ahadeth aren’t strong. (“Mizanul itidal” 1/379-381/№1425). Allahu Akbar! Just look what said Nasai and Abu Dawud, and see how Abdulhussain lied. He said:

In spite of that both al-Nasa'i and Abu Dawud rely on his authority. Refer to the hadith which he narrates concerning accidental prostrations in both sahihs.

2

Scholars called him weak! Abandoned, and this liar claimed that they relied upon him! This liar Abdulhussain was shia scholar! They praising him, and spreading his book all over the world. And this jahil, again named books of Nasai and Abu Dawud as saheeh. None of them had books with such name. Abu Dawud after he narrated hadith from the way that contain this Jabir, said: “And there is nothing more in my book from Jabir, except this”. (“Sunnan” №1036). I should also mention interesting info about this Jabir from shia books. As it was narrated in “Ilalush sharae” (2/chapter 103, in azeri language) this Jabir narrated from imam Abu Jafar al-Baqir - 70 000 ahadeth. At-Toose in “Ihtiyar marifatul rijal” (2/436/№335) narrated that when imam Jafar was asked about ahadeth of Jabir, he said: “I haven’t seen him with my father, and he didn’t enter upon me, except once”. Man narrated 70000 ahadeth from Imam, and son of that Imam said that he never seen him with his father. In one word: Liar! This Jabir was nothing but pure shia liar.

13) Jarir ibn Abdulhamid. I couldn’t find anyone except ibn Qutaiba, who named him shia.

14) Jafar ibn Sulaiman ad-Dabbi. Yahya ibn Saeed didn’t record his ahadeth, and hold opinion that he’s weak. Ibn Maeen said: Thiqat. Ahmad: There is no problem in him. Ibn Sad said: Thiqat, there is weakness in him, and he was yatashayu. (“Mizanul itidal” 1/408/#1505).

15) Jami` ibn `Umayrah ibn Tha`labah al-Kufi al-Taymi. Liar and heretic.Bukhari said: Feehe nadhar (he’s under question). And this is most severe type of critic. Ibn Numayr said: From the most mendacious people. Abdulhussain wrote:

Ibn Hibban has mentioned him and stated as indicated in Al-Mizan that he is "Rafidi."

As usual he omitted part that wasn’t suitable for him. In “Mizan” stated that ibn Hibban said: “Rafidi, use to fabricate ahadeth”. (“Mizanul itidal” 1/421/#1552).

Translator of al-Murajiat to English language, Yasin T. al-Jibouri showed his complete ignorance, or better to say showed another example of shia lies. He said: “Abu Hatim has mentioned his biography in his own Al-Mizan at the conclusion of which he states: "Al-Kufi is one of the Shi`a nobility whose hadith is authentically narrated." (end of quote). In arabic original of al-Murajiat written:

الحديث صالح كوفي“Kufian, salih al-hadis”.

And for sure “salih al-hadis” doesn’t mean whose hadith is authentically narrated. In reality such term used for narrator, whose ahadeth are to be recorded for iteebar, that’s fourth level of tadil. (see “Muqadima ibn Salah” bab marifatus sifat man taqabul riwayatuhu)

16) Al-Harith ibn Hasirah Abul Nu`man al-Azdi al-Kufi. Heretic.Abdulhussain Kadhab Musawi said:

Abu Hatim al-Razi describes him as one of the Shi`a nobility.

As usual he omitted part that he didn’t want to see. In “Mizan” written that Abu Hatim mentioned him as a shia, and said: If Thawri wouldn’t narrate from him, he would be abandoned1. Ibn Adi said: His ahadeth to be recorded along with his weakness. (“Mizanul itidal” 1/432/#1613). Uqayli in “Duafa al-kabir” (3/211/#1314) noticed that this Harith believed in rajat.

Dajal Abdulhussain said:

Dhahabi has narrated his biography in his Al-Mizan stating all the above. Refer to his hadith in the Sunan through Zayd ibn Wahab `Ikrimah and a group of their class. Al-Nasai narrated from Abbad ibn Yaqub ar-Rawanji from Abdullah ibn Abdulmalik al-Masoode from al-Harith ibn Hasirah from Zayd ibn Wahb, that Ali said:: "I am the servant of Allah and the brother of His Messenger; nobody else can say so except a liar."

This narration isn’t authentic, it’s fabricated. Chain is full of shias. Abbad ibn Yaqub was known head of innovation, famous for his shia faith. Some scholars praised him, ibn Hibban said: “He was caller to rafd, and along with that he narrated rejected (stories) from famous (narrators), deserve to be abandoned”. (“Mizanul itidal” 2/380). Abdullah ibn Abdulmalik, shia that was criticized. (“Mizanul itidal” 2/457/#4434)Zayd ibn Wahb narrated some odd and strange narrations (see his bio in “Mizan”).

لترك 1 عنه روى الثوري لوال

3

Abdulhussain Rafidi said:

Al-Harith ibn Hasirah narrates through Abu Dawud as-Suba`i through Imran ibn Hasin saying: "I was sitting once in the presence of the Messenger of Allah peace be upon him and his progeny with `Ali sitting beside him. The Messenger of Allah peace be upon him and his progeny recited `Or who else [other than Allah] that would respond to the one in dire need for help remove his distress and make ye vicegerents on earth?' `Ali was shaken and moved a great deal; thereupon the Messenger of Allah peace be upon him and his progeny patted `Ali's shoulder and said: `Nobody loves you except a true believer [a mu'min] and nobody hates you except a hypocrite till the Day of Judgment.'"

Dhahabi narrated this in “Mizanul itidal” (4/272/#9115) in the bio of Nafi ibn al-Harith, Abu Dawud. He’s very same Abu Dawud as-Subai. This man was rafidi and liar. Uqayli said he was extreme in rafd. Bukhari said: He was criticized by them. Yahya ibn Maeen said: He’s nothing. Nasai said: Abandoned. Qatada accused him in lie. Abu Zurah said: He was nothing. Ibn Hibban said: It’s not permitted to narrate from him.

17) Al-Harith ibn `Abdullah al-Hamadani. Liar. Shabe, Abu Ishaq and Ali ibn Madini called him liar. Daraqutni said he’s weak. Two different opinions were narrated from Nasai and ibn Maeen. Ibn Hibban mentioned his weakness. (“Mizanul itidal” 1/435/№1627). Ibn Hajar in “Taqrib” (#1029) said: “There is weakness in his ahadeth, and in Nasai’s (book) there is no more that two ahadeth from him”.And he we have another example of lie and idiocy from Abdulhussain Kadhab al-Musawi.

This dajal said: Dhahabi has mentioned him in his Al-Mizan admitting that he was one of the most highly recognized `ulema among the tabi`in; then he quotes Ibn Hibban's statement saying that he was "extremist" in his Shi`a beliefs. After that he states a great deal about some people's anger with him because of his Shi`a beliefs.

This is pure lie! They rejected him as liar or weak. Abdulhussain tried his best to picture Islamic scholars as unjust people, who use to attack personalities, and reject their truthfulness due to their faith. This is nothing but trick, that he was taught by his friend shaitan. In Abban ibn Taglib and other shia narrators, we have good example that our scholars accepted ahadeth from shias if they weren’t weak or liars.

18) Hubaib ibn Abu Thabit. As it was noticed by shaykh Abu Maryam al-Azami in his brilliant answer to this dajal, no one except ibn Qutaiba and Shahristani didn’t say that this man was shia. These two aren’t known as critics of jarh and tadil.

19) Al-Hasan ibn Hayy. It’s enough evil for him, that he abandoned Friday prayer. Some scholars praised him. I didn’t see anyone who openly discredited him. However Ibn al-Muthanna said: “I didn’t hear ibn Mahdi or Yahya narrating anything from ibn Hayy”. Falasi said: “Ibn Mahdi narrated from him, and then left him”. It’s also important to say that as Dhahabi noted, this ibn Hayy has a small portion of tashayu innovation in himself. Meaning he wasn’t rafidi, or any other kind of ghulat. (“Mizanul itidal” 1/497/#1869)

20) Al-Hakam ibn `Utaybah al-Kufi. Muhaqiq of Arabic “Murajiat” in footnote wrote that Dhahabi gave bio of this narrator in the “Mizan” (1/577). At that page there is bio of Hakam ibn Utayba ibn Nuhas al-Kufi. Dhahabi said he’s uknown, and rejected view of Bukhari, that this man was famous Imaam Hakam ibn Utaybah, as a wrong one. Mizzi in “Tahzib al-kamal” (7/#1438) also differed between them. Ibn Qutaibah in “Maarif” mentioned him only by his own name and his father’s name. So it’s difficult to understand which one from these two, he means. I couldn’t find anyone from scholars of jarh wa tadil, which would say that famous imam al-Hakam ibn Utaybah was shia. Allah knows best.

21) Hammad ibn `Isa al-Juhani. Weak in accordance to majority of scholars. Daraqutni, Abu Hatim and Abu Dawud said he’s weak. (“Mizanul itidal” 1/598/#2263). Ibn Hajar said he’s weak in “Taqrib” (#1503).

Dajal Abdulhussain said:

The author has shown his grudge towards this man calling his hadith "weak" for no reason other than his beliefs being Shi`a. Strange enough Daraqutni calls his hadith "weak" on one hand while on the other he uses him as an authority in his own Sunan - thus indeed do some people behave!

We have already showed on the example of Abban ibn Taglib, that our scholars didn’t criticized narrators only due to their beliefs. Daraqutni could use him in shawahid ahadeth.

