10 Reasons Why You Should Not Trust Shia Hadith Sources

[MuslimK]

http://www.twelvershia.net/2019/01/20/10-reasons-why-you-should-not-trust-shia-hadith-sources/

by Abu Al-Abbas Al-Shami

[Abu Muhammad]

http://www.twelvershia.net/2019/01/20/10-reasons-why-you-should-not-trust-shia-hadith-sources/

by Abu Al-Abbas Al-Shami

Great work indeed. I truly enjoyed reading it.

[iceman]

http://www.twelvershia.net/2019/01/20/10-reasons-why-you-should-not-trust-shia-hadith-sources/

by Abu Al-Abbas Al-Shami

That's all we seem to be getting. How about something like '10 reasons why you should trust Sunnis'. Or '10 questions for the Sunnis'.

Question, How do you people survive?
Answer, By undermining us.

[muslim720]

Question, How do you people survive?
Answer, By undermining us.

What a lie!  On two levels actually!  I remember reading in a source I cannot recall that when it comes to religions, minorities thrive on the orthodox position.  In other words, it is what I call a "parasitic" relationship in which the minority group survives off the orthodox sources.  Makes total sense; the Shias very conveniently (try to) use the Qur'an we preserved against us and they even copied our ahaadith sciences only to then (try to) undermine our ahaadith texts.

However, I have seen a more tangible example.  In every Shi'i mosque I have been to, there is this "but this is also in the books of Sunnis" attitude with some mosques actually having pamphlets explaining Shi'i beliefs and practices using only Sunni ahaadith.  While these narrations are weak or misrepresented, the process is very clear.  They (Shias) survive by undermining our sources, and by extension, they survive by undermining us.

On the flip side, I have never heard a single Sunni khutbah (and I have been to so many at various mosques, in different countries) mention any of the Shi'i texts, beliefs or practices, let alone criticize or mock them.

[Ridhwan]

That's all we seem to be getting. How about something like '10 reasons why you should trust Sunnis'. Or '10 questions for the Sunnis'.

Question, How do you people survive?
Answer, By undermining us.

Because Sunnis are the default Muslims. We follow the Book of Allah and Sunnah of His Prophet, sall Allahu 'alayhi wa 'alaa aly wassallam. This is a warning to others so that they do not fall into the deviation of this fabricated religion that is associated with the religion of Allah, subhaanahu wa ta'aalaa, Islam. This affair or ours is not a religion of arguments and debating; this pure, unadulterated message that we preach is meant for those whom are ignorant of the true Shi'a religion. You must understand the insignificance of the Shi'a. Do you think that you all have a role in our daily lives? That you all are constantly occupying our minds? What purpose are you fulfilling by being here? We have our religion and you have yours. So leave us alone

[iceman]

Because Sunnis are the default Muslims. We follow the Book of Allah and Sunnah of His Prophet, sall Allahu 'alayhi wa 'alaa aly wassallam. This is a warning to others so that they do not fall into the deviation of this fabricated religion that is associated with the religion of Allah, subhaanahu wa ta'aalaa, Islam. This affair or ours is not a religion of arguments and debating; this pure, unadulterated message that we preach is meant for those whom are ignorant of the true Shi'a religion. You must understand the insignificance of the Shi'a. Do you think that you all have a role in our daily lives? That you all are constantly occupying our minds? What purpose are you fulfilling by being here? We have our religion and you have yours. So leave us alone

"Because Sunnis are the default Muslims"

Could you elaborate on that so I can give you a better reply.

"We follow the Book of Allah and Sunnah of His Prophet, sall Allahu 'alayhi wa 'alaa aly wassallam"

And so do we. What makes you think you do and we don't? Care to explain that.

"This is a warning to others so that they do not fall into the deviation of this fabricated religion that is associated with the religion of Allah, subhaanahu wa ta'aalaa, Islam"

What makes you think this is a fabricated religion? Allah is our God, Muhammad s.a.w is our Messenger, Islam is our religion, Qur'an is our book and the Ka’bah is our Qibla. And I believe yours is the same. Is it not?

"this pure, unadulterated message that we preach is meant for those whom are ignorant of the true Shi'a religion"

What do you know about Shiaism apart from what you've been fed through gossip and rumours from the beginning. And that is how you've been raised by being brainwashed.

So get to know and learn first before sending the wrong message out to others. To start off with Shia is not a religion. That shows your ignorance and what little you know about us.

"Do you think that you all have a role in our daily lives?"

What I think is what I see, read and hear. And that is you've got nothing better to do with yourselves and your belief. Your kind live in fear of losing your grip on your belief if you don't continue with such propaganda.

"We have our religion and you have yours"

No. You have your sect and we have ours. We belong to and are part of the same religion. So get your head around the this first.

