Imam Jafar (as) Could Not Even Find 17 Imami Shias During His Era ?

I posted this clip a few years back, and now I found a reference to the above clip.

H 2311, CH 96, h 4

Muhammad ibn al-Hassan and Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Bandar have narrated from Ibrahim ibn Ishaq from ‘Abd Allah ibn Hammad al-Ansari from Sadir al- Sayrafi who has said the following:

“Once I went in the presence of abu ‘Abd Allah, recipient of divine supreme covenant, and said, ‘By Allah, it is your obligation not to sit (without proclaiming your leadership).’ The Imam asked, ‘Why O Sadir?’ I said, ‘Because your friends, Shi’a (followers) and supporters are so many. By Allah, were Amir al-Mu’minin (Ali ibn abu Talib), recipient of divine supreme covenant, to have that many Shi’a (followers) as your Shi’a, friends and supporters, no one of the tribe of Tamim or ‘Ady could dare to disturb him.’ The Imam said, ‘O Sadir, how many do you think they are?’ I said, ‘One hundred thousand.’ The Imam said, ‘One hundred thousand!’ I said, ‘Yes, in fact, they are up to two hundred thousand, and I said, ‘Half of the world (population) is your Shi’a.’

“The narrator has said that the Imam remained calm and then said, ‘Is it possible to come with us to Yanbu’?’ I said, ‘It is fine with me.’ He then asked to bring a donkey and a mule already saddled. I hurried to ride the donkey and he said, ‘O Sadir, can you consider to allow me ride the donkey?’ I said, ‘The mule is more beautiful and noble.’ He said, ‘The donkey is friendlier for me.’ I then dismounted and he rode the donkey and I rode the mule. We traveled until it was time for prayer. He said, ‘O Sadir, dismount and we should pray.’ Then he said, ‘This ground is soft, prayer is not permissible here.’ We moved to a red ground and he looked to a boy who shepherded goats. He said, ‘O Sadir, were I to have as many Shi’a (followers) as the number of these goats, then it would not have been permissible for me to sit (without proclaiming my leadership).’ We dismounted and prayed. When we finished the prayer I turned to the goats and counted them. There were seventeen heads of goats in the flock.’” (al-Kafi)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33892794/Usool-al-Kafi-Vol-2-English

Fragments of Shaykh Mufid's Life‏

I'm going to quote this directly from the 12r Shia sites.
Here is proof that he had a Mutazilli teacher.

He was born in the year 338 A.H./949 and was brought up in a village. His father brought him to Baghdad for his education. There he studied under Shi'i and Mu'tazili scholars. He showed such promise that one of his teachers recommended that he study under one of the leading scholars of the period, 'Ali b. 'Isa al-Ramani. He also studied under the leading Shi'i traditionists of the time, al-Shaikh al-Saduq.

http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/irshad-howard.htm

Note: Ali bin Isa Al-Ramani is Mutazilli scholar

Here is another shocking discovery, and it tell us why Shaykh Mufid went to the Mutazilla to learn ilm.

The Sheik went to two erudite scholars, Ibne Abd Allah and Ibne Abi Jafar, who were impressed with his knowledge that they sometimes felt that they themselves were unable to reply to the queries of the young student. It is narrated that once Ibne Jafar expressed his inability to reply to his queries and asked Sheik Mufeed to rather meet Ali ibne Eesa and seek his guidance. Ali ibne Eesa Rumani was the authority on Ilm e Kalam in Baghdad those days.
http://www.islam-laws.com/marja/mufeed.htm

Fiqhi 12r Debate Between Shaykh Mufid and Syed Murtaza. Its laughable....

There is a very interesting incident of a disciple giving an edict (Fatwa) contrary to that of his mentor! It is said that on the saddle of the steed of Sayed Murtada a dog had passed urine. Sheik Mufeed, who had witnessed the scene, informed Sayed Murtada that the saddle was rendered impure (Najis) with the dog’s urine. Sayed Murtada replied that whatever Sheik Murtada said must be true, but his own Fatwa (Verdict) was that there must be at least two witnesses giving evidence to agree about the event happening. Since the Sheik was the only witness, his evidence wasn’t sufficient. The argument prolonged and in the end it was decided to seek a solution to the problem from Hazrat Amir al Momineen (a.s). Hence both the persons proceeded to Najaf e Ashraf. There are three different narrations regarding this event. They wrote their problem on a piece of paper and left it in the Zarih (Sarcophagus) of Amir al Momineen (a.s). One narration is that when the mentor and the disciple reached the mausoleum next morning, they heard the voice of Hazrat Amir al Momineen (a.s) saying “Ya Sheik anta motamadi wal haq maa waladi ( O Sheik! You are the secretary, but the truth is with the son!). The second narration was that the paper was recovered on which was written the same verdict. The third narration was that both, the mentor and the disciple, dreamed in their sleep when Hazrat Ameer al Momineen (a.s) came and said that the truth was with his son and also that he (a.s) had total faith in his secretary (Sheik Mufeed).
http://www.islam-laws.com/marja/mufeed.htm

Note: If the 12th imam appeared that would have counted as the second witness.

Recall earlier an Imaginary Bibi Fatima (sa) appears and calls Shaykh Mufid her own Shaykh.

