Ayatolla Mudarissi on the Mullah Sadra!
March 7, 2013 at 12:37 pm | Posted in On books and authors | Leave a comment
Rate This
Sayeed Muhammad Taqi al-Mudarissi said in his book “al-Erfaan al-Islami” (p 399) said:
‫الذي كان يسعى سعيا حثيثا من ) والعجيب من ( مال صدرا‬
‫ كيف‬, ‫نسب إلى هللا أجل تبطيق الشريعة على الحكمة‬
‫؟ اعتقد بأن يد هللا مغلولة من حيث ال يدري ؟ كيف العجز‬
‫وأن هللا سبحانه قد فرغ من االمر ؟ أولم يشعر أن مبنى‬
‫عقيدته – التي اتبع فيها أهواء الفالسفة السابقين – في قدم‬
‫ وبالتالي على‬, ‫ عدم قدر هللا على أي تغيير وتطوير‬, ‫االرادة‬
‫ وعلى جبرية الكون وما‬, ‫انعدام مسؤولية االنسان عن أفعاله‬
‫هـ‬.‫ أ‬.! ‫فيه وفيه اإلنسان‬
Translation:
and it is strange from (Mullah Sadra)…… how he (dare) TO ASCRIBE helplessness to Allah, by not
understanding it himself? How he (dare) to believe that hand of Allah is closen?
al-Bada’ and al-Saduq
December 27, 2012 at 3:19 am | Posted in On books and authors, Shia beliefs, Take a few minutes to think on this |
Leave a comment
1 Votes
al-Salamu `Aleykum,
Today we have something fun to play with
You all know the narrations that contain the ancient Shia belief of “al-Bada’”, for example:
‫ما بدا هلل في شيء كما بدا له في إسماعيل ابني‬
Imam al-Sadiq says: “It hasn’t appear to Allah in anything as it appeared to him in my son Isma`il.”
Meaning that it would appear to Allah that Isma`il was the next Imam, then after Isma`il died in his
father’s life, Allah (astaghfirullah) made the Imam his brother Musa instead, in other words he
changed his mind as if he apparently never knew that the first one was going to die.To make a long
story short, the Shia at the time fabricated these narrations as excuses to switch from following
one Imam to the next, and so that they wouldn’t appear as liars in front of their followers.
Now the Twelver Shia scholar al-Saduq does like this narration, so he refutes it in his book “Kamal
ul-Deen wa Tamam ul-Ni`mah” pg.69:
ّ ‫ وإنّما هذه حكاية‬، ً‫ما ذلك الخبر؟ ومن رواه؟ ومن تلقّاه بالقبول؟ فلم يجدوا إلى ذلك سبيال‬
‫ ليس لها أصل‬، ‫ولدها قوم قالوا بامامة إسماعيل‬
[What is this narration? who narrated it? who accepted it? they couldn't answer, this is only a story
made up by some folks who believed in the Imamah of Isma`il, it is baseless.]
Then he makes Takfir on those who believe in it by saying:
َّ ‫أن هللا‬
َّ ‫وعندنا من زعم‬
‫عز وج َّل يبدو له اليوم في شيء لم يعلمه أمس فهو كافر والبراءة منه واجبة‬
[We believe that whoever states that something can be revealed to Allah today that he didn't know
yesterday is a Kafir, and it is a duty to be free from him.]
Now we’ll reveal to him what he didn’t know, Bismillah:
– ‫ كنت عند أبي الحسن عليه السالم وقت وفاة ابنه أبي جعفر‬:‫ حدثني أبو هاشم داود بن القاسم الجعفري قال‬:‫رواه سعد بن ع بد هللا األشعري قال‬
:‫ فأقبل علي أبو الحسن عليه السالم فقال‬،‫ هذه قضية أبي إبراهيم وقضية إسماعيل‬:‫وقد كان أشار إليه ودل عليه – فإني الفكر في نفسي وأقول‬
‫ وهو‬،‫ كما بدا هلل في إسماعيل بعدما دل عليه أبو عبد هللا عليه السالم ونببه‬،‫نعم يا أ با هاشم بدا هلل تعالى في أبي جعفر وصير مكانه أبا محمد‬
‫ أبو محمد ابني الخلف من بعدي عنده ما تحتاجون إليه ومعه آلة اإلمامة والحمد هلل‬،‫كما حدثت به نفسك وإن كره المبطلون‬
Sa`d bin `Abdullah al-’Ash`ari said: abu Hashim Dawoud bin al-Qassim al-Ja`fari said: I was with
Imam abu al-Hassan (as) when his son abu Ja`far died -and he had pointed to him and appointed
him- So I started thinking to myself: “This is similar to the case of Imam abu Ibrahim (as) and
Isma`il.” so abu al-Hassan (as) came to me and said: “Yes O abu Hashim, it appeared to Allah in
abu Ja`far and he replaced him with abu Muhammad, it also appeared to Allah in Isma`il after his
father abu `Abdullah had pointed to him and appointed him, it is exactly as you thought to yourself
even if the haters will hate. abu Muhammad my son is my successor after me, he has what you need
and the Imamah praise be to Allah.”
Source: Ghaybat al-Tusi, page 200.
grading: SAHIH.
In other words, al-Saduq is clueless because this is an authentic Shia narration with a chain of
trustworthy Imami Shia, No Isma`ilis, No Zaydis.
Also it turns out this happened twice, not just with Isma`il and Musa, but it also happened with the
children of `Ali al-Hadi, Muhammad and Hasan.
al-Bada’ x 2
Salam `Aleykum,
Toose and Murtada denied ability (power) of Allah
July 19, 2012 at 5:38 pm | Posted in On books and authors, Shia beliefs | Leave a comment
2 Votes
Book: Nafi yamwul ashr fi sharhil babi hadi ashr of allama al-Hilli
Commentator: Faqih Miqdad as-Suyuri (died 826 h)
( 2 ) ‫ ] عن السيد المرتضى والشيخ الطوسي رضي هللا عنهما أنهما ممن نفى قدرة الباري تعالى قاال أنه خالف الحق وقولهما رحمهما‬. . . [ ‫حكي‬
‫ ) هللا بذلك عجيب ( شرح ط‬.
Translation:
It was narrated [......] from Sayyed al-Murtada and Shaykh at-Toose, may Allah be pleased with
them, that they denied (existence) of ability (power – qudrah) of al-Bariy at-Taala, they said this
contradicts to truth. And their saying of this, may Allah forgive them, is strange.
Note: Al-Bāriʾ is one of the name of Allah, see Quran 59:24
Majlisi: back to the future
June 6, 2012 at 4:46 pm | Posted in On books and authors | Leave a comment
Rate This
Majlisi in Biharul Anwar (1/66) wrote:
‫ عن أبي عبد هللا‬،‫ عن أبيه‬،‫ عن عبد هللا ابن أحمد بن حنبل‬،‫ عن القطيفي‬،‫ عن أبي عبد هللا الجوهري‬،‫ عن الفزاري‬:‫اسناد االبانة‬
‫محمد بن بطة العكبري‬.
The chain of Ibanah: From al-Fazaari from Abu Abdullah al-Jawhari from al-Qatiy from Abdullah ibn
Ahmad ibn Hanbal from father from Muhammad ibn Butah al-Ukbari
Imam Ahmad born 164 died 241.
His son Abdullah was born in 213 died in 290.
Imam ibn Butah was born in 304 died in 387
Shia SITE says in his commentary of the Holy Quran
May 22, 2012 at 9:50 pm | Posted in On books and authors | Leave a comment
Rate This
Shia SITE says in his commentary of the Holy Quran:
There are traditions which are quite unacceptable, such as that Ali ibne Ibrahim narrates through
his chain from Horrais from the Sixth Holy ‘main Jafar ibne Muhammad As-Sadiq that the Imam read
the last portion of the Sura-Fateha as follows: “Sirata man an’amta alaihim, Ghairil Maghzoobe
alaihim wa gahriz Zaalleen”, that is, he used the relative pronoun “Man” and, instead of “Ia”
before “Zaalleen”, he used “Ghair”. It is obvious that this imagined recitation does not differ from
the present recitation in substance, but it is so absurd that one can only ask why would some one
like Ali ibne Ibrahim relate such nonsense. The Fatehatul Kitab is a chapter recited by the
Muslims daily. There is no prayer without the recital of the Fatehatul Kitab, so it is impossible for
the correct version to escape the memory of any Muslim over the age of five years. If a Muslim
cannot retain one Sura of Fateha correctly, we have to read a Fateha on Islam! There is another
group of traditions in support of Tahreef indicating that the Qur’an contains different sections,
sections dealing with the Ahlul-Bait, their enemies, the exemplary events of old times, and the
laws and precepts of Islam It is obvious that these kinds of traditions have nothing to do with
Tahreef, ie.
