Appointment of Ali article

[Shia786]

Asalaam Alaykum.

The twelvershia website has written an article in which the writer wrote:

"In order to know this we refer to the books of the Shia and turn our attention to a book that specializes in this matter, Al-Khazzaz al-Qummi (d.400 AH) wrote a book called “Kifayat al-Athar” in order to prove the legitimacy of the leadership of the 12 men..."

Yes Abu al-Qasim, Al-Khazzaz al-Qummi wrote a book to prove the legitimate right of the twelve Imams.

The author of the article, the appointment of Ali,  has recorded some narrations (apart from many other that exist in the collection) for the readers to see...

With multiple reports at hand, is it right to reject them on the basis of mere speculation alone?

In his other article, the author has rejected some reports from the companions such as, Umar and Abu Huraira, by claiming that the enemies could not have narrated reports in favour of the leadership of the twelve Imams...

Again, it is an unjust reason to deny something so heavily reported.

Has he not ever come across incidents where the enemies have spoken the truth in the favour of their opponents?

Can we have some VALID reasons to deny such reports. Thanks!

[Hani]

Wa Alaykum Al Salam,


We reject them for the following reasons:


A- They're not heavily recorded, its only Al Khazzaz reporting in his book. He is ONE man.


B- This ONE man isn't quoting sources that anyone is familiar with. Where'd he get most of them from? What books? Where are these books today?


C- These reports are mainly Qummi narrations from Kufi personalities. If this was true Islam why isn't it more global? Where are the narrations of Madinah, Makkah, Misr, Habashah, Sham, Maru etc...? Only Qum from Kufah?


D- The miltitude of chains does not mean authenticity, Shia books contain hundreds of exaggerations and fabrications. The multitude of chains in your books about the corruption of the Qur'an for example? Or the Mutawatir narration of Ali announcing the superiority of Shaykhayn in our books, do you accept them? They're Mutawatir.


E- People of Kufah were Ali's political party, why would I take their biased opinions?


F- Shia history and narrations prove that neither number or names were known among even the closest Companions of the Imams or Shia community generally. This conflicts with the book's contents.


G- A good number of Khazzaz's narrations are clear lies. Either there's conflict between them or the story makes no sense such as Umar or other so called Nawasib announcing the virtues/identity of Imams.


H- Shia books contain statements by Shia Imams claiming many of their Shia are unreliable or outright liars who inserted hundreds of fabrications into the books. How do I know these aren't fabrications?


I- Khazzaz is a 5th century scholar, this is very late. I can get Mutawatir reports on the virtues of the Shaykhayn from much earlier sources which would conflict with this belief. Why would I choose the late source over much earlier sources!?


G- The scholars of Hadith have criticized the narration of Koufans generally, they are most unreliable in the art of narrating. Why would I rely on their narrations then?

K- Who's al-Khazzaz himself anyway? The man is barely known in scholarly circles. How many scholars certified and authenticated him other than Najashi? Najashi himself is a nobody.

More later

[Shia786]

I'll touch upon what is relevant.

A- They're not heavily recorded, its only Al Khazzaz reporting in his book. He is ONE man.

There are SINGLED chained reports in major sunni collections. So to argue about SINGULARITY is pretty naive.

C- These reports are mainly Qummi narrations from Kufi personalities...

The Qummis were strict against the spread of lies and fabrications. If some kufians were making them up, then they would have been told to leave Qum.

D- The miltitude of chains does not mean authenticity...

I was referring to the collective leadership of the Imams.

E- People of Kufah were Ali's political party, why would I take their biased opinions?

That can only be considered if the followers of Ali were liars. Well  that was not the case with all of them. That's why we have to investigate the news of all narrators.

I can use the same argument against the followers of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Muawiyah.

F- Shia history and narrations prove that neither number or names were known among even the closest Companions of the Imams or Shia community generally. This conflicts with the book's contents.

The number 12 was known. The issue is with some unknown persons. The reason being ilm al-Rijal developed slowly in the Shia gatherings.

G- A good number of Khazzaz's narrations are clear lies. Either there's conflict between them or the story makes no sense such as Umar or other so called Nawasib announcing the virtues/identity of Imams.

I have answered that. You are repeating the same answer. Not valid.

K- Who's al-Khazzaz himself anyway? The man is barely known in scholarly circles. How many scholars certified and authenticated him other than Najashi? Najashi himself is a nobody.

Najashi is not nobody. His professors were people like Shaykh Saduq, Mufid, al-Ja'zairi, etc. No one criticised him. Yes, he may not have praise from the early scholars, but they didn't criticise him.

The shia were more concerned with criticism than praise. If they found a defect they would mention it. That is because calling someone a thiqa is just an opinion and a weakening has a specific reason behind it.

But like I said, ilm al-rijal was a slow process within shiaism.

[Hadrami]

The number 12 was known. The issue is with some unknown persons. The reason being ilm al-Rijal developed slowly in the Shia gatherings.

How can no 12 was known when even the majority of shia scholars & imam companions did not even know who is the next imam? Early shia heavyweight were ignorant compare to centuries later shia?