Ibn Abil Hadeed al-Mo'tazaly in his commentary on Nahjul Balaghah writes that once Sheikh Mufid saw Fatima al-Zahra, peace be upon her, in his dream. She was accompanied by her two young sons, al-Hasan and al-Husain, peace be upon them. Addressing him, she said: "O my Sheikh, teach Fiqh (Jurisprudence) to these two boys of mine." Next day, Fatimah, the mother of Seyyid Murtadha and Syed al-Radhi came to Sheikh, holding hands of her two young sons, and uttered the same words which Fatemah al-Zahra, peace be upon her, had uttered in his dream.


http://www.al-islam.org/amali/2.htm


Notice, how the pronoun 'my' is used before Shaykh.

The 12th Imam Saves Shaykh Mufid from an Invalid Fatwa.
The 12r character assassinate Umar (ra) for depending of Imam Ali (as) too much, but here they claim the 12th imam saved Shaykh Al Mufid from an invalid fatwa.
The greatness of the Sheik may well be gauged from this incident. In the same mosque at Baghdad, where he used to conduct his classes, he was seated when a villager arrived and posed a question to him. He said that a woman had, just then, died in the village and she had a live fetus in her stomach. There was a dispute amongst the villagers as to whether they should bury the fetus along with the dead mother or extricate the baby live and then intern the woman. Some people say that saving the life of the baby was important and others say that conducting any such operation would be disrespect to the dead person. The Sheik, of course, was a fallible being, and at that moment somehow it came to his mind, he told to the villager to go and bury the dead woman in the same condition that she was. The man immediately set forth for the village. When he reached near the village he heard someone calling him from a distance. He stopped. One person, riding on a horse, came near him and said that the Sheikh’s Fatwa was changed and he had asked to deliver the fetus live from the mother’s womb and then the dead body may be buried. He acted on the fresh edict. After some days the villager again visited Baghdad and called on the Sheik. He told him that they had acted according to the instruction conveyed through the rider and had delivered the baby live before interning the mother. Sheik Mufeed understood who it was who corrected his error! The Sheik told to himself, “O Sheik! Your mind has stopped functioning that you should stop giving Fatwa. Your error would have been the cause of the death of a Muslim” From that day he stopped giving Fatwa. After some time he received a letter from the Imam (a.s) asking him to continue giving Fatwa. He wrote that it was the Sheik’s duty to give Fatwa and if he made any errors, the Imam (a.s) would correct them. Such a great personality was the Sheik that he was guided from time to time by Janab e Syeda (a.s) and the Imams (a.s).
http://www.islam-laws.com/marja/mufeed.htm

Why didn't Imam Ali (as) partake in any battles During the Calipate of First 3 Calipahs ?

This is one of the questions which is asked by the 12r Shias umpteen times. They seem to think just because they ask something umpteen times or make a statement umpteen times, it become a valid argument against their opponents. Also, we must recall that their statement a level of truth to it. However, this historical fact about Imam Ali's (as) lack of participation of wars, is not indication that Imam Ali (as) believed that the calipate of the 3 calipahs was illegitimate. What the 12rs fail to initially realize is their definition of imamate is not the same as the Sunni definition of Calipate. In fact, their definition of imamate in reality is suspended till the reappearance of the 12th imam. Anyway, in this topic I will explain why Imam Ali (as) didn't partake in any battles during the calipate of the 3 calipahs, and also provide a rational to why the 12r Shia arguement is flawed.

Jihad is compulsory duty in Islam, so why did Imam Ali (as) decide to stay back after he eventually gave bayah to Abi Bakr (ra) after 6 months, gave bayah to Umar (ra) and Uthmaan (ra) ? To answer this question we must refer to the Quran, where an exception for exalted sahabi such as Imam Ali (as) is made.
In the Quran, Allah (swt) tells us

It is not for the believers to go forward in battle all at once. Rather, there should be a separate group from every division that [remains behind] to obtain understanding (fiqh) in the religion and warn their people towards cautiousness when they return} (Q. 9:122).

Now since, Imam Ali (as) believed he was the most knowledgeable in Islam, the imam extracted this ayah and decided to stay back and council the 3 Calipahs instead. If this is the case, how can we dismiss the 12rs statement ? In history, Ammar bin Yassir (ra) who the 12rs consider to be a Shia among the Sahabis did partake in the wars of calipahs. He fought in the wars of apostasy under the rule of Abi Bakr (ra).

In the meantime Musaylima and his followers who were lying in ambush attacked the Muslims. The Muslims were faced with great trouble and began running away like a scared flock of sheep.




Historians like Waqidi, Ibn Sa'd and others who have recorded the biography of Ammar have written that Abdullah bin Umar said: "I saw Ammar Yasir on a hillock while his detached ear, wounded by a sword, was bleeding, and he was going on fighting in the same condition, and was calling out the fleeing Muslims and saying “O' Muslims! Are you running away from Paradise! "Then again he raised his voice and said: "I am Ammar! I am Ammar! Come to me, and run towards me!"



"I (Abdullah) saw that the ear of Ammar was hanging and I also saw that in that very condition he was killing the enemies, reciting epic verses, shouting and encouraging others so that eventually the Muslims gathered round him. When the Muslims had gathered near him he attacked the enemies and came out victorious from the battlefield". We receive al-Hasan at the time of Uthman, while he was in the vigor and prime of youth. He was over twenty years old. This age allows one to plunge into the battle of life and give an opinion of the social side. During this age, Imam al-Hasan entered, as it was said, the field of jihad, which is one of the doors to the Garden. He joined the Mujahideen whose standards headed for Africa to conquer it in the year 26 A. H.[1] Through al-Hasan, the grandson of Allah’s Apostle (a.s), the Mujahideen remembered the personality of his grandfather. So they showed extreme courage and Allah made Africa be conquered at their hands. When the battle ended, al-Hasan (a.s) headed for the capital of his grandfather (a.s). He was victorious and happy at the expansion of Islam and spread of the religion of his grandfather. In the year 30 A. H. the Muslim armies carried the standards of victory and headed for Tabaristan. Al-Hasan joined them.
http://www.al-islam.org/ammaryasir/12.htm

On the contrary, for the 12rs the sahaba who rejected waliyah are bigger apostates since status of imamate is higher than Prophethood.

