Ibn Tawoos al-Helli the theif

May 8, 2012 at 7:38 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts, On books and authors | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

Rate This

al-Salamu `Aleykum,

It appears that the Shia scholar ibn Tawoos al-Helli (died 664.AH) who was described by Sheikh al-Islam ibn Tayymiyah (rah) as: “From the narrators of lies”, stole the book “I`lam al-Wara” written by the Shia scholar al-Tabrasi (died 548.AH), then he changed the title to “Rabi` al-Shia”.

This fact has shocked and confused many shia scholars, we list the following:

1) al-Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar 1/31:

وتركنا منها ـ أي من كتب ابن طاووس ـ كتاب ربيع الشيعة لموافقته لكتاب إعلام الورى في جميع الاَبواب والترتيب ، وهذا ممّا يقضي منه العجب .بحار الاَنوار 1: 31

[And we left from them -meaning from the books of ibn Tawoos- the book "Rabi` al-Shia" because it appears like the book "I`lam al-Wara" in all of its chapters and in its order, this is a matter that causes one to wonder.]

2) Abdul-Nabi al-Kazimi in Takmilat al-Rijal 1/11:

عبد النبي الكاظمي:وقد وقفت على إعلام الورى للطبرسي ، وربيع الشيعة لابن طاووس ، وتتبعتهما من أولهما الى آخرهما ، فوجدتهما واحداً من غير زيادة ونقصان ، ولا تقديم ولا تأخير أبداً ، إلاّ الخطبة. تكملة الرجال 1:

[And I had come across "I`lam al-Wara" by Tabrasi, and "Rabi` al-Shia" by ibn Tawoos, and I compared them from their beginning to their end, and I found that they are one and the same without additions or subtractions, except for the Sermon.]

3) Aqa Buzruq al-Tehrani in al-Tharee`ah 2/241 #957:

الممارس لبيانات السيد ابن طاووس لا يرتاب في أنّ «ربيع الشيعة» ليس له والمراجع له لا يشكّ في اتّحاده مع «إعلام الورى» للطبرسي.الذريعة:2/241 برقم 957.

[One who follows the writings of ibn Tawoos shall have no doubt that "Rabi` al-Shia" is not his, and he who revises the book will not doubt that it is one and the same with "I`lam al-Wara" by al-Tabrasi.]

4) Ja`far al-Subhani in Tathkirat al-A`yan 2/95-96:

من غريب الأمر انّ كتاباً واحداً سُمّي باسمين ونسب إلى شخصين، وما هذا إلاّ كتاب «إعلام الورى» الذي هو من مؤلفات الطبرسي، فقد نسب إلى السيد ابن طاووس وسمّي باسم «ربيع الشيعة»، فالكتابان يختلفان اسماً ويتحدان من البداية إلى النهاية.تذكرة الأعيان / ج 2 ص 95-96

[It is a strange matter that one book was given two names and attributed to two persons, it is none other than "I`lam al-Wara" which is from the works of al-Tabrasi, then it was attributed to al-Sayyed ibn Tawoos and called "Rabi` al-Shia", because the two books differ in their titles but agree in their content from beginning to end.]

5) The Muhaqqiq (researcher) of the book “I`lam al-Wara” by al-Tabrasi, in the intro page 26:

والخلاصة: ان ما يذكر من وجود كتاب للسيد علي بن طاووس يعرف بربيع الشيعة محض وهم واشتباه لا يؤبه به ، وان الاصل في ذلك هو كتاب إعلام الورى للشيخ أبي علي الفضل بن الحسن الطبرسي فحسب ، وعلى ذلك توافق الدارسون والباحثون.مقدمة اعلام الورى للطبرسي ص 26

[In conclusion: what is mentioned about al-Sayyed `Ali ibn Tawoos having a book called "Rabi` al-Shia" is nothing but an illusion that must not be paid any attention, the origin of this is only the book "I`lam al-Wara" by al-Sheikh abu `Ali al-Fadl bin al-Hassan al-Tabrasi, this is what the researchers agreed on.]

What ibn Tawoos al-Helli did was simply change the title of the book and the name of the author, and replaced them with another title and his own name, but the Shia scholars don’t want to accuse their Rabbi and Idol ibn Tawoos of being a thief so they made some excuses:

1- Ibn Tawoos did not know who the author of the book was, so after reading it this is why he described it as “Rabi` al-Shia”, so the one who found his handwriting on it thought it was his book. This excuse was transmitted by al-Noori al-Tabrasi the author of “Fasl al-Khitab” from his scholars and it is found in “al-Tharee`ah ila Tasanif al-Shia” 2/242.

2- Muhasin al-Ameen al-`Amili says in the intro of “Tafseer Majma` al-Bayan” of Tabrasi 1/13:

ومن الغرائب ان السيد رضي الدين بن طاووس ألف كتاب (ربيع الشيعة) على نهج أعلام الورى، وقد وافقه في جميع الأبواب والفصول والمطالب وبالجملة لا تفاوت بينهما أصلا”. مقدمة تفسير مجمع البيان للطبرسي ج1 ص 13

[And from the strange matters is that al-Sayyed Radi al-Deen ibn Tawoos authored a book using the same method as the book "I`lam al-Wara", and it agreed with it in all of its chapters and sections and issues, in general there is no difference between them.]

3- It was a copyist error.source: al-Tharee`ah 2/241.

- end -

Related:

Ibn Tawus al-Hilli and his alleged shaykh

Hashim Maroof Husayni about Kulayni

April 9, 2012 at 3:52 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts, On books and authors | 1 Comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

2 Votes

Shia scholar Hashim Maroof Husayni in his book “Dirasatun fil Hadith wal Muhadithin” (p 192) said:

( . . .ولكن الكليني مع أخطائه الكثيرة لم يشذ شذوذ البخاري . . . )

Translation:

….but Kulayni along with his MANY MISTAKES, didn’t make odd things like oddities of Bukhari…

Discussion:

Words of Rafidi against Bukhari doesn’t hold any weight in our view, and for sure can’t harm reputation of Bukhari in any way.

But words of Rafidi about their own top hadith scholar means a lot. Here we see clearly admission of rafidi that his major hadith scholar did MANY MISTAKES.

Originally posted: http://alsrdaab.com/vb/showthread.php?t=60685

Muhammad al-Qatifi on authenticy of “Uyun al-Akbar ar-Rida”

December 21, 2011 at 2:19 am | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts, On books and authors | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

Rate This

This is another post from series of revealing the truth behind shia slogan “we don’t have completely saheeh books”.

Shia shaykh Muhammad al-Ubaydan al-Qatifi said:

أقول:-قد رواها الصدوق في كتاب عيون أخبار الرضا (ع) ويـبدو أنه لم يذكر في هذا الكتاب إلا خصوص ما يراه صحيحاً ويستفاد ذلك من خلال التعبير بكلمة عيون.

http://www.alobaidan.org/index.php?act=artc&id=525

I say: Saduq narrated it in book “Uyun Akhbar ar-Rida” (a), it seems he didn’t  mentioned in this book nothing but especially what he seen authentic, it could be understand from his using the word  (Uyun)

Ibn Qawlaveyh and authentication of his work “Kamil az-ziyarat”

December 14, 2011 at 5:01 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts, On books and authors | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

Rate This

We have already cited some examples from this shia book regarding visitation of shrines at our blog.

In the introduction to his book (p4), author ibn Qawlaveyh al-Qummi said:

وقد علمنا أنّا لا نحيط بجميع ما روي عنهم في هذا المعنى ولا في غيره ، لكن ما وقع لنا من جهة الثّقات من أصحابنا ـ رحمهم الله [برحمته] ـ ولا أخرجت فيه حديثاً روي عن الشُّذاذ من الرِّجال

We realize we cannot cover all that which has been transmitted from them (imams) on this subject [the salutations at the shrines], nor on any other issue, except that which has been related to us by reliable [transmitters] from our companions – may Allah forgive them by His Rahmat. I have not cited a tradition in it [the book] which has been transmitted by reporters who are rarely mentioned (shudhdhadh).

Thus, all of the 388 transmitters who appear in Ibn Qawlawayh’s work are authenticated by this inference.

Imams continue misguiding the nation

December 11, 2011 at 3:46 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts, Something really ugly, Take a few minutes to think on this, Taqiyyah | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

1 Votes

The Imam according to the Shia intentionally misleads and misguides his followers as well as the mainstream Muslims (sunnah), in this topic we will quote the narrations quoted by the Shia scholar Yusuf al-Bahrani in the introduction of his book “al-Hadaeq al-Nadirah”, we read:

و الى ذلك يشير قوله عليه السلام(و لو اجتمعتم على أمر واحد لصدقكم الناس علينا. إلخ).و من ذلك ايضا ما رواه الشيخ في التهذيب «1» في الصحيح- على الظاهر- عن سالم أبي خديجة عن أبي عبد الله (ع) قال: (سأله إنسان و أنا حاضر فقال: ربما دخلت المسجد و بعض أصحابنا يصلي العصر، و بعضهم يصلي الظهر؟ فقال: أنا أمرتهم بهذا، لو صلوا على وقت واحد لعرفوا فأخذ برقابهم) و هو أيضا صريح في المطلوب، إذ لا يخفى أنه لا تطرق للحمل هنا على موافقة العامة، لاتفاقهم على التفريق بين وقتي الظهر و العصر و مواظبتهم على ذلك.و ما رواه الشيخ في كتاب العدة «1» مرسلا عن الصادق عليه السلام: انه (سئل عن اختلاف أصحابنا في المواقيت؟ فقال: انا خالفت بينهم).و ما رواه في الاحتجاج «2» بسنده فيه عن حريز عن ابي عبد الله (ع) قال:(قلت له: انه ليس شيء أشد علي من اختلاف أصحابنا. قال ذلك من قبلي).و ما رواه في كتاب معاني الاخبار عن الخزاز عمن حدثه عن ابي الحسن (ع) قال: (اختلاف أصحابي لكم رحمة و قال (ع): إذا كان ذلك جمعتكم على أمر واحد). و سئل عن اختلاف أصحابنا فقال عليه السلام: (انا فعلت ذلك بكم و لو اجتمعتم على أمر واحد لأخذ برقابكم).و ما رواه في الكافي بسنده فيه عن موسى بن أشيم قال: (كنت عند ابي عبد الله عليه السلام فسأله رجل عن آية من كتاب الله عز و جل فأخبره بها ثم دخل عليه داخل فسأله عن تلك الآية فأخبره بخلاف ما أخبر به الأول، فدخلني من ذلك ما شاء الله، الى أن قال: فبينما أنا كذلك إذ دخل عليه آخر فسأله عن تلك الآية فأخبره بخلاف ما أخبرني و أخبر صاحبي، فسكنت نفسي و علمت ان ذلك منه تقية.

