Early Opposition of Ammar ibn Yassir (ra) by the Rafidah

Of course the 12r Shia definition of Sahaba evolved over time, and it continues to evolve. However, here is a classical narration of the 12r Shia which opposes Ammar ibn Yassir (ra).

H 2313, CH 96, h 6

A number of our people have narrated from Sahl ibn Ziyad from Muhammad ibn ‘Uramah from al-Nadr from Yahya ibn abu Khalid al-Qammat from Humran ibn ‘Ayun who has said the following:

“Once I asked abu Ja’far, recipient of divine supreme covenant, ‘May Allah keep my soul in service for your cause, how small is our number! It is so small that all combined feasting on a goat cannot finish it.’ The Imam asked, ‘Do you want to hear more astonishing things? The immigrants (Muslim of Makkah) and supporters (Muslim of Madina) all went (to abu Bakr).’ He (the Imam) pointed with his hands, ‘except three, (Salman, abu Dhar and Miqdad) who remained as true supporters of Amir al- Mu’minin (Ali ibn abu Talib, recipient of divine supreme covenant).’ I (Humran) then asked, ‘May Allah keep my soul in service for your cause, what about ‘Ammar?’ The Imam said, ‘May Allah grant him favors, the alert man pledged allegiance (to abu Bakr) but he died as a martyr.’ I (Humran) then said to myself that there is nothing better than martyrdom. The Imam looked at me and said, ‘Perhaps you thought he was like one of the three. That is far remote from reality. (al-Kafi) ’”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33892794/Usool-al-Kafi-Vol-2-English

Al Khoei's Takfeer Against Non-12r Shias

Why do some 12r Shia have to Pretend They are Sunnis When They Debate ? Taqiyah ?

A lot of times I come across some 12rs who want to debate, and while debating they claim they are Sunnis. While claiming they are Sunnis they insult the Sahaba indirectly, and still say they are Sunnis. Today I was watching some clips on youtube, and I discovered that they have some stories and narrations in their books which encourage this degraded behavior.





Okay, fine Bibi Fatima (as) was correct, but Abi Bakr (ra) was wrong. However, why did the Shia shaykh lie in the first place that he was a Sunni ? From his deception the Sunni also discredited his views.




The Shia Mufti gives a narration where the Imam's sons said his older brother is shia, but he was Sunni so he can convert Abu Hanifa(ra) ? This is just ridiculous. Of course if Imam Ali (as) couldn't even protect his wife in the 12r Shia beliefs, how can I expect them to straight forward.

If you see Muawiyah On My Mimbar Kill Him!

I asked about this hadith and Syed Ninowy's student gave a reply. He said it is doubted most people in the chain because of the mix or shias, khwarijis and other sects within the chains. Anyway, overall this ahadith in my view is authentic.


إذا رأيتم معاوية على منبري فاقتلوه

(IF YOU SEE MUAWIYA ON MY MIMBAR, KILL HIM)


This Hadith has a few narration:
1-

a- from Abu Sai'd Al Khudri, through Ali bin Zaid bin jud'an, through Abi Nudra to Abu Sai'd.

Answer: this narration has a problem with Ali bin Zaid bin Jad'an. I struggled with this because he is among the narrators of Imam Muslim, which would have made this narration authentic, fullfilling the conditions of Imam Muslim. But my Shaykh (DBA) told me that though Ali bin Zaid bin Jud'an is among Muslim narrators, but he pointed to me to Ibn Hajar's Taqrib, where he points that he is "daeef"= weak, despite the fact that he is among Muslim's narrators. Therefore, this is a weak narration due to Ali bin Zaid bin Jud'an. This narration to Abu Sai'd Khudri, has a "Mutaba'a"= follow up, in which the narration goes from Uthman Bin Jabla through Abdul Malek through bin Abi Nudra through his father, to Abu Sai'd. yet this is also problomatic, and Shaykh Muhammad (dba) said that this narration (the 2nd one) is very weak, not only weak. (Daeef Jiddan). Because Ibn Hibban who narrated this Hadith pointed out that among the first narrator is Ahmad bin Muhammad Al Faqih, who is accused of forging Hadith and altering asaneed. So therefore , the Shaykh DBA said that any attempt to use this narration (the Muaba'a = 2nd one) is a flawed attempt due to the presence of a forgery-accused narrator.

b- Another way, this Hadith was narrated to Abu Said Al Khudri through many people through Mujaled through Abi Al-Waddak, to Abu Sai'd Al Khudri.

