59 replies to this topic

[Fatah-Momin]

Abu Ja'far (the fifth lmam) has said. "When our 'support' (qa'im) rises, Allah will place his hand upon the heads of His servants. Then through him their minds will come together and through him their intellect will become perfected." (Bihar al-anwar, vol. LII. pp.328 and 336.) And Abu 'Abdallah (the sixth Imam) has said, "Knowledge is comprised of twenty-seven letters, and all that has been brought by the prophets is comprised of two letters; and men have not gained knowledge of anything but these two letters. When our 'support' (qa'im) comes forth, he[Imam Mahdi] will make manifest the other twenty-five letters and will spread them among the people. He will add the two letters to them so that they become pro pagated in the form of twenty-seven letters." (Bihar al-anwar, vol. LII, p.336.

[Vsd]

Fatah please don't post links from Ansar as I feel that this web is bunch of idiots that are quite good in fabricating things.

Be more careful in citing things or I can also cite the incident of Azam tariq that makes me laugh everyday.

Quote

And Abu 'Abdallah (the sixth Imam) has said, "Knowledge is comprised of twenty-seven letters, and all that has been brought by the prophets is comprised of two letters; and men have not gained knowledge of anything but these two letters. When our 'support' (qa'im) comes forth, he[Imam Mahdi] will make manifest the other twenty-five letters and will spread them among the people. He will add the two letters to them so that they become pro pagated in the form of twenty-seven letters." (Bihar al-anwar, vol. LII, p.336.

Fatah I think if u don't have knowledge about Elme Rijal then please don't be so hero or unless prove its authenticity.

Here is the full chain from Bihar:

73 - يج : موسى بن عمر ، عن ابن محبوب ، عن صالح بن حمزة ، عن أبان
عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام قال : العلم سبعة وسبعة وعشرون حرفا فجميع ماجاء‌ت به الرسل
حرفان فلم يعرف الناس حتى اليوم غير الحرفين ، فاذا قام قائمنا أخرج الخمسة
والعشرين حرفا فبثها في الناس ، وضم إليها الحرفين ، حتى يبثها سبعة وعشرين
حرفا .

Suleh ibne Hamza is Majhool.

If some one can find his tautheeq then fine enough.

Abaan ibne Masa'ab is also Majhool.

This narration thus seems to be Dhaeef.

[Wasil-ibn-ata]

Vsd, on Feb 3 2009, 12:05 AM, said:

I think You still can't forget your poor experience in SC?:-d

Anyways Thanks for providing Sahih Hadiths in this thread.

Even though I can't find tautheeq of Nadhr ibne Shoaib because I didn't google out a lot?

Can u locate?

poor experience !!! ???

hahahhahahahahh

[Wasil-ibn-ata]

correction:in the last hadith i gave there's nadhr ibn shoaib instead of nadh ibn soaid

the correct narrator is nadhr ibn soaid

[Vsd]

Wasil-ibn-ata, on Feb 3 2009, 07:29 PM, said:

poor experience !!! ???

hahahhahahahahh

Lolz.

Every notable person knows.

Anyways thanks for correction about Nadhr.

[Wasil-ibn-ata]

Vsd, on Feb 3 2009, 09:27 PM, said:

Lolz.

Every notable person knows.

Anyways thanks for correction about Nadhr.

u call albaqir alkaffir al-mushrik a notable person????

wllah u make me laugh

anyway a rafidha will always be a rafidha

so if i dont accept hadith of hanan ibn sadeer (lanatollah alih) and his lying father then i must be defeated??/

great argument!!!

[Vsd]

Wasil-ibn-ata, on Feb 3 2009, 09:36 PM, said:

u call albaqir alkaffir al-mushrik a notable person????

wllah u make me laugh

anyway a rafidha will always be a rafidha

so if i dont accept hadith of hanan ibn sadeer (lanatollah alih) and his lying father then i must be defeated??/

great argument!!!

Hannan was not accused of cursing.

he was not Imami thats an other thing but he was thiqa and his narrations are Muthaq as graded by Majlisi.
وقال الشيخ ( 256 ) : " حنان بن سدير ، له كتاب وهو ثقة رحمه الله ، روينا
كتابه بالاسناد الاول عن ابن أبي عمير ، عن الحسن بن محبوب عنه "

As for his father then:

وعده ابن شهر آشوب من خواص أصحاب الصادق عليه السلام ،

Now if u bring the comments of Ibne Aqiqi then:
فان العقيقي لم تثبت وثاقته على أن التخليط بمعنى رواية المعروف والمنكر
وهذا لا ينافي وثاقة الراوي

Can u provide me with tautheeq of Aqeeqi?

