Deceivers are Everywhere

[muslim720]

Salaam alaykum wa rahmatullah,

A while ago, I commented on a quote by Shaykh Ninowy whom I have tremendous respect for, some of which is receding (if he teaches what I found out one of his students say).  Immediately, an Afghan living in my state replied to my comment saying that he is one of his students and added me on Facebook.

As time went on, I realized that this guy (won't consider a deceiver my brother) was the typical Sufi who prefers to stand out from the crowd by sporting long hair, an Afghan pakol, some type of shawl or shoulder-cloth and rosary beads in his hand - the 2019 Muslim version of an environmentalist hippie.

Having attended and graduated from Madina Institute, this guy delivered some khutbahs and he happened to deliver them, out of all the places, at this one Shi'i mosque.  I watched one of his khutbahs and while referring to the incident of Khaybar, he said that the Holy Prophet (saw) handed the banner on the first few days to (and I quote) "fulaan and fulaan" but on the third day, it was the one whom Allah (swt) and the Holy Prophet (saw) loved - Imam Ali (ra) - who delivered victory.

Quite a distasteful statement so I approached him via personal message.  He immediately downplayed the whole thing saying that he would be a munaafiq if he were to disrespect Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra), the two given the banner before Imam Ali (ra).

Weeks later, I watched another one of his khutbahs in the same mosque where he said that it is "mutawatir" - a well established fact - that Imam Ali (ra) was born in Ka'aba.  I confronted him again and he showed me one report by Hakim which, I think, was an oxymoron.  Only one report for a "mutawatir" event.  He refused to even try to reconcile the dichotomy.

As time went on, I posted a video of a (fake) ex-Sunni scholar who had converted to Shiaism highlighting his ignorance since he (the fake scholar) was claiming that the term "Khulaafa Rashideen" was never uttered by the Holy Prophet (saw).  To have a go at me, instead of personally messaging me, he quickly asserted that the narration "Upon You is to Follow My Sunnah and the Sunnah of the Rightly Guided Caliphs After Me" is weak.

I pressed him to give me his reasoning - he provided a long dubious article questioning the authenticity of this report - his best response was that the report is problematic based on its text itself.  When questioned how, he replied that Muslims must only follow the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (saw).

When I told him that the Sunnah of the Rightly Guided Caliphs were inseparable from the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (saw) - that they are, in fact, one in the same - he resorted to remarks such as "...but they made mistakes", "they committed some grave blunders", etc.

Finally he revealed that he has Zaidi beliefs (when it comes to Sahaba) and when I commended him for showing his hand, he accused me of being sectarian.  I reminded him that he was the one, not me, to recognize sectarianism and apply a sectarian label to himself.

Ever since then, I messaged him a couple of times and exposed his hypocrisy and playing fast-n-loose.  If it would be Imam Ali's (ra) virtues, he would accept the weakest of reports.  On the contrary, he would go the extra mile to undermine an authentic report if it painted Imam Ali (ra) in (what he perceived to be) bad light.  Not being able to handle my criticism, in a not-so-brave move, he unfriended me.

However, he has not stopped with his lies.  Here is his latest post on FB:

The assertion that Imam ‘Ali burnt heretics/apostates [with fire] is inauthentic. 

Bukhari [3027, 9922], Ahmad [1,874, 2,547, 2,548], Abu Dawud [4,351], Tirmidhi [1,458], Nasa’i [4,060], and Shafi’i in Al-Umm [1:428], all narrated the hadith of Ayyub b. Abi Tamima, from ‘Ikrimah the slave of Ibn ‘Abbas, who said: ‘Ali burnt some people [heretics] and this news reached Ibn ‘Abbas, who said: ‘Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, “Don’t punish [anyone] with Allah’s Punishment.” No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, “If somebody discards his religion, kill him.”