"So leave us alone"

Excuse me, we are the ones who are constantly poked by you.

[Ridhwan]

iceman, why are you a shi'i and not a sunni?

[iceman]

iceman, why are you a shi'i and not a sunni?

First of all I ain’t against Sunnis or the Ahle Sunnah. My relatives are Sunnis. Even some close relatives. And none of them and I mean none of them are in anyway like the Sunnis I've experienced here.

Secondly it's all about what is logical and makes sense. What adds up, fits in and seems normal. Everybody has a mindset because they're born in a family and raised in a community and that's where they are educated and nourished about their religion and belief.

Later on in life most people live according to that mindset. And what ever goes with that mindset they automatically accept and try to justify it. And what ever goes against that mindset they automatically reject and refute it.

Some people develope an open mind and want to know the other through learning and experience to see where they stand and what the other is all about. And this is me. All I've faced is sarcasm, insults, accusations, challenges, rude remarks, absurd comments and seen propaganda so far until and uptil now.

And if anyone thinks I want them to feel sorry for me then you're mistaken. There is nothing for anyone to feel sorry about. This is all part of learning and experience. And I do not believe, take and accept that this is what the Ahle Sunnah is all about and how every Sunni is. 

Will answer your question next.

[Qamar Farooq]

Leaving all kidding aside iceman, have you actually read the article? give us your honest opinion on the matter, what did you disagree with the article? where was the article wrong?

[iceman]

Leaving all kidding aside iceman, have you actually read the article? give us your honest opinion on the matter, what did you disagree with the article? where was the article wrong?

Here's my honest opinion. And I hope you're ready for it.

Note this;

"When evaluating primary historical sources, historians employ a rule known as the “Time and Place Rule”. This rule entails that historical sources that are closer in time and place to the event(s) they address are generally given precedence over later and more distant sources.

“The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what really happened.” (Faye 121)

The reasoning behind this is self-evident: later sources and accounts suffer from an increased risk of corruption in their respective content. This corruption may simply be the result of unintended errors that occurred during the process of transmission, and it may be the result of malicious tampering with the reports.

Sunni sources, in this aspect, are superior to Shi’i sources, since they are all much closer in time to the Prophet"

Take a close look at the above and note the following points;

"When evaluating primary historical sources, historians employ a rule known as the “Time and Place Rule”

Then note this;

"The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what really happened.”

Now note this;

"The reasoning behind this is self-evident: later sources and accounts suffer from an increased risk of corruption in their respective content"

In the end;

"Sunni sources, in this aspect, are superior to Shi’i sources, since they are all much closer in time to the Prophet"

Lets start off with the first bit;

We have Sehih Bukhari and Sehih Muslim

Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (Arabic: صحيح البخاري‎), also known as Bukhari Sharif (Arabic: بخاري شريف‎), is one of the Kutub al-Sittah (six major hadith collections) of Sunni Islam. These prophetic traditions, or hadith, were collected by the Muslim scholar Muhammad al-Bukhari, after being transmitted orally for generations. It was completed around 846 AD / 232 AH. Sunni Muslims view this as one of the two most trusted collections of hadith along with Sahih Muslim.

So when did the Prophet s.a.w die?
632 AD. And when was the Book sehih Bukhari completed? It was completed around 846 AD. So where does the "Time and Place Rule” go?

Or where does this go,

"The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what really happened.”

[iceman]

And what about Sehih Muslim,

"Sahih Muslim (Arabic: صحيح مسلم‎ , Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim; full title: Al-Musnadu Al-Sahihu bi Naklil Adli) is one of the Kutub al-Sittah (six major hadith collections) in Sunni Islam.[1] It is highly acclaimed by Sunni Muslims[2] as well as Zaidi Shia Muslims.[citation needed] It is considered the second most authentic hadith collection after Sahih al-Bukhari. It was collected by Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, also known as Imam Muslim.[3] Its authenticity has sometimes been questioned due to the fact that it was written over 250 years after the Islamic Prophet, Muhammed. Regardless of this, Sunni Muslims believe it to be genuine and authentic. Sahih Muslim, together with Sahih al-Bukhari is termed as Sahihayn.

Note this;

"Its authenticity has sometimes been questioned due to the fact that it was written over 250 years after the Islamic Prophet, Muhammed"

Then note this;

"Regardless of this, Sunni Muslims believe it to be genuine and authentic"

Why? Where have the facts along with "the time and place rule" gone here?

And where does this go;

"The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what really happened.”

This is exactly what puts me off when it comes to the Ahle Sunnah. Double standards, contradictory statements, difference in principle and practice etc.