But the Shaykh (dba) said that all the narrtors here narrate through Mujaled. That is the problem, making this narration VERY WEAK again, because of Mujaled. Ibn Hajar said about him: (laysa bil Qawi= he is not strong), and Tha-habi was hesitant in him. Yet, for those who know the Hadith sciences, the Shaykh said don't be fooled by the soft discarding term of Imam Ibn Hajar and Tha-habi about Mujaled. i.e. through they weakened him, but my Shaykh doesn't believe it is weak enough, and pointed out to follow his case and narrations and you will realize that he is at borderline faking things almost, so he is extremely weak to say the least.

2- Other ways is the narration to Sayyidina Abdullah bin Mas'ud through Asem bin Abi Nujud through Zur bin Hubaysh to Abdullah bin Mas'ud. It was narrated through Asem through four different ways.

a- Ibn Hibban narrated it through Tabari through Muhammad bin Saleh through Abbad Yaqub Al-Rawajini, through Shuraik through Asem to Abdullah bin Masud.

The problem with this narration is: Abbad bin Yaqub. Though he is among the narrators of Imam Bukhari in his Saheeh, so he is a Thiqah (trsutworthy trufthful) but he is a Shi'i. keep that in mind. Also Shuraikh and Asem are both Saduq (below the level of trufthful trustworthy which is necessary to make a hadith reach the level of Authentic). Zar is Thiqah (trustworthy truthful). So the problem is in Abbad, Shuraik and Asem's.

b- the other narrations to Ibn Mas'ud have the following Isnaad: it was narrated through Al-Hakam bin Zahair through Asem bin Abi An-Nujud, through Zar bin Hubaysh through Abdullah bin Mas'ud.

The Shaykh (dba) said this is a very weak because Al Hakam bin Zahair is ( Matrook and accused of Raf'dh = discarded and accused of being a Rafidhi). So this is VERY WEAK isnaad. I have heard a claim that there is a (Muta'ba'a = another supporting way) to this narration, but I haven't seen it. Regardless it makes the case less than authentic in any way, even if there is a Mut'aba'a.

3- Other ways of this Hadith is through Jaber bin Abdillah (ra).

it was narrated through Sufyan bin Muhammad Al Fazzari, through Mansur bin Salamah through Sulayman bin Bilal, through Imam Sadeq, through his father Imam Baqer to Jaber bin Abdillah Al Ansari.

The problem with this narration, though all are Thiqat, except Sufyan who is VERY WEAK, and Mansur is okay (la Ba'sa bihi), which is a soft term for a narrator indicating he is less than an Authentic or Hasan level.



4- Other way this Hadith was narrated is to Sah'l bin Hunayf (ra).

Ibn Udai narrated: Ali bin Said through Husayn bin Isa Ar-Razi through Salamah bin Al-Fadl through Muhammad bin Is'haaq, through Muhammad bin Ibrahim At-Taymi through Abi Umamah bin Sah'l bin Hunayf through is father.

The Problem in this narration is Ibn Is'haaq. despite his fame as being am Imam of Seerah and narrating battles, etc.. but Ibn Is'haaq remains Saduq, not Thiqah. Thiqah status is required for the Hadith to be authentic. Furthermore Ibn Is'haaq did not disclose that he actually heard it with his ears, which leaves it vague and is (an'anah= attaching the narration to the above narrator without specifiying the way of recieving it). Also Husayn bin Isa is also Saduq, not Thiqah. Another problem with this narration is Ali bin Sai'd, the Shaykh of Ibn Udai. if he is Ali bin Sa'id Al Askari then he is Thiqah, but if he is in fact Ali bin Sai'd Ar-Ramli, then he has some weakness. We don't know which one.

So from an Hadithi Isnaad point of view, you see that every single way this Hadith ( if you see Muawiyah on my Minbar, then Kill him) has problems and weaknesses.

Aql is haraam in your madhab ? Hadith Acceptance/Interpretations!

I recently was on the shiachat forum, and I was debating with a shia member. He posted some points, and I shot some points back. All of sudden the 12r shia became emotional and responded by saying "I know 'aql is haraam in your madhhab". Where did he get this strange idea ? Now the 12rs shias love quoting Bukhari when they are debating. However, who said all Sahih hadith is binding on the sunni Madhab ? The sunnis have different schools of thoughts. Also, the 12r shias themselves have 2 schools of hadith known as a Akbari school and an Usooli schools. Since Akbaris have a different method of choosing hadith, does this mean they lack aql ? Give me a break. As for 12rs, they too have authentic hadith which are questionable. A 12rs can reply by saying we don't consider everything to be sahih. Personally, I don't even think majority of the 12rs know what sahih mean. Now, that's another topic. However, I would like to give an example of an illogical hadith which the 12r shia marja act upon in Iran.
عدة من أصحابنا عن أحمد بن محمد، عن ابن محبوب، عمن ذكره، عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام أنه نظر إلى بعض أصحابه وعليه نعل سوداء فقال: مالك وللنعل السوداء أماعملت أنها تضر بالبصر وترخي الذكر وهي بأغلى الثمن من غيرها وما لبسها أحد إلا اختال فيها.
(Furoo' al-Kafi, Chapter: Shoe Colors, #12591)