Next when Imam Hassan (as) reached at level of maturity, the imam fought under the rule of Hz Uthmaan (ra).

At the Time of Uthman

We receive al-Hasan at the time of Uthman, while he was in the vigor and prime of youth. He was over twenty years old. This age allows one to plunge into the battle of life and give an opinion of the social side. During this age, Imam al-Hasan entered, as it was said, the field of jihad, which is one of the doors to the Garden. He joined the Mujahideen whose standards headed for Africa to conquer it in the year 26 A. H.[1] Through al-Hasan, the grandson of Allah’s Apostle (a.s), the Mujahideen remembered the personality of his grandfather. So they showed extreme courage and Allah made Africa be conquered at their hands. When the battle ended, al-Hasan (a.s) headed for the capital of his grandfather (a.s). He was victorious and happy at the expansion of Islam and spread of the religion of his grandfather. In the year 30 A. H. the Muslim armies carried the standards of victory and headed for Tabaristan. Al-Hasan joined them.
http://www.maaref-foundation.com/english/library/pro_ahl/imam02_hasan/the_life_of_imam_hasan/10_1.htm

Also, what is interesting to note that Hz Umar (ra) himself wanted to partake in battles during his own calipate. Yet it was Imam Ali (as) who stopped him from going further. In fact, even the 12r Shia till this day cannot deny this. Also, let go a step further and see the 12rs themselves citing the words of Imam Ali (as).





Imam Ali (as) wanted Umar's (ra) to live.
Instead of following Imam Ali's (as) sunnah the 12rs praise the pioneer of Rafidism who is none other than Abu Lulu.



Also, another interesting fact to note down is Umar (ra) leaving Madina to go to Palestine.

In 636 CE, at the battle of Yarmuk, the Byzantines were defeated by the Muslim Army. Christian Patriarch Sophoronius offered to surrender the city if Caliph Umar (RA) himself would come in person to ratify the terms of surrender. Umar (RA) agreed to the suggestion. The encounter between these two men was very dramatic.

Umar (RA) took to the road immediately, accompanied by a guard, and leaving Ali ibn Talib (RA) as his deputy in Madinah. Traveling by camel is a slow process. Umar (RA) and his guard would alternate mounting on the camel. So, it took few weeks before Umar (RA) arrived in Jerusalem. The crowd had gathered, and the eyes were wide open with curiosity. The Patriarch had prepared himself to meet with the most powerful ruler of his time, Caliph Umar, who had just defeated the Byzantines. From where he was standing, he saw a tall man walking, dressed in ordinary clothes, while holding the rope of a camel, and surrounded by Muslim generals; another person was riding on the camel. For a moment, the high priest, used to the pompous way Heraclius had carried his affairs, was confused as to who the Caliph was. Was the Caliph the man riding on the camel or the one pulling the camel? Eventually, recognizing the Caliph, he surrendered the key of the city. In the words of a Christian historian, Anthony Nutting, “Umar taught the caparisoned throng of Christian commanders and bishops a lesson in humility by accepting their surrender in a patched and ragged robe and seated on a donkey.” [The Arabs, New American Library, N.Y. (1964)]

When he left Madina he left Imam Ali (as) in charge of Madina. In a non-war zone Imam Ali (as) doesn't stop Umar (ra). However, in a war zone he prevents Umar (ra) from dying.

Imam Ali (as) Says Be With The Great Majority

"With regard to me, two categories of people will be ruined, namely he who loves me too much and the love takes him away from rightfulness, and he who hates me too much and the hatred takes him away from rightfulness. The best man with regard to me is he who is on the middle course. So be with him and be with the great majority (of Muslims) because Allah's hand (of protection) is on keeping unity. You should beware of division because the one isolated from the group is (a prey) to Satan just as the one isolated from the flock of sheep is (a prey) to the wolf. (Sermon 126 Nahjul Balaghah) "

The 12rs think the shias in time of Imam Ali (as) were shias like themselves. So they say that is the majority. As for placing Ahle sunnah in this ahadith the 12rs say we don't even fall under this ahadith. They believe this hadith applies to only those who surrounded Imam Ali (as) and supported him in the battles of Jamal and Siffin. Therefore, within that ahadith they say those who love the imam too much are those who say Ali was god, the haters they classify as Khawari, and the middle they call those shias who fought under Imam Ali (as) in the Jamal, Siffin and Narwaan.

However, I have trapped the 12r by posting another tafseer of a sermon where it proves their interpretation to be false.

Who was the majority in the time of the Imam ?

The 12r Shia tafseer of sermon 97 says the majority of Imam Ali (as) followers accepted him as the 4th calipah.

However, there was one group who was swearing allegiance to him as a religious obligation regarding his Caliphate as determined by Allah. Otherwise, the majority regarded him a ruler like the other Caliphs, and as regards precedence, on the fourth position, or at the level of the common men after the three caliphs.
http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/

Why do the 12r Shia Care About The Causalities of Jamal ?

The 12rs claim they disassociate from Bibi Ayesha (ra) since her actions during Imam Ali’s (as) caliphate resulted to high number of Muslim casualties.

