Ali رضي الله عنه و أرضاه would have whipped the Shias of today

How Shirazi’s ancestors migrated from Hijaz to Iran

A story is briefly related here of how Shirazi’s “ancestor” Muhammad al-’Abid was murdered in Shiraz on the orders of the “Abbasid King”. The details of the story have been left out by Shirazi, but we will nevertheless take a closer look at the historicity of this alleged event.

Muhammad al-’Abid was the son of Musa al-Kazim. Mentioned of him has been made by Shaykh al-Mufid in his book Kitab al-Irshad (p. 459). However, al-Mufid mentions nothing at all about his supposed murder in Shiraz. Even Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar mentions nothing about this event. If any author had to mention an event of this nature, that author would have been Abul Faraj al-Isfahani, who devoted an entire book, entitled Maqatil at-Talibiyyin, to documenting the killing of the descendants of Sayyiduna ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu ‘anhu and his brothers, by the Umayyads and the Abbasids. However, Maqatil at-Talibiyyin is conspicuously silent on the murder of Muhammad, Ahmad and Husayn, the sons of Musa al-Kazim, in Shiraz by the order of the “Abbasid King”. We are justified therefore to question the historicity of the event.

The story surrounding how Muhammad al-’Abid came to be buried in Shiraz, as related by Sayyid Ja’far Al Bahr al-’Ulum in his book Tuhfat al-’Alim, is that he entered Shiraz in Abbasid times and lived there till he died. He is reported to have made a living by copying the Qur’an, and is said to have manumitted 1000 slaves. His grave was “discovered” 6 centuries later during the time of the Zangid dynasty in a garden belonging to a person named as Qutlugh. (Tuhfat al-’Alim, published as appendix to Bihar al-Anwar vol. 48 p. 191) This story is supported by Muhammad Madhi al-Kharsan in his footnotes to Bihar al-Anwar (vol. 48 p. 174) He informs us that a large number of those who trace their descent from Musa al-Kazim, including himself, claim descent through this Muhammad al-’Abid. Neither of these two sources mention anything about Muhammad al-’Abid being killed. More importantly, none of them venture any information about the state of the alleged grave for the 6 centuries before its “discovery”.

His brother Ahmad, commonly known in Shiraz as “Shah Chiragh” is reported by Sayyid Ja’far Bahr al-’Ulum to have come to Shiraz during the time of the Abbasid Khalifah al-Ma’mun. The Abbasid governor of Shiraz, conspicuously named here as Qutlugh Khan, stopped him on his way. A fight ensued and Ahmad’s followers deserted him. He is reported variously to have been killed in that skirmish, or to have escaped into the city to where he was followed and killed, and thirdly to have managed to elude his enemies in Shiraz where he lived an anonymous life until he died a natural death. His grave too, was discovered during Zangid times, when for the first time a structure was built over it.

As for the third brother, Husayn, known as ‘Ala ad-Din, his story brings a weird twist to the conspicuous Qutlugh. Sayyid Ja’far Bahr al-’Ulum tells us that during Zangid times, several centuries after Abbasid rule, the governor of Shiraz was a person called Qutlugh Khan. This governor had a garden, and the gardener noticed a wonderful light emanating from the garden at night. Upon investigation they discovered a grave, and through some means or the other they discovered that the person buried in the grave is Husayn ibn Musa al-Kazim. Qutlugh Khan thereupon ordered a building to be constructed over the grave.

All three graves were discovered in Zangid times, 6 centuries after the death of persons supposedly buried in them. All three brother came to Shiraz at the same time, but none seem to have known of the other’s presence. All three became involved with a Qutlugh Khan, but each one in his own unique way. It wouldn’t take an expert historian to smell a rat here. A complete and rewarding study could be made of the proclivity of the Iranians, especially in later centuries, to find the graves of sons of the Imams in Iran. Sites called imamzadahs flourish in Iran. The Persian Da’irat al-Ma’arif-e Tashayyu’ (Encyclopaedia of Shi’a) lists over 350 such sites in Iran. In several cases the same person is claimed to be buried at different locations. In the case of Ahmad ibn Musa al-Kazim, for example, there is a rival grave for him in Kashan. (Da’irat al-Ma’arif-e Tashayyu’ vol. 2 p. 433) Muhammad al-’Abid too, has an alternate grave in Kakhak. (ibid. p. 432) The rival grave of Husayn ibn Musa al-Kazim is in Tabas. (ibid. p. 322)