6. Ja’far al-Sadiq is Mahdi

    “Ja’far bin Muhammad did not die and he will not die until he revolts and rule the people and he is al-Mahdi….”

    [Ja’far al-Sadiq is Mahdi, however after his death the majority of Shia's scholars & respected figures believed in Abdullah, not Musa al-Kadhim as the next imam. After Abdullah died, they then followed Musa al-Kazim. Whatever happened to the so called hadith which mentioned all the 12 imam by names, did those shia scholars could not tell the difference between the name Abdullah & Musa?]

http://forum.twelvershia.net/imamah-ghaybah/the-confusing-history-of-shia-imamate-and-mahdi/

[Hani]

Here,

There are SINGLED chained reports in major sunni collections. So to argue about SINGULARITY is pretty naive.

Singularity or not, you said heavily reported, I said ONE author. So all those chains are filtering to ONE individual, therefore they aren't heavy but rather light.


I can get tons of chains praising Abu Bakr for instance, from tons of early books. Not ONE book like Mr.Khazzaz.

The Qummis were strict against the spread of lies and fabrications. If some kufians were making them up, then they would have been told to leave Qum.

Says who? The Qummies? How do those Qummies even know what's a lie and what isn't? They're non-Arab foreigners living thousands of miles away from Kufah; many years after Ja`far al-Sadiq and the Shia sects narrated what they narrated.


Secondly, how do we reconcile this with the great amount of Shia narrations that are clear lies and fabrications (acc to your own scholars), narrations of Tahreef, narrations of extreme Ghuluw, narrations with clear contradictions in their texts and lastly the great amount of narrations the Qummies reported from people who are Majaheel (unknown) with no biographies or mention anywhere as well as narrators that are famously known as liars such as Sayyari and his likes (all of which are included in Qummi books).

I was referring to the collective leadership of the Imams.

You're saying the narrations of the Imamah of the Imams should be accepted due to the big number of chains, this is what you wrote: "With multiple reports at hand, is it right to reject them."


I responded by saying, that there are many aspects of religion with multiple reports which you wouldn't accept whether in jurisprudence or theology. Heck, even Zaydis, Isma`ilis and the like reported numerous reports which you'd never accept and they're Shia. `Alawis have a ton of Batini esoteric books where they report calamities and attribute them to Ahlul-Bayt, I'm sure you'll never accept them due to their multitude of chains.

That can only be considered if the followers of Ali were liars. Well  that was not the case with all of them. That's why we have to investigate the news of all narrators.


I can use the same argument against the followers of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Muawiyah.

Some of the ones who call themselves `Ali's Shia are most certainly liars, they fabricated exaggerations and went to extremes. We believe A LOT of what is in your books comes from the path of such people, since it conflicts with what the rest of the nation reported so the situation is as clear as can be.


It was historically reported by the scholars of the nation as well as Shia scholars that `Ali's political party contained a ton of extremists, liars, deviants and `Ali himself OFTEN complained about them. `Ali's household and descendants often complained about lies attributed to them by these "Shia", we can't find any evidence of this when it comes to Abu Bakr's followers or `Umar's, in fact we can easily get praise for these individuals from those who aren't of their political party. Secondly, Abu Bakr and `Umar never had extremist "Shia" or specific political party, they were simply followed by the nation as a whole, I don't find in any book of history or biography that so & so was from "The Shia of Abu Bakr" or that someone said "I am from Abu Bakr's Shia". We can find mention of Mu`awiyah's Shia and how they'd side with him unconditionally, I wouldn't trust them about Mu`awiyah's virtues (because they fabricated a bunch).


To me it's like taking a Trump supporter's testimony about Trump, I'm not so dumb that I'd accept it.

The number 12 was known. The issue is with some unknown persons. The reason being ilm al-Rijal developed slowly in the Shia gatherings.

Rather it was unknown, the followers of the Imams as well as the Imams themselves would often talk about their savior as if they had no clue he'd be the 12th.


Review our two brief articles here to see why neither name or number were known:
Understanding Imamate in the Early Shia Society
Identifying the Infallible Imam


Although brief, they get the point across, one shows that even the most knowledgeable of Shia had no clue regarding names/numbers. The other shows that companions of Imams were simply given "signs" to identify the following Imam. There's also a ton of texts about confusion, Bada', Imams congratulating other Imams upon being chosen (as if they weren't previously chosen) etc...

I have answered that. You are repeating the same answer. Not valid.

Your answer is that the enemies of Ahlul-Bayt and their haters, "sometimes" happen to praise and announce their divine leadership. Okay, if you're convinced then it's up to you. FYI, there're narrations "Sahih" according to you Hadith standards, by certain Waqifi or Fatahi narrators announcing the Imamah of Imams they never even believed in as Waqifah or Fatahiyyah, this I guess is also a coincidence?


How about contradictions of a lovelier nature?