I entered on Abu Abdallah [as] wearing a black shoe, and he said: Why are you wearing a black shoe? Did you not know there are three characteristics in it? The narrator said: I said, what are they, may I be your ransom? He [as] said: It weakens your vision, loosens your penis and brings you depression. On top of that, it is part of the arrogant apparel. Wear the yellow shoes, for in it is three characteristics. The narrator said: I said, what are they? He [as] said: It sharpens the vision, strengthens the penis and puts away the depression, and furthermore, it is part of the Prophets [as] apparel".

The same hadith is quoted by esteemed shia scholar Shaykh al-Sadouq' said in his book 'al-Khisaal' on page 99.
"my father -may Allah be pleased with him- told us: Ahmad ibn Idris told us: Muhammad ibn Ahmad told me: on the authority of Musa ibn Omar, on the authority of Abdullah ibn Jibillah, on the authority of Hanan ibn Sudayr, he said: I entered on Abu Abdullah -peace be upon him- wearing a black sandal, so he said: 'What's with you wearing a black sandal? Did you not know that it has three traits?' I said: 'what are they, may I be sacrificed for you?' He said: 'it causes weak eyesight, loss of the erection, and anxiety, and in addition to (all) that it is the wear of the arrogant;...'!!!! [and 'Abu Abdullah' went on:] ',..so wear yellow sandals, for they have three traits'!!! I said: 'What are they?' He (Abu Abdullah) said: 'sharpens eyesight, hardens the penis, and expels anxiety, and in addition to (all) that its the wear of prophets -peace be upon them'".

Also, here are pics of shia marjas who are acting upon this hadith.












Anyway, not all 12r shias agree with this hadith. However, the point I am trying to make here is that both schools have hadith which are questionable. For example in Bukhari we have



sahih bukhari:

Volume 5, Book 58, Number 188:

Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun:

During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them.

Also there are distrubing hadith about breast feeding, and many others. I think the readers get the point. In reality criticising Bukhari or Muslim is not a crime for sunnis. The great Ahle sunnah Imam Daraqutni wrote a book weaking the sahih hadith found in Bukhari. Also, Imam Tirmithi weakened a Hadith in Sahih Bukhari (his teacher), the hadith of the two stones.
In fact, here is one of many similar statements by the Ulama of Hadith, this one is by Hafeth Ath-Thahabi said in his Siyar vol 14/133:

ولم يكن أحد في رأس الثلاث مئة أحفظ من النسائي. هو أحذق بالحديث وعلله ورجاله من مسلم ومن أبي داود ومن أبي عيسى. وهو جار في مضمار البخاري وأبي زرعة إلا أن فيه قليل تشيع وانحراف عن خصوم الإمام علي كمعاوية وعمرو، والله يسامحه

which means: " No one at the head of the 3rd century was more of a Hafeth (of Hadith) than An-Nasa'i. He is more knowlegdable in Hadith, its illal, and narrators than Muslim, and Abu Dawood, and Abu Isa (tirmithi). He is running in parallel with Bukhari and Abu Zur'a, but there is a little Tasha'yu' (= liening towards Imam Ali), and harshness against the enemies of Imam Ali such as Muaw'yah and Amru, Allah forgive him".

Here is how Ath-Thabi considered that no Hadith scholar in the 3rd century was more knowledgable than Imam Nasa'i, not even Muslim, let along ABu Dawood, or Tirmithi. May Allah be pleased with them all. this is how the Ulama looked at Bukhari and Muslim, with admiration but also criticised what they thought is right. There are also similar statements about Imam Bukhari himself, etc.. They are all great in what they did. Yet they are not infallible. Criticising their Asaneed, narrators, Ahadith, methodology is fair game for the expert SCHOLARS.


From the 12rs side we have al Mufid who criticized the works of his own scholar Shaykh Saduq. Then we have Shaykh Al Tusi who was shocked at what the 3rd mujadid of the 12rs al Kulyani attributed to Ilm-e- Jafr. Difference exist within shia and sunni scholar. Are we going to waste our time mocking each other ? Or are we going to focus on intellectual debates ? I've been on shiachat and kr-hcy for years. Personally, I'm sick of topics which are based on mocking. This is why I have decided to focus my energy on this blog.