Imām al-Ḥākim a Shi'iy?

[Laithfarsi]

As-salāmu ʿalaykum wa raḥmatu ʾllāh.

Was Imām al-Ḥākim a Shi'iy? What do the ʿUlamāʾ say?

Imam al-Dhahabi calls him Shi'iy but refutes repeatedly the notion he was an outright Rafidi. He says: "Allah loves Justice! The man was not a Rafidi but only Shi'iy".

Al-Dhahabi goes on to say in his al-Mu'jam al-Mukhtass Bi al-Muhaddithin: "Absolutely not! The man was not a Rafidi but a Shi'iy who did not take to those who had war with 'Ali (RA), and we are satisfied with both parties, and we love 'Ali more than those who opposed him".

[Hani]

Many of our `Ulama' were Shia including Abu Hanifa (rah), but a "Shia" back in those days is not similar to a "Shia" in our days, they only share the name.


Don't you hear us say that `Ammar ibn Yasir (ra) was a Shia? Obviously we don't mean "Twelver Imami Rafidhi", we mean a person who loves `Ali and leans towards him politically.


So no issue brother, don't be surprised.

[Ebn Hussein]

Generally I agree with brother Hani but the likes of Imam Al-Hakim are different, not to be compared to Abu Hanifah who supported the cause of the Bani Hashim (Ahl Al-Bayt) all his life, or the likes of Ammar or Ibn Abbas (the later a staunch supporter of Ali and of course the Shaykhayn Abu Bakr and Omar too, he narrated many of their virtues). Al-Hakim was extreme in his Tashayyu' just like Abdul-Razzaq Al-San'ani (who albeit praising the Sahaba including Shaykhayn, sometimes went overboard and even insulted Omar Ibn Al-Khattab!!!), they were sort of Zaydis and Al-Hakim (who is mutasaahil and no authentication is taken from him except if greater Muhadditheen agreed with him) authenticated many weak, batil and fabricated narrations about the virtues of the Ahl Al-Bayt (that's why the Rawafid love to quote him). Indeed some scholars accused Imam Al-Hakim of Rafidh and not just Tashayyu', but it seems they were wrong. You really need to know Arabic to research these matters for the true knowledge has and will always be preserved in the language of the Arabs not the 'Ajam:

http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=194749

The lunatic Al-Khabith says he was not a Shia at all:

http://alqatrah.org/question/index.php?id=92

The muppet claims that the only reason he was accused of Rafidh and Tashayyu' is because he narrated narrations about the Fadha2il (virtues/merits) of the Ahl Al-Bayt and that caused alot of trouble for the Nasibis (Sunnis). Of course the retard does not mention that the majority of the narrations Al-Hakim narrated and authenticated were clear cut weak and fabricated narration and he was rightfully rebuked for that.

Al-Khabith then mentions:


بل إن الرجل عقد في كتاب الأربعين بابا كاملا لتأكيد أفضلية أبي بكر وعمر وعثمان على جميع الصحابة! وهذا مناقض جملة وتفصيلا للعقيدة الإسلامية الشيعية كما تعلم.

Basically he says put a whole CHAPTER in his book "Al-Arba3in" proving the superiority of Abu Bakr, Omar and Othman over Ali and the rest of the Sahaba.

BTW I started laughing when I read how some scholars called Al-Hakim:

Rafidhi Khabith, thiqqah fi Hadith   

[Ebn Hussein]

So yeah, to basically understand these matters one has to first understand and research what Tashayyu3 was meant to be in the time of the Salaf and the early Khalaf. Every sincere researcher will come to conclusion that it had generally nothing to do with being a Rafidhi, that is why it is no problem for us Sunnis that LOADS of narrators in Sahih Al-Bukhari are Shias. I am gonna post some stuff about what the Salaf understood as Shia and why they took their narrations, I think Farid posted something on the other forum, this will clear up alot of things.