I'll give you brief samples from a quick browse in the book:



قال علي عليه السلام: كنت عند النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم في بيت أم سلمة إذ دخل علينا جماعة من أصحابه منهم سلمان وأبو ذر والمقداد وعبد الرحمن بن عوف، فقال سلمان: يا رسول الله إن لكل نبي وصيا وسبطين فمن وصيك وسبطيك...أنا أدفعها إلى علي. فقال: يا رسول الله فهل بينهم أنبياء وأوصياء أخر؟ قال: نعم أكثر من أن تحصى. ثم قال عليه السلام: وأنا أدفعها إليك يا علي، وأنت تدفعها إلى ابنك الحسن، والحسن يدفعها إلى أخيه الحسين إلخ إلخ


In this one, `Ali narrates that him, Salman, abu Dharr, Miqdad and Ibn `Awf were gathered with the Prophet (saw) in Umm Salamah's house. Salman asks "Every Prophet has a Wasi and Sibtayn, who is your Wasi and your Sibtayn?" Then the Prophet (saw) mentions to them the names of all twelve Imams.


عن سلمان الفارسي رضي الله عنه قال: خطبنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم فقال: معاشر الناس إني راحل...فلما نزل عن المنبر صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم تبعته حتى دخل بيت عائشة...إنهم هم الأوصياء والخلفاء بعدي، أئمة أبرار، عدد أسباط يعقوب وحواري عيسى. قلت: فسمهم لي يا رسول الله؟ قال: أولهم علي بن أبي طالب الخ


In this one, Salman said the Prophet (saw) was giving a public speech outdoors, he then retired to `A'ishah's house. Salman followed him inside asking him to name the twelve Imams for him. As if he forgot?


علي عليه السلام قال: دخلت على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم في بيت أم سلمة وقد نزلت هذه الآية " إنما يريد الله ليذهب عنكم الرجس أهل البيت ويطهركم تطهيرا " فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم: يا علي هذه الآية نزلت فيك وفي سبطي والأئمة من ولدك. فقلت: يا رسول الله وكم الأئمة بعدك؟ قال: أنت يا علي، ثم ابناك الحسن والحسين، وبعد الحسين علي ابنه إلخ


In this one, `Ali says that the verse of purification was revealed while he was sitting with the Prophet (saw). He (saw) declares that this was about `Ali and the Imams from his progeny. `Ali proceeds to ask about the identity and names of these Imams as if the above never happened.



قال أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام: سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم يقول: قال الله تبارك وتعالى: لأعذبن كل رعية دانت بطاعة إمام ليس مني وإن كانت الرعية في نفسها برة يا رسول الله فكم يكون بعدي من الأئمة؟ قال: بعد الحسين تسعة والتاسع قائمهم


In this one, `Ali hears the Prophet (saw) mentioning a Hadith-Qudsi about punishing any nation who follows a non-divine Imam even if they were pious. Upon hearing this, `Ali proceeds to ask about the number of Imams again. (Maybe forgetful?)


قال أبو ذر الغفاري رحمة الله عليه: دخلت على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم في مرضه الذي توفي فيه، فقال: يا أبا ذر ايتني بابنتي فاطمة ... قلت: يا رسول الله فكم الأئمة بعدك؟ قال: عدد نقباء بني إسرائيل


Abu Dharr from the first narration makes a comeback! During the prophet's (saw) last sickness, he enters on him to ask "O Messenger of Allah, how many Imams are after you?" Yes, these people are thick... you need to repeat the same thing over and over.




قال النبي " ص ": لما عرج بي إلى السماء نظرت إلى ساق العرش فإذا فيه  مكتوب " لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله أيدته بعلي ونصرته بعلي "، ورأيت أثني عشر نورا فقلت: يا رب أنوار من هذه؟ فنوديت: يا محمد هذه أنوار الأئمة من ذريتك قلت: يا رسول الله أفلا تسميهم لي؟ قال: نعم أنت الإمام والخليفة بعدي


But wait, right after the Miraj event, the Prophet (saw) describes to `Ali what he saw in the heavens and how God revealed to him the identity of the Imams, so `Ali asks: "O Rasul-Allah, won't you name them for me?"


And so on and so forth, which implies that people were lying to invent these stories.

Najashi is not nobody. His professors were people like Shaykh Saduq, Mufid, al-Ja'zairi, etc. No one criticised him. Yes, he may not have praise from the early scholars, but they didn't criticise him.

I'm sorry, but in matters of extreme importance in religion, Najashi not being praised the slightest or authenticated by the early scholars makes him a nobody. In fact his own works attest to him being a nobody, have you seen the books he authored? Nothing of any importance really except that robotic binary phone book he calls a Rijali book. Then we move on to Khazzaz who is a nobody that's praised by another nobody. Why in the world am I trusting my after-life and eternity to these folks!?


I'm not talking about the "science" of Rijal here, I'm talking about the fact that these Rijal themselves are not reliable enough to trust your Akhirah.

[Shia786]

Two main issues:

Why did the Sahabah repeat the question of twelve Imams...

You can't trust men who are unknown...