[iceman]

http://www.twelvershia.net/2019/01/20/10-reasons-why-you-should-not-trust-shia-hadith-sources/

by Abu Al-Abbas Al-Shami

"Later Sunni hadith collections, such as the Musnad of Ahmed (d. 241), Musnad of Al-Darimi (d. 255), Sahih of Al-Bukhari (d. 256), Sahih of Muslim (d. 261), and Al-Sunan by Abu Dawud (d. 275) predate most of the earlier Shi’i collections"

When it comes to Hadiths what happened to these noble companions who were very honest and loyal to the Prophet s.a.w and who took authority straight after, why didn't they collect hadiths and put this at the top of their priority list? Why was it left so late and others took on the job which these companions disregarded and took no notice of?

"Note: The first two Shi’ite authors mentioned authored relatively small works that mostly consist of traditions from the Imams related to their virtues and their opinions. They do not contain much from the Prophet nor do they really present anything from the Prophet’s biography. Thus, they are somewhat irrelevant. However, we decided to list them here for the sake of fairness. Otherwise, the list should actually start with Muhammad b. Ya’qub Al-Kulayni (d. 329), author of Al-Kafi.

Notice this bit;

"However, we decided to list them here for the sake of fairness"

For the sake of fairness? For the sake of fairness Shias were persecuted from day one. Those who got into authority used their influence and power to have and get things there way. They also restricted and prohibited what ever went against them or who ever opposed them. So for the sake of fairness, be fair.

"3.The False Dichotomy of “Ahlulbait vs. Sahabah”

Never mind about Ahlulbait vs. Sahabah, it is absolutely clear that you've got Sahaba v Sahaba. The companions not only opposed each other but also fought battles. You're still living in this fantasy world that everything was Sugar, candy and honey. And you clearly know it wasn't.

[iceman]

"Since Shi’ite scholarship dismisses the reliability of the Sahabah as transmitters of hadith"

This is nonsense. We do not dismiss the reliability of the Sahaba when it comes to transmitting hadiths. It's only a handful of companions which we are extremely cautious and concerned about. And we have clear and genuine reasons for that.

"To a historian, this is a problem. Ja’far Al-Sadeq was but a later historical figure that lived around a hundred years after the Prophet’s death. His opinions and sayings are definitely not equal in weight to those of primary eye-witnesses who saw and experienced many of the major events from the Prophet’s life. This problem directly leads to another problem that faces Shi’ite sources…

Note this bit;

"Ja’far Al-Sadeq was but a later historical figure that lived around a hundred years after the Prophet’s death"

And;

"His opinions and sayings are definitely not equal in weight to those of primary eye-witnesses who saw and experienced many of the major events from the Prophet’s life"

Shouldn't this be said and apply to Imam Abu Hanifa as well who was a junior to Al Sadiq by the way. Forget about the other three Imams and their schools of thought who came much later. See the hypocritical stance here. This is exactly what I call double standards.

"Out of the Twelve Imams, only three could be considered eye-witnesses to certain events from the Seerah"

Ok, so where does this put your 4 Imams starting from Abu Hanifa? They were after Al Sadiq or from there onwards.

[iceman]

Leaving all kidding aside iceman, have you actually read the article? give us your honest opinion on the matter, what did you disagree with the article? where was the article wrong?

And very bias article.

"Indeed, this knowledge is religion, so be careful from whom you take your religion.”

Absolutely. The Sunnis need to take a very good look from whom they take it from. Never mind about this, that or the other, the Sahaba were from the Prophet’s saw time but couldn’t even agree between themselves. They turned towards bloodshed and killings.

[Rationalist]

"His opinions and sayings are definitely not equal in weight to those of primary eye-witnesses who saw and experienced
Shouldn't this be said and apply to Imam Abu Hanifa as well who was a junior to Al Sadiq by the way. Forget about the other three Imams and their schools of thought who came much later. See the hypocritical stance here. This is exactly what I call double standards.

"Out of the Twelve Imams, only three could be considered eye-witnesses to certain events from the Seerah"

Ok, so where does this put your 4 Imams starting from Abu Hanifa? They were after Al Sadiq or from there onwards.

Ahle hadith have rejected Abu Hanifa. Bukhari didnt like him, and Imam Ahmad's son cursed him. Abu Hanifa is given the status of being abandoned in hadith. Jafar bin Muhammad is graded to be Sadooq which is way higher.

On the other side Abu Hanifa didn't trust Abu Huraira either.

[iceman]

Ahle hadith have rejected Abu Hanifa. Bukhari didnt like him, and Imam Ahmad's son cursed him. Abu Hanifa is given the status of being abandoned in hadith. Jafar bin Muhammad is graded to be Sadooq which is way higher.

On the other side Abu Hanifa didn't trust Abu Huraira either.

Astonishing. Thanks for the info.