Ayyub b. Abi Tamima is from the scholars of the trustworthy narrators [of hadith]. But the scholars of Hadith differed [with one another] in regards to ‘Ikrimah, the slave of Ibn ‘Abbas – and no one else has been more differed upon than him!

There are some who elevate him to the status of the most trustworthy and grand narrators [of hadith], and some others who claim he was a liar and accuse him of not being Muslim – for some of his contemporaries have stated that he would not pray. But we don’t want to dive into that topic, rather we will simply state what Ibn Hibban cited as having been an agreed upon [by consensus/ijma’] maxim, and that is: The narrations/transmissions of an innovator [someone who novels an idea/practice that has no precedence in the Prophetic practice, and also contradicts/rivals it], who promotes and calls [does da’wah] to his innovation, are not accepted if he is the sole transmitter of the narration – especially if there are traces of promotion of his innovation [in the narration] or an indictment of his [theological] opponent [in it].

There are indeed allegations against ‘Ikrimah, by his contemporaries, for having been aligned with the Khawarij ideology. Among those who stated that about him is Ayyub, the one who narrated this hadith from him. This gives us good enough reason to reject the hadiths which he solely narrates [i.e. reports which he is the sole narrator of], even if we find a corroborating evidence/report for it.

The second defect here is that ‘Ikrimah never knew Imam ‘Ali, and never met him. Therefore, the hadith is munqati’ [cut-off i.e. time-gap between two people in the chain who clearly never met], and the “munqati’” hadith is from among the subcategories of a weak report.

Imam al-Shafi’i narrated in “al-Umm” [1:428] in the chapter of “The Punishment for the Apostate”, the hadith of ‘Uthman b. ‘Affan [may Allah be pleased with him], that the Prophet said: “A person cannot be killed except for one of three reasons” – and he [al-Shafi’i] authenticated the report.

Following that, he then narrated the hadith of ‘Ikrimah about ‘Ali burning the apostates. Right after that, he narrated the hadith of Zaid b. Aslam that the Prophet said: “Whoever changes their religion, kill him.” Then, al-Shafi’i says, “And Ahlul Hadith do not view the hadith of Zaid to be authentic, for it is indeed munqati’, nor is the hadith preceding it authentic [i.e. the hadith of ‘Ikrimah itself!].” This is al-Shafi’i weakening the hadith of ‘Ikrimah by stating: “It is not established/inauthentic.”

Al-Hafidh al-‘Ula’ie stated in Jami’ al-Tahsil [p.239]: “Abu Zur’ah said: ‘anything narrated by ‘Ikrimah from Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, or from ‘Ali b. Abi Talib [may Allah be pleased with them both], is mursal.’” Meaning, it is munqati’/cut-off, just like al-Shafi’i stated.

But the claim that ‘Ali burned a group of people is not only transmitted from ‘Ikrimah [apparently], for it also came through the hadith of Anas [may Allah be pleased with him].

Imam Ahmad [2,968], al-Nasa’i in al-Mujtaba [4,065] and in al-Kubra [3,528], al-Tabarani in al-Mu’jam al-Kabir [10,638], Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kabir [16,637], all narrated the hadith of ‘Abd al-Samad b. ‘Abd al-Warith, from Hisham b. Abi ‘Abdullah al-Dastuwa’I, from Qatadah, from Anas, that ‘Ali [may Allah be pleased with him] came upon some gypsy people who were worshipping idols so he burned them. Then Ibn ‘Abbas said, ‘Indeed the Messenger of Allah [peace and blessings be upon him] said: Whoever changes their religion, kill him.

Abu’l Fadhl al-Maqdisi stated in “Atraf al-Ghara’ib” [2,285] that the chain is absolutely solitary [no other narrators of it] through ‘Abd al-Samad b. ‘Abd al-Warith, from Hisham, from Qatadah.