First issue. Imamah was a serious issue. The sincere companions had clicked on what was to take place later on. The repeating of question, does not always imply ignorance. At times, it was remind or to establish a hujjah upon someone who was not available in the former gathering, etc.

Second issue:

If you are really going to play the majhool card, then be prepared to leave many hadith collections and sahabah.

Lets start with the collections first.

Can you show me an authentic chain going back to Sahih al-Bukhari? What if I claim, I don't believe that the present collection was the same one authored by Imam al-Bukhari?

Your best chain has some narrators missing. So due to some UNKNOWN narrators, how will you convince anyone with some wisdom that the sahih al-bukhari of today is the same as the one authored by the Imam?

Perhaps, I am unaware of a COMPLETE chain, which you maybe aware of.

You responses may take me to where I want you to go. Unless you try to avoid the issue, for the reason that is obvious.

[Hani]

Two main issues:

Why did the Sahabah repeat the question of twelve Imams...

You can't trust men who are unknown...

First issue. Imamah was a serious issue. The sincere companions had clicked on what was to take place later on. The repeating of question, does not always imply ignorance. At times, it was remind or to establish a hujjah upon someone who was not available in the former gathering, etc.

Second issue:

If you are really going to play the majhool card, then be prepared to leave many hadith collections and sahabah.

Lets start with the collections first.

Can you show me an authentic chain going back to Sahih al-Bukhari? What if I claim, I don't believe that the present collection was the same one authored by Imam al-Bukhari?

Your best chain has some narrators missing. So due to some UNKNOWN narrators, how will you convince anyone with some wisdom that the sahih al-bukhari of today is the same as the one authored by the Imam?

Perhaps, I am unaware of a COMPLETE chain, which you maybe aware of.

You responses may take me to where I want you to go. Unless you try to avoid the issue, for the reason that is obvious.

Oh yes, if that were the case at least they could remember the number and the name of the direct successor. So they would have asked "Who are the Imams AFTER `Ali" or "After `Ali, Hasan and Husayn" since it's not possible for these popular narrators to have such a bad memory. Instead they ask the exact same question as if they've never asked it before. Besides, what kind of messenger doesn't repeat it enough for them that they forget and keep asking? This never happened with any other topic except this one? They only had bad memory when it comes to these Imams? (I thought at least `Ali would never forget acc to Twelvers)

Look, make up excuses is VERY easy, it takes a solid Madhab to make convincing claims. Unfortunately, Tashayyu` is no more than a bundle of excuses and unconvincing arguments.

Don't take my word for it, visit this topic I opened as a sample:
http://forum.twelvershia.net/general-sunni-vs-shia/a-religion-of-excuses-and-reactions/

Second issue,the Majaheel. Alright, I'll drop all Majhool Hadith collections and Majhool Sahabah, you realize we have near 2,000 printed Hadith books that even if Sahih Bukhari itself were to vanish it wouldn't affect mainstream Islam at all. On the other hand, if you guys were to lose al-Kafi you'd be in trouble.

That's the main difference between Twelverism and mainstream Islam, you guys are literally reliant on certain authors and narrators. If let's say Ibrahim bin Hashim al-Qummi was deemed weak, you'd lose a LOT of rulings and guidance. However, let's say Ahlul-Sunnah decide to discard aba Hurayrah, we'd still have all our rulings and guidance intact since they're all narrated through other paths.

If you drop Najashi your entire miniature Hadith science collapses since Tusi recorded nothing in his books. If we drop Bukhari, nothing happens.

[Shia786]

Again you have spoken of bad memory. I gave you a reason as to why they could have repeated their questions...

As for the second issue, you are willing to drop the majhool collections and majhool sahabah and claim you have 2000 printed hadith books...

Seems you didn't see the real issue. Let me clarify. Your scholars have given Sahih al-Bukhari a status after the Quran. It is the most authentic Hadith collection and the best of them...

What!? Why is such a Hadith collection honoured so much when its reliability could be questioned? Its chain of transition contains majhool narrators. If it does, then why the double standards from the Sunni side, when accepting a majhool source and praising it so much?

You have the nerve the discredit the shia majhool authorities, yet you credit a complete majhool source!

Ok, you have 2000 Hadiths, how does that help the majhool sahabah?

How many Sahabah can you count that have clear tawtheeq?

Double standards?

[Hani]

You're jumping around, FYI everything you're claiming can be refuted without issue, I just don't want to dive into other topics. I'm just going with the flow and accepting your argument AS IS. So let's say we drop Sahih Bukhari, absolutely nothing will happen to our faith or Madhahib. I'm telling you've no clue what you're getting yourself into here, because when you guys drop your Majaheel and weak ones (starting with Ibrahim bin Hashim) you'll lose A LOT.

As for your arguments, they're no convincing. If it was once, maybe twice we can accept the excuse. However, it's a trend and that cannot be overlooked and it's all over the books.