This embarrassing confusion, and these obvious pointers to the fraud of the ones who invented the graves at Shiraz, help one to understand the reason why Shirazi refused to devote anything more than a 7 line paragraph to the story about how his ancestors originally came to Iran. The actual history of Shi’ism in Iran will be dealt with later, under the second session, where Shirazi has spoken of Iran and Shi’ism under the heading “Causes of Iranians’ receptivity to Shi’ism”.

The grave of ‘Ali

Hereafter mention is made of the discovery of the grave of Sayyiduna ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu ‘anhu at Najaf 150 years after his death. Shirazi explains the initial secrecy surrounding the location of the graves in light of fear that the Umayyads would desecrate the grave. However, what he doesnot explain is why the location of the grave was revealed by Imam Musa al-Kazim to the Khalifah Harun ar-Rashid when the Abbasids, according to the Shi’ah, were no less cruel to the ‘Alawis than were the Umayyads.

Hasan al-Amin writes in his Shorter Shi’ite Encyclopaedia: “Then came Abbasid rule. They were more severe upon the Alawides in their persecution and cruelty as well as upon the Shi’ites as compared to the Omayyides. Their rule was more troublesome and bitter for them, as a poet has said: ‘By God, the Omayyids did not do one-tenth in their case, as Banu Abbas did.’ Amir Abul Faras al-Hamadani says: ‘Banu Harab (Omayyids) did not succeed in these crimes even though though they intended to, as compared to your success.’ (p. 36)”

Harun ar-Rashid is the Khalifah to whom Imam Musa al-Kazim is reported to have revealed the location of the grave. This same Harun is described by Hasan al-Amin as having “made himself notorious for his cruelty to the Alawides and their friends and took to extremes in their persecution.” (p. 40) It is interesting that just a few lines earlier Shirazi was recalling how his “ancestors” were slaughtered by the Abbasids, and now he presents the Abbasids as benevolent enough for Imam Musa al-Kazim to reveal to them the location of his grandfather’s grave.

He cites the martyrdom of Zayd ibn ‘Ali ibn al-Husayn, and that of his son Yahya ibn Zayd as examples of Umayyad cruelty. If the cruelty that was visited upon these two great personalities gives one reason to believe that the Umayyads were given to desecrate graves, why is it that the alleged slaughter of Shirazi’s ancestors and others gave no one reason to fear that the Abbasids would desecrate the grave of Sayyiduna Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu?

Shirazi appears ignorant of the fact that the exact manner and time of the “discovery” of the grave at Najaf is a matter of contention in the Shi’i hadith literature. He cites the story of Harun ar-Rashid and Musa al-Kazim as the point at which the grave became known, but fails to take note that Mulla Baqir Majlisi has recorded in Bihar al-Anwar (vol. 97 p. 164) a report according to which the location of the grave was known to Abu Ja’far al-Mansur, who was Harun ar-Rashid’s grandfather. Abu Ja’far is reported to have actually excavated the site to see if it really contains a grave. He also mentions that Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq revealed its location in the time of the first Abbasid ruler Abul ‘Abbas as-Saffah, who died in 130 AH. Shirazi is therefore clearly mistaken to claim that “the grave remained virtually unknown until the days of Harun ar-Rashid.”

His claim that Harun built a structure over the location shown to him by Imam Musa al-Kazim clashes headlong with a report documented by Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar (vol. 42 p. 185) in which a person by the name of Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Duhaym reports visiting the site secretly sometime after the year 260 AH, and found no building. All they found was a few black stones around the grave. Harun ar-Rashid died in the year 193 AH.