From my understanding of the 12r Shia theology, it is not battle of Jamal or her rejection of Shura that got Imam Ali (as) in power which causes the 12rs to make an initial tabarra against her. However, it is her rejection of Waliyah, which is main reason 12rs hate and curse her.
Bibi Ayesha (ra) actions during Imam Ali's (as) calipahate are presented by the 12rs for purpose of dawah. These events actually compliment their creed instead of proving Imam Ali’s (as) waliyah.

For example a 12r says the wahabis call us kaffir. Now a Sunni might ask don't the 12r shia do the same ?
Instead of answering that question, the 12r Shia say we refer to Sunnis as Muslims. What they hide from Sunnis is this term Muslim they are using in its context has no links to momins. In fact, the term Muslim aimed at Sunni Islam by the 12rs is indirectly linked with the term monafiq or hypocrite.
If we refer to the Quran, the hypocrites are actually considered worst than the Kuffar.
Anyway the 12rs go into historical events to try to justify their hatred toward the Sahaba. By just claiming those who reject the Waliyah of Ali are apostates, does not give them the ability to use an emotional card to antagonize their opponents. On the contrary, historical events is best emotional card is play against the Sunni who opposes the 12r and has no clue that such and such event occurred. In the end the Sunni is left at a confused state. At that state the Sunni challenger is helpless to defend Bibi Ayesha (ra).

Anyway, the main reason I started this topic is to ask 12rs why they really care about the causalities of Jamal. In the end, the number casualties which occurred only resulted in Sunni lives only. The reason for this is the majority of supporters of Imam Ali (as) were Sunni in reality.
According to the 12r Shia own sources the majority of accepted Imam Ali’s (as) caliphate accepted him as the 4th Calipah instead of the first. In Najh Al Balagha Sermon 97 the commentary of the sermon suggests that “the majority regarded him a ruler like the other Caliphs, and as regards precedence, on the fourth position, or at the level of the common men after the three caliphs.” (Nahj al-Balaghah Commentry Sermon 97)
Once again the causalities suffered in Jamal are those who were Sunnis. There is ahadith about Hz Ammar bin Yassir (as) being killed by rebellious group.

Sahih al-Bukhari - Volume 4, Book 52, Number 67
Narrated 'Ikrima: That Ibn 'Abbas told him and 'Ali bin 'Abdullah to go to Abu Said and listen to some of his narrations; So they both went (and saw) Abu Said and his brother irrigating a garden belonging to them. When he saw them, he came up to them and sat down with his legs drawn up and wrapped in his garment and said, "(During the construction of the mosque of the Prophet) we carried the adobe of the mosque, one brick at a time while 'Ammar used to carry two at a time. The Prophet passed by 'Ammar and removed the dust off his head and said, "May Allah be merciful to 'Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious aggressive group. 'Ammar will invite them to (obey) Allah and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire."

Sahih Muslim - Book 41, Number 6968 - 6970
Umm Salama reported that Allah's Messenger (s) said to 'Ammar: A group of rebels would kill you.

However, once again the Shia sahabis such as Ammar ibn Yassir (ra) did not as kuffar.
Now if we look further into the 12r Shia theology they consider Sunnis calipahs to be same category of Muawiyah and Yazid.

Here is a 12r Shia Scholar who teach the 12r Dawah methods.




Also, they play the unity card with Sunnis, yet within the so called unity the 12r have their agenda to get rid of Sunni Islam.



Therefore, in the end the casualties killed in Jamal, were Yazidis from the 12r Shia prespective. It is not matter if they had side with Imam Ali (as) or not. The reason for that is the majority of the supporters of who rallied behind Imam Ali (as) accepted him as the 4th calipah instead of the first.

Shia Dream Narrations About How Bibi Fatima Died

What an amazing method to bring proof and find out if you are syed. Dream narrations are okay, but they are not strong evidence. As for the crying in the end, even the Yahoodi are good at that. Ask them about the holocaust and they were narrate you the events with their emotions. In fact, let's not forget how Muawiyah cried for Uthmaan (ra) death, so the people of Syria turn emotional and fight against Imam Ali (as).

Are Sunnis Following the Enemies of the Ahlul Bayt ?

A 12rs told me that I was the following of the enemies of the Ahlul Bayt, since I was a non-shia. Then I told him to watch his mouth. Then the 12r replied by telling me that I should get offended because there is a possibility that even he can be following the enemies of Ahlul bayt. He added that I should research and discover the truth, and find out who stands where.

Here is his exact quote. He edited the first reply, but I still manged to store his second reply.

bro i have told u before and i will say again please please please follow The Holy Quran and dont assume bad things about your fellow brothers or sisters.
firstly i will not be the one debating bcz its been a long time since my research and ive gotten rusty takes a few months to get back all that information and i found someone more capable also bro i did see more than one lecture however i refused to look into the details and review it.
secondly what i said goes both ways we could be the ones following the enemies of Allah (AW) there is no "agenda" what u see is what u get with me.

However, what the 12r shia failed to reliaze, just like any other average 12rs is that I have been around shia for a long time. Therefore, the material the 12rs present me from answering ansaar, al-islam.org, pesharwar nights and Tijani's books will not shock me. It might world for a laymen sunni, but these sources fail on sunnis who are educated about the shia sect. After the shia posted the line where he stated "what i said goes both ways we could be the ones following the enemies of Allah," I told him that he may have a point.