 أبي عبد الله جعفر بن محمد، عن أبيه، عن آبائه، قال : لما مرض النبي مرضه الذي قبضه الله فيه اجتمع عليه أهل بيته وأصحابه، وقالوا: يا رسول الله، إن حدث بك حدث فمن لنا بعدك؟ ومن القائم فينا بأمرك؟

In al-Amali, from al-Sadiq from his fathers: When the Prophet (saw) got sick in his final sickness, his household and companions gathered around him and asked: "O Messenger of Allah, if something were to happen to you, then who do we follow as leader afterwards?"

Look bro, we're not so gullible and naive to be fooled by some lame medieval foreigners. We know for a fact these are all fabrications, it's clear. However, you wish to make excuses? Great, good for you because I've seen Christians make excuses they're not polytheists and  I've seen Hindus and others make a ton of excuses as to why certain beliefs don't make sense. Excuses are easy, but those that are guided and honest WILL NEVER be on the wrong path.

[Shia786]

Bro, praise should not be the only condition for a hadith narrator to be accepted. You guys have accepted many sahabah when we do not have clear praise for them...

You mentioned Ibrahim bin Hashim. He has narrated so many Hadith and had he been a liar then the Qummis would have objected and exposed him...Their silence against him is evidence of his reliability. A praise from a person, is not equivalent to the silence and non-objections of the Qummis.

How many "actual" lies have you discovered from him? How many deceptive words have you extracted from him? He has narrated thousands of Hadith, like Abu Hurayrah. On the basis of content, one could tell if one was a liar or not.

Sahabah like Abu Huraira are targeted for narrating dishonest words. See my reply to Muslim Khurasani's post, which I'll be giving shortly. See if you can really weaken him, like I'll weaken Abu Huraira.

[Hani]

Bro, praise should not be the only condition for a hadith narrator to be accepted. You guys have accepted many sahabah when we do not have clear praise for them...

You mentioned Ibrahim bin Hashim. He has narrated so many Hadith and had he been a liar then the Qummis would have objected and exposed him...Their silence against him is evidence of his reliability. A praise from a person, is not equivalent to the silence and non-objections of the Qummis.

How many "actual" lies have you discovered from him? How many deceptive words have you extracted from him? He has narrated thousands of Hadith, like Abu Hurayrah. On the basis of content, one could tell if one was a liar or not.

Sahabah like Abu Huraira are targeted for narrating dishonest words. See my reply to Muslim Khurasani's post, which I'll be giving shortly. See if you can really weaken him, like I'll weaken Abu Huraira.

Okay then, I wanted to keep this simple but if you wish to make it complicated what we can do is put all the above on the table and make this thread an open discussion on EVERY single thing you mentioned before.

We will prove to you that:

A- Aba Hurayrah has sufficient praise and is a reliable narrator.
B- Ibrahim bin Hashim doesn't have sufficient praise and thus isn't a reliable narrator.
C- Ibrahim bin Hashim DOES narrate ridiculous stories.
D- Ibrahim bin Hashim DOES narrate a great amount of narrations that is in the THOUSANDS.
And all that entails...

According to al-Khu'i in al-Mu`jam `Ali bin Ibrahim narrates more than 7 Thousand narrations ALONE, more than 6 Thousand of these narrations are by his father Ibrahim bin Hashim.

Al-Helli, says in al-Khulasah that:

لم أقف لاحد من أصحابنا على قول في القدح فيه، ولا على تعديل بالتنصيص

[I could not find a text from any of our companions either criticizing or authenticating him]

Great now we have a guy, heavily quoted in your books YET we've no clue as to whether he was reliable, unreliable, liar, fabricator etc...?

Now you argue, that Qummi folks were strict in their narrations. They narrated from this guy therefore he's reliable by default right?

(Note: How would they even know he's lying when he's the first to spread the Hadith of Kufans in the foreign land of Qum should be looked into, big chance they won't even be able to tell.)

We'll be discussing this argument of yours when I have time to see if it is a reliable system.

[Farid]

@Shia786:

Lucky for you I actually studied this book before.

Even if we assume that Al-Khazzaz is reliable, we have another problem. He has 187 hadiths in his book. 49 are by Mohammad bin Abdullah Al-Shaybani Abu Al-Mufadhal, 38 by Ali bin Al-Hasan bin Mohammad bin Mandah, 26 by Ibn Babawayh*, and 14 by Al-Hussain bin Mohammad bin Sa'eed bin Ali Al-Khuza'ee.

In other words, the four biggest teachers of Al-Khazzaz are either unknown or weak, and their narrations make up two-thirds of the book. Feel free to provide the reliability of the other narrators. Together, we can look at their narrations to see if anything holds up.


* I do hold the view that Al-Saduq manipulated narrations. Though, perhaps that is another topic for another time. 

[Abu Muhammad]

Second issue:

If you are really going to play the majhool card, then be prepared to leave many hadith collections and sahabah.

Lets start with the collections first.

Can you show me an authentic chain going back to Sahih al-Bukhari? What if I claim, I don't believe that the present collection was the same one authored by Imam al-Bukhari?

Your best chain has some narrators missing. So due to some UNKNOWN narrators, how will you convince anyone with some wisdom that the sahih al-bukhari of today is the same as the one authored by the Imam?