Abu Hatim al-Razi was asked about this hadith, as is cited in “Al-‘Ilal” [written] by his son [1:449], so he said: “’Abd al-Samad narrated it through that way [i.e. chain], but it is supposed to be: ‘[from] Qatadah, from ‘Ikrimah, that ‘Ali…’” So he reassigned the hadith back to ‘Ikrimah, and declared that the hadith of Anas from ‘Ali was in fact a delusional mistake by ‘Abd al-Samad. A great number of Hadith scholars attributed him [‘Abd al-Samad] with that as well [i.e. with making delusional mistakes/wahm]. See ‘Tahdhib’ by Ibn Hajar [6:291].

There is another narration about ‘Ali [may Allah be pleased with him] having [allegedly] burnt heretics, which Ibn Abi Shayba narrated in al-Musannaf [5:563], and repeated it again in it’s entirely in [6:486], through the transmission of Abu Bakr b. Abi ‘Iyyash, from Abu Husain ‘Uthman b. ‘Asim, from Suwaid b. Ghuflah, from ‘Ali. And this narration is also in the defected Musnad of al-Bazzar [2:190]. Never, in any of the famous or major books of Sunnah, has the following chain been narrated through or cited: Abu Bakr b. ‘Iyyash, from Abu Husain, from Suwaid b. Ghuflah – except for in Ibn Abi Shayba and al-Bazzar.

There is another narration from al-Tahawi in Ma’ani al-Athar [1:188] that is also through Abu Bakr b. ‘Iyyash from Abu Husain, from Suwaid b. Ghuflah…but it’s about al-Hajjaj.

Al-Bukhari, who cites the narration of ‘Ikrimah from ‘Ali, narrated through Abu Bakr b. ‘Iyyash - Abu Husain ‘Uthman b. ‘Asim more than ten times. Did he not have his teacher’s, Abu Bakr b. Abi Shayba’s, book? Yet he still didn’t take the narration of Suwaid b. Ghuflah from ‘Ali, even though Suwaid is incomparably more trustworthy than ‘Ikrimah!? It is evident that al-Bukhari and other muhadithin did not accept this obscure narration.

If al-Bukhari was avoiding the narration of Abu Bakr b. ‘Iyyash from Husain, from Suwaid b. Ghuflah, then he avoided it permanently for he didn’t transmit any narrations in his Sahih through that chain, as his [Abu Bakr b. ‘Iyyash] idhtirab [i.e. mixing up narrators/content], in the latter part of his life, was known.

I will now refer to what Ibn Hajar cited in “Fathul Bari” [12: 270], when he said: In the third volume, we narrated the hadith of Abu Tahir al-Mukhlis, through the transmission of ‘Abdullah b. Sharik al-‘Amiri, from his father, who said: It was said to ‘Ali: Indeed here there are a group of people at the door of the mosque claiming that you are their lord! So he called them, and said to them: Woe upon you all! What say you all? They said: You are our lord, our creator, and our sustainer! He said: Woe upon you all! I am a slave just like you. I eat food like you eat, I drink like you drink! If I obey Allah He will reward me if He wills, and if I transgress His commands I fear that He will punish me, so fear Allah and return to Him!

They refused. Then the next day they came to him, and Qanbar came and said: By God! They have gone back to saying those statements. ‘Ali said: Let them in. Then they said those things again for the third time. He said: If you say that I will kill you all in the worst way. They refused. So he said: O Qanbar, bring them through the passage and station them between the door of the Mosque and the palace. Then he said: Dig a pit in the ground! Then he came with firewood and laid it in the pit and started a fire. He said: I will throw you all in it if you do not take back what you’ve stated and return to Allah! They refused to turn to Allah. So they were dropped into it until they all burned. He said: Indeed when I see a detestable deed...a fire broke out and I called it Qanbara.

Ibn Hajar said: This chain is hasan (good).