Furthermore, the discovery of a tablet in Syriac that bore an inscription declaring this grave to have been prepared for ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu by the Prophet Nuh ‘alayhis salam 700 years before the Deluge presents an anomaly in itself. Although Shirazi promised to use only authentic sources, he fails to provide a source for this fantastic story. There is also no trace of this aspect of the story in Bihar al-Anwar, a source which has given considerable attention to the issue of the location of the grave. What Majlisi does record is that the grave of Sayyiduna ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu is in fact the grave of Sayyiduna Nuh ‘alayhis salam (vol. 97 p. 171) and not only that of Nuh, but also Adam, Hud and Salih ‘alayhimus salam. (vol. 97 p. 173)

But let us turn to another matter now. Shirazi has cited as examples of Umayyad atrocities the martyrdom of Zayd ibn ‘Ali ibn al-Husayn and his son Yahya. However, there is an element in the tragedy of Zayd, and even in that of his grandfather Husayn radiyallahu ‘anhuma which the Shi’ah always carefully avoid. That element is the role of the Shi’ah themselves in those lamentable tragedies. The Umayyads were only half the problem. The other half was the Shi’ah.

When Zayd ibn ‘Ali declared revolt against the Umayyads, 40 000 of the Shi’ah pledged allegiance upon his hand, 15 000 of them from the city of Kufah alone. With a force this mighty, the Umayyad army would have been easily vanquished, and justice would have been established. What happened that at the hour of the battle Zayd was left with only 300 men? The story behind the disgraceful desertion of Zayd by the Shi’ah is told by virtually every historian who has given a biography of Zayd or recorded the events of the year 122 AH.

Just before the battle could start they decided upon a whim to ask Zayd’s opinion about Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiyallahu ‘anhuma. His reply was, “I have never heard any of my family dissociate himself from them, and I myself have nothing but good to say about them.” Upset with this reply, they deserted him en masse, and decided that he could not be the Imam, but that the true Imam was his nephew Ja’far as-Sadiq. Out of the 40 000 who had pledged loyalty to him Zayd was left with only a few hundred. On the departure of the defectors Zayd remarked, “I am afraid they have done unto me what they had done unto Husayn.” It was here too that for the first time in history the Shi’ah were given the name “Rafidah”, meaning “the rejectors”. This name was given to them by Zayd when they rejected him after his refusal to dissociate himself from Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiyallahu ‘anhuma.

If the Umayyads were guilty on that day of shedding holy blood, then just as guilty as them were the thousands of Shi’ah who would rather see a distinguished member of the Ahl al-Bayt and the son of their Imam perish at the merciless hands of the Umayyads than hear him speak favourably of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiyallahu ‘anhuma. It is perhaps for this reason that Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq is reported in the Shi’i hadith literature to have said that “no one bears us greater hatred than those who claim to love us.” (Miqbas al-Hidayah vol. 2 p. 414)

However, Shi’i rancour against Zayd did not stop at that cowardly act of desertion. To this very day their hadith literature is filled with sayings attributed to their Imams in which Zayd is denounced as misguided innovator, and even an unbeliever for falsely claiming to be an Imam. (Tanqih al-Maqal vol. 1 p. 467-471) The Umayyads killed Zayd once, and crucified his body once. The Shi’ah, on the other hand, insult the memory of Zayd ibn ‘Ali every time that they assert, in terms of the hadith which they ascribe to their Imams, that “whoever raises the standard of revolt before the coming of the Mahdi is a taghut (tyrant)”; and “whoever unrightfully claims Imamah is a kafir” and “a mushrik”, “even if he be a descendant of ‘Ali and Fatimah” and “whoever revolts and calls people towards himself, while there is amongst them someone who is better than him, is a deviant innovator”. (Bihar al-Anwar vol. 25 pp. 325-328)

It was not only Zayd who was maligned by the Shi’ah. Even his faithful followers, who courageously kept up the resistance against the Umayyads, were branded as “enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt” (Rijal al-Kashshi vol. 2 p. 494) despite the fact that they too, follow Imams from the Ahl al-Bayt. It is a strange philosophy which denounces those who refused to submit to injustice and humiliation as “enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt” while lauding those who deserted the Ahl al-Bayt at the hour of need, and whose opposition to perceived injustice was limited to the ritual cursing of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiyallahu ‘anhuma in the safety of their private gatherings.