4

22) Hamran ibn `Ayun. Ibn Maeen said he’s nothing. Abu Hatim said: Shaykh. That’s expression of some kind uncertainty. Abu Dawud said he’s rafidi. Nasai said he’s not truthful. (“Mizanul itidal” 1/604/#2292). Ibn Hajar said he’s weak in “Taqrib”.

23) Khalid ibn Mukhlid al-Qatwani. Abu Dawud said: “Saduq, but yastashayu”. Ahmad said: “He has rejected (stories)”. Yahya and others said there is no problem with him. Abu Hatim said that his ahadeth to be recorded, but he’s no to be relied on”. Ibn Sad said: “Munkar al-hadith, extreme in tashayu”. (“Mizul itidal” 1/640/#2463).

24) Dawud ibn Abu `Awf (Abul-Juhaf). Here we have a good example of true face of shias.Slave of Hussain said:

Ibn `Adi has mentioned him saying "I cannot rely upon his authority due to his being a Shi`a. The majority of the ahadith he narrates are related to the virtues of Ahl al-Bayt."Consider with amazement such a statement! No harm indeed can reach Dawud from these Nasibis since both Sufyans quote his ahadith in addition to `Ali ibn `Abis and others were belonging to the elite among their peers.

Abdulhussain clearly accused ibn Adi in being nasibi, more than that, he said “these nasibis”, and it’s not a secret for people of knowledge that this dajal pointed to ahlesunnah wal jamaat. All nawaseeb are kuffar in the view of the shias2. Also I should notice that translator of al-Murajiat to English, lied or erred in his work.Arabic original stated:  البيت أهل فضائل في يرويه ما عامة شيعي به، يحتج ممن عندي هو فقال: ليس عدي ابن ذكره“Ibn Adi mentioned him, and said: In my view he can’t be relied upon, (he was) shia and majority of the ahadith he narrates are related to the virtues of Ahl al-Bayt”. Ibn Adi (rahimuhullah) didn’t say that reason on his suspicious in this narrator, was his shia faith. In the bio of Salim ibn Abu Hafs, you would see that ibn Adi didn’t reject narrators only due to their shia faith.

25) Zayd ibn al-Habab Abul-Hasan al-Kufi al-Tamimi. As it noticed shaykh Abu Maryam, no one except ibn Qutaiba didn’t say that he was shia. He narrated hadith that contradicts to the religion of rafidah, and it’s in Sunnan ibn Majah (#555). It’s about permission of wiping over khuff (some kind of leather socks) during minor ablution.

26) Salim ibn Abu Hafs. Weak. Falath said he’s weak and extreme in tashayu. Ibn Maeen said he’s thiqat. Nasai said he’s not truthful. Ibn Adi said: “People criticize his extremism; but I hope there is nothing wrong with his hadith”. (“Mizanul itidal” 2/110/#3046). Now let us go back to translation of quote from ibn Adi about Abu Juhaf, Dawud ibn Abu `Awf. We have seen Yasin T. al-Jibouri translated it, as if ibn Adi rejected him only due to his shia faith. If that was true, then why ibn Adi didn’t reject ibn Abu Hafs, when it was clear to him that he was extreme in tashayu?!! The answer is very simple. Ibn Adi didn’t reject narrator due to his shia faith, and Yasin T. al-Jibouri simply lied upon Islamic scholar. I should also notice that along with his tashayu faith, ibn Abu Hafs narrated from Jafar thing, that is completely against shia religion. Abdullah ibn Ahmad narrated in “Sunnan” (#1303): From Salim ibn Abu Hafs: “I asked Abu Jafar and Jafar about Abu Bakr and Umar (may Allah be pleased with them). And they say: “O Salim, befriend to them, and dissolve from their enemies, indeed they were imams of guidance” And Jafar said to me: “O Salim, Abu Bakr is my grandfather, does man can abuse his grandfather? And may the intercession of Mohammad not reach me on the day of judgement, if I wouldn’t befriend with them, and wouldn’t dissolve from their enemies”.

27) Sa`d ibn Tarif al-Iskafi al-Hanzali al-Kufi. Liar. I couldn’t find single scholar who would praise him. Ibn Hajar n “Taqrib” said: “Abandoned, ibn Hibban accused him in fabrication of ahadeth, and he was rafidi”. Ibn Maeen said: It’s not permitted for anyone to narrate from him. Ahmad and Abu Hatim called him weak, Nasai and Daraqutni called him abandoned. He also was criticized by Bukhari and Falath (“Mizanul itidal” 2/122/№3118).

Abdulhussain said:

In spite of his being a "Shi`a extremist " al-Tirmithi and others quote him.

But as usual he forgot to say that Tirmizi after narrated hadith from his way, noted that he was weak. (“Sunnan” №801).

28) Salamah ibn al-Fudl al-Abrash. Extremely weak. Ishaq ibn Rakaweyh said he’s weak. Bukhari said in his ahadeth some rejected (data). Nasai said he’s weak. (“Mizanul itidal” 2/192/#3410).

2 More information about that available at our blog.http://gift2shias.com/2010/06/05/sorts-of-nawaseeb/http://gift2shias.com/2010/01/26/for-those-promoting-unity-sunni-scholars-labeled-as-nasibis/

5

And here I’d like to point to another example of complete ignorance that again expressed translator Yasin T. al-Jibouri. He wrote:

In his biography in the Al-Mizan Ibn Ma`in says: "Selamah al-Abrash al-Razi is a believer in Shi`ism and a man whose hadith is [often] quoted and there is no fault in the latter."

In Arabic text of “Murajiat” and in “Mizan” in reality written, that ibn Maeen said:

بأس به وليس عنه كتب قد يتشيع رازي األبرش سلمة“Salamah Al-Absrash Raze, yatashayu, I wrote from him, and there is no problem in him”.

Just compare this quote, with variant of shia translator.

29) Salamah ibn Kuhayl ibn Hasin ibn Kadih ibn Asad al-Hadrami Abu Yahya. Al-Ijli said about him in “Marifatuth thiqat” (#646): “And in him little of shiizm, and he was from truthful of kufians”. No doubt ibn Kuhayl didn’t curse of abuse anyone from companions. Ibn Majah in “Sunnan” (#554) narrated from his way hadith about permissibility of wiping over khuffs during ablution. And it’s well known that rafida are rejecting this sunnah of prophet (sallalahu alahi wa ala alihi wa sallam). Salamah ibn Kuhayl was persona non grata in the shia books. Abu ‘Amr al-Kashshi, the prime rijal critic of the Shi‘ah, narrates from the 5th Imam Muhammad al-Baqir that Salamah ibn Kuhayl, amongst others, was responsible for misleading alot of people, and that he is of those about whom Allah has said in the Qur’an: There are some people who say: “We believe in Allah and the Last Day,” but (in reality) they do not believe. (“Nukad ar-rijal” Tifrashe, 2/353)

30) Sulayman ibn Tarkhan al-Taymi al-Basri. These was nothing from shiizm in him, expect his love to Ali. This man wasn’t known like a enemy of companions, believer in rajah or any other heresy.

31) Sulayman ibn Qarm ibn Ma`ath. Weak and abandoned. Ibn Maeen said he’s nothing, and it was narrated that he said he’s weak. Abu Hatim said he’s not steady. Ibn Hibban said: “Extreme in rafd, and along with that turned (mixed) stories”. Nasai said he’s not strong. Interesting that Abu Bakr ibn Ayash narrated from him, that he asked Abdullah ibn al-Hasan: “Is there kuffar in the people of our Qiblah?” He said: “Yes, rafidah”. (“Mizanul itidal” 2/219/#3559).

32) Sulayman ibn Mihran al-Kahili al-Kufi, al-Amash. From thiqat of tabein. And definitely not shia. It was narrated that he said: “If you would see Muawiyah, you would say he’s Mahdi” (Tabarani “al-Kabir” #691, chain is weak). Dhahabi in “Tarihul Islam” quoted Ijli words regarding little part of tashayu in al-Amash, said: “That’s what he said, and this is not true, he (al-Amash) was from ashabus-sunnah”. Ibn Majah narrated in “Sunnan” (#94) from way of al-Amash, that prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) said: “Property of no one gave me such benefit, like property of Abu Bakr”.

Abdulhussain said:

These Nasibis as a matter of fact tolerate these men not only because they are truthful in narrating hadith but rather because they are indispensable. Had they rejected these men's hadith the majority of the Prophet's ahadith would have then been abandoned as Dhahabi himself admits in his Al-Mizan while discussing the biography of Aban ibn Taghlib. I think that al-Mughirah's statement: "Abu Ishaq and your A`mash have rendered Kufa to destruction" is said due only to these men's Shi`a beliefs.

Just look, how this devil again addressed to us as to nawaseeb!

Quote from Dhahabi. In the bio of Abban, Dhahabi said that small innovation, like extremism in tashayu, or tashayu without extremism, were present in many of tabein, and people who followed them. And then he said that if to reject ahadeth of these people, part of prophetic traditions would be lost. We need to know, what does it mean tashayu? Mainly that was a name for people, who preferred Ali upon Uthman. Without any doubt that was an error, but I wish modern shias would differ with us only in this issue.

Statement of al-Mughirah. If to answer in one world to these words of slave of Hussain, we can say to him: Jahil! But if we have to explain, we would say that here al-Mughirah pointed to tadlis of al-Amash and Abu Ishaq, they both were known due to that, and that is main problem in accepting some of their ahadeth, which they narrated in muanan form.