Ihsai and Bahai on Ideas of Sh. Saduq
September 11, 2011 at 6:55 pm | Posted in On books and authors, So called "shia unity". | 2 Comments
4 Votes
We have once posted already proofs that sh. Saduq and his shaykh ibn Walid were on the opinion
that prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) could err.
Just to remind readers:
Ibn Babaweyh al-Qummi, sh. Saduq wrote in his book “Man la yahduruhul faqih” (1/360):
،‫ أول درجة في الغلو نفي السهو عن النبي صلى هللا عليه وهله‬:‫وكان شيخنا محمد بن الحسن بن أحمد بن الوليد رحمه هللا يقول‬
‫ولو جاز أن ترد االخبار الواردة في هذا المعنى لجاز أن ترد جميع االخبار وفي ردها إبطال الدين والشريعة‬.
“And our sheikh Muhammad ibn Al-Hasan ibn Ahmad ibn al-Walid (rahimuhullah)said:
“First level in quluw it’s denial of error from messenger (sallalahu alaihi wa ali), and if
it is permitted to deny narrations with that meaning, then it’s permitted to deny all
narrations, and in their denial is restriction (ibtal) of of religion and shariat”.
After he quoted words of his shaykh Saduq added:
‫وأنا أحتسب االجر في تصنيف كتاب منفرد في إثبات سهو النبي صلى هللا عليه وهله والرد على منكريه إن شاء هللا تعالى‬.
Rough translation: “And I hope to gain reward in compiliing book dedicated to proof
error of Nabi and refutation to those who reject that”.
At page 359 he said:
‫ لو جاز أن يسهو عليه السالم في الصالة لجاز أن‬:‫إن الغالة والمفوضة لعنهم هللا ينكرون سهو النبي صلى هللا عليه وهله ويقولون‬
‫يسهو في التبليغ‬
“Al-Qulat and al-mufaqida may Allah curse them, rejecting possibility of error from
Nabi, they say: If error in pray possible, then error in tablig also possible”
Let us see how two shia shaykhs reacted on this idea of Saduq.
Husayn Muhammad al-Mazlum in Shaykh al-Hasibi (see also Muqadimma Man la Yahduruhul Faqih
1/70) quoted from al-Hasan al-Musawi al-Horasani:
:‫ ونقل عن الشيخ أحمد االحسائي أنه قال‬.‫ الحمد هلل الذي قطع عمره ولم يوفقه لكتابة مثل ذلك‬:‫ونقل عن البهائي رحمه هللا أنه قال‬
‫الصدوق في هذه المسألة كذوب‬.
And narrated from al-Bahai (rahimahullah) that he said: Praise to Allah which cut his (Saduq’s) life
and he couldn’t write (book) like this (1). And narrated from Ahmad al-Ihsai: Saduq is liar in this
case”.
In “Khasais al-Fatimiyah” these quotes were narrated almost in the same form:
In the introduction to “Man la yahduruhul faqih” (1/70):
9/ ‫جواز السهو على النبي (ص) وسماه اسهاء من هللا تعالى تبع في رايه ذلك شيخه محمد بن الحسن بن الوليد وتبعه على‬
‫رأيه ذلك الشيخ الطبرسي في مجمع البيان كما نقل عنه التنكانبي في قبص العلماء والسيد الجزائري في االنوار النعمانية‬
‫وفخر الدين الطريحي في مجمع البيان مادة (بدا) والمحقق الفيض الكاشاني في الوافي على مايظهر من كالمه ونقل عن‬
‫ ( الحمد هلل الذي قطع عمره ولم يوفقه لكتابة مثل ذلك ) ونقل عن الشيخ أحمد االحسائي انه‬: ‫الشيخ البهائي رحمه هللا انه قال‬
. ‫ ( البدوق في هذه المسألة كذوب ) واليخلو قولهما من سوء ادب نربأ بامثالهما عن ذلك ونسأل هللا العبمة والتوفيق‬: ‫قال‬
‫هـ‬.‫ أ‬. .
(9) The permissibility of Sahu(forgetfulness) for the Prophet SAWS: From those who saw this are
Muhammad bin al-Hassan bin al-Walid and from those who followed him in his opinion are Sheikh alTabrasi in Majma’a al-Bayan as reported from him by Sheikh al-Tinkanbi in Qasas al-’Ulemaa, also
al-Sayyed al-Jazaeri in al-Anwar al-Nu’umaniyyah, also Fakhr al-Deen al-Tarihi in Majma’a al-Bayan
and al-Muhaqqiq al-Faydh al-Kashani in al-Wafi from what is apparent. It is reported by al-Sheikh
al-Bahaee (rah) that he said (About al-Saduq): “Praise be to Allah who cut his life and did not allow
him to write what he intended.” and Sheikh Ahmad al-Ahissaee said (About al-Saduq): “In this
matter al-Saduq is a liar.” both of them have displayed poor Adab by saying this and we did not
expect this from people such as them…
Source: Introduction of Man la Yahduruhu al-Faqih vol.1 pg.70
- end So based on this, some of the biggest classical Shia scholars on the face of the planet used to
believe that the infallible prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) does forget, from those
they named:
1- Ibn Babawei al-Qummi al-Saduq.
2- Muhammad ibn al-Hassan ibn al-Walid.
3- Ameen al-Deen abu ‘Ali al-Fadl bin al-Hussein bin al-Fadl al-Tabrasi.
4- Ni’imatullah al-Jazaeree.
5- Fakhr al-Deen al-Tarihi.
6- al-Faydh al-Kashani.
We also see how some of the shia scholars made Du’ah and thanked Allah for ending the life of alSaduq as they never agreed with him in matters of ‘Aqeedah.
———————–
1) He means book about possibility of error from prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam)
which Saduq wished to write.
Wolfs in sheep’s clothings
July 17, 2011 at 2:57 pm | Posted in On books and authors, Taqiyyah | Leave a comment
Rate This
Book: Hulasa al-Aqwal
Author: Ibn Muttahar al-Hilli.
At page 245, he said:
- ،‫ مولده سنة احدى وثمانين ومائتين بالحسينية‬،‫ هو أبو بكر الشافعي‬:‫ وقال احمد بن عبدون‬،‫ يكنى ابا الحسن‬،‫محمد بن ابراهيم بن يوسف الكاتب‬
‫ وله على المذهبين كتب‬،‫ وكان فقيها على المذهبين‬،‫وكان على الظاهر يتفقه على مذهب الشافعي ويرى رأي الشيعة االمامية في الباطن‬
Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn Yusuf al-Katib, nicknamed Abul Hasan, and Ahmad ibn Abdan said: He is
Abu Bakr ash-Shafei. He was born in 281 year BY HUSAYNIYAH (?????)and apparently he was in the
fiqh of mazhab ash-Shafei, AND INSIDE OF HIM, HE WAS ON THE VIEW OF SHIA IMAMIYAH, and he
was faqih upon two mazhabs, and he has books in two mazhabs.
And here two Shahids of shias!
Qumis were mujasimah!
July 10, 2011 at 1:55 am | Posted in On books and authors, Refuting shia doubts, Take a few minutes to think on this |
Leave a comment
Rate This
It is well known that the Shia of Qum all of them believed in al-Jabr wal Tajseem as stated by one
of the biggest Shia scholars al-Sharif al-Murtada (d. 436 AH) who says in his Rasael (3/310):
‫القميين كلهم من غير استثناء ألحد منهم إال أبا جعفر بن بابويه باألمس كانوا مشبهة مجبرة وكتبهم وتصانيفهم تشهد بذلك وتنطق‬
‫به فليت شعري أي رواية تخلص وتسلم من أن يكون في أصلها وفرعها واقف أو غال أو قمي مشبه مجبر‬
“All the people of Qum without exceptions except ibn Babuweih believed in Jabr and
Tashbeeh and their books and works all bear witness to this”
http://www.yasoob.com/books/htm1/m001/00/no0021.html
Toose, Kulayni were akhbaris
June 22, 2011 at 5:52 pm | Posted in On books and authors | 2 Comments
Rate This
Salam alaikum, I heard a lot of times that such and such approach is akhbari, and we are usoole and
etc.
Let me first list here differences between these two schools of isna-ashariyah from site of akhbaris.