Translation:

And to this points his saying (as):“And if you(shia) all gather upon one thing then the people will believe you concerning us ect…”And the Sheikh has also narrated in al-Tahtheeb in the SAHIH from Salim abu Khadeejah from abu ‘Abdullah (as): a man asked him (as) while I was present: “sometimes I would enter the mosque and I would see some of our companions(shia) praying ‘Asr while the others pray Zuhr?” he (as) replied: “I ordered them to do this because if they all prayed at the same time then our matter would be known and they would be executed.”The Imam is very honest in his saying and in this case he did not do what the mainstream Muslims do as it is clear for them(sunnies) that the timing of both prayers are separate.Also what is narrated by the sheikh in his book al-’Iddah in the Mursal from al-Sadiq (as): “He was asked about the difference among our companions in timings(of acts of worship)” he (as) responded: “I am the one who made them differ among themselves.”And what is narrated in al-Ihtijaj with its Sanad to Huraiz from abu ‘Abdullah (as), he said to the Imam: “There is nothing more saddening for me than the difference of our companions(shia)” the Imam (as) replied: “I did this.”And what he narrated in the book Ma’anee al-Akhbar from al-Khazzaz from he who told him from abu al-Hasan(as) who said: “The difference among my companions is a mercy.” and he (as) also said: “When that happens I will unite you upon one thing.” and in another place he (as) was asked about the difference among our companions(Shia) so he (as) said: “I did this to you, and if you were to unite upon one matter then your heads will be taken.”And what is narrated in al-Kafi with its Isnad from Musa bin Ashyam, he said: I was with abu ‘Abdullah (as) so a man asked him about a verse from the verses of the book of Allah almighty, he answered him then another man came and inquired about the same verse but he gave him a different answer from the first man, I then doubted him greatly – until he said – and while I was like this suddenly a man enters and asks about that same verse so he gave him an answer different from mine and my companion’s answers, so my doubts subsided and I realized this was Taqqiyah.”

I ask the Shia who fear Allah, is this acceptable? The divine Imams who are sent from God to guide men and rule the nation are living by Taqqiyah misguiding and confusing everyone?

NOTE: According to Ahlul-Sunnah the Imams are trustworthy scholars who never practice Taqqiyah, it is a shame such narrations are being attributed to them.

Abu Jafar at-Toose and his Rijal

September 19, 2011 at 10:07 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts, On books and authors | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

Rate This

He mentioned Qutaiba ibn Muhammad between those who narrated from as-Sadiq at page 272, and then he mentioned him at page 436 between those who didn’t narrate from aimma.

Fudala ibn Ayub al-Azdi was mentioned amongst people which narrated from al-Kadhim at page 342, and amongst those who narrated from ar-Rida at page 363, and finally at page 436 he was mentioned as one who didn’t narrate from aimma.

Muawiyah ibn Hakim at page 378 was mentioned as the one who narrated from Jawad, at 392 as one who narrated from al-Hadi, and as one who didn’t narrate from aimma at page 449.

al-Qasim ibn Muhammad al-Jawhari as one who narrated from Sadiq at page 273, from al-Kadhim at 342, and the one who didn’t narrate from aimma at page 436.

al-Qasim ibn Urwa was mentioned as one who narrated from Jafar as-Sadiq at page 273, and as one who didn’t narrate from aimma at page 436.

Kulaib ibn Muawiyah was mentioned as ravi from al-Baqir at page 144, from Jafar at page 274, and as one who didn’t narrate from aimma at 436.

Muhammad ibn Isa ibn Ubayd ibn Yaqtin was mentioned as one who narrated from ar-Rida at page 376, narrated from al-Hadi at 391, from al-Askari at 401 and finally as one who didn’t narrate from aimma at 448.

Hafs ibn Ghiyas as one who narrated from al-Baqir at pae 133, from Jafar at 188, from al-Kadhim at 335 and as one who didn’t narrate from aimma at page 425.

Source of research.

How explain this?

al-Murtada: The Shia Fiqh is taken from weak and untrustworthy sources

September 19, 2011 at 6:58 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts, On books and authors | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

Rate This

Al-Murtada says:

” والذي يختص هذا الموضع مما لم نبينه هناك: أنه لا خلاف بين كل من ذهب إلى وجوب العمل بخبر الواحد في الشريعة، أنه لا بد من كون مخبره عدلا، والعدالة عندنا يقتضي أن يكون معتقدا ” للحق في الأصول والفروع، وغير ذاهب إلى مذهب قد دلت الأدلة على بطلانه، وأن يكون غير متظاهر بشئ من المعاصي والقبائح. وهذه الجملة تقتضي تعذر العمل بشئ من الأخبار التي رواها الواقفية على موسى بن جعفر عليهما السلام الذاهبة إلى أنه المهدي عليه السلام، وتكذيب كل من بعده من الأئمة عليهم السلام، وهذا كفر بغير شبهة ورده، كالطاطري وابن سماعة وفلان وفلان، ومن لا يحصى كثرة. فإن معظم الفقه وجمهوره بل جميعه لا يخلو مستنده ممن يذهب مذهب الواقفة، إما أن يكون أصلا في الخبر أو فرعا “، راويا ” عن غيره ومرويا ” عنه. وإلى غلاة، وخطابية، ومخمسة، وأصحاب حلول، كفلان وفلان ومن لا يحصى أيضا ” كثرة، وإلى قمي مشبه مجبر، وأن القميين كلهم من غير استثناء لأحد منهم إلا أبا جعفر بن بابويه – رحمة الله عليه- بالأمس كانوا مشبهة مجبرة، وكتبهم وتصانيفهم تشهد بذلك وتنطق به. فليت شعري أي رواية تخلص وتسلم من أن يكون في أصلها وفرعها واقف أو غال، أو قمي مشبه مجبر، والاختبار بيننا وبينهم التفتيش” .( رسائل الشريف المرتضى 3/310 .

There is no difference amongst those who decided to accept and work with the Khabar al-Wahid (1) in matters of Shari’ah that it must come through a ‘Adl, in our madhab ‘Adl means that the narrator must have a correct belief in Usool and Furu’u, that he must not be from a corrupt madhab according to the proofs, that he must not commit disobedience and evil deeds apparently. This means that we must not work with any of the narrations by the Waqifah of Musa bin Ja’afar (as) who believe that he was a Mahdi and all those after him are liars, this is clear kufr, such as al TaTari and ibn Sama’ah and such people which we cannot count as to their large numbers. The majority of our Fiqh or all of it is related to narrations from the Waqifah, whether they narrated the Hadith from someone or someone narrated it from them. Also others such as the Ghulat (2), the Mukhammisah (3), the people of Hulul (4) and they are too many to count “Or from a Qummi who is a Mushabbih or a Mujabbir (5), and all qummies with no exceptions except for Ibn Babaweih are Moushabihah and Moujabirah, their books all bear wtiness to this clearly. So what narration is safe from having in its chain a Waqifi or a Ghali or a Qummi who is a Mushabbih and a Mujabbir.”

Source: Rasael al-Shareef al-Murtada 3/310.

شيخ الطائفة :” إن كثيراً من مصنفي أصحابنا وأصحاب الاصول ينتحلون المذاهب الفاسدة وان كانت كتبهم معتمدة ” الفهرست ص 2

While sheikh al-Taefa al-Tusi says: “Many of the authors from our companions and those who wrote the Usool have adopted corrupt Madhabs although their books are accepted.”

Source: al-Fihrist pg 2.

Basically if the Shia want to apply the proper science based on the ‘Adalah, then a big part of their Madhab would collapse as they rely on the narrations by people of corrupt madhabs whom they themselves deem as Kouffar.

Footnotes

————————————————————-

1: What is narrated through one narrator.2: Extremist Shia who commit Ghulu and the Shia definition of Ghulu changes with the passing of time, this sect attributes divine features to ‘Ali, although many Twelvers in our days do this so ponder.3: Shia sect that believed that Allah came in the form of Muhammad, ‘Ali, Fatima, Hassan, Hussein.4: Those who believe Allah can appear in a specified physical form.5: Shia sects such as al-Bayaniyah and al-Sabaiyyah and others, they liken the creator to the creation.

Sayyed Abu al-Hassan curses al-Kulayni because most of al-Kafi is weak

September 1, 2011 at 8:04 am | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts, On books and authors, So called "shia unity". | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

1 Votes

al-Kafi by al-Kulayni is the biggest and most important Shia book of Hadith, it is of the same importance of Sahih al-Bukhari when it comes to the average Muslim. However, the difference between the two books is that al-Bukhari collected the most authentic reports while al-Kulayni filled his Kafi with the weakest narrations making it really hard for the reader to come across any Sahih Hadith in the book.