33) Sharik ibn `Abdullah ibn Sinan al-Nakh`i al-Kufi the judge. Saduq with extremely bad memory. Ibrahim ibn Saeed al-Jawhari said that Sharik erred in the transmission of 400 ahadeth.

Abdulhussain said:

6

Abu Dawud al-Rahawi, as it in Al-Mizan, that he heard Sharik saying "`Ali is the best of creation; whoever denies this fact is kafir (apostate)."

As usual this dajal picked up part that he need, and omitted second part. Dhahabi said right after he quoted this:

من خير عليا [ أن ] قطعا يعتقد ال شريكا فإن ظاهره، على ليس هذا أن ريب وال مرفوعان يرويه الكذابين بعض خالفته أيام في البشر خير هو شك وبال وقت، في البشر خير أراد أنه إال بقى ما االنبياء

“Some liars narrated this in elevated (till prophet, sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) form. And no doubt it’s not like it seems to be. And Sharik didn’t believe that Ali better than prophets, and nothing remain except (to say) that he mean best of creation in his time, and no doubt he was best of creation in the time of his caliphate”.

Shaykhul-Islaam in “Minhaju sunnah” quoted interesting story, Abul Qaseem al-Balhi said: “Man asked from Sharik ibn Abdullah: “Who is better, Abu Bakr or Ali?” He said: “Abu Bakr”. The questioner said: “You say such thing and you are shia?” Sharik said: “Yes, and whoever wouldn’t say such thing, isn’t shia”. (Abdullah al-Ghunayman “Mukhtasar minhaju sunna” 1/6, shamela).In “Mukhtasar Uluw” (p 176, №146, maktabatul Ummul Qura) of Dhahabi, we have another proof that Sharik was far from modern heretics, which called themselves shia. From Abbad ibn al-Awam: “Approximately 50 years ago, Sharik ibn Abdullah came to us. We said to him: “O Abu Abdullah, we have here group of mutazilas. They are rejecting ahadeth that Allah descends on the lowest heaven, and ahadeth that believers would see him in the Heaven”. In his answer to us, Sharik narrated about 10 ahadeth in these themes, and then he said: “We have taken our religion from sons of tabein, and they from companions. And from whom they (mutazila) took their religion?”And it was narrated that Sharik said: “Take knowledge from all (moslems) which you would met, except rawafidh. Because they use to fabricate ahadeth, and take them as their religion”. (“Minhaju sunnan” 1/23, muasasat qurtuba; “Mizanul itidal” 1/28/#73; “Tadrib ar-rawi” 1.327 in short form”).

Abdulhussain said:

Al-Mizan also quotes Sharik's ahadith regarding the Commander of the Faithful. He cites Abu Rabi`ah from Ibn Buraydah from his father upto the Prophet who said: "For every Prophet there is a vicegerent and heir."

As usual dajal Abdulhussain omitted part that wasn’t suitable for him.In “Mizan” written:

أبيه عن بريدة، ابن عن االيادي، ربيعة أبى عن شريك، عن إسحاق، ابن حدثنا االبرش، سلمة حدثنا بثقة، - وليس الرازي حميد بن محمد ووارثى وصي عليا وإن ووارث، وصى نبى - مرفوعا: لكل .

Muhammad ibn Khumayd ar-Raze - and he wasn’t truthful (said), narrated to me Salamat al-Abrash, narrated to me ibn Ishaq, from Sharik, from AbuRabia al-Iydi, from ibn Buraydat, from father in elevated form: All prophets have vicegerent and heir, and Ali is my vicegerent and heir”This hadith isn’t authentic, but fabricated. Chain isn’t authentic even till Sharik. As we can see Dhahabi himself pointed to ibn Khumayd ar-Raze, as a problem in this chain. But this dajal, slave of Hussain, omitted that!!! Yaqub ibn Shaiba said ibn Khumayd has a lot of manaker (rejected data). Bukhari said he’s questionable. Abu Zurah accused him in lie. Nasai said he’s not truthful. Ibn Khirash said: “By Allah! He lied”. Many others accused him in stealing of ahadeth. When ibn Khuzayma was said that Ahmad use to praise ibn Khumayd, he answered: “He didn’t know him, if he would know him as I know, he would never praise him” (“Mizanul itidal” 3/530/#7453). Khulasa, only this ibn Khumayd is enough to say that chain even till Sharik isn’t authentic. And if we would add to him al-Abrash, we mentioned him before, and add ibn Ishaq, who was well known mudalis, and he narrated this in muanan form, without making clear did he hear it himself or not?!! And chain after Sharik also not authentic. Abu Rabia al-Iydi, that’s Amr ibn Rabia, and he was munkar al-hadith, as said Abu Hatim (“Mizanul itidal” 3/196/#6106).

Abdulhussain said:

Ibn Khallikan's Wafiyyat includes a biography of Sharik where the author quotes a dialogue between Sharik and Mis`ab ibn `Abdullah al-Zubairi in the presence of the `Abbaside ruler al-Mahdi. Mis`ab asked Sharik: "Do you really belittle Abu Bakr and `Umer?" up to the conclusion of the incident.

SubhanAllah! How is is possible to cut stories in such way?!!! In “Wafiyyat” written that Sharik answered: “By Allah! I didn’t belittle your father (meaning Zubayr)… and how I would (dare) to belittle them?”3.

Abdulhussain said:

أتنقصهما 3 فكيف دونهما وهو جدك أتنقض ما والله

7

He narrated one hadith from Asim from Tharr from `Abdullah ibn Mas`ud in elevated form: "If you see Mu`awiyah on my pulpit kill him." This is quoted by al-Tabari and al-Tabari in turn is quoted by al-Thahbi while the latter discusses the biography of Abbad ibn Ya`qub.

Hadith isn’t authentic, but fabricated. Uqayli said: “There is no authentic hadith with such meaning”. (Shawkani “Fawaid al-majmua” №164, стр 480). Ibn Jawzi called it fabrication in “al-Mawdua” (2/265). In this chain we can see 3 problems. 1-st Abbad ibn Yaqub, he was rafidi, and caller to this heresy. Hadith with such meaning can’t be accepted from such people. 2-nd, Sharik himself had extremely bad memory. 3-d, Asim, that’s ibn Bahzala, Abu Nujut al-Kufi. He also had bad memory. (“Mizanul itidal” 2/357/№4068).

34) Shu`bah ibn al-Hajjaj. Man should have great imagination to ascribe this Imaam to shias! But Abdulhussain and people like him have such one. Words of ibn Qutaiba and Shahristani (who himself questionable) couldn’t be accepted. Shu`bah narrated from Mansur ibn Abdurrahman, which said that he heard Shabei saying: “I reached 500 or more companions, all of them use to say: Ali, Uthman, Talha and Zubayr in heaven”. (“Atharul waradat min aimmatul sunna fi abwabil itikadat” p 582).

35) Tawus ibn Kaysan.

Abdulhussain said:

Sunni intellectuals regard him a Shi`a without any question.

However that’s not true. Because I couldn’t find anyone except Sufyan ath-Thawri. As I mentioned before there is great difference between tashayu of first generation and extreme rafd, that called shiizm these days. It’s enough proof that he wasn’t shia, his hadith in “Sunnan” Abu Dawud (#759, authenticated by Albani):

قال طاوس عن موسى، بن سليمان عن ثور، عن حميد ابن يعني الهيثم ثنا توبة، أبو حدثنا :الصالة في وهو صدره، على بينهما يشد ثم اليسرى يده على اليمنى يده يضع وسلم عليه الله صلى اللّه رسول كان .

Narrated Tawus: The Messenger of Allah (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) used to place his right hand on his left hand, then he folded them strictly on his chest in prayer.

36) Zalim ibn Amr.

Translator of this epistle to English said:

Refer to his hadith about `Umer ibn al-Khattab in Bukhari's Sahih. In Muslim's his hadith is cited by Abu Musa and `Umran ibn Hasin.

But this translation is completely incorrect! Because in Arabic version written:And more than that, his hadith in Saheeh Bukhari from Umar ibn al-Khattab, and he has (hadith) in Saheeh Moslem from Abu Mosa, and Imran ibn Hasin.

See! A shia narrated hadith from Umar and Abu Mosa, and we all known that these two companions are enemies in accordance to faith of modern rawafidh. This is clear example how shias of the past differed from modern one.

37) Abbad ibn Ya`qub al-Asadi al-Ruwajni al-Kufi. Rafidi, called to heresy. He use to abuse pious salaf. Ibn Adi said that he use to narrated ahadeth in fadhail, that were rejected from him (as suspicious). This dajal said: “Allah is too just to let Talha and Zubair in heaven, they fought Ali after give him a pledge of allegiance”. It was narrated that he said: “Ali dig up the sea”. Ibn Hibban said: “He was caller to rafd, and along with that narrated manaker (rejected data) from famous (narrators), deserve to be abandoned”. (“Mizanul itidal” 2/379/#4149).

38) Abdullah ibn Dawud al-Hamadani al-Kufi. I couldn’t find anyone from critics of jarh wa tadil, which would say that he was shia. Words of ibn Qutaiba alone aren’t enough.