Therefore, if Zayd’s martyrdom was a tragic event, then so much more lamentable is the attitude of the Shi’ah towards Zayd, both at the hour of his martyrdom and all the way down history up to the present day. Therefore, it is blatant opportunism for Shirazi to tell only half of the story, and to conveniently omit any sort of reference to the treachery of his ancestors, the Sh’ah, and their disgraceful role in that tragic martyrdom

Allah praises the companions of the Messenger sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam

April 19, 2010 at 10:55 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

Rate This

In many places in the Qur’an, Allah praises the companions of the Messengersallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam. He says, {But My mercy encompasses all things.  So I will decree it [especially] for those who fear Me and give zakah and those who believe in Our verses. Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written [i.e., mentioned] in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honoured him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him – it is those who will be successful} [Al-A'raf: 156-157].

And Allah says, {Those [believers] who responded to Allah and the Messenger after injury had struck them.  For those who did good among them and feared Allah is a great reward.  Those to whom people [i.e. hypocrites] said, “Indeed, the people have gathered against you, so fear them.”  But it [merely] increased them in faith, and they said, “Sufficient for us is Allah, and [He is] the best Disposer of affairs.”} [Al 'Imran : 172-173].

In another verse He says, {It is He who supported you with His help and with the believers.  And brought together their hearts.  If you had spent all that is in the earth, you could not have brought their hearts together, but Allah brought them together.  Indeed, He is Exalted in Might and Wise.} [Al-Anfal: 62-63].

He further says: {O Prophet, sufficient for you is Allah and whoever follows you of the believers} [Al-Anfal: 64].

He says: {You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind.  You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah} [Al 'Imran: 110].

A host of other verses in praise of the companions are present in the Qur’an.

The Shi’ites believe that the companions of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam were true believers during the life of the Prophet, and they only became apostates after that.

Oh, how wonderful! How could they agree on the false claim that all the companions became apostate after him? And for what reason?

How could they have helped the prophet in times of hardships and difficulties, sacrificing their souls as ransom for him, but then become apostates immediately after his death, and without any specific reason?

The only reason the Shi’ites could mention is that they became apostates because they agreed to pledge their allegiance to Abu Bakr radiyallahu ‘anhu.

But the issue is, why would the companions of the Messenger of Allah agree on giving their pledge to Abu Bakr?  What threat were they afraid of from Abu Bakr? Had Abu Bakr that kind of power and authority on them such that he could coerce them into accepting him as a caliph? By the way, Abu Bakr was from the clan of Banu Taim among the Quraishi tribe, who were the smallest clan in terms of population.  The most populated and influential clans among the Quraish were Banu Hashim, Banu ‘Abd ad-Dar and Banu Makhzum.

So if Abu Bakr was not strong enough to force the companions to give him their pledge, then why would all of them sacrifice their jihad, their faith, their help for the Prophet and the religion, their virtue of early acceptance of Islam, and sacrifice their world and hereafter for the sake of someone not from their strongest and most influential clans, that is Abu Bakr radiyallahu ‘anhu?

If the companions became apostates after the death of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam, as the Shi’ites believe, why then did they fight the apostates – the followers of the most notorious pseudo-prophets: Musailamah, Tulaihah ibn Khuwailid, al-Aswad al-’Ansi and Sijah, and others, and above that forced them to return to the fold of Islam?  Why did they not help these renegade parties or at least leave them alone, if they were themselves apostates?

Allah’s natural and legal rule on earth is that the immediate companions of all Prophets are the best among the followers of their religion.  That is why if the adherents of any religion are asked: who are the best among the followers of your religion, they would say: the companions of the Messengers.

If the followers of the Torah are asked: who are the best among the followers of your religion? They would say: the companions of Moses alaihis salam, and if the followers of the Gospel would be asked the same question, they would surely say: the followers of Jesus alaihis salam.  The same is true of the followers of all the Prophets, and that is because, the companions of any prophet are closer and more deeply associated with the revelation sent down with that prophet, and their knowledge and acquaintance with prophecy and prophets are stronger and more reliable.

