Farmerforlife:


Let your own scholars tell you why we do not accept your fabrications as narrations...

Shia scholar AlHurr al 'Aamili, "Wasa'il alShia, 30/206":
"Wise, trustworthy scholars all narrate from the weak and the liars and the unknown personalities, and they know of this, yet they still narrate from them..."

Same book 30/244
"It is known that all the books belonging to our scholars have a great deal of weak and unknown narrators"

Shia scholar alQummi "alQawanees p2/page 222"
"The narrations present in our books proves that the liars and the forgers have played with the books of our people and introduced lies into them"

Shia scholar Shareef alMurthadha "Rasa'el shareef almurtadha 3/311"
"Leave us from the books of the shii scholars of hadith, for they serve no evidence, and none of them knows what is evidence, nor were these books even made for seeking evidence".

Shia scholar alSha'arani "sharh jamee alal Kafi" 2/282
"The majority of hadith in Usool alKafi (most reliable shia hadith book) have an incorrect isnad, but they are adopted because they agree with the truthful creed, so we ignore the isnad."

Shia scholar alTusi; "tahdheeb al ahkaam 1/2"
"We have no hadith unless there is another which contradicts it, and no hadith is safe from another which negates it."

Shia scholar Muhammad alHussainiy "buhooth fi ilm arrijjal, alfa'ida alrabi'a"
"The fathers of jarh and ta'deel (hadith sciences) like sheikh Najashi and others, did not live in the times of the companions of Muhammad (ﷺ) or Ali (ra) or the imams, so that their narrations could not come directly from them. So their weakening and strengthening of hadith is either from guesswork, or personal ijtihaad, or transmitted one by one until they reach the imam. However, it is not evidence (hujja) on us because it is mostly hearsay..."

Shia scholar alBahbahani "fawa'id ha'iriyyah p488"
"There is no doubt that most of our fiqh does not come from a sahih hadith, and those narrated by sahih are not free from big errors in isnad, matn and dilalah"

Last but not least, we look at awe at this hadith where the isnad is made up totally of a donkey narrating from other donkeys in their most reliable book of hadith; Usool alKaafi volume 1, page 237

Ali bin abi Talib (ra) was told that the donkey of the prophet (ﷺ) committed suicide (awwww).
So Ali bin abi Talib (ra) said,
"That donkey told the prophet (ﷺ) that...
May my mother and father (ie the donkey) be sacrificed for you, my father (daddy donkey) told me that his father (grandpa donkey) told him that his grandfather (great grandpa donkey) told him that his father (ancestor donkey) was in the service of prophet Nuh (as) in the ark. So prophet Nuh (as) approached him and wiped over his back and said...from the offspring of this donkey, there will come a donkey (ie current narrator) whichnwill be ridden by the best and final prophet (ﷺ). Ufair (the narrating donkey) then saidAlhamdulillah that he has made me this donkey." (All salawaat and explanations in parantheses mine).

How please do we apply the science of hadith to narrations such as these? This is why we say you have no hadith, even from your 'imams', much less from the prophet (ﷺ) from whom we should rightly take our deen, not from chains of donkeys.

I will be glad to provide further links to the shia 'study of hadith' and how unimportant and impossible their scholars believe it to be, directly from their donkey's... excuse me... scholars' mouths.

Please excuse me bro Newnas for diverting the original topic of your educative thread.

ShiaMuslim:


you are so foul mouthed the same way you are ignorant. your fellows were insisting in another thread that the Shia (like Sunnis) have "sahih" hadith books: https://www.nairaland.com/3046418/abu-hurairah-mujassim-one-give/3#45491856

when it convenient, our books become "sahih", and when it is convenient, not a single hadith is sahih. ridiculous!

we have repeated time without number:

we do not have sahih books of hadith. only the Quran is our sahih. each hadith is graded and examined. we have no apology for that. further, on one of our famous hadith books,Usul al-Kafi, this is a scholarly verdict:

Agha Buzurg al-Tihrani, op.cit., XVII, 245 -

"If the traditions reported in different sections are counted, the number is over 1,000 more. Of the basic traditions, 5,072 are considered sound (sahih) by scholars, i.e. first category; 144 are regarded as good (hasan), second category; 178 are held to be trustworthy (muwaththaq), third category; 302 are adjudged to be strong (qawi), fourth category; and 9,484 are considered weak (da'if), fifth category."