39) Abdullah ibn Shaddad ibn al-Had. It’s strange that slave of Hussain said that he was shia. I find bio of this tabein in “Tahzib al-kamal” of imam al-Mizzi. Quote that Abdulhussain ascribed to ibn Sad, obviously was his narration from his shaykh Waqede. Because in “Tahzib al-kamal” (15/#3330) it’s written that Waqede said this narrator was mutashayu. And in the same book stated that ibn Sad himself said about him, that ibn Shaddad was Uthmani! As I said before Waqede was abandoned. Allah knows best.

8

40) `Abdullah ibn `Umer ibn Muhammad ibn Aban ibn Salih ibn `Umayr al-Qarashi al-Kufi.No doubt that this narrator wasn’t rafidi. Suyote narrated in “Tareeh al-khulafa” (p 134) from this Abdullah ibn Umar: “My uncle Hussain al-Jufi said to me: “Do you know why Uthman was called “owner of two lights”? I said: “No”. He said to me: “No one except Uthman didn’t gathered two daughters of prophet (in the marriage, one after died other) from the time when Allah created Adam, till Doomsday, that’s why he was called “owner of two lights”. Now, you can compare this athar with standpoint of many modern rafida, that prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) didn’t has daughter except Fatima! May curse of Allah be upon liars!

41) `Abdullah ibn Lahi`ah ibn `Uqbah al-Hadrami Egypt's judge and scholar. He was weak in ahadeth in accordance to agreed opinion between scholars. Abdulhussain said:

“Abu Yala narrated from Kamal ibn Talhat, narrated to us ibn Lahi`ah, narrated to me Hay ibn Abdullah al-Maghafiri, from Abu Abdurrahman al-Habli, from Abdullah ibn Amr, that during his sickness (which preceded his demise) the Messenger of Allah (p.b.u.h.) told us to fetch his brother. We brought him Abu Bakr but he turned away from him and said: `I had asked for my brother'. We then brought `Uthman but again the Messenger of Allah (p.b.u.h.) turned away from him. `Ali (a.s.) was then brought in his presence. He covered him with his own mantle and inclined his head on his shoulder for a while (as if he was whispering something in his ear). When `Ali left people asked him: `What has the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) said to you?' He answered: `He has taught me a thousand chapters each of which leads to a thousand sections.'"

Hadith is pure lie and fabrication. Hadith is fabrication (“Silsila ad-daeefa” 4545, 6627). Ibn Lahi`ah, that’s famous Abdullah ibn Lahi`ah. Scholars of jarh wa tadil agreed that he was weak narrator. He was weak, and couldn’t be relied upon, before his books burn, and after that, as said Imaam Yahya ibn Maeen. (“Mizanul itidal” 2/475/#4530).Imaam Abdullah ibn Ahmad narrated in his “Sunnan” (#1265) from Amr ibn Wasila, that Ali was asked: “Tell us something, that prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) said your in secret”. He answered: “Messenger of Allah didn’t tell me anything in secret, which he conceals from people”. Also in “Najhul-balagha” (sermon 163) it was narrated that Ali said to Uthman: “I know nothing which you do not know, nor can I lead you to any matter of which you are not aware. You certainly know what we know, we have not come to know anything before you which we could tell you; nor did we learn anything in secret which we should convey to you”.Don’t be deluded by rafidi translators which included words “in this matter”, between words “I known nothing”, and “which you don’t know”. Those words don’t exist in the original Arabic book.

42) Abdullah ibn Maymun al-Qaddah al-Makki. Abandoned narrator. Abu Hatim said: “Abandoned”. Bukhari said: “Wasted in hadith” (that’s fourth rank of critic, ahadeth of such narrator aren’t to be recorded). Ibn Hibban said: “It’s not permit to rely on him in things that he narrated alone”. Abu Zurah said: “Wahiyl-hadith”. (“Mizanul itidal” 2/512/#4642).

Liar Abdulhussain said:

He is relied upon by al-Tirmithi

And by Allah he lied! Tirmizi (rahimuhullah) in his “Sunnan” (#2144) said: “Abdullah ibn Maymun munkar al-hadith”.

43) `Abdul-Rahman ibn Salih al-Azdi. As usual slave of Hussain quoted some parts of text from “Mizan” and pretended blind when seen something unsuitable. Baghavi said: “I heard him (Abdurrahman) saying: “Best of this nation after prophet, are Abu Bakr then Umar”. (“Mizanul itidal” 2/569/#4889)! And this is another proof, that shias of the first generation were far from heresy of people, that called shias in our days.

44) Abdul-Razzaq ibn Humam ibn Nafi` al-Himyari al-San`ani. Imam and muhadith, which was far from rafidi heretics. It was reported from Abdurrazaq that he made takfir on rafida (See his bio in “Mizanul itidal” 2/609/#5044.). He simply loved Ali and use to say: «By Allah, my heart has never been pleased to prefer Ali over Abu Bakr and Umar». And he also said: «I prefer two shaykhs because of fact that Ali preferred them to himself. It would be enough contempt for me to oppose Ali» («Bustanul muhadethen» p 126). It is also agreed between scholars, that Abdurrazaq got confused in the end of his life, and his ahadeth that he narrated in that period are weak. Nasai said: “He’s under question in those ahadeth that were recorded from him in the end. (In that period) from him were narrated manaker ahadeth”, Ibn Adi said: “He was reporting ahadeth in praise, that no one else use to narrate, and ahadeth in condemnation of others, (and he) was ascribed to tashayu”. Daraqutni said he was thiqat, which erred upon Muamar in ahadeth.

9

45) `Abdul-Malik ibn `Ayan. Salihul-hadith, as noticed Abu Hatim. Ahadeth of such narrator could be recorded for analyses. And he’s definitely not hujja. Translator said:

that Ma`in has said that there is nothing wrong with his hadith, while another authority testifies thus: "He is truthful, yet he is Rafidi, too”.

However in “Mizan” and original Arabic al-Murajiat, written that ibn Maeen said: “He’s nothing”, and it was reported that he said: “Saduq, yet he is rafidi”. In accordance to Dhahabi and Sahawi, such expression (he’s nothing - /laytha bi shay/) should be used regarding narrator who in the 4-th level of jarh, in accordance to Iraqi that’s 3-d level, Ahadeth of such narrator are not to be recorded in any case. Ibn Maeen used it in this meaning, and sometimes used it as expression regarding narrator who didn’t narrate a lot.

46) Uthman ibn `Umayr `Abdul-Yaqzan al-Thaqafi al-Kufi al-Bijli. Extremely weak shia. Ibn Maeen said he’s nothing. Abu Ahmad az-Zubayri said: “He believed in rajat”. Nasai said: “Not strong”. Daraqutni said he’s weak. Falathe said: “Yahya and Abdurrahman didn’t narrate from Uthman Abu Yaqzan”. Ahmad said about him: “Daeef al-hadith”. (“Mizanul itidal” 3/50/#5550).

47) `Adi ibn Thabit al-Kufi. He was know shia, and the best among them. In “Saheeh” al-Bukhari (#3572) hadith from him in praise of ansar.

عليه الله صلى النبي قال: سمعت عنه الله رضي البراء قال: سمعت ثابت بن عدي قال: أخبرني شعبة منهال: حدثنا بن حجاج حدثنا أبغضهم ومن الله، أحبه أحبهم فمن منافق، إال يبغضهم وال مؤمن، إال يحبهم ال وسلم: )األنصار عليه الله صلى النبي قال: قال أو وسلم، الله( أبغضه .

From al-Bara ibn Azib: I heard messenger (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) said: “Al-Ansar, none loves them but a believer, and none hates them but a hypocrite. So Allah will love him who loves them, and He will hate him who hates them”.

Compare this hadith with attitude of modern shias to all companions! Al-Kulayni says in Rawdhatul Kaafi (Vol.8 pg. 235), and Majlisi in “Mirat” said it’s hasan or muwathaq: “People became apostates after the death of the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam), except for three people: Miqdad ibn Aswad, Abu Dharr Ghifari and Salmaan Farsi”.

48) `Atiyyah ibn Sa`d ibn Janadah al-`Awfi. Weak and mudalis in accordance to almost agreed opinion between scholars of Islaam. Dhahabi, Abu Hatim, Nasai, Ahmad said he’s weak (“Mizanul itidal” 3/79/#5667). He was also weakned by Sufyan Thawri and Ibn Adi (“Tahzib al-kamal” 20/#3956). Heythami in “Majmau zawaid” #11125 said Atiyyah weak, abandoned.Shaykh Muhammad Albani in his book on tawasul discussed ‘Atiyyah : “‘Atiyyah is weak as declared by an -Nawawee in al-Adhkaar, Ibn Taimiyyah in al-Qaa’idatul-Jaliyyah and adh-Dhahabee in al-Meezaan; indeed in ad-Du’afaa (88/1) he says: “They are agreed upon his weakness.” Also by al-Haafidh al-Haithamee in various places in Majma’uz-Zawaa’id from them (5/236). He is also mentioned by Aboo Bakr ibn al-Muhibb al-Ba’labakee in ad-Du’afaa wal-Matrookeen, and by al-Boosayree as will follow. Likewise al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr says of him: “Truthful but makes many mistakes; he was a Sbee’ee mudallis.” So he clarifies this narrator’s weakness and it is due to two things: (i) The weakness of his memory as shown by his saying: “He makes many mistakes.” This is like his saying about him in Tabaqaatul-Mudalliseen: “weak in hadeeth” Even more clear is his saying about him in “Talkbeesul-Habeer (p.24l, Indian edn.) whilst discussing another hadeeth: “It contains ‘Atiyyah ibn Sa’eed al-‘Awfee and he is weak.” (ii) His tadlees. However al-Haafidh should have explained the type of tadlees which he performed, since tadlees with the scholars of hadeeth is of many types, the most well-known of which are:(a) That a narrator reports a narration from someone he met when in fact he did not directly hear that narration from him, or that he narrated something from a contemporary whom he did not actually meet, giving the impression that he heard it from him. For example by saying ‘From so and so’ or ‘so and so said.’(b) That the narrator calls his Shaikh by an unfamiliar name or title, different to the name by which he is commonly known in order to hide his true identity. The scholars have clearly stated that this is something forbidden if his Shaikh was an unreliable narrator, and he does this to hide his identity or to give the impression that he was a different reliable narrator with the same name or title.103 This is known as tadleesusb-Shuyookh.So in conclusion we say that ‘Atiyyah used to narrate from Aboo Sa’eed al – Khudree, radiyallaahu ‘anhu, then when he died he used to sit with one of the great liars well known for lying about hadeeth, who was al-Kalbee. Then ‘Atiyyah used to narrate from him, but when doing so would call him ‘Aboo Sa’eed’ to give the impression to those listening that he had heard these narrations from Aboo Sa’eed al-Khudree!