After doing a little research I managed to find a clip where a shia scholar admits that a group of Shia will prepare for the Mahdi like how the Jews prepared for RasoolAllah (sawas). The Jews when the time came they themselves became the enemies of RasoolAllah(sawas). Likewise the shia scholar says a group of shias too will become the enemies of Imam Mahdi (as) as well.





Translation:
Inshallah ! The Imam will come with the most advanced technology. According to a narration, at the time of his appearance knowledge will be leveled at 23 different stages. The Imam (as) will have knowledge of all 23 stages and the enemy will have the knowledge of only two stages out of the 23 stages of knowledge. Therefore, with all this knowledge that the Imam has he will eliminate all his enemies. For us shias instead of looking toward at military power and weapon technology, there is another aspect that we have to focus on. That aspect is our to duty to increase our level of imaan, our belief in the imam, our aqeeda, and the most important one to focus on is how we are going to guard ourselves from sinning. These are the requirement that will make us the true shia/soldiers of Imam Mahdi (as). Our weapons and technology power will not impress the imam to believe that we are his supporters, but what is important for our imam to see is that we have purified souls. If your soul is purified then you will be able to get close to the Imam (as). Today, our souls have been polluted, so we have opened up ports to our spirituality which allow Shayataan to whisper his evil messages toward our hearts and minds. Therefore, with this negative status we will only end up going against the imam. For example the Jews, they made preparations for RasoolAllah (sawas) for centuries and millenniums, and when the Prophet (sawas) appeared they instead started opposing him. The Jews of Khaybar originally settled there and made bases to prepare for the coming of the Prophet (sawas). On the contrary, those preparations ended working against RasoolAllah (sawas). The reason for that is the Jews did not purify their souls, and they didn't prepare their children to become faithful believers. The result of their preparation became inevitable, and the Jews began to oppose the Prophet (sawas). The same downfall will occur during the time of the Imam (as). Shia will present themselves as shias but they will lack imaan, not follow what is binding on them, not have purified souls, and as a result shias themselves will end up becoming the Imaam's enemies. So the real preparation is to strengthen your imaan, and not worry about which weapon's technology which will exist at the time. The military power and weapon's technology is the secondary stage and not the primary preparation for the imam.




My advise to the sunnis is not to waste time with such closed minded shias. They are only online to insult you and your madhab. As for shias, if you think by using this type of lip service is contribution to Islam, then you are wrong. Please review the aklaaq of Ahlul Bayt (as).

Have Sunnis Failed to Recognize the Imam of the Time ?

Before coming to the question the first thought that comes to our mind is what is an Imam ? For the 12r shias an imam is one who is divinely appointed to handle both spiritual affairs and political affairs of the ummah. On top of that, the number of the imams who are given this responsibility accounts to a dozen men. Today, the imam of the time according to 12rs is the Mahdi who gone into a spiritual realm, and he is waiting for Allah's (swt) permission to return. This concept is a shia belief, and it doesn't apply for any sunni. On the contrary, the conflict arises when the 12r shia claims to bring proof from the sunni sources or books. For the recognition of the imam the 12r shia usually quotes the following hadiths.

Sahih Muslim Book 020, Number 4555:

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who defected from obedience (to the Amir) and separated from the main body of the Muslims-if he died in that state-would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya (i.e. would not die as a Muslim)


Also in Musnad Ahmad, volume 4, page 96.
16271
حدثنا أسود بن عامر، أخبرنا أبو بكر، عن عاصم، عن أبي صالح، عن معاوية، قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من مات بغير إمام مات ميتة جاهلية‏.


He who dies without recognizing the Imam, dies the death of Jahiliyyah

Now I have even seem some shias even add Mahdi in parentheses after the word imam, just to prove their point. The problem with this quotation is that the 12r shias use these hadith, but they are unable to prove how the Mahdi is the imam of the time, and top of that they are unable to prove the Mahdi existence through mutawir hadith. When you ask the 12rs shias to provide proof they will quote some sufi books where the sufis acknowledge that they have met the 12th imam or where they accepted that he is alive.
Among the renown sufis who are quoted are Sheikh Abdul Wahab Sheikh Sharani (ra) and Ibn Arabi (ra). However, what the 12r shias fail to realize is that the majority of the sunnis are not sufis. On top of that the sufis beliefs are not binding on the sunni madhab. Therefore, to provide proof the 12rs need mutawir hadith. Apart from this there are some other questions which the 12rs have failed to answer as well. They are unable to prove that the 12th imam exist or how he is actually the imam of the time. When you ask them to prove he exist they quote Quran saying that Prophet Nuh (as) lived for 1350 years so how it is not possible for Mahdi to exist? As sunnis nobody is denying that this is possible. However, how do we actually know if the Mahdi is physically alive and guiding us at the same time ? If I have a question regarding Islam how come the imam of the time isn't there to answer me ?
I've went to a couple sites and here is how the 12r shia responded.

Where is he now and what should we do in his absence?
He is alive and in occultation and will reappear whenever Allah wants.We should obey those scholars who obey 12 Imams, teach their knowledge and follow their instructions.
Is is ok if we don't obey the IMAM of our time and live according to some other leaders?
No,It is not ok. If we don't accept IMAM Mahdi (pbuh) as Imam of our time, our submission to God wont be accepted.Our deeds wont be acceped by God.Because those who don't accept the Imams are like those who don't accept God or the Prophet.



http://shiatime.tripod.com/

Now here its tells us that we should follow shia scholars while the Mahdi is in gaib. On the contrary, shia scholars are fallible and they are not part of the ahlul bayt according to shia standards. In reality while the Mahdi is gone into gaib its not really possible to follow except through a philosophical belief.