‘Adab says: [The trustworthiness of] ‘Abdullah b. Sharik al-‘Amiri has been disagreed upon. Ahmad, Ibn Ma’in, Ya’qub b. Sufyan al-Faswiy authenticated him, and ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Mahdi, Ibn Hibban, and Abu’l Fath Al-Azdi [the Shi’i] discredited him. Al-Azdi said: He was Mukhtariyyan [with al-Mukhtar al-Thaqafi’s camp] and a liar.

Ibn Hajar said in “Al-Isaba” [3:383]: ‘Abdullah b. Sharik was with al-Mukhar in Kufa.
I say: Then Ibn Hajar’s judgement of ‘hasan’ for the hadith is built on two factors:

Firstly: Because [the state of] ‘Abdullah b. Sharik is differed upon [some authenticated him and others discredited him], and the chain of a ‘differed upon’ narrator is ‘hasan’ [okay/good] according to him [Ibn Hajar].

Secondly: That the man is a Shi’i but not accused of anything regarding ‘Ali [i.e. Shi’i by virtue of his alignment with al-Mukhtar & not necessarily because of “tashyyu’ of ‘Ali”].

I say: When Abu’l Fath al-Azdi, the Shi’i, calls him [‘Abdullah b. Sharik] a liar, and Ibn Mahdi rejects him [and his narrations], and Ibn Hibban says that he deserves to be rejected, then he is not allowed to be narrated from at all, and the narrations of his which he alone transmits solitarily [fard] are munkar [rejected]. And Allah knows best.
All of this means that ‘Ali never burned anyone, and that those claims are delusional or the libels of ‘Ikrimah the Khariji.

Allah knows best. All Praise is due to Him.

Al-Sharif al-Sayyid ‘Adab al-Husayni (May Allah protect him, preserve him, and allow us to benefit from him)

Can anyone comment on his points?

JazakAllah khair!

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

I'll try to answer some major points. InshaAllah.

As for the reliability of Ikrimah Mawla Ibn Abbas,

But the scholars of Hadith differed [with one another] in regards to ‘Ikrimah, the slave of Ibn ‘Abbas – and no one else has been more differed upon than him!

It is true that some Imams of Jarh wa Tadeel differed in regards to the reliability of Ikrima. But to say that no one else has been more differed upon than him, is an exaggeration. The fact is that some of them criticized him, while the majority deemed him Trustworthy.

Imaam Bayhaqi said: “Ikrimah is from the Thiqah Thabat people according to the Majority of A’immah”. [As-Sunan al-Kubra lil Bayhaqi: 8/234].

There are some who elevate him to the status of the most trustworthy and grand narrators [of hadith], and some others who claim he was a liar and accuse him of not being Muslim – for some of his contemporaries have stated that he would not pray. But we don’t want to dive into that topic,

Criticism has been levelled against not just Ikrimah, but against many other Imams as well, which even includes the likes of Imam Bukhari or Imam Jafar as-sadiq, etc. But the thing that should be looked into is that, can that criticism be established and proven against that narrator? Because just because criticism is found against someone won't make him unreliable.

The principle solution in this  what Shaykh Nur Al-Deen Itr, a contemporary hadith scholar, explains that one of the reasons in which the criticism of a narrator is accepted is if “those that strengthen him don’t express why the criticism is inaccurate.”(Manhaj Al-Naqd fi Uloom Al-Hadith, page 100).

In the case of Ikrimah, we find that those who strengthened Ikrimah, rejected the criticism that was made against him.

Haafidh Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani said: “He is Thiqah Thabat, the Scholar of Tafseer, the accusing of lying on him from Ibn Umar is not proven, nor is the Bid’ah (of any kind) is proven from him”. [Taqreeb: 4673]

Infact Imam Ibn Hajar refuted all the allegations that were leveled against Ikrimah.

rather we will simply state what Ibn Hibban cited as having been an agreed upon [by consensus/ijma’] maxim, and that is: The narrations/transmissions of an innovator [someone who novels an idea/practice that has no precedence in the Prophetic practice, and also contradicts/rivals it], who promotes and calls [does da’wah] to his innovation, are not accepted if he is the sole transmitter of the narration – especially if there are traces of promotion of his innovation [in the narration] or an indictment of his [theological] opponent [in it].