Of course we all remember what al-Kulayni wrote as the reason for why he compiled his book:“Verily, you solemnly wished that you possess a book which is sufficient, brings together the entire Islamic sciences of the knowledge of religion within it, wholly satisfies the needs of the student, acts as a reference for the seekers of guidance, and would be used by those who want to attain the knowledge of religion and practice upon it by deriving correct [şaĥīĥ] narrations of the truthful ones (as) and the upright and acted upon traditions from it—through which the compulsory duties of Allāh, the Powerful and Exalted, and the tradition of His Prophet (saws) can be fulfilled.And you said: ‘If that happens, I can hope that (the book) would be a means through which Allāh will rectify our brothers and people of our religious community through his support and grace, and take them closer to their salvation.’”==================================A famous Shia scholar called al-Sayyed ‘Ali abu al-Hassan al-Musawi al-’Amili replies to Ayatullah al-Khoei who claimed that al-Kulayni has not authenticated his book and has placed in it weak narrations which contradict the Quran:

وليته تأمل قليلاً قبل أن يتفوه بهذه الدعوى الباطلة , وهل يجوز حفظ ما خالف الكتاب عن الضياع , أو ماكان فيه الريب و الموافق للعامة العمياء مع إحراز كونه للتقية بعد الاشتغال عشرين سنة , و الفرض أن مادعى ثقة الإسلام إلى تصنيف كتابه ما قد أشار إليه ؟!فتبا لأثبت علماء الرجال الناقد الخبير , الشيخ النجاشي على افترائه في دعواه : أن الكليني أوثق الناس في الحديث و أثبتهم .و ألف تب لأوثق الناس و أثبتهم , حيث جمع في كتابه بعد أن ضيع عشرين سنة من عمره , جمع فيه الشاذ المخالف للمجمع عليه , وحفظ فيه ما خالف الكتاب من زخرف و باطل , و قد ترك لسائله المتحير و لإخوانه و لأهل ملته ممن لا يفقهون التمييز بين الحديث , ولا يعرفون صحيحه من ضعيفه , وما يجوز أن يعمل به و مالا يجوز أن يستند إليه .

“I wish he(al-Khoei) could have been a bit more patient and observant before he uttered those false words! Is it permissible for him(al-Kulayni) to preserve in it(al-Kafi) that which contradicts the Holy Book? Is it permissible for him to preserve in it that which casts doubts and agrees with the blind sunnies after working on it(al-Kafi) for twenty years? and let us say that Thiqat al-Islam(Kulayni) compiled his book for the reasons he stated.Then Damn the knowledgeable and expert scholar of RIjal al-Sheikh al-Najashi for saying that: al-Kulayni is the most trustworthy and most knowledgeable of people in Ahadith.And a Thousand Curses be upon the most trustworthy and most knowledgeable of people in Ahadith(al-Kulayni) because he collected in his book(al-Kafi) after wasting twenty years of his life that which is weak and that which contradicts what is agreed upon and because he collected in it nonsense and falsehood that contradicts the Holy Book. Then he(al-Kulayni) left the confused person who was seeking his help and he left his brothers and his sect who are unable to distinguish between the Ahadith, he left them the Sahih and the Da’eef and that which is permissible to act upon it and that which is not permissible to act upon it.”

Then Abu al-Hassan suggests that al-Kulayni should have wrote in his book:

ثم يقول : وقد يسر الله تأليف كتاب يأخذ منه من يريد علم الدين و العمل به بالآثار الصحيحة و لكنني لم أميّز ذلكو أنا : العالم بالأخبار و العارف بالرجال .و أنا : أوثق الناس في الحديث و أثبتهم .و أنا شيخ أساطين المذهب و فقهائهم العالمين بالحديث .و أنا تلميذ من اجتمعت الكلمة على غاية عملهم بالحديث ومعرفتهم بالرجال , وحفظهم للأخبار , بل تركت مهمة التمييز لك أيها السائل المتحير , و لأخوانك و أهل ملتك , إذ رأيت نفسي أني اعجز عن تهذيب ذلك بعد عشرين سنة , فتركت الامر في ذلك لكم , فإني لا أعرف إلا أقل القليل . و إني اعتذر إليك , فإن مذهب أهل البيت , و الطائفة الحقة , لا يستطيع مثلي و انا من عرفت تصنيف ما سألت عنه .إذ بغاية الأسف أقول : لا يوجد عندنا من الأحاديث الصحيحة إلا النادر و الكتب و الأصول قد ضاعت وفقدت , و العلماءلم ندركهم ولم نعاصرهم , و قد ماتوا و مات العلم معهم “

“Then he says: And Allah has made it possible for me to compile a book which wholly satisfies the needs of the student and acts as a reference for those who wish to act upon the correct narrations but I can not tell the difference between them (Sahih and Da’eef).And I am: The knowledgeable in the narrations and the conditions of narrators.And I am: The most trustworthy and most knowledgeable of people in Ahadith.And I am: The sheikh of the biggest scholars of the Madhab and those who know the Ahadith.And I am: The student of the ones that are the most knowledgeable in Hadith and Rijal by consensus, but I have left it to you my confused follower and to your brothers and nation to distinguish between the narration (Whether Sahih or Da’eef) because I find my self incapable of doing so after twenty years so I left it all to you because my knowledge is small and limited. I apologise to you because someone like me cannot fulfil your request.

I regrettably say: We do not posses any of the Sahih Ahadith except rarely and the books of Usool have all been lost and we did not meet the big scholars, they died and the knowledge died with them.”

- end -

source: al-Fawaed al-Rijaliyah & Resalat al-Intisar li Sihhat al-Kafi page 113-114.

Is tafsir al-Qummi authentic?

August 9, 2011 at 7:43 am | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

1 Votes

We can see shias from the past till our times relying on commentary of Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi. Each book in Islamic nation has its own chain of transmitters. Including this commentary of Ali ibn Ibrahim.

Let us check page 27 of on-line version of this tafsir, to see who is the very first person who is in the chain of narration.

http://www.al-shia.org/html/ara/books/lib-quran/tafsir-qommi-j1/01.html

As you can see first person in the chain of transmitters is – Abul Fadl al-Abbas ibn Muhammad ibn al-Qasim ibn Hamzah ibn Mosa ibn Jafar.

This person wasn’t mention by shia scholars of rijal, as said ash-Shahrudi in “Mustadrakat ilmul rijal al-hadith” (4/357/#746)

“Jami al-ahadeth ash-Shia” – ALTERATION!

June 25, 2011 at 11:58 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts, On books and authors | 2 Comments

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

1 Votes

“Jami al-ahadeth ash-shia” is a book by Sayeed al-Burjardi.

Here hadith from that book:

5113 – ( 15 ) الجعفريات 45 – بإسناده عن علي عليه السلام قال : كان رسول -الله صلى الله عليه وآله يكبر في العيدين والاستسقاء في الأولى سبعا وفى الثانية خمسا ، ويصلي قبلالخطبة ، ويجهر بالقراءة ، قال جعفر بن محمد عليهما السلام : قال أبى فعل ذلك أبو بكرالصديق بعده

5113 – (15) – (Book) Jafariyat 45 – with his chain from Ali (alaihi salam) which said: “Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa alihi) during the eid (prayers) made 7 takbirs with istiftah (takbir) in the first, and 5 takbirs in second rakah, and he prayed before hutbah, and read in a loud”. Jafar ibn Muhammad (alaihi salam) said: “My father said that Abu Bakr as-Siddiq also did this after him”.

See “Jami al-ahadeth ash-Shia” 6/203, and here screen shots from ahlalbayt library which was based on version printed by Matbua Ilmiyah in Qum.

So as we seen imam Jafar as-Sadiq narrated from his father that Abu Bakr was SIDDIQ!

But let us see other edition of this book, where red marked part disappeared from the text!

al-Khui on authenticy of al-Kafi

June 25, 2011 at 9:21 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts, On books and authors | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

1 Votes

Grand Āyat Allāh al-Sayyid Abū al-Qāsim al-Khū’ī (d. 1412) writes:

وقد ذكر غير واحد من الاعلام أن روايات الكافي كلها صحيحة ولا مجال لرمي شئ منها بضعف سندها وسمعت شيخنا الأستاذ الشيخ محمد حسين النائيني قدس سره في مجلس بحثه يقول إن المناقشة في إسناد روايات الكافي حرفة العاجز

“More than one of the eminent scholars have mentioned that all the narrations of al-Kāfī are şaĥīĥ, and there is no room for putting away anything from it due to its weak chain of transmission. I heard our master and teacher Shaykh Muĥammad Ĥusayn al-Nā’īnī—may Allāh sanctify his secret—say in one of his gatherings of discussion: ‘Verily, arguing about the chains of transmission of the narrations in al-Kāfī is the vocation of an incompetent!’”

· Mu`jam Rijāl al-Ĥadīth wa Tafşīl Ţabaqāt al-Ruwāt, of Abū al-Qāsim al-Khū’ī (d. 1412), volume 1, page 81 [Qum]

al-Kafi – which is enough for shias

June 22, 2011 at 11:27 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts, On books and authors | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

1 Votes

There is no doubt that al-Kafi is the most important hadith book in shia world.

In the volume #1, at page 330, we can see such sentence:

قال الكليني رحمه الله: وحدثني شيخ من أصحابنا – ذهب عني اسمه – أن أبا عمرو سأل عن أحمد بن إسحاق عن مثل هذا فأجاب بمثل هذا.

“And al-Kulayni, may Allah forgive him, said: “And it was narrated to me by shaykh from our companions – his name left me (i.e I forgot it) – that Abu Amr asked Ahmad ibn Ishaq about something like this and got similar answer”.

1) Who is person who narrated this from al-Kulayni himself?

2) Is it not great? That top muhadith forgot name of his shaykh. May be he became confused (ihtilat)?Here we have explanation from al-Kulayni himself, what does it mean term invented by him “shaykh from our companions”. That mean that he simply forgot who was this shaykh. In his al-Kafi you can see a lot of such terms, for example عدة من اصحابنا - several of our companions.Now we can say that if he forgot name of his shaykh he said “a shaykh from our companions”, in the very same way his term “several of our companions” most likely was used when he forgot the person who narrated this to him.

Significance of Mashyakhat Al-Faqeeh

June 19, 2011 at 5:57 am | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts, Take a few minutes to think on this | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

Rate This

By brother Farid:

Bismillah alrahmah alraheem,

For those of you that don’t know how the book Man La Yahdharhu Al-Faqeeh works, you’ll probably be surprised. I was somewhat taken aback at first when I went through the book and realized that there are no chains of narrators. Each hadith will start off directly with the name of the Imam or with the name of his student. Now, how the book works is really fascinating.

Al-Saduq says the following in the beginning of his book:

وصنفت له هذا الكتاب بحذف الاسانيد لئلا تكثر طرقه

Rough translation: “And I wrote this book and got rid of the chains so that there wouldn’t be an excess of ways (to each hadith)…”

Then, Al-Saduq collected the names of all the narrators that he mentioned in the Man La Yahdharhu Al-Faqeeh and connected them with chains up to them in his mashyakha. Later on, Shia hadith scholars that dealt with hadith authentication went through this mashyakha in order to strengthen or weaken specific chains to the narrators.