They say:
Basic differences between Shia Imamia Ithna Ashari Akhbari and Usooli
AKHBARIs Believe
USOOLIs Believe
1. Quran and Ahadees as the only
source of Divine law (ahkamat)
1. Quran and Ahadees are
insufficient source of law, and
adds intellect (aql)and
consensus (ijma) to it.
2. Ijtehad in religion is forbidden
2. Ijtehad in religion is necessary
3. Practice on opinion (rai) and
guess work(qiyas) is
forbidden (haram) and
innovation in religion (biddat).
3. Practice only on
opinion (rai) and guess
work (qiyas)
4. Taqleed (Unconditional
surrender) is obligatory (wajib)
4. Taqleed is lawful only for
followers, forbidden
for mujtahid.
5. Taqleed of only 14 infallibles as
obligatory
5. Only taqleed of a mujtahid is
lawful.
6. Supreme Authority (Ulil Amr) are
14 infallibles only, using this
word for others is forbidden.
6. Fallible (Ghaire Masoom) as
Supreme Authority (Ulil Amr).
7. Using the term Imam for any one
other than 12 Imams is
forbidden
7. The fallible are also Imams.
8. Deputy (Naib) of
an Imam is Imam only.
8. Fallible are deputy of Imams.
9. Only infallible can
do istembaat(Deducing religious
solutions)
9. Mujtahid have right to
do Istembhat(Deducing religious
solutions)
10. Alian Walliullah is an integral
10. Alian Walliullah is not an
part without which the kalema is
integral part.
incomplete.
11. The prophet and 13 infallibles
are equal and same in all and
every aspect
11. 14 infallibles are not equal and
the same.
12. The right to interpret
the Quran is only with the 14
inflalibles who have complete
in-depth knowledge (Rasekhuna
fil ilm)
12. Mujtahid can
interpret Quran through
reasoning (tafseer bil rai).
13. Subtractions and alterations
were made in Holy Quran.
13. No subtraction and alterations
were made in Quran.
14. Gaining knowledge about
14. Gaining of spiritual knowledge is
divinity(Marefate Noorania) of
not an imposition in
Prophet Mohammed (S.A) and
religion (takleefe sharai)but
His Progeny (A.S). Is compulsory
takes it only as a verbal
meaning.
15. Practice on knowledge of
15. Practise on knowlegde of
principles of jurisprudence (Usul
principles of jurisprudence only.
e Fiqh) is forbidden
16. The self blood shedding (khooni 16. Self blood shedding (khooni
matam) while mourning of Imam
matam) in the mourning of Imam
Hussain (A.S) is according
Hussain (A.S) is
to islamic law
forbidden (haram) and
innovation in religion (biddat).
17. Salvation is only through deep
love and affection for Imam Ali
(A.S) and through gaining
knowledge of his divinity.
(Practices (aamal) are
intensively demanded).
17. Salvation is through apparent
practices (Mutazela believe the
same).
18. Accept all the attributes of God, 18. Accept justice (adl) to the
but request generosity for sins.
extent that they deny
generosity (karam) from God.
(Mutazela believe the same).
19. Apparent practices are
indications of faith.
19. Apparent practices are integral
part of faith.
20. Ahadees are either right or
wrong
20. Ahadees are categorized
into sahih,zaeef, mousaqh,
hasan, ahaad etc.
So pay attention that akhbaris admits that they do believe in Tahrif of Quran. Don’t be deluded
that it says that usooles doesn’t believe in it. They just do taqiyyah.
Anyway, surprisingly I get to know that sheikh of rafidis at-Toose and their top muhadith al-Kulayni,
and other sheikh of them as-Saduq were akhbaris.
This was stated by Muhammad Amin al-Istirabadi in his book “al-Fawaid al-Madaniya” p 267:
Who was Mahmud Abu Rayyah?
December 28, 2010 at 5:30 pm | Posted in On books and authors | Leave a comment
Rate This
Mahmud Abu Rayyah – liar from the army of liars. Heretics use to spread his book “Light on the
Muhammadan Sunnah”, and proudly present it as “Defence of Hadith”!!
Sheikh Mustafa as-Sibai (rahimahullah) in his book “Sunna wa makanatuha fi tashriy al-Islam” (pages
482 – 483) said about this Abu Rayyah:
In both his first and second books, he maliciously maligned the scholars of Azhar University, yet he
was a man who wore the robe of Azhar scholars and gave himself a title sheikh. This isn’t strange to
those from his city and those who know the history of his life. When he was young, he attended in
the secondary school that was linked to Azhar University. However, his grades were so poor that he
didn’t even complete high school. When he lost hope of continuing his studies, he took a job at a
newspaper, assuming the responsibility of correcting typographical errors. He continued in that
vocation for a number of years, after which he was given a small writing job in municipal office.
There he continued to work until retirement. When he left Azhar, he would stand at the side of the
road, mocking students from AZHAR. He derided them for their dedication to studying the Religion,
which he saw as a proof of their foolish minds. This is Au Rayyah, as we know him through the
people of his city, from scholars and students alike. He didn’t graduate from high school and he
never took his knowledge from a scholar. All that he learned was taken from newspapers, which is
why he doesn’t deserve to be described as a student of knowledge, and his opinions and ideas are
certainly not worthy of any attention. These incidents early on in his life played a major role in
increasing Abu Rayyah’s prejudice against Muslim scholars; his early experiences also serve to show
us why he’s lacking in both scholarship and intellectual honesty.
In an attempt to refute my views, he derided me because I am from Syria and he continually
asserted that my people (Syrians) are known for their stupidity. It doesn’t bother me that he calls
me stupid, for it’s the people and the readers who can better judge that. But what concerns me is
that I should clarify the reality of the beliefs that this man clings to. His ignorance led him not only
to an extreme feeling of nationalistic pride, but also to hating people from other countries. If he
were truly a Muslim, he would have known that Muslim countries constitute one nation.
And sheikh (rahimahullah) continued:
He (Abu Rayyah) said that his first book aroused a great controversy, which no other Arabic book
has ever achieved, with the exemption of Taha Husayn’s book. He boasts that books are written for
the sole purpose of refuting his book, that magazines are filled with critical articles about his book.
This is the reality of Abu Rayyah: without scholarship, he desires fame among the ranks of scholars,
and lacking in honesty, he seeks fame by arousing the anger of the righteous. The most wretched of
people are those deviants who seek notoriety through the perpetration of evil actions – actions that
make them deserve the curse of Allah, of the angels, and of all people.
Book of sheikh Mustafa as-Sibai (rahimahullah) has been translated in English and published under
the name The Sunnah and its Role in Legislation. Everyone must read this book.
And here another perfect article on Abu Rayyah.
Imam Tabari on authenticy of his history book
August 10, 2010 at 1:45 am | Posted in On books and authors, Refuting shia doubts | Leave a comment
1 Votes
Abu Ja`far Muammad bin Jarir at-Tabari in the introduction to his history book said:
Let him who examines this book of mine know that I have relied, as regards everything I mention
therein which I stipulate to be described by me, solely upon what has been transmitted to me by
way of reports which I cite therein and traditions which I ascribe to their narrators, to the exclusion
of what may be apprehended by rational argument or deduced by the human mind, except in very
few cases. This is because knowledge of the reports of men of the past and of contemporaneous
views of men of the present do not reach the one who has not witnessed them nor lived in their
times except through the accounts of reporters and the transmission of transmitters, to the
exclusion of rational deduction and mental inference. Hence, if I mention in this book a report
about some men of the past, which the reader of listener finds objectionable or worthy of
censure because he can see no aspect of truth nor any factual substance therein, let him know
that this is not to be attributed to us but to those who transmitted it to us and we have merely
passed this on as it has been passed on to us.
“Tareeh at-Tabari” 1997, volume 1, Darul kutub al-Ilmiyah, p 13.
Masoode author of “Muruj az-zahab” was shia
July 28, 2010 at 12:48 pm | Posted in On books and authors | Leave a comment
Rate This
Salam alaikum.
His name was Ali ibn Hussain ibn Ali al-Masoode.
As we have already mentioned such shia scholars like allama Hilli in his “Khulasat” (p 186), and ibn
Dawud al-Hilli in his “Rijal” (p 137) wrote that this Masoode authored a book “Ithbat al-wasiya li Ali
ibn Abu Talib”. Same was noticed by Burjardi in “Taraif al-maqal” (1/177), Aga Buzurg at-Tahrani
in “Zariyat” (1/110). No one except shia would write a book to proof so called wasiya of Nabi
(sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) to Ali (radi Allahu anh).