So, why should the case be different with our Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam, whom Allah has chosen to bear the everlasting and all-encompassing message, and who came with the complete and tolerant law? Why should the case be different with this last Prophet for the advent of whom Allah had prepared messengers and prophets before him, and the one who had been mentioned in all divinely revealed books?  How could his most immediate and close companions reject him – as the Shi’ites believe -, while they were the ones who actually believed in him, helped, honoured and supported him?

What meaning have you – Shi’ites – left for the message of Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam, and what significance have you attached to this divine law, having believed that the most close associates of Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam had deserted him and became apostates?  Going by your line of thinking, if his most close associates were apostates, then those that came after them among those pious and great warriors who left their families and homes in order to help and support the Messenger sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam, and fought their own fathers and brethren, and after his death conquered many countries and brought them under Islam through their sound knowledge and by the strong words of the Qur’an and the power of their swords – are more deserving to become unbelievers, apostates and great losers.

http://www.sunni-news.net/en/articles.aspx?article_no=3456

The Shi’ites believe that most of the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) except a very few number, were hypocrites and unbelievers

April 19, 2010 at 10:54 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

Rate This

The Shi’ites believe that most of the companions of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam except a very few number, were hypocrites and unbelievers.  If that was the case, why didn’t those unbelievers destroy and wreck that small number that was with the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam?  If they argue that the companions only became apostates after the Prophet’s death leaving only seven of them, why didn’t they bring the whole message of the Prophet to an end by destroying the few number of Muslims left, thereby reverting the situation to what it was in the days of their forefathers?

Is it logically acceptable that the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam failed woefully in choosing his companions, while Khomeini succeeded in that?

If the society of the companions of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallamwas such as described by the Shi’ites: a society full of enmity between its populace; its members full of envy against each other; each and every one of them striving for nothing but political leadership; a society most members of which have become apostates and left the religion of Allah – if not for a very small number of them… If all this were true we wouldn’t have witnessed Islam gaining ground and reaching the apogee of its strength and might, conquering various communities and bringing them under its umbrella and thousands of their populace accepting it as a religion, all in the days of the companions radiyallahu ‘anhum.

The Shi’ites claim that reports (from the Prophet) on ‘Ali’s virtues and on his assumed imamate are in very large numbers via Shi’ite narrators.

It is imperative here to assert that the reports narrated by those who were not among the sahabah will never be authentic, for they never met or saw the Prophetsallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam, nor did they hear anything from him.  So their reports from him must be part of what the scholars of hadith term mursal andmunqati’.  Those narratives will only be authentic if they report them throug thesahabah and regard them the first authorities in that respect. And it is a known fact that the sahabah respected and loved by the Shi’ites are very little in number, to be more precise, they are a little more than ten, and this is below the required number for a report to be termed mutawatir.

On another side we find that the Shi’ites vilify the majority of the sahabah who reported the virtues of ‘Ali, and accuse them of disbelief.

If the Shi’ites believe that it is probable that those sahabah who were praised by the Qur’an were liars and that they concealed some of the knowledge they knew concerning ‘Ali’s virtues or his purported Imamate, regardless of their large number, they must also accept that probability in the case of those little number they respect and love. Nay, that probability in their case is even more in place and logical.

The Shi’ites assume that all of the Prophet’s companions were apostates but a few, not more than seven.

The question is, what of the rest of the Ahl al-Bait like the progeny of Ja’far and those of ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhuma? Were they also apostates?

We also find that ‘Ali did not consider his opponents unbelievers, not even theKharijites who fought and harmed him, and declared him an unbeliever.  What is wrong with the Shi’ites that they fail to imitate him in that, even though they heedlessly and boldly declare the companions of Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam, nay his wives, the mothers of the faithful, to be infidels?

The Shi’ites believe that the Sahabah were not reputable and just.  But we find in reliable Shi’i sources evidences that confirm their being reputable and just.  They report that the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam has said in his farewell pilgrimage speech: “May Allah bless the servant who heard my statement and fully understood it, then conveyed it to him who did not hear…”[1]. How could the Messenger sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam trust the Sahabah in conveying his message if were they not reputable, just and reliable?