Even though this does seem like a smart idea, this methodology contradicts with the reality of the transmission of hadiths.

For example:

وروي عن علي بن مهزيار قال: كتبت إليه عليه السلام ” امرأة طهرت من حيضها أو دم نفاسها في أول يوم من شهر رمضان ثم استحاضت فصلت وصامت شهر رمضان كله من غير أن تعمل ما تعمله المستحاضة من الغسل لكل صلاتين هل يجوز صومها وصلاتها أم لا؟ فكتب عليه السلام: تقضي صومها ولا تقضي صلاتها لان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله كان يأمر المؤمنات من نسائه بذلك “).Al-Faqeeh (3/222)

This hadith includes nothing more than Ali bin Mihzayar. In order to check the reliability of the hadith though, we need to examine themashyakha.Al-Saduq says:

وما كان فيه عن علي بن مهزيار فقد رويته عن أبي رضي الله عنه، عن محمد بن يحيى العطار، عن الحسين بن إسحاق التاجر، عن علي بن مهزيار، ورويته عن أبي، عن سعد بن عبد الله، والحميري جميعًا، عن إبراهيم بن مهزيار، عن أخيه علي بن مهزيار، ورويته أيضًا عن محمد بن الحسين رضي الله عنه، عن محمد بن الحسن الصفار، عن العباس بن معروف، عن علي بن مهزيار.Rough translation: “And whatever I have narrated from Ali bin Mihzayar is what I have narrated from my father, though Mohammed bin Yahya Al-Attar, through Al-Hussain bin Ishaaq Al-Tajir, through Ali bin Mihzayar. And from my father, through Sa’ad bin Abdullah and Al-Humairi, both through Ibrahim bin Mihzayar, through his brother Ali bin Mihzayar. And I narrated from Mohammed bin Al-Hussain, through Mohammed bin Hasan Al-Saffar, through Al-Abbas bin Ma’roof, through Ali bin Mihzayar.ِMashayakhat Al-Faqeeh (p. 72)

So, as we can see here, by examining the above, we have three chains for this specific narrator, which means that this specific hadith was narrated through all of these three chains.

However, this goes against reality, for it is not possible for two narrators to have both heard the exact same hadiths from a single scholar, let alone three. There will always be many hadiths that one has heard that another didn’t. Even if we were to assume that these three students, Ibrahim bin Mihzayar, Al-Abbas bin Ma’rouf, and Al-Hussain bin Ishaaq, were the best three students a sheikh could have. There still is a very large chance that Ibrahim bin Mihzayar, the brother of Ali, heard things that the two others didn’t.

Even if we were to assume that Ali bin Mihzayar was narrating from his own books, there is a more than likely chance that some of them didn’t hear specific books, which is why a better choice of words by Al-Saduq would’ve been: “Whatever I have narrated from Ali bin Mihzayar is what I have narrated from… Al-Hussin bin Ishaaq Al-Tajir OR… Ibrahim bin Mihzayar OR… Al-Abbas bin Ma’aroof most of the time… I guess…”

Of course, this goes without saying that there is a very large possibility that many of these hadiths were narrated outside of Ali bin Mihzayar’s books.

The hadith above is a great example of this as well. Due to Al-Saduq refering to the hadith above without the usage of a complete chain, we are led to believe that the hadith is strong due to the chains that he includes in his mashyakha.

However, we find him giving this hadith a completely other chain in Ilal Al-Sharai’i:أبى رحمه الله قال حدثنا سعدبن عبدالله قال حدثنا احمدبن ادريس عن محمدبن احمد عن محمدبن عبدالجبار عن علي بن مهزيار قال: كنت اليه امرأة طهرت من حيضها او من دم نفاسها في اول يوم من شهر رمضان ثم استحاضت فصلت وصامت شهررمضان كله من غيرأن تعمل كما تعمله المستحاضة من الغسل لكل صلاتين هل يجوز صومها وصلاتها ام لا؟ فكتب تقضي صومهاولا تقضى صلاتهالان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله كان يأمر المؤمنات من نسائه بذلك.

Here, we find the exact same hadith, but with Al-Saduq narrating from his father, through Sa’ad bin Abdullah, through Ahmad bin Idrees, through Mohammed bin Ahmad, through Mohammed bin Abduljabbar, through Ali bin Mihzayar.Ilal Al-Shara’ii (p. 229)

Notice, the chain above is very different from the chains included in the mashyakha. The direct narrator is not any of the people mentioned above. It is someone completely new.So, now, we must ask ourselves, why does Al-Saduq do this? Why would he use a completely new chain when he already has three chains that have narrated everything from Ali bin Mihzayar?

There are a few possibilities for this:1- Mohammed bin Abduljabbar, the narrator of the fourth chain, has also narrated everything the others have.2- This chain is an extra addition to support the previous chains.3- This is the only correct chain for the hadith.

The first possibility is a stretch, since Al-Saduq would have more than likely included it in his mashyakha. As for the second, well, even though it is possible, it is highly unlikely, since there is no real reason for Al-Saduq to choose an odd chain to support what he already has, and as stated previously, in reality, it is extremely unlikely for three narrators to have heard every single narration from their shaikh.There also is another solid reason for accepting the third possibility, which is that this is the only chain, which is that Al-Kulayni and Al-Tusi used a very similar chain and Mohammed bin Abduljabbar in their own works, and they did not use any of Al-Saduq’s three chains from his mashyakha.See Al-Kafi 4/471 and Tatheebul Ahkaam 4/966.

There is no room for such a coincidence.

In conclusion: Even though it is a little too early to say. It seems as though the mashyakha of Al-Saduq isn’t as reliable as one would think. It seems as though that Al-Saduq is referring to books rather than individual narrations, and that not all his chains go directly up to all the books of the specific narrator.

Inshallah I will dedicate more time for this in the future and dig deeper into the mashyakha, it’s purpose, and reliability.

Impossible but true

April 5, 2011 at 1:30 am | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts, Take a few minutes to think on this | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

1 Votes

By brother TripolySunni:

al-Salamu Aleykum,

A narration from the Shia book “Wasael al Shia” volume 28, page 280 #34759:

[ 34759 ] 6 ـ محمد بن محمد بن النعمان المفيد في كتاب ( الاختصاص ) عن علي بن إبراهيم بن هاشم ، عن أبيه ، قال : لمّا مات الرضا ( عليه السلام ) حججنا فدخلنا على أبي جعفر ( عليه السلام ) وقد حضر خلق من الشيعة ـ إلى أن قال : ـ فقال أبو جعفر ( عليه السلام ) : سئل أبي عن رجل نبش قبر امرأة فنكحها ؟ فقال أبي : يقطع يمينه للنبش ، ويضرب حد الزنا فان حرمة الميتة كحرمة الحية ، فقالوا : يا سيدنا تأذن لنا أن نسألك ؟ قال : نعم ، فسألوه في مجلس عن ثلاثين ألف مسألة ، فأجابهم فيها وله تسع سنين .

This Shia Hadith is narrated through ONLY trustworthy Shia narrators: Muhammad bin Muhammad bin al-Nu’uman al-Mufid in his book “al-Ikhtisas page 102″ from ‘Ali bin Ibrahim bin Hashim from his father Ibrahim that: (…)

Ibrahim al-Qummi said that he entered on Abu Ja’afar the Imam then a group of people came to the Imam and he was only 9 years old at the time, they sat with him and asked him 30,000 questions and he answered them all in one Majlis(one sitting).

Now I do not care about his age or anything else, what I care about is the number of Questions they asked and the number of answers he gave and all of this happened in one Majlis. Let’s say for example that each question and its answer took only 1 minute, this makes 30,000 minutes and if you divide that by 60 you get 500 hours, it is humanly impossible for them to sit for 500 consecutive hours and ask him all of these 30,000 questions.

This narration is a CLEAR LIE according to Human logic, no one in his right mind would accept it, which brings me to my next point…

HOW CAN THE SHIA TRUST THEIR NARRATORS AFTER THIS!? all three of them are VERY trustworthy according to Shia yet we see them narrate an IMPOSSIBLE LIE, so at least one of these three people is a LIAR and FORGER OF HADITH, Either it’s their top scholar al-Mufid, or their most famous narrator ‘Ali bin Ibrahim, or another one of their biggest scholars Ibrahim al-Qummi.

You Shia decide, either way this is a fatal blow to your entire Shia religion.

 

Drunkard narrator

March 30, 2011 at 4:22 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

Rate This

Book: Ihtiyar Marifatul Rijal.

Author: at-Toose.

“From Furat ibn Ahnaf: “(Auf) al-Uqayli from companions of Ali (alaihi salam), drunkard but he transmitted narrations how he heard them”.

 

Religion of unknown people

March 29, 2011 at 11:12 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

1 Votes

There is a great rule for all Islamic knowledge! This religion is an knowledge, so look from whom you are taking your religion. We have already posted an evidence from sheikh Toose, that majority of shia authors of main books were on the corrupt mazhab. And now another testimony, that owners of their bases are mainly unknown.

Book: Rawdatul Muttaqin fi sharhul Man la Yahduruhul Faqih

Author: Muhammad al-Majlisi.

He said:

فإنك إذا تتبعت كتب الرجال وجدت أكثر أصحاب الأصول الأربعمائة غير مذكور في شأنهم تعديل و لا جرح

“And if you would check books on rijal, you would find that majority of companions (authors) of 400 bases DIDN’T MENTIONED BY PRAISE OR CRITIC” (either it’s because) enough for them as a praise that they authors of bases.

SCAN:

 

Discussion:  So what does it mean?

1) Authors of shia bases are either corrupted in their mazhab, as said Toose,  or they are unknown.

2) Shias don’t care if their unknown, because it’s enough for them that they basing their religion upon their books.

Did Abu Basir knew the unseen?

March 29, 2011 at 10:38 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

Rate This

Sheikh of shias ash-Shahrodi in his book “Mustadrakat Ilmul Rijal al-Hadith” p 109, wrote:

And Kulayni narrated in his “al-Kafi”, first volume, chapter birth of al-Kadhim (alaihi salam), p486 IN AUTHENTIC (FORM) from ibn Masakeen, from Abu Basir who has said the following. “Musa ibn Ja‘far (alaihi salam) died at the age of fifty five in the year one hundred eighty three. He lived for thirty five years after Ja‘far ibn Muhammad (alaihuma salam).”