the opinions above you presented are true because no hadith narrated and transmitted by men is perfect or free from dispute, error or contradiction. each has to be examined for its merits and demerits. it is very unbelievable you can rely on the words of people you believe have nothing "sahih" to offer. that is not to say however you are free to exaggerate that every hadith is fabricated or weak. the only difference between Shia and Sunni scholars on hadith is that the former have the courage to criticize and scrutinize every word in hadith, while the latter still live in denial and consider books written by fallible men as wholly "authentic" or "sahih".

talking about nonsense, you can find such nonsense in your "almighty sahih bukhari" :

Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun: During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them. Sahih Bukhari 5:58:188

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 65, Number 366: Narrated Ibn Abbas: The Prophet said, When you eat, do not wipe your hands till you have licked it, or had it licked by somebody else.

i wont use the same foul language to ridicule your scholars or anyone who believes the above is a "sahih hadith" in a supposedly "sahih book". i can go further and dig more if you so wish.

as for the authenticity of Hadith narrators and authorities on hadith, here is a list of:

"A Hundred Shia Authorities Relied Upon By Sunnis In Sahih Hadith Collections"

https://www.nairaland.com/3105707/hundred-shia-authorities-relied-upon#45622457

Farmerforlife:

Your confusion arises out of your lack of knowledge of the sunni definition of 'shia'. The shia authorities relied upon by sunnis here are the original followers of Ali bin abi Talib (ra), whose only political difference was that they fought alongside him at Siffin, and in extreme cases preferred him over Uthman (ra), yet loved Abubakr and Umar (ra) and certainly had no Saba'ee concept of 'imamah and wilayah'. Among them were sahabah and tabieen, and they were truthful people. Even from those who later followed them, there were those who were truthful, although not usually reliable in sectarial matters. Certainly, the present day version of the Twelver Shia, the rafidha, were never considered to be reliable narrators but were acknowledged fabricators...

ShiaMuslim:


obviously you did not check the link. the date of birth and date of death of the narrators are mentioned. how you conveniently concluded that these were so called "original followers/Shia" of Imam Ali (as) and not later days Shia is wonderful! for example, Ibrahim ibn Yazid, the second narrator on the list was born in 50 AH. Imam Ali (as) was martyred in the year 40 AH. that is ten years after the passing away of Imam Ali (as).

the first narrator died in 141 AH. even if we assume he lived up to the age of 100, it means he was born a year after the passing away of Imam Ali (as). the tenth narrator on the list is Talid ibn Sulayman al-­Kufi al-­A’raj (ra). he is described as a Rafidi and someone who used to curse the first three caliphs. All the rest of the narrators are described as Rafidi and also trustworthy narrators.

i honestly do not feel sorry for your state. i feel sorry for the blind bigots who follow your blindness to like and share your posts.

the earliest of the Shia of Imam Ali (as) refused to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr, and they included prominent personalities among the companions of the Prophet (s). and refusing to pay allegiance means they deemed Abu Bakr as wrongfully possessing what did not belong to him, i.e. a usurper and illegitimate. and on their footsteps did the Shia, generations after generations following successive Imams, walked. so for you to beat around the bush and talk about "original Shia" and "fake Shia" is both pitiful and reflects your poor mental state. so those narrators my dear friend were not at the Battle of Siffin. they were Shia in aqeedah and in terms of political leadership and their loyalty to the holy Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt (as). likewise, the original Shia in aqeedah and in deeds, in politics and in religion, refused to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr. those at Siffin, when Imam Ali (as) was the caliph of ALL MUSLIMS do were not necessarily Shia in aqeedah, but following a political leadership since Imam Ali (as) at Siffin was for all Muslims. these are the likes of Shimr who later on fought against Imam Hussein (as) and the hypocrites of Kufa who betrayed Imam Hussein (as). so please, respect the intelligence of others. when you lie or you are lost in confusion, beware that others read before reaching conclusions. you did not even open the link and you concluded those were not "Rafidi" and you then went ahead to invent your own definitions of "Shia". and to make it clear for you that in the view of Imam Ali (as) being a Shia is both religion and politics, he appointed his son as his successor. doesn't that tell you something? and Imam Hassan (as) reached a truce with Muawiyah on the condition that power be returned to Imam Hussein (as) after Muawiyah dies. doesn't that too say something about the divine mandate of the Imams?