Other shia scholar Saeed Bahrul Ulum in his “Fawaid ar-rijaliya” (4/150) said:
‫ومنهم الشيخ الفاضل الشيعي على بن الحسين ابن علي المسعودي مصنف كتاب مروج الذهب‬
“and from them alFadl shia Ali ibn al-Hussain ibn Ali al-Masoode, author of the
book “Muruj az-zahab”.
Shahrode in “Mustadrakat ilmul rijal al-hadith” (5/352) said:
9929 – ‫ من أجالء علمائنا اإلمامية صاحب كتاب مروج الذهب ورسالة إثبات الوصية‬: ‫علي بن الحسين بن علي المسعودي أبو الحسن الهذلي‬
‫لعلي بن أبي طالب ع وغيرهما‬
Ali ibn al-Hussain al-Masoode Abul Hasan al-Huzale: from our imami scholars, author of book “Muruj
az-zahab” and risalat “Ithbat al-wasiya li Ali ibn Abu Talib (alaihi salam) and others.
In Q/A section of known shia site, you can read:
‫وأما المؤرخون الثالث ة ـ ابن أعثم الكوفي صاحب كتاب ( فتوح االسالم ) والمسعودي صاحب كتاب (مروج الذهب) واليعقوبي صاحب كتاب‬
‫ فقد ينسبون كلّهم أو بعضهم الى التشيّع‬.‫(تاريخ اليعقوبي) ـ الذين سألت عنهم‬.
As for 3 historians – ibn Athm al-Koofe author of book (Futuh al-Islami), and Masoode author of book
(Muruj az-zahab) and Yaqoobe author of the book (Tareeh al-Yaqoobe), that you questioned about.
All of them or some of them attributed to at-tashayu”.
http://www.aqaed.com/faq/541/
—————————
1) Khulasat of Hilli: http://www.yasoob.com/books/htm1/m020/23/no2327.html
2) Rijal of ibn Dawud al-Hilli: http://www.yasoob.com/books/htm1/m020/23/no2329.html
3) Taraif of Burjarde: http://www.yasoob.com/books/htm1/m020/23/no2350.html
4) Zariya of Tahrani: http://www.yasoob.com/books/htm1/m022/27/no2720.html
Why Najashi wrote his book?
May 24, 2010 at 2:12 am | Posted in On books and authors | Leave a comment
Rate This
Najashi author of one of the famous books of shia rijal. Rijal an-Najashi.
Sheikh Baqir el Eerawani says in his book “Durros Tamhidiyah fil Uloom el Rijaliyah ” Page 86
‫السبب في تأليف النجاشي لكتابه هو تعيير جماعة من المخالفين للشيعة بأنه ال سلف لهم وال مصنف‬
“Reason why al Najashi wrote his book is accusation from the group of opposition which said that
the shiites never had a salaf or musannaf.”
Reading Nahj al-Balagha: It is ok?
April 20, 2010 at 4:08 pm | Posted in On books and authors | Leave a comment
Rate This
Most of the narrations in this book are not authentically established from Imam Ali (Allah be
pleased with him), and it contains many harmful and spurious statements that he certainly did not
say. It was put together by a Shiite, without sound chains of narration, and with obvious intent of
promoting Shiite claims.
Imam Yusuf al-Nabahani (Allah have mercy on him), the great sufi and scholar, strongly warned
Sunnis against reading this work.
We should never forget the principle that, “Avoiding harm is giving precedence over achieving
benefits,” especially when the harm is likely and the benefits doubtful.
Wassalam,
Faraz Rabbani
Under Cover Shia Scholars
November 25, 2009 at 2:48 am | Posted in On books and authors | 1 Comment
3 Votes
As Salamu Alaykum.
Every now and then Shia polemists try to present to Muslims narrations taken from books, allegedly
claimed to be Sunni, in order to prove their beliefs from the books of Ahlul Sunnah wal Jamaa’.
It is well documented that in the religion of Shias, taqiyya permits that Shias would appear to the
public as Sunnis and hide their beliefs. To this effect Al-Khoei says in Al-Tanqeeh , an exegesis of
Al-Urwatul Wuthqa [4/332-333]: “ This is because what is benefited from the narrations about
Taqiyya is that it is has only been instituted so that Shia can hide from those who differ with them
and that they would not be known to be Shia or Rafidi, and for the concealment from them and
complimenting them. It is evident that when the designee shows the madhab of Hanbalis infront of
the Hanafi for example or vice versa , then concealment and not appearing as Shia or Rafidi is
established with this and compliment happened with them. So if he prayed in the masjid of Hanafis
according to the Madhab of Hanbalis then it could be truthfully said that he has prayed in their
masjids or with them. The secret in that is that what is obligatory is just Taqiyya with the public
(i.e Sunna), concealment (of identity) and complimenting them. None of the previously mentioned
proofs makes obligatory the following of their different kinds and there is no proof for the
compulsion to follow the madhab of the one being feared, rather what is essential is the
concealment and compliment with the public (i.e Sunnis) and hiding Shiasm from them.”
Muhammad Ibn Al-Hussan Ibn Abdul Samad who is known as Shiekh Bahai (d. 1031) said: “I was in
Syria appearing to be a Shafii”. This confession by this under cover Shia was reported by
Muhammad Muhammadi Ashtihardi in his book “Ajwad Al-Munatharat” (1/188)
In this post I will try to point out some such books and authors that are falsely ascribed to Ahlul
Sunnah Wal Jamaa’:
(1) Al-Kanji Al-Shafii:
The editor of his book: “ Al-Bayan fee Akhbar Sahib Al-Zaman”, who is also a Shiite, said: “ I have
not come across a complete biography of Hafidh Al-Kanji Al-Shafi, for he has been ignored by many
of his contemporary historians such as Ibn Khilikan in (Wafiyat Al-Ayan) , Abu Shama in (Al-Dhayl ala
Al-Rawdatayn) , Al-Yunini in (Mira’at Al-Zaman) , Al-Dhahabi in (Tathkirat Al-Hufadh).”He also said:
“ Historians mentioned that Hafidh Al-Kanji was killed in the year 658 , in the Ummayad Jami in
Damascus , on the hands of the public who were antagonized by his reclining to Shia. Some others
have added another reason for his murder, being that he used to deal with the Tatar and accepted
a position that they gave to him as well as the money (molested) from those who were absent from
his country.”Ibn Katheer, in Al-Bidaya wal Nihaya, clearly identifies him as a Rafidi: “ In the middle
of the Jami, the public killed a Rafidi Shiekh who was helping Tatar over the money of people
called Al-Fakhr Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ibn Muhammad Al-Kanji. He had evil intentions , and was from
the East , helping them over the money of Muslims. May Allah disparage him. And they killed a
group of hypocrites of his likes, so an end was put to those who transgressed. Al-Hamdullilah”
(2) Ibn Abi Al-Hadid:
The author of “Rawdat Al-Jannat” (5/19) referred to him as: “ He is loyal to people of the
Household of infallibility and purity (Ahlul Bayt Al-Isma’ wal Tahara) even though he used to appear
in the costume of Ahlul Sunnah”In “Al-Kunna wal Al-Alqab”, Al-Qumi outlines the staunch and
fanatic Shiite background of Ibn Abi Al-Hadid in Al-Madain and then when he moved to Baghdad his
fanaticism reduced and was inclined to Mutazilla.
(3) Sulayman Ibn Muhammad Al-Qunduzi Al-Hanafi:He is the author of Yanabi’ Al-Mawada. Aga
Buzurg Tehrani included his book “Al-Thareea” , which is an Encyclopedia on Shia books. He said
[25/290] : “ Even though the Shiasm of the author is not known, but he is Gnostic, and the Book is
considered to be one of the books of Shia”
(4) Ibrahim Ibn Muhammad Al-Juwaini (also called Al-Hamweeni):
He is the author of “Faraid Al-Simtayn” He has been included in the book “Ayan Al-Shia” , an
Encyclodia of Shia prominent figures, by Al-Ameen Al-Amili. Aga Buzurgh Tehrani, in “Thayl Kashf
Al-Dhunoon” p. 70, pointed out that the chief of the Mongols, Ghazan, embrassed Islam through
him and became a Shiite, and also his brother Shah Khudabanda who made his Shiasm
apparent.Amongst the sheikhs that he was taught by, are Ibn Al-Muttahir Al-Hili and Khawaja Nusair
Al-Din Al-Tusi. These are two prominent 12er figures.