Also, what surprises me is the sunni believe that the imam of the time are the scholars, but 12rs say this is wrong. However, at the same time they encourage sunnis to follow their scholars while their imams are in gaib. Among the shia narrations I also came across this hadith from the 12r imami books.


Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from Muhammad ibn 'Isa from Yunus ibn Muskan from abu Basir from one of them (Imams (a.s.), who has said the following

"Allah does not leave the earth without a 'Alim (scholar). Without this the truth would not be distinguished from falsehood." (Al-Kafi H 431, Ch. 5, h 4)

The shia can say that the alim is the imam. However, while the 12th Imam is gaib, their alims are the majra who collect khums from the 12rs to teach them about deen and provide other religious services. The duty of an Imam is to provide us with affair regarding deen. The below hadith from the shia books states this.

Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from Ali ibn al-Hakam from Rabi' ibn Muhammad al-Musalliy from 'Abdallah ibn Sulayman al- 'Amiriy from abu 'Abdallah (a.s.) who has said the following.

"The earth has never been without a person with Divine authority who would teach people about the lawful and unlawful matters and call them to the path of Allah." (Al-Kafi H 430, Ch. 5, h 3 )

From the above hadith a few questions should be answered.

How is 12th Imam is guiding us right now? How can you recognize an Imam without even meeting him ? How is the 12th Imam teaching us what is lawful and what is unlawful ?



Since, the Sunni has failed to recognize the Imam is alive then he/she is automatically a kaffir ? If this is case then what about the existence of Prophet Isa (as). Why did the 12rs most esteemed shia scholar Shaykh Saduq deny that Prophe Isa (as) was alive ? Isn't this a type of a double standard ?

Shaykh Saduq's book of I`tiqad writes:

"Our opponents (the Sunnites) have related that when the Mahdi, on whom be peace, will appear, Jesus, son of Mary, on whom he peace, will descend upon the earth and pray behind the Mahdi. Now the descent of Jesus to the earth is his return to the world after death, because Allah the Glorious and Mighty says: "Verily I will cause thee to die, and will take thee up to myself" [3, 48]."

http://www.sicm.org.uk/index.php?page=suduk/Suduk18



Proof From The Qur'aan On The Descent Of 'Eesa ('Alaihi Salaam)
There are two verses of the Qur'aan on this matter. One in which Allah Most High says “There is
none of the People of the Book except who must believe in him before his death.”(Q. An-Nisaa 4:159) On this IbnAbbaas (radiallahu anhu) has said: “Before the death of 'Eesa ibn Maryam ('alaihi salaam).” As related by
Ibn Jareer with a authentic chain. Al Haakim related in Al-Mustadrak from Ibn Abbaas (radiallahu anhu) regarding this verse that he said, “The appearance of 'Eesa ibn Maryam.” Al-Haakim has said this report is authentic according to the criterion of the two shaykhs (Al-Bukhaari and Muslim) and supported by Adh-Dhahabi in At-Talkhees.
Abu Bakr Al-Aajurri relates in his book Ash-Sharee'ah from Ibn Abbaas on this verse as having said: “It means that a group from the People of the Book will recognize ‘Eesa upon his appearance and by that believe in him.” Ibn Mardawiyyah reports that Abu Hurairah (radiallahu anhu) has made statements similar to that of Ibn Abbaas about this verse and this statement is the correct explanation of the verse. It was considered so by Ibn Jareer (At-Tabaree) as well as Ibn Katheer. It is also supported by Abu Maalik, Al-Hasan, Qataadah, Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Zaid ibn Aslam and others. Al-Hasan said: “By Allah he is alive now in the presence of Allah, but when he descends they will all believe in him.” Narrated by Ibn Jareer.
As far as what else has been said by the commentators that the pronoun in the verse "...before his death”(Q. An-Nisaa 4:159) is in reference to the person Jew or Christian - there is no contradiction of what has been presented before in that though they may believe at their time of passing that 'Eesa ('alaihi salaam) is a slave of Allah and His Messenger, his belief will be at that time of no use. Whereas those who believe in him after his descent at the end of time their belief shall in fact benefit them and Allah knows best.
In the second verse Allah Most High says “wa innahu la 'ilmun lis-saa'ah”,(Q. Az-Zukhruf 43:61) and in the recitation of Ibn Abbaas, Abu Hurairah, Qataadah and Al-A'maash “wa innahu la 'alamun lis-saa'ah”, that is, an indication and a sign of the nearness of the Final Hour. Ibn Abbaas, in explaining this verse said “It is the coming of 'Eesa ibn Maryam before the day of Resurrection” as related by Imaam Ahmad, Sa’eed ibn Mansour, ‘Abd ibn Hameed, Ibn Abi Haatim, At-Tabaraani, Al-Haakim in Al-Mustadrak; he and Adh- Dhahabi both call it authentic.
Ibn Hibbaan in his Saheeh and Al-Haakim relate in a hadeeth of Ibn 'Abbaas (radiallahu anhu) from the Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) on this verse "And verily he is a sign of the Hour” that he said “The descent of 'Eesa ibn Maryam before the Day of Resurrection”. Reported as authentic by AI-Haakim and Adh-Dhahabi. Similar sayings to that of 'Ibn Abbaas’ have also been related by Abu Hurairah, Mujaahid, Al-Hasan, Qataadah, Abu 'Aaliyyah, Abu Malik, 'Ikrimah, and Ad-Dahhaak. With all that has been presented through Qur'aanic verses and confirmed ahadeeth from the Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) concerning the descent of 'Eesa ibn Maryam ('alaihi salaam) at the end of time; along with the statements of Ibn 'Abbaas, Abu Hurairah and others from amongst the salaf on the tafseer of the verses from Soorah An-Nisaa and Az-Zukhruf; one must know that the descent of 'Eesa ('alaihi salaam) is true and the truth is never incompatible with Islam. Whoever claims that his ('alaihi salaam) descent is incompatible with Islam is of those whose Islam is doubtful because he has not fulfilled his declaration that Muhammad (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) is the Messenger of Allah. It is
necessary for its fulfillment to absolutely affirm all that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) has informed us about regarding matters of the unseen that have passed and that shall occur in the
future.