Farmerforlife:

"Even from those who later followed them, there were those who were truthful, although not usually reliable in sectarial matters. Certainly, the present day version of the Twelver Shia, the rafidha, were never considered to be reliable narrators but were acknowledged fabricators..."
What did you do with bolded in your hurry to refute what is obvious?

No sahabi refused to pay allegiance to Abubakr and Umar (ra), except for Saad bin Ubaadah (ra) in Madinah who wanted it for himself. We have enough narrations to prove that. Stop deceiving yourselves. Ali ibn abi Talib (ra) was an adviser and a minister throughout the first 3 khilafah.

I suggest you read the book "firaq asShia" written by your shia scholar anNawbakhti. You will understand the origin of your specific rafidhi cult within the general Shia sect. You will then be able to argue more intelligently about the distinction between the original shia and the rafidha. Incidentally, your cult was not named until Zayd bin Ali of ahlul bayt named you so for rejection of his cause because he praised Abubakr and Umar (ra) and it did not arise fully with rafidhi rituals and plots until after the death of your 11th 'imam' in 260AH, so you could not have narrated any reasonable hadith anyway.

The only ones of your kind who existed before that time were the remnants of the Saba'ean followers of the Jew Abdullah bin Saba', who were scattered in kufa and environs and destroyed by Ali ibn abi Talib (ra) himself for excessively praising him, just as he would have done to you today if he were to be around, and those dumb dodos were neither sahabah, nor students of sahabah so as to narrate REAL hadith. Does that explain to you now why you rafidis do not have a single proper hadith with an authentic isnad traced back to the prophet (ﷺ)?

I once watched a programme where the resourceful Sheikh Uthman alKhamees (may Allah increase him in knowledge) challenged your black turbanned Shirazi live to give him just ONE hadith with an authentic isnad back to the prophet (ﷺ). Utter silence and confusion followed. I will try to get the video insha Allah for you to understand the paucity of proper hadith in your cult. Meanwhile, let me expound on one of your most famous and prolific rafidhi narrators that you rely on...

Zurarah ibn A‘yan alKufi
Zurarah is regarded as one of the most prolific narrators from the Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq, for example, we are informed by al-Kashshi that had it not been for Zurarah, all the ahadith of al-Baqir would have been lost. (Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 1 p. 345) Sayyid Abul Qasim al-Khu’i has counted 2094 of his narrations in the four books, all of them from the Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq, (al-Khu’i, Mu‘jam Rijal al-Hadith vol. 7 p. 249)
On the other hand, al-Kashshi records that Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq cursed Zurarah. The following quotation is but one of several places where his cursing of Zurarah is on record:
"By Allah, he has ascribed lies to me! By Allah, he has ascribed lies to me! By Allah, he has ascribed lies to me! May Allah curse Zurarah! May Allah curse Zurarah! May Allah curse Zurarah!"
(Ikhtiyar Ma‘`rifat ar-Rijal, vol. 1 p. 361)
Despite Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq’s cursing of Zurarah, he is still accepted by the Shi‘ah as the most prolific and reliable authority for the ahadith of the Imams. He hails from Kufa, the centre of the successors of Ibn Saba; he is cursed by the Imam as Ibn Saba was cursed by Sayyiduna ‘Ali; and as subsequent shias were cursed by those whom they claim to follow, and yet he is respected as a trustworthy and reliable narrator of the ahadith which form the basis of Shi‘ism!
For those who are interested, this link provides jarh and ta'deel info with references from their own sources on the chief narrators of 'authentic' rafidhi shia 'hadith'. Yet, they still narrate from them...
https://islamistruth./2011/03/26/shia-narrators-either-christian-liar-mushrik-or-cursed-by-imams/
On such depend the rafidhi shia for their cult.

Empiree:
Looool... I expected this

Sunni/Shia them no go carry last

It's no winner/loser.

#kontinu

sino:

You should have known by now this is not a joke, and it is not about some flimsy rivalry or envy, not about wining or loosing, but rather about the truth, it is about Islam, it is about how we would eventually end up either in jannah or hell!

Newnas:


What else do you expect from a Sufi whose religion is nothing but drumming (bandiri), singing and whirling like a dervish?!