(5) Yusuf Fargali, known as the grandson of (Sibt) Ibn Al_Jawzi:
He is the author of (Miraat Al-Zaman). Al-Dhahabi said: “ He has authored (Miraat Al-Zaman) and
included very odd narrations in it (manakir). I do not think he is thiqqa in things he reports rather
he exaggerates and goes aside. He then converted to Rafidism , and authored a book to this effect.
Shiekh Muhiydin said: When the news of Sibt Ibn Al-Jawzi’s death reached my grandfather, he said:
“ May Allah not have mercy on him. He was a Rafidi”
(6) Nur Al-Din Ali Ibn Muhammad Ibn Al-Sabagh.
Author of “Al-Fusool Al-Muhima”.His book is included in “Al-Dhareea” [16/246]. Tehrani said: “In
the treatise “Shia Shiekhs” he is considered one of them, even though he is one of the great
Malikis, this is why in “Kashf Al-Dhunoon” he said: “Some of them attributed the author to Rafidism
for what he mentioned in his introduction / khutba.”
By brother Muhammad Abdullah.
A critique of al-Ya`qûbî’s History
November 15, 2009 at 10:27 pm | Posted in On books and authors | Leave a comment
Rate This
Question: Could you tell me about the History of al-Ya`qûbî? What can you tell me about its
reliability as a work of history. I have seen it cited as a reference in many books written in English
about Muslim history, but I cannot find any information about the work.
Answered by Sheikh `Âdil Sa`d Mabrûk, Researcher and Member of the Book Federation
The author of this book is Ahmad b. Abî Ya`qûb Ishâq b. Ja`far b. Wahb b. Wâdih al-Ya`qûbî. He
was a ward of Ibn Hishâm and a famous historian of the Imamite Shî`ah.
The date of his death was in the year 284 AH according to Yâqût. However, al-Zarkalî sets the date
at 292 AH.
Al-Ya`qûbî was a widely traveled geographer who made extensive explorations of the Islamic lands
of his time.
His History is divided into two parts. The first part deals with ancient history, including topics like
the creation of the Earth, the story of Adam and his progeny, the flood, and the early Prophets.
This part relies heavily on Jewish and Christian sources – he quotes liberally from the Torah and the
New Testament – as well as folktales and legends. He speaks at particular length on their differing
opinions regarding the date of Christ’s birth.
Interestingly, he eschews the Qur’ân and Sunnah as a source of information on all of these matters,
though for a Muslim, these would be the sources that are free of doubt and inaccuracy regarding
the Prophets of old.
The second part of his History begins from the birth of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
Al-Ya`qûbî gives a brief account of his life the military campaigns of his time.
He goes on to give an account of all the important historical events that took place during the life
of each Caliph. In fact, the book is organized by Caliph.
Al-Ya`qûbî mentions his sources for this part of his book. They consist exclusively of eleven
historical narrators and two astrologers.
When he gets to his times, he relies on firsthand contemporary accounts. Only some of these
witnesses he mentions by name.
The book presents the history of the Islamic polity from an Imamite Shî`ah perspective. Al-Ya`qûbî,
therefore, does not recognize the legitimacy of any Caliph aside from `Alî b. Abî Tâlib and his
children according to the order of succession set forth by his sect.
In fact, when he discusses the reigns of Abû Bakr, `Umar, and `Uthmân, he does not even refer to
them as Caliphs. He simply says: “He assumed the political post…”
Moreover, he does not spare them, or any of the other Companions, his harsh criticism and
condemnation. He relates especially slanderous things about `Â’ishah, kHâlid b. al-Walîd, `Amr b.
al-`Âs, and Mu`âwiyah b. Abî Sufyân.
His account of how the Muslims first appointed the Caliph is full of accusations and inaccuracies. He
essentially presents it as a conspiracy against the ascension of `Alî to the post. This is, of course,
because of al-Ya`qûbî’s ideological and theological belief that `Alî was the divinely appointed
inheritor of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
Because of the negative light in which al-Ya`qûbî depicts the Companions and the early events of
Muslim history, his History has been relied upon heavily by orientalists.
However, its value as a historical sourcework is almost negligible. As for the first part of the book,
it merely quotes the Bible and then embroiders the narrative with folktales and fables. A scholar
who studies folk narratives might find some use in it.
As for the second half of the book, its historicity is colored by its extreme sectarian and ideological
bias. It also lacks even a basic level of scholarly standards with respect to the reliability and
verification of its sources.
Al-Hakim’s Mustadrak & al-Dhahabî’s Talkhis
November 15, 2009 at 10:22 pm | Posted in On books and authors | Leave a comment
Rate This
Question: I know that al-Hâkim’s Mustadrak contains a lot of weak hadîth, though he claims that
all the hadîth in it are authentic according to the conditions of either al-Bukhârî or Muslim. We
often read in books that al-Dhahabî has concurred with al-Hâkim’s assessment. When this is the
case, does that mean we can accept with confidence that the hadîth is authentic?
Answered by Sheikh al-Sharîf Hâtim al-`Awnî
What al-Dhahabî does in his Talkhîs with respect to al-Hâkim’s Mustadrak is simply to abridge it. He
does the same for a number of other books. Generally, an abridged work does not include anything
extraneous to what is found in the original. Quite the contrary, there is material from the original
that is omitted.
However, al-Dhahabî does not leave his abridged works without volunteering some comments of his
own for the benefit of the readers. He does not add these comments according to any organized
scheme or methodology, but offers them whenever he feels like doing so.
Bear in mind that al-Dhahabî never says anywhere that when he relates al-Hâkim’s verdict on a
hadîth without making a comment of his own that he is agreeing with al-Hâkim’s assessment – or
even that he does not object to it – and that such an assessment can be attributed to him as well.
It is clear from looking al-Dhahabî’s Talkhîs that he is merely mentioning after every hadîth alHâkim’s ruling on its authenticity. If he wants to add any comments of his own, he clearly states
that he is doing so by starting with the words “I say…”
Therefore, all the verdicts on the hadîth that are found in the Talkhîs without being preceded by
the words “I say…” are merely the rulings given by al-Hâkim himself.
The assumption that al-Dhahabî’s silence is some sort of tacit agreement is a very weak assumption
to make, because it is contrary to the normal conventions employed when making an abridgement
of another’s work. Generally, all that is done is to relate what is in the original.
We know for a number of reasons that al-Dhahabî does not give his personal assessment in every
hadîth where he disagrees with al-Hâkim.
First of all, al-Dhahabî in his encyclopedic Târikh al-Islam “The History of Islam” says the following
in his biographical entry on al-Hâkim, wherein he speaks about his Mustadrak:
“The Mustadrak contains a good number of hadîth that conform to the conditions of authenticity of
both (al-Bukhârî and Muslim) as well as a number of hadîth conforming to the conditions of either
one of them. Perhaps the total number of such hadîth comprises half the book. There is roughly
another quarter of the hadîth that have authentic chains of transmission, but that have something
else about them or that have some defect. As for the rest, and that is about a fourth, they are
rejected and spurious narrations that are unauthentic. Some of those are fabrications. I came to
know of them when I prepared an abridgement of the Mustadrak and pointed them out.”
This statement from al-Dhahabî makes it clear that he does not point out all of the spurious
narrations that he mentions in his Talkhîs. He only takes care to comment on some of them,
particularly those that are fabrications.
Does he not say that about one quarter of the book is made up of “rejected and spurious
narrations”? In his Talkhîs, he only comments on about one-eight of the hadîth that are found in the
Mustadrak. There is a total of 9045 hadîth in al-Hâkim’s Mustadrak. Al-Dhahabî, in his Talkhîs,
comments on only 1182 hadîth, while a quarter of the hadîth in the Mustadrak would amount to
2261 hadîth. (These figures are taken from the editorial introduction of Ibn al-Mulaqqin’s
Mukhtasar Istidrâk al-Dhahabî, 8-9)
On this basis, it is clear that al-Dhahabî was aware of double the number of spurious hadîth than
those that he comments on. He is, however, silent about them. In light of this fact, can we
construe his silence to indicate his agreement with al-Hâkim that those hadîth are authentic?
Moreover, we know that another quarter of the Mustadrak, in al-Dhahabî’s opinion, are hadîth that
are apparently authentic but contain some hidden defects that compromise their authenticity.
How, then, can we possibly construe his silence to indicate his agreement with al-Hâkim?
