Mukhtaṣar A`lām al-Ḥanafiyyah min Ahl-ul-Bayt” Scholars of Ahlul-Sunnah from Ahlul-Bayt (Part 1)

-15th century Hijrī-

- Ibrāhīm al-Ya`qūbī (b.1343 – d.1406 AH) / `Allāmah, Muḥaddith, Faqīh Mālikī, Faqīh Ḥanafī:

Ibrāhīm bin Ismā`īl bin Muḥammad al-Ṣiddīq bin Muḥammad al-Ḥasan bin Muḥammad al-`Arabī bin Aḥmad bin BāBā Ḥabīy bin al-Khi

r bin `Abdulqādir bin Mizyān bin Muḥammad al-Ḥasan ibn Muḥammad al-Ṣaghīr ibn Ibrāhīm bin Yaḥyā bin Aḥmad bin Ṣāliḥ bin Idrīs ibn abī Ya`qūb bin Muḥammad al-Ḥasan bin al-Jūdī bin Aḥmad bin `Abdulqādir bin `Arabī bin Ṣāliḥ bin Sa`īd bin `Umar bin Aḥmad bin Maḥmūd bin Ḥusayn bin `Alī ibn Idrīs al-Anwar bin Idrīs al-Akbar bin `Abdullāh al-Maḥḍ bin al-Ḥasan al-Muthannā bin al-Ḥasan ibn `Alī ibn abī Ṭālib, al-Ya`qūbī, al-Ḥasanī, al-Dimashqī.

- abū al-Ḥasan al-Nadwī (b.1333 – d.1420 AH) / Dā`iyah `Ālamī, Mufakkir Kabīr, Raḥḥālah:
abū al-Ḥasan, `Alī bin `Abdulḥay bin Fakhr-ul-Dīn bin `Abdul-`Alī bin `Alī, al-Ḥasanī, al-Nadwī.

- Muḥammad Ḥusām-ul-Dīn al-Qudsī (b.1321 – d.1400 AH) / Kutubiyy, Nāshir:

Muḥammad Ḥusām-ul-Dīn bin Muḥammad Shafīq bin Muḥammad `Ārif bin Muḥyī-ul-Dīn, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Qudsī.

- Muḥammad abū al-Yusr `Ābidīn (b.1307 – d.1401 AH) / Ṭabīb, `Allāmah Mushārik, Muftī:

Muḥammad abū al-Yusr bin Muḥammad abī al-Khayr bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Ghanī bin `Umar bin `Abdul-`Azīz bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Raḥīm bin Muḥammad Ṣalāḥ-ul-Dīn, ibn `Ābidīn, al-Ḥusaynī.

- Muḥammad Murshid `Ābidīn (b.1327 – d.1428 AH) / Faqīh, Qādi, Mu`ammar:

Muḥammad Murshid bin Muḥammad abī al-Khayr bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Ghanī bin `Umar ibn `Abdul-`Azīz bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Raḥīm bin Muḥammad Ṣalāḥ-ul-Dīn, ibn `Ābidīn, al-Ḥusaynī.

- Muṣṭafā Ḥamdī al-Jūyjātī (b.1315 – d.1411 AH) / Faqīh, Muṣliḥ, `Allāmah Mushārik, Qāri’ Mutqin:

Muṣṭafā Ḥamdī bin Muḥammad Waḥīd bin Ṣāliḥ al-Jūyjātī, al-`Abbāsī.

————————————————————————————————————–

================================================

Praise be to Allāh, this book was finished in ’2011′ by the original author from “مبرة الآل والأصحاب” . The abrigement was written in English in ’2013′ by Hānī al-Ḥasanī al-Ḥusaynī al-Ṭarābulsī al-Shāfi`ī.

Shaykh Walid Al-Rashoudi: Iran Is a Paper Tiger; The Shia Only Work with Blood

February 2, 2012 at 2:33 am | Posted in History, News, Take a few minutes to think on this | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

1 Votes

The following are excerpts from an interview with Walid Othman Al-Rashoudi, Head of Islamic Studies at Riyadh Teachers’ College, which aired on Iqra TV on January 8-14, 2010.

Walid Othman Al-Rashoudi: We would like to draw the viewers’ attention to the attempt to hijack the Arabian Peninsula – Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and Yemen – and to incorporate them in the false Persian state, desired by Khomeini’s Safavid Persion followers. 

[...]
It may come as a surprise – if not to you, to your viewers – that the American-Iranian alliance is one of the strongest alliances in the world. It is one of the strongest alliances in the world. Did this sink in, or is it too much of a shock?