10

This to me in itself would be enough to destroy the credibility of ‘Atiyyah, so how about when we have in addition to it his weak memory! Therefore I would have been pleased for al -Haafidh to clarify the fact that it was this evil type of tadlees which ‘Atiyyah was guilty of, even if only by an indication as he does in Tabaqaatul-Mudalliseen by his saying:“Well-known for evil tadlees” as has preceded. It is as if al-Haafidh forgot or erred, or something else, as humans are prone to make mistakes some – times, since he says about this hadeeth that in one narration ‘Atiyyah says:

“Aboo Sa’eed narrated to me,” and he himself says about this: “Therefore through this we know that we are safe from ‘Atiyyahs tadlees,” as Ibn ‘Alaan narrated from him, and some modern day authors follow him blindly in that. I say: This declaration that he heard it from him would only be of use if his tadlees were of the first type, but the tadlees of ‘Atiyyah is of the second and worse type and will not be cured by this statement since he still said “Aboo Sa’eed narrated to me” which is exactly the evil type of tadlees which he is known for.104 So from what has preceded it will be clear that ‘Atiyyah is weak due to his poor memory and evil tadlees, so this hadeeth of his is weak. As for the declaration of al-Haafidh that it is hasan, which has beguiled some people who have no knowledge, then it is founded upon inadvertence. So be aware and do not be amongst those who are unaware. In the hadeeth there are other weaknesses which I have spoken about in the aforementioned book, so there is no need to repeat them since whoever wishes can refer to that.As for the understanding of some people today that the saying of al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr in at-Taqreeb amounts to declaration of the reliability of ‘Atiyyah, then this is something which is not correct at all. I also asked Shaikh Ahmad ibn as- Haafidh upon this saying after our explanation of the type of tadlees which ‘Atiyyah is guilty of, then this person is biased and following his desires. This is the case with one who quoted this saying of al-Haafidh, using it as a reply to my declaration of the weakness of the hadeeth. I say that he is biased since I know that he is aware of the type of tadlees committed here and which is spoken of by me; this is because he is replying to these words of mine about this hadeeth. However he feigns ignorance of that fact and doesn’t say a single word in reply to it. Rather he pretends that the tadlees was of the first kind which can be removed by a narration where it is clearly stated that a narrator heard it directly from his Shaikh. Will the readers excuse me if I say:Do such people not themselves deserve to be placed amongst those guilty of tadlees like ‘Atiyyah?!Siddeeq when I met him in the Zaahiriyyah Library in Damascus about thi s understanding and he too found it very strange. For when the mistakes of a narrator become many his reliability is destroyed, as opposed to one whose mistakes are few. The first of these is weak whereas the second is hasan in hadeeth. This is why al-Haafidh in Sharhun-Nukhbah says, that one whose mistakes are many is the partner of one whose memory is poor, and he declares the ahaadeeth of both of them to be rejected, so refer back to that along with the footnotes of Shaikh ‘Alee al-Qaaree (pp.!21&130). These people have been deceived by what they report from al -Haafidh that he said in Takbreejul-Adhkaar. “The weakness of ‘Atiyyah is due to his being a Shee’ee, and due to the fact that it is said that he committed tadlees; apart from this he is acceptable. “ So these people, due to their paucity of knowledge or their lack of knowledge, do not have the courage to explain their view that the scholars do indeed make mistakes. Rather they quote their words as if they are secure from any error or slip whatsoever, especially if their words agree with what they desire, such as is the case with this quote. Since it is clear here that these words run contrary to the saying of al-Haafidh in at-Taqreeb where he shows that ‘Atiyyah is weak due to two reasons:(i) Being a Shee’ee, which is not always a cause of weakness in the correct saying, and (ii) Tadlees which is a weakness that can be removed as will follow. However he seemed to weaken this reason by saying: “It is said…” Whereas in at-Taqreeb he definitely stated that he is a mudallis, just as he declares him to be a shee’ee. Therefore al-Haafidh himself also says of him in Tabaqaatul-Mudalliseen (p. 18): “A well known taabi’ee , weak in memory and well-known for evil tadlees!’ and he mentions him in the fourth level about whom he says: “Those about whom there is agreement then none of their hadeeth are acceptable unless they state clearly that they heard it directly. This is due to their frequency in reporting by means of tadlees from weak and unknown narrators, such as Baqiyyah ibn al-Waleed.”He mentions this in his introduction. So both of these are clear statements from al-Haafidh himself which prove that he erred in the sentence in question when casting doubt upon the status of ‘Atiyyah as a mudallis. This is one way in which there is contradiction between this saying and what is found in at- Taqreeb. Then a further way in which there is contradiction is that in the sentence in question he fails to describe him with what is another cause of his weakness, as has preceded from him in the quote from Sharhun-Nukhbab,and that is his saying in at-Taqreeb: “He makes many mistakes.” All of this shows us that al-Haafidh, rahimahullaah, was not aided by his memory at the instance of his commenting upon this hadeeth. He therefore fell into this shortcoming which is witnessed to by his words in the other books which have more right to be depended upon. This is because in those books he quotes directly from the sources and abridges what they say, as opposed to what he does inTakhreejul-Adhkaar. (end of quote from shaykh Albani)

49) Alqamah ibn Qays ibn `Abdullah al-Nakh`i, Abu Shibil. I couldn’t find anyone from known critics of jar and tadil which would ascribe him to tashayu. Words of Shahristani, whose mazhab in itself was questioned, for sure aren’t enough. Alqama (rahimuhullah) narrated ahadeth from Umar, Uthman, Aisha, ibn Masood, Abu Musa al-Ashari and others (Ibn Jawzi “Sifatus-saffa” p 682/#381). Rafida, followers of shaitan and friends of Abdulhussain are cursing all these companions.

11

Rafidi scholar Muhamad at-Tavsirkani in his book “Lelail akhbar” 4/92 wrote: “And know that the most suitable place, and condition for cursing them, may Allah curse them, is a time when you in the toilet. Repeat after each time that you piss, bawling, or cleaning after that: “O Allah curse Umar, then Abu Bakr, after Umar, then Usman, then Umar, then Muawiya, then Umar, then Yazeed, then Umar, then Ibn Ziyad, then Umar, then ibn Sad and Umar, then Shimr then Umar, then Askara (Aisha) and Umar. O Allah curse Aisha, Hafsa, Hinda, Ummul Hakam. And curse each one who satysfied with their deeds till the dooms day”!!! Curse of Allah upon enemies of companions! Alqama narrated from Ali that Abu Bakr and Umar were best people of this nation after prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam). It was narrated by Beyhaki in “Itikadat” (1/382/#343, shamela) via chain: reported to us – Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Adaan – narrated to us – Ahmad ibn Ubayd as-Saffar – narrated to us – Muhammad ibn Fadl ibn Jabir – narrated to us – Hakeem ibn Mosa – narrated to us – Shihab ibn Khirash – narrated to us – al-Hajjaj ibn Dinar – from – Abu Muashar – from – Ibrahim – from – Alqama.And imam Abdullah ibn Ahmad narrated it in zawaid to “Musnad” (#1051) via shorter chain: narrated to us – Abu Salih Hakeem ibn Mosa – narrated to us – Shihab ibn Khirash – narrated to me – al-Hajjaj ibn Dinar – from – Abu Muashar – from – Ibrahim – from – Alqama.Shaykh Shuayb Arnawut said chain is strong. Ahmad Shakir said chain is saheeh.Abu Ali al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Nasir at-Toose narrated it in his “Muhtasar al-ahkam mustahraj toose ala jamial ahkam” (#198, 1/316) via chain: narrated to us Abdullah ibn Muhammad – narrated to us Hakeem ibn Mosa – narrated to us – Shihab ibn Khirash – narrated to me – al-Hajjaj ibn Dinar – from – Abu Muashar – from – Ibrahim – from – Alqama.1) Alqama ibn Qays ibn Abdullah Nakhai, thiqat, abid. (“Taqrib” #4681).2) Ibrahim an-Nakhai famous imam. 3) Abu Muashar, Ziyad ibn Kulaib al-Koofe. Thiqat. (“Taqrib” #2096)4) Al-Hajjaj ibn Dinar. There is no problem in him. (“Taqrib” #1125). Same opinion shared Ahmad and Yahya. Abu Hatim said that he’s not to be relied on. Daraqutni said that he’s not strong. Ibn Mubarak, Yaqub ibn Shayba and Ijli praised him. (“Mizanul itidal” 1/461/#1732)Shihab ibn Hirash ibn Hawshab ash-Shaybane, Abu Salat al-Wasete. Saduq, which erred. (“Taqrib” #2825).5) Abu Salih Al-Hakim ibn Mosa, Abu Salih al-Qantare. Saduq. (“Taqrib” #1462).(chain of imam Abdullah ends here).