Discussion:

1) Imam Musa ibn Jafar died in 183 year H.

2) Abu Basir in accordance to majority shia sources, if not to all of them, died in 150 h.

Al-Khui in “Mojam rijal al-Hadith” said:

فإن أبا بصير مات في سنة ( 150 ) على ما يأتي في ترجمة يحيى بن أبي القاسم من النجاشي والشيخ ، فلا يمكن أن يروي زمان وفاة الكاظم ( عليه السلام )

Abu Basir died in 150, as it came in bio of Yahya ibn Abil Qasim from Najashi and Sheikh. And it’s not possible that he narrated time of death al-Kadhim (alaihi salam).

See scan of this book:

On Salim ibn Qays al-Hilali

February 16, 2011 at 9:37 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts, On books and authors | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

2 Votes

Book: al-Mawduat fil athar wal akhbar.

Author: Hashim Maroof al-Hasani.

At the page 184 during discussion of authenticy of one story, this shia author said:

“And it’s sufficient for defect to this story, fact that it was narrated by Sulaim ibn Qays and he from suspected and accused in lie, and in the book which is ascribed to him narrated that Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr adressed to his father while he was on the deathbed, but he (Muhammad) was only 2 years old (when his father died). And it was narrated there that imams would be 13″.

Toose on shia authors

February 15, 2011 at 5:41 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

1 Votes

Book: Fihrist. p.32 publisher Muassasat Dar al-Faqahah

Author: Sheikh Abu Jafar at-Tose.

إن كثيراً من مصنفي أصحابنا وأصحاب الأصولين تحلون المذاهب الفاسدة وإن كانت كتبهم معتمدة

“Many of the authors of our books, as well as the authors of [our] Usul (i.e. the fundamentals and principles of faith) hold corrupt Madh-habs (schools of thought), even though their books are acceptable”.

30000 narrations of Abban

January 15, 2011 at 11:21 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts, On books and authors, Refuting shia doubts | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

Rate This

Ayatolla Abdullah Shubbar said:

قد جمع علماء محدثينا المتقدمين ما وصل إليهم من الائمة عليهم السلام في أربعمائة كتاب

تسمى الاصول وروى راو واحد من رواتهم عليهم السلام وهو أبان بن تغلب عن الصادق عليه السلام ثلاثين الف حديث.

And old scholars muhadithin gathered what reached them from imams (alaihuma salam) in 400 books, and named them 400 bases (usuls), and one narrator from their (alaihuma salam) narrators, and he is Abban ibn Taglib narrated from as-Sadiq (alaihi salam) 30 000 narrations.

Source: Aytollat Shubbar, “Sharhul ziyaratul jamiatul kabira” p 95-95.

Place of Nahjul-balagha

January 10, 2011 at 2:12 am | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts, On books and authors | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

Rate This

Book: al-Nida al-Ahyar.

Author: Ayatolla al-Khomayni.

He said:

Ibn Ghadairi is higher in reliability than Najashi and Shaikh

December 13, 2010 at 7:49 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts, On books and authors | 1 Comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

Rate This

Salam alaikum.

Just quote for future, which could be used. It’s from official site of Sistani, it says:

وإن ابن الغضائري هو المعتمد في مقام الجرح والتعديل أكثر من النجاشي والشيخ وأمثالهما

Although ibn al-Ghadairi, he’s MORE al-motamad (approved, reliable, should be relied upon) in the place of al-Jarh and at-Tadil than an-Najashi and Sheikh and (others) like them.

Sheikh  - that should be at-Toose.

Hurr al-Amili upon authenticy of shia ahadeth

December 13, 2010 at 1:57 am | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

Rate This

In his book “Wasailu  shia” this shia scholar said:

ومثله يأتي في رواية الثقات ؛ الأجلاء ـ كأصحاب الإجماع ، ونحوهم ـ عن الضعفاء ، والكذابين ، والمجاهيل ، حيث يعلمون حالهم ، ويروون عنهم ، ويعملون بحديثهم ، ويشهدون بصحته .

“And example of this coming in the narrations of trustworthy and esteemed – like companions of ijma and (others) like them – from weak, liars, and unknown (narrators), when their knew their conditions, and narrated from them, and they knew their narrations, and testified their authenticy”.

Source: “Wasailu shia” 30/206.

How shias narrated their ahadeth?

November 11, 2010 at 3:09 am | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts | 1 Comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

1 Votes

As it seems mainly from books, and not by hearing.

Kulayni narrated in his “al-Kafi” (1/53), Hurr al-Amili in “Wasail ush shia” (27/84):

عدة من أصحابنا، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن محمد بن الحسن بن أبي خالد شينولة قال: قلت لابي جعفر الثاني (عليه السلام): جعلت فداك إن مشايخنا رووا عن أبي جعفر وأبي عبدالله (عليهما السلام) وكانت التقية شديدة فكتموا كتبهم ولم تروعنهم فلما ماتوا صارت الكتب إلينا فقال: حدثوا بها فإنها حق.

A number of our people have narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from Muhammad ibn al-Hassan ibn abu Khalid Shaynula who has said the following. ”I said to Abu Ja‘far (alaihi salam) second, ‘May Allah take my soul in your service, our shaikhs have narrated Hadith from Imam abu Ja‘far and from Imam abu ‘Abdallah (alaihuma salam) and at that time taqiya was severe, so they  concealed their books and did not narrate from them. When they died their books came to us.’” The Imam said, “You may narrate from them because they contain the truth”.

So obviously shias didn’t hear ahadeth from their shuyukh, but they found books, which (as they thought) belong to their scholars, and narrated from them. And imam even without checking authenticy of such books, said that they contain truth.

There is no book which is correctly attributed to authors…

July 21, 2010 at 6:55 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts, On books and authors | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

Rate This

Salam alaikum.

Ahmad al-Katib. Shia thinker, person who questioned existence of shia Mahdi.

In his book “Imam al-Mahdi. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Askari” at page 147, said:

I generally believe that: It is necessary to confirm the following in any academic research: Firstly-The authenticity of the attribution of the famous historical books like ‘Al-Ghaybah’, ‘Ikmal al-Din’, ‘Al-Irshad’,’and ‘Al-Fusul’ to their real authors, and also that no addition, deletion or interpolation has happened to the books. This is really very difficult and impossible as there are no authentic books,  in Shiite heritage, it’s mean authentically attributed to their authors, except four books of Hadith-‘Al-Kafi’, ‘Manla Yahduruhu al-Faqih’, ‘Al-Tahdhib’ and ‘Al-Istibsar’, which were narrated by scholars one from the other.

Tafseer Al-’Askaree (AS) is mawDoo’ (fabricated)

June 28, 2010 at 1:49 am | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts, On books and authors | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

2 Votes

Salam alaikum. Below you would see research done by shia Nader Zaveri. We are quoting it from his blog without any edition. It’s extremely important that many shias today aren’t satisfied by fairy-tales which they can hear on their gathering during the years, and instead of it, they are trying to research.

Salaamun ‘Alaykum,

Unfortunately, I have noticed that a lot of people on here and various places seem to take out the Tafseer that has been attributed to Imaam Hasan Al-’Askaree. Even so much that Al-Khoei Bookstore is selling the tafseer on their website, here.What we must know and remember is that this Tafseer is mawDoo’ (fabricated) and da’eef (weak) under the name of Imaam Hasan Al-’Askaree (AS)!

Let me mention to you the chain of narrators from whom we’ve received this Tafseer. This is mentioned in the beginning of the book, Tafseer Al-Imaam Al-’Askaree.قال محمد بن علي بن محمد بن جعفر بن دقاقحدثني الشيخان الفقيهان أبو الحسن محمد بن أحمد بن علي بن الحسن بن شاذان و أبو محمد جعفر بن أحمد بن علي القمي (ره) قالا حدثنا الشيخ الفقيه أبو جعفر محمد بن علي بن الحسين بن موسى بن بابويه القمي (ره) قال أخبرنا أبو الحسن محمد بن القاسم المفسر الأسترآباذي الخطيب (ره) قال حدثني أبو يعقوب يوسف بن محمد بن زياد و أبو الحسن علي بن محمد بن سيارMuhammad bin ‘Alee bin Muhammad bin Ja’far bin Daqaaq said: “The two jurisprudent sheikhs Aboo Al-Hasan Muhammad bin Ahmad bin ‘Alee bin al-Hasan bin Shaadhaan and Aboo Muhammad Ja’far bin Ahmad bin ‘Alee Al-Qummee told me from Aboo Ja’far Muhammad bin ‘Alee bin Al-Husayn bin Moosa bin Baabuwayh Al-Qummee told me from Aboo Al-Hasan Muhammad bin Al-Qaassim Al-Mufassir Al-Astr’aabaadhee Al-KhaTeeb (preacher) that Aboo Ya’qoob Yoosuf bin Muhammad bin Ziyaad and Abo Al-Hasan Ali bin Muhammad bin Sayyaar”Source:1. Tafseer Al-Imaam Al-’Askaree, pg. 9 (published by Imaam Mahdi Seminary School, Qum, Iran, first edition, published in 1409 AH)Then a story is narrated how they were in the company of Imaam Hasan Al-’Askaree.و كانا من الشيعة الإمامية قالا كان أبوانا إماميين، و كانت الزيدية هم الغالبون بأسترآباذ، و كنا في إمارة الحسن بن زيد العلوي الملقب بالداعي إلى الحق إمام الزيدية، و كان كثير الإصغاء إليهم، يقتل الناس بسعاياتهم، فخشينا على أنفسنا، فخرجنا بأهلينا إلى حضرة الإمام أبي محمد الحسن بن علي بن محمد أبي القائم عTranslation: “Who were from the Shee’ah Imaami, said, ‘Our parents were Twelver Shia. The Zaydees were prevailing in Astr’aabaad. We were under the rule of Al-Hasan bin Zayd Al-’Alawi called as Al-Daa’ee ilal-Haqq. He was the Imam of the Zaydees. He often listened to them (the Zaydees) and killed people according to their slanders. We feared for ourselves , and so we resorted with our families to HaDrah Al-Imam Aboo Muhammad Al-Hasan bin ‘Alee bin Muhammad the father of al-Qa’im (Imam al-Mahdi).”فأنزلنا عيالاتنا في بعض الخانات، ثم استأذنا على الإمام الحسن بن علي ع فلما رآنا قال مرحبا بالآوينTranslation: We asked permission to visit the imam. When he saw us, he said, “Welcome to the two comers…Source:1. Tafseer Al-Imaam Al-’Askaree, pg. 9 – 10 (published by Imaam Mahdi Seminary School, Qum, Iran, first edition, published in 1409 AH)Yes, it is true that Al-Majlisi quotes from this Tafseer all over Bihaar Al-Anwaar, that doesn’t mean that he “accepts” it as the Tafseer Attributed to our 11th Imaam.