ShiaMuslim:


do you sincerely have any shame in you?

you said those Shia narrators in your sihah are not Rafidi. i pointed out they are. you said they were "original Shia", and followers of Imam Ali (as) in the Battle of Siffin. I pointed out they were born after the passing away of Imam Ali (as). you said they loved Abu Bakr, i pointed out that they are described as men who cursed the first three caliphs. even for the fact that they fought in Siffin means they stood against your hero Muawiyah.

do present day Shia narrate hadiths?

you are now shifting the goal post to and "even from those who later followed them". if they were called Rafidi, and they cursed your tyrants, then what makes them any different from a modern day Rafidi Twelver Shia? what is the difference?



"List of Sahabah That Did Not Give Bay'ah to Abu Bakr"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sahabah_That_Did_Not_Give_Bay'ah_to_Abu_Bakr

note: references are contained therein lest you claim Wikipedia is unreliable.

i also think this list is abridged and not all of the Sahaba who abstained to pay allegiance. for example Malik Ibn Nuweira (ra) of Banu Yerbo, a Yemeni tribe that was massacred by Khalid Ibn al Walid (Abu Bakr's commander) and his wife r a p e d- for refusing to recognize Abu Bakr's rule and pay him zakat -under the false claim the tribe apostatized is not mentioned. so it means there are a number left out in the list.



i really do not understand how you invent tales and make up fictional argument on historical matters. i asked a question above. the narrators are described as Rafidi and that they cursed Abu Bakr and Umar. what makes those narrators "not Rafidi" in your view and different from us today? simply because the derogatory name "Rafidi" for Shia was coined later on does not mean that the people had not existed earlier on.

i have read about the Shia groups and the narrators mentioned follow the Imams and recognized the Imams we do recognize. for instance, narrators in our books like the Waqifi who disobeyed the imamate of Imam al-Kazim (as) or the ghulat are deemed unreliable even by our scholars.

Zaid Ibn Ali (as) did not praise Abu Bakr and Umar. he refrained from cursing them in order to keep his army united to face the Ummayyad. so the overzealous ones who wanted to make his uprising purely a Shia affair were not happy. presently, the supereme leader of Iran passed a fatwa forbidding anyone to curse your first three caliphs (at least openly) in order for the ummah to be united and not be exploited by foreign enemies. does it make him less of a Shia? it only means he is wise and has a game plan.



so the sahaba had schools? you said those "dumb dodos were neither sahaba nor students of sahaba so as to narrate REAL hadith". but you stated they were scattered in Kufa in the time of Imam Ali (as). so in order words Imam Ali (as) is a companion. they lived in the time of a companion. but you invented the illusion the sahaba had open madrassahs these fictional bunch of people did not attend!

Abdullah Ibn Saba is a fictional character only real in the figment of people's imagination like yours. those Imam Ali (as) punished were ghulat and they claimed Imam Ali (as) was god. we neither worship him nor consider him a god. so how after many generations, you divorce us from our predecessors who are narrators of hadith in your sihah is unbelievable. those predecessors who followed the same Imams as we recognize and they were against the tyrants. but yet, you link us to a fictional character, and some characters, not deserving of being called a group, who worshiped the Imam. at least, you have to point out the similarities to justify your claim. i have pointed out the similarities between us and the narrators of hadith in your sihah.




because one person cannot cite an example or give a reference does not necessarily mean there is no such. even if you ask me from nowhere to produce such, i cannot. i would have to research. again, even the hadiths you trace their isnad to the Prophet (s) can be faulty and invented isnad.




Some of the Imams Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã, in order to protect the lives of their Shias, made some statements that helped their followers. For example the sixth Imam Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã said to the son of Zurarah: “Give my greetings to your father and tell him that it is only for your defense and protection that I sometimes find fault in you! You surely know that our enemies are after the harassment of individuals whom we like and praise. People censure them due to their closeness and love of us and they think that killing and tormenting our friends is considered a praiseworthy action. On the other hand, whoever we censure and reproach becomes the object of their honor and respect. (Tell your father) that we speak ill of you because you are an individual who is famous for his friendship and acquaintance with us. For this same reason you did not have a suitable position with the people and they don’t have a good opinion towards you. I seek this distance between us so that perhaps, through these means, the opinion of ignorant people will change towards you and you will be saved from reproach and torment.”[12]


Keeping in mind this reminder, this is a valuable point that: “As both Shias and Sunnis totally agree, just because a tradition is mentioned in one of their books and even if it is authentic and has a verified chain of narrators it does not necessarily mean that the specific sect follows that tradition. In some situations the reason behind certain traditions varies, thus not allowing it to be followed, despite its apparent ‘authenticity’.[13]


http://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/question/fa3509

It is also narrated by the Imam in the book, that the Imam did this under taqiyya to protect Zurara (Distancing himself from from because those who were close to him were under danger, so he made it appear that he hated Zurara so people wouldn't think him and Zurara were close) and actually conveyed his salam to Zurara.