50) Ali ibn al-Ja`d. I couldn’t find anyone except ibn Qutaiba, who would consider him shia. As I said before, words of ibn Qutaiba alone aren’t enough. In his bio in “Mizan” stated that he was jahmi. Allah knows best.

51) `Ali ibn Zaid ibn ibn Jad`an. Extremely weak. Ahmad said he’s weak. Ibn Ueynah also hold opinion that he’s weak. Yahya said he’s nothing. Abu Hatim, Bukhari said he’s not to be relied on. Al-Fasawe said that he confused when he got old. Ibn Khuzayma said: “He’s not to be relied on due to his bad memory” (“Mizanul itidal” 3/127/#5844). Abdulhussain said:

Ahmed al-`Ajli has mentioned him saying that the man follows the Shi`a School of Muslim Law.

And as usual he omitted part that wasn’t suitable for him. Ajli said: “Yatashayu, and not strong”. He quoted his opinion on his shiizm, and omitted part where he stated that narrator wasn’t strong!!

52) Ali ibn Salih. I couldn’t find anyone except ibn Qutaiba, who would say he’s shia.

53) `Ali ibn Ghurab Abu Yahya al-Fazari al-Kufi.

Abdulhussain said:

Ibn Hibban has described him as "an extremist Shi`a." Probably for this reason, al-Jawzjani drops him completely.

And as usual, he omitted part of text, exactly in accordance to traditions of his jew salaf. In “Mizanul itidal” (3/149/#5060) written: “Ibn Hibban said: “Narrated fabrications, and he was extreme in tashayu”.

54) `Ali ibn Qadim Abul-Hasan al-Khuza`i al-Kufi. Yahya said he’s weak. Ibn Sad said his ahadeth are to be recorded. Abu Hatim said: “His station is veracity” (mahaluhu as-sidq). (“Mizanul itidal” 3/150/#5909). Words of Abu Hatim, means that he was narrator whose ahadeth could be recorded for further examination. (“Muqadima” ibn Salah, p 92).

55) Ali ibn al-Munthir al-Tara'ifi. No doubt he was far from modern shias. Tirmizi narrated in his “Sunnan” (#2693, authenticated by Albani) hadith from the way of ibn al-Munthir, that prophet (sallalahu

12

alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) said to Aisha: “Jirbil send salam to you”. Aisha said: “Wa aleihi salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu”.

56) Ali ibn al-Hashim ibn al-Barid Abul-Hasan al-Kufi al-Khazzaz al-`Aithi.

Abdulhussain said:

He is one of Imam Ahmed's mentors.

In “Mizanul itidal” stated that Ahmad said: “I heard from him in one gathering”. Bukhari said regarding this narrator: “He and his father were extreme in their mazhab”. Ibn Hibban said: “Extreme in tashayu, and narrated manaker from famous narrator”. Due to his extremism, Bukhari left his narrations. Ibn Numayr said: “Munkar al-hadith”. (“Mizanil itidal” 3/160/#5960).

57) `Ammar ibn Zurayq al-Kufi.

Abdulhussain said:

Al-Sulaymani calls him "Rafidi," Dhahabi states while discussing `Ammar in his Al-Mizan.

But as usual slave of Hussain omitted that Dhahabi said after he mentioned opinion of Sulaymani: “Allah knows best, is it authentic or not”. (“Mizanul itidal” 3/164/#5986).

58) Ammar ibn Mu`awiyah, or Ibn Abu Mu`awiyah.

Slave of Hussain again lied, when he said: Dhahabi has included his biography in his own Al-Mizan and quoted the views stated above regarding his being a Shi`a and a trustworthy traditionist, adding that nobody had spoken ill of him except al-`Aqili, and that there was no fault in him other than his being a Shi`a.

And in Mizan stated that Aqili (or Uqayli) talked about Ammar due to his disconnected narrations from Saeed ibn Musayb.

59) `Amr ibn `Abdullah Abu Issaq al-Subai`i al-Hamadani al-Kufi. Thiqat, I couldn’t find anyone except Shahristani and ibn Qutaiba, who would call him shia.

Abdulhussain said:

Among what the Nasibis have rejected from maraseel of Abu Ishaq's hadith which was narrated by Amr ibn Ismail al-Hamadani – as in his bio in “Mizan”, from Abu Ishaq:"`As the author of Al-Mizan indicates, Amr ibn Isma`il has quoted Abu Issaq saying that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) has said, `Ali is like a tree whose root I am, and whose branches are `Ali, whose fruit are al-Hasan and al-Husayn, whose leaves are the Shi`as.'"

Praise to Allah, that He showed us again face of this dajal Abdulhussain, that’s not a face of brother, but face of enemy, face that was changed by his hatred against Moslems. He again called us nawaseeb! Becaused imam Dhahabi, imam of moslems, quoted this hadith in the bio of mentioned Ismail, and said that he narrated from Abu Ishaq false story! This one! And as we can see slave of Hussain called people who rejected this – nawaseeb! al-`Allama al-Hilli says in Nihayat al-Ahkam [1:274]: “The Kharijis, Ghulat and the Nasibi, who is who demonstrates enmity for Ahl al-Bayt `alayhim al-salam, are impure individuals.”When al-Shahid al-Awwal mentions the dog and its “brothers” in his Alfiyya on fiqh, al-Muhaqqiq al-Karaki comments upon it in it — per his Rasa’il [3:215]: “His saying: ‘Its brothers…’ meaning, the swine, and all types of kafirs, even the Kharijis, Ghulat, Nasibis and Mujassima in the true sense.”Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi says in commentary of a narration in Mir’at al-`Uqul [24:211] where the word “Nasibi” was used for a man: “If by ‘Nasibi’ it was meant the hater and enemy of the Ahl al-Bayt `alayhim al-salam, which is most obvious, then he is a kafir and his blood is to be spilled unavailingly.”Hadith with close meaning was narrated by ibn Jawzi in “al-Mawduat” (2/5) from ibn Abbas, he said it’s fabrication, in the chain unknown narrator.

60) Awf ibn Abu Jamila al-Basri, Abu Sahl.

Abdulhussain said:

He also quotes Ja`fer ibn Sulayman describing him as Shi`a and quotes Bandar calling him "Rafidi."

13

In reality in “Mizan” (3/305) stated that Bandar said: “Rafidi, qadari, shaytani!”

61) Al-Fadl ibn Dakin, Abu Nuaim.

Slave of Hussain, said:

“Dhahabi mentioned him in “Mizan” by words: al-Fadl ibn Dakin, Abu Nuaim, al-hafidh, hujjat but he tashayu”.

This part was completely omitted by translator to English, but here we can see also another example of half-quoting. In “Mizan” written: al-Fadl ibn Dakin, Abu Nuaim, al-hafidh, hujjat but he tashayu, without extreme or abuses (toward companions).

Dajal simply omitted that Fadl ibn Dakin (rahimuhullah) didn’t abused companions, and wasn’t from extreme shias! But why?!! Because he himself use to do his best for belittling of companions! Ibn Hajar in “Fathk al-bari” (p 434) narrated that Fadl said: “Recording angels didn’t ever recorded from me that I abused Muawiyah”. (Abdulmuhsin Abbas “Min aqwal al-munsifin fi sahabi khalifa Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan” p 46, darussahaba). Compare these words of imam Fadl with attitude of rafida toward Muawiyah!!

Translator also erred in other part, he wrote:

Dhahabi mentions him in his Al-Mizan and says: "I have heard ibn Ma`in saying: `If a man's name is mentioned in the presence of Abu Na`im and he calls him a good person and praises him, then rest assured that that person is a Shi`a; whereas if he labels someone as Murji', then rest assured that he is a good Sunni.'" Dhahabi says that this statement proves that Yahya ibn Ma`in inclines towards believing in the Return”.

But in reality in “Mizan”, and Arabic Murajiat written: “Dhahabi says that this statement proves that Yahya ibn Ma`in inclines towards believing to the Irja”. Stupid translator mixed word Rajah (return) with Irja.

62) Fudayl ibn Marzuq al-Aghar al-Ruwasi al-Kufi, Abu `Abdul-Rahman. Ibn Adi said: “I hope there is no problem with him”. Nasai and Uthman ibn Saeed said he’s weak. He was known by tashayu without abuses. (“Mizanul itidal” 3/362/#6762). And slave of Hussain omitted that Fudayl (rahimuhullah) didn’t abuse companions! Because abuses of companions is essential of his own religion. Ibn Hibban said: “His ahadeth extremely rejected, he was from those who erred upon thiqat, and narrated fabrications from Atiyyah”. Ibn Adi said: “In my view if his ahadeth agreed with thiqat, he could be relied on”.

And now another example of idiocy and stupidity from slave of Hussain, he said:

Zayd ibn al-Habab has in fact lied regarding what he attributed to him of hadith dealing with the appointment of `Ali (as) as Amr by the Prophet (pbuh).