That's true, but Ikrimah being an innovator isn't authentically proven.

Haafidh Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani said: “...nor is the Bid’ah (of any kind) is proven from him”. [Taqreeb: 4673].

There are indeed allegations against ‘Ikrimah, by his contemporaries, for having been aligned with the Khawarij ideology. Among those who stated that about him is Ayyub, the one who narrated this hadith from him. This gives us good enough reason to reject the hadiths which he solely narrates [i.e. reports which he is the sole narrator of], even if we find a corroborating evidence/report for it.

The statement of Imam Ibn Hajar is sufficient to discard the criticism on Ikrima  for holding Khariji ideology. As for Ayyub ibn Abi Tamima as-Sakḥtiyani. Then, Let's see the view of Ayyub in regards to Ikrimah.

Imaam Hammaad bin Zayd said that a man said to Ayyoob (As-Sakhtiyaani), “O Abu Bakr, has Ikrimah been accused (of lying)” Ayyoob remained silent, then he said: “As for me, then I do not accuse him” [Tabaqaat al-Kubra: 5/221, Chain Saheeh]

 Imaam Ayyoob also said: “The Huffaadh of (the hadeeth of) Ibn Abbaas have unanimously consented upon Ikrimah, among them are: Sa’eed bin Jubayr & Ataa bin Abi Ribaah, they would ask him about the hadeeth of Ibn Abbaas” [Ad-Du’afa al-Kabeer by al-Ukaylee: 3/376, Chain Saheeh]

Imaam Sufyaan ibn Uyaynah said, I heard Ayyoob (as-Sakhtiyaani) saying: “If I were to tell you that Hasan (al-Basari) quit narrating a lot of Tafseer when Ikrimah (the expert of Tafseer) entered upon us in Basrah until he went out of it, then I said the truth” [Ad-Du’afa al-Kabeer by al-Ukaylee: 3/373, Chain Saheeh]

The second defect here is that ‘Ikrimah never knew Imam ‘Ali, and never met him. Therefore, the hadith is munqati’ [cut-off i.e. time-gap between two people in the chain who clearly never met], and the “munqati’” hadith is from among the subcategories of a weak report.

This report is not munqati because Ikrimah is not narrating from Ali(RA) directly, but rather he is narrating from his Master, Ibn Abbas, his reaction over an incident in which Ali(RA) was involved and what occurred in it and after it.

I will now refer to what Ibn Hajar cited in “Fathul Bari” [12: 270], when he said: In the third volume, we narrated the hadith of Abu Tahir al-Mukhlis, through the transmission of ‘Abdullah b. Sharik al-‘Amiri, from his father, who said: It was said to ‘Ali: Indeed here there are a group of people at the door of the mosque claiming that you are their lord! So he called them, and said to them: Woe upon you all! What say you all? They said: You are our lord, our creator, and our sustainer! He said: Woe upon you all! I am a slave just like you. I eat food like you eat, I drink like you drink! If I obey Allah He will reward me if He wills, and if I transgress His commands I fear that He will punish me, so fear Allah and return to Him!

They refused. Then the next day they came to him, and Qanbar came and said: By God! They have gone back to saying those statements. ‘Ali said: Let them in. Then they said those things again for the third time. He said: If you say that I will kill you all in the worst way. They refused. So he said: O Qanbar, bring them through the passage and station them between the door of the Mosque and the palace. Then he said: Dig a pit in the ground! Then he came with firewood and laid it in the pit and started a fire. He said: I will throw you all in it if you do not take back what you’ve stated and return to Allah! They refused to turn to Allah. So they were dropped into it until they all burned. He said: Indeed when I see a detestable deed...a fire broke out and I called it Qanbara.

Ibn Hajar said: This chain is hasan (good).