Now 12rs can say that Shaykh Saduq isn't infallible and that he is capable of making a mistake. If this is the case which shia scholar is infallible ? Also, why are sunnis in fault for denying the existence of the Mahdi, which Shaykh Saduq denied the correct interpretation of the Quran regarding Prophet Isa (as) life ? Personally, I don't have a problem with the 12r shia belief of the Mahdi because many sufi have declared that he is alive. However, what I hate about all this is the way 12rs attack sunnis for not agreeing with them. Also the attitude from sunnis toward shias is likewise. Why can't we Muslims just focus on how we can get closer to Allah (swt) ? After all this is main goal of deen. Also, in my older posts I quoted Ayatollah Fadlallah for a certain point. A 12rs shia responded by saying Fadlallah is heretic. What give a shia a right to say this ? Does he have ilm-e-gaib ? The issue the 12rs have with Fadlallah is that he substantiates proof from text and derives what he believes in authentic. Sometimes this proof goes against what many 12rs believe in. Therefore, the 12r shias lash out at Ayatollah Fadlallah for being a heretic. From I can conclude about this substantiating proof from text is better than depending on dream narrations. I've listened to a few shia scholars on youtube and many times while they are lecturing they mention a few dream narrations.

Here is an example below.




With these example the 12rs are encouraged that the marjas they are following are the representatives of the Mahdi or Ahlul Bayt, and to follow them is equal to following the Ahlul Bayt. However, for me using dream narration is fluid. To prove a point one must use authentication narrations. I have seen many dream narrations coming out of sufis too. However, those narrations are also not binding on my belief. Therefore, if I disagree with a dream narration, there is no effect on my level of imaan (faith). Another case is there are other shia scholars who have given there experiences of meeting the Mahdi. Again this is not solid evidence. If one denies such evidence he/she does not go outside the fold of Islam or even become deviant.


May Allah Guide us Toward the Correct Path !!

Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani (ra) is a Syed!

A couple years ago, a few shias on shiachat started quoting Tijani's book which claims to dismiss the linage of Shaykh Abdul Qadir Al Jillani (ra). Tijani makes some ridiculous statements, and finally declared that Shaykh Abdul Qadir Al Jillani is not a Syed. On top of that in his book Then I was Guided he claims that the dome on the Shrine of Ghous Al Azam (ra) is green.

I asked my friend to wait for me until I wrote a few postcards to my friends in Tunisia to show them the picture of the place of Shaykh Abdul Qadir with its green dome. I wanted to prove to my friends and relatives in Tunisia my high state which brought me to this place that they have never been able to reach. (Then I was Guided, Tijani)

If you go to Baghdad, you will discover that Tijani is wrong and the dome in reality is blue in color.



Next al Tijani claims that he was a former sufi, and he has never been informed about who Imam Musa Al Kazim (as) was. Tijani question the shia "I asked him, "Whose shrine is that?" He said, "Imam Musa al-Kazim." I asked, "Who is Musa al-Kazim?" He said, "Praise Allah! You, our brothers, of the Sunni sect ignored the essence and kept the shell". (Then I was Guided, Tijani)." If Tijani was really a sufi how come he isn't aware personalities that are found in the Qadiri Silsila chain ? Wasn't he aware that Qadiri Silsila included 7 of the 12 imams of the Ahlul Bayt?

Qadiri Silsila Chain

* Caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib
* Imam Husayn
* Imam Ali Zayn al-Abidin
* Imam Muhammad Baqir
* Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq
* Imam Musa al-Kazim
* Imam Ali Musa Rida
* Ma'ruf Karkhi
* Sari Saqati
* Junayd al-Baghdadi
* Shaikh Abu Bakr Shibli
* Shaikh Abdul Aziz Bani Tamim|al-Tamīmī
* Abu al-Fadl Abu al-Wahid Bani Tamim|al-Tamīmī
* Abu al-Farah Tartusi
* Abu al-Hasan Farshi
* Abu Sa'id al-Mubarak Mukharrami
* Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilani




Then again Tijani doesn't even know the difference between blue and green. Even a child in preschool can differentiate between the two colors.



Anyway, Al Tijani was not the first one to dismiss the linage of Ghous Al Azam (ra). In fact the first person to dismiss the syed linage was a shia scholar. The shia geneologist was named ibn Inaba, who died in 825 AH. His argument is that his father's name was persiian 'jangi dost' and that he never called himself a syed . These are lame excuses and definitely not according to nassabeen. Jangi dost was a title and his name was abu salih musa. the shaykh himself declared in his 'mutawatir' Qasdia Ghausia that 'annul hasani' I am hasani. The third thing people say that his grandson was the first to call himself syed that is also not true.

It is ijama of all ahl e sunna ulema that he was syed. All the awliya in every age considered him a syed such as the person who wrote 'shah ast Husain baadshah ast Hussain' and turned 9 millions hindus into muslims his name is syed moin uddeen chishti ajmeri...all the awliya believed him to be syed and allama mulla ali qari hanafi writes that there is tawatur/mass transmission that he was a syed in his book nuzhatul khatir.