What also shows us that al-Dhahabî’s silence is not his agreement with al-Hâkim is that al-Dhahabî,
in his other writings, criticizes a number of hadîth that he remains silent about in his Talkhîs.
Among these are the following:
1. In Mîzân al-I`tidâl (1/136, #547), al-Dhahabî quotes a hadîth authenticated by al-Hâkim that he
remains silent about in the Talkhîs, and declares it to be false. Then he says: “Al-Hâkim says it has
an authentic chain of transmission. I say quite the contrary. He says that its narrators are all
Madinites. I say otherwise. He says they are all reliable, whereas I say that I suspect the narrator
Ahmad.”
2. In Mîzân al-I`tidâl (3/179, #6042), al-Dhahabî quotes a hadîth authenticated by al-Hâkim that he
remains silent about in the Talkhîs, and says: “Al-Hâkim authenticates it, though, as you can see, it
is a rejected hadîth.”
3. In al-`Ulû lil-`Alî al-`Azim (1/593, #146), al-Dhahabî quotes a hadîth authenticated by al-Hâkim
that he remains silent about in the Talkhîs, and says: “The narrators Sharîk and `Atâ’ have
weakness about them that does not bring their hadîth to being rejected. Yet this (text) is
something seriously problematic that leaves the listener confused. I wrote it down merely as a
digression because of its strangeness. It is something of the nature of ‘hear it and keep silent’.”
After all of this, if someone insists on construing al-Dhahabî’s silence on al-Hâkim’s verdict as
indicating his agreement with it, then I must ask him: What is the value of this agreement? AlDhâhabî clearly states that his Talkhîs “…is in considerable need of work and editing.” [Siyar A`lâm
al-Nubalâ’ (17/176)] This “considerable need” is so great that he has not followed up on a quarter
of what he feels needs it. Insisting upon such an opinion is an insult to al-Dhahabî; it is not a
compliment.
Admittedly, there have been many prominent scholars who have assumed that al-Dhahabî’s silence
in his Talkhîs indicates his tacit approval of al-Hâkim’s ruling, scholars of the caliber of al-Suyûtî
[al-Nukat al-Badî`ât (197)], al-Manâwî [Fayd al-Qadîr], and al-Husaynî [al-Bayân wa al-Ta`rîf].
Many contemporary scholars follow this view as well. However, the evidence clearly shows us that
al-Dhahabî’s silence in his Talkhîs is not his tacit approval.
And Allah knows best.
———————————————
al-Dhahabî & the Mustadrak of al-Hâkim
by Dr. Bashshâr `Awwâd Ma`rûf
[From the introduction to his critical edition of al-Tirmidhî’s al-Jâmi` al-Kabîr published by Dâr alJayl, Beirut]
The book al-Mustadrak `alâ al-Sahîhayn by `Abd Allah al-Hâkim al-Naysâbûrî (d. 403 AH) is an
encyclopedic work, well known among scholars. Its author claims that he has found authentic
hadîth left out by the two authorities – al-Bukhârî and Muslim – though it actually contains some
objectionable material. Al-Dhahabî writes in his biographical encyclopedia entitled Siyar A`lâm alNubalâ’ “Biographies of Outstanding Personalities”:
“The Mustadrak contains a lot of hadîth that conform to the conditions of authenticity of both (alBukhârî and Muslim) as well as a number of hadîth conforming to the conditions of either one of
them. Perhaps the total number of such hadîth comprises a third of the book or less. A lot of the
book is comprised of hadîth that appear on the surface to be on the conditions of one or both of
them, but that have hidden within them subtle but substantial defects. A portion of the book
contains chains of transmission that are good and acceptable. This is about a fourth of the book.
The rest of the book is comprised of rejected and extremely strange hadîth. At the same time,
there are about one hundred hadîth that the heart declares to be false…”
Al-Dhahabî, when he first embarked upon the study of hadîth, prepared abridgements of a number
of books, one of which was the Mustadrak. It has become the habit of scholars today working in the
field of hadîth, when compiling them and determining their authenticity, to say things like: “It is
authenticated by al-Hâkim and al-Dhahabî concurs.” In doing so, they are referring to al-Dhahabî’s
Talkhîs, his abridgement of the Mustadrak that is often published along with it in its margins.
We see this as a serious misunderstanding that must be pointed out. We do not know from where
this idea came or how it got started. When al-Dhahabî abridged the book, it was not his intention to
discuss the authenticity or the inauthenticity of its hadîth. He merely speaks about some of most
serious errors made by al-Hâkim’s in his book, mentioning them along with his abridgement, as is
his habit when he abridges any book.
There are three reasons that we know this:
First, al-Dhahabî says in Siyar A`lâm al-Nubalâ’ (17/176): “It is a useful book. I had made an
abridgement of it that is in considerable need of work and editing.”
This statement is one of the clearest proofs that he merely abridged the Mustadrak and did not
critically review al-Hâkim’s rulings. Otherwise, what does he mean when he says it “…is in
considerable need of work and editing”?
Secondly, we find that in his other books, al-Dhahabî, clearly states his disagreement with rulings
that al-Hâkim’s gives in the Mustadrak in places where al-Dhahabî, in his Talkhîs, either reiterates
al-Hâkim’s ruling or remains silent.
For example, when speaking about Mu`âwiyah b. Sâlih in Mîzân al-I`tidal (4/135), he writes: “He is
among those narrators whom Muslim accepts but not al-Bukhârî. You can see al-Hâkim relating this
narrator’s hadîth in his Mustadrak and say: ‘This is according to the conditions of al-Bukhârî.’ He
repeatedly makes this mistake.”
However, when the same statement comes up in his Talkhîs, he says nothing about it. Whoever
compares the rulings found in the Talkhîs with those that al-Dhahabî makes in his other writings
will find that there is considerable disagreement.
Thirdly, when al-Dhahabî writes in his Talkhîs “according to the conditions of al-Bukhârî and
Muslim” or writes “authentic”, he is merely giving al-Hâkim’s ruling as found in the Mustadrak. He
is not expressing his own viewpoint. Therefore, we cannot attribute these opinions to al-Dhahabî
himself.
On “Kanz al- `Ummâl”
November 15, 2009 at 10:18 pm | Posted in On books and authors | Leave a comment
Rate This
Question: Is the work “Kanz al- `Ummâl” by Alî Muttaqî al-Hindî a reliable source of hadîth?
Answered by Sheikh Muhammad al-Turkî, professor at King Sa`ûd University
Regarding the book Kanz al-`Ummâl, if the questioner is asking if all hadîth mentioned in this book
are authentic, then I would have to say: Definately not. The book is full of weak and false hadîth.
If you like to know where the author got the book’s narrations from then I can tell you that this
book is, in fact, a rearrangement of al-Jâmi` al-Kabîr and its annexes that was originally compiled
by Imam al-Sûyûtî. When Imam al-Sûyûtî wrote his book, his intention was to gather together all
the hadîth that he knew, whether they were authentic or not. Al-Sûyûtî openly admitted that there
were some false hadîth in it.
Therefore, when the author of Kanz al-`Ummâl rearranged al-Sûyûtî’s book, it was obvious that his
book would also contain a number of weak and false hadîth, since the original work on which it was
based contained the same.
On Tafsir Al-Mizan
October 18, 2009 at 10:28 pm | Posted in On books and authors | Leave a comment
Rate This
A fatwa translated for Islam-QA site
All Praise is for Allah.
Firstly:
The author of this book “Al-Mizan fi Tafsir Al-Qur’an” was one of the big and foremost leaders of
Shi’a. His name is Muhammad Hussain Bin Muhammad from the family of Al-Tabataba’I Al-Tabrizi.
He is called Tabrizi since he belongs to Tabriz, the second biggest city of Iran, after Tehran. He was
born in 1903 A.D., and lived in Qom for the purpose of learning and teaching. Finally, he became
one of the leading professors, engaging in teaching, issuing verdicts (fatwa) and authoring books in
the Shi’a religious schools in Qom. When he died in 1980 A.D., the Iranian state announced official
mourning to mark his demise.
With this in mind, a Muslim should desist from reading the books of this author in the first place,
due to the dangerous and deviant beliefs of the Twelver Shi’as (Rafidhis).
Secondly:
This boof “Al-Mizan fi Tafsir Al-Qur’an” is the first modern exegesis (tafsir) of the Qur’an by the
Shi’ah, after the two exegeses ‘Majma’ Al-Bayan’ by Al-Tabrasi and ‘Al-Tibyan’ by Al-Tusi. It was
originally a series of lectures delivered by Al-Tabatabai to his students. Its first volume was
published in 1956 A.D. Other volumes came out of the press in succession until a total of 20
volumes. These were later translated into English and Persian.