I respect all of our great scholars, but what we must know about hadeeth is that it is called ‘Ilm Al-Hadeeth. Some people have translated it to “Science of Al-Hadeeth”. The reason why it is called “Science” is because it is supposed to be unbiased and objective. What this means is, whichever scholars has said something good about this tafseer and whichever scholar has said this is our 11th Imaam tafseer, we must find out for ourselves about this hadeeth.

Let’s find out for ourselves about this tafseer.

We must first examine the 2 people who “claim” that they’ve heard this tafseer directly from our 11th Imaam. Those 2 people are:قال حدثني أبو يعقوب يوسف بن محمد بن زياد و أبو الحسن علي بن محمد بن سيارFirst Person: Yoosuf bin Muhammad bin ZiyaadSecond Person: ‘Alee bin Muhammad bin Sayyaar

The first book I looked at was Rijaal Al-Toosi. The reason is, I wanted to see if these 2 men have even been mentioned as one of the companions of our 11th Imaam. Let alone if they are Thiqah (trustworthy) or Da’eef (weak).

Yoosuf ibn Muhammad ibn Ziyaad is nowhere to be found.

Source:Al-Toosi, Rijaal, pg. 403, under the Chapter of “Imaam Abee Muhammad Hasan ibn ‘Alee bin Muhammad bin ‘Alee Al-RiDaa”, under section of “Ya”‘Alee bin Muhammad bin Sayyaar is also no where to be found.

Source:Al-Toosi, Rijaal, pg. 429 – 435, under the Chapter of “Imaam Abee Muhammad Hasan ibn ‘Alee bin Muhammad bin ‘Alee Al-RiDaa”, under section of ‘Ayn

There is mention of these two people in the Rijaal book, but not in a good light.روى عنه أبو جعفر ابن بابويه ضعيف كذاب روى عنه تفسيرا يرويه عن رجلين مجهولين أحدهما يعرف بيوسف بن محمد بن زياد و الآخر علي بن محمد بن يسار [سيار] عن أبيهما عن أبي الحسن الثالث عليه السلام و التفسير موضوع عن سهل الديباجي عن أبيه بأحاديث من هذه المناكيرTranslation: Muhammad bin Al-Qaasim, Al-Mufassir, al-Astarabadi. Aboo Ja`far b. Baabuwayh narrated from him. Weak, and a liar. He narrated a tafseer from him that he narrated from two unknown men: one of them known as Yoosuf bin Muhammad bin Ziyaad, and `Alee bin Muhammad bin Yaasar (mispell: it should be Sayyaar), from their father from Aboo Al-Hasan the Third. The tafseer is fabricated (mawDoo’) from Sahl Al-Dibaajee from his father with aHaadeeth from these disgraceful people.Source:1. Ibn Al-GhaDaa’iri, Kitaab Al-Du’afa, pg. 982. Al-Hilli, Al-KhulaaSah, pg. 287

There are some things wrong with what is said by Ibn Al-GhaDaa’iri and ‘Allaamah Hilli who quotes from Ibn Al-GhaDaa’iri.1. He says that Yoosuf ibn Muhammad ibn Ziyaad and ‘Alee ibn Muhammad ibn Sayyaar narrate from their fathers–> this is wrong because as you see from the chain of narrators, they do not narrate from their fathers, they have no “middle man” to get to the Imaam.2. Also he says the tafseer is attributed to Aboo Al-Hasan the third which is our 10th Imaam.–> this is wrong because the tafseer is attributed to our 11th Imaam and not our 10th Imaam.3. He also says he got from Sahl Al-Dibaajee–> As you can see in the chain of narrators Sahl Al-Dibaajee is not even mentioned.

According to Al-Khoei, he says this about these 2 narrators (Yoosuf ibn Muhammad ibn Ziyaad & ‘Alee ibn Muhammad ibn Sayyaar)Yoosuf ibn Muhammad ibn Ziyaadأقول: إنه رجل مجهول الحالTranslation: I (Al-Khoei) say: This man’s condition is majhool (unknown).Source:1. Al-Khoei, Mu’jam Rijaal Al-Hadeeth, vol. 20, pg. 175, under person # 13809

‘Alee ibn Muhammad ibn Sayyaarأو كلاهما مجهول الحال و لا يعتد برواية أنفسهما عن الإمام عTranslation: The conditions of both (Yoosuf ibn Muhammad bin Ziyaad & ‘Alee ibn Muhammad ibn Sayyaar) these men are unknown and these narrations false attributed to the Imaam (AS)Source:1. Al-Khoei, Mu’jam Rijaal Al-Hadeeth, vol. 12, pg. 147, under person # 8428Al-Khoei also says:هذا التفسير لا يشك في أنه موضوعTranslation: There is no doubt that this Tafseer is mawDoo’ (fabricated).Source:Al-Khoei, Mu’jam Rijaal Al-Hadeeth, vol. 12, pg. 147, under person # 8428As you can see since the main two people who “claim” that they narrate this tafseer directly from our 11th Imaam is “unknown” we cannot take anything from this tafseer. In the science of Hadeeth, when you have just ONE majhool (unknown) narrator whether he be the narrator or the sub-narrator. The hadeeth is automatically deemed as Da’eef (weak).

Now, in this tafseer, the main narrators who directly here it from the 11th Imaam (AS) are majhool (weak). These people are equivalent to Aboo BaSeer & Zurarah to our 5th and 6th Imaam (AS). So for them to be unknown puts the WHOLE tafseer as weak.

Another way you can tell that this Tafseer is fabricated is, our 11th Imaam was surrounded by policemen and under cover agents of the Abbasid government. Also during the reign of Al-Musta’een our 11th Imaam (AS) was put in prison of ‘Alee ibn Awtamish. It is almost impossible for someone to be with our 11th Imaam (AS) for so long to the point that this Tafseer is about 700 pages long! And for these two people to be considered majhool (unknown) to the Rijaal authors is really weird!Here are the Caliphs that our 11th Imaam went through1. Al-Mutawakkil: He hated shee’ahs extremely, he assumed the role of caliph the same year our 11th Imaam was born (see: Tareekh Al-Khulafaa by Al-Suyootee). He didn’t live too long. No praise or kunya coming from him.2. Al-Muntasir: This was the ONLY caliph who was good to the Shee’ahs, and he didn’t live very long because the Turks killed him. (See: Tareekh Al-Khulafaa, pg. 357 by Al-Suyootee). Also, in the books of history, there is NO mention of our 11th Imaam and Al-Muntasir meeting face-to-face, so that’ll put big doubts into this tradition.3. Al-Musta’een: He hated our Imaam bitterly, to the point he put our Imaam in prison. No praise or kunya coming from him.4. Al-Mu’tazz: He hated the our Imaam (AS) as well. He once tried to assassinate him, but failed. (See: Dalaa-il Imaamah). He was killed by the Turks over money.5. Al-Muhtadi: He hated our Imaam (AS) also, he put our 11th Imaam (AS) in prison. (See: Muhaj Al-Da’waat). He was killed by the turks also.6. Al-Mu’tamid: Our Imaam (AS) was put into prison ONCE again, but this time at the hands of Al-Mu’tamid. He hated our Imaam (AS). He put undercover agents with the Imaam, and remained under heavy watch. And then he was assassinated by POISON by this caliph.

One of the reasons why he was surrounded by policemen and undercover agents was because they knew that his (AS) son would be the awaiting Al-Mahdee (AS) that has been foretold by the Prophet (SAWAS). Even logically, this tafseer couldn’t be true.

Another way you can tell that this Tafseer is not from our 11th Imaam (AS) is because the language and manner that this tafseer is mentioned is not eloquent. If you delve deep into its arabic, you will see it is not as eloquent as it is suppose to be since it is coming from one of our Imaams. There is this famous hadeeth in Al-Kaafi, that I would like to narrate.مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَبِي نَصْرٍ عَنْ جَمِيلِ بْنِ دَرَّاجٍ قَالَ قَالَ أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع أَعْرِبُوا حَدِيثَنَا فَإِنَّا قَوْمٌ فُصَحَاءTranslation: Once, Abu ‘Abdullah (Ja’far as-Saadiq) said: “Express our hadeeth (sayings) in a clear manner; (for) we are of the people of eloquence”Source:1. Al-Kaafi, vol. 1, ch. 17, pg. 52, hadeeth # 13Grading:1. Al-Majlisi says “SaHeeH”–> Mir’aat Al-’Uqool, vol. 1, pg. 1822. Bahboodee says “SaHeeH”–> SaHeeH Al-Kaafi, vol. 1, pg. 7

So it is impossible for this to be attributed to one of our Imaams, because the language in which it is written is not eloquent at all.