Also it is important to note that ibn Inaba when writing the aqab of imams of ahl al-bayt(a), he himself has missed out some -great-great grandsons and added some extra great-great-grandsons sons that are not in earlier books of nasab, so does that mean that those claiming nasab from such sons are not syed ?

A biographies called Bahjtul Asrar whose author died in 713 AH gives the shaykh's lineage from Imam Hasan al-mujtaba(A), and this alone predates ibn Inaba by 112 years! Shaykh syed Abdul qadir jilani's son syed abdur razaq in 'Fatihat Futuhul Ghayb' gives his shajra from Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba(A). This refutes the claim that it was his grandson who was the first to call the Jilani (ra) a Syed. Also, his grandson shaykh abu salih nasr, about whose authenticity imam ibn Hajar Asqalani prides himself that I report with three links from him whose sanad is most high and declares him trustworthy and authentic in his book 'ghibta'. those who calim that it was his grandson, should also note that he was a very reliable and superior and honest reporter according to asma ar-rijaal imams.

Furthermore, it is also claimed that none of his contemporaries called him a syed is also a blatant lie. Sheikh's companion and disciple mufti of Iraq, Imam Abullah bin Nasr bin Hamza Bakri Baghdadi in his book 'Anwaarul Naazir' details the lineage of shaykh syed Abdul qadir jilani from Imam Hasan al-mujtaba(A)

The Maliki jurist and geneologist ahmed ibn Jawzy in his book of geneology called 'albayaan fi nasabul adnan' details the lineage of the shaykh from Imam Hasan yet he was not fan of the shaykh as is evident from his book 'talbis'. Also Sibt ibn Jawzy in his book on geneology called 'ansaabul qirtaas' details the lineage of the Shaykh from Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba(A) as well as the renowned historian al-Jabarti details the lineage of Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba and gives the shaykh as his descendent.

These are just a few refrences and you pick up any book on asma ar-rijaal after 561AH and you will see that all are unanimous in the siyadat of the shaykh. There is an absolute ijma from ahl as-sunna from every century on the lineage of hazrat shaykh syed Abdul Qadir jilani. As a matter of fact you can read a book by Qadhi Mohammed Makki bin Azouz, the Tunisian jurist and traditionist where he gives the list and books of sixty ulema of the past that have written on the hasani lineage of the shaykh. The book is called 'As-saif ar-RabbanI fi Unuq Al Mutarid Al Ghauth Al Jilani'.



Ibn Inaba (825 AH) denied nasab in his book, and all those before him as mentioned above consider him syed. The shyakh died in 561AH. So someone who comes 264 years after declares him a non-syed whereas nassabeen and biographers and contemporaries and his son are telling you he was a syed.

As for ibn inaba having extra number of great-great grandsons and less number of grandsons sons of imams in his book when compared to the nassabeen before him and how some shajras printed in Iran and Najaf do not tally with those sons and hence by default making some known syeds as non-syeds is another issue but one should realise that collection of nassabeen is how genoelogists operate and not just a single person's baseless word. there are various shades of opinions. He wrote it out of bias of being a shia or ignorance..

Shia Scholar Says Its a Pillar in Deen To Curse Bibi Ayesha

Question: It is permissible to slander, degrade and disrepect Ayesha ? Is there any sin in sharia for this form of character assissination ?

Answer: The Quran has exposed the evil personality of Abu Lahab and his wife. Since Bibi Ayesha opposed Imam Ali (as) it our duty to expose and curse her.

Now whenever you ask a 12r shia if slander the Bibi Ayesha (ra) they reply by saying "we only state facts about her and nothing else." Above the shia scholar was asked if one can slander the wife of Prophet (sawas) and the scholar didn't oppose it. In fact he supports this form of character assassination against Bibi Ayesha, and says on top of it that its a pillar in the 12r madhab.


Further if you read Mullah Baqir Majalis books they are filled with the character assassination of Bibi Ayesha (ra) and Bibi Hafsa (ra).


12'er alledged-Shi'ite devious Sect Beliefs with Regards to Ayesha - the Wife of the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi wa aalihi Wasallam)





Mullah Baqir Majlisi writes:




'When Imam Mahdi arrives, Ayesha will be resurrected so that she may be given a prescribed punishment and that Fatima be vindicated.' (Haqqul Yaqeen: 347)






The same author writes about Ayesha that "She was a traitor." (Tadhkiratul Aimmah: 66)







Again, Mullah Baqir Majilisi comments about Ayesha (R.A.) and Hafsa (R.A.) that: "They were both hypocrites." (Hayatul Quloob: 2:745)




Imam Khomeini writes about the prestige and worth of the oft-quoted Mullah Baqir:





'Keep on reading the Persian books written by Majlisi so that you do not fall into any other such stupidity.' (Kashful Asrar: 121)






Maqbool Dehlavi, a Shi'ite translator of the Quran, quotes Imam Baqir as saying:


'Two women poisoned the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) before his death. These are the same two women (Ayesha and Hafsa). May Allah curse them and their fathers (Abu Bakr and Omar respectively). (His translation of Surah Ale Imraan: 134)


From the quotes above I've seen answering ansaar refute the quote about 12th Imam taking revenge against the sahaba and wives. Also, the source about poisoning is only believed by Shia scholar Yasir Habib and his followers. However, the rest of the beliefs are unanimous the mainstream Imami 12r shias.