حدثني حمدوية بن نصير، قال: حدثنا محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد قال: حدثني يونس بن عبد الرحمن، عن عبد الله بن زرارة. ومحمد بن قولويه والحسين بن الحسن، قالا: حدثنا سعد بن عبد الله قال حدثنى هارون بن الحسن بن محبوب، عن محمد بن عبد الله بن زرارة وابنيه الحسن والحسين، عن عبد الله بن زرارة قال: قال لي أبو عبد الله عليه السلام اقرأ مني على والدك السلام. وقل له: اني انما أعيبك دفاعا مني عنك فان الناس والعدو يسارعون إلى كل من قربناه وحمدنا مكانه لادخال الاذي في من نحبه ونقربه، يرمونه لمحبتنا له وقربة ودنوه منا، ويرون ادخال الاذي عليه وقتله ويحمدون كل من عبناه نحن وأن نحمد أمره

The narration continues on for a few pages. Ikhtiyar Ma'rifat Al-Rijal volume 1 page 349 hadith 221

Shaykh Al-Bahrani in Hada'iq page 168 of volume 18 says that Al-Kashi narrated it by a Sahih or Hasan chain.

Allah only knows how much the Imams had loved him, and we know this by the amount of praise narrated by them for him. Rahimahul Allah.

Demmzy15:
As Salam Alaikum, ShiaMuslim you gave a link of sahabas who refused to give bay'ah to Abubakar(ra). I clicked up the link and discovered it doesn't exist.

Jazaka Allaah kayran brother sino and farmerforlife

ShiaMuslim:


try this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sahabah_That_Did_Not_Give_Bay%27ah_to_Abu_Bakr

if the link is not working at your own end, use google search with this heading:

List of Sahabah That Did Not Give Bay'ah to Abu Bakr

please confirm if you got to the page successfully.

Farmerforlife:


@bolded...So your imams who were supposed to be sent by Allah to spread truth and guidance on the whole earth, were accomplished liars and taqiyyah masters, unable to protect their cowardly followers? It further proves my point. If what you say is true and they are like that, how do you expect us to accept their narrations, not knowing when they are lying and when they are telling us the truth, even if we ignore the isnaad? If your 'imam' was lying when he cursed Zurarah in over a dozen narrations from him, and called him worse than Jews and Christians, was he also lying when he said about another prolific rafidhi narrator; Jabir alJoufy; that he never met him, and that his father (al-Baqir) met him only once, yet in that one meeting, he narrated 70,000 hadith from al-Baqir and from no meeting, he narrated 140,000 hadith from 'other imams', according to your alHurr alAamili? How do we know your 'imams' were not lying when they were reported to have said that taraweeh is a bidaa, as in the narration cited by Sino? Or that they are imams? or any of the thousands of fatwas you report (rightly or wrongly) from them? Now not only have you accepted your narrators as liars, you are claiming that even the source of the narrations (the 'imams') are liars.

Well, I have made my points. All this tautology you are copy-pasting is just filler, and I understand the shia technique that they drill you on, of always having the last word, and writing tedious 12 paragraph postulations that are really meaningless. In debate circles, it is called the 'Gish gallop'.
Carry go, you have one more response to make here to my comment (so you can have the last word), and then you can go rest assured that you have earned your argument allowance for today. I suggest you say that I am running away because you have logically and convincingly defeated me, play up to the audience a little, then go rest. As for me, I have stated all my premises, quoted your scholars, shown how your own 'imams' have disowned you, and proven to you that both they and our muhaditheen have always considered your cult members to be the greatest liars, even though you accuse them of being liars (as in your comment above) and the only ones who believe what the rafidhi shia say are the ones that dont know your character. I am done. The field is yours...