If the number of hypocrites and apostates among the companions is as great as the Shi’ites claim, how could Islam have been spread the way it was? And how could the Persian and Roman empires have been conquered, nay how could Bait al-Maqdis (Jerusalem) have been brought under Islam?

The Shi’ites present as proof – to their false claim that the sahabah became apostates after the death of the Prophet – the hadith: “Some men among whom I know and who know me would come to me (on the day of judgement, in order to drink from my pond) but they would be driven away from it.  And I would say: O, my companions, my companions!  But it would be said to me: ‘You know not what they innovated after you’[2].

We reply them by saying, this hadith speaks in a general way without mentioning anybody by name.  It exempts neither ‘Ammar ibn Yasir, nor al-Miqdad ibn al-Aswad, nor Abu Dharr, nor Salman al-Farisi, nor any other person among whom the Shi’ites believe were not apostates. Nay, it does not even exempt ‘Aliradiyallahu ‘anhu himself.  So, why would you specify some and leave out others. This kind of selective discrimination can be done by anyone, because anybody that has ill feelings against any of the companions can claim that the hadith speaks about him.[3]

The Sahabah’s major crime in the sight of the Shi’ites is their deviation from thewilayah of ‘Ali and their failure to accept him as caliph (after the Prophet immediately).  For this, according to the Shi’ites, they lost their uprightness and reputation.  But why don’t they treat other Shi’ite sects, like ‘al-Futahiyyah’ and ‘al-Waqifiyyah’, who also reject some of their so-called imams with the same token? Instead, they even accept their reports and regard them upright[4].  What kind of contradiction is this?

[1] Al-Khisal (p. 149-150, hadith No. 182).

[2] Reported by al-Bukhari.

[3] The hadith rather speaks about those Arab villagers (al-A’raab) who left the religion of Islam after the death of the Prophet, and whom Abu Bakr and the rest of the companions fought to make them return to Islam.  As for the Prophet’s word “My companions”, it still refers to those Arab villagers because they were following the religion during his life and that is what he means by the word sahabihere.  But if the Shi’ites will claim that rather the closest companions are hereby referred to, they have no reason whatsoever to exclude ‘Ali, ‘Ammar, al-Miqdad, Salman al-Farisi and those among the companions whom they consider the only Muslims after the death of the Prophet, because the wordsahabi is applicable to all of them.  But we do not subscribe to this false assumption, for all of the aforementioned together with all other companions – above all Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman and ‘Ali – were the best of this Ummah, and were the leaders of the faithful.  The Prophet never refers to them in the hadith.  But if they say that the companions were apostates for accepting Abu Bakr as caliph after the death of the Prophet instead of ‘Ali, then we remind them that ‘Ali himself and ‘Ammar, al-Miqdad, Abu Dharr and Salman al-Farisi all accepted Abu Bakr instead of ‘Ali, so if the companions were infidels for this particular reason the Shi’ites should raise their voice loudly and declare these five as infidels as well. (Translator).

[4] See for example: the books ‘Rijal al-Kisshi’ (p. 27; 219; 445; 465), ‘Rijal an-Najashi’ (p. 28; 53; 76; 86; 95; 139), and al-Ardabili’s ‘Jami’ ar-Ruwat’ (1/413).

http://www.sunni-news.net/en/articles.aspx?article_no=3456

Acceptance of caliphate

April 18, 2010 at 3:14 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

Rate This

Salam alaikum.

Ibn Abil-Hadeed Shii al-Motathele in his “Sharhul nahjul balagha” 2/50 wrote:

وقال علي والزبير : ما غضبنا إلا في المشورة ، وإنا لنرى أبا بكر أحق الناس بها ، إنه لصاحب الغار ، وإنا لنعرف له سنة ، ولقد أمره رسول الله ص بالصلاة بالناس وهو حي

Ali and Zubayr said: We didn’t become angry (due to anything except we were not included) in consultation, we see Abu Bakr most worthy from people to that, he was companion in cave, and we assume to him sunnat, and prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) order him to (lead) people in pray when he was still alive”.