Anyways its not the point to debate. Albaqyr was right here.

Why don't u ask Macisaac about it and then tell me his reply?

Edited by Vsd, 03 February 2009 - 05:05 PM.

[Wasil-ibn-ata]

why dont u understand :

1st: i dont accpeet hadiths of waqifah when it comes to matter of aqeedah
2nd  alqeeqi 'a words were used by al-allama alhilli and that's in itself is tawtheeq becausse he  relied on him and trusted his words regarding hanan


also najashi said :

  وأول هذا الكتاب : � إذا أراد الله قبض روح � إسماعيل بن مهران عن حنان غير ثبت.

ismaeel ibn mahran said he's not accurate (not thiqat)

[Vsd]

Efendi, on Feb 2 2009, 09:06 PM, said:

When u are trying to pretend genious, that also doesn't suit u. I gave a question, and asked for a proof on that. U (as usual) fail to provide proof. Maqani said. SO WHAT? Can u, as a shia critic of rijal, and "prominent" scholar explain me, what is a proof for Ameli being akhabi? Saying of Maaqani? What kind of attitude, saying, opinion of Ameli makes him akhbari? Comprende?

Lolz Why do u want to become extravagant when it comes to Elme Rijal of Shia and then u are mostly humilated on such issues.

Syed Muhammad Shafee, Behrani and Maqani said him Akhbari. Every Shia scholar knows that he was Akhbari.

I recommend u to read his book Fawaid-e-Tusia in which he has presented his Akhbari view over collection of Hadiths.

Its like the same thing I am asking u that Albani was Salafi or Sufi.

I am attaching a page taken from SC posted by a brother(with whome I have differences).

Refernce for the scan: Al-Muqaddama, Kitaab ut-tahaarat, Volume-1, Wasaail us-Shia.

Attached Images

• 

[Vsd]

Wasil-ibn-ata, on Feb 4 2009, 01:24 AM, said:

why dont u understand :

1st: i dont accpeet hadiths of waqifah when it comes to matter of aqeedah
2nd  alqeeqi 'a words were used by al-allama alhilli and that's in itself is tawtheeq becausse he  relied on him and trusted his words regarding hanan


also najashi said :

  وأول هذا الكتاب : � إذا أراد الله قبض روح � إسماعيل بن مهران عن حنان غير ثبت.

ismaeel ibn mahran said he's not accurate (not thiqat)

Lolz Big scholars praised him and u bring comments of Majhool Rawis mostly that is also refuted by Al Khoie.

u know Maqani cites Amma sources a lot so does this means that he actually does tautheeq of them? NO!

Rather even if 10 Amma scholars praised a Rawi and no Shia scholars have praised that rawi so maqani generally consider that Rawi as Majhool. Similarly Aqeeqi is Majhool and Allama hilli just cited his words that didn't prove its authenticity rather u have to show me specific Qaul of Hilli(Rh) praising Aqeeqi.

Moreover, cite the reference of Najjashi.

[Wasil-ibn-ata]

Vsd, on Feb 4 2009, 12:58 PM, said:

Lolz Big scholars praised him and u bring comments of Majhool Rawis mostly that is also refuted by Al Khoie.

u know Maqani cites Amma sources a lot so does this means that he actually does tautheeq of them? NO!

Rather even if 10 Amma scholars praised a Rawi and no Shia scholars have praised that rawi so maqani generally consider that Rawi as Majhool. Similarly Aqeeqi is Majhool and Allama hilli just cited his words that didn't prove its authenticity rather u have to show me specific Qaul of Hilli(Rh) praising Aqeeqi.

Moreover, cite the reference of Najjashi.

the view of najashi is enough as he is from the very early scholars

alkhoei cannot know if the rawi is thiqat or not so his verdict is based on speculation

also u seemto forget the first part of my post: i told you i dont accept less than hadith sahih in mattares of aqeedah

even a majhool narrator i would accept his narration if there's no proof he's not imami as long as he's consistent and not ghali like

you !!

[Vsd]

I ve asked for the reference from Rijal-e-Najjashi?

Do u consider Behbdui and majlisi all wrong that consider traditions via them as reliable.

Aqeeqi is majhool and I am still waiting for ur evidences to prove the authenticity of Aqeeqi.