Perhaps, I am unaware of a COMPLETE chain, which you maybe aware of.

You might want to read this...

https://islamqa.info/en/193912

[zaid_ibn_ali]

Second issue:

If you are really going to play the majhool card, then be prepared to leave many hadith collections and sahabah.

Lets start with the collections first.

Can you show me an authentic chain going back to Sahih al-Bukhari? What if I claim, I don't believe that the present collection was the same one authored by Imam al-Bukhari?

Your best chain has some narrators missing. So due to some UNKNOWN narrators, how will you convince anyone with some wisdom that the sahih al-bukhari of today is the same as the one authored by the Imam?

Perhaps, I am unaware of a COMPLETE chain, which you maybe aware of.

You might want to read this...

https://islamqa.info/en/193912

Looking forward to shia786 reply to this😁

[Shia786]

Hani, Farid, MuslimK, you know I cannot deal with so many issues at one time. We have to discuss them one by one. Thank you all for replying, but lets take this slowly and in stages.

Hani, I am ok with your A to D steps. So let's begin with the following:

A- Aba Hurayrah has sufficient praise and is a reliable narrator.

Then we will discuss Ibrahim bin Hashim and the following steps, InshaAllah.

I'll wait for your reply to show me sufficient praise (tawtheeq) for Abu Huraira, as you wanted to see for Ibrahim bin Hashim.

[Hani]

Salam,

I agree with the brother, let's just go step by step. Let me kick it off with the Tawtheeq of aba Hurayrah.

ابن عمر: أنت أعلمنا يا أبا هريرة برسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وأحفظنا لحديثه

`Abdullah Ibn `Umar the renowned scholar and young companion said: "O’ Abu Huraira, from amongst us you used to attach yourself to the Messenger of Allah – peace be upon him – the most, and were the best memorizer of his Hadith." (Al-Tirmithi #3771)

دعا أبو هريرة ، فقال : اللهم ، إني أسألك ما سألك صاحباي هذان ، وأسألك علما لا ينسى. فقال النبي ، صلى الله عليه وسلم : آمين . فقلنا : يا رسول الله ، ونحن نسأل الله علما لا ينسى! قال : سبقكما الغلام الدوسي

Zaid bin Thabit the compiler of the Qur'an and popular companion narrated that the Prophet – peace be upon him – affirmed a supplication by Abi Huraira in which he asks for his knowledge and memory to be strengthened. (Tareekh Dimashq: Abu Huraira #187.)

أبي صالح ، قال : كان أبو هريرة من أحفظ الصحابة

The great Tabi`i scholar Abu Salih al-Samman said: Abu Huraira was one of the best companions at memorizing the Hadiths of the Messenger – peace be upon him – . (Mustadrak Al-Hakim #6161.)

These are three folks (there are others) who lived in the time of aba Hurayrah, praising his knowledge and Hadith.

Now before anybody discusses these, I want to hear a few authentications for Ibrahim bin Hashim al-Qummi from his contemporaries, teachers and most importantly the scholars of Ahlul-Bayt.

Afterwards, we will discuss aba Hurayrah and Ibrahim's authentications. For now let's just see some samples.

[Shia786]

Wa alaikum salaam.

Sorry we will come to step B, once we have dealt with step A.

The tawtheeq that you have provided for Abu Huraira is based upon two things: "Memory" and "knowledge".

We know and it is not always the case that a  person with ilm and good memory will be trustworthy or reliable. Knowledge and memory do not equate to trustworthiness or reliability, although I can accept having a good memory is a bonus for the Hadith narrator.

Many Sufis and Shias have a good command of knowledge and memory skills, yet their opponents do not rely upon them. We also accept that some Salafis and Wahabis have good knowledge and memory, yet their reliability is dismissed by the Shias and Sufis.

Based upon these facts, Abu Huraira's reliability has not been proven yet. Please provide further clear examples of his tawtheeq or agree with us that his reliability stems from his narrations, not from UNCLEAR  praise.

Besides, we have narrations that go against his memory and reliability. However, we will stick to his praise issue for the moment.

[Hani]

I have a few comments:

A- Your inexperience in the field makes you think that words like "Thiqah", "Saduq" & "Da`if" must be used to authenticate aba Hurayrah. However, these are technical terminologies that were developed decades later. You won't find the Prophet (saw) for instance saying "Fulan is Thiqah" or Ibn `Abbas saying: "Fulan is Hasan-ul-Hadith". However, they'll say things that imply reliability or weakness.

B- It's absolutely not true that Muslim scholars never relied on people from the Sufi orders or Shia party. In our books you'll find plenty of narrators who are Shia or Sufi and deemed Thiqah/Saduq/Maqbul etc... Scholars usually ignore the innovations and rely on truthfulness.

C- When scholars praise a narrator's memory, they mean that he narrates as he hears without adding or subtracting. If a narrator is making stuff up and lying rarely would anyone bother praising his memory since that becomes irrelevant. Similarly, describing a narrator as having good memory as well as good knowledge means that narrator doesn't just repeat like a Musnid, he is a Muhaddith who understands what he narrates and has Fiqh.