This information has been summarized from the masters thesis presented in Jordan University in
the year 1994 A.D. The thesis title was “Tabatabai’s Tafsir (Al-Mizan fi Tafsir Al-Qur’an): A critical
and methodological study” by the researcher Yusuf Al-Faqir (vol 6, page 23).
Thirdly,
We have a number of observations regarding this exegesis, some of which are:
1.He insinuated that some part of the Qur’an has been lost. This is disbelief, which we know a lot
of Shi’a scholars hold. While speaking on the authentication of the Qur’anic text by multiple
sources during the compilation of the Qur’an, he said:
“All in all, what these narrative sources prove is that whatever is present between the two covers
of the printed Qur’an is the Word of Allah. Nothing has been added to it, and nothing has been
tampered with therein. However, they do not prove with definiteness that some part of the text is
not missing.” (Al-Mizan 12/125)
He also states that:
“All in all, the above narration, as you can see are narrated by individuals (not multiple narrators)
which are strengthened by other corroborative evidences that definitely rules out any distortion of
the Qur’anic text by addition or tampering. However there is no corroborative evidence for these
individual reports that there is nothing missing from the text. Hence, the doctrine that no part o
the text has been lost, is simply speculative. The claim by some that the Qur’anic text has been
faultlessly preserved by numerous narrators in all three aspects (i.e. addition, tampering or
subtraction of words) has no authoritative evidence.” (Al-Mizan 12/126)
2.Occult Explanation of the Qur’an: This is in fact breaking the bonds of the Islamic in the name of
‘vision’, revelation or inspiration. You will this heretical method of exegesis, when he attempts to
explain the verse of the Qur’an: “Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The parable of His
Light is as (if there were) a niche and within it a lamp, the lamp is in glass, the glass as it were a
brilliant star, lit from a blessed tree, an olive, neither of the east (i.e. neither it gets sun-rays only
in the morning) nor of the west (i.e. nor it gets sun-rays only in the afternoon, but it is exposed to
the sun all day long), whose oil would almost glow forth (of itself), though no fire touched it. Light
upon Light! Allah guides to His Light whom He wills. And Allah sets forth parables for mankind, and
Allah is All-Knower of everything.” (Al-Noor 24:35)
Here, he presents the fictional research of a supposed narrative from Imam Ja’far Al-Sadiq, that he
was asked about this narration, and he said: “This is an example that Allah set forth about us (the
family of the Prophet (may Allah’s Peace and Blessings be upon him)), that the Prophet and the
Imams (according to Shi’a faith) are the proofs and signs of Allah, through whom people are guided
towards Allah’s Oneness and other aspects of the religion.”
Then Al-Tabatabai comments on this fictional quote:
“This narration is a sort of hint to one of the possible meaning , in fact the best meaning of the
verse, i.e. the Prophet (may Allah’s Peace and Blessings be upon him) and the pure members of his
household, may Allah’s Peace be upon them. Otherwise, the apparent meaning of the verse would
be general and include other Prophets, their chosen successors, companions and friends” (Al-Mizan
15/141)
3.Numerous fabricated and concocted narrations and hadiths, which are totally baseless. He uses
them to ‘prove’ false concepts and beliefs. The examples of these narrations in this work are so
numerous that we cannot even count them.
Dr. Muhammad Hussain Al-Dhahabi (may Allah have Mercy on him) says:
“The most infamous teachings of the Twelver Shi’as are four: (1) infallibility of their Imams
(‘ismah), (2) the promised Mahdi (mahdiyah), (3) the coming back to life of their Imams and their
return to the world (rij’ah), and hiding their true beliefs (taqiyyah).
Infallibility (‘ismah): They believe that their Imams are infallible from all minor and major sins
during their whole lives, and that they can neither make a mistake nor forget.
The Mahdi (mahdiyah): They mean by this their final promised messiah who will appear at the end
of times. He will fill the earth with peace and justice, just as it were filled with fear and injustice.
The first one to profess this belief was ‘Kaisan’, the freed slave of ‘Ali Bin Abi Talib (may Allah be
pleased with him). Kaisan claimed that ‘Ali’s son, Muhammad Bin Al-Hanafiyya is the Mahdi. Later
this belief penetrated all the Imami Shi’a factions, and each of these sects has its own awaited
messiah.
Return from the Dead (rij’ah): This is the belief which naturally springs from the belief in Mahdi. It
means that after the appearance of the Mahdi, the Prophet will return to the world, along with the
‘Ali, Hussain, and Hassan. In fact all their Imams will return along with their (supposed) opponents
like Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. Then these Imams would punish their opponents. After having exacted
their revenge, they will all die and will be resurrected on the Day of Judgment.
Hiding their true beliefs (taqiyyah): This means pretending. This is one of their basic principles and
part of the religion they hide from the public. This is their secret system whose instructions they
follow. They pray secretly for their Hidden Imam (according to their belief the last Imam is alive
(since centuries) but went into hiding out of fear for his life). Outwardly, they express allegiance to
the ones in authority, but once they become strong, they start an armed rebellion against the
tyrannical state.” (Al-Tafsir wa Al-Mufassiroon 3/65-66).
Al-Mizan is full of such false beliefs. Just as an example of the type of weird arguments presented
by the author in this book, look at how he ‘proves’ the belief in ‘return from the dead’ (rij’ah),
with all that it entails, by using the verse: “And (remember) the Day when We shall gather out of
every nation a troop of those who denied Our Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs,
revelations, etc.), and (then) they (all) shall be gathered (and driven to the place of reckoning),”
(Al-Namal 27:83)
Tabatabai says:
“The apparent meaning of the verse is that this gathering is other than (i.e. before) the Day of
Judgment…” and he went on to give an unfeasible reason for this explanation. (Al-Mizan 15/400)
4.He affirms the landmark juristic (fiqhi) issues where the Shi’a are grossly in error and oppose
what the Muslims have agreed upon e.g., mut’ah [temporary marriage]. He argued in favor of its
permissibility and tried to refute those who say that it is illegal (haram) in more than one place in
this book. See Al-Mizan 4/279-316.
5.The sources and references he generally quotes are those books of the Shi’a which are drenched
in misguidance, e.g. “Al-Safi” by the spiteful Mullah Muhsin Al-Kashani (popularly known as Al-Faidh
Al-Kashani). This Kashani has filled his book with slander against the rightly guided Caliphs and the
wives of the Prophet (may Allah’s Peace and Blessings be upon him). He quoted him in Al-Mizan
1/309. The list of such references is about 83 books, as enumerated by Yusuf Al-Faqir in his above
mentioned thesis (page 83).
6.There are other deviances in creed as well, along the lines of rhetoric reasoning, e.g. in the
issues related to Allah’s Names and Attributed, seeing Allah on the Day of Judgment etc. In most
cases he agrees with Mu’tazilla interpretations which are against the Qur’an and Sunnah. For more
information on these issues, see Yusuf Al-Faqir’s thesis (page 139-160).
In the end, we would like to warn against reading this book, except by experts who are able to
distinguish the good from the bad, can tell the truth and falsehood apart. However, it is not
permissible for laymen to subject themselves to this maze of ambiguities and doubts, which
extinguished the light of the heart and mind.
Allah knows best.
To whom is the book Nahj al-Balaaghah attributed?
October 18, 2009 at 9:57 pm | Posted in On books and authors, Take a few minutes to think on this | Leave a comment
Rate This
Salam alaikum.
Book “Nahj al-balaaghah” another shia source that often falsely described like a reliable sunni one.
Here fatwa from Islam Q&A site:
Praise be to Allaah.
The book Nahj al-Balaaghah is one of the books that are attributed to Ameer al-Mu’mineen ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib
(may Allah be pleased with him), but it contains many things concerning which those who claim to be Muslims
have disputed. Following the great scientific principle which was followed by the imams of Islam in obedience
to the shar’i command to verify reports, we have no choice but to refer to the scholars and specialists to check
on the veracity of the things that are attributed to ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him), because what is
narrated from the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) has an effect on sharee’ah, especially in the case
of someone like Ameer al-Mu’mineen ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him), concerning whom some people
have exaggerated or fallen short, but Allaah guided the Ahl al-Sunnah to follow a middle course.