Lets make ur work more easy. Can u give me a single tradition along with full chain that praises Sheikhayn?

Remember refrain from your pseudo speculations because ur speculations means nothing to me.

Refrain from tagging others as Ghulats.

Note: Ali Muawiyah its a request that u better say Wasil to refrain me calling Ghulat and I am saying him nothing because I respect the rules of this board.

[Wasil-ibn-ata]

Vsd, on Feb 4 2009, 05:17 PM, said:

I ve asked for the reference from Rijal-e-Najjashi?

Do u consider Behbdui and majlisi all wrong that consider traditions via them as reliable.

Aqeeqi is majhool and I am still waiting for ur evidences to prove the authenticity of Aqeeqi.

Lets make ur work more easy. Can u give me a single tradition along with full chain that praises Sheikhayn?

Remember refrain from your pseudo speculations because ur speculations means nothing to me.

Refrain from tagging others as Ghulats.

Note: Ali Muawiyah its a request that u better say Wasil to refrain me calling Ghulat and I am saying him nothing because I respect the rules of this board.

what a time waster indeed you are ?!!!

the book of najashi is there for you to read and you will see that hanan is not reliable

anyway here's the reference :rijal najashi page 146

http://yasoob.com/books/htm1/m020/23/no2320.html

also you failed to present a single hadith sahih where shaikhain(ra) were cursed

the hadith i believe to be sahih is from tafseer imam al-askari which i believe to be authentic like did al-tahrani

and others .

also the hadith of hanan where shaikhain are alledgedly cursed was deemed weak by al-bahbudi

[Vsd]

I respect Allama Tehrani a lot but again I 'd take view of Allama Khoie(rh) since he was more knowledgeable in terms of Elme Rijal as compare to Allama Tehrani.

Anyways can u provide tautheeq of the narrators of Tafseer-e-Askari(as)?

Ibne Ghadairi's book(your most favourite Rijal book) has also criticized some of its narrators.(Even though Allama Khoie(rh) has said that there is no proof for this book) so what do u say about it.

As for Rijal-e-Najjashi it perhaps say that narration from Ismael ibne Mehran from Hannan is not established.

Moreover why are u always forgetting the Qaul of Sheikh?
وقال الشيخ ( 256 ) : " حنان بن سدير ، له كتاب وهو ثقة رحمه الله ، روينا
كتابه بالاسناد الاول عن ابن أبي عمير ، عن الحسن بن محبوب عنه "

[Vsd]

Sheikh Jawad tibrizi consider Hannan reliable.

[Wasil-ibn-ata]

Vsd, on Feb 4 2009, 06:01 PM, said:

Sheikh Jawad tibrizi consider Hannan reliable.

first of all you seem to have overlooked the fact that bahbudi rahimahullah considered the hadith narrated by hanan and his usless father as weak , even al-majlissi considered it to be hasan not sahih

u seem to have fogotten what i told u that i dont rely on hadith of waqifah and other deviants and ghulat also when it comes to aqeedah .

and because  you are one of the khoei worshippers i say  that alkhoei was a big liar and he himself had some ghulati views like the fact that he considers ahlsunnah to be kaffir and he lied about many narrators who were in fact ghulat saying they are thiqat using his own pathetic speculation

your hatred of shaikhain radhiallahu anhuma made you blind and full of hatred and blinded your judgement

also your defense of the likes of albaqyr shows you are an other cursed ghulat with no shame and again i tell u : U ARE NOT A SHIA U ARE JUST AN OTHER PATHETIC RAFIDHI

AND U SAID :

Quote

Sheikh Jawad tibrizi consider Hannan reliable.

WHO CARES ABOUT THIS FASIQ TABRIZI ANYWAY !!!

also sadeer is an other weak narrator even though he was praised by some the imam  attcked him saying:

أن الصادق عليه السلام قال : سدير عصيدة بكل لون

his a food of all colours , this is an expression meaning "qadh" not praise like the liar alkhoei claimed

this expression means he is like a chameleon in other words he's mukhlit and he's nothing

ps: i am alhamdulilleh very good in arabic language and i dont let people like alkhoi(who i used to respect untill i found out he's a liar) fool me

Edited by Wasil-ibn-ata, 04 February 2009 - 03:42 PM.

[Vsd]

I can't single thing because after presenting all burhans that Sheikh Tusi(rh), Majlisi, Jawad Tibrizi, Al Khoie, Shabistri and many other Imami scholars believe this narrator as reliable along with his father.