Let me add a few then either-way,

جرير عن الأعمش عن أبي وائل عن حذيفة رضي الله عنه قال: قال رجل لابن عمر: إن أبا هريرة يكثر الحديث عن رسول الله صلى اله عليه وسلم فقال ابن عمر: أعيذك بالله أن تكون في شك مما يجيء به

Hudhayfah narrates that he and Ibn `Umar were sitting when a man came and said: "Aba Hurayrah is narrating a lot" so Ibn `Umar replied: "Seek refuge in Allah! Do not be in doubt from what he says." (Mustadrak al-Hakim 3:510)

I say: This is clear authentication and a declaration of reliability. Ibn `Umar says that if you even have the slightest doubt from what aba Hurayrah says you should seek refuge in Allah.

عن أشعث بن أبي الشعثاء ، قال : سمعت أبي يحدث ، قال : قدمت المدينة ، فإذا أبو أيوب يحدث عن أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه ، فقلت : تحدث عن أبي هريرة ، وأنت صاحب منزلة عند رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم . فقال : لأن أحدث عن أبي هريرة أحب إلي من أن أحدث عن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم

Aba al-Sha`tha' said he saw Abu Ayyub al-Ansari the great Companion narrating from abu Hurayrah in al-Madinah, so he asked: "You're narrating from abu Hurayrah while you possess such a high status in the eye of Rasul-Allah (saw)!?" Aba Ayyub said: "Narrating from aba Hurayrah is more beloved to me than narrating what I heard directly from the Messenger (saw)."

I say: Abu Ayyub says that he'd rather trust what aba Hurayrah is narrating from the Messenger (saw) than relying on what he himself heard from the Messenger (saw) back when he was alive. This is due to aba Hurayrah's reliability and solid memory.

Now I want to move to those narrations above that you claimed are not evidence of the man's reliability.

Firstly, the narration of Ibn `Umar where he says aba Hurayrah was the one to stick the most to the Messenger (saw) out of all Companions and knew most about his narrations. This has a context in which aba Hurayrah narrated a Hadith that Ibn `Umar never recognized:

 فأخذ بيده فذهب به إلى عائشة ، فقال : أخبريه كيف سمعتِ رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - يقول ، فصدَّقَت أبا هريرة

So aba Hurayrah grabbed his hand and took him all the way to `A'ishah's house who confirmed that what aba Hurayrah narrated was truth. This entire report is a testimony to the man's reliability.

Secondly, the narration from Zayd bin Thabit, this also has a context. A man had come to Zayd asking for a religious verdict.

أن رجلا جاء إلى زيد بن ثابت ، فسأله عن شيء ، فقال : عليك بأبي هريرة

Zayd told the man: "You must seek abu Hurayrah." This is evidence that aba Hurayrah was trusted and Zayd recommended the man to take his knowledge specifically from him. Then Zayd narrates the story of how the Messenger (saw) supplicated to aba Hurayrah for God to strengthen his knowledge and memory. How dare you even doubt a man whom the Prophet (saw) supplicated God for to be blessed in his knowledge and memory for the nation to benefit!? Forget about Ibrahim bin Hashim, even the top scholars in your books don't have such a great form of Tawthiq! This is as good as it gets generally, or is the word "Thiqah" by some late scholar like Tusi or Najashi more reliable for you!? Heck Tusi just throws the word "Thiqah" at people he never even met and we've no clue WHERE he got this from!

Thirdly, when Imam abu Salih al-Samman says that Abu Hurayrah is from the best Companions in memorizing the Prophet's (saw) Hadith. When a scholar says this he means that they've studied and tested the man's narrations and compared them to other narrators to reach the conclusion that he has memorized them better than most others. If aba Hurayrah was adding, subtracting and messing things up let alone fabricating, the scholars would say "He's the one who memorized them the best" Keep in mind these scholars met hundreds of Companions and heard the same words from all.

So please, do not stall any further as I know you're stalling and I know why you're stalling, please bestow upon us the authentication of Ibrahim bin Hashim al-Qummi from his contemporaries, his teachers and the Imams of Ahlul-Bayt.

[Farid]

Jazak Allah khairan for your patience Hani.

The brother admitted that dhabt was established, but was suggesting that adala was not established. In other words, he was suggesting that Abu Huraira is Qaweeyun fil Hadith wa Majhool Al Adala, and therefore, unacceptable according to Sunni standards.

This suggestion would make a muhadith chuckle, since there is no such thing as the above, and Abu Huraira would be the first case to fit into this category.

[Shia786]

@ Farid

I spoke about knowledge and memory in a general sense. I haven't agreed that I believe in those narrations of his ilm and memory because they go against others.

@ Hani

"Your inexperience in the field makes you think that words like "Thiqah", "Saduq" & "Da`if...

Rather, I wanted something more specific, like the example you offered:

"...when a man came and said: "Aba Hurayrah is narrating a lot" so Ibn `Umar replied: "Seek refuge in Allah! Do not be in doubt from what he says..."