Interviewer: I got it, but on the face of it, things look different.

Walid Othman Al-Rashoudi: That’s why I’d like to explain…

Interviewer: Will you give me some time for it to sink in?

Walid Othman Al-Rashoudi: I will.

[...]
Take, for example, the case of the hostages in Tehran. Iran turned into such a “great” power just because it took hostages in the US embassy in Tehran. Right? It ended up in nothing. The hostages were released on the day of Regan’s inauguration.

The US embassy in Iran has never been locked down, despite America’s claims of multiple threats and its fear of Iran. Never have we heard that the US embassy in Iran closed its gates. Even in the days of the election riots, the US embassy was not closed. Even during the Gaza affair, when US embassies were kicked out of many Arab capitals, the US embassy in Iran was not closed.

Why did the US close its embassy in Yemen five days ago as a precaution – and in order to destabilize the security of Yemen – and issue a warning to its citizens? How come they never issued a warning to US citizens about Iran? It is because of the American-Iranian alliance.

Didn’t Iran claim the credit for the toppling of the Saddam regime? Didn’t Iran declare that it served as a bridge used by the US to topple the so-called Taliban state? This is how Rice’s idea of forming a Greater Middle East came into existence – a Middle East that includes Iran, Afghanistan, and so on. This way, the Persians’ prey would be great, and they could control the resources of the Arab nation, and try to destroy it.

[...]
When the religious party gained hegemony in America, it was led to believe that the Resurrection of Christ would not take place unless Greater Israel was established, and the Greater Israel could only be established through the establishment of the Persian state. These two states have become interconnected – like two links in a chain pulling in opposite direction.

[...]
Iran gives the Houthis money and supplies them with weapons via boats. Iran helps them by means of drug trafficking, and you heard that Yemen sentenced several Iranian drug smugglers to death. Even Saudi Arabia was not spared the smuggling of Iranian drugs.

[...]
After the Iraqi regime was toppled, there was no need for US forces to remain in the region. The US felt it had no choice but to withdraw, so it raised the issue of the Iranian nuclear dossier.

[...]
How come Israel did not use negotiations and confidence-building measures with regard to the Iraqi nuclear plant, while today, with regard to the Iranian nuclear plant, it uses confidence-building measures and adheres to UN resolutions?

Interviewer: Let me ask the following question: Is there a direct connection between the Houthis and the US?

Walid Othman Al-Rashoudi: Undoubtedly. I told you this right from the start.

Interviewer: With the Houthis, not with Iran?

Walid Othman Al-Rashoudi: Yes, the Houthis. The US consul in Yemen used to buy weapons, under the pretext of demilitarizing the region, but later, the same weapons were found with the Houthis. He bought $100 million worth of weapons from the tribes.

[...]
[Ahmadinejad] serves his cause, and acts for the sake of his nation and for the benefit of his country. This man is a very gifted orator, and he manages to persuade the masses better than most people do. But since we want justice to be served, I must say that the man is a very gifted liar, a master of deception, who distorts the facts.

[...]
He said that if Saudi Arabia had directed the weapons it used against the Houthis towards Israel during the Gaza war, it would have annihilated the Zionist entity. We direct this great falsehood back to Ahmadinejad: What bombs, bullets, or even stones did you use against the Jews in the Gaza war? Moreover, where are the riyals and dollars that you sent to Gaza?

[...]
Ahmadinejad curses Israel, but let me tell you something you don’t know – he uses an Israeli-made car to protect himself. He bought this car at an exhibition in China, and it is one of 20,000 such cars around the world.

[...]
The Iranian regime, which curses Israel, is the number one collaborator with Israel. The greatest economic exchange in 2008-2009 was the pistachio deal. Did you know that Iran sold Israel $20 million worth of pistachios? The competitor of the Iranian pistachio is the American pistachio. So the US got mad. This is all about interests. Israel is not afraid of Iran any more than it is afraid that I would pelt it with a stone.

[...]
Iran is defeated by its own greatness. It is crumbling from within. The opposition to Ahmadinejad’s government is still active, day and night. Their slogan is: Reform is impossible without blood. This is the faith of the Shia. They only work with blood. The Iranian regime is merely a cat that pretends to be a lion. If the Arabs had known the truth about this paper tiger, they would have realized it is ridiculous and that it would collapse in no time.

Zuhair ibn Qayn was Uthmani…

January 9, 2012 at 5:44 pm | Posted in History | 1 Comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

Rate This

Zuhair ibn Qayn was known soldier of Husayn, which as it was reported was martyred along with Husayn (radi Allahu anhu) in Karbala.