‘Adab says: [The trustworthiness of] ‘Abdullah b. Sharik al-‘Amiri has been disagreed upon. Ahmad, Ibn Ma’in, Ya’qub b. Sufyan al-Faswiy authenticated him, and ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Mahdi, Ibn Hibban, and Abu’l Fath Al-Azdi [the Shi’i] discredited him. Al-Azdi said: He was Mukhtariyyan [with al-Mukhtar al-Thaqafi’s camp] and a liar.

Ibn Hajar said in “Al-Isaba” [3:383]: ‘Abdullah b. Sharik was with al-Mukhar in Kufa.
I say: Then Ibn Hajar’s judgement of ‘hasan’ for the hadith is built on two factors:

Firstly: Because [the state of] ‘Abdullah b. Sharik is differed upon [some authenticated him and others discredited him], and the chain of a ‘differed upon’ narrator is ‘hasan’ [okay/good] according to him [Ibn Hajar].

Secondly: That the man is a Shi’i but not accused of anything regarding ‘Ali [i.e. Shi’i by virtue of his alignment with al-Mukhtar & not necessarily because of “tashyyu’ of ‘Ali”].

I say: When Abu’l Fath al-Azdi, the Shi’i, calls him [‘Abdullah b. Sharik] a liar, and Ibn Mahdi rejects him [and his narrations], and Ibn Hibban says that he deserves to be rejected, then he is not allowed to be narrated from at all, and the narrations of his which he alone transmits solitarily [fard] are munkar [rejected]. And Allah knows best.
All of this means that ‘Ali never burned anyone, and that those claims are delusional or the libels of ‘Ikrimah the Khariji.

This report can be used a Shawahid for the report narrated by Ikrimah, this Shia initally tried to portray that Ikrimah was alone in narrating it, while when he found out there exists a report free of Ikrima, but with a narrator who is Hasan al hadeeth, he is trying to force down upon him a one sided view, while if seen in a fair perspective, this report is a good Shahid for the hadeeth of Ikrimah, which further strenghtens the authenticity of that report.

Moreover, Ikrima isn't the only person who narrated about this incident, Shias themselves have reported this story in their books.

This is from Rijal al-kashi with a very strong isnad(the page is 107 narration number 171)

حدثني محمد بن قولويه، قال حدثني سعد بن عبد الله، قال حدثنا يعقوب بن يزيد و محمد بن عيسى، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن هشام بن سالم، قال : سمعت أبا عبد الله (عليه السلام) يقول و هو يحدث أصحابه بحديث عبد الله بن سبإ و ما ادعى من الربوبية في أمير المؤمنين علي بن أبي طالب، فقال إنه لما ادعى ذلك فيه استتابه أمير المؤمنين (عليه السلام) فأبى أن يتوب فأحرقه بالنار

also see:
https://shiascans.com/2017/05/12/aqaed/

[muslim720]

JazakAllah khair my brother!

Your post definitely added more to everything I read online.  There is plenty of material defending Ikrimah but I did not find anything that directly responded to his points.  However, you have brought it all together and directly refuted his premises.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

JazakAllah khair my brother!

Your post definitely added more to everything I read online.  There is plenty of material defending Ikrimah but I did not find anything that directly responded to his points.  However, you have brought it all together and directly refuted his premises.

Wa iyyakum brother .

[Rationalist]

I can say one thing his positions are not part of mainstream Sunni. If you really want to test him ask him about the Imamate of 12 or the 12th Imam. There are some other Sufi Muslims who are against him. They promote the Imamate of 12. The reality behind these people are they are not even 12ers. They are sahirs linked the shaytaan.

[muslim720]

I can say one thing his positions are not part of mainstream Sunni. If you really want to test him ask him about the Imamate of 12 or the 12th Imam. There are some other Sufi Muslims who are against him. They promote the Imamate of 12. The reality behind these people are they are not even 12ers. They are sahirs linked the shaytaan.