Being knowledgeable or having a good memory does not always equate to reliability. Like I have said, opponents of one another do not trust each other even with their good memories and knowledge. When I said, the Shia, I implied the Rafidah, whom the Wahabis don't trust and vice-versa.

Anyhow, let me give you an example. You must have come across the prayer of the Prophet (s) for Muawiyah :

‎اللهم علم معاوية الكتاب والحساب، وقه العذاب.

Assuming knowledge equates to reliability, then Muawiyah could be trusted with his words and deeds, but is that so?

A person who fought a legitimate government on false pretext, cannot be someone to be relied upon. There are various other reasons, as to why he cannot be relied upon even if had the knowledge. This is just to give you an example of insufficient/unclear tawtheeq.

Ok let's investigate  better tawtheeq for Abu Huraira:

Hudhayfah narrates that he and Ibn `Umar were sitting when a man came and said: "Aba Hurayrah is narrating a lot" so Ibn `Umar replied: "Seek refuge in Allah! Do not be in doubt from what he says." (Mustadrak al-Hakim 3:510)

Ibn ‘Umar's opinion does not carry much weight because people had a GOOD AND A VALID JUSTIFICATION TO DOUBT HIM.

Ibn ‘Umar wanted people to BLINDLY follow him, but people were WISE not to. So they SUSPECTED him as Abu Huraira himself narrated:

"...The people say that Abu Huraira narrates too many narrations. In fact Allah knows whether I SAY the TRUTH OR NOT..."

Here are a couple of reasons as to why they doubted HIS HONESTY AND INTEGRITY.

Narrated Abu Huraira:
"The Prophet (ﷺ) said, 'The best alms is that which is given when one is rich, and a giving hand is better than a taking one, and you should start first to support your dependents.' A wife says, 'You should either provide me with food or divorce me.' A slave says, 'Give me food and enjoy my service." A son says, "Give me food; to whom do you leave me?" The people said, "O Abu Huraira! Did you hear that from Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) ?" He said, "No, it is from my own self."

You can see Abu Huraira was narrating a Hadith WITHOUT DISTINGUISHING between the Prophet's words and his own words. His CONTINUOUS FLOW WAS MISLEADING.

People most likely were aware of the actual Hadith and questioned him. He must have realised that from their facial expressions and the question itself, so he was compelled to speak the truth.


His narration in Mustadrak:

‎دخلت على رقية بنت رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم امرأة عثمان و بيدها مشط فقالت

Narrated Abu Huraira: I entered upon Ruqayyah the daughter of the Prophet asws the wife of Uthman and in her hand was a comb...

Please explain the above report...

We also have this:

‎ حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، عَنْ عَمْرٍو، عَنْ يَحْيَى بْنِ جَعْدَةَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو الْقَارِيِّ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ أَبَا هُرَيْرَةَ، يَقُولُ: لَا وَرَبِّ هَذَا الْبَيْتِ مَا أَنَا قُلْتُ: ” مَنْ أَصْبَحَ جُنُبًا فَلَا يَصُومُ ” مُحَمَّدٌ وَرَبِّ الْبَيْتِ قَالَهُ، مَا أَنَا نَهَيْتُ عَنْ صِيَامِ يَوْمِ الْجُمُعَةِ، مُحَمَّدٌ نَهَى عَنْهُ وَرَبِّ الْبَيْتِ

Abu Hurairah swears by the Lord of the Kaba that the news (Hadith) was from the Prophet and not himself...

In another report, on the same issue when questioned (because of the suspicion) he admitted that he thought and assumed about it. So Marwan said to him, "you give verdicts to people on presumptions!"

However in another report when he was informed that the wives of the Prophet (s) contradicted his narrative, he stated that he had heard the news from Fadl bin Abbas.

Now you want ask, where's the problem? Let me explain:

- He swore by the Kaba (he was absolutely certain, as if he PERSONALLY heard it) that the Prophet (s) stated the Hadith he was narrating...

- When he was questioned about it, after the wives contradicted him, he said, I thought so or I presumed so...

- In another narration, he stated he got it from Fadl bin Abbas...

He contradicted himself THREE times!

First, he was absolutely certain that the Prophet said it...

Then he assumed. But when Marwan killed his integrity by saying, you give fatwas to people on assumptions, he realised his grave mistake and sought for a better explanation:

He named Fadl bin Abbas, an individual who was not around to bear witness. Very convenient!

His is what Abu Bakr al-Bazzar said:

‎ولا نعلم روى  أبو هريرة  ، عن  الفضل  إلا هذا الحديث

"We are not aware that Abu Huraira narrated from Fadl bin Abbas except this Hadith."

(Do you know of any report, where Fadhl bin Abbas had narrated that Hadith?

How many Hadith has Abu Huraira narrated from him?

Did the people ask Fadl bin Abbas if he was alive, or OTHERS like they did with various matters?

These questions may help his honesty.

Anyhow, there are more examples, but we will discuss these at the moment. These examples and others, all prove that there was a LEGITIMATE reason for the people to QUESTION AND DOUBT HIS INTEGRITY.