We have seen slave of Hussain praising ibn al-Habab in this letter under number 28! But now! When it’s not suitable Abdulhussain accused ibn al-Habab in lie! SubhanAllah! Allah said: [Shakir 4:82] Do they not then meditate on the Quran? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy.

63) Fitr ibn Khalifah al-Hannat al-Kufi. Regarding his tashayu it’s enough to quote Saji: “He use to put Ali upon Uthman”. (“Tahzib at-tahzib” 8/271). If all shias would differ with us only in such things!

64) Malik ibn Isma`il ibn Ziyad ibn Dirham Abu Hasan al-Kufi al-Hindi. He wasn’t extreme shia, and proofs for that are several. He narrated that prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) said to Abu Bakr: “You are my companion near pool and companion in the cave”. (Tirmizi “Sunnan” №3670, hadith is weak). And he narrated that prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) said: “Each prophet has his own apostle, and Zubair ibn Awam is my apostle”. (“Jamius-saheer al-mukhtasar” №3514)

65) Muhammad ibn `Abdullah al-Dabi al-Tahani al-Nisaburi, Abu `Abdullah al-Hakim. As for Hakim (rahimuhullah), his book «al-Mustadrak» with chapters regarding merits of such companions like Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and others are enough to see reality of all vainness of modern rafidah in their attempt to describe him as the one who shared their beliefs. Dihlawi in «Bustanul muhadethen» («Bustanul muhadethen»p 126) said: «Some scholars believed that the meaning of his inclination to shiism was his statement preferring Ali to Uthman, may Allah be pleased with both of them, which is a position of a group of the people of knowledge, and Allah knows best».

14

I would be very happy if modern shias would differ with us only in such minor thing. But unfortunately in modern shia faith there is no talk about preferring someone to other, there is a doctrine of takfir of almost all companions.

66) Muhammad ibn `Ubaydullah ibn Abu Rafi` al-Madani. Abandoned narrator. Bukhari said his ahadeth are rejected, Abu Hatim said extremely rejected. Yahya ibn Maeen said: His ahadeth are nothing”. (“Mizanul itidal” 3/634/#7904).

Abdulhussain said:

Al-Tabarani in his Al-Mu`jam al-Kabir has relied on the authority of Muhammad ibn `Ubaydullah ibn Abu Rafi` al-Madani who quotes his father and grandfather saying that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) has said to `Ali (as), "The first to enter Paradise will be I and you, then al-Hasan and al-Husayn, with our progeny behind us, and our Shi`as on our right and left."

Hadith is pure lie and fabrication. Tabarani narrated it via chain: Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Qantari – Harb ibn al-Hasan at-Tahhan – Yahya ibn Yala – Muhammad ibn Ubeydullah ibn Abu Rafi.I already talked about ibn Abu Rafi, and he’s abandoned. Harb ibn al-Hasan, his ahadeth aren’t approved. (“Mizanul itidal” 1/469/#1768). Yahya ibn Yala, that’s most likely al-Aslami. Bukhari said his ahadeth are mixed, Abu Hatim said he’s weak. (“Mizanul itidal” 4/415/#9657). Al-Heythami said in “Majmau zawaid” (#15024): “Narrated by Tabarani, in the chain Yahya ibn Yala al-Aslami, and he’s weak”.

67) Muhammad ibn Fudayl ibn Ghazwan Abu `Abdul-Rahman al-Kufi. He wasn’t rafidi. It was narrated that he said: “May mercy of Allah be upon Uthman, and may Allah not forgive those who wouldn’t invoke mercy upon him”. (Ibn Hajar “Fatkh al-bari” 1/441, darul marifat, Beirut, 1379; “Tahzib at-tahzib” 9/359; Abul Walid Sulaiman ibn Sad al-Badji “At-tadil wat Tadrih” 2/#562).

68) Muhammad ibn Muslim ibn al-Ta'ifi. He was weak per Ahmad ibn Hanbal.

Dajal Abdulhussain said:

Yet those who have labelled his hadith as "weak" have done so only on the grounds of his being a Shi`a, although their prejudice has not at all harmed him.

And by Allah, he lied again! In “Mizanul itidal” (4/40/#8172) written: “Abdulmalik al-Maymune said: “Ahmad said: “If Muhammad ibn Muslim narrated not from his book, he erred, then he weakened him in all cases, (when he narrated) from book, or not from book, and he seen him weak”. By the way, I haven’t seen anyone from scholars of jar wa tadil, who would ascribe him to shiizm.

69) Mu`awiyah ibn `Ammar al-Dihni al-Bajli al-Kufi. I couldn’t find anyone from scholars jar wa tadil, who would ascribe him to tashayu. This narrator reported from Jafar ibn Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Hussai, that he said about Quran: “Quran isn’t creator, and isn’t created. Quran is a speech of Allah”. (“Mukhtasar uluw” p 175, #144)And we all know standpoint of modern rafidah on the Quran, for them it’s been created!

70) Ma`ruf ibn Kharbuth al-Karkhi. Weak. Yahya ibn Maeen said he’s weak. Ahmad: “I don’t know how are his ahadeth”. Abu Hatim said that his ahadeth are to be recorded. (“Mizanul itidal” 4/144/#8655).

71) Mansur ibn al-Mu`tamir ibn `Abdullah ibn Rabi`ah al-Salami al-Kufi. In “Tahzib al-kamal” (28/#6201) in his bio, written: “And in him was a little (portion) of tashayu, and he wasn’t extreme”.

Abdulhussain said:

In his biography of Mansur ibn al-Mu`tamir ibn `Abdullah ibn Rabi`ah Ibn Sa`d also quotes Hammad ibn Zayd saying "I have seen Mansur in Mecca and I think he belongs to those Khashbis yet I do not think that he tells a lie when he quotes hadith." Behold the underestimation grudge contempt and manifest enmity this statement bears. How surprised I am when I consider his statement: "I do not think that he tells lies..." As if telling lies is one of the practices of those who are sincere to Muhammad's progeny.

Our answer, of course no, but telling lies in one of the practices of those who claim to be sincere to ahlalbayt.Telling lies is an essential part of rafidi religion.

Grand Ayatollah al-Sayyid Abū al-Qāsim al-Khū’ī (d. 1412) issued the following fatwa:

15

Question : Is lying to an innovator or a promoter of deviance permissible during the time of argumentation against him? If that lie was used to refute his proof and it nullifies his false claims?[Answer by] al-Khū’ī: If the reply to him stops his falsehood, it is permissible.

http://arabic.al-khoei.org/falea.htm(see question #6)

And slave of Hussain also said:

As if the Nasibis could not find a name whereby they can call the Shi`as other than misnomers such as Khashbis Turabis Rafidis etc.

Praise to Allah, that the name rafida, was given to them by member of ahlalbayt, Zayd ibn Ali ibn Hussain! When they abandoned him and left him, he said: “You have rejected me”. And from those times they were called rejectors - RAFIDA.

72) Al-Minhal ibn `Amr al-Kufi the tabi`i. I couldn’t find anyone from scholars of jarh and tadil, which would ascribe him to tashayu. Words of Juzajani, that ibn Amr had a bad mazhab, could be interpreted in different ways.

73) Musa ibn Qays al-Hadrami Abu Muhammad. Once Sufyan asked him about Abu Bakr and Ali. He answered: "`Ali is more dear to me." (“Mizanul itidal” 4/217/№8911). He didn’t abuse or curse Abu Bakr, and that’s not comparable with modern shia stance on Abu Bakr.

Abdulhussain said:

Musa ibn Qays reports hadith from Salamah ibn Kuhayl, from Iyad ibn Iyad, from with Malik ibn Ja`na, which said: "I heard Umm Salamah saying that `Ali is with the truth; whoever follows him is a follower of the truth and whoever abandons him certainly abandons the truth; this is decreed."

Hadith isn’t authentic. It was narrated by Uqayli in “Duafa al-kabir”, Tabarani in “al-Kabir”. Al-Heythami said: “I don’t know who is Malik ibn Ja`na”. (“Majmau zawaid” №14768). Other narrator Iyad ibn Iyad, I have found his bio in “Jarh wa tadil” (6/409/№2289) without any note regarding his reliability. Ibn Hibban mentioned him in “Thiqat”, but he was known for including unknown narrators in this book.

74) Nafi ibn al-Harith Abu Dawud al-Nakh`i al-Kufi al-Hamadani al-Subay`i. Abandoned liar. Ibn Maeen said he’s nothing. Nasai and Daraqutni said he’s abandoned. Qatada accused him in lie. Ibn Hibban said: “It’s not permitted to narrate from him”. Abu Zurah said: “He wasn’t something” (“Mizanul itidal” 4/272/#9115).

Abdulhussain said:

Bukhari says: "People speak ill of him [because of being a Shi`a]."

And that’s pure lie! Because Bukhari simply said: “People talked about him”. Without mentioning his shia faith.

16

75) Harun ibn Sa`d al-`Ijli al-Kufi. Ibn Hajar in “Taqrib” (#7227) noticed that he was accused in rafd, and it was said that he turned from that heresy. ( عنه رجع ويقال بالرفض رمي صدوق )

76) Hubayrah ibn Maryam al-Himyari. He was close to being majhul al-khal, only two man narrated from him. Ibn Hirash said he’s weak. Nasai said not strong. (“Mizanul itidal” 4/293/#9209)

77) Hisham ibn Ziyad Abul Miqdam al-Basri. Dajal al-Musawi as usual closed his eyes on non suitable information about narrator. He was weak in the view of Ahmad and others. Nasai said: “Abandoned”. Ibn Hibban said: “Narrated fabrications from truthful”. Abu Dawud said: “He’s not thiqat”. Bukhari said he was criticized. (“Mizanul itidal” 4/298/#9223). Slave of Hussain quoted Shahristani, when he tried to proof that this ibn Ziyad was shia. I should notice that I didn’t find anyone from scholars of jarh and tadil, which would ascribe this narrator to shiizm.