Exactly my brother!

I don't care who believes what but I have seen him consistently play fast-n-loose with Prophetic traditions and historical narrations.  If it speaks positively about Imam Ali (ra) - and there is not enough good things one can say about that great man - or any of his immediate family members, he accepts it.  If it casts any doubt on the invincibility or infallibility of Imam Ali (ra) - like this authentic narration which alludes to an error in judgment on Imam Ali's (ra) part - he will go to the other end of the globe to try to discredit it.

I mean, he writes articles on "The Muslim Vibe" and has essays (on Facebook) about Zaynab (ra) but not a word about any of the Mothers of Believers (ra).

Good news is that I tagged him on my response and he immediately messaged me to see if we can get together for a discussion (exactly what I wanted). 

[muslim720]

Here is my response:
" I read your ill-informed criticism and weakening of the hadith by Ikrimah (ra) and I could not believe this was coming from a student of religion.

First off, you - more like the article you regurgitated - deemed the narration to be munqati or disconnected for the reason that Ikrimah (ra) never met Imam Ali (ra). How is that an issue when Ikrimah (ra) was narrating from Ibn Abbas (ra) who, in turn, was narrating an incident involving Imam Ali (ra)?

Then, you went on to list names of some scholars that criticised Ikrimah (ra). Even if their position is not misrepresented and their rulings are not misquoted, for every one scholar that weakened Ikrimah (ra), I can present you (at least) three that strengthen him.

On a side note, many other narrators have been subjected to criticism but criticism, in of itself, without established proof, is not sufficient for one to discard a narrator. And in fact, Imam ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani (rah) refuted all criticisms against Ikrimah (ra) with others, too, casting their vote of confidence in favor of Ikrimah (ra).

Last but not least, the same narration, regarding the punishment meted out by Imam Ali (ra), is also found in Rijal al-Kashi - a Shi'i source - with a very strong chain.

Coming from someone who declares the fable that Imam Ali (ra) was born in Ka'aba to be mutawatir by presenting a SINGLE report from Hakim (with no corroborating evidence), I can understand your knee-jerk reaction to "absolve" Imam Ali (ra). However, it should not be done by employing weak and ridiculous premises to reject authentic reports and cast doubts on reliable narrators.

In fact, Imam Ali (ra) did nothing wrong; he was unaware that fire is a form of punishment reserved for the Hereafter. A variant report alludes to his acknowledgment of the error in judgment which absolves him from any wrong-doing."

[Rationalist]

Ikrimah is also the main narrator for Khutbah Shiqshiqyah.

[MuslimK]

Walaikum salam,

Why would he, as a Sunni, use the terms "fulan and fulan"? Because he was talking inside a Shia Mosque? Shameful thing to do.

What is his name? You can PM me if you don't want to mention it in public.

[muslim720]

Ikrimah is also the main narrator for Khutbah Shiqshiqyah.

Thanks to brother Noor-us-Sunnah, I will use that point against him when we sit down to discuss face-to-face.

Walaikum salam,

Why would he, as a Sunni, use the terms "fulan and fulan"? Because he was talking inside a Shia Mosque? Shameful thing to do.

What is his name? You can PM me if you don't want to mention it in public.

Well, he claimed to be upon the Sunnah but his recent FB profile changes state that he is "non-sectarian, Husayni..." among other things. 

And yes, it pissed him off when I told him that he caters to his audience.  In other words, when he was in a Shi'i mosque (giving khutbah), he referred to Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra) as "fulan and fulan" and on another occasion claimed that the birth of Imam Ali (ra) in Ka'aba is mutawatir.  I did not care it got him riled up; I wanted a chance to speak to him in person.

The issue is that although he is younger than me, we are still contemporaries and I want to expose his Shi'i tendencies as much as possible so that he is not accepted as a mainstream student of religion, soon to be scholar, in the mosques in DC Metropolitan Area.  That would spell disaster for our future generation.