Well u abuse my scholars so again I can't argue in this manner and I haven't said single thing to Ibne Hadeed(Your Mutazzali scholar) and Sheikh Razi(An other heros of your) a single thing.

I along with Imami scholars consider his narrations reliable aka Muthaq since he was Waqfi even though he didn't preach Waqfiat as said by Khoie(rh).

My Question: Please provide any reliable Hadith praising Shekhayn?

[Vsd]

Hannan

Tusi said:He is Thiqah
Abduh Husain said he is thiqah
Barajudi said he is thiqah
Al-Khoei said he is thiqah
Allamah Majlisi said he is Muwathaq (see Al-Wajizah for Almajlisi)
Ibn Shahr Ashoob Said he is thiqah
Ali Al-Namazy Al-Shahrudy said he is thiqha (see Mustadrakat Ilm Arijal volume 3)
AL-Hurr Al-Amili said he is thiqah
Ibn Dawood said he thiqah in his tarjamah and attributed to tusi and did not object.
Al-Kashi accepted him
Muhammed Ali Al-Ardibly said he is thiqah (Jami Arruwat)
Sayed Muhammed Ali Al-Abtahi said he is thiqah (see Tahzeeb Al-Maqal)
Sayed Muhammed Bahr Al-Uloom considered among the venerables and the trustwothy whom Ibrahem Ibn Hisham narrated from. (see Al-Fawa'ed Arrijaliyah)
Allamah Al-Maqani considered among a group whom are thiqah.

[Vsd]

Salaam!

Wasil see this one from Jondab:

Jondab_Azdi, on Nov 10 2008, 10:14 AM, said:

عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ حَنَانِ بْنِ سَدِيرٍ عَنْ مَعْرُوفِ بْنِ خَرَّبُوذَ عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ ( عليه السلام ) قَالَ إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ كَنُجُومِ السَّمَاءِ كُلَّمَا غَابَ نَجْمٌ طَلَعَ نَجْمٌ حَتَّى إِذَا أَشَرْتُمْ بِأَصَابِعِكُمْ وَ مِلْتُمْ بِأَعْنَاقِكُمْ غَيَّبَ اللَّهُ عَنْكُمْ نَجْمَكُمْ فَاسْتَوَتْ بَنُو عَبْدِ الْمُطَّلِبِ فَلَمْ يُعْرَفْ أَيٌّ مِنْ أَيٍّ فَإِذَا طَلَعَ نَجْمُكُمْ فَاحْمَدُوا رَبَّكُمْ

Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from his father from Hannan ibn Sadir from Ma�ruf ibn Kharrabudh from abu Ja'far (as) who has said the following: "We only are like the stars in heaven. Whenever one star disappears (from sight) another one comes into view and you can point to him with your fingers and make a gesture with your necks (for publicity). Allah will then cause your star to disappear from your sight. The descendents of �Abd al-Muttalib all look similar and you will have difficulty to discern one from the other. When your star will reappear you must thank your Lord."

Majlisi: Mawaththaq-Hasan
Behbudi: Sahih

---

عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ أَبِي أَيُّوبَ الْخَزَّازِ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ مُسْلِمٍ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبَا عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ( عليه السلام ) يَقُولُ إِنْ بَلَغَكُمْ عَنْ صَاحِبِ هَذَا الْأَمْرِ غَيْبَةٌ فَلَا تُنْكِرُوهَا

Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from his father from ibn abu �Umayr from abu Ayyub al-Khazzaz from Muhammad ibn Muslim who has said the following: �I heard abu �Abd Allah (as) say, �If you are told that the person in charge of establishing the Kingdom of Allah on earth and owner of (Leadership with Divine Authority) will disappear from public sight you must not reject it.��

Majlisi: Hasan
Behbudi: Sahih





Ref: al-Kafi

w/s

http://www.[not allowed].com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=234954035&view=findpost&p=1780616

Jondab is very respectable personality as per u and among few non Ghulats, Thiqa, Mutamid and one of the very very few pure Shia in SC as per u so he cited the Hadith and then mentioned the Behbudi's gradation over it.

I am not responsible for the content rather its just a citation of Jondab's work that supported u in that thread that u were defeated in.

[islam1979]

Brother Efendi has lost the argument in this thread. He could not provide the evidence against the position of the Shia. I speak this with unbiasedness. Next time brother  Efendi should be more careful than this.