By referring to the words of the scholars concerning this book and comparing its contents with what has been
proven with saheeh isnaads from ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him), it becomes clear that there is material
in this book that contradicts what was proven from him (may Allaah be pleased with him). So we should look at
what some of these great scholars have said:
Imaam al-Dhahabi (may Allaah be pleased with him) said in his biography of al-Murtada ‘Ali ibn Husayn ibn
Moosa al-Moosawi (d. 436 AH): I said, he was the compiler of the book Nahj al-Balaaghah which is attributed
to Imam ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him), but the reports contained therein have are no isnaads. Some of
it is false and some of it is true, but it contains some frabricated reports of things that the Imam would never
have said. But who is the fair-minded man who would look at it in an objective manner?! It was said that it was
compiled by his brother Shareef al-Radiy. It includes slander against the companions of the Messenger of Allaah
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him); we seek refuge with Allaah from knowledge that is of no benefit.
Siyar A’laam al-Nubala’, 17/589
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “Most of the khutab (sermons) that the
author of Nahj al-Balaaghah includes in his book are lies against ‘Ali. ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) is
too noble and too worthy to have uttered such words. But these people fabricated lies and thought that they were
praise, but they are neither truth nor praise. Whoever says that the words of ‘Ali or any other human being are
above the words of any other created being is mistaken, for the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of
Allaah be upon him) are above his words, and both of them are created beings. Moreover the correct meanings
that are to be found in the words of ‘Ali are to be found in the words of others, but the author of Nahj alBalaaghah and his ilk took many of the things that people say and made them the words of ‘Ali. There are some
words narrated from ‘Ali that he did say, and some of them are true words that would have been befitting for
him to say, but in fact they are the words of others. Hence in Kalaam al-Bayaan wa’l-Tabyeen by al-Haafiz and
in other books there are words narrated from people other than ‘Ali and the author of Nahj al-Balaaghah
attributed them to ‘Ali. If these sermons which were transmitted in Nahj al-Balaaghah were really spoken by
‘Ali, they would have been found in other books that existed before this book was written, and they would have
been narrated from ‘Ali with isnaads and otherwise. It is known from those who are well versed in the study of
narrations that many of them (these sermons) – indeed most of them – were unknown before this, therefore it
may be concluded that they are fabrications. So the narrator should state in which book they are mentioned, who
narrated it from ‘Ali, and what its isnaad is. Otherwise, anybody could say something and claim that it was said
by ‘Ali. Those who are well-versed in the knowledge of the hadeeth scholars and of reports and isnaads and are
able to tell what is sound and what is not sound would know that these people who transmitted reports from ‘Ali
are the least likely people to know about reports and be able to distinguish the sound from the unsound.
Manhaaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah, 8/55.
Other scholars who pointed out the lies in this book was al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadi, in al-Jaami’ li Akhlaaq alRaawi wa Adaab al-Saami’, 2.161; al-Qaadi Ibn Khalkaan; al-Safadi, and others. The things that have been said
against it may be summarized in the following points:
1.
There are seven generations of narrators between ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) and the
author of this book, and he did not mention any name whatsoever. Hence we cannot accept his words
without an isnaad.
2.
If these narrators are mentioned, it is essential to research about them and find out whether they
are trustworthy.
3.
The fact that most of these sermons did not exist before this book was written indicates that they
were fabricated.
4.
Al-Murtada – the author of the book – was not one of the scholars of reports, rather he was one of
those whose religious commitment and competence were debatable.
5.
The slander that it contains against the leading Sahaabah is sufficient to count it as false.
6.
The insults and slander that it contains are not the characteristics of the believers, let alone their
leaders such as ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him).
7.
It contains contradictions and clumsy expressions from which it may be known for certain that it
was not produced by one who was prominent in eloquence and fluency.
8.
The fact that the Raafidah accept it and are certain that it is as true as the Qur’aan, despite all these
objections, indicates that they do not pay attention to verifying sources and ensuring that they are sound
with regard to the matters of their religion.
Based on the above, it is clear that this book cannot be attributed to ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him),
therefore nothing in it can be used as evidence in matters of sharee’ah, no matter what the issue is. But whoever
reads it in order to find out what it contains of eloquence, the ruling is the same as that on all other books on
Arabic language, without attributing its contents to Ameer al-Mu’mineen ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with
him).
See Kutub hadhdhara minha al-‘Ulama’, 2/250
Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid
History of al-Ya`qûbî and Muruj az-zahab of Masoode, Both of them
were shias
October 18, 2009 at 8:49 pm | Posted in On books and authors | Leave a comment
1 Votes
Salam alaikum.
I have seen some shias that use to quote these two authors and describe them as a prominent sunni
scholars. But that’s a lie.
Sheikh `Âdil Sa`d Mabrûk, Researcher and Member of the Book Federation, said:
The author of this book is Ahmad b. Abî Ya`qûb Ishâq b. Ja`far b. Wahb b. Wâdih alYa`qûbî. He was a ward of Ibn Hishâm and a famous historian of the Imamite
Shî`ah.
The date of his death was in the year 284 AH according to Yâqût. However, alZarkalî sets the date at 292 AH.
Al-Ya`qûbî was a widely traveled geographer who made extensive explorations of
the Islamic lands of his time.
His History is divided into two parts. The first part deals with ancient history,
including topics like the creation of the Earth, the story of Adam and his progeny,
the flood, and the early Prophets. This part relies heavily on Jewish and Christian
sources – he quotes liberally from the Torah and the New Testament – as well as
folktales and legends. He speaks at particular length on their differing opinions
regarding the date of Christ’s birth.
Interestingly, he eschews the Qur’ân and Sunnah as a source of information on all of
these matters, though for a Muslim, these would be the sources that are free of doubt
and inaccuracy regarding the Prophets of old.
The second part of his History begins from the birth of Prophet Muhammad (peace
be upon him). Al-Ya`qûbî gives a brief account of his life the military campaigns of
his time.
He goes on to give an account of all the important historical events that took place
during the life of each Caliph. In fact, the book is organized by Caliph.
Al-Ya`qûbî mentions his sources for this part of his book. They consist exclusively of
eleven historical narrators and two astrologers.
When he gets to his times, he relies on firsthand contemporary accounts. Only some
of these witnesses he mentions by name.
The book presents the history of the Islamic polity from an Imamite Shî`ah
perspective. Al-Ya`qûbî, therefore, does not recognize the legitimacy of any Caliph
aside from `Alî b. Abî Tâlib and his children according to the order of succession set
forth by his sect.
In fact, when he discusses the reigns of Abû Bakr, `Umar, and `Uthmân, he does not
even refer to them as Caliphs. He simply says: “He assumed the political post…”
Moreover, he does not spare them, or any of the other Companions, his harsh
criticism and condemnation. He relates especially slanderous things about `Â’ishah,
kHâlid b. al-Walîd, `Amr b. al-`Âs, and Mu`âwiyah b. Abî Sufyân.
His account of how the Muslims first appointed the Caliph is full of accusations and
inaccuracies. He essentially presents it as a conspiracy against the ascension of `Alî
to the post. This is, of course, because of al-Ya`qûbî’s ideological and theological
belief that `Alî was the divinely appointed inheritor of the Prophet (peace be upon
him).
Because of the negative light in which al-Ya`qûbî depicts the Companions and the
early events of Muslim history, his History has been relied upon heavily by
orientalists.
However, its value as a historical sourcework is almost negligible. As for the first
part of the book, it merely quotes the Bible and then embroiders the narrative with
folktales and fables. A scholar who studies folk narratives might find some use in it.
As for the second half of the book, its historicity is colored by its extreme sectarian
and ideological bias. It also lacks even a basic level of scholarly standards with
respect to the reliability and verification of its sources.
About another one, al-Masoode,
Allama al-Hilli in his “Khulasat” p 186 said:
‫علي بن الحسين بن علي المسعودي أبو الحسن الهذلي له كتب في اإلمامة وغيرها منها كتاب في إثبات‬
‫الوصية لعلي بن أبي طالب (ع) وهو صاحب كتاب مروج الذهب‬
“Ali ibn Hussain ibn Ali al-Masoode Abul Hasan al-Khuzali. He has a book about imamate and others,
from them book in the proof of wasiyat to Ali ibn Abe Taleb (a) and he’s author of book “Muruj azzahab”.
Almost the same info gave ibn Dawud al-Hilli in his “Rijal” p 137:
” ‫ المسعودي أبو الحسن لم له كتاب ” إثبات الوصية لعلي ع وهو صاحب‬: ‫علي بن الحسين بن علي‬
‫ ” مروج الذهب‬.
So no one shouldn’t be deceive when shias cite book “Muruj az-zahab” as a proof.