Scholarly opinion regarding the tafseer:أن الرواية ضعيفة السند لان التفسير المنسوب إلى العسكري- عليه السلام- لم يثبت بطريق قابل للاعتماد عليه فان في طريقه جملة من المجاهيل كمحمد بن القاسم الأسترآبادي، و يوسف بن محمد بن زياد، و علي بن محمد بن سيار فليلاحظ. هذا إذا أريد بالتفسير المنسوب إلى العسكري- ع- هو الذي ذكره الصدوق «قده» بإسناده عن محمد بن القاسم الأسترآبادي، و الظاهر أنه مجلد واحد كما لا يخفى على من لاحظ التفسير الموجود بأيدينا اليومThe narrated is weak in the sanad because the Tafseer that has been attributed to Al-Askari wasn’t proven to be as such through a correct way, for there are several anonymous narrators like Muhammad bin Al-Qaasim Al-Astraabaadee, Yoosuf bin Muhammad bin Ziyaad, and ‘Alee bin Muhammad Sayyaar, so one would notice that when Al-Saduq mentions the tafseer through Mohammed bin Al-Qasim Al-Asterabadi, and it appears to be a volume long which is what one would observe from the copy that has reached us todaySource:1. Al-Khoei, TanqeeH fee SharH Al’Urwah Al-Wuthqaa, vol. 1, pg. 221

أقول: لا بأس بهذا الدليل من حيث الدلالة، و الشواهد الحاليّة تشهد بصحّة هذا الخبر، فلا وقع للإشكال عليه بأنّ سند هذا الخبر غير خال عن الضعف؛ لكونه منقولًا عن التفسير المنسوب إلى العسكري عليه السلام، و لم تثبت النسبةI say: This evidence isn’t all that bad, and there are other elements that point to the authenticity of this report, so, it isn’t a problem that this chain is weak because it is attributed to the Tafseer of Al Askari, and that it shouldn’t be.Source:1. RiDaa Al-Sadr, Al-Ijtihaad wa Al-Taqleed, pg. 329^^ In essence he rejects the tafseer, but the hadeeth in discussion is ONLY authentic because of it being in other places ^^

أنّ التفسير المنسوب إلى العسكري (ع) لم يثبت كونه صادرا من حضرتهThe Tafseer that is attributed to Al-’Askaree (AS) has not been proved to be issued by the Imaam (AS).Source:1. Al-Sayfee Al-Maazandaraanee, Daleel TaHreer Al-Waseelah, pg. vol. 5, pg. 249

Al-Hoor Al-‘Aamilee (compiler of Wasaa-il Al-Shee’ah) has discussed this tafseer in depth in his book Al-Fuwaa-id Al-Toosiyyah, in it he shows that this book is mawDoo’ (fabricated) and da’eef (weak). This is the reason why he has not quotes this book in his compilation of Wasaa-il.Source:1. Al-Hoor Al-‘Aamilee, Al-Fuwaa-id Al-Toosiyyah, Ch. 42 – Condition of Tafseer Al-‘Askaree, pg. 128 – 130

Agha Mahdee Pooya:“This tafseer as it is in our hands now contains statements like Sayyari’s book should be discredited. There is no doubt that the eleventh Imaam dictated a brief commentary of the Qur’an to some of his disciples who had approached him when he was in Samarrah under house arrest. The dictation undoubtedly was of great value but it was tampered with before its publication. The person accused of this profane act is Ahmad bin Sahl Deebaji.”Source:Agha Pooya, Essence of the Holy Qur’an, pg. 112

Baaqir Shareef Al-Qarashi:“Anyhow, it is certain that this tafseer was not Imam Abu Muhammad’s but it was fabricated and ascribed to him.”Source:Baqir Qarashi, Hayaah Al-‘Askaree, pg. 86

I hope this clarifies for people about this Tafseer that has been attributed to our 11th Imaam (AS). Thank you.Wa ‘Alaykum Assalaam

Tafsir al-Qummi was authentic per it’s author

June 7, 2010 at 7:10 am | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

1 Votes

Sayyid Ali al-Shahristaniy in his book “The Prohibition of Recording the Hadith: Causes and Effects ” at page 510 wrote:

`Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummiy, the compiler of the famous book of Tafsir that carries his name, has confirmed the authenticity of the Hadiths that he recorded in his book by bearing out that these Hadiths have been reported by trustworthy narrators from the Holy Imams.

Waqifiya, Zaydiya in the light of shia narrations

June 5, 2010 at 4:04 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts, Other people in the light of shia books and scholars | 1 Comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

Rate This

Hurr al-Amili in “Wasailu shia” 28/351-352, Majlisi in “Biharul anwar” 50/274-275,

[ 34943 ] 40 ـ سعيد بن هبة الله الراوندي في ( الخرائج والجرائح ) عن أحمد بن محمد بن مطهر ، قال : كتب بعض أصحابنا إلى أبي محمد ( عليه السلام ) يسأله عمن وقف على أبي الحسن موسى ( عليه السلام ) ، فكتب : لا تترحم على عمك وتبرأ منه أنا إلى الله منه بريء ، فلا تتولهم ، ولا تعد مرضاهم ، ولا تشهد جنائزهم ، ولا تصل على أحد منهم مات أبدا ، من جحد إماما من الله أو زاد إماما ليست إمامته من الله كان كمن قال : ( إن الله ثالث ثلثة ) إن الجاحد أمر آخرنا جاحد أمر أولنا . . . الحديث .

40 – Sa`id b. Hibatullah ar-Rawandi in al-Khara’ij wa ‘l-Jara’ih from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Mutahhar. He said: One of our companions wrote to Abu Muhammad عليه السلام asking him about waqf upon Abu ‘l-Hasan Musa عليه السلام (waqf: stopping. i.e. one who believed that Imam Musa al-Kadhim عليه السلام was the Qa’im and denied the Imamate of his son عليه السلام). So he wrote: Do not ask for mercy upon your uncle and be quit of him (i.e. renounce him). To Allah I am quit of him. So do not befriend them, and do not visit their sick, and do not witness their funerals, and do no pray upon one who dies from them ever. Whoever denies an Imam from Allah or adds an Imam whose Imamate is not from Allah is as one who said “Verily Allah is a third of three” (5:73). Verily a denier of the affair (or, command) of the last of us is a denier of the affair of the first of us.

Their other sheikh Muhammad Hassan Jawahiri in his book “Jawahir al-kalam” 6/67 quoted hadith:

ان الزيدية والواقفة والنصاب بمنزلة واحدة

“Zaydiya, Waqifiyah and Nawaseeb are at the same level”.

Toose in “Ikhiyar marifatol rijal” (2/756), Hurr al-Amili in “Wasael ush shia” (9/229):

862 – وجدت بخط جبريل بن أحمد في كتابه حدثني سهل بن زياد الادمي قال : حدثني محمد بن أحمد بن الربيع الأقرع قال : حدثني جعفر بن بكير قال : حدثني يونس بن يعقوب قال قلت لأبي الحسن الرضا ع : أعطى هؤلاء الذين يزعمون أن أباك حي من الزكاة شيئا؟ قال : لا تعطهم فإنهم كفار مشركون زنادقة(chain) from Yunus ibn Yaqub: I said to Abul Hasan al-Ridha (a): “Shoul I give from zakat something top those who claim that your father is alive?” He answered: “Don’t give them indeed they are disbelievers, polytheists and zanadiqah”.

Abu Amr al-Kashi in his rijal quoted imam saying:

409- حمدويه، قال حدثنا يعقوب بن يزيد، قال حدثنا محمد بن عمر، عن محمد بن عذافر، عن عمر بن يزيد، قال : سألت أبا عبد الله (عليه السلام) عن الصدقة على الناصب و على الزيدية فقال لا تصدق عليهم بشيء و لا تسقهم من الماء إن استطعت، و قال لي الزيدية هم النصاب.

409 – Hamdawayh said: Ya`qub b. Yazid narrated to us.  He said: Muhammad b. `Umar b. `Udhafir narrated to us from `Umar b. Yazid.  He said: I asked Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام about (giving) sadaqa upon the Nasib and the Zaydiyya.  So he said: Do not give sadaqa (of) anything upon them and do not give them to drink of water if you are able to.  And he said to me: The Zaydiyya, they are the Nassab.

410- محمد بن الحسن، قال حدثني أبو علي الفارسي، قال حكى منصور، عن الصادق علي بن محمد بن الرضا (عليهم السلام) : أن الزيدية و الواقفة و النصاب بمنزلة عنده سواء.

410 – Muhammad b. al-Hasan said: Abu `Ali al-Farsi narrated to me.  He said: Mansur related from as-Sadiq `Ali b. Muhammad b. ar-Ridaعليهم السلام that the Zaydiyya, the Waqifa, and the Nassab are according to him of an equal status.

411- محمد بن الحسن، قال حدثني أبو علي، عن يعقوب بن يزيد، عن ابن أبي عمير، عمن حدثه، قال سألت محمد بن علي الرضا (عليه السلام) عن هذه الآية وُجُوهٌ يَوْمَئِذٍ خاشِعَةٌ عامِلَةٌ ناصِبَةٌ قال :نزلت في النصاب و الزيدية و الواقفة من النصاب.

411 – Muhammad b. al-Hasan said: Abu `Ali narrated to me from Ya`qub b. Yazid from Ibn Abi `Umayr from the one who narrated to him.  He said: I asked Muhammad b. `Ali ar-Rida عليه السلام about this verse “Faces on that day humbled, labouring, toilworn” (88:2-3).  He said: It was revealed about the Nassab and the Zaydiyya and the Waqifa from the Nassab.

412- حمدويه، قال حدثنا أيوب بن نوح، قال حدثنا صفوان، عن داود بن فرقد، عن أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) قال : ما أحد أجهل منهم يعني العجلية، إن في المرجئة فتيا و علما و في الخوارج فتيا و علما، و ما أحد أجهل منهم.

412 – Hamdawayh said: Ayyub b. Nuh narrated to us.  He said: Safwan narrated to us from Dawud b. Farqad from Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام.  He said: There is no one more ignorant than them, meaning the `Ijliyya (followers of the Zaydi Harun b. Sa`d al-`Ijli, close in doctrine to the Batriyya).  Verily in the Murji’a there is youth (or generosity, honorableness) and knowledge and in the Khawarij there is youth and knowledge.  And there is no one more ignorant than them.

And here compete chapter on zaydiya from book “Rijal al-Kashi”:

Amazing fact is in shia books of ahadeth are many narrators from waqafiyah.

Waqafiyah were sect that believed in the immorality of Musa Kazim, claiming that he would return as a Mahdi before dooms-day. They also rejected the claim of his son, Ali ar-Rida.

As we can see from above mentioned narrations imams compared waqifiya to nawaseeb, ugliest sect from the shia point of view. And nawaseeb were kuffar and najas in accordance to agreed opinion between imami scholars. Very logical question arise from all of this, why does shias use to narrate from people who were nawaseeb in the view of shia aimma? Why does modern rafidah accuse our scholars for narrating from khawarij, if they very own books of ahadeth are full with nawaseeb narrators?