And as it was reported by Toose in “Talkees ash-shafei” (2/372, source)wrote that when Ali (r.a) was wounded he was asked:

” ألا توصى ؟ قال : ما أوصى رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فأوصى و لكن قال : ( أي الرسول ) إن أراد الله خيراً فيجمعهم على خيرهم بعد نبيهم “

“Wouldn’t you make bequeath (to someone)? He answered: “Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) didn’t bequeath to someone so I can do. But he (it’s mean prophet, sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) said: If Allah wants good for them, He would gather them around best one after their prophet”.

Sahih hadith in praise of Muawiyah

April 12, 2010 at 8:14 pm | Posted in Defence of companions | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

5 Votes

As it was reported by Tirmizi in “Sunnan” r4213:

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُسْهِرٍ عَبْدُ الأَعْلَى بْنُ مُسْهِرٍ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ، عَنْ رَبِيعَةَ بْنِ يَزِيدَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ أَبِي عَمِيرَةَ، وَكَانَ، مِنْ أَصْحَابِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَنَّهُ قَالَ لِمُعَاوِيَةَ ‏”‏ اللَّهُمَّ اجْعَلْهُ هَادِيًا مَهْدِيًّا وَاهْدِ بِهِ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ غَرِيبٌ ‏.‏
Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) said to Muawiyah (r.a): “Allah, make him (Muawiya ) guided, a guider, and guide people through him”.

Chain:
1) Abdurrahman ibn Abu Umeyrat. Tirmizi said he was from companions. Ibn Hajar in “Isaba” wrote:

ذكره البخاري وابن سعد وابن البرقي وابن حبان وعبد الصمد بن سعيد في الصحابة وذكره أبو الحسن بن سميع في الطبقة الأولى من الصحابة الذين نزلوا حمص
“Bukhari, ibn Sad, ibn al-Barqi, ibn Hibban, Abdussamad ibn Sayed mentioned him as companion, Abul Hasan ibn Sumay mentioned him in 1-st generations of companions which settled in Hums”.

And he also said:

فعجب من قول بن عبد البر حديثه منقطع الإسناد مرسل لا تثبت أحاديثه ولا تصح صحبته
“And opinion of ibn abd-Al-Bar is amazing, (he claimed) that his narrations are broken, chain is disconnected, and his narrations are not established and it’s not proven his talks (with prophet, sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).

Hafidh Alaatdin al-Mughlutai in “al-Ibanah ila marifat al-mukhtalif fihim min as sahaba” (2/24) said that Abu Nuaym, ibn Ghani, ibn Hibban, ibn Mandah mentioned him amongst companions.

2) Rabiat ibn Yazeed. Ibn Hajar in “Taqrib” 1919said:

ربيعة ابن يزيد الدمشقي أبو شعيب الإيادي القصير ثقة عابد من الرابعة مات سنة إحدى أو ثلاث وعشرين

“Rabiat ibn Yazeed ad-Dimashqi Abu Shuyab al-Iydi al-Qasii, thiqat, worshipper from 4 (level) died in 21 or 23″.

3) Sayed ibn Abdulaziz imam, thiqat. Got confused in the end. “Taqrib” 2358 He was thiqat in accordance to ibn Muin, Abu Khatim and Ijli. “Tahzib at tahzib” 4/n 102.

4) AbdulAla ibn Muskhar. Thiqat like Abu Dawud and Abu Khatim said. Ibn Hibban mentioned in “Thiqat”. Khalili said: Thiqat, hafidh, imam. Hakim said: Imam thiqat. “Tahzib at tahzib” 6/n 205.

5) Muhammad ibn Yahya. As far as I understand that should be Muhammad ibn Yahya ibn Ayub ibn Ibrahim ath-Thaqafi. Thiqat in accordance to Nasai and Maslamat. Ibn Hibban mentioned in “Thiqat”. “Tahzib at tahzib” 9/n 836.

Some other chains here in “Siyar”. In “Hiliyat” of Abu Nuaym 8/358, Tabarani “al-Awsat” n656 and “Musnad Shamiin” n 2198, 2199, Ahmad in “Musnad” 17926. Sheikh Shuayb Arnawut said: Narrators thuqat, narrators sahih. And then noticed ikhtilat of Sayed.