78) Hisham ibn `Ammar ibn Nasr ibn Maysarah Abu al-Walid.

Abdulhussain said:

Like other Shi`as Hisham ibn `Ammar believes that the Qur'anic text is created only by Allah Almighty. When Ahmed [ibn Hanbal] heard about this as the author of Al-Mizan states in his biography of Hisham ibn `Ammar he responded by saying "I have known him to be wreckless; may Allah annihilate him." Ahmed has also come across a book written by Hisham in which one of the latter's sermons says: "Praise be to Allah Who has manifested Himself unto his creatures through what He has created (Quran)." This caused Ahmed to be extremely furious so much so that he required all those who used to pray behind Hisham to repeat their prayers”.

Marked part is a lie. Because in “Mizanul itidal” (4/303) written that Hisham said: “Text of Quran by Jibril and Muhammad (sallalah alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) is created”. And that was a thing which was rejected by imam Ahmad (rahimuhullah). Imam said that this ibn Ammar was jahmi, when he heard his sermon “Praise be to Allah Who has manifested Himself unto his creatures through what He has created (Quran)”. Here we have Abdulhussain proudly saying that shias believe in creation of Quran. And such belief is clear kufr! Ibn al-Mubarak said: “I heard Sufyan said: “Whoever would claim that words “Say: He, Allah, is One” (Ikhlas: 1) were created, disbelieved in Allah”. (“al-Athar al-waradat an aimmatu sunnah fi abwabil itikadat min siyar alamun nubala” p 391).Yahya ibn Yahya at-Tarsuse - and he was from truthful moslems - said: “I was with imam Malik, when man came to him and asked: “Ya Abu Abdullah! What do you say about man which would say that Quran has been created?” Imam Malik said: “Zindiq (heretic), kill him”. (Ibid) Ibn Nafi narrated from Malik, that he said regarding man who would say that Quran has been created: “Beat him and put in jail”. And in narration from Bishr ibn Bakr, Malik said: “Kill him, and don’t accept his repentance”. (ibid p 392).Ahmad ibn Yunus said: “I heard ibn al-Mubarak reciting something from Quran, and then he said: “Whoever would claim that this was created, disbelieved in Allah al-Mighty”. (Ibid)Abu Bakr ibn Ayash said: “Whoever would claim that Quran was created is disbeliever, zindiq, enemy of Allah in our view, don’t sit with him, and don’t talk with him”. (Ibid p 393)Wakiya ibn al-Jarrah said: “Whoever would doubt that Quran is speech of Allah - meaning it’s not created - he’s disbeliever”. (Ibid)And he also said: “Whoever would claim that Quran has been created, that’s mean he claim it has been innovated (muhdath - thing that didn’t exist and then appeared, was created and etc), whoever would say that Quran is muhdath, he’s disbeliever”. (Ibid). Yahya al-Qattan said: “Who would say [Say: He, Allah, is One] was created is zindiq, by Allah, that no other Allah than He”. (Ibid). Amazing that as you would see later, Abdulhussain claimed that Wakiyah and Yahya al-Qattan were shia!!Shazz ibn Yahya narrated that Yazeed ibn Harun said: “Who would claim that Quran has been created, he’s zindiq”. (Ibid p 396)It was narrated by Abu Salt al-Harwe (that shias believe to be pious and truthful) from Imam Ali ibn Musa ar-Rida, that he said: “Who would say that Quran has been created, he’s disbeliever”. (Ibid) Imam Shafei said: “Quran is a speech of Allah, who would say it has been created, disbelieved”. (Ibid p 397).Sulaihat bintul Abu Nuaim Fadl ibn Dakin narrated from her father, that he said: “Quran is a speech of Allah, didn’t created. And who would say it has been created, he’s disbeliever”. (Ibid p 398). We remember how dajal Abdulhussain tried to ascribe this pious imam to his sect! Imam Ali ibn Madini said: “Who would claim that Quran has been created is disbeliever, and who would claim that Allah didn’t talk with Mosa (alaihi salam) in reality, is disbeliver”. (Ibid p 399).Ishaq ibn Ibrahim al-Baghawi narrated from imam Ahmad: “Who would say that Quran has been created, he disbeliever”. (Ibid p 401). And this was narrated from Ahmad in mutawatir form.

17

Bukhari said: “Quran is a speech of Allah, didn’t created, and whoever would say it has been created, he’s disbeliever”. (Ibid p 403).Ibn Khuzaimah, author of “Saheeh” said: “Quran is speech of Allah Taala, and who would say it’s mahluq (created) is kaafir, he should be called to repentance, he would repent or be killed, and such shouldn’t be buried in the graveyard of moslems”. (Ibid p 405)Khulasah: Ahlesunnah agreed that Quran is a speech of Allah, and whoever would say it has been created is kaafir. Scholars agreed that jahmiya were kuffar, and those who say that lafz (text) of Quran was created, called lafziya. Imam Ahmad said: “Lafziya are worse than jahmiya”. (Ibid p 410). Ibn Abu Barzat said: “Who would say that Quran is mahluq, or would stop, and who would say lafz (text) of Quran is mahluq, or something from that (close to that), is not upon religion of Allah Azwajal, and religion of His prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) until he would repent”. (Abu Bakr al-Ajurri “Sharia” p 78, chapter mention of withdrawal from mahzab of waqifiyah)

79) Hashim ibn Bashir ibn al-Qasim ibn Dinar al-Wasiti Abu Mu`awiyah. I couldn’t find anyone from scholars of jarh and tadil, which would say that he was shia. Opinion of ibn Qutaiba alone isn’t sufficient.

80) Waki` ibn al-Jarrah ibn Malih ibn `Adi. It’s really funny to see how qulat of rafida like slave of Hussain are trying to ascribe this famous imam to their deviant sect. Yes, it was narrated that he has some shiizm in his views. But, I already quoted his standpoint on question of creation of Quran. Only this should be enough to understand that all attempts of rafida are vain. In “Mukhtasar uluw” (p 194, №185) written that this pios Imam said: “The one who wouldn’t testify that Quran was revealed from Allah, and along that wouldn’t testify that It (Quran) hasn’t been created is disbeliever in accordance to agreed opinion”. (Agreed opinion in this question was also narrated by ibn Abil Izz al-Hanafi in “Sharh aqidatut Tahawiya” p 143, Quraba).Wakiyah also said: “Rafida are worse than qadariya, and hawarij worse than both of them. As for jahmiya, they are worse than all of them. Allah in His book said: “and to Moses Allah spoke direct” (Nisa 164) and they (jahmiya) said He didn’t talk with him, (they) say that belief is only by testimony in heart”. (Bukhari “Halqul afalul ibad” p 28-29, #82, edited by Badr al-Badr)And this pious Imam was upon mazhab of salaf in the Tawhid Asma wa Sifat. Ahmad ad-Dawraki said: “I heard Wakiyah said: “Accept these ahadeth that came as they are, and don’t ask how, and why like that. “Heavens are on the one finger”; “soul of Adam’s son is between fingers of Rahman”. (“Mukhtasar uluw” p 195, №186; Abdullah ibn Ahmad “Sunnan” p 267, №495).

81) Yahya ibn al-Jazzar al-`Arni al-Kufi.

Slave of Hussain said:

He is one of the companions of the Commander of the Faithful peace be upon him.

Imam Ahmad rejected idea that ibn al-Jazzar heard ahadeth from Ali ibn Abu Talib. (“Tahzib at-tahzib” 11/169). Shubah ibn al-Hajjaj holds opinion that ibn al-Jazzar heard only 3 ahadeth from Ali. (Ibid)We have here two points to note. 1-st. Most likely he didn’t hear from Ali. 2.-nd if he heard, he heard a little, about 3 ahadeth. And that’s a proof that he wasn’t in the companionship of Ali for a long time. But Abdulhussain called him “companion”. Then why these shias mocking us, when we call companions people who were in the presence of prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) for a short time?

82) Yahya ibn Sa`id al-Qattan.I already quoted view of this imam on question of halqul-Quran before. And that was enough for proof that he wasn’t shia. It was also narrated from him in “Tazkiratul huffaz” (1/299) that he said: “Each and everyone that I reached use to say that faith contain testimony (by tongue and heart) and deeds, (they also) accused jahmiyah in disbelief, and prefer Abu Bakr and Umar (upon everyone)”.In “Mukhtasar uluw” (p 187, №168) written that he said: “How does it happens? Allah say: “He, Allah, is One”, and they say it was created?”.

83) Yazid ibn Ziyad al-Kufi Abu `Abdullah. Weak narrator. Yahya said he’s not strong, and it was also reported he said, he shouldn’t be relied on. Ahmad said his ahadeth aren’t approved. Shubah said that he was elevating (maraseel) (“Mizanul itidal” 4/423/#9695).

Abu Ali ibn Abi EffendiFinished 18 Shawal 1431.

All notes and corrections could be send to gift2shias@googlemail.com

18

19