Just think about this, obviously it’s another proof that all shia usool, and in this particular case, usool of hadeth is nothing but a great joke.

Wa Allahu Alam.

—————————-

1) Surah al-Ghaashiya 2-3.

Insincerity of the Shiites to Ali

May 3, 2010 at 3:15 pm | Posted in On authenticy of shia texts, Take a few minutes to think on this | 2 Comments

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

1 Votes

Shiites themselves are unaware of the fact that their own Imams were always condemning and criticising the Shiites for their constant evil.

Narrated Muhammad, Narrated al-Mughira al-Dhabbi: The nobels of the Kufans were insincere to Ali. Their hearts were with Muawiyah because Ali used to give no one more than his due of 2000 Dirham from the booty, while Muawiyah used to give any nobleman an additional 2000 Dirham.? (Al-Gharaat: Ibn Hilall al-Thaqafi p. 29)

Narrated Abdul-Malik bin Maysara, from Umara bin Umair saying: Ali used to have a friend nicked Abu Maryam from al-Madeenah, when he heard that the people have dispersed away from Ali, came to meet with him. When Ali [as] saw him, he said: Abu Maryam? He said: yes. (Ali) said: What came you here to do? He said: I did not come here for any (material) need, but I was thinking all along, that if you were installed in charge of this Ummah, you are over qualified. Ali replied: O Abu Maryam, I am still the same person you have known, but I am tried with the most wicked people on the face of earth. I call them, and they don’t follow me, and if I budge to what they want they disperse away from me? (Ibid, p.44)

Imâm Ja’far is reported as having said:No verse did Allâh reveal in connection with the Munâfiqîn, except that it is to be found in those who profess Shî’ism[Abdullâh al-Mâmaqânî, Miqbâs al-Hidâyah vol. 2p. 407]

It is about them that Imâm Ja’far is reported to have said:No one bears us greater hatred than those who claim to love us. (Abdullâh al-Mâmaqânî, Miqbâs al-Hidâyah vol. 2 p. 414 (Mu’assasat? al-Bayt li-Ihyâ’ at-Turâth, Beirut 1991) quoting from Rijâl al-Kashshî )

Imam Jaffar also does not rely on his Shiites:Narrated Ali bin Ibrahim? from Ibn Riab: I heard Abu Abdullah (al-Baqir) saying to Abu Basir: By Allah, If I can only find three of you to be truly believers who would conceal my hadith I wont hide any hadith from them? (al-Kafi: al-Kulayni, vol.2, p.242, Chapter: The Few Number of Believers.)

Before Husayn, his elder brother Hasan was the victim of the treacherousness of the Kûfans. In his book al-Ihtijâj the prominent Shî’î author Abû Mansûr at-Tabarsî has preserved the following remark of Hasan:By Allâh, I think Mu’âwiyah would be better for me than these people who claim that they are my Shî’ah.Abû Mansûr at-Tabarsî, al-Ihtijâj vol. 2 p. 290-291 (Mu’assasat al-A’lamî, Beirut 1989)

When Hasan eventually became exasperated at the fickleness of his so-called Shî’ah, he decided to make peace with Mu’âwiyah. When someone protested to him that he was bringing humiliation upon the Shî’ah by concluding peace with Mu’âwiyah, he responded by saying:By Allâh, I handed over power to him for no reason other than the fact that I could not find any supporters. Had I found supporters I would have fought him day and night until Allâh decides between us. But I know the people of Kûfah. I have experience of them. The bad ones of them are no good to me. They have no loyalty, nor any integrity in word or deed. They are in disagreement. They claim that their hearts are with us, but their swords are drawn against us.

Abû Mansûr at-Tabarsî, al-Ihtijâj vol. 2 p. 290-291 (Mu’assasat al-A’lamî, Beirut 1989

Before the incident of karbala 18,000 Shiis of kufa pledged alleigence to Imam hussain,when imam hussain was on his way to Kufa he recieved the news that his cousin was abandoned by the shiis and was killed by the yezidi ruffian ubaidullah.ubaidullah at that time had only 4000 troops,the shiis had greatly outnumbered them,inspite of that the kufians rejected to join imam hussain and left him all alone with his family to be maytred in karbala.Karbalâ was not to be the last act of treason by the Shî’ah against the Family of Rasûlullâh sallallâhu ‘alayhi wa-âlihî wasallam. Sixty years later the grandson of Sayyidunâ Husayn, namely Zayd ibn ‘ Alî ibn Husayn, led an uprising against the Umayyad ruler Hishâm ibn ‘Abd al-Malik. He received the oaths of allegiance of over 40 000 men, 15 000 of whom were from the very same Kûfah that deserted his grandfather. Just before the battle could start they decided upon a whim to ask his opinion about Abû Bakr and ‘Umar. Zayd answered: “I have never heard any of my family dissociate himself from them, and I have nothing but good to say about them.” Upset with this answer, they deserted him en masse, deciding that the true imâm could only be his nephew Ja’far as-Sâdiq. Out of 40 000, Zayd was left with only a few hundred men. On the departure of the defectors he remarked: “I am afraid they have done unto me as they did to Husayn.” Zayd and his little army fought bravely and attained martyrdom. Thus, on Wednesday the 1st of Safar 122 AH another member of the Ahl al-Bayt fell victim to the treachery of the Shî’ah of Kûfah.6 This time there could be no question as to whether those who deserted him were of the Shî’ah or not. The fact that the thousands of Shî’ah who deserted Zayd ibn ‘Alî looked upon Ja’far as-Sâdiq as their true Imâm shows that by and large they were the same as the Ithnâ ‘Asharî, or alternatively Imâmî or Ja’farî Shî’ah of today. Why then, if he had so many devoted followers, did Imâm Ja’far not rise up in revolt against the Umayyads or the ‘Abbâsids? The answer to this question is provided in a narration documented by Abû Ja’far al-Kulaynî in his monumental work al-Kâfî, which enjoys unparallelled status amongst the hadîth collections of the Shî’ah:Sudayr as-Sayrafî says: I entered the presence of Abû ‘Abdillâh ‘alayhis salâm and said to him: “By Allâh, you may not refrain from taking up arms.” He asked: “Why not?” I answered: “Because you have so many partisans, supporters (Shî’ah) and helpers. By Allâh, if Amîr al-Mu’minîn (Sayyidunâ ‘Alî) had as many Shî’ah, helpers, and partisans as you have, Taym (the tribe of Abû Bakr) and ‘Adî (the tribe of ‘Umar) would never have had designs upon him.” He asked: “And how many would they be, Sudayr?” I said: “A hundred thousand.” He asked: “A hundred thousand?” I replied: “Yes, and two hundred thousand.” He asked again: “Two hundred thousand?” I replied: “Yes, and half the world.” He remained silent.

Then he said: “Would you accompany us to Yanbu’?” I replied in the affirmative. He ordered a mule and a donkey to be saddled. I quickly mounted the donkey, but he said: “Sudayr, will you rather let me ride the donkey?” I said: “The mule is more decorous and more noble as well.” But he said: “The donkey is more comfortable for me.” I dismounted. He mounted the donkey, I got on the mule, and we started riding. The time of salâh arrived and he said: “Dismount, Sudayr. Let us perform salâh.” Then he remarked: “The ground here is overgrown with moss. It is not permissible to make salâh here.” So we carried on riding until we came to a place where the earth was red. He looked at a young boy herding sheep, and remarked: “Sudayr, by Allâh, if I had as many Shî’ah as there are sheep here, it would not have been acceptable for me to refrain from taking up arms.” We then dismounted and performed salâh. When we were finished I turned back to count the sheep. There were seventeen of themal-Kulaynî, al-Kâfî (Usûl) vol. 2 p. 250-251 (Dâr al-Adwâ, Beiru1992)Imâm Mûsâ al-Kâzim, the son of Imâm Ja’far, and the seventh of the supposed Imâms of the Shî’ah, describes them in the following words:

If I had to truly distinguish my Shî’ah I would find them nothing other than pretenders. If I had to put them to the test I would only find them to be apostates. If I were to scrutinise them I would be left with only one in a thousand. Were I to sift them thoroughly I would be left with only the handful that is truly mine. They have been sitting on cushions all along, saying: ” We are the Shî’ah of ‘Alî.”al-Kulaynî, Rawdat al-Kâfî vol. 8 p. 288

Bearing of all that in mind it is evident that the worst type of people surrounded the imams.isnt it possible that these pretenders could have fabricated out of their own selves concepts like “imamah”,”high status of ali”,”calling unto the members of the ahlul bayt”,”infallibality of the ahlul bayt”,”hypocrisy of the prophet’s companions”,”unfaithfulness of the prophet’s wives” etc…………and then narrated to others ascribing them as sayings of the prophet and the ahlul bayt, the next passage sheds more light on this:Some of the most prolific narrators of the Shi’ah are

Zurarah ibn A`yanMuhammad ibn Muslim at-Ta’ifiAbu Basir Layth ibn al-Bakhtari al-Muradial-Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar al-Ju’fi

Zurarah ibn A’yan

Sayyid Bahr al-’Ulum states that the family of A’yan, of which Zurarah was a scion, was the largest Shi’i family of Kufa. (Rijal as-Sayyid Bahr al-’Ulum, a.k.a al-Fawa’id ar-Rijaliyyah, vol. 1 p. 222)

Zurarah has always posed a problem in Shi’ism, because while is on the one hand regarded as the most prolific narrator from the Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq, the Imams are also recorded as having cursed and excommunicated him. The Shi’ah attempt to reconcile these two contradictory attitudes through the dubious and completely unconvincing explanation of taqiyyah by the Imams.

Regarding the wealth of narrations which Zurarah reports, we are informed by al-Kashshi that had it not been for Zurarah, the ahadith of al-Baqir would have been lost. (Ikhtiyar Ma’rifat ar-Rijal vol. 1 p. 345) Sayyid Abul Qasim al-Khu’i has counted 2094 of his narrations in the four books, all of them from the Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq, (al-Khu’i, Mu’jam Rijal al-Hadith vol. 7 p. 249)

On the other hand, al-Kashshi records that Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq cursed Zurarah. The following quotation is but one of several places where his cursing of Zurarah is on record:

By Allah, he has ascribed lies to me! By Allah, he has ascribed lies to me! By Allah, he has ascribed lie