Tirmizi said: Hadith hasan gharib.
Sheikh Albani said it’s sahih.

Muhammad Ameen Shinqiti in “Ahadeth an-nabawiya fi fadhail Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan” wrote:

أخرج الإمام البخاري بسند صحيح في التاريخ الكبير (5|240): عن أبي مسهر حدثنا سعيد بن عبد العزيز عن ربيعة بن يزيد عن (الصحابي عبد الرحمن) بن أبي عميرة قال: قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لمعاوية: «اللهم اجعلهُ هادِياً مَهديّاً واهده واهدِ به».”It was transmitted by imam Buhari in his “Tareeh al-kabir” (5/240) via authentic chain: From Abu Musakhar, it was reported to me by Sayed ibn Abdulaziz from Rabiat ibn Yazid from (companion Abdurrahman) ibn Abu Umeyrat, which said: Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) said about Muawiyah: “Allah, make him (Muawiya :ra: ) guided, a guider, and guide people through him”.

Ibn Athakir said in “Tareeh madinatul dimashq” (59/106):

وأصح ما رُوي في فضل معاوية حديث أبي حمزة عن ابن عباس أنه كاتِبُ النبيِّ منذ أسلم، أخرجه مسلم في صحيحه. وبعده حديث العرباض: اللهم علمه الكتاب. وبعد حديث ابن أبي عَميرة: اللهم اجعله هاديا مهديا”
“And most authentic that was narrated in merits of Muawiya narration of Abu Hamza from ibn Abbas that he was scribe of prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) after he embraced Islam,it was reported by Muslim in his Sahih, and after that narration of al-Irbad: O Allah teach him the book, and after that narration of ibn Abu Umeyrah: O Allah make him guided, a guider”.

Mizzi in “Tahzib al-kamal” (vol 1, number 48) wrote:

روى بإسناده عن أبي الحسن علي بن محمد القابسي قال سمعت أبا علي الحسن بن أبي هلال يقول سئل أبو عبد الرحمن النسائي عن معاوية بن أبي سفيان صاحب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال إنما الإسلام كدار لها باب فباب الإسلام الصحابة فمن آذى الصحابة إنما أراد الإسلام كمن نقر الباب إنما يريد دخول الدار قال فمن أراد معاوية فإنما أراد الصحابة

“And he narrated with his chain from abul-Hasan Ali ibn Muhammad al-Qabsi (or al-Qabusi) which said: I heard Abu Ali Al-Hasan ibn Abu Khallal, that he said: Abu Abdurrahman an-Nasai was asked about Mu’awiyah. His reply was: “Islam is like a house with a door. The door of Islam is the Sahaba. Whoever speaks ill of the Sahaba seeks but to harm Islam, just like one who knocks a door to enter a house. As for Mu’awiyah, whoever speaks ill of him seeks to find a way to speak ill of the Sahaba.”

Tabatabai on election of first caliph

March 23, 2010 at 8:59 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah, Refuting shia doubts | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

Rate This

Salam alaikum.

Describing situation when first caliph was elected, Ayatolla Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai, said:

«This group (the one who chosed Abu Bakr) which was later to form the majority, set forth in great haste to select caliph for the Muslims with the aim of ensuring the welfare of the community and solving its immediate problems».

Source: «A series of islam and shia» p 56, 1-st edition, printed in 2005.

The interesting part in this quote is a fact, that this ayatolla admitted the aim of Muslims which chose Abu Bakr. They aim wasn’t taking ruling from ahlel-bayt, or make oppression. Aim was ensuring the welfare of the community.

Very same Tabatabai said:

“The first caliph was selected through the vote OF THE MAJORITY of the companions”.

Source: “A series of islam and shia” p 66, publisher: Al-Hoda

Ali During the Reign of Caliph Abu Bakr

March 1, 2010 at 7:03 pm | Posted in Defence of companions, Useful books | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

1 Votes

Ali During the Reign of Caliph Abu Bakr