Let us see what history book (p 5)  says about him

Translation:

“Zuhayr believed that Uthman ibn Affan was killed wrongly, and due to that it is known that he was inclined toward (being) Uthmani and (his) desire”

Ahlalbayt members and Imamate

January 8, 2012 at 6:48 pm | Posted in History, Invented myths and legends, Refuting shia doubts, Take a few minutes to think on this | 1 Comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

1 Votes

We would like to present two members of Ahlalbayt, which obviously didn’t agree with 12-th theory.

First one, is Muhammad al-Dibaj bin Ja’afar al-Sadiq.  He was son of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq.

Ahmad ibn ‘Ali ibn Dawud al-Hasani, known as Ibn ‘Anabah (d. 828/1425) in his book ‘Umdat al-Talib page 245 wrote:

وأما محمد الديباج بن جعفر الصادق ” ع ” لقب بذلك لحسن وجهة ويلقب أيضا المأمون وأمه أم ولد وكان قد خرج داعيا إلى محمد بن إبراهيم طباطبا الحسنى فلما مات محمد بن إبراهيم دعا محمد الديباج إلى نفسه وبويع له بمكة ثم أخذ وجيئ به المأمون فعفا عنه ومات بجرجان وقبره بها وله عقب كثير متفرق إلا أنهم أقل من عقب أخويه على وإسماعيل فأعقب من ثلاثة رجال على الخارصي والقاسم والحسين .

“…As for Muhammad al-Dibaj bin Ja’afar al-Sadiq (as) he was given this title for his beautiful face and he was also called al-Maamoun and his mother was Umm Walad, he came out and called for Muhammad bin Ibrahim Taba-Taba al-Hasani, when ibn Ibrahim died al-Dibaj started calling for himself and he received Baya’ah(Allegiance) in Mecca but he was caught and they took him to al-Maamoun who forgave him and released him, he died in Jarajan and his grave is there and he has lots of scattered descendants but they are less than those of his brothers ‘Ali and Ismail…”

The bio of ibn ‘Anabah:
Biography:

قال الشيخ عباس القمّي(قدس سره) في الكنى والألقاب: «سيّد جليل علّامة نسّابة… كان من علماء الإمامية بل هو من عظمائها».

Sheikh ‘Abbas al-Qummi said in al-Kuna wal-Alqab: “Great knowledgeable Sayyed in Ansab … He was from the greatest scholars of Imami Shia”

And second one, is ’Abdullah b. Al-Hasan b. Al-Hasan b. Ali.  .

71 – بصائر الدرجات : محمد بن الحسين عن البزنطي عن حماد بن عثمان عن علي بن سعيد قال : كنت جالسا عند أبي عبد الله ع وعنده محمد بن عبد الله بن علي إلى جنبه جالسا وفي المجلس عبد الملك بن أعين ومحمد الطيار وشهاب بن عبد ربه فقال رجل من أصحابنا : جعلت فداك إن عبد الله بن الحسن يقول : لنا في هذا الآمر ما ليس لغيرنا . فقال أبو عبد الله ع بعد كلام : أما تعجبون من عبد الله يزعم أن أباه علي من لم يكن إماما ويقول : إنه ليس عندنا علم وصدق والله ما عنده علم ولكن والله – وأهوى بيده إلى صدره : – إن عندنا سلاح رسول الله ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) وسيفه ودرعه وعندنا والله مصحف فاطمة ما فيه آية من كتاب الله وإنه لإملاء رسول الله ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) وخطه علي ع بيده والجفر وما يدرون ما هو ؟ مسك شاة أو مسك بعير . ثم أقبل إلينا وقال : أبشروا أما ترضون أنكم تجيئون يوم القيامة آخذين بحجزة علي وعلى آخذ بحجزة رسول الله ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) ؟

‘Ali bin Sa’eed said: I was sitting with abi ‘Abdullah (as) and besides him was Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah bin ‘Ali, in the Majlis was also ‘Abdul-Malik bin A’yyun and Muhammad al-Tayyar and Shihab bin ‘Abd-Rabbuh, so a man from our companions said: My I be a sacrifice for you, ‘Abdullah bin al-Hasan says: “We are more worthy for this affair than anyone else.” abu ‘Abdullah (as) said: “Do’t you find it strange that ‘Abdullah claims that his father ‘Ali was not an Imam? and he says that we have no knowledge and honesty? By Allah it is he who has no knowledge but by Allah – he pointed to his chest – : We have the weapon of Rassul-Allah SAWS and his sword and armor and by Allah we have the Mushaf of Fatima and it does not contain a single verse from the book of Allah, it was dictated by the Prophet SAWS and ‘Ali (as) wrote it , we also have al-Jafr and they do not know what it is…”

Sources: Bihar al-Anwar, Majlisi, 26/40. Basaer al-Darajat, al-Saffar, pg173.

al-Khoei comments:

أقول : هذه الرواية تدل على أن عبد الله بن الحسن كان قد نصب نفسه للإمامة وكان يفتي بغير ما أنزل الله ويأتي في ترجمة عبد الله بن النجاشي ( أبي بجير ) عن الكشي أن عبد الله بن الحسن كان مرجعا للزيدية وكان يتصدى للفتيا .

“I say: this narration shows that ‘Abdullah bin al-Hasan had placed himself as an Imam and that he gave Fatwas that contradict Allah’s message, we see in the Tarjamah of ‘Abdullah al-Najashi (abi bujayr) from al-Kashshi that ‘Abdullah bin al-Hasan was a scholar that the Zaydiyyah followed and he used to give Fatwas.

Source: Mu’ujam Rijal al-Hadith 11/173.

Shi’ah Are the Facilitators for the Qaraamitah

August 4, 2011 at 10:42 am | Posted in History | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

1 Votes


The Rafidah Shi’ah have historically been the facilitators for other subversive factions, as Ibn Taymiyyah mentions (Majmoo’ 13/209-210), that:

لكن الخوارج دينهم المعظم مفارقة جماعة المسلمين واستحلال دمائهم وأموالهم والشيعة تختار هذا لكنهم عاجزون والزيدية تفعل هذا والإمامية تارة تفعله وتارة يقولون لا نقتل إلا تحت راية إمام معصوم والشيعة استتبعوا أعداء الملة من الملاحدة والباطنية وغيرهم ولهذا أوصت الملاحدة – مثل القرامطة الذين كانوا في البحرين وهم من أكفر الخلق ومثل قرامطة المغرب ومصر وهم كانوا يستترون بالتشيع – أوصوا بأن يدخل على المسلمين من باب التشيع فإنهم يفتحون الباب لكل عدو للإسلام من المشركين وأهل الكتاب والمنافقين

However, the kharijites, their venerated deen is to separate from the jamaa’ah of the Muslims and to make permissible [the shedding] of their blood and wealth. The Shi’ah also choose this [course of action], but they are unable [practically], and the Zaidiyyah do this, and the Imaamiyyah sometimes do this, but sometimes they say “We will not fight except under the banner of an infallible Imaam”, and the Shi’ah entice the enemies of the religion, amongst the atheists, the Baatiniyyah and others besides them. For this reason they counsel the atheists – such as the Qaraamitah who used to be in Bahrain, and they are the most disbelieving of the creation, and the likes of the Qaraamitah of the Maghreb and Egypt, and they used to conceal themselves behind Tashayyu’ (beliefs of the Shi’ah) – they counseled them to enter upon the Muslims from the door of Shi’ism, for they (the Shi’ites) open up the door to every enemy of Islaam, amongst the Mushriks, the people of the Book, and the Hypocrites

The Qaraamitah, Baatiniyyah believe that religion is just a veil and is for the common folk, whilsit the higher esoteric truths are known through gnosticism and philosophy. So to deceive the Muslims, they wore the veil of Shi’ism to gain proximity to the Muslims and to call them to their disbelief.

The Main Motive of Saif bin Omar Al-Tameemi

May 1, 2011 at 4:12 am | Posted in History | 3 Comments

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

1 Votes

The Main Motive of Saif bin Omar Al-Tameemi in the eyes of Murtada Al-Askari by brother Farid.

Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem

I write this post after making a discovery that I haven’t seen brought up before by anyone that attempted to refute the works of Murtada Al-Askari. As some of you may be aware, he is the author of the books like Abdullah bin Saba’, Al-Ustoorah Al-Saba’iyah (The Sabayan Legend), and Khamsoon wa Mi’a Sahabi Mukhtalaq (A Hundred and Fifty Fake Companions).
To keep things simple, he wrote two volumes for each of these works, so in total, six volumes that revolve around a specific idea. Now, that certain idea is that Saif bin Omar Al-Tameemi is a liar and that he fabricated narrations, events, places, and people. Murtada Al-Askari then went as far as to list out hundreds of people that he believed did not exist outside the narrations of Saif, like for example, Al-Qa’qa’a bin Amr Al-Tameemi the warrior, Abdullah bin Saba’a the Jew, and Mohammed bin Nuwaira one of Saif’s imaginary shaikhs.
Whoever, the question that everyone asks is, why?! Why would someone go so far as to fabricate so much in the name of religion? Truly, there needs to be an answer, and Murtada Al-Askari, himself, provided his theories and we will get to that shortly.
In any case, not too long after publishing these works, the scholars of Ahlul Sunnah stood their ground and responded with great publications in which these ideas were exposed as incompetent and uncreative. Incompetent because these are weak assumptions and uncreative because these are ideas that he borrowed from certain Orientalists.
A really good book that I suggest that everyone with knowledge in Arabic should read is Abdullah bin Saba’ by Sulaiman bin Hamad Al-Ouda. (Not to be confused with Salman Al-Ouda.) He breaks down the events that surrounded the death of Othman and the fitna, and pretty much everything that had to do with Ibn Saba’a, in a very thorough way. In short, he leaves no reason for anyone to assume that Ibn Saba’a is a figment of Saif’s imagination. One of the ways he does this is by collecting sources in which Ibn Saba’a can be found in, without the inclusion of Saif in the chain of narrators. So, I definitely suggest it for those that have the ability to get a copy.
Without going too off topic, I’d like to point out one of the most important flaws that Murtada Al-Askari made in his books. He assumed that Saif bin Omar’s sheikh, Mohammed bin Nuwaira, was a figment of his imagination and that Saif chose to attribute his hadiths to his imaginary sheikh in order to confuse the hadithists.

Murtada Al-Askari went on to say things like:

ومحمد بن عبد اللّه تخيّله سيف، ابن نويره وسبق قولنا فيه: انه من مختلقاته من الرواة

Rough translation: Mohammed bin Abdullah was imagined by Saif. Ibn Nuwairah, and we have said before: He is an imaginary narrator.

It is important to know, that this shaikh is the one that Saif narrates from the most, which is why I chose to speak about him instead of going into any of Saif’s other shaikhs.

However, the response is just as simple as the accusation, hadith #3417 from Mu’ajam Al-Kabeer by Al-Tabarani:

حدثنا محمد بن عثمان بن أبي شيبة ، حدثنا زكريا بن يحيى الكسائي ، حدثنا إسماعيل بن أبان ، حدثنا أبو حماد الحنفي ، عن محمد بن نويرة ، عن أبي عثمان ، عن حنظلة بن الربيع الكاتب ، قال : ” أهدى المقوقس ملك القبط إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم هدية وبغلة شهباء ، فقبلها صلى الله عليه وسلم “.

There is no Saif bin Omar in this hadith, which means that Mohammed bin Nuwaira did exist.

Now, back to the original issue of Saif bin Omar’s motive for fabrication narrations and people.
Murtada Al-Askari writes from page 55 to page 68 (Dar Al-Zahra, 7^th edition) about the history of the tribes of the Arabs, and the feudal nature of these tribes, and how their tribal pride caused them to go against moral codes. After, setting this up, he states the following:

وكان هؤلاء القادة الفاتحون من أبطال أساطيره بحاجة إلى جنود وأتباع في معاركهم الاسطورية، فاختلق لهم سيف من غير قبائل مضر حاشية ورعايا، ونسب إليهم أدوار ثانوية في تلك المعارك والحروب الاسطورية، فدخل في التاريخ الاسلامي من هذا النوع حشد كبير في عداد الصحابة والتابعين، ورواة الحديث إلى طبقات أخرى، وكان هذا النوع من الوضع عند سيف اختلاقاً محضاً، ولم يكن له وجود بتاتاً.

وهناك نوع آخر مما وضعه سيف، من الاساطير حرَّف فيها وقائع صحيحة، ونسبها إلى غير أصحابها، وذلك كالفتوح التي كانت لغير مضر، فرواها سيف وعزاها لقادة من مضر، ممن كان لهم وجود تاريخي محقق، أو لمن اختلقهم ونسبهم إلى مضر لينسب تلك الفتوح إليهم.

Rough translation: And those that led the armies that fought in his (Saif’s) legends needed soldiers for their legendary battles, so Saif created them from tribes other than Madhar (Saif’s genealogy goes back to Madhar), and gave them secondary roles, and by that, there was a new group of people that entered the categories of Sahaba and Tabi’een in Islamic history. He even created hadith narrators, and these weren’t in existence before Saif at all.

ومن هذا النوع من التحريف عند سيف ما كان من شأن مؤاخذات كان يلام عليها بعض سادة مضر، فإن سيفاً قد عزاها لغيرهم سواء أكان غير المضري هذا له وجود تاريخي، أو اختلقه ليلصق به ما عيب عليه المضري، ومن هذا النوع أيضاً ما كان بين سادة مضر أنفسهم مما كانوا يؤاخذون عليه، فان سيفاً قد حرَّف ما روي في ذلك كما فعل في ما وقع بين عائشة وطلحة والزبير وعثمان من خصومة حتّى واقعة الدار ومقتل عثمان، وما وقع بينهم وبين عليّ حتّى واقعة الجمل. فانه عالج كلّ ذلك بما اختلق من أسطورة عبداللّه بن سبأ الذي زعم أنه جاء من صنعاء اليمن وألقى الفتن في البلاد وبين العباد.

And one of the types of fabrication that Saif used to delve into was that he’d find the flaws that were in the people of Madhar, and shift them to someone else that was from another tribe, or to someone that never existed at all. For example, Saif took what was once issues between Aisha, Talha, Zubair, and Othman, and the death of Othman, and what happened between them and Ali in the battle of Jamal, and created Abdullah bin Saba’a, a Yemeni, from Sana’a, and said that he was the cause of the trouble.

نسب سيف إلى من تخيله عبداللّه بن سبأ ، وإلى من تخيلهم من جماعته وسمّاهم بالسبئية تلك القضايا كلَّها وبرَّأ أولئك السادة من مضر من أوضارها. اختلق عبداللّه بن سبأ هذا ونسبه إلى سبأ نفسه ليكون ألصق باليمانية وأجلى نسبة إلى القحطانية…

Saif took these things and attributed them to Abdullah bin Saba’a, and created a group called the Saba’iyah, and by this declared all of those from Madhar as innocent. He created Abdullah bin Saba’a and made Ibn Saba’a a Yemeni from Qahtaan (another tribe).

End of translation.

Murtada Al-Askari, also quoted poetry by some of the Tameemis like Al-Qa’qaa’ bin Amr Al-Tameemi, Rabee’ bin Matar, and Naf’i bin Al-Aswad Al-Tameemi, and the poetry that he quoted were in praise of the people of Tameem.

It should also be noted that Murtada Al-Askari also mentions another motive, which is that Saif wanted to detroy Islam from within, but didn’t really give any real reasons for this other than mentioning the names of liars and their roles in Islamic history.
Therefore, it is safe to say Murtada Al-Askari believed that Saif Al-Tameemi’s main motive for concocting these fabrications was because of his zeal for his tribe.
Now, onto the simple refutation.
Omair bin Dhabi’ Al-Barjami Al-Tameemi, was one of those that Saif bin Omar Al-Tameemi mentioned in his historical writings. In Tareekh Al-Tabari (784, Maktabatul Hilal, 1^st Edition), we find him causing trouble in the court of Sa’eed bin Al-Aas and finally being exiled out of Kufa by the order of Uthman bin Affan.

Then, Saif in Tareekh Al-Tabari (816) narrates a tradition in which Uthman imprisoned Dhabi’, the father of Omair, and then died in prison. Due to this, his son became a Saba’ee. Then, Kumail bin Ziyad and Omair bin Dhabi’, agreed to go on ahead to Madinah in order to kill Uthman. However, Omair became frightened and turned away.

In another narration (820), Al-Waqidi narrates that Omair eventually made to Uthman before he was buried and broke his ribs.

Now, if we were to take what Murtada Al-Askari has concluded as true, why do we have this many negative reports about Omair bin Dhabi’ Al-Tameemi? Why didn’t Saif attempt to hide these facts? Or at least attribute you it to the people of Qahtaan? Surely, one that has fabricated hundreds of historical figures should be able to at least hide a few narrations that hurt the Tameemi tribe.

On the contrary, Saif, goes against his tribal values, and states that one of his forefathers was a follower of Abdullah bin Saba’a… and just like that, Saif bin Omar has been cleared of having a motive to fabricate narrations in the name of his tribe.

I do not intend to make this longer than I have to and I believe that the picture is clear. Inshallah I will add some more thoughts on the status of Saif bin Omar in the eyes of the scholars of Ahlul Sunnah later on.

Imam ar-Rida and Caliph al-Mamun

March 29, 2011 at 5:52 pm | Posted in History | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

Rate This

Saduq reported in his Uyun akhbarul Riza (1/157):

15 – حدثنا الحاكم أبو علي الحسين بن أحمد البيهقي قال: حدثني محمد بن يحيى الصولي قال: حدثنا أحمد بن القاسم بن إسماعيل قال: سمعت إبراهيم بن العباس يقول: لما عقد المأمون البيعة لعلي بن موسى الرضا عليهما السلام، قال له الرضا عليه السلام: يا أمير المؤمنين إن النصح لك واجب والغش لا ينبغي لمؤمن، أن العامة تكره ما فعلت بي والخاصه تكره ما فعلت بالفضل بن سهل والرأي لك أن تبعدنا عنك حتى يصلح لك أمرك قال إبراهيم: فكان والله قوله هذا السبب في الذي آل الامر إليه.

Al-Hakim Abu Ali Al-Hussein ibn Ahmad al-Bayhaqi narrated that Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Sowli quoted on the authority of Ahmad ibn Al-Qasim ibn Isma’il that he had heard Ibrahim ibn Al-Abbas say, “When Al-Ma’mun pledged allegiance to Ali ibn Musa Al-Reza (alaihi salam), the Imam (alaihi salam) told him, ‘O Commander of the Faithful! It is obligatory to be sincere with you. It is not proper for a believer to be tricky. The masses of the people do not like what you did to me. Especially, the elites do not like what you did with Al-Fadhl ibn Sahl. Now it is best for you to send both of us away from yourself until you can manage your own affairs.’” Ibrahim said, “By God! It was these words which resulted in what happened to him (death).”

And in same book you can read:

17 – حدثنا الحاكم أبو علي الحسين بن أحمد البيهقي قال حدثني محمد بن يحيى الصولي قال : حدثني أحمد بن محمد بن إسحاق قال : حدثنا أبي قال : لما بويع الرضا ع بالعهد اجتمع الناس إليه يهنئونه فأومى إليهم فأنصتوا ثم قال بعد أن استمع كلامهم : بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله الفعال لما يشاء لا معقب لحكمه ولا راد لقضائه (يعلم خائنة الأعين وما تخفي الصدور) وصلى الله على محمد في الأولين والآخرين وعلى آله الطيبين الطاهرين أقول وأنا علي بن موسى بن جعفر ع : إن أمير المؤمنين عضده الله بالسداد ووفقه للرشاد عرف من حقنا ما جهله غيره فوصل أرحاما قطعت وآمن نفوسا فزعت بل أحياها وقد تلفت وأغناها إذا افتقرت مبتغيا رضا رب العالمين لا يريد جزاء إلا من عنده (وسيجزي الله الشاكرين ولا يضيع أجر المحسنين ) وأنه جعل إلي عهده والإمرة الكبرى إن بقيت بعده فمن حل عقدة أمر الله تعالى بشدها وقصم عروة أحب الله إيثاقها فقد أباح حريمه وأحل محرمه إذا كان بذلك زاريا على الإمام منتهكا حرمة الإسلام بذلك جرى السالف فصبر منه على الفلتات ولم يعترض بعدها على الغرمات خوفا على شتات الدين واضطراب حبل المسلمين ولقرب أمر الجاهلية ورصد المنافقين فرصة تنتهز وبائقة تبتدر وما أدري ما يفعل بي ولا بكم ؟ أن الحكم إلا لله يقضي الحق

Al-Hakim Abu Ali Al-Hussein ibn Ahmad al-Bayhaqi narrated that Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Sowli quoted on the authority of Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Ishaq, on the authority of his father, “When they pledged allegiance to Al-Reza (alaihi salam), the people gathered around him and congratulated him. He made a gesture to them to become silent and after hearing their words, he said, ‘In the Name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful. Praise be to God who does whatever He wills. No one can object to His Decrees. No one can reject His Destiny. He knows whatever treason that lies in one’s heart from the sight and whatever is hidden in the hearts. May God’s Blessings be upon Muhammad, upon the first and the last creatures, upon his good and pure Household.’ He then added, ‘I am Ali ibn Musa ibn Ja’far. Indeed the Commander of the Faithful (Al-Ma’mun) – may God assist him in righteousness and make him successful in being rational – has recognized one of our rights which others were ignorant about. He has established ties of kinship which others have broken. He has granted security to people who lived in fear. He even revived them and rescued them from destruction. He enriched them when they were in need. He was seeking the pleasure of the Lord of the Two Worlds in doing all this. He did not ask anyone but Him to reward him. God will reward the ones who are grateful. He will not let the reward of the good-doers be forgotten. He turned over the succession to the throne to me. He has entrusted his great rule to me after him. And whoever breaks a contract that God has ordered to be safeguarded, and loosens ties which God likes to be tightened has indeed underestimated God’s Bounds, and has allowed what God has forbidden. In this way, he has denied the leader of his right and has disobeyed his orders. He has thus disrespected Islam as was done in the past. The Trustee (Ali ibn Abi Talib (alaihi salam)) put up with all the instances of breaching of the covenants, and did not even object to those later when he was in power, fearing dispersion in the religion and turmoil in the ties which held the Muslims together. This was because the ideas of the Age of Ignorance were still in their minds and the hypocrites were on the watch to get a chance to create havoc. Now I do not know what is going to happen to me and you. Indeed there is no arbitrator but God. He is the only One who clarifies the truth. He is the best Separator.”

Abu Bakr the only one possible leader

February 25, 2011 at 12:08 am | Posted in History, Refuting shia doubts | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

Rate This

Imam Bukhari narrated in his “Saheeh” in Kitab al-Manaqib:

From Abu Said Al-Khudri:

Allah’s Apostle addressed the people saying, “Allah has given option to a slave to choose this world or what is with Him. The slave has chosen what is with Allah.” Abu Bakr wept, and we were astonished at his weeping caused by what the Prophet mentioned as to a Slave ( of Allah) who had been offered a choice, (we learned later on) that Allah’s Apostle himself was the person who was given the choice, and that Abu Bakr knew best of all of us. Allah’s Apostle added, “The person who has favored me most of all both with his company and wealth, is Abu Bakr. If I were to take a Khalil other than my Lord, I would have taken Abu Bakr as such, but (what relates us) is the Islamic brotherhood and friendliness. All the gates of the Mosque should be closed except the gate of Abu Bakr.”

Al-Husain ibn Masood al-Baghawi in “al-Anwar fi shamail Nabi al-Mukhtar” (chapter 96, hadith 1186) narrated marked part from ibn Abbas. But there is very interesting addition. Ibn Abbas said: “Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) went out during the illness that was a reason of this death….” till the end of hadith where above mentioned words were said.

That’s mean prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) ordered to close all gates to Mosque except the gate of Abu Bakr very short before his death.

Also it should be noted that Imam Muslim narrated in his “Saheeh”, Kitab al-Manaqib, and Baqawi in “al-Anwar” hadith 1188 (quoted from Muslim):

Book 031, Number 5879:

A’isha reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) in his (last) illness asked me to call Abu Bakr, her father, and her brother too, so that he might write a document, for he feared that someone else might be desirous (of succeeding him) and that some claimant may say: I have better claim to it, whereas Allah and the Faithful do not substantiate the claim of anyone but that of Abu Bakr.

It’s also known that almost all companions consider Abu Bakr as a best one amongst them.

Bukhari narrated from Jabir, that Umar ibn al-Khattab said: “Abu Bakr our master”. (Suyuti “Tareeh al-khulafa” p 77, darul qalamul arabi)

And it was narrated in “al-Awsat” from Abu Juhayf that Ali said: “Best of people after messenger (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) are Abu Bakr and Umar, love of me and their hate couldn’t gather in soul of believer”. (Ibid p 78)

As we already proved words that Abu Bakr and Umar were the best, narrated from Ali in mutawatir form.

Tirmizi and ibn Hibban narrated in Saheeh from Abu Sayeed al-Khudri that (when there was uncertainty regarding caliphate) Abu Bakr said: I am not most deserve man for this? Meaning for caliphate,  I am not first one to accept Islam?  I am not owner of such and such (status)?  I am not an owner of such (and such status)?”. (Ibid p 57)

Ibn Asakir narrated from al-Harith, that Ali said: “Abu Bakr was first one amongst men who accepted Islam”. (Ibid p 57)

Ibn Abu Khaythama narrated with authentic chain that Zayd ibn Arqam said: “The first one who prayed with messenger was Abu Bakr”. (ibid p 57)

Ibn Sad narrated from Abi Arwi ad-Dawsari companion may Allah be pleased with him: “Abu Bakr first one who accepted Islam”. (ibid p 58)

Shia sheikh ar-Radhy – Abu Lulu was zoroastrian

February 24, 2011 at 8:24 pm | Posted in History | Leave a comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

Rate This

Fatwa from official board of that shia sheikh:

نص السؤال	بعض الروايات التي تقول بأن أبي لؤلؤة مسلم وأنه أفضل الشيعة على الإطلاق فهل هي صحيحة ؟
جواب سماحته	الثابت تاريخياً أن أبا لؤلؤة مجوسياً وليس له من الإسلام شيئاً